lent

And the LORD gave the people favour in the sight of the Egyptians, so that they lent unto them such things as they required. And they spoiled the Egyptians.

Thou shalt not lend upon usury to thy brother; usury of money, usury of victuals, usury of any thing that is lent upon usury:

Therefore also I have lent him to the LORD; as long as he liveth he shall be lent to the LORD. And he worshipped the LORD there.

Therefore also I have lent him to the LORD; as long as he liveth he shall be lent to the LORD. And he worshipped the LORD there.

And Eli blessed Elkanah and his wife, and said, The LORD give thee seed of this woman for the loan which is lent to the LORD. And they went unto their own home.

Woe is me, my mother, that thou hast borne me a man of strife and a man of contention to the whole earth! I have neither lent on usury, nor men have lent to me on usury; yet every one of them doth curse me.

Woe is me, my mother, that thou hast borne me a man of strife and a man of contention to the whole earth! I have neither lent on usury, nor men have lent to me on usury; yet every one of them doth curse me.

And employing his labours lewdly, he maketh a vain god of the same clay, even he which a little before was made of earth himself, and within a little while after returneth to the same, out when his life which was lent him shall be demanded.

Many, when a thing was lent them, reckoned it to be found, and put them to trouble that helped them.

Speratus said: We have never done ill, we have not lent ourselves to wrong, we have never spoken ill, but when ill-treated we have given thanks; because we pay heed to our Emperor.

And in another great lake full of foul matter (pus) and blood and boiling mire stood men and women up to their knees. And these were they that lent money and demanded usury upon usury.

And into another place hard by, full of filth, do they cast men and women up to the knees. These are they that lent money and took usury.

But Inspired Reason lent her heart a man's strength under her passion of suffering, and exalted her to make no account of the present yearnings of mother-love.

. nor the disciple against his master, nor the official against the king, nor the layman against the bishop. For the teacher ought to have no fellowship with the disobedient and the wicked, for the sinner desireth not the word of admonition. Ezekiel the prophet saith, ‘As I live, saith the Lord God, they shall no more speak this proverb in Israel. [For the soul of every man is mine; as the soul of the father so the souls of his children are mine. The soul that sinneth, it shall die. But the man that doeth righteousness and uprightness, and hath not eaten upon the mountains, nor lifted up his eyes to the thoughts of the house of Israel, and hath not defiled his neighbour’s wife, nor come near to a woman in her uncleanness, nor done his neighbour violence, and hath returned the pledge of his debt, and hath not extorted, nor oppressed, and hath given of his food to the poor, and hath clothed the naked with his garment; and hath not lent his money on interest, nor taken (aught) unjustly; and hath turned his hand from sin, and hath done judgment and righteousness between a man and his neighbour, and hath walked in my commandment, and hath kept my law, and done righteousness, he shall surely live, saith the Lord God. And if he beget a son (who is) a sinner and a murderer, and doeth wickedness and walketh not in the way of his righteous father, but hath eaten on the mountains, and hath defiled his neighbour’s wife, and oppressed the poor and needy, and hath plundered and wrought injustice, and hath not returned the pledge of his debt, and hath turned his eyes towards idols, and committed wickedness, and hath lent on interest, and robbed (his neighbours) and taken that which was stolen, such a one shall in no wise live, in all this sin of his which he hath committed, he shall surely die, and his blood shall return on himself. And if he beget a son, and he see all the sin of his father that he committeth, and fear, and do not likewise, and have not eaten upon the mountains, nor lifted his eyes towards the thoughts of the house of Israel, nor defiled his neighbour’s wife, nor oppressed any man, but have returned the pledge of his debt, and have not robbed (his neighbours) nor plundered, but have given of his food to the hungry, and clothed the naked with his garment, and have turned his hand from wrong, and have not taken interest or bribes wrongfully, but have done righteousness, and walked in my commandment, he shall not die in his father’s sin, but shall surely live for ever. But his father, if he oppress, and plunder, and commit injustice, and defraud, and do what should not be done in the midst of my people, shall die in his iniquity. And ye say, Why is the son requited for his father’s sin? Because the son is righteous and hath given alms, and kept my law and done (it), he shall surely live. And the soul that sinneth, it shall die. But the son shall not be requited for the sin of his father; the righteousness of the righteous (shall be) upon him, and the sin of the sinner on him. If the sinner turn from his sin which he hath done, and keep all my law and my commandment, and do righteousness, and (give) alms, he shall surely live, and shall not die; and all his sin which he hath done I will not remember unto him, but in his righteousness which he hath done he shall live. Do I at all desire that the sinner should die, saith the Lord, (and not) rather that he should turn from his evil way and live? And if the righteous man turn from his righteousness, and commit injustice and sin, in all his iniquity which he hath done, the sinner shall as die: all his righteousness which he hath done I will not remember unto him, and in his sin which he hath sinned, in it he shall die. But ye say, It is not right.. When the righteous man turneth from his righteousness and committeth sin, he shall die in his iniquity which she hath done. And if the sinner turn from his sin which he hath done, and do righteousness and uprightness, such a one hath kept his soul; and hath seen, and turned from all his sin which he hath done; he shall surely live, and shall not die. And the house of Israel saith, The way of the Lord is not right. Is not my way right, O house of Israel? Is it not your way (which) is not right? And for this will I judge all of you according to your way, O house of Israel, saith the Lord God. Turn, and repent of your evil, and let not the punishment of your sin come upon you. Put away from you all your evil and your iniquity and your sin which ye have sinned against me;) and make you a new heart and a new spirit; and why will ye die in your sins, O house of Israel? For I desire not that ye should in any wise die, saith the Lord God, but that ye should repent and live.”

. nor the disciple against his master, nor the official against the king, nor the layman against the bishop. For the teacher ought to have no fellowship with the disobedient and the wicked, for the sinner desireth not the word of admonition. Ezekiel the prophet saith, ‘As I live, saith the Lord God, they shall no more speak this proverb in Israel. [For the soul of every man is mine; as the soul of the father so the souls of his children are mine. The soul that sinneth, it shall die. But the man that doeth righteousness and uprightness, and hath not eaten upon the mountains, nor lifted up his eyes to the thoughts of the house of Israel, and hath not defiled his neighbour’s wife, nor come near to a woman in her uncleanness, nor done his neighbour violence, and hath returned the pledge of his debt, and hath not extorted, nor oppressed, and hath given of his food to the poor, and hath clothed the naked with his garment; and hath not lent his money on interest, nor taken (aught) unjustly; and hath turned his hand from sin, and hath done judgment and righteousness between a man and his neighbour, and hath walked in my commandment, and hath kept my law, and done righteousness, he shall surely live, saith the Lord God. And if he beget a son (who is) a sinner and a murderer, and doeth wickedness and walketh not in the way of his righteous father, but hath eaten on the mountains, and hath defiled his neighbour’s wife, and oppressed the poor and needy, and hath plundered and wrought injustice, and hath not returned the pledge of his debt, and hath turned his eyes towards idols, and committed wickedness, and hath lent on interest, and robbed (his neighbours) and taken that which was stolen, such a one shall in no wise live, in all this sin of his which he hath committed, he shall surely die, and his blood shall return on himself. And if he beget a son, and he see all the sin of his father that he committeth, and fear, and do not likewise, and have not eaten upon the mountains, nor lifted his eyes towards the thoughts of the house of Israel, nor defiled his neighbour’s wife, nor oppressed any man, but have returned the pledge of his debt, and have not robbed (his neighbours) nor plundered, but have given of his food to the hungry, and clothed the naked with his garment, and have turned his hand from wrong, and have not taken interest or bribes wrongfully, but have done righteousness, and walked in my commandment, he shall not die in his father’s sin, but shall surely live for ever. But his father, if he oppress, and plunder, and commit injustice, and defraud, and do what should not be done in the midst of my people, shall die in his iniquity. And ye say, Why is the son requited for his father’s sin? Because the son is righteous and hath given alms, and kept my law and done (it), he shall surely live. And the soul that sinneth, it shall die. But the son shall not be requited for the sin of his father; the righteousness of the righteous (shall be) upon him, and the sin of the sinner on him. If the sinner turn from his sin which he hath done, and keep all my law and my commandment, and do righteousness, and (give) alms, he shall surely live, and shall not die; and all his sin which he hath done I will not remember unto him, but in his righteousness which he hath done he shall live. Do I at all desire that the sinner should die, saith the Lord, (and not) rather that he should turn from his evil way and live? And if the righteous man turn from his righteousness, and commit injustice and sin, in all his iniquity which he hath done, the sinner shall as die: all his righteousness which he hath done I will not remember unto him, and in his sin which he hath sinned, in it he shall die. But ye say, It is not right.. When the righteous man turneth from his righteousness and committeth sin, he shall die in his iniquity which she hath done. And if the sinner turn from his sin which he hath done, and do righteousness and uprightness, such a one hath kept his soul; and hath seen, and turned from all his sin which he hath done; he shall surely live, and shall not die. And the house of Israel saith, The way of the Lord is not right. Is not my way right, O house of Israel? Is it not your way (which) is not right? And for this will I judge all of you according to your way, O house of Israel, saith the Lord God. Turn, and repent of your evil, and let not the punishment of your sin come upon you. Put away from you all your evil and your iniquity and your sin which ye have sinned against me;) and make you a new heart and a new spirit; and why will ye die in your sins, O house of Israel? For I desire not that ye should in any wise die, saith the Lord God, but that ye should repent and live.”

Brethren, observe the festival days; and first of all the birthday which you are to celebrate on the twenty-fifth of the ninth month; after which let the Epiphany be to you the most honoured, in which the Lord made to you a display of His own Godhead, and let it take place on the sixth of the tenth month; after which the fast of Lent is to be observed by you as containing a memorial of our Lord's mode of life and legislation. But let this solemnity be observed before the fast of the passover, beginning from the second day of the week, and ending at the day of the preparation. After which solemnities, breaking off your fast, begin the holy week of the passover, fasting in the same all of you with fear and trembling, praying in them for those that are about to perish.

Those who have borrowed either silver or any sort of fruits, whether dry or wet, [I mean this, when the Jewish affairs shall, by the blessing of God, be to their own mind,] let the borrowers bring them again, and restore them with pleasure to those who lent them, laying them up, as it were, in their own treasuries, and justly expecting to receive them thence, if they shall want them again. But if they be without shame, and do not restore it, let not the lender go to the borrower's house, and take a pledge himself, before judgment be given concerning it; but let him require the pledge, and let the debtor bring it of himself, without the least opposition to him that comes upon him under the protection of the law. And if he that gave the pledge be rich, let the creditor retain it till what he lent be paid him again; but if he be poor, let him that takes it return it before the going down of the sun, especially if the pledge be a garment, that the debtor may have it for a covering in his sleep, God himself naturally showing mercy to the poor. It is also not lawful to take a millstone, nor any utensil thereto belonging, for a pledge, that the debtor, may not be deprived of instruments to get their food withal, and lest they be undone by their necessity.

Those who have borrowed either silver or any sort of fruits, whether dry or wet, [I mean this, when the Jewish affairs shall, by the blessing of God, be to their own mind,] let the borrowers bring them again, and restore them with pleasure to those who lent them, laying them up, as it were, in their own treasuries, and justly expecting to receive them thence, if they shall want them again. But if they be without shame, and do not restore it, let not the lender go to the borrower's house, and take a pledge himself, before judgment be given concerning it; but let him require the pledge, and let the debtor bring it of himself, without the least opposition to him that comes upon him under the protection of the law. And if he that gave the pledge be rich, let the creditor retain it till what he lent be paid him again; but if he be poor, let him that takes it return it before the going down of the sun, especially if the pledge be a garment, that the debtor may have it for a covering in his sleep, God himself naturally showing mercy to the poor. It is also not lawful to take a millstone, nor any utensil thereto belonging, for a pledge, that the debtor, may not be deprived of instruments to get their food withal, and lest they be undone by their necessity.

But at night the king sent officers, and commanded that he should be watched till the morning, lest he should get quite away, that he might come into the judgment-hall, and so might be delivered up, and condemned and slain. But when Michal, David's wife, the king's daughter, understood what her father designed, she came to her husband, as having small hopes of his deliverance, and as greatly concerned about her own life also, for she could not bear to live in case she were deprived of him; and she said, "Let not the sun find thee here when it rises, for if it do, that will be the last time it will see thee: fly away then while the night may afford thee opportunity, and may God lengthen it for thy sake; for know this, that if my father find thee, thou art a dead man." So she let him down by a cord out of the window, and saved him: and after she had done so, she fitted up a bed for him as if he were sick, and put under the bed-clothes a goat's liver and when her father, as soon as it was day, sent to seize David, she said to those that were there, That he had not been well that night, and showed them the bed covered, and made them believe, by the leaping of the liver, which caused the bed-clothes to move also, that David breathed like one that was asthmatic. So when those that were sent told Saul that David had not been well in the night he ordered him to be brought in that condition, for he intended to kill him. Now when they came and uncovered the bed, and found out the woman's contrivance, they told it to the king; and when her father complained of her that she had saved his enemy, and had put a trick upon himself, she invented this plausible defense for herself, and said, That when he had threatened to kill her, she lent him her assistance for his preservation, out of fear; for which her assistance she ought to be forgiven, because it was not done of her own free choice, but out of necessity: "For," said she, "I do not suppose that thou wast so zealous to kill thy enemy, as thou wast that I should be saved." Accordingly Saul forgave the damsel; but David, when he had escaped this danger, came to the prophet Samuel to Ramah, and told him what snares the king had laid for him, and how he was very near to death by Saul's throwing a spear at him, although he had been no way guilty with relation to him, nor had he been cowardly in his battles with his enemies, but had succeeded well in them all, by God's assistance; which thing was indeed the cause of Saul's hatred to David.

Now Joseph was already slain in Judea, in the manner following: He forgot what charge his brother Herod had given him when he went to Antony; and when he had pitched his camp among the mountains, for Macheras had lent him five regiments, with these he went hastily to Jericho, in order to reap the corn thereto belonging; and as the Roman regiments were but newly raised, and were unskillful in war, for they were in great part collected out of Syria, he was attacked by the enemy, and caught in those places of difficulty, and was himself slain, as he was fighting bravely, and the whole army was lost, for there were six regiments slain. So when Antigonus had got possession of the dead bodies, he cut off Joseph's head, although Pheroras his brother would have redeemed it at the price of fifty talents. After which defeat, the Galileans revolted from their commanders, and took those of Herod's party, and drowned them in the lake, and a great part of Judea was become seditious; but Macheras fortified the place Gitta [in Samaria].

When Herod had been at Rome, and was come back again, a war arose between him and the Arabians, on the occasion following: The inhabitants of Trachonitis, after Cæsar had taken the country away from Zenodorus, and added it to Herod, had not now power to rob, but were forced to plough the land, and to live quietly, which was a thing they did not like; and when they did take that pains, the ground did not produce much fruit for them. However, at the first the king would not permit them to rob, and so they abstained from that unjust way of living upon their neighbors, which procured Herod a great reputation for his care. But when he was sailing to Rome, it was at that time when he went to accuse his son Alexander, and to commit Antipater to Cæsar's protection, the Trachonites spread a report as if he were dead, and revolted from his dominion, and betook themselves again to their accustomed way of robbing their neighbors; at which time the king's commanders subdued them during his absence; but about forty of the principal robbers, being terrified by those that had been taken, left the country, and retired into Arabia, Sylleus entertaining them, after he had missed of marrying Salome, and gave them a place of strength, in which they dwelt. So they overran not only Judea, but all Celesyria also, and carried off the prey, while Sylleus afforded them places of protection and quietness during their wicked practices. But when Herod came back from Rome, he perceived that his dominions had greatly suffered by them; and since he could not reach the robbers themselves, because of the secure retreat they had in that country, and which the Arabian government afforded them, and yet being very uneasy at the injuries they had done him, he went all over Trachonitis, and slew their relations; whereupon these robbers were more angry than before, it being a law among them to be avenged on the murderers of their relations by all possible means; so they continued to tear and rend every thing under Herod's dominion with impunity. Then did he discourse about these robberies to Saturninus and Volumnius, and required that they should be punished; upon which occasion they still the more confirmed themselves in their robberies, and became more numerous, and made very great disturbances, laying waste the countries and villages that belonged to Herod's kingdom, and killing those men whom they caught, till these unjust proceedings came to be like a real war, for the robbers were now become about a thousand;—at which Herod was sore displeased, and required the robbers, as well as the money which he had lent Obodas, by Sylleus, which was sixty talents, and since the time of payment was now past, he desired to have it paid him; but Sylleus, who had laid Obodas aside, and managed all by himself, denied that the robbers were in Arabia, and put off the payment of the money; about which there was a hearing before Saturninus and Volumnius, who were then the presidents of Syria. At last he, by their means, agreed, that within thirty days' time Herod should be paid his money, and that each of them should deliver up the other's subjects reciprocally. Now, as to Herod, there was not one of the other's subjects found in his kingdom, either as doing any injustice, or on any other account, but it was proved that the Arabians had the robbers amongst them.

And now Agrippa was come to Puteoli, whence he wrote a letter to Tiberius Cæsar, who then lived at Capreae, and told him that he was come so far in order to wait on him, and to pay him a visit; and desired that he would give him leave to come over to Caprein: so Tiberius made no difficulty, but wrote to him in an obliging way in other respects; and withal told him he was glad of his safe return, and desired him to come to Capreae; and when he was come, he did not fail to treat him as kindly as he had promised him in his letter to do. But the next day came a letter to Cæsar from Herennius Capito, to inform him that Agrippa had borrowed three hundred thousand drachmae, and not pad it at the time appointed; but when it was demanded of him, he ran away like a fugitive, out of the places under his government, and put it out of his power to get the money of him. When Cæsar had read this letter, he was much troubled at it, and gave order that Agrippa should be excluded from his presence until he had paid that debt: upon which he was no way daunted at Cæsar's anger, but entreated Antonia, the mother of Germanicus, and of Claudius, who was afterward Cæsar himself, to lend him those three hundred thousand drachmae, that he might not be deprived of Tiberius's friendship; so, out of regard to the memory of Bernice his mother, [for those two women were very familiar with one another,] and out of regard to his and Claudius's education together, she lent him the money; and, upon the payment of this debt, there was nothing to hinder Tiberius's friendship to him. After this, Tiberius Cæsar recommended to him his grandson, and ordered that he should always accompany him when he went abroad. But upon Agrippa's kind reception by Antonia, he betook him to pay his respects to Caius, who was her grandson, and in very high reputation by reason of the good-will they bare his father. Now there was one Thallus, a freed-man of Cæsar, of whom he borrowed a million of drachmae, and thence repaid Antonia the debt he owed her; and by sending the overplus in paying his court to Caius, became a person of great authority with him.

Upon this Josephus was afraid of their attacking him, and yet thought he should be a betrayer of the commands of God, if he died before they were delivered. So he began to talk like a philosopher to them in the distress he was then in, when he said thus to them: "O my friends, why are we so earnest to kill ourselves? and why do we set our soul and body, which are such dear companions, at such variance? Can any one pretend that I am not the man I was formerly? Nay, the Romans are sensible how that matter stands well enough. It is a brave thing to die in war; but so that it be according to the law of war, by the hand of conquerors. If, therefore, I avoid death from the sword of the Romans, I am truly worthy to be killed by my own sword, and my own hand; but if they admit of mercy, and would spare their enemy, how much more ought we to have mercy upon ourselves, and to spare ourselves? For it is certainly a foolish thing to do that to ourselves which we quarrel with them for doing to us. I confess freely that it is a brave thing to die for liberty; but still so that it be in war, and done by those who take that liberty from us; but in the present case our enemies do neither meet us in battle, nor do they kill us. Now he is equally a coward who will not die when he is obliged to die, and he who will die when he is not obliged so to do. What are we afraid of, when we will not go up to the Romans? Is it death? If so, what we are afraid of, when we but suspect our enemies will inflict it on us, shall we inflict it on ourselves for certain? But it may be said we must be slaves. And are we then in a clear state of liberty at present? It may also be said that it is a manly act for one to kill himself. No, certainly, but a most unmanly one; as I should esteem that pilot to be an arrant coward, who, out of fear of a storm, should sink his ship of his own accord. Now self-murder is a crime most remote from the common nature of all animals, and an instance of impiety against God our Creator; nor indeed is there any animal that dies by its own contrivance, or by its own means, for the desire of life is a law engraven in them all; on which account we deem those that openly take it away from us to be our enemies, and those that do it by treachery are punished for so doing. And do not you think that God is very angry when a man does injury to what he hath bestowed on him? For from him it is that we have received our being, and we ought to leave it to his disposal to take that being away from us. The bodies of all men are indeed mortal, and are created out of corruptible matter; but the soul is ever immortal, and is a portion of the divinity that inhabits our bodies. Besides, if any one destroys or abuses a depositum he hath received from a mere man, he is esteemed a wicked and perfidious person; but then if any one cast out of his body this Divine depositum, can we imagine that he who is thereby affronted does not know of it? Moreover, our law justly ordains that slaves which run away from their master shall be punished, though the masters they run away from may have been wicked masters to them. And shall we endeavor to run away from God, who is the best of all masters, and not guilty of impeity? Do not you know that those who depart out of this life according to the law of nature, and pay that debt which was received from God, when he that lent it us is pleased to require it back again, enjoy eternal fame; that their houses and their posterity are sure, that their souls are pure and obedient, and obtain a most holy place in heaven, from whence, in the revolutions of ages, they are again sent into pure bodies; while the souls of those whose hands have acted madly against themselves are received by the darkest place in Hades, and while God, who is their Father, punishes those that offend against either of them in their posterity? for which reason God hates such doings, and the crime is punished by our most wise legislator. Accordingly, our laws determine that the bodies of such as kill themselves should be exposed till the sun be set, without burial, although at the same time it be allowed by them to be lawful to bury our enemies [sooner]. The laws of other nations also enjoin such men's hands to be cut off when they are dead, which had been made use of in destroying themselves when alive, while they reckoned that as the body is alien from the soul, so is the hand alien from the body. It is therefore, my friends, a right thing to reason justly, and not add to the calamities which men bring upon us impiety towards our Creator. If we have a mind to preserve ourselves, let us do it; for to be preserved by those our enemies, to whom we have given so many demonstrations of our courage, is no way inglorious; but if we have a mind to die, it is good to die by the hand of those that have conquered us. For my part, I will not run over to our enemies' quarters, in order to be a traitor to myself; for certainly I should then be much more foolish than those that deserted to the enemy, since they did it in order to save themselves, and I should do it for destruction, for my own destruction. However, I heartily wish the Romans may prove treacherous in this matter; for if, after their offer of their right hand for security, I be slain by them, I shall die cheerfully, and carry away with me the sense of their perfidiousness, as a consolation greater than victory itself."

Reader, remember me in your prayers, that we too may deserve to be made emulators of the spirit. The two former books on The Principles I translated not only at your instance, but even under pressure from you during the days of Lent; but as you, my devout brother Macarius, were not only living near me during that time, but had more leisure at your command than now, so I also worked the harder; whereas I have been longer in explaining these two latter books, seeing you came less frequently from a distant extremity of the city to urge on my labour. Now if you remember what I warned you of in my former preface,—that certain persons would be indignant, if they did not hear that we spoke some evil of Origen,—that, I imagine, you have forthwith experienced, has come to pass. But if those demons who excite the tongues of men to slander were so infuriated by that work, in which he had not as yet fully unveiled their secret proceedings, what, think you, will be the case in this, in which he will expose all those dark and hidden ways, by which they creep into the hearts of men, and deceive weak and unstable souls? You will immediately see all things thrown into confusion, seditions stirred up, clamours raised throughout the whole city, and that individual summoned to receive sentence of condemnation who endeavoured to dispel the diabolical darkness of ignorance by means of the light of the gospel lamp. Let such things, however, be lightly esteemed by him who is desirous of being trained in divine learning, while retaining in its integrity the rule of the Catholic faith. I think it necessary, however, to remind you that the principle observed in the former books has been observed also in these, viz. not to translate what appeared contrary to Origen’s other opinions, and to our own belief, but to pass by such passages as being interpolated and forged by others. But if he has appeared to give expression to any novelties regarding rational creatures (on which subject the essence of our faith does not depend), for the sake of discussion and of adding to our knowledge, when perhaps it was necessary for us to answer in such an order some heretical opinions, I have not omitted to mention these either in the present or preceding books, unless when he wished to repeat in the following books what he had already stated in the previous ones, when I have thought it convenient, for the sake of brevity, to curtail some of these repetitions. Should any one, however, peruse these passages from a desire to enlarge his knowledge, and not to raise captious objections, he will do better to have them expounded by persons of skill. For it is an absurdity to have the fictions of poetry and the ridiculous plays of comedy interpreted by grammarians, and to suppose that without a master and an interpreter any one is able to learn those things which are spoken either of God or of the heavenly virtues, and of the whole universe of things, in which some deplorable error either of pagan philosophers or of heretics is confuted; and the result of which is, that men would rather rashly and ignorantly condemn things that are difficult and obscure, than ascertain their meaning by diligence and study.

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

Celsus proceeds as follows: “With regard to the origin of the world and its destruction, whether it is to be regarded as uncreated and indestructible, or as created indeed, but not destructible, or the reverse, I at present say nothing.” For this reason we too say nothing on these points, as the work in hand does not require it. Nor do we allege that the Spirit of the universal God mingled itself in things here below as in things alien to itself, as might appear from the expression, “The Spirit of God moved upon the water;” nor do we assert that certain wicked devices directed against His Spirit, as if by a different creator from the great God, and which were tolerated by the Supreme Divinity, needed to be completely frustrated. And, accordingly, I have nothing further to say to those who utter such absurdities; nor to Celsus, who does not refute them with ability. For he ought either not to have mentioned such matters at all, or else, in keeping with that character for philanthropy which he assumes, have carefully set them forth, and then endeavoured to rebut these impious assertions. Nor have we ever heard that the great God, after giving his spirit to the creator, demands it back again. Proceeding next foolishly to assail these impious assertions, he asks: “What god gives anything with the intention of demanding it back? For it is the mark of a needy person to demand back [what he has given], whereas God stands in need of nothing.” To this he adds, as if saying something clever against certain parties: “Why, when he lent [his spirit], was he ignorant that he was lending it to an evil being?” He asks, further: “Why does he pass without notice a wicked creator who was counter-working his purposes?”

When, then, the letter of the law promises riches to the just, Celsus may follow the letter which killeth, and understand it of worldly riches, which blind men; but we say that it refers to those riches which enlighten the eyes, and which enrich a man “in all utterance and in all knowledge.” And in this sense we “charge them that are rich in this world, that they be not high-minded, nor trust in uncertain riches, but in the living God, who giveth us richly all things to enjoy; that they do good, that they be rich in good works, ready to distribute, willing to communicate.” For, as Solomon says, “riches” are the true good, which “are the ransom of the life of a man;” but the poverty which is the opposite of these riches is destructive, for by it “the poor cannot bear rebuke.” And what has been said of riches applies to dominion, in regard to which it is said, “The just man shall chase a thousand, and two put ten thousand to flight.” Now if riches are to be taken in the sense we have just explained, consider if it is not according to God’s promise that he who is rich in all utterance, in all knowledge, in all wisdom, in all good works, may not out of these treasures of utterance, of wisdom, and of knowledge, lend to many nations. It was thus that Paul lent to all the nations that he visited, “carrying the gospel of Christ from Jerusalem, and round about unto Illyricum.” And as the divine knowledge was given to him by revelation, and his mind was illumined by the Divine Word, he himself therefore needed to borrow from no one, and required not the ministry of any man to teach him the word of truth. Thus, as it had been written, “Thou shalt have dominion over many nations, and they shall not have dominion over thee,” he ruled over the Gentiles whom he brought under the teaching of Jesus Christ; and he never “gave place by subjection to men, no, not for an hour,” as being himself mightier than they. And thus also he “filled the earth.”

If a gentile lent [money] to an Israelite on his chametz, after Pesah it is permitted for use. But if an Israelite lent [money] to a gentile on his chametz, after Pesah it is prohibited for use. If ruins fell on chametz it is as if it is has been removed. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: provided that a dog cannot search it out.

If a gentile lent [money] to an Israelite on his chametz, after Pesah it is permitted for use. But if an Israelite lent [money] to a gentile on his chametz, after Pesah it is prohibited for use. If ruins fell on chametz it is as if it is has been removed. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: provided that a dog cannot search it out.

If a man said to his fellow, “I robbed you”, [or], “You lent me [something]”, [or] “You deposited [something] with me, but I do not know whether I returned it or not” he is obligated to repay. But if he said, “I do not know whether I robbed you, [or], “whether you lent me [something]”, or “whether you deposited [something] with me”, he is exempt from repaying.

If a man said to his fellow, “I robbed you”, [or], “You lent me [something]”, [or] “You deposited [something] with me, but I do not know whether I returned it or not” he is obligated to repay. But if he said, “I do not know whether I robbed you, [or], “whether you lent me [something]”, or “whether you deposited [something] with me”, he is exempt from repaying.

If a man rented a cow from his fellow and lent it to another, and it died a natural death, the hirer must swear that it died a natural death and the borrower must repay [its value] to the renter. Rabbi Yose said: “How can this one make business out of his friend’s cow? Rather [the value of the cow] returns to the owner.”

If a man sold a field, and the buyer gave him part of the price and he said to the buyer, “Pay me the rest of the price whenever you wish and then take what is yours”, this is forbidden. If a man lent another money on the security of his field and said to him, “If you do not pay me within three years it will be mine”, then it becomes his. This is what Boethus the son of Zunin used to do with the consent of the Sages.

[A landowner] may lend his tenants wheat to be repaid in wheat, if it is for planting but not if it is for food. For Rabban Gamaliel used to lend his tenants wheat to be repaid in wheat when it was for planting. And if he lent it when the price was high and it afterward fell, or when it was low and it afterward rose, he used to take wheat back at the lower rate, not because such was the rule but because he wanted to be strict upon himself.

If one gave a loan and took a pledge he is accounted a paid guardian. Rabbi Judah says: “If he lent him money he is accounted an unpaid guardian; if he lent him produce he is accounted a paid guardian.” Abba Shaul, “One may hire out a poor man’s pledge and thereby reduce the debt, for in such a way he is like one who returns lost property.”

If one gave a loan and took a pledge he is accounted a paid guardian. Rabbi Judah says: “If he lent him money he is accounted an unpaid guardian; if he lent him produce he is accounted a paid guardian.” Abba Shaul, “One may hire out a poor man’s pledge and thereby reduce the debt, for in such a way he is like one who returns lost property.”

If one borrowed a cow, and borrowed it for half a day and hired it for half a day; or borrowed it for one day and hired it for the next; or if he borrowed one cow, and hired another and the cow died if he that lent the cow says: “It was the borrowed cow that died”, [or] “On the day when it was borrowed it died”, [or] “During the time when it was borrowed it died” and the other one says: “I don’t know”, he is liable. If the hirer says, “It is the hired one that died”, [or] “On the day when it was hired it died”, and the other says, “I do not know”, he is not liable. If the one says, “It was borrowed”, and the other says, “It was hired”, the hirer must take an oath that it was the hired one that died. If the one says, “I do not know”, and the other says, “I do not know”, they share in the loss.

If one lent one’s fellow, he may exact a pledge from him only with the permission of a court, and he may not enter his house to take the pledge, as it is states, “You shall stand outside” (Deut. 24:1. If the borrower had two utensils, he may take one but must give back the other. And he must give back the pillow at night and the plow during the day. And if the creditor dies he need not return the pledge to his heirs. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: “Even to the debtor himself he need only return the pledge within thirty days [of the loan], and after thirty days he may sell it with the consent of the court. A pledge may not be taken from a widow, whether she be rich or poor, as it states, “Do not take the a widow’s garment as a pledge” (Deut. 24:17). If one takes a millstone as a pledge he violates a negative commandment and he is also in violation of both parts [of the millstone], as it states, “Do not take a mill or an upper millstone as a pledge” (Deut. 24:6). And they didn’t say just an upper millstone or a mill but anything that is necessary for food, as it states, “for that would be taking someone’s life as a pledge” (ibid.).

If there were two brothers, one poor and one rich, and their father left them a bath house or an olive press, if the father had made them for hire, the profit is split equally. But if he made them for his own use alone, the rich brother may say to the poor brother, “Buy for yourself slaves and they can wash in the bath house” or “Buy for yourself olives and prepare them in the olive press.” If there were two in the same town, and one’s name was Joseph the son of Shimon and other’s name was Joseph the son of Shimon, neither can bring forth a debt document on the other, and another person cannot bring forth a debt document against them. And if some person finds amongst his documents a document that states, “The [debt] document of Joseph ben Shimon is paid”, both of their [debt] documents are paid. What should they do? They should write their names to the third generation. And if the names are the same through the third generation, they should give themselves a sign. And if their signs are the same, they should write “Cohen”. If a man said to his son, “One of my debt documents is paid and I do not know which one”, then all are deemed to be paid. If two documents were found [amongst his documents] written to the same debtor, then the large one is paid and the small one is not paid. If a man lent money to his fellow on a guarantor’s security, he may not exact payment from the guarantor. But if he had said, “On the condition that I may exact payment from whom I wish”, then he may exact payment from the guarantor. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: “If the borrower had property, in neither case can he exact payment from the guarantor.” Moreover, Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel used to say: “If a man was a guarantor for a woman’s ketubah and her husband divorced her, the husband must vow to derive no further benefit from her, lest he make a conspiracy against the property of the guarantor and take his wife back again.”

If a man lent his fellow money by using a document, he may recover the debt from mortgaged property. But if he had lent only before witnesses (and not through a document), he may recover the debt only from unmortgaged property. If the [creditor] brought forth [a loan document] upon which appeared his (the debtor’s) signature as evidence that he was indebted to him, the creditor may recover the debt only from unmortgaged property. If a man signed as a guarantor after the signatures of witnesses, the creditor may recover the debt only from [the guarantor’s] unmortgaged property. Such a case came before Rabbi Yishmael and he said, “He may recover only from unmortgaged property”. Ben Nanos said to him: “He may recover the debt neither from mortgaged nor unmortgaged property.” He said to him: “Why?” He answered, “If a man seized a debtor by the throat in the street and his fellow found him and said ‘Leave him alone (and I will pay), he is not liable, since not through trust in him did the creditor lend the debtor money.” Rather which type of guarantor is liable? [If a man said], “Lend him money and I will pay thee”, he is liable, for he lent him the money through his trust in the guarantor. And Rabbi Yishmael said, “He who wants to be wise let him occupy himself with cases dealing with monetary matters, for there is no greater branch of Torah than this; for they are like a welling fountain; and he who wishes to occupy himself with laws concerning monetary matters, let him serve [as a pupil] of Shimon ben Nanos.

If a man lent his fellow money by using a document, he may recover the debt from mortgaged property. But if he had lent only before witnesses (and not through a document), he may recover the debt only from unmortgaged property. If the [creditor] brought forth [a loan document] upon which appeared his (the debtor’s) signature as evidence that he was indebted to him, the creditor may recover the debt only from unmortgaged property. If a man signed as a guarantor after the signatures of witnesses, the creditor may recover the debt only from [the guarantor’s] unmortgaged property. Such a case came before Rabbi Yishmael and he said, “He may recover only from unmortgaged property”. Ben Nanos said to him: “He may recover the debt neither from mortgaged nor unmortgaged property.” He said to him: “Why?” He answered, “If a man seized a debtor by the throat in the street and his fellow found him and said ‘Leave him alone (and I will pay), he is not liable, since not through trust in him did the creditor lend the debtor money.” Rather which type of guarantor is liable? [If a man said], “Lend him money and I will pay thee”, he is liable, for he lent him the money through his trust in the guarantor. And Rabbi Yishmael said, “He who wants to be wise let him occupy himself with cases dealing with monetary matters, for there is no greater branch of Torah than this; for they are like a welling fountain; and he who wishes to occupy himself with laws concerning monetary matters, let him serve [as a pupil] of Shimon ben Nanos.

If a man lent his fellow money by using a document, he may recover the debt from mortgaged property. But if he had lent only before witnesses (and not through a document), he may recover the debt only from unmortgaged property. If the [creditor] brought forth [a loan document] upon which appeared his (the debtor’s) signature as evidence that he was indebted to him, the creditor may recover the debt only from unmortgaged property. If a man signed as a guarantor after the signatures of witnesses, the creditor may recover the debt only from [the guarantor’s] unmortgaged property. Such a case came before Rabbi Yishmael and he said, “He may recover only from unmortgaged property”. Ben Nanos said to him: “He may recover the debt neither from mortgaged nor unmortgaged property.” He said to him: “Why?” He answered, “If a man seized a debtor by the throat in the street and his fellow found him and said ‘Leave him alone (and I will pay), he is not liable, since not through trust in him did the creditor lend the debtor money.” Rather which type of guarantor is liable? [If a man said], “Lend him money and I will pay thee”, he is liable, for he lent him the money through his trust in the guarantor. And Rabbi Yishmael said, “He who wants to be wise let him occupy himself with cases dealing with monetary matters, for there is no greater branch of Torah than this; for they are like a welling fountain; and he who wishes to occupy himself with laws concerning monetary matters, let him serve [as a pupil] of Shimon ben Nanos.

If a man lends [money] to his neighbor on a pledge, and the pledge was lost, and he said to him: “I lent you a sela on it, and it [the pledge] was worth a shekel,” and the other says, “No! You lent me a sela on it, and it was worth a sela”, he is exempt. “I lent you a sela” on it, and it was worth a shekel,” and the other says, “No! You lent me a sela on it, and it was worth three denarii,” he is liable. “You lent me a sela on it, and it was worth two,” and the other says, “No! I lent you a sela on it, and it was worth a sela”,” he is exempt. “You lent me a sela on it, and it was worth two,” and the other says: “No! I lent you a sela on it, and it was worth five denarii,” he is liable. And who takes the oath? He who had the deposit, lest, if the other take the oath, this one may bring out the deposit.

If a man lends [money] to his neighbor on a pledge, and the pledge was lost, and he said to him: “I lent you a sela on it, and it [the pledge] was worth a shekel,” and the other says, “No! You lent me a sela on it, and it was worth a sela”, he is exempt. “I lent you a sela” on it, and it was worth a shekel,” and the other says, “No! You lent me a sela on it, and it was worth three denarii,” he is liable. “You lent me a sela on it, and it was worth two,” and the other says, “No! I lent you a sela on it, and it was worth a sela”,” he is exempt. “You lent me a sela on it, and it was worth two,” and the other says: “No! I lent you a sela on it, and it was worth five denarii,” he is liable. And who takes the oath? He who had the deposit, lest, if the other take the oath, this one may bring out the deposit.

If a man lends [money] to his neighbor on a pledge, and the pledge was lost, and he said to him: “I lent you a sela on it, and it [the pledge] was worth a shekel,” and the other says, “No! You lent me a sela on it, and it was worth a sela”, he is exempt. “I lent you a sela” on it, and it was worth a shekel,” and the other says, “No! You lent me a sela on it, and it was worth three denarii,” he is liable. “You lent me a sela on it, and it was worth two,” and the other says, “No! I lent you a sela on it, and it was worth a sela”,” he is exempt. “You lent me a sela on it, and it was worth two,” and the other says: “No! I lent you a sela on it, and it was worth five denarii,” he is liable. And who takes the oath? He who had the deposit, lest, if the other take the oath, this one may bring out the deposit.

If a man lends [money] to his neighbor on a pledge, and the pledge was lost, and he said to him: “I lent you a sela on it, and it [the pledge] was worth a shekel,” and the other says, “No! You lent me a sela on it, and it was worth a sela”, he is exempt. “I lent you a sela” on it, and it was worth a shekel,” and the other says, “No! You lent me a sela on it, and it was worth three denarii,” he is liable. “You lent me a sela on it, and it was worth two,” and the other says, “No! I lent you a sela on it, and it was worth a sela”,” he is exempt. “You lent me a sela on it, and it was worth two,” and the other says: “No! I lent you a sela on it, and it was worth five denarii,” he is liable. And who takes the oath? He who had the deposit, lest, if the other take the oath, this one may bring out the deposit.

If a man lends [money] to his neighbor on a pledge, and the pledge was lost, and he said to him: “I lent you a sela on it, and it [the pledge] was worth a shekel,” and the other says, “No! You lent me a sela on it, and it was worth a sela”, he is exempt. “I lent you a sela” on it, and it was worth a shekel,” and the other says, “No! You lent me a sela on it, and it was worth three denarii,” he is liable. “You lent me a sela on it, and it was worth two,” and the other says, “No! I lent you a sela on it, and it was worth a sela”,” he is exempt. “You lent me a sela on it, and it was worth two,” and the other says: “No! I lent you a sela on it, and it was worth five denarii,” he is liable. And who takes the oath? He who had the deposit, lest, if the other take the oath, this one may bring out the deposit.

If a man lends [money] to his neighbor on a pledge, and the pledge was lost, and he said to him: “I lent you a sela on it, and it [the pledge] was worth a shekel,” and the other says, “No! You lent me a sela on it, and it was worth a sela”, he is exempt. “I lent you a sela” on it, and it was worth a shekel,” and the other says, “No! You lent me a sela on it, and it was worth three denarii,” he is liable. “You lent me a sela on it, and it was worth two,” and the other says, “No! I lent you a sela on it, and it was worth a sela”,” he is exempt. “You lent me a sela on it, and it was worth two,” and the other says: “No! I lent you a sela on it, and it was worth five denarii,” he is liable. And who takes the oath? He who had the deposit, lest, if the other take the oath, this one may bring out the deposit.

If a man lends [money] to his neighbor on a pledge, and the pledge was lost, and he said to him: “I lent you a sela on it, and it [the pledge] was worth a shekel,” and the other says, “No! You lent me a sela on it, and it was worth a sela”, he is exempt. “I lent you a sela” on it, and it was worth a shekel,” and the other says, “No! You lent me a sela on it, and it was worth three denarii,” he is liable. “You lent me a sela on it, and it was worth two,” and the other says, “No! I lent you a sela on it, and it was worth a sela”,” he is exempt. “You lent me a sela on it, and it was worth two,” and the other says: “No! I lent you a sela on it, and it was worth five denarii,” he is liable. And who takes the oath? He who had the deposit, lest, if the other take the oath, this one may bring out the deposit.

If a man lends [money] to his neighbor on a pledge, and the pledge was lost, and he said to him: “I lent you a sela on it, and it [the pledge] was worth a shekel,” and the other says, “No! You lent me a sela on it, and it was worth a sela”, he is exempt. “I lent you a sela” on it, and it was worth a shekel,” and the other says, “No! You lent me a sela on it, and it was worth three denarii,” he is liable. “You lent me a sela on it, and it was worth two,” and the other says, “No! I lent you a sela on it, and it was worth a sela”,” he is exempt. “You lent me a sela on it, and it was worth two,” and the other says: “No! I lent you a sela on it, and it was worth five denarii,” he is liable. And who takes the oath? He who had the deposit, lest, if the other take the oath, this one may bring out the deposit.

If she lent her shirt to a non-Jewish woman or to a menstruant she may attribute a stain to either. If three women had worn the same shirt or had sat on the same wooden bench and subsequently blood was found on it, all are regarded as unclean. If they had sat on a stone bench or on the projection within the colonnade of a bath House: Rabbi Nehemiah says that they are clean, for Rabbi Nehemiah says: anything that is not susceptible to uncleanness is not susceptible to stains.

Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Tanḥum bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If somebody lent his measuring cup and found him using it, he does not have to say anything; much less if he rented it out.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody died and left a wife,” etc. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, the weakest in his claim. For example, one lent before witnesses, the other lent on a mortgage document; it should be given to the one who lent before witnesses. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the weakest in his body. Think about it, if he is rich, like those of the family Andreas. Rebbi Aḥa said, the weakest in his body and poor. As the following: They gave to a relative of Rebbi Samuel bar Abba as the weakest. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish brought slaves of Rebbi Jehuda the Prince and took it away from her. Rebbi Joḥanan was leaning on Rebbi Simeon bar Abba and said, what was done with that poor woman? He said to him, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish brought slaves of Rebbi Jehuda the Prince and took it away from her. Was he justified in doing this? Rebbi Jeremiah asked before Rebbi Ze‘ira: Should we say that Rebbi Joḥanan follows his doctrine and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish his own? Since they disagree: Everybody agrees that if they err in arguments, one does not reverse. In the words of the Torah, one reverses. Where do they disagree? If one errs in a Mishnah, for Rebbi Joḥanan says, an error in Mishnah is like an error in arguments, but Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish says, an error in Mishnah is like an error in words of the Torah. What is said of the Mishnah is also said of words of the Elders.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody died and left a wife,” etc. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, the weakest in his claim. For example, one lent before witnesses, the other lent on a mortgage document; it should be given to the one who lent before witnesses. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the weakest in his body. Think about it, if he is rich, like those of the family Andreas. Rebbi Aḥa said, the weakest in his body and poor. As the following: They gave to a relative of Rebbi Samuel bar Abba as the weakest. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish brought slaves of Rebbi Jehuda the Prince and took it away from her. Rebbi Joḥanan was leaning on Rebbi Simeon bar Abba and said, what was done with that poor woman? He said to him, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish brought slaves of Rebbi Jehuda the Prince and took it away from her. Was he justified in doing this? Rebbi Jeremiah asked before Rebbi Ze‘ira: Should we say that Rebbi Joḥanan follows his doctrine and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish his own? Since they disagree: Everybody agrees that if they err in arguments, one does not reverse. In the words of the Torah, one reverses. Where do they disagree? If one errs in a Mishnah, for Rebbi Joḥanan says, an error in Mishnah is like an error in arguments, but Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish says, an error in Mishnah is like an error in words of the Torah. What is said of the Mishnah is also said of words of the Elders.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody died and left a wife,” etc. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, the weakest in his claim. For example, one lent before witnesses, the other lent on a mortgage document; it should be given to the one who lent before witnesses. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the weakest in his body. Think about it, if he is rich, like those of the family Andreas. Rebbi Aḥa said, the weakest in his body and poor. As the following: They gave to a relative of Rebbi Samuel bar Abba as the weakest. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish brought slaves of Rebbi Jehuda the Prince and took it away from her. Rebbi Joḥanan was leaning on Rebbi Simeon bar Abba and said, what was done with that poor woman? He said to him, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish brought slaves of Rebbi Jehuda the Prince and took it away from her. Was he justified in doing this? Rebbi Jeremiah asked before Rebbi Ze‘ira: Should we say that Rebbi Joḥanan follows his doctrine and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish his own? Since they disagree: Everybody agrees that if they err in arguments, one does not reverse. In the words of the Torah, one reverses. Where do they disagree? If one errs in a Mishnah, for Rebbi Joḥanan says, an error in Mishnah is like an error in arguments, but Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish says, an error in Mishnah is like an error in words of the Torah. What is said of the Mishnah is also said of words of the Elders.

MISHNAH: If somebody lent money to a Cohen, a Levite, or a poor person to separate on their account, he can proceed on the assumption that they are alive and does not worry whether the Cohen or Levite died or the poor person became rich. If they died, he has to receive permission from the heirs; if the loan was executed in court he does not need permission.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody lent money to a Cohen,” etc. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: This follows Rebbi Yose; as we have stated there: “Rebbi Yose says, anything whose replacement is in the Cohen’s hand is freed from the gifts, but Rebbi Meїr obligates.” Did Rebbi Yose not speak only if it did exist? But here, he still needs to sow! Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The Mishnah speaks of acquaintances of Cohanim or Levites. But did we not state “a poor person”? Does a poor person have acquaintances? There came a case before Rebbi Immi: A Cohen or Levite who owed money to an Israel and told him, separate from my part for my account. He said to him, did we not state: “If somebody lent money to a Cohen, a Levite, or a poor person to separate on their account.” When the loan was given under these conditions. Therefore, not if it was not a condition of the loan! Rebbi Ze‘ira said, even if it was not a condition of the loan. Rebbi Ze‘ira’s force is from the following: “Similarly, a Levite who owed money to an Israel and said to him, separate on my account; only he should not collect and separate because no Levite makes a Levite.” He only said, he should not separate, but from his own he may separate.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody lent money to a Cohen,” etc. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: This follows Rebbi Yose; as we have stated there: “Rebbi Yose says, anything whose replacement is in the Cohen’s hand is freed from the gifts, but Rebbi Meїr obligates.” Did Rebbi Yose not speak only if it did exist? But here, he still needs to sow! Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The Mishnah speaks of acquaintances of Cohanim or Levites. But did we not state “a poor person”? Does a poor person have acquaintances? There came a case before Rebbi Immi: A Cohen or Levite who owed money to an Israel and told him, separate from my part for my account. He said to him, did we not state: “If somebody lent money to a Cohen, a Levite, or a poor person to separate on their account.” When the loan was given under these conditions. Therefore, not if it was not a condition of the loan! Rebbi Ze‘ira said, even if it was not a condition of the loan. Rebbi Ze‘ira’s force is from the following: “Similarly, a Levite who owed money to an Israel and said to him, separate on my account; only he should not collect and separate because no Levite makes a Levite.” He only said, he should not separate, but from his own he may separate.

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

HALAKHAH: “Silver acquires gold,” etc. This is a summary of the matter: Anything worth less that the other acquires the other. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ashi said, who stated this? Rebbi Simeon ben Rebbi. His father told him, change your opinion and state the following: “Gold acquires silver.” He told him, I do not change my opinion since when your faculties were unimpaired, you instructed me to state: “Silver acquires gold.” The word of Rebbi implies that gold is like produce. The Mishnah implies that silver is like produce. [Rebbi Ḥiyya’s baraita implies that gold is like produce, but his word implies that silver is like produce, as in the following:] The elder Rebbi Ḥiyya’s daughter lent denars to Rav. She came and asked her father, who told her: Take from him good and full weight denars. Do we learn from Rebbi Ḥiyya’s daughter? Rebbi Idi said, also Abba, Samuel’s father, asked before Rebbi: May one lend denars against denars? He answered him, it is permitted. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, also Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both instruct: It is permitted to lend denars against denars. Qerat against qerat is permitted, lekan against lekan is forbidden.

“What is increase?” It was stated: A Jew who lent to another Jew with interest can collect neither principal nor interest, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, he may collect the capital but not the interest. It is written: “Your money you shall not give him by biting.” Not only money by biting and food by increase. From where increase in money and biting in food? The verse says, “do not take from him biting and increase,” it brackets biting with increase and increase with biting. Since biting refers to money, increase also refers to money; since increase refers to food, biting also refers to food.

“A creditor.” A person lent money to another, who let him live in his house, then said, give me the rent for my house. The first one said, give me my money. The case came before Rebbi Abba bar Mina, who told him to give what was a reasonable rent.

MISHNAH: One may increase rental fees but not sale price. How is this? He leased a courtyard saying to him, if [you pay] now it is yours for ten tetradrachmas a year but if paid monthly it is a tetradrachma per month; this is permitted. He sold his field and said to him, if [you pay] now it is yours for 1’000 zuz, but if after the threshing floor it is twelve mina; this is forbidden. If one sold his field, [the buyer] made a partial payment and [the seller] said, anytime you wish bring the remainder and take yours; this is forbidden. If one lent money on a field and said, if you do not repay me in three years from now, it will be mine, it is his; Boethos ben Zenon acted thus following the Sages.

HALAKHAH: “One does not hire a shop clerk,” etc. A person lent another one denars. He said to him, take two denars as your wages and what they will bring shall be mine and yours.

MISHNAH: One does not contract for produce until a rate was established. If he was the first to harvest, he may contract for the stack of sheaves, or the vat of grapes, or the barrel of olives, or for potter’s clay and lime when it was loaded in his oven. One may contract for manure the entire year; Rebbi Yose says, one may not contract for manure unless he has manure on his dungheap, but the Sages permit it. One contracts for wholesale price; Rebbi Jehudah says, even if one did not contract for wholesale price he may say to him, give me some like that or return my money. A person may lend to his sharecroppers wheat for wheat as seed grain but not as food; but Rebban Gamliel lent his sharecroppers wheat grain; if at high price and the rate went down or at low price and the rate went up, he took from them at the low rate, not because this is practice but because he wanted to be strict with himself.

MISHNAH: All artisans are paid trustees, but in any case where he said, take what is yours and bring money, he becomes an unpaid trustee. Watch over what is mine and I shall watch over what is yours, paid trustee. Watch over what is mine, and he said, put it down before you, an unpaid trustee. He who gives a loan on a pledge is a paid trustee; Rebbi Jehudah said, if he lent money, he is an unpaid trustee, if produce, a paid trustee. Abba Shaul said, a person is authorized to rent out a poor person’s pledge to continuously slice off [from the loan] because he is like a person who returns lost property.

HALAKHAH: It was stated: ‘Lend me your cow for ten days and you shall be lent to me the first five days.’ If it died, was it subject to the first days’ servitude? It died subject to the later days’ servitude. ‘Lend me your cow for ten days and you shall be lent to me the first of these.’ If it died during the later days, was it subject to the first days’ servitude? it died subject to the later days’ servitude. ‘Lend me your cow after ten days.’ The other one said, ‘take it now.’ If it died, was it subject to the first days’ servitude? It died subject to the later days’ servitude.

HALAKHAH: It was stated: ‘Lend me your cow for ten days and you shall be lent to me the first five days.’ If it died, was it subject to the first days’ servitude? It died subject to the later days’ servitude. ‘Lend me your cow for ten days and you shall be lent to me the first of these.’ If it died during the later days, was it subject to the first days’ servitude? it died subject to the later days’ servitude. ‘Lend me your cow after ten days.’ The other one said, ‘take it now.’ If it died, was it subject to the first days’ servitude? It died subject to the later days’ servitude.

MISHNAH: Somebody who lent to another by a document collects from encumbered property, by witnesses collects from free property. If he presents a note in his own handwriting that he owes him, he collects from free property. From a guarantor who endorsed after the signature of the witnesses, one collects from free property. This case came before Rebbi Ismael who said, he collects from free property. Ben Nannas said to him, he collects neither from encumbered nor from free property. He asked, why? He answered, if one would strangle another in the market place and a third person would say, let him go, I shall pay you, he is not liable since the loan was not made on his faith. Who is the guarantor who is liable? If he told him, “lend to him and I shall pay you,” he is liable because the loan was extended on his faith. Rebbi Ismael said, anybody who wants to train to become wise should study the laws of money matters since nothing greater is there in the Torah; they are like a flowing source, and anybody wanting to study the laws of money matters should serve Simeon ben Nannas.

HALAKHAH: “Somebody who lent to another by a document,” etc. Rav Huna said, predating is invalid but the document is valid. But did we not state: “A predated prozbol is valid, postdated it is invalid”? That means, Rav Huna, Rebbi Eleazar, and Rebbi Simeon ben Yaqim. Rav Huna, quoted here. “Rebbi Eleazar said, it is valid even if there are no signatures of witnesses on it if only he delivered it in the presence of witnesses; and she can use it to collect from encumbered property. For the witnesses sign on the bill of divorce only for the public good.” How? If about those who denied their testimony, the denied testimony is as if nonexistent, and the document should be valid? If about those who did not deny their testimony, did not Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish say, that they considered witnesses who signed a document as if their testimony had been cross-examined in court? What about it: As one formulates, “I, X ben Y, am taking a loan from you, Z, and U is guarantor.”

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Joḥanan said, the lender can be believed if he said, I lent to you up to the value of the pledge. The Mishnah says, also the borrower can be believed, as we have stated: “He told him, ‘I loaned you a tetradrachma and it was worth a šeqel,’ but the other one says ‘no, a tetradrachma you loaned me and it was worth a tetradrachma‘; he is not liable.” A person encountered another in the market and said, you owe me two denarii and your pledge is worth two denarii. He answered, I owe you one denar but my pledge is worth two denarii. The case came before the judges of Nahardea. They said, since everybody agrees that it is worth two denarii, he has to bring witnesses on the other [denar]. They had not heard that Rebbi Joḥanan said, the lender can be believed if he said, I lent to you up to the value of the pledge.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Joḥanan said, the lender can be believed if he said, I lent to you up to the value of the pledge. The Mishnah says, also the borrower can be believed, as we have stated: “He told him, ‘I loaned you a tetradrachma and it was worth a šeqel,’ but the other one says ‘no, a tetradrachma you loaned me and it was worth a tetradrachma‘; he is not liable.” A person encountered another in the market and said, you owe me two denarii and your pledge is worth two denarii. He answered, I owe you one denar but my pledge is worth two denarii. The case came before the judges of Nahardea. They said, since everybody agrees that it is worth two denarii, he has to bring witnesses on the other [denar]. They had not heard that Rebbi Joḥanan said, the lender can be believed if he said, I lent to you up to the value of the pledge.

An epidemic once broke out in Sura, but in the neighborhood of Rab's residence the epidemic did not appear. The people thought that this was due to Rab's merits, but in a dream they were told that the miracle was too slight to be attributed to Rab's great merit and that it happened because of the merits of a man who willingly lent hoe and shovel to a cemetery (for the digging of graves).

Its bricks also may be exchanged or sold [for secular purposes], but they may not be lent out. This rule applies only to old ones, but in the case of new ones there is no objection.

as it has been taught: ‘If a man lent another a man a 100 zuz and the latter made a [conditional] sale to him of his field, if the seller takes the produce, this is permitted, but if the purchaser takes the produce, it is forbidden.