locks

All the days of the vow of his separation there shall no razor come upon his head: until the days be fulfilled, in the which he separateth himself unto the LORD, he shall be holy, and shall let the locks of the hair of his head grow.

And Delilah said unto Samson, Hitherto thou hast mocked me, and told me lies: tell me wherewith thou mightest be bound. And he said unto her, If thou weavest the seven locks of my head with the web.

And she made him sleep upon her knees; and she called for a man, and she caused him to shave off the seven locks of his head; and she began to afflict him, and his strength went from him.

But the fish gate did the sons of Hassenaah build, who also laid the beams thereof, and set up the doors thereof, the locks thereof, and the bars thereof.

Moreover the old gate repaired Jehoiada the son of Paseah, and Meshullam the son of Besodeiah; they laid the beams thereof, and set up the doors thereof, and the locks thereof, and the bars thereof.

The valley gate repaired Hanun, and the inhabitants of Zanoah; they built it, and set up the doors thereof, the locks thereof, and the bars thereof, and a thousand cubits on the wall unto the dung gate.

But the dung gate repaired Malchiah the son of Rechab, the ruler of part of Bethhaccerem; he built it, and set up the doors thereof, the locks thereof, and the bars thereof.

But the gate of the fountain repaired Shallun the son of Colhozeh, the ruler of part of Mizpah; he built it, and covered it, and set up the doors thereof, the locks thereof, and the bars thereof, and the wall of the pool of Siloah by the king’s garden, and unto the stairs that go down from the city of David.

Behold, thou art fair, my love; behold, thou art fair; thou hast doves’ eyes within thy locks: thy hair is as a flock of goats, that appear from mount Gilead.

Thy lips are like a thread of scarlet, and thy speech is comely: thy temples are like a piece of a pomegranate within thy locks.

I sleep, but my heart waketh: it is the voice of my beloved that knocketh, saying, Open to me, my sister, my love, my dove, my undefiled: for my head is filled with dew, and my locks with the drops of the night.

His head is as the most fine gold, his locks are bushy, and black as a raven.

As a piece of a pomegranate are thy temples within thy locks.

Take the millstones, and grind meal: uncover thy locks, make bare the leg, uncover the thigh, pass over the rivers.

Neither shall they shave their heads, nor suffer their locks to grow long; they shall only poll their heads.

And as the doors are made sure on every side upon him that offendeth the king, as being committed to suffer death: even so the priests make fast their temples with doors, with locks, and bars, lest their gods be spoiled with robbers.

And his body was white as snow and red as the blooming of a rose, and the hair of his head and his long locks were white as wool, and his eyes beautiful. And when he opened his eyes, he lighted up the whole house like the sun, and the whole house was very bright.

And Hestia and Dione of fair locks

And after these things his wife was importunate unto him, saying unto him: Show me thy strength, and wherein is thy might. So shall I know that thou lovest me. And when Samson had deceived her three times, and she continued importunate unto him every day, the fourth time he showed her his heart. But she made him drunk, and when he slumbered she called a barber, and he shaved the seven locks of his head, and his might departed from him, for so had himself revealed unto her. And she called the Philistines, and they smote Samson, and blinded him, and put him in prison.

From the ears it proceedeth about the circumference of the open space; the white locks ascend and descend. Into thirteen portions it is distributed in adornment. (Of all these see the explanation in the “Idra Rabba” and “Idra Zuta.”)

Among those locks which hang down, none shineth forth above another.

When it is balanced in the pure equilibrium (that is, when the white locks of the most holy Ancient One send down the lights or names) then are those letters equilibrated. (That is, from their virtue cometh the light.)

The black (locks issuing) from the four (sides of the head) float down over the curved openings of the ears, so that he may not hear.

And in single curls are four hundred and ten locks of hair, according unto the number of the word, QDVSh, Qadosch, Holy.

“The first disposition. We have learned that the single locks and the single hairs do not mutually adhere unto each other; and that the hairs of the beard take their rise from the disposition of the hair (of the head).

“Nevertheless, thus is the tradition: It is written, Cant. v. 11: ‘His locks are bushy and black as a raven.’

“And the beginning of the first disposition consists of thirty and one equal locks, extended even unto the beginning of the mouth.

“Those thirty and one equal locks, which exist in the first disposition (of the beard) are strong, in order that they may dispose the inferiors according to the number of AL, El.

“And among those single locks are distributed one and thirty dominating worlds, so that they may be extended (correctly) neither on this side nor on that.

“Who can comprehend the mystery of those locks of hair which hang down from Him, the Ancient One?

But thus have we read in the “Book of Concealed Mystery” that this venerable holy tress of hair, wherein all the locks of the beard hang down, is called the Influx. Wherefore? Because that all the holinesses of the holinesses of all holinesses depend from that Influx.

WE have learned that from the skull of His head (i.e., of Microprosopus) hang one thousand times a thousand myriad myriads of locks of black hair, and they are intertwined together each to the other, and they are mingled together.

But there is no classification made of the locks of hair separately, because pure and impure alike adhere to each other therein, and here (the description above given) mentions both pure and impure together.

In all those sides which are pure, and in all those which are impure, there are intricate and dense locks of hair, some of which are soft, some hard.

And in single locks doth the hair hang down, curls upon curls, which emit flames, and hang down in beautiful and strong array, like those of a brave hero victorious in war.

The curling locks are parted on this side and on that above the head.

From the second cavity there go forth fifty fountains, and from those fountains the hair issueth, and it becometh curls upon curls, and they are mingled with the other locks.

From the third cavity there go forth a thousand times a thousand conclaves and assemblies, and from them all the hair issueth; and it becometh curls upon curls, and they are mingled with the other locks.

And therefore are those locks so curling, and all the progeny of them is produced from the three cavities of the brain of the skull.

We have learned that in the single locks a thousand times a thousand utterances of the speech of Tetragrammaton are found, which depend from the single locks.

We have learned that in the single locks a thousand times a thousand utterances of the speech of Tetragrammaton are found, which depend from the single locks.

The first conformation. The hair is conformed from the portion which is above, and there goeth forth therefrom a spark which is of most intense brilliance; and it goeth forth from the Absolute of the pure ether, and passeth beneath the hair of the head, even beneath those locks which are above the ears; and it descendeth in front of the opening of the ears, hair above hair, even unto the beginning of the mouth.

“IN the first conformation the hair is disposed from above, and goeth forth before the opening of the ears, beneath the locks which hang down over the ears; and the hairs descend, hairs above hairs, even unto the beginning of the mouth.

“This have we learned. All those hairs which are in the beard are harder than all the hairs of the locks of the hair of the head. But the hair of the head is longer and bendeth more easily, while these hairs (of the beard) are not so long.

“And whensoever the white locks of the Ancient of Days reach forward into Microprosopus, it is written that, Prov. i. 20: ‘Wisdom crieth without.’

“This is that same which is written, Cant. v. 11: ‘His locks are bushy, ThLThLIM, Teltelim,’ as if it were ThLI ThLIM, curls heaped upon curls.

“Until they can make openings in the skull, and the fountains can flow down beneath the locks, those strong fountains flow forth in separate directions, and in separate ways.

“And because those locks are black and obscure, it is written, Job xii. 22: ‘He discovereth deep things out of darkness, and bringeth out to light the shadow of death.’

But all those hairs and all those locks depend from the Hidden Brain.

And all are calm (otherwise, are disposed) in the Equilibrium; neither in any manner is the neck seen (i.e., because of the locks which overshadow it).

From the skull of the Head (of Microprosopus) depend all those chiefs and leaders (otherwise, all those thousands and tens of thousands), and also from the locks of the hair.

Thencefrom, even from the light which surroundeth His Head (i.e., that of Microprosopus) from the Mother, Aima, and from the second Brain, proceed long locks upon locks (of hair).

Thencefrom, even from the light which surroundeth His Head (i.e., that of Microprosopus) from the Mother, Aima, and from the second Brain, proceed long locks upon locks (of hair).

And all adhere unto and are bound together with those locks which have their connection with the Father.

And because (these locks are) mutually intermingled with each other, and mutually intertwined with each other, hence all the Brains are connected with the Supernal Brain (of Macroprosopus).

Hence all these locks hang over and cover the sides of the ears, as we have elsewhere said.

And over these (locks of hair) are set all the Lords of Lamentation and Wailing; and they depend from the single locks.

And over these (locks of hair) are set all the Lords of Lamentation and Wailing; and they depend from the single locks.

And these all depend from the rigid locks; hence also these are entirely rigid, as we have before said.

In the softer (locks) adhere the Lords of Equilibrium, as it is written, Ps. xxv. 10: “All the paths of Tetragrammaton are ChSD, Chesed, and AMTh, Emeth, Mercy and Truth.”

From the one Brain the Lords of Equilibrium proceed through those softer locks, as it is written: Ps. xxv. 10: “All the paths of Tetragrammaton are Chesed and Emeth.”

From the second Brain the Lords of Lamentation and Wailing proceed through those rigid locks and depend (from them). Concerning whom it is written: Prov. iv. 19: “The path of the wicked is as darkness; they know not wherein they stumble.”

From the third Brain the Lords of Lords proceed through those locks arranged in the middle condition (i.e. partly hard and partly soft), and depend (therefrom); and they are called the Luminous and the Non-Luminous Countenances.

And all these are found in those locks of the hair of the Head.

Six there are; nine they are called. For the first conformation goeth forth through that Spark of the most refulgent Light-bearer, and goeth down beneath the hair of the head, assuredly beneath those locks which overhang the ears.

And those six which depend hang in the locks which are beneath the abodes of fragrance, three on this side and three on that.

And in the ornamentation of the beard hang the three remaining (conformations); one above the lips, and two in those locks which hang down upon the chest.

And all those six (other conformations), three on this side and three on that side, go forth, and all depend from those locks which hang down, and they are extended throughout the whole body.

But the whole ornament of the beard consisteth in those locks which hang down, because all things depend thencefrom.

MISHNAH: Which courtyard is obligated for tithes? Rebbi Ismael says, a Tyrian courtyard in which vessels are guarded. Rebbi Aqiba says, one where one person opens and another one locks it, is free. Rebbi Neḥemiah says, [a courtyard] where one is not ashamed to eat is obligated. Rebbi Yose says, one into which anybody may enter and nobody asks, what are you doing here, is free. Rebbi Jehudah says, if one courtyard is inside another, the inner one is obligated, the outer one is free. Roofs are exempt even if they are in an obligated courtyard. A porter’s lodge, a covered walkway, and a gallery are like the courtyard: obligated if the latter is obligated and free if the latter is free. Sheds, watchtowers, and summer shelters are free. Genezareth huts even though they contain a hand mill or chickens are free. Potter’s huts, the inner one is obligated, the outer one free. Rebbi Yose says, any which is not a dwelling in summer and winter is free. A holiday hut on the holiday Rebbi Jehudah obligates but the Sages free.

They heard before Rebbi Joḥanan that he said to them, practice follows all of them restrictively. Why do they not say it in his name? That not a word of Rebbi Joḥanan should disagree with another word of his. It was stated: “Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar said in the name of Rebbi Aqiba, one where one person opens and another one locks it is free; two partners but not two tenants.” What is the difference between a partner and a tenant? Just as a partner may object so a tenant may object! Rebbi Jonah said, the Mishnah refers to a landlord and his tenant. The landlord may object to the tenant, the tenant may not object to the landlord. About that they heard before Rebbi Joḥanan, practice follows Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Aqiba. Rebbi Jonah said, Zeïra and Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Practice follows Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Aqiba. Rebbi Immi said, the house of Rebbi Yannai instructed that practice follows Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Aqiba.

MISHNAH: If one sat in the door opening but did not fill it and a second person came and filled it, the second is liable. If the first one sat in the door and filled it when the second came and sat next to him, even though the first one got up and left, the first is liable and the second not liable. To what can this be compared? To one who locks his house in order to watch it and it turns out that a deer is kept inside.

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

Ḥanania the son of Rebbi Joshua’s brother says, the House of Shammai say, a door on each side. When he enters he closes and locks. But the House of Hillel say, a door on one side and a door frame on the other side. Samuel said, practice follows Ḥanania the son of Rebbi Joshua’s brother. Is that not the same as the earlier statement? Rebbi Abba said, if there is a door it can be locked. Rebbi Aḥa instructed one who made a door frame that he had to make it inside of four cubits. Rebbi Aybun instructed in this sense.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥinena in the name of Cahana: Practice does not follow Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Abba bar Pappai asked: How did Rebbi Meïr treat the wall, as hollowed out or as pierced? If you say as hollowed out, even higher than ten [hand-breadths] it should be permitted. If you say as pierced, even below ten [hand-breadths] it should be prohibited. “ The door of garden plots which have a gatekeeper’s lodge, from the inside he opens and locks from the inside; from the outside he opens and locks from the outside; from both sides he opens and locks from both sides; from neither side he takes the key, opens and locks, and returns it to its place. When has this been said? If the lock is higher than ten hand-breadths. But if the lock is lower than ten hand-breadths he takes the key from the threshold, opens and locks, and returns it to its place, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages are saying, even if the lock is higher than ten hand-breadths he brings the key on Friday, opens, enters, and moves it inside the house, locks, and puts it into a hole above the lintel. If the hole was four hand-breadths wide it is forbidden, for one does not use one domain from another domain through a third domain.” This implies that Rebbi Jehudah treats it as hollowed out. One understands that from the inside it needs a gatekeeper’s lodge. Why does it need a gatekeper’s lodge from the outside? Does it not turn out that two domains use one domain?

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥinena in the name of Cahana: Practice does not follow Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Abba bar Pappai asked: How did Rebbi Meïr treat the wall, as hollowed out or as pierced? If you say as hollowed out, even higher than ten [hand-breadths] it should be permitted. If you say as pierced, even below ten [hand-breadths] it should be prohibited. “ The door of garden plots which have a gatekeeper’s lodge, from the inside he opens and locks from the inside; from the outside he opens and locks from the outside; from both sides he opens and locks from both sides; from neither side he takes the key, opens and locks, and returns it to its place. When has this been said? If the lock is higher than ten hand-breadths. But if the lock is lower than ten hand-breadths he takes the key from the threshold, opens and locks, and returns it to its place, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages are saying, even if the lock is higher than ten hand-breadths he brings the key on Friday, opens, enters, and moves it inside the house, locks, and puts it into a hole above the lintel. If the hole was four hand-breadths wide it is forbidden, for one does not use one domain from another domain through a third domain.” This implies that Rebbi Jehudah treats it as hollowed out. One understands that from the inside it needs a gatekeeper’s lodge. Why does it need a gatekeper’s lodge from the outside? Does it not turn out that two domains use one domain?

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥinena in the name of Cahana: Practice does not follow Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Abba bar Pappai asked: How did Rebbi Meïr treat the wall, as hollowed out or as pierced? If you say as hollowed out, even higher than ten [hand-breadths] it should be permitted. If you say as pierced, even below ten [hand-breadths] it should be prohibited. “ The door of garden plots which have a gatekeeper’s lodge, from the inside he opens and locks from the inside; from the outside he opens and locks from the outside; from both sides he opens and locks from both sides; from neither side he takes the key, opens and locks, and returns it to its place. When has this been said? If the lock is higher than ten hand-breadths. But if the lock is lower than ten hand-breadths he takes the key from the threshold, opens and locks, and returns it to its place, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages are saying, even if the lock is higher than ten hand-breadths he brings the key on Friday, opens, enters, and moves it inside the house, locks, and puts it into a hole above the lintel. If the hole was four hand-breadths wide it is forbidden, for one does not use one domain from another domain through a third domain.” This implies that Rebbi Jehudah treats it as hollowed out. One understands that from the inside it needs a gatekeeper’s lodge. Why does it need a gatekeper’s lodge from the outside? Does it not turn out that two domains use one domain?

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥinena in the name of Cahana: Practice does not follow Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Abba bar Pappai asked: How did Rebbi Meïr treat the wall, as hollowed out or as pierced? If you say as hollowed out, even higher than ten [hand-breadths] it should be permitted. If you say as pierced, even below ten [hand-breadths] it should be prohibited. “ The door of garden plots which have a gatekeeper’s lodge, from the inside he opens and locks from the inside; from the outside he opens and locks from the outside; from both sides he opens and locks from both sides; from neither side he takes the key, opens and locks, and returns it to its place. When has this been said? If the lock is higher than ten hand-breadths. But if the lock is lower than ten hand-breadths he takes the key from the threshold, opens and locks, and returns it to its place, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages are saying, even if the lock is higher than ten hand-breadths he brings the key on Friday, opens, enters, and moves it inside the house, locks, and puts it into a hole above the lintel. If the hole was four hand-breadths wide it is forbidden, for one does not use one domain from another domain through a third domain.” This implies that Rebbi Jehudah treats it as hollowed out. One understands that from the inside it needs a gatekeeper’s lodge. Why does it need a gatekeper’s lodge from the outside? Does it not turn out that two domains use one domain?

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥinena in the name of Cahana: Practice does not follow Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Abba bar Pappai asked: How did Rebbi Meïr treat the wall, as hollowed out or as pierced? If you say as hollowed out, even higher than ten [hand-breadths] it should be permitted. If you say as pierced, even below ten [hand-breadths] it should be prohibited. “ The door of garden plots which have a gatekeeper’s lodge, from the inside he opens and locks from the inside; from the outside he opens and locks from the outside; from both sides he opens and locks from both sides; from neither side he takes the key, opens and locks, and returns it to its place. When has this been said? If the lock is higher than ten hand-breadths. But if the lock is lower than ten hand-breadths he takes the key from the threshold, opens and locks, and returns it to its place, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages are saying, even if the lock is higher than ten hand-breadths he brings the key on Friday, opens, enters, and moves it inside the house, locks, and puts it into a hole above the lintel. If the hole was four hand-breadths wide it is forbidden, for one does not use one domain from another domain through a third domain.” This implies that Rebbi Jehudah treats it as hollowed out. One understands that from the inside it needs a gatekeeper’s lodge. Why does it need a gatekeper’s lodge from the outside? Does it not turn out that two domains use one domain?

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥinena in the name of Cahana: Practice does not follow Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Abba bar Pappai asked: How did Rebbi Meïr treat the wall, as hollowed out or as pierced? If you say as hollowed out, even higher than ten [hand-breadths] it should be permitted. If you say as pierced, even below ten [hand-breadths] it should be prohibited. “ The door of garden plots which have a gatekeeper’s lodge, from the inside he opens and locks from the inside; from the outside he opens and locks from the outside; from both sides he opens and locks from both sides; from neither side he takes the key, opens and locks, and returns it to its place. When has this been said? If the lock is higher than ten hand-breadths. But if the lock is lower than ten hand-breadths he takes the key from the threshold, opens and locks, and returns it to its place, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages are saying, even if the lock is higher than ten hand-breadths he brings the key on Friday, opens, enters, and moves it inside the house, locks, and puts it into a hole above the lintel. If the hole was four hand-breadths wide it is forbidden, for one does not use one domain from another domain through a third domain.” This implies that Rebbi Jehudah treats it as hollowed out. One understands that from the inside it needs a gatekeeper’s lodge. Why does it need a gatekeper’s lodge from the outside? Does it not turn out that two domains use one domain?

MISHNAH: If a bolt is topped by a lock, Rebbi Eleazar forbids and Rebbi Yose permits. Rebbi Eleazar said, it happened at the synagogue of Tiberias that they used to permit it until Rabban Gamliel and the Elders came and forbade it to them. Rebbi Yose says, they used to consider it forbidden when Rabban Gamliel and the Elders came and permitted it to them. With a dragged bolt one locks at the Temple but not in the countryside, but the one left alone is forbidden here and there. Rebbi Jehudah says, the one left alone in the Temple and the dragged one in the countryside.

Did sheqalim therefore become holy? Rebbi Simeon ben Jehudah in the name of Rebbi Simeon: Both these and those did not become holy. It was stated: A proselyte today has to bring for his nest a quarter of a silver {denar}. Rebbi Simeon said, Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai already disestablished this because of the mishap. What is “because of the mishap”? As was stated, today one does neither dedicate as sacrifice, nor dedicate one’s value, nor dedicate as ḥerem, nor does one collect [heave and tithes]. If somebody dedicates as sacrifice, or dedicated one’s value, or dedicated as ḥerem, or collected, cloth must be burned, an animal castrated. [How? One locks it in and it dies by itself.] Monies shall go to the Dead Sea. If he transgressed and dedicated, since Rebbi Simeon said, Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai already disestablished this because of the mishap, this implies if he transgressed and dedicated, it became sanctified. Rebbi Yudan from Antodria asked before Rebbi Yose: here you are saying it became sanctified, and there you are saying, it did not become sanctified. He said to him, there [because of the following one may not dedicate from the start because it is an obligation to bring from the new contribution, and this would be from the old one. Here, what can you say? That one is old. But in respect to other dedications, the proselyte’s nest does not have to be from new money; if he dedicated it is holy;] maybe the Temple will be built like earlier and the heave of the lodge will be lifted on time on the first of Nisan. But here, what do you have? Rav Ada and Rav Hamnuna, Rav Ada bar Aḥawa in the name of Rav: Practice follows Rebbi Simeon.

MISHNAH: If these passed without rainfall the Court decrees seven supplementary public fast-days for a total of thirteen. Additional to the prior ones on these one blows horns and locks the stores. On Mondays one relaxes at nightfall; on Thursdays they are permitted because of the honor of the Sabbath.

“On Mondays one relaxes at nightfall,” he opens one wing and locks the other. “On Thursdays they are permitted.” How? He opens one wing and locks the other, or he opens both?

“On Mondays one relaxes at nightfall,” he opens one wing and locks the other. “On Thursdays they are permitted.” How? He opens one wing and locks the other, or he opens both?

[“The dedicated ones”]. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, because of: “At that moment Joshua dedicated them as hewers of wood and drawers of water for the congregation.” One understands “for the congregation.” But “for the Eternal’s altar”? But Joshua kept them in limbo. He said, I shall not include nor exclude them. But he who sometime in the future will build the Temple, if he wants to include them he may include, exclude them he may exclude. David came and excluded them as it is said: “But the Gibeonites are not part of the Children of Israel.” Why did he exclude them? Because “ there was a famine in David’s time, three years year after year.” David said, for four sins the rains are locked away. For the sins of foreign worship, incest and adultery, murder, and the sins of those who publicly promise money for welfare but do not pay. From where for the sin of foreign worship? “ Beware, lest you be seduced” etc. What is written afterwards? “The Eternal’s rage will be inflamed against you and he locks the sky, etc.” From where for the sins of the incestuous and adulterers? “ You distorted the Land by your immorality and your evil deeds.” What is the punishment? “Rainshowers were withheld, there was no late rain,” etc. From where because of the murderers? “ Because blood will distort the Land.” From where for the sins of those who publicly promise money for welfare but do not pay? “ Clouds and wind but no rain means the man who prides himself by lying gifts.” David checked his entire generation and did not find one of these. He turned to ask the urim and tummim. That is what is written: “ David asked before the Eternal” by urim and tummim. Rebbi Eleazar said, “Ask the Eternal, all the meek of the Land, who execute His Law.” What means “Whose Law is Work”? He enforces His Law and this is His Action. “ The Eternal said, because of Saul and the House of blood guilt.” “Because of Saul,” whom you did not grant the last favor, “and because of the House of blood guilt, for he had killed the Gibeonites.” David sent and called them, what is between you and the house of Saul? They told him, because he killed seven of our men, two hewers of wood, two drawers of water, a religious leader, a scribe, and a beadle. He asked them, what do you want now? They said to him: “ May there be given to us seven men of his sons and we shall hang them before the Eternal on the hill of Saul, the elected of the Eternal.” He said to them, what use is it for you that they be killed? Take silver and gold for yourselves! But they answered, “there is no money for us from Saul and his house.” He said, maybe they are afraid; he separated them and spoke to each one separately, trying to mollify him by himself, and asked him: What use is it for you that they be killed? Take gold and silver! But he said, “there is no money for us from Saul and his house.” It is written “for me”. At this moment, David said that the Holy One gave three good gifts to Israel: They are merciful, decent, and charitable. From where that they are merciful? “He gave you mercy.” From where that they are decent? “That His fear should be on your faces.” This is a sign, for a decent person does not sin. About anybody indecent it is clear that his ancestors did not stand on Mount Sinai. From where that they are charitable? “The Eternal, your God, kept for you covenant and charity.” But these, nothing of this in found in them. Immediately he went to exclude them as it is said: “But the Gibeonites are not of the Children of Israel.” And Ezra also excluded them, as it is said: “And the dedicated ones dwelt in the Ophel.” Also in the future the Holy One, praise to Him, will exclude them as it is written: “One crossing the city they cause to be lost.”

HALAKHAH: “One who comes to marry a woman from a priestly family,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, this is Rebbi Meïr’s, as we have stated: “What is qualified dough? Anyone about whom there is [no suspicion of descent from] a desecrated one, a bastard, or a Gibeonite. Rebbi Meïr says, the daughter of any woman not tainted with any of these is qualified for the priesthood. But about a family in which a disability had disappeared, Rebbi Meïr says he checks up to four mothers and marries, but the Sages say, he checks forever.” Rav said, these are the words of Rebbi Meïr, but the Sages say, he checks from which family one marries into the priesthood and marries. Through whom does he check? Rebbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rebbi Josia: He checks through his female relatives. To Rebbi Ḥama came an old man; he asked him: Does one marry into the priesthood from this family? He answered: yes, and he was making a match based on this information. Rav said to his son Ḥiyya: Descend a degree to marry a wife. Rebbi Idi said, the following is a frequent saying of the rabbis: “If the woman was not impure but she is pure.” If she was not impure, she is pure. Not like Pappos ben Jehudah who locks the door before his wife. One said to him, did your forefathers act like this? A Cohen came to Rebbi Joḥanan and said to him: I acted on the Mishnah when I married a woman from a priestly family and checked after her four mothers which are eight. He said to him, if the origin was defective, who would inform you?

MISHNAH: He who brings a flock into a corral and locks them in as he should, but they managed to get out and caused damage, is liable. If they broke out in the night or robbers broke in and they managed to get out and caused damage, he is not liable. If robbers let them out, the robbers are liable.

MISHNAH: If somebody deposits coins with another person who binds them together and carries them on his back or gives them to his underage son or daughter, or locks them insufficiently, he is liable because he did not take care the way people take care. But if he took care the way people take care, he is not liable.

It is written: At that moment Joshua dedicated them as hewers of wood and drawers of water for the congregation. One understands “for the congregation.” But “for the Eternal’s altar”? But Joshua kept them in limbo. He said, I shall [neither] exclude nor include them. But he who sometime in the future will build the Temple, if he wants to include he may include, if he wants to exclude he may exclude. David came and excluded them as it is said: But the Gibeonites are not part of the Children of Israel. Why did he exclude them? Because there was a famine in David’s time, three years year after year. David said, for three sins the rains are locked away: Foreign worship, incest and adultery, and murder. Foreign worship, as it is written: Beware, lest you be seduced and next to it, He locks the sky up. Incest and adultery, as it is written Rain-showers were withheld, there was no late rain, for you had the forehead of a whoring woman. Murder, as it is written: Because blood will distort the Land. Some say, also those who publicly promise money for welfare but do not pay, as it is written: Clouds and wind but no rain means the man who boasts with lying gifts. David checked on all his ways and did not find any of them. He turned to ask the Urim and Tummim. That is what is written: David asked before the Eternal. Rebbi Eleazar said, it is written: Ask the Eternal, all the meek of the Land, who execute His Law, etc. The Eternal said, because of Saul and the House of blood-guilt, for he had killed the Gibeonites. Because of Saul, whom you did not grant the last favor, and because of the House of blood-guilt, for he had killed the Gibeonites. David sent and called them. He asked them, what is between you and the House of Saul? They told him, because he killed seven of our men, two hewers of wood, two drawers of water, a scribe, a religious leader, and a beadle. He asked them, what do you want now? They said to him, May there be given to us seven men … and we shall hang them before the Eternal in Gibeon. He said to them, what use is it to you that they be killed? Take silver and gold for yourselves! But they answered, there is no silver or gold for us from Saul and his house. He said, maybe they are afraid one of the other; he dealt which each of them separately, trying to mollify him by himself, but nobody accepted it. That is what is written, there is no silver or gold for us, it is written for me. At this moment, David said that the Holy One gave three good gifts to Israel: They are decent, merciful, and charitable. Decent, for it is written: that His fear be on your faces. Merciful, for it is written: He gave you mercy, had mercy on you and increased you. Charitable, for it is written: The Eternal, your God, kept for you covenant and charity. But these, nothing of this is found in them; he excluded them: But the Gibeonites are not of the Children of Israel. And Ezra also excluded them, as it is said: And the dedicated ones dwelt in the Ophel; Ziha and Gishpa were of the dedicated ones. Also in the future, the Holy One, praise to Him, will exclude them as it is written: The city worker will cultivate it, from all tribes of Israel. He will eliminate them from all tribes of Israel.

MISHNAH: The day of the first shaving of his beard and his locks, the day he arrived from a trip at sea, the day he was freed from jail, or a Gentile wedding feast for his son, are forbidden only on the day itself and for this man.

“If both of them stand in [a house of] ill repute, the man precedes the woman.” Why? For a woman it is natural, for a man it is not natural. It happened that Rebbi Joshua went to Rome. They informed him about a child from Jerusalem who was reddish with beautiful eyes, good to look at, and his locks ordered in curls, standing in [a house of] ill repute. Rebbi Joshua went to check him out. When he came to the door, Rebbi Joshua started and said, who gave Jacob to be booty and Israel to plunderers, is that not the Eternal? The child answered him and told him, it is because we sinned against Him; they did not want to walk in His ways and did not listen to His teaching. Immediately his eyes were flowing with tears and he said, I take as my witnesses heaven and earth that I shall not move from here until I buy his freedom. He bought his freedom for much money, sent him to the Land of Israel, and quoted for him this verse, the dear children of Zion etc.

Our Rabbis have taught: A king should have his hair trimmed every day, a high priest every Friday, an ordinary priest once a month. A king everyday—what is the reason? Said R. 'Abba b. Zabda in the name of Rab, because it is written (Is., 33. 17): "Thine eyes shall see the king in his beauty." A high priest every Friday—what is the reason? Said R. Samuel b. R. Isaac, because new divisions of priests come in every Saturday. An ordinary priest once a month—what is the reason? This rule is derived from the occurrence of the word pera' (lock) both in connection with the Nazirite and the priest, for it is written in one place (Ez., 44. 20): "Neither shall they (the priests) shave their heads nor suffer their locks to grow long," and it is written in another place (Num., 6. 5): "He (the Nazirite) shall let the locks of the hair of his head grow long," which leads us to the analogy that just as there (in the instance of the Nazirite) the growing of the locks is meant for a period of thirty days, so also here (in the instance of the priests). But whence do you know it to be so in the case of the Nazirite himself? Scripture (ibid.) uses the word yihyeh (יהיה = he shall be), the numerical value of which is thirty. Said R. Papa to 'Abbayi: Is it not possible that the verse (in Ezekiel) means to say that they should not suffer their locks to grow at all? If it were written, Abbayi replied, "they shall not suffer locks to grow long," your interpretation might be correct, but since it is written, "the locks they shall not suffer to grow long", it indicates that they may have locks, but must not let them grow too long. If so, the law ought to apply also to the priests of the present time! No, the prohibition of growing the hair is analogous to that of drinking of wine, so that just as the latter applies only to the time when they enter the Temple for service, so also the former applies only to the time when they might enter the Temple, but when there is no Temple which they might enter, they may let the hair grow. But is it true that wine is permitted when there is no Temple to enter? Does not the following Baraita intimate the contrary? Rabbi says, I would say that a priest should never drink wine, but what can I do, seeing that his misfortune has turned out to be his benefit, whereupon 'Abbayi asked according to whose view the priests of our time drink wine

Our Rabbis have taught: A king should have his hair trimmed every day, a high priest every Friday, an ordinary priest once a month. A king everyday—what is the reason? Said R. 'Abba b. Zabda in the name of Rab, because it is written (Is., 33. 17): "Thine eyes shall see the king in his beauty." A high priest every Friday—what is the reason? Said R. Samuel b. R. Isaac, because new divisions of priests come in every Saturday. An ordinary priest once a month—what is the reason? This rule is derived from the occurrence of the word pera' (lock) both in connection with the Nazirite and the priest, for it is written in one place (Ez., 44. 20): "Neither shall they (the priests) shave their heads nor suffer their locks to grow long," and it is written in another place (Num., 6. 5): "He (the Nazirite) shall let the locks of the hair of his head grow long," which leads us to the analogy that just as there (in the instance of the Nazirite) the growing of the locks is meant for a period of thirty days, so also here (in the instance of the priests). But whence do you know it to be so in the case of the Nazirite himself? Scripture (ibid.) uses the word yihyeh (יהיה = he shall be), the numerical value of which is thirty. Said R. Papa to 'Abbayi: Is it not possible that the verse (in Ezekiel) means to say that they should not suffer their locks to grow at all? If it were written, Abbayi replied, "they shall not suffer locks to grow long," your interpretation might be correct, but since it is written, "the locks they shall not suffer to grow long", it indicates that they may have locks, but must not let them grow too long. If so, the law ought to apply also to the priests of the present time! No, the prohibition of growing the hair is analogous to that of drinking of wine, so that just as the latter applies only to the time when they enter the Temple for service, so also the former applies only to the time when they might enter the Temple, but when there is no Temple which they might enter, they may let the hair grow. But is it true that wine is permitted when there is no Temple to enter? Does not the following Baraita intimate the contrary? Rabbi says, I would say that a priest should never drink wine, but what can I do, seeing that his misfortune has turned out to be his benefit, whereupon 'Abbayi asked according to whose view the priests of our time drink wine

Our Rabbis have taught: A king should have his hair trimmed every day, a high priest every Friday, an ordinary priest once a month. A king everyday—what is the reason? Said R. 'Abba b. Zabda in the name of Rab, because it is written (Is., 33. 17): "Thine eyes shall see the king in his beauty." A high priest every Friday—what is the reason? Said R. Samuel b. R. Isaac, because new divisions of priests come in every Saturday. An ordinary priest once a month—what is the reason? This rule is derived from the occurrence of the word pera' (lock) both in connection with the Nazirite and the priest, for it is written in one place (Ez., 44. 20): "Neither shall they (the priests) shave their heads nor suffer their locks to grow long," and it is written in another place (Num., 6. 5): "He (the Nazirite) shall let the locks of the hair of his head grow long," which leads us to the analogy that just as there (in the instance of the Nazirite) the growing of the locks is meant for a period of thirty days, so also here (in the instance of the priests). But whence do you know it to be so in the case of the Nazirite himself? Scripture (ibid.) uses the word yihyeh (יהיה = he shall be), the numerical value of which is thirty. Said R. Papa to 'Abbayi: Is it not possible that the verse (in Ezekiel) means to say that they should not suffer their locks to grow at all? If it were written, Abbayi replied, "they shall not suffer locks to grow long," your interpretation might be correct, but since it is written, "the locks they shall not suffer to grow long", it indicates that they may have locks, but must not let them grow too long. If so, the law ought to apply also to the priests of the present time! No, the prohibition of growing the hair is analogous to that of drinking of wine, so that just as the latter applies only to the time when they enter the Temple for service, so also the former applies only to the time when they might enter the Temple, but when there is no Temple which they might enter, they may let the hair grow. But is it true that wine is permitted when there is no Temple to enter? Does not the following Baraita intimate the contrary? Rabbi says, I would say that a priest should never drink wine, but what can I do, seeing that his misfortune has turned out to be his benefit, whereupon 'Abbayi asked according to whose view the priests of our time drink wine

Our Rabbis have taught: A king should have his hair trimmed every day, a high priest every Friday, an ordinary priest once a month. A king everyday—what is the reason? Said R. 'Abba b. Zabda in the name of Rab, because it is written (Is., 33. 17): "Thine eyes shall see the king in his beauty." A high priest every Friday—what is the reason? Said R. Samuel b. R. Isaac, because new divisions of priests come in every Saturday. An ordinary priest once a month—what is the reason? This rule is derived from the occurrence of the word pera' (lock) both in connection with the Nazirite and the priest, for it is written in one place (Ez., 44. 20): "Neither shall they (the priests) shave their heads nor suffer their locks to grow long," and it is written in another place (Num., 6. 5): "He (the Nazirite) shall let the locks of the hair of his head grow long," which leads us to the analogy that just as there (in the instance of the Nazirite) the growing of the locks is meant for a period of thirty days, so also here (in the instance of the priests). But whence do you know it to be so in the case of the Nazirite himself? Scripture (ibid.) uses the word yihyeh (יהיה = he shall be), the numerical value of which is thirty. Said R. Papa to 'Abbayi: Is it not possible that the verse (in Ezekiel) means to say that they should not suffer their locks to grow at all? If it were written, Abbayi replied, "they shall not suffer locks to grow long," your interpretation might be correct, but since it is written, "the locks they shall not suffer to grow long", it indicates that they may have locks, but must not let them grow too long. If so, the law ought to apply also to the priests of the present time! No, the prohibition of growing the hair is analogous to that of drinking of wine, so that just as the latter applies only to the time when they enter the Temple for service, so also the former applies only to the time when they might enter the Temple, but when there is no Temple which they might enter, they may let the hair grow. But is it true that wine is permitted when there is no Temple to enter? Does not the following Baraita intimate the contrary? Rabbi says, I would say that a priest should never drink wine, but what can I do, seeing that his misfortune has turned out to be his benefit, whereupon 'Abbayi asked according to whose view the priests of our time drink wine

Our Rabbis have taught: A king should have his hair trimmed every day, a high priest every Friday, an ordinary priest once a month. A king everyday—what is the reason? Said R. 'Abba b. Zabda in the name of Rab, because it is written (Is., 33. 17): "Thine eyes shall see the king in his beauty." A high priest every Friday—what is the reason? Said R. Samuel b. R. Isaac, because new divisions of priests come in every Saturday. An ordinary priest once a month—what is the reason? This rule is derived from the occurrence of the word pera' (lock) both in connection with the Nazirite and the priest, for it is written in one place (Ez., 44. 20): "Neither shall they (the priests) shave their heads nor suffer their locks to grow long," and it is written in another place (Num., 6. 5): "He (the Nazirite) shall let the locks of the hair of his head grow long," which leads us to the analogy that just as there (in the instance of the Nazirite) the growing of the locks is meant for a period of thirty days, so also here (in the instance of the priests). But whence do you know it to be so in the case of the Nazirite himself? Scripture (ibid.) uses the word yihyeh (יהיה = he shall be), the numerical value of which is thirty. Said R. Papa to 'Abbayi: Is it not possible that the verse (in Ezekiel) means to say that they should not suffer their locks to grow at all? If it were written, Abbayi replied, "they shall not suffer locks to grow long," your interpretation might be correct, but since it is written, "the locks they shall not suffer to grow long", it indicates that they may have locks, but must not let them grow too long. If so, the law ought to apply also to the priests of the present time! No, the prohibition of growing the hair is analogous to that of drinking of wine, so that just as the latter applies only to the time when they enter the Temple for service, so also the former applies only to the time when they might enter the Temple, but when there is no Temple which they might enter, they may let the hair grow. But is it true that wine is permitted when there is no Temple to enter? Does not the following Baraita intimate the contrary? Rabbi says, I would say that a priest should never drink wine, but what can I do, seeing that his misfortune has turned out to be his benefit, whereupon 'Abbayi asked according to whose view the priests of our time drink wine

Our Rabbis have taught: A king should have his hair trimmed every day, a high priest every Friday, an ordinary priest once a month. A king everyday—what is the reason? Said R. 'Abba b. Zabda in the name of Rab, because it is written (Is., 33. 17): "Thine eyes shall see the king in his beauty." A high priest every Friday—what is the reason? Said R. Samuel b. R. Isaac, because new divisions of priests come in every Saturday. An ordinary priest once a month—what is the reason? This rule is derived from the occurrence of the word pera' (lock) both in connection with the Nazirite and the priest, for it is written in one place (Ez., 44. 20): "Neither shall they (the priests) shave their heads nor suffer their locks to grow long," and it is written in another place (Num., 6. 5): "He (the Nazirite) shall let the locks of the hair of his head grow long," which leads us to the analogy that just as there (in the instance of the Nazirite) the growing of the locks is meant for a period of thirty days, so also here (in the instance of the priests). But whence do you know it to be so in the case of the Nazirite himself? Scripture (ibid.) uses the word yihyeh (יהיה = he shall be), the numerical value of which is thirty. Said R. Papa to 'Abbayi: Is it not possible that the verse (in Ezekiel) means to say that they should not suffer their locks to grow at all? If it were written, Abbayi replied, "they shall not suffer locks to grow long," your interpretation might be correct, but since it is written, "the locks they shall not suffer to grow long", it indicates that they may have locks, but must not let them grow too long. If so, the law ought to apply also to the priests of the present time! No, the prohibition of growing the hair is analogous to that of drinking of wine, so that just as the latter applies only to the time when they enter the Temple for service, so also the former applies only to the time when they might enter the Temple, but when there is no Temple which they might enter, they may let the hair grow. But is it true that wine is permitted when there is no Temple to enter? Does not the following Baraita intimate the contrary? Rabbi says, I would say that a priest should never drink wine, but what can I do, seeing that his misfortune has turned out to be his benefit, whereupon 'Abbayi asked according to whose view the priests of our time drink wine

Our Rabbis have taught: A king should have his hair trimmed every day, a high priest every Friday, an ordinary priest once a month. A king everyday—what is the reason? Said R. 'Abba b. Zabda in the name of Rab, because it is written (Is., 33. 17): "Thine eyes shall see the king in his beauty." A high priest every Friday—what is the reason? Said R. Samuel b. R. Isaac, because new divisions of priests come in every Saturday. An ordinary priest once a month—what is the reason? This rule is derived from the occurrence of the word pera' (lock) both in connection with the Nazirite and the priest, for it is written in one place (Ez., 44. 20): "Neither shall they (the priests) shave their heads nor suffer their locks to grow long," and it is written in another place (Num., 6. 5): "He (the Nazirite) shall let the locks of the hair of his head grow long," which leads us to the analogy that just as there (in the instance of the Nazirite) the growing of the locks is meant for a period of thirty days, so also here (in the instance of the priests). But whence do you know it to be so in the case of the Nazirite himself? Scripture (ibid.) uses the word yihyeh (יהיה = he shall be), the numerical value of which is thirty. Said R. Papa to 'Abbayi: Is it not possible that the verse (in Ezekiel) means to say that they should not suffer their locks to grow at all? If it were written, Abbayi replied, "they shall not suffer locks to grow long," your interpretation might be correct, but since it is written, "the locks they shall not suffer to grow long", it indicates that they may have locks, but must not let them grow too long. If so, the law ought to apply also to the priests of the present time! No, the prohibition of growing the hair is analogous to that of drinking of wine, so that just as the latter applies only to the time when they enter the Temple for service, so also the former applies only to the time when they might enter the Temple, but when there is no Temple which they might enter, they may let the hair grow. But is it true that wine is permitted when there is no Temple to enter? Does not the following Baraita intimate the contrary? Rabbi says, I would say that a priest should never drink wine, but what can I do, seeing that his misfortune has turned out to be his benefit, whereupon 'Abbayi asked according to whose view the priests of our time drink wine

R. 'Ashi said, in the case of intoxicated priests the Rabbis were apprehensive, because they desecrate the service, but priests with long hair do not desecrate the service, hence the Rabbis felt no apprehension. Rabina raised an objection from the following Baraita (Tosefta, Zebaḥim, 12. 17): "The following priests die a premature death, those who perform their service while drunk, and those who perform it with long (neglected) hair." As regards drunken priests it is explicitly stated (Levit., 10. 9): "Drink no wine nor strong drink, thou, nor thy sons with thee, when ye go into the tent of meeting, that ye die not." And how do we know that long hair is in the same category? It is written (Ezek., 44. 20): "Neither shall they shave their heads, nor suffer their locks to grow long," and immediately following it is written (ib., 44. 21): "Neither shall any priest drink wine, when they enter into the inner court." Priests with long hair are thus compared to priests who are drunk, and we conclude that just as drunken priests die prematurely, so also priests with long hair. Now, does it not follow from this that the reason is because long hair is a desecration of the service as well as drink? Said R. 'Ashi in reply to Rabina: (this analogy based on Ezekiel has no force, for) who knew of it prior to the time of Ezekiel? If you use such argument, retorted Rabina, you must apply it also to the statement of R. Ḥisda (Zebaḥim, 22b): This law (that an uncircumcized priest is not fit for service) we do not derive from the Torah of our teacher Moses, but from the words of Ezekiel the son of Buzi (44. 9): "No alien, uncircumcized in heart and uncircumcized in flesh, shall enter into my sanctuary." How could any one have knowledge of this law before Ezekiel? You will have to say therefore that the law in question was a tradition and Ezekiel expressed it in a verse; why not say the same in our case, namely, that the law (of long hair desecrating the service) was known by tradition and that Ezekiel expressed it in a verse? No, the burden of that tradition was only that long-haired priests die prematurely, but not that they desecrate the service.