observance

Concerning the things pertaining to our religious observance which are most profitable for a life of goodness to those who would pursue a godly and righteous course, we have written to you, men and brethren, at sufficient length. For concerning faith and repentance and true love and continence and soberness and patience, we have touched upon every passage, putting you in mind that you ought in righteousness and truth and long-suffering to be well-pleasing to Almighty God with holiness, being of one mind — not remembering evil— in love and peace with instant gentleness, even as also our fathers forementioned found favour by the humility of their thoughts towards the Father and God and Creator and all mankind. And of these things we put you in mind with the greater pleasure, since we were well assured that we were writing to men who were faithful and of highest repute and had peered into the oracles of the instruction of God.

Nevertheless they too erred from true knowledge. And in their imagination they conceive that it is God they serve; whereas by their mode of observance it is to the angels and not to God that their service is rendered:— as when they celebrate sabbaths and the beginning of the months, and feasts of unleavened bread, and a great fast; and fasting and circumcision and the purification of meats, which things, however, they do not observe perfectly.

And all of them carefully observed this rule and were anxious above everything else to excel each other in its observance and they were all of them worthy of their leader and of his virtue.

At a time when our fathers enjoyed great peace through the due observance of the Law, and were in happy case, so that Seleucus Nicanor, the king of Asia, sanctioned the tax for the temple-service, and recognized our polity, precisely then, certain men, acting factiously against the general concord, involved us in many and various calamities.

And through them the nation obtained peace and restoring the observance of the Law in our country hath captured the city from the enemy.

Which thing when the Romans understood, on those days which we call Sabbaths they threw nothing at the Jews, nor came to any pitched battle with them; but raised up their earthen banks, and brought their engines into such forwardness, that they might do execution the next day. And any one may hence learn how very great piety we exercise towards God, and the observance of his laws, since the priests were not at all hindered from their sacred ministrations by their fear during this siege, but did still twice a-day, in the morning and about the ninth hour, offer their sacrifices on the altar; nor did they omit those sacrifices, if any melancholy accident happened by the stones that were thrown among them; for although the city was taken on the third month, on the day of the fast, upon the hundred and seventy-ninth olympiad, when Caius Antonius and Marcus Tullius Cicero were consuls, and the enemy then fell upon them, and cut the throats of those that were in the temple; yet could not those that offered the sacrifices be compelled to run away, neither by the fear they were in of their own lives, nor by the number that were already slain, as thinking it better to suffer whatever came upon them, at their very altars, than to omit any thing that their laws required of them. And that this is not a mere brag, or an encomium to manifest a degree of our piety that was false, but is the real truth, I appeal to those that have written of the acts of Pompey; and, among them, to Strabo and Nicolaus [of Damascus]; and besides these two, Titus Livius, the writer of the Roman History, who will bear witness to this thing.

Now there were three several conspiracies made in order to take off Caius, and each of these three were conducted by excellent persons. Emilius Regulus, born at Corduba in Spain, got some men together, and was desirous to take Caius off, either by them or by himself. Another conspiracy there was laid by them, under the conduct of Cherea Cassius, the tribune [of the Pretorian band]. Minucianus Annins was also one of great consequence among those that were prepared to oppose his tyranny. Now the several occasions of these men's several hatred and conspiracy against Caius were these: Regulus had indignation and hatred against all injustice, for he had a mind naturally angry, and bold, and free, which made him not conceal his counsels; so he communicated them to many of his friends, and to others who seemed to him persons of activity and vigor: Minucianus entered into this conspiracy, because of the injustice done to Lepidus his particular friend, and one of the best character of all the citizens, whom Caius had slain, as also because he was afraid of himself, since Caius's wrath tended to the slaughter of all alike: and for Cherea, he came in, because he thought it a deed worthy of a free ingenuous man to kill Caius, and was ashamed of the reproaches he lay under from Caius, as though he were a coward; as also because he was himself in danger every day from his friendship with him, and the observance he paid him. These men proposed this attempt to all the rest that were concerned, who saw the injuries that were offered them, and were desirous that Caius's slaughter might succeed by their mutual assistance of one another, and they might themselves escape being killed by the taking off Caius; that perhaps they should gain their point; and that it would be a happy thing, if they should gain it, to approve themselves to so many excellent persons, as earnestly wished to be partakers with them in their design for the delivery of the city and of the government, even at the hazard of their own lives. But still Cherea was the most zealous of them all, both out of a desire of getting himself the greatest name, and also by reason of his access to Caius's presence with less danger, because he was tribune, and could therefore the more easily kill him.

Now this king was by nature very beneficent and liberal in his gifts, and very ambitious to oblige people with such large donations; and he made himself very illustrious by the many chargeable presents he made them. He took delight in giving, and rejoiced in living with good reputation. He was not at all like that Herod who reigned before him; for that Herod was ill-natured, and severe in his punishments, and had no mercy on them that he hated; and every one perceived that he was more friendly to the Greeks than to the Jews; for he adorned foreign cities with large presents in money; with building them baths and theatres besides; nay, in some of those places he erected temples, and porticoes in others; but he did not vouchsafe to raise one of the least edifices in any Jewish city, or make them any donation that was worth mentioning. But Agrippa's temper was mild, and equally liberal to all men. He was humane to foreigners, and made them sensible of his liberality. He was in like manner rather of a gentle and compassionate temper. Accordingly, he loved to live continually at Jerusalem, and was exactly careful in the observance of the laws of his country. He therefore kept himself entirely pure; nor did any day pass over his head without its appointed sacrifice.

But besides this, Apion objects to us thus: "If the Jews [says he] be citizens of Alexandria, why do they not worship the same gods with the Alexandrians?" To which I give this answer: Since you are yourselves Egyptians, why do you fight it out one against another, and have implacable wars about your religion? At this rate we must not call you all Egyptians, nor indeed in general men, because you breed up with great care beasts of a nature quite contrary to that of men, although the nature of all men seems to be one and the same. Now if there be such differences in opinion among you Egyptians, why are you surprised that those who came to Alexandria from another country, and had original laws of their own before, should persevere in the observance of those laws? But still he charges us with being the authors of sedition; which accusation, if it be a just one, why is it not laid against us all, since we are known to be all of one mind. Moreover, those that search into such matters will soon discover that the authors of sedition have been such citizens of Alexandria as Apion is; for while they were the Grecians and Macedonians who were ill possession of this city, there was no sedition raised against us, and we were permitted to observe our ancient solemnities; but when the number of the Egyptians therein came to be considerable, the times grew confused, and then these seditions brake out still more and more, while our people continued uncorrupted. These Egyptians, therefore, were the authors of these troubles, who having not the constancy of Macedonians, nor the prudence of Grecians, indulged all of them the evil manners of the Egyptians, and continued their ancient hatred against us; for what is here so presumptuously charged upon us, is owing to the differences that are amongst themselves; while many of them have not obtained the privileges of citizens in proper times, but style those who are well known to have had that privilege extended to them all no other than foreigners: for it does not appear that any of the kings have ever formerly bestowed those privileges of citizens upon Egyptians, no more than have the emperors done it more lately; while it was Alexander who introduced us into this city at first, the kings augmented our privileges therein, and the Romans have been pleased to preserve them always inviolable. Moreover, Apion would lay a blot upon us, because we do not erect images for our emperors; as if those emperors did not know this before, or stood in need of Apion as their defender; whereas he ought rather to have admired the magnanimity and modesty of the Romans, whereby they do not compel those that are subject to them to transgress the laws of their countries, but are willing to receive the honors due to them after such a manner as those who are to pay them esteem consistent with piety and with their own laws; for they do not thank people for conferring honors upon them, When they are compelled by violence so to do. Accordingly, since the Grecians and some other nations think it a right thing to make images, nay, when they have painted the pictures of their parents, and wives, and children, they exult for joy; and some there are who take pictures for themselves of such persons as were no way related to them; nay, some take the pictures of such servants as they were fond of; what wonder is it then if such as these appear willing to pay the same respect to their princes and lords? But then our legislator hath forbidden us to make images, not by way of denunciation beforehand, that the Roman authority was not to be honored, but as despising a thing that was neither necessary nor useful for either God or man; and he forbade them, as we shall prove hereafter, to make these images for any part of the animal creation, and much less for God himself, who is no part of such animal creation. Yet hath our legislator no where forbidden us to pay honors to worthy men, provided they be of another kind, and inferior to those we pay to God; with which honors we willingly testify our respect to our emperors, and to the people of Rome; we also offer perpetual sacrifices for them; nor do we only offer them every day at the common expenses of all the Jews, but although we offer no other such sacrifices out of our common expenses, no, not for our own children, yet do we this as a peculiar honor to the emperors, and to them alone, while we do the same to no other person whomsoever. And let this suffice for an answer in general to Apion, as to what he says with relation to the Alexandrian Jews.

Nay, indeed, in case it had so fallen out, that our nation had not been so thoroughly known among all men as they are, and our voluntary submission to our laws had not been so open and manifest as it is, but that somebody had pretended to have written these laws himself, and had read them to the Greeks, or had pretended that he had met with men out of the limits of the known world, that had such reverent notions of God, and had continued a long time in the firm observance of such laws as ours, I cannot but suppose that all men would admire them on a reflection upon the frequent changes they had therein been themselves subject to; and this while those that have attempted to write somewhat of the same kind for politic government, and for laws, are accused as composing monstrous things, and are said to have undertaken an impossible task upon them. And here I will say nothing of those other philosophers who have undertaken any thing of this nature in their writings. But even Plato himself, who is so admired by the Greeks on account of that gravity in his manners, and force in his words, and that ability he had to persuade men beyond all other philosophers, is little better than laughed at and exposed to ridicule on that account, by those that pretend to sagacity in political affairs; although he that shall diligently peruse his writings will find his precepts to be somewhat gentle, and pretty near to the customs of the generality of mankind. Nay, Plato himself confesseth that it is not safe to publish the true notion concerning God among the ignorant multitude. Yet do some men look upon Plato's discourses as no better than certain idle words set off with great artifice. However, they admire Lycurgus as the principal lawgiver, and all men celebrate Sparta for having continued in the firm observance of his laws for a very long time. So far then we have gained, that it is to be confessed a mark of virtue to submit to laws. But then let such as admire this in the Lacedemonians compare that duration of theirs with more than two thousand years which our political government hath continued; and let them further consider, that though the Lacedemonians did seem to observe their laws exactly while they enjoyed their liberty, yet that when they underwent a change of their fortune, they forgot almost all those laws; while we, having been under ten thousand changes in our fortune by the changes that happened among the kings of Asia, have never betrayed our laws under the most pressing distresses we have been in; nor have we neglected them either out of sloth or for a livelihood. if any one will consider it, the difficulties and labors laid upon us have been greater than what appears to have been borne by the Lacedemonian fortitude, while they neither ploughed their land, nor exercised any trades, but lived in their own city, free from all such pains-taking, in the enjoyment of plenty, and using such exercises as might improve their bodies, while they made use of other men as their servants for all the necessaries of life, and had their food prepared for them by the others; and these good and humane actions they do for no other purpose but this, that by their actions and their sufferings they may be able to conquer all those against whom they make war. I need not add this, that they have not been fully able to observe their laws; for not only a few single persons, but multitudes of them, have in heaps neglected those laws, and have delivered themselves, together with their arms, into the hands of their enemies.

Nay, indeed, in case it had so fallen out, that our nation had not been so thoroughly known among all men as they are, and our voluntary submission to our laws had not been so open and manifest as it is, but that somebody had pretended to have written these laws himself, and had read them to the Greeks, or had pretended that he had met with men out of the limits of the known world, that had such reverent notions of God, and had continued a long time in the firm observance of such laws as ours, I cannot but suppose that all men would admire them on a reflection upon the frequent changes they had therein been themselves subject to; and this while those that have attempted to write somewhat of the same kind for politic government, and for laws, are accused as composing monstrous things, and are said to have undertaken an impossible task upon them. And here I will say nothing of those other philosophers who have undertaken any thing of this nature in their writings. But even Plato himself, who is so admired by the Greeks on account of that gravity in his manners, and force in his words, and that ability he had to persuade men beyond all other philosophers, is little better than laughed at and exposed to ridicule on that account, by those that pretend to sagacity in political affairs; although he that shall diligently peruse his writings will find his precepts to be somewhat gentle, and pretty near to the customs of the generality of mankind. Nay, Plato himself confesseth that it is not safe to publish the true notion concerning God among the ignorant multitude. Yet do some men look upon Plato's discourses as no better than certain idle words set off with great artifice. However, they admire Lycurgus as the principal lawgiver, and all men celebrate Sparta for having continued in the firm observance of his laws for a very long time. So far then we have gained, that it is to be confessed a mark of virtue to submit to laws. But then let such as admire this in the Lacedemonians compare that duration of theirs with more than two thousand years which our political government hath continued; and let them further consider, that though the Lacedemonians did seem to observe their laws exactly while they enjoyed their liberty, yet that when they underwent a change of their fortune, they forgot almost all those laws; while we, having been under ten thousand changes in our fortune by the changes that happened among the kings of Asia, have never betrayed our laws under the most pressing distresses we have been in; nor have we neglected them either out of sloth or for a livelihood. if any one will consider it, the difficulties and labors laid upon us have been greater than what appears to have been borne by the Lacedemonian fortitude, while they neither ploughed their land, nor exercised any trades, but lived in their own city, free from all such pains-taking, in the enjoyment of plenty, and using such exercises as might improve their bodies, while they made use of other men as their servants for all the necessaries of life, and had their food prepared for them by the others; and these good and humane actions they do for no other purpose but this, that by their actions and their sufferings they may be able to conquer all those against whom they make war. I need not add this, that they have not been fully able to observe their laws; for not only a few single persons, but multitudes of them, have in heaps neglected those laws, and have delivered themselves, together with their arms, into the hands of their enemies.

But to arrive at a clearer understanding on these matters, we ought first to inquire after this point, whether it is allowable to suppose that they are living and rational beings; then, in the next place, whether their souls came into existence at the same time with their bodies, or seem to be anterior to them; and also whether, after the end of the world, we are to understand that they are to be released from their bodies; and whether, as we cease to live, so they also will cease from illuminating the world. Although this inquiry may seem to be somewhat bold, yet, as we are incited by the desire of ascertaining the truth as far as possible, there seems no absurdity in attempting an investigation of the subject agreeably to the grace of the Holy Spirit. We think, then, that they may be designated as living beings, for this reason, that they are said to receive commandments from God, which is ordinarily the case only with rational beings. “I have given a commandment to all the stars,” says the Lord. What, now, are these commandments? Those, namely, that each star, in its order and course, should bestow upon the world the amount of splendour which has been entrusted to it. For those which are called “planets” move in orbits of one kind, and those which are termed ἀπλανεῖς are different. Now it manifestly follows from this, that neither can the movement of that body take place without a soul, nor can living things be at any time without motion. And seeing that the stars move with such order and regularity, that their movements never appear to be at any time subject to derangement, would it not be the height of folly to say that so orderly an observance of method and plan could be carried out or accomplished by irrational beings? In the writings of Jeremiah, indeed, the moon is called the queen of heaven. Yet if the stars are living and rational beings, there will undoubtedly appear among them both an advance and a falling back. For the language of Job, “the stars are not clean in His sight,” seems to me to convey some such idea.

And as there are many ways of apprehending Christ, who, although He is wisdom, does not act the part or possess the power of wisdom in all men, but only in those who give themselves to the study of wisdom in Him; and who, although called a physician, does not act as one towards all, but only towards those who understand their feeble and sickly condition, and flee to His compassion that they may obtain health; so also I think is it with the Holy Spirit, in whom is contained every kind of gifts. For on some is bestowed by the Spirit the word of wisdom, on others the word of knowledge, on others faith; and so to each individual of those who are capable of receiving Him, is the Spirit Himself made to be that quality, or understood to be that which is needed by the individual who has deserved to participate. These divisions and differences not being perceived by those who hear Him called Paraclete in the Gospel, and not duly considering in consequence of what work or act He is named the Paraclete, they have compared Him to some common spirits or other, and by this means have tried to disturb the churches of Christ, and so excite dissensions of no small extent among brethren; whereas the Gospel shows Him to be of such power and majesty, that it says the apostles could not yet receive those things which the Saviour wished to teach them until the advent of the Holy Spirit, who, pouring Himself into their souls, might enlighten them regarding the nature and faith of the Trinity. But these persons, because of the ignorance of their understandings, are not only unable themselves logically to state the truth, but cannot even give their attention to what is advanced by us; and entertaining unworthy ideas of His divinity, have delivered themselves over to errors and deceits, being depraved by a spirit of error, rather than instructed by the teaching of the Holy Spirit, according to the declaration of the apostle, “Following the doctrine of devils, forbidding to marry, to the destruction and ruin of many, and to abstain from meats, that by an ostentatious exhibition of stricter observance they may seduce the souls of the innocent.”

In the passages containing the commandments also, similar things are found. For in the law Moses is commanded to destroy every male that is not circumcised on the eighth day, which is exceedingly incongruous, since it would be necessary, if it were related that the law was executed according to the history, to command those parents to be punished who did not circumcise their children, and also those who were the nurses of little children. The declaration of Scripture now is, “The uncircumcised male, i.e. who shall not have been circumcised, shall be cut off from his people.” And if we are to inquire regarding the impossibilities of the law, we find an animal called the goat-stag, which cannot possibly exist, but which, as being in the number of clean beasts, Moses commands to be eaten; and a griffin, which no one ever remembers or heard of as yielding to human power, but which the legislator forbids to be used for food. Respecting the celebrated observance of the Sabbath also he thus speaks: “Ye shall sit, every one in your dwellings; no one shall move from his place on the Sabbath-day.” Which precept it is impossible to observe literally; for no man can sit a whole day so as not to move from the place where he sat down. With respect to each one of these points now, those who belong to the circumcision, and all who would have no more meaning to be found in sacred Scripture than what is indicated by the letter, consider that there should be no investigation regarding the goat-stag, and the griffin, and the vulture; and they invent some empty and trifling tales about the Sabbath, drawn from some traditional sources or other, alleging that every one’s place is computed to him within two thousand cubits. Others, again, among whom is Dositheus the Samaritan, censure indeed expositions of this kind, but themselves lay down something more ridiculous, viz. that each one must remain until the evening in the posture, place, or position in which he found himself on the Sabbath-day; i.e. if found sitting, he is to sit the whole day, or if reclining, he is to recline the whole day. Moreover, the injunction which runs, “Bear no burden on the Sabbath-day,” seems to me an impossibility. For the Jewish doctors, in consequence of these [prescriptions], have betaken themselves, as the holy apostle says, to innumerable fables, saying that it is not accounted a burden if a man wear shoes without nails, but that it is a burden if shoes with nails be worn; and that if it be carried on one shoulder, they consider it a burden; but if on both, they declare it to be none.

Since, in our investigation of matters of such importance, not satisfied with the common opinions, and with the clear evidence of visible things, we take in addition, for the proof of our statements, testimonies from what are believed by us to be divine writings, viz. from that which is called the Old Testament, and that which is styled the New, and endeavour by reason to confirm our faith; and as we have not yet spoken of the Scriptures as divine, come and let us, as if by way of an epitome, treat of a few points respecting them, laying down those reasons which lead us to regard them as divine writings. And before making use of the words of the writings themselves, and of the things which are exhibited in them, we must make the following statement regarding Moses and Jesus Christ,—the lawgiver of the Hebrews, and the Introducer of the saving doctrines according to Christianity. For, although there have been very many legislators among the Greeks and Barbarians, and teachers who announced opinions which professed to be the truth, we have heard of no legislator who was able to imbue other nations with a zeal for the reception of his words; and although those who professed to philosophize about truth brought forward a great apparatus of apparent logical demonstration, no one has been able to impress what was deemed by him the truth upon other nations, or even on any number of persons worth mentioning in a single nation. And yet not only would the legislators have liked to enforce those laws which appeared to be good, if possible, upon the whole human race, but the teachers also to have spread what they imagined to be truth everywhere throughout the world. But as they were unable to call men of other languages and from many nations to observe their laws, and accept their teaching, they did not at all attempt to do this, considering not unwisely the impossibility of such a result happening to them. Whereas all Greece, and the barbarous part of our world, contains innumerable zealots, who have deserted the laws of their fathers and the established gods, for the observance of the laws of Moses and the discipleship of the words of Jesus Christ; although those who clave to the law of Moses were hated by the worshippers of images, and those who accepted the words of Jesus Christ were exposed, in addition, to the danger of death.

And if we come to the legislation of Moses, many of the laws manifest the irrationality, and others the impossibility, of their literal observance. The irrationality [in this], that the people are forbidden to eat vultures, although no one even in the direst famines was [ever] driven by want to have recourse to this bird; and that children eight days old, which are uncircumcised, are ordered to be exterminated from among their people, it being necessary, if the law were to be carried out at all literally with regard to these, that their fathers, or those with whom they are brought up, should be commanded to be put to death. Now the Scripture says: “Every male that is uncircumcised, who shall not be circumcised on the eighth day, shall be cut off from among his people.” And if you wish to see impossibilities contained in the legislation, let us observe that the goat-stag is one of those animals that cannot exist, and yet Moses commands us to offer it as being a clean beast; whereas a griffin, which is not recorded ever to have been subdued by man, the lawgiver forbids to be eaten. Nay, he who carefully considers [the famous injunction relating to] the Sabbath, “Ye shall sit each one in your dwellings; let no one go out from his place on the seventh day,” will deem it impossible to be literally observed: for no living being is able to sit throughout a whole day, and remain without moving from a sitting position. And therefore those who belong to the circumcision, and all who desire that no meaning should be exhibited, save the literal one, do not investigate at all such subjects as those of the goat-stag and griffin and vulture, but indulge in foolish talk on certain points, multiplying words and adducing tasteless traditions; as, for example, with regard to the Sabbath, saying that two thousand cubits is each one’s limit. Others, again, among whom is Dositheus the Samaritan, condemning such an interpretation, think that in the position in which a man is found on the Sabbath-day, he is to remain until evening. Moreover, the not carrying of a burden on the Sabbath-day is an impossibility; and therefore the Jewish teachers have fallen into countless absurdities, saying that a shoe of such a kind was a burden, but not one of another kind; and that a sandal which had nails was a burden, but not one that was without them; and in like manner what was borne on one shoulder [was a load], but not that which was carried on both.

The first book of our answer to the treatise of Celsus, entitled A True Discourse, which concluded with the representation of the Jew addressing Jesus, having now extended to a sufficient length, we intend the present part as a reply to the charges brought by him against those who have been converted from Judaism to Christianity. And we call attention, in the first place, to this special question, viz. why Celsus, when he had once resolved upon the introduction of individuals upon the stage of his book, did not represent the Jew as addressing the converts from heathenism rather than those from Judaism, seeing that his discourse, if directed to us, would have appeared more likely to produce an impression. But probably this claimant to universal knowledge does not know what is appropriate in the matter of such representations; and therefore let us proceed to consider what he has to say to the converts from Judaism. He asserts that “they have forsaken the law of their fathers, in consequence of their minds being led captive by Jesus; that they have been most ridiculously deceived, and that they have become deserters to another name and to another mode of life.” Here he has not observed that the Jewish converts have not deserted the law of their fathers, inasmuch as they live according to its prescriptions, receiving their very name from the poverty of the law, according to the literal acceptation of the word; for Ebion signifies “poor” among the Jews, and those Jews who have received Jesus as Christ are called by the name of Ebionites. Nay, Peter himself seems to have observed for a considerable time the Jewish observances enjoined by the law of Moses, not having yet learned from Jesus to ascend from the law that is regulated according to the letter, to that which is interpreted according to the spirit,—a fact which we learn from the Acts of the Apostles. For on the day after the angel of God appeared to Cornelius, suggesting to him “to send to Joppa, to Simon surnamed Peter,” Peter “went up into the upper room to pray about the sixth hour. And he became very hungry, and would have eaten: but while they made ready he fell into a trance, and saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending unto him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth; wherein were all manner of four-footed beasts, and creeping things of the earth, and fowls of the air. And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat. But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean. And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call thou not common.” Now observe how, by this instance, Peter is represented as still observing the Jewish customs respecting clean and unclean animals. And from the narrative that follows, it is manifest that he, as being yet a Jew, and living according to their traditions, and despising those who were beyond the pale of Judaism, stood in need of a vision to lead him to communicate to Cornelius (who was not an Israelite according to the flesh), and to those who were with him, the word of faith. Moreover, in the Epistle to the Galatians, Paul states that Peter, still from fear of the Jews, ceased upon the arrival of James to eat with the Gentiles, and “separated himself from them, fearing them that were of the circumcision;” and the rest of the Jews, and Barnabas also, followed the same course. And certainly it was quite consistent that those should not abstain from the observance of Jewish usages who were sent to minister to the circumcision, when they who “seemed to be pillars” gave the right hand of fellowship to Paul and Barnabas, in order that, while devoting themselves to the circumcision, the latter might preach to the Gentiles. And why do I mention that they who preached to the circumcision withdrew and separated themselves from the heathen, when even Paul himself “became as a Jew to the Jews, that he might gain the Jews?” Wherefore also in the Acts of the Apostles it is related that he even brought an offering to the altar, that he might satisfy the Jews that he was no apostate from their law. Now, if Celsus had been acquainted with all these circumstances, he would not have represented the Jew holding such language as this to the converts from Judaism: “What induced you, my fellow-citizens, to abandon the law of your fathers, and to allow your minds to be led captive by him with whom we have just conversed, and thus be most ridiculously deluded, so as to become deserters from us to another name, and to the practices of another life?”

And I have not yet spoken of the observance of all that is written in the Gospels, each one of which contains much doctrine difficult to be understood, not merely by the multitude, but even by certain of the more intelligent, including a very profound explanation of the parables which Jesus delivered to “those without,” while reserving the exhibition of their full meaning for those who had passed beyond the stage of exoteric teaching, and who came to Him privately in the house. And when he comes to understand it, he will admire the reason why some are said to be “without,” and others “in the house.” And again, who would not be filled with astonishment that is able to comprehend the movements of Jesus; ascending at one time a mountain for the purpose of delivering certain discourses, or of performing certain miracles, or for His own transfiguration, and descending again to heal the sick and those who were unable to follow Him whither His disciples went? But it is not the appropriate time to describe at present the truly venerable and divine contents of the Gospels, or the mind of Christ—that is, the wisdom and the word—contained in the writings of Paul. But what we have said is sufficient by way of answer to the unphilosophic sneers of Celsus, in comparing the inner mysteries of the church of God to the cats, and apes, and crocodiles, and goats, and dogs of Egypt.

I do not know, moreover, how Celsus could hear of the elephants’ [fidelity to] oaths, and of their great devotedness to our God, and of the knowledge which they possess of Him. For I know many wonderful things which are related of the nature of this animal, and of its gentle disposition. But I am not aware that any one has spoken of its observance of oaths; unless indeed to its gentle disposition, and its observance of compacts, so to speak, when once concluded between it and man, he give the name of keeping its oath, which statement also in itself is false. For although rarely, yet sometimes it has been recorded that, after their apparent tameness, they have broken out against men in the most savage manner, and have committed murder, and have been on that account condemned to death, because no longer of any use. And seeing that after this, in order to establish (as he thinks he does) that the stork is more pious than any human being, he adduces the accounts which are narrated regarding that creature’s display of filial affection in bringing food to its parents for their support, we have to say in reply, that this is done by the storks, not from a regard to what is proper, nor from reflection, but from a natural instinct; the nature which formed them being desirous to show an instance among the irrational animals which might put men to shame, in the matter of exhibiting their gratitude to their parents. And if Celsus had known how great the difference is between acting in this way from reason, and from an irrational natural impulse, he would not have said that storks are more pious than human beings. But further, Celsus, as still contending for the piety of the irrational creation, quotes the instance of the Arabian bird the phœnix, which after many years repairs to Egypt, and bears thither its parent, when dead and buried in a ball of myrrh, and deposits its body in the Temple of the Sun. Now this story is indeed recorded, and, if it be true, it is possible that it may occur in consequence of some provision of nature; divine providence freely displaying to human beings, by the differences which exist among living things, the variety of constitution which prevails in the world, and which extends even to birds, and in harmony with which He has brought into existence one creature, the only one of its kind, in order that by it men may be led to admire, not the creature, but Him who created it.

I do not know, moreover, how Celsus could hear of the elephants’ [fidelity to] oaths, and of their great devotedness to our God, and of the knowledge which they possess of Him. For I know many wonderful things which are related of the nature of this animal, and of its gentle disposition. But I am not aware that any one has spoken of its observance of oaths; unless indeed to its gentle disposition, and its observance of compacts, so to speak, when once concluded between it and man, he give the name of keeping its oath, which statement also in itself is false. For although rarely, yet sometimes it has been recorded that, after their apparent tameness, they have broken out against men in the most savage manner, and have committed murder, and have been on that account condemned to death, because no longer of any use. And seeing that after this, in order to establish (as he thinks he does) that the stork is more pious than any human being, he adduces the accounts which are narrated regarding that creature’s display of filial affection in bringing food to its parents for their support, we have to say in reply, that this is done by the storks, not from a regard to what is proper, nor from reflection, but from a natural instinct; the nature which formed them being desirous to show an instance among the irrational animals which might put men to shame, in the matter of exhibiting their gratitude to their parents. And if Celsus had known how great the difference is between acting in this way from reason, and from an irrational natural impulse, he would not have said that storks are more pious than human beings. But further, Celsus, as still contending for the piety of the irrational creation, quotes the instance of the Arabian bird the phœnix, which after many years repairs to Egypt, and bears thither its parent, when dead and buried in a ball of myrrh, and deposits its body in the Temple of the Sun. Now this story is indeed recorded, and, if it be true, it is possible that it may occur in consequence of some provision of nature; divine providence freely displaying to human beings, by the differences which exist among living things, the variety of constitution which prevails in the world, and which extends even to birds, and in harmony with which He has brought into existence one creature, the only one of its kind, in order that by it men may be led to admire, not the creature, but Him who created it.

“We must,” he says, “observe the laws, not only because it has occurred to the mind of others to decide some things differently, but because it is a duty to protect what has been enacted for the public advantage, and also because, in all probability, the various quarters of the earth were from the beginning allotted to different superintending spirits, and were distributed among certain governing powers, and in this manner the administration of the world is carried on.” Thus Celsus, as if he had forgotten what he had said against the Jews, now includes them in the general eulogy which he passes upon all who observe their ancestral customs, remarking: “And whatever is done among each nation in this way, would be rightly done whenever agreeable to the wishes [of the superintendents].” And observe here, whether he does not openly, so far as he can, express a wish that the Jew should live in the observance of his own laws, and not depart from them, because he would commit an act of impiety if he apostatized; for his words are: “It would be an act of impiety to get rid of the institutions established from the beginning in the various places.” Now I should like to ask him, and those who entertain his views, who it was that distributed the various quarters of the earth from the beginning among the different superintending spirits; and especially, who gave the country of the Jews, and the Jewish people themselves, to the one or more superintendents to whom it was allotted? Was it, as Celsus would say, Jupiter who assigned the Jewish people and their country to a certain spirit or spirits? And was it his wish, to whom they were thus assigned, to enact among them the laws which prevail, or was it against his will that it was done? You will observe that, whatever be his answer, he is in a strait. But if the various quarters of the earth were not allotted by some one being to the various superintending spirits, then each one at random, and without the superintendence of a higher power, divided the earth according to chance; and yet such a view is absurd, and destructive in no small degree of the providence of the God who presides over all things.

It is probable, however, that to such remarks as the above, the answer returned would be, that he was pious who kept the laws of his own country, and not at all chargeable with impiety for the non-observance of those of other lands; and that, again, he who was deemed guilty of impiety among certain nations was not really so, when he worshipped his own gods, agreeably to his country’s laws, although he made war against, and even feasted on, those who were regarded as divinities among those nations which possessed laws of an opposite kind. Now, observe here whether these statements do not exhibit the greatest confusion of mind regarding the nature of what is just, and holy, and religious; since there is no accurate definition laid down of these things, nor are they described as having a peculiar character of their own, and stamping as religious those who act according to their injunctions. If, then, religion, and piety, and righteousness belong to those things which are so only by comparison, so that the same act may be both pious and impious, according to different relations and different laws, see whether it will not follow that temperance also is a thing of comparison, and courage as well, and prudence, and the other virtues, than which nothing could be more absurd! What we have said, however, is sufficient for the more general and simple class of answers to the allegations of Celsus. But as we think it likely that some of those who are accustomed to deeper investigation will fall in with this treatise, let us venture to lay down some considerations of a profounder kind, conveying a mystical and secret view respecting the original distribution of the various quarters of the earth among different superintending spirits; and let us prove to the best of our ability, that our doctrine is free from the absurd consequences enumerated above.

But for all other operations or extraordinary experiments, and for those of love, they will be much more efficacious directed towards the North. Take heed further, that every time that thou performest any experiment, to reduce it unto perfection with the requisite solemnities, thou shalt recommence the former experiment if interrupted therein, without the preparation of hours or other solemnities. If by chance it should happen that having performed an experiment with due observance of days, hours, and requisite solemnities, thou shalt find it unsuccessful, it must be in some manner false, ill-arranged and defective, and thou must assuredly have failed in some matter; for if thou doest ill in one single point, these experiments or these Arts will not be verified. Thus upon this chapter dependeth this whole key of arts, experiments, and operations, and although every solemnity be rightly observed, no experiment will be verified, unless thou canst penetrate the meaning of this chapter.

If the trial was concluded when there was no high priest [in office], or if one kills a high priest, or a high priest that kills, [in these cases the manslayer] can never come away from that place [of refuge]. He [the manslayer] may not go out to bear witness, neither for cases having to do with a religious observance, nor to bear witness in a monetary suit, nor to bear witness in a capital case. Even should [all] Israel need him, and even a general like Yoav the son of Zeruiah, he may never go out, as it is said, “to there he fled”: ‘there’ must be his abode, ‘there’ his death, ‘there’ his burial. Just as the city affords asylum so does its Sabbath boundary afford asylum. If a manslayer went beyond the boundary [of the city] and the blood avenger found him: Rabbi Yose the Galilean says: “For the avenger it is a matter of obligation [to kill him]; for everyone else, a matter of option.” Rabbi Akiba says: “It is a matter of option for the avenger, and anyone else [who kills him] is not liable for doing so.” If a tree was standing within the boundary and its boughs extended beyond [the boundary] or if it was standing outside of the boundary and its boughs extended within, it wholly follows [the position of] the boughs. If he slew [someone] in that city [of refuge] he is banished from one neighborhood to another neighborhood. And a Levite is banished from one city to another.

One may not take the mother with the young even for the sake of purifying the metzora. If in respect of so light a commandment, which deals with that which is but worth an issar, the Torah said, “In order that you may fare well and have a long life”, how much more [must be the reward] for the observance of the more difficult commandments in the Torah!

GEMARA Why are the reading of the Shema' and Tefillin different [from the others] ? Because they are commands the observance of which depends upon a certain point of time, and women are exempt from all commands of this class. Tefillah, Mezuzah and Grace after meals, being commands the observance of which does not depend upon a certain point of time, are obligatory upon women. That the reading of the Shema' [is not obligatory upon women] is self-evident, because it is a command the observance of which depends upon a certain point of time, and women are exempt from all commands of this class!

GEMARA Why are the reading of the Shema' and Tefillin different [from the others] ? Because they are commands the observance of which depends upon a certain point of time, and women are exempt from all commands of this class. Tefillah, Mezuzah and Grace after meals, being commands the observance of which does not depend upon a certain point of time, are obligatory upon women. That the reading of the Shema' [is not obligatory upon women] is self-evident, because it is a command the observance of which depends upon a certain point of time, and women are exempt from all commands of this class!

GEMARA Why are the reading of the Shema' and Tefillin different [from the others] ? Because they are commands the observance of which depends upon a certain point of time, and women are exempt from all commands of this class. Tefillah, Mezuzah and Grace after meals, being commands the observance of which does not depend upon a certain point of time, are obligatory upon women. That the reading of the Shema' [is not obligatory upon women] is self-evident, because it is a command the observance of which depends upon a certain point of time, and women are exempt from all commands of this class!

But they are under the obligation of Tefillah ; [obviously] because this is prayer! [not translated] But thou mightest say that since it is written thereby, "Evening and morning and at noonday" (Ps. lv. 18), it is like a command the observance of which depends upon a certain point of time [and women are exempt]; therefore it informs us [the obligation is theirs].

And Grace after meals. This too is evident ! But thou mightest say that since it is written thereby, "When the Lord shall give you in the evening flesh to eat and in the morning bread to the full" (Exod. xvi. 8), it is like a command the observance of which depends upon a certain point of time [and women are exempt]; therefore it informs us [that it is obligatory].

Rab Adda b. Ahabah said : Women are under the obligation to recite the Sanctitication of the [Sabbath] day by the ordinance of the Torah. But why, since it is a command the observance of which is dependent upon a certain point of time, and women are exempt from all commands of this class ! Abbai answered : [The Sanctification by women] is a Rabbinical ordinance.

Rabina asked Raba : Is the recital of the Grace after meals by women an ordinance from the Torah or the Rabbis ? What is the point at issue ? It is whether they have the power of exempting others. It is quite right if thou sayest it is from the Torah ; then one who is enjoined by the Torah [to keep the observance] comes and exempts one [whose observance is likewise commanded] by the Torah. But if thou sayest it is from the Rabbis, then it is not a compulsory observance, and one who is not under the obligation [to keep the observance] cannot exempt others. How is it then ?

Rabina asked Raba : Is the recital of the Grace after meals by women an ordinance from the Torah or the Rabbis ? What is the point at issue ? It is whether they have the power of exempting others. It is quite right if thou sayest it is from the Torah ; then one who is enjoined by the Torah [to keep the observance] comes and exempts one [whose observance is likewise commanded] by the Torah. But if thou sayest it is from the Rabbis, then it is not a compulsory observance, and one who is not under the obligation [to keep the observance] cannot exempt others. How is it then ?

Rabina asked Raba : Is the recital of the Grace after meals by women an ordinance from the Torah or the Rabbis ? What is the point at issue ? It is whether they have the power of exempting others. It is quite right if thou sayest it is from the Torah ; then one who is enjoined by the Torah [to keep the observance] comes and exempts one [whose observance is likewise commanded] by the Torah. But if thou sayest it is from the Rabbis, then it is not a compulsory observance, and one who is not under the obligation [to keep the observance] cannot exempt others. How is it then ?

Rabina asked Raba : Is the recital of the Grace after meals by women an ordinance from the Torah or the Rabbis ? What is the point at issue ? It is whether they have the power of exempting others. It is quite right if thou sayest it is from the Torah ; then one who is enjoined by the Torah [to keep the observance] comes and exempts one [whose observance is likewise commanded] by the Torah. But if thou sayest it is from the Rabbis, then it is not a compulsory observance, and one who is not under the obligation [to keep the observance] cannot exempt others. How is it then ?

This is quite right if thou sayest that it is from the Torah; then one who is enjoined by the Torah [to keep the observance] comes and exempts one [whose observance is likewise commanded] by the Torah. But if thou sayest it is from the Rabbis, then one who is enjoined by the Rabbis [to keep the observance] comes and exempts one [whose observance is commanded] by the Torah !

This is quite right if thou sayest that it is from the Torah; then one who is enjoined by the Torah [to keep the observance] comes and exempts one [whose observance is likewise commanded] by the Torah. But if thou sayest it is from the Rabbis, then one who is enjoined by the Rabbis [to keep the observance] comes and exempts one [whose observance is commanded] by the Torah !

This is quite right if thou sayest that it is from the Torah; then one who is enjoined by the Torah [to keep the observance] comes and exempts one [whose observance is likewise commanded] by the Torah. But if thou sayest it is from the Rabbis, then one who is enjoined by the Rabbis [to keep the observance] comes and exempts one [whose observance is commanded] by the Torah !

This is quite right if thou sayest that it is from the Torah; then one who is enjoined by the Torah [to keep the observance] comes and exempts one [whose observance is likewise commanded] by the Torah. But if thou sayest it is from the Rabbis, then one who is enjoined by the Rabbis [to keep the observance] comes and exempts one [whose observance is commanded] by the Torah !

Also, according to thy reason, is a minor under the obligation [to say Grace] ? Nay, with what case are we here dealing ? With one who, for instance, has eaten the minimum quantity ordained by the Rabbis [as making the saying of Grace necessary] ; and thus one who is enjoined by the Rabbis [to say Grace] comes and exempts one [whose observance is likewise commanded] by the Rabbis.

Now we should assume that since its remnants [are valid] with two, at the outset also two are valid, and that the reason he teaches three is to indicate what is the most proper observance of the commandment And since R. Yose requires three only for the most proper observance of the commandment according to the rabbis three are indispensable.

Now we should assume that since its remnants [are valid] with two, at the outset also two are valid, and that the reason he teaches three is to indicate what is the most proper observance of the commandment And since R. Yose requires three only for the most proper observance of the commandment according to the rabbis three are indispensable.

But has it not been taught: R. Yose says: If at the outset a bunch of hyssop has only two stalks or if its remnants consist of one, it is invalid, since a bunch is not valid unless at the outset it contains three and its remnants are no less than two? Reverse [the assumption]: According to R. Yose three are indispensable, according to the rabbis three are required only for the proper observance of the commandment.

Does R. Judah hold that the Eighth Day requires staying overnight? Has it not been taught: R. Judah says: From where do we know that Pesah Sheni does not require staying overnight? As it is said, "And you shall turn in the morning and go to you tents" (Deuteronomy 16:7) and [immediately afterwards] it is written, "Six days you shall eat matzot" thus implying that that which has six days [of observance] requires staying overnight, but that which does not have six days [of observance] does not require staying overnight. What does this exclude? Does this not exclude also the Eighth Day of the festival?

Does R. Judah hold that the Eighth Day requires staying overnight? Has it not been taught: R. Judah says: From where do we know that Pesah Sheni does not require staying overnight? As it is said, "And you shall turn in the morning and go to you tents" (Deuteronomy 16:7) and [immediately afterwards] it is written, "Six days you shall eat matzot" thus implying that that which has six days [of observance] requires staying overnight, but that which does not have six days [of observance] does not require staying overnight. What does this exclude? Does this not exclude also the Eighth Day of the festival?

And what does R. Eliezer son of R. Yose do with this “second”? He requires it for the statement of R. Shmuel b. Judah. For R. Shmuel b. Judah said: At first they [Mordecai and Esther] decreed the observance of Purim only in Shushan, but afterwards throughout the world.

A wicked ruler”: this is Haman. “Over a poor people”: this is Israel, who are poor in [the observance of] mitzvot.

(7) The garments of a common person are defiled by pressure for Pharisees; the garments of Pharisees are defiled by pressure for those that eat heave-offering; the garments of those that eat heave-offering are defiled by pressure for those that partake of hallowed things; the garments of those that partake of hallowed things are defiled by pressure for those that partake of sin offering. Jose ben Joezer was pious and in the priesthood, and yet his apron was defiled by pressure for those that partake of hallowed things. Jochanan ben Gudgodah was one who ate his ordinary food all his days with observance of the laws of purification which belong to hallowed things, and yet his apron was defiled by pressure for those that partake of sin offering.

Rab Mari said, Learn from this that common food which is treated with observance of the laws of purification belonging to hallowed things, is like hallowed things. Wherefore? Is it

because he does not include it among the orders? No; for perhaps this is the reason that he does not include it among the orders, that, if it were likened to heave-offering, behold, we have been already taught about heave-offering, and if it were likened to common food, behold, we have been already taught about common food, for there is a Baraitha, viz., common food which is treated with observance of the laws of purification belonging to hallowed things, behold, it is nevertheless as common food. R. El'azar in the name of R. Zadok says, Behold it is as heave-offering.

But observe what we learn from the latter part of the Mishnah. Jose ben Joezer was pious and in the priesthood, and yet his apron was defiled by pressure for those that partake of hallowed things. Jochanan ben Gudgodah was one who ate his ordinary food all his days with observance of the laws of purification which belong to hallowed things, and yet his apron was defiled by pressure for those that partake of sin offering. Of sin-offering, yes; of hallowed things, no. Wherefore he considered, Common food which is treated with observance of the laws of purification belonging to hallowed things is like hallowed things. R. Jonathan ben El'azar said, A man's neckcloth has fallen from him. He says to his neighbour, Give it to me, and uncleanness is communicated to him.

But observe what we learn from the latter part of the Mishnah. Jose ben Joezer was pious and in the priesthood, and yet his apron was defiled by pressure for those that partake of hallowed things. Jochanan ben Gudgodah was one who ate his ordinary food all his days with observance of the laws of purification which belong to hallowed things, and yet his apron was defiled by pressure for those that partake of sin offering. Of sin-offering, yes; of hallowed things, no. Wherefore he considered, Common food which is treated with observance of the laws of purification belonging to hallowed things is like hallowed things. R. Jonathan ben El'azar said, A man's neckcloth has fallen from him. He says to his neighbour, Give it to me, and uncleanness is communicated to him.

a knot in water is drawn tighter, while in the former case the water makes the vessel to swim, and so there is no interposition. Thus it was necessary that they should be separately mentioned. Rabbi Ela is consistent with himself. For R. Ela said that R. Chănina bar Papa said, Ten degrees of superior excellence are taught here. The first five refer alike to hallowed things, and to ordinary things which are treated with observance of the laws of purification belonging to hallowed things; the later refer to hallowed things, but not to ordinary things, which are treated with observance of the laws of purification belonging to hallowed things. What is the reason? Because the former five involve an essential impurity arising out of the Law, our Rabbis have decided that they apply as well to hallowed things, as to ordinary things which are treated with observance of the laws of purification belonging to hallowed things. Because the later ones involve no essential impurity arising out of the Law, our Rabbis have decided that they apply to hallowed things; but to ordinary things which are treated with observance of the laws of purification belonging to hallowed things our Rabbis have decided that they do not apply.

a knot in water is drawn tighter, while in the former case the water makes the vessel to swim, and so there is no interposition. Thus it was necessary that they should be separately mentioned. Rabbi Ela is consistent with himself. For R. Ela said that R. Chănina bar Papa said, Ten degrees of superior excellence are taught here. The first five refer alike to hallowed things, and to ordinary things which are treated with observance of the laws of purification belonging to hallowed things; the later refer to hallowed things, but not to ordinary things, which are treated with observance of the laws of purification belonging to hallowed things. What is the reason? Because the former five involve an essential impurity arising out of the Law, our Rabbis have decided that they apply as well to hallowed things, as to ordinary things which are treated with observance of the laws of purification belonging to hallowed things. Because the later ones involve no essential impurity arising out of the Law, our Rabbis have decided that they apply to hallowed things; but to ordinary things which are treated with observance of the laws of purification belonging to hallowed things our Rabbis have decided that they do not apply.

a knot in water is drawn tighter, while in the former case the water makes the vessel to swim, and so there is no interposition. Thus it was necessary that they should be separately mentioned. Rabbi Ela is consistent with himself. For R. Ela said that R. Chănina bar Papa said, Ten degrees of superior excellence are taught here. The first five refer alike to hallowed things, and to ordinary things which are treated with observance of the laws of purification belonging to hallowed things; the later refer to hallowed things, but not to ordinary things, which are treated with observance of the laws of purification belonging to hallowed things. What is the reason? Because the former five involve an essential impurity arising out of the Law, our Rabbis have decided that they apply as well to hallowed things, as to ordinary things which are treated with observance of the laws of purification belonging to hallowed things. Because the later ones involve no essential impurity arising out of the Law, our Rabbis have decided that they apply to hallowed things; but to ordinary things which are treated with observance of the laws of purification belonging to hallowed things our Rabbis have decided that they do not apply.

a knot in water is drawn tighter, while in the former case the water makes the vessel to swim, and so there is no interposition. Thus it was necessary that they should be separately mentioned. Rabbi Ela is consistent with himself. For R. Ela said that R. Chănina bar Papa said, Ten degrees of superior excellence are taught here. The first five refer alike to hallowed things, and to ordinary things which are treated with observance of the laws of purification belonging to hallowed things; the later refer to hallowed things, but not to ordinary things, which are treated with observance of the laws of purification belonging to hallowed things. What is the reason? Because the former five involve an essential impurity arising out of the Law, our Rabbis have decided that they apply as well to hallowed things, as to ordinary things which are treated with observance of the laws of purification belonging to hallowed things. Because the later ones involve no essential impurity arising out of the Law, our Rabbis have decided that they apply to hallowed things; but to ordinary things which are treated with observance of the laws of purification belonging to hallowed things our Rabbis have decided that they do not apply.

and with an area of the size of two fingers making a complete revolution (Mikvaoth, vi. 7). He bethinks himself, This is like that which R. Nachman said that Rabbah bar Abuah said, viz., Eleven features of superior excellence are taught here. The first six refer alike to hallowed things and to ordinary things which are treated with observance of the laws of purification belonging to hallowed things. The later ones refer to hallowed things, but not to ordinary things which are treated with observance of the laws of purification belonging to hallowed things.

and with an area of the size of two fingers making a complete revolution (Mikvaoth, vi. 7). He bethinks himself, This is like that which R. Nachman said that Rabbah bar Abuah said, viz., Eleven features of superior excellence are taught here. The first six refer alike to hallowed things and to ordinary things which are treated with observance of the laws of purification belonging to hallowed things. The later ones refer to hallowed things, but not to ordinary things which are treated with observance of the laws of purification belonging to hallowed things.

And the place for laying hold etc. What is the place for laying hold? R. Jehudah said that R. Samuel said, The part by which he reaches it, and accordingly He says, "And he reached her parched corn" (Ruth ii. 14). R. Asi said that R. Jochanan said, The part of the dish of which fastidious persons lay hold. R. Baybi, who stood before R. Nachman, taught, No vessels have outsides or inside whether for holy things of the sanctuary or holy things of the province. He said to him, Holy things of the province, what are they? the heave-offering? But lo, there is a canonical Mishnah, viz., The outsides and inside and the place for laying hold are reckoned as distinct for the heave-offering (Chag. 20b, ii. 1). R. Baybi replied, Perhaps it refers to ordinary things which are treated with observance of the laws of purification belonging to hallowed things.

In what you have said you have reminded me of a saying of Rabba bar Abuah, viz., Eleven degrees of superior excellence are taught here. The first six refer, as well to hallowed things, as to ordinary things which are treated with observance of the laws of purification belonging to hallowed things. The later ones refer to hallowed things, but not to ordinary things treated with the observance of the laws of purification belonging to hallowed things.

In what you have said you have reminded me of a saying of Rabba bar Abuah, viz., Eleven degrees of superior excellence are taught here. The first six refer, as well to hallowed things, as to ordinary things which are treated with observance of the laws of purification belonging to hallowed things. The later ones refer to hallowed things, but not to ordinary things treated with the observance of the laws of purification belonging to hallowed things.