occurs

Do not you yourselves compute, but keep it when your brethren of the circumcision do so: keep it together with them; and if they err in their computation, be not you concerned. Keep your nights of watching in the middle of the days of unleavened bread. And when the Jews are feasting, do you fast and wail over them, because on the day of their feast they crucified Christ; and while they are lamenting and eating unleavened bread in bitterness, do you feast. But no longer be careful to keep the feast with the Jews, for we have now no communion with them; for they have been led astray in regard to the calculation itself, which they think they accomplish perfectly, that they may be led astray on every hand, and be fenced off from the truth. But do you observe carefully the vernal equinox, which occurs on the twenty-second of the twelfth month, which is Dystros (March), observing carefully until the twenty-first of the moon, lest the fourteenth of the moon shall fall on another week, and an error being committed, you should through ignorance celebrate the passover twice in the year, or celebrate the day of the resurrection of our Lord on any other day than a Sunday.

Some indeed of our predecessors have observed, that in the New Testament, whenever the Spirit is named without that adjunct which denotes quality, the Holy Spirit is to be understood; as e.g. in the expression, “Now the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, and peace;” and, “Seeing ye began in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect in the flesh?” We are of opinion that this distinction may be observed in the Old Testament also, as when it is said, “He that giveth His Spirit to the people who are upon the earth, and Spirit to them who walk thereon.” For, without doubt, every one who walks upon the earth (i.e. earthly and corporeal beings) is a partaker also of the Holy Spirit, receiving it from God. My Hebrew master also used to say that those two seraphim in Isaiah, which are described as having each six wings, and calling to one another, and saying, “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God of hosts,” were to be understood of the only-begotten Son of God and of the Holy Spirit. And we think that that expression also which occurs in the hymn of Habakkuk, “In the midst either of the two living things, or of the two lives, Thou wilt be known,” ought to be understood of Christ and of the Holy Spirit. For all knowledge of the Father is obtained by revelation of the Son through the Holy Spirit, so that both of these beings which, according to the prophet, are called either “living things” or “lives,” exist as the ground of the knowledge of God the Father. For as it is said of the Son, that “no one knoweth the Father but the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal Him,” the same also is said by the apostle of the Holy Spirit, when he declares, “God hath revealed them to us by His Holy Spirit; for the Spirit searcheth all things, even the deep things of God;” and again in the Gospel, when the Saviour, speaking of the divine and profounder parts of His teaching, which His disciples were not yet able to receive, thus addresses them: “I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now; but when the Holy Spirit, the Comforter, is come, He will teach you all things, and will bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.” We must understand, therefore, that as the Son, who alone knows the Father, reveals Him to whom He will, so the Holy Spirit, who alone searches the deep things of God, reveals God to whom He will: “For the Spirit bloweth where He listeth.” We are not, however, to suppose that the Spirit derives His knowledge through revelation from the Son. For if the Holy Spirit knows the Father through the Son’s revelation, He passes from a state of ignorance into one of knowledge; but it is alike impious and foolish to confess the Holy Spirit, and yet to ascribe to Him ignorance. For even although something else existed before the Holy Spirit, it was not by progressive advancement that He came to be the Holy Spirit; as if any one should venture to say, that at the time when He was not yet the Holy Spirit He was ignorant of the Father, but that after He had received knowledge He was made the Holy Spirit. For if this were the case, the Holy Spirit would never be reckoned in the unity of the Trinity, i.e. along with the unchangeable Father and His Son, unless He had always been the Holy Spirit. When we use, indeed, such terms as “always” or “was,” or any other designation of time, they are not to be taken absolutely, but with due allowance; for while the significations of these words relate to time, and those subjects of which we speak are spoken of by a stretch of language as existing in time, they nevertheless surpass in their real nature all conception of the finite understanding.

But perhaps this question is asked, If it be the understanding which prays and sings with the spirit, and if it be the same which receives both perfection and salvation, how is it that Peter says, “Receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls?” If the soul neither prays nor sings with the spirit, how shall it hope for salvation? or when it attains to blessedness, shall it be no longer called a soul? Let us see if perhaps an answer may be given in this way, that as the Saviour came to save what was lost, that which formerly was said to be lost is not lost when it is saved; so also, perhaps, this which is saved is called a soul, and when it has been placed in a state of salvation will receive a name from the Word that denotes its more perfect condition. But it appears to some that this also may be added, that as the thing which was lost undoubtedly existed before it was lost, at which time it was something else than destroyed, so also will be the case when it is no longer in a ruined condition. In like manner also, the soul which is said to have perished will appear to have been something at one time, when as yet it had not perished, and on that account would be termed soul, and being again freed from destruction, it may become a second time what it was before it perished, and be called a soul. But from the very signification of the name soul which the Greek word conveys, it has appeared to a few curious inquirers that a meaning of no small importance may be suggested. For in sacred language God is called a fire, as when Scripture says, “Our God is a consuming fire.” Respecting the substance of the angels also it speaks as follows: “Who maketh His angels spirits, and His ministers a burning fire;” and in another place, “The angel of the Lord appeared in a flame of fire in the bush.” We have, moreover, received a commandment to be “fervent in spirit;” by which expression undoubtedly the Word of God is shown to be hot and fiery. The prophet Jeremiah also hears from Him, who gave him his answers, “Behold, I have given my words into thy mouth a fire.” As God, then, is a fire, and the angels a flame of fire, and all the saints are fervent in spirit, so, on the contrary, those who have fallen away from the love of God are undoubtedly said to have cooled in their affection for Him, and to have become cold. For the Lord also says, that, “because iniquity has abounded, the love of many will grow cold.” Nay, all things, whatever they are, which in holy Scripture are compared with the hostile power, the devil is said to be perpetually finding cold; and what is found to be colder than he? In the sea also the dragon is said to reign. For the prophet intimates that the serpent and dragon, which certainly is referred to one of the wicked spirits, is also in the sea. And elsewhere the prophet says, “I will draw out my holy sword upon the dragon the flying serpent, upon the dragon the crooked serpent, and will slay him.” And again he says: “Even though they hide from my eyes, and descend into the depths of the sea, there will I command the serpent, and it shall bite them.” In the book of Job also, he is said to be the king of all things in the waters. The prophet threatens that evils will be kindled by the north wind upon all who inhabit the earth. Now the north wind is described in holy Scripture as cold, according to the statement in the book of Wisdom, “That cold north wind;” which same thing also must undoubtedly be understood of the devil. If, then, those things which are holy are named fire, and light, and fervent, while those which are of an opposite nature are said to be cold; and if the love of many is said to wax cold; we have to inquire whether perhaps the name soul, which in Greek is termed ψυχή, be so termed from growing cold out of a better and more divine condition, and be thence derived, because it seems to have cooled from that natural and divine warmth, and therefore has been placed in its present position, and called by its present name. Finally, see if you can easily find a place in holy Scripture where the soul is properly mentioned in terms of praise: it frequently occurs, on the contrary, accompanied with expressions of censure, as in the passage, “An evil soul ruins him who possesses it;” and, “The soul which sinneth, it shall die.” For after it has been said, “All souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine,” it seemed to follow that He would say, “The soul that doeth righteousness, it shall be saved,” and “The soul which sinneth, it shall die.” But now we see that He has associated with the soul what is censurable, and has been silent as to that which was deserving of praise. We have therefore to see if, perchance, as we have said is declared by the name itself, it was called ψυχή, i.e. anima, because it has waxed cold from the fervour of just things, and from participation in the divine fire, and yet has not lost the power of restoring itself to that condition of fervour in which it was at the beginning. Whence the prophet also appears to point out some such state of things by the words, “Return, O my soul, unto thy rest.” From all which this appears to be made out, that the understanding, falling away from its status and dignity, was made or named soul; and that, if repaired and corrected, it returns to the condition of the understanding.

Let us now look to the expression, “It is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy.” For our opponents assert, that if it does not depend upon him that willeth, nor on him that runneth, but on God that showeth mercy, that a man be saved, our salvation is not in our own power. For our nature is such as to admit of our either being saved or not, or else our salvation rests solely on the will of Him who, if He wills it, shows mercy, and confers salvation. Now let us inquire, in the first place, of such persons, whether to desire blessings be a good or evil act; and whether to hasten after good as a final aim be worthy of praise. If they were to answer that such a procedure was deserving of censure, they would evidently be mad; for all holy men both desire blessings and run after them, and certainly are not blameworthy. How, then, is it that he who is not saved, if he be of an evil nature, desires blessings, and runs after them, but does not find them? For they say that a bad tree does not bring forth good fruits, whereas it is a good fruit to desire blessings. And how is the fruit of a bad tree good? And if they assert that to desire blessings, and to run after them, is an act of indifference, i.e. neither good nor bad, we shall reply, that if it be an indifferent act to desire blessings, and to run after them, then the opposite of that will also be an indifferent act, viz. to desire evils, and to run after them; whereas it is certain that it is not an indifferent act to desire evils, and to run after them, but one that is manifestly wicked. It is established, then, that to desire and follow after blessings is not an indifferent, but a virtuous proceeding. Having now repelled these objections by the answer which we have given, let us hasten on to the discussion of the subject itself, in which it is said, “It is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy.” In the book of Psalms—in the songs of Degrees, which are ascribed to Solomon—the following statement occurs: “Except the Lord build the house, they labour in vain that build it; except the Lord keep the city, the watchman waketh but in vain.” By which words he does not indeed indicate that we should cease from building or watching over the safe keeping of that city which is within us; but what he points out is this, that whatever is built without God, and whatever is guarded without Him, is built in vain, and guarded to no purpose. For in all things that are well built and well protected, the Lord is held to be the cause either of the building or of its protection. As if, e.g., we were to behold some magnificent structure and mass of splendid building reared with beauteous architectural skill, would we not justly and deservedly say that such was built not by human power, but by divine help and might? And yet from such a statement it will not be meant that the labour and industry of human effort were inactive, and effected nothing at all. Or again, if we were to see some city surrounded by a severe blockade of the enemy, in which threatening engines were brought against the walls, and the place hard pressed by a vallum, and weapons, and fire, and all the instruments of war, by which destruction is prepared, would we not rightly and deservedly say, if the enemy were repelled and put to flight, that the deliverance had been wrought for the liberated city by God? And yet we would not mean, by so speaking, that either the vigilance of the sentinels, or the alertness of the young men, or the protection of the guards, had been wanting. And the apostle also must be understood in a similar manner, because the human will alone is not sufficient to obtain salvation; nor is any mortal running able to win the heavenly [rewards], and to obtain the prize of our high calling of God in Christ Jesus, unless this very good will of ours, and ready purpose, and whatever that diligence within us may be, be aided or furnished with divine help. And therefore most logically did the apostle say, that “it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy;” in the same manner as if we were to say of agriculture what is actually written: “I planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase. So then neither is he that planteth anything, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase.” As, therefore, when a field has brought good and rich crops to perfect maturity, no one would piously and logically assert that the husbandman had made those fruits, but would acknowledge that they had been produced by God; so also is our own perfection brought about, not indeed by our remaining inactive and idle, [but by some activity on our part]: and yet the consummation of it will not be ascribed to us, but to God, who is the first and chief cause of the work. So, when a ship has overcome the dangers of the sea, although the result be accomplished by great labour on the part of the sailors, and by the aid of all the art of navigation, and by the zeal and carefulness of the pilot, and by the favouring influence of the breezes, and the careful observation of the signs of the stars, no one in his sound senses would ascribe the safety of the vessel, when, after being tossed by the waves, and wearied by the billows, it has at last reached the harbour in safety, to anything else than to the mercy of God. Not even the sailors or pilot venture to say, “I have saved the ship,” but they refer all to the mercy of God; not that they feel that they have contributed no skill or labour to save the ship, but because they know that while they contributed the labour, the safety of the vessel was ensured by God. So also in the race of our life we ourselves must expend labour, and bring diligence and zeal to bear; but it is from God that salvation is to be hoped for as the fruit of our labour. Otherwise, if God demand none of our labour, His commandments will appear to be superfluous. In vain, also, does Paul blame some for having fallen from the truth, and praise others for abiding in the faith; and to no purpose does he deliver certain precepts and institutions to the churches: in vain, also, do we ourselves either desire or run after what is good. But it is certain that these things are not done in vain; and it is certain that neither do the apostles give instructions in vain, nor the Lord enact laws without a reason. It follows, therefore, that we declare it to be in vain, rather, for the heretics to speak evil of these good declarations.

The result of all the foregoing remarks is to show, that all the occurrences in the world which are considered to be of an intermediate kind, whether they be mournful or otherwise, are brought about, not indeed by God, and yet not without Him; while He not only does not prevent those wicked and opposing powers that are desirous to bring about these things [from accomplishing their purpose], but even permits them to do so, although only on certain occasions and to certain individuals, as is said with respect to Job himself, that for a certain time he was made to fall under the power of others, and to have his house plundered by unjust persons. And therefore holy Scripture teaches us to receive all that happens as sent by God, knowing that without Him no event occurs. For how can we doubt that such is the case, viz. that nothing comes to man without [the will of] God, when our Lord and Saviour declares, “Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father who is in heaven.” But the necessity of the case has drawn us away in a lengthened digression on the subject of the struggle waged by the hostile powers against men, and of those sadder events which happen to human life, i.e. its temptations—according to the declaration of Job, “Is not the whole life of man upon the earth a temptation?”—in order that the manner of their occurrence, and the spirit in which we should regard them, might be clearly shown. Let us notice next, how men fall away into the sin of false knowledge, or with what object the opposing powers are wont to stir up conflict with us regarding such things.

Nor was it only with regard to those Scriptures which were composed down to the advent of Christ that the Holy Spirit thus dealt; but as being one and the same Spirit, and proceeding from one God, He dealt in the same way with the evangelists and apostles. For even those narratives which He inspired them to write were not composed without the aid of that wisdom of His, the nature of which we have above explained. Whence also in them were intermingled not a few things by which, the historical order of the narrative being interrupted and broken up, the attention of the reader might be recalled, by the impossibility of the case, to an examination of the inner meaning. But, that our meaning may be ascertained by the facts themselves, let us examine the passages of Scripture. Now who is there, pray, possessed of understanding, that will regard the statement as appropriate, that the first day, and the second, and the third, in which also both evening and morning are mentioned, existed without sun, and moon, and stars—the first day even without a sky? And who is found so ignorant as to suppose that God, as if He had been a husbandman, planted trees in paradise, in Eden towards the east, and a tree of life in it, i.e. a visible and palpable tree of wood, so that any one eating of it with bodily teeth should obtain life, and, eating again of another tree, should come to the knowledge of good and evil? No one, I think, can doubt that the statement that God walked in the afternoon in paradise, and that Adam lay hid under a tree, is related figuratively in Scripture, that some mystical meaning may be indicated by it. The departure of Cain from the presence of the Lord will manifestly cause a careful reader to inquire what is the presence of God, and how any one can go out from it. But not to extend the task which we have before us beyond its due limits, it is very easy for any one who pleases to gather out of holy Scripture what is recorded indeed as having been done, but what nevertheless cannot be believed as having reasonably and appropriately occurred according to the historical account. The same style of scriptural narrative occurs abundantly in the Gospels, as when the devil is said to have placed Jesus on a lofty mountain, that he might show Him from thence all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them. How could it literally come to pass, either that Jesus should be led up by the devil into a high mountain, or that the latter should show Him all the kingdoms of the world (as if they were lying beneath his bodily eyes, and adjacent to one mountain), i.e. the kingdom of the Persians, and Scythians, and Indians? or how could he show in what manner the kings of these kingdoms are glorified by men? And many other instances similar to this will be found in the Gospels by any one who will read them with attention, and will observe that in those narratives which appear to be literally recorded, there are inserted and interwoven things which cannot be admitted historically, but which may be accepted in a spiritual signification.

But it was, as the prophets also predicted, from a virgin that there was to be born, according to the promised sign, one who was to give His name to the fact, showing that at His birth God was to be with man. Now it seems to me appropriate to the character of a Jew to have quoted the prophecy of Isaiah, which says that Emmanuel was to be born of a virgin. This, however, Celsus, who professes to know everything, has not done, either from ignorance or from an unwillingness (if he had read it and voluntarily passed it by in silence) to furnish an argument which might defeat his purpose. And the prediction runs thus: “And the Lord spake again unto Ahaz, saying, Ask thee a sign of the Lord thy God; ask it either in the depth or in the height above. But Ahaz said, I will not ask, neither will I tempt the Lord. And he said, Hear ye now, O house of David; is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will ye weary my God also? Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign. Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call His name Immanuel, which is, being interpreted, God with us.” And that it was from intentional malice that Celsus did not quote this prophecy, is clear to me from this, that although he makes numerous quotations from the Gospel according to Matthew, as of the star that appeared at the birth of Christ, and other miraculous occurrences, he has made no mention at all of this. Now, if a Jew should split words, and say that the words are not, “Lo, a virgin,” but, “Lo, a young woman,” we reply that the word “Olmah”—which the Septuagint have rendered by “a virgin,” and others by “a young woman”—occurs, as they say, in Deuteronomy, as applied to a “virgin,” in the following connection: “If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he humbled his neighbour’s wife.” And again: “But if a man find a betrothed damsel in a field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die: but unto the damsel ye shall do nothing; there is in her no sin worthy of death.”

Continuing to pour abuse upon Jesus as one who, on account of his impiety and wicked opinions, was, so to speak, hated by God, he asserts that “these tenets of his were those of a wicked and God-hated sorcerer.” And yet, if the name and the thing be properly examined, it will be found an impossibility that man should be hated by God, seeing God loves all existing things, and “hateth nothing of what He has made,” for He created nothing in a spirit of hatred. And if certain expressions in the prophets convey such an impression, they are to be interpreted in accordance with the general principle by which Scripture employs such language with regard to God as if He were subject to human affections. But what reply need be made to him who, while professing to bring forward credible statements, thinks himself bound to make use of calumnies and slanders against Jesus, as if He were a wicked sorcerer? Such is not the procedure of one who seeks to make good his case, but of one who is in an ignorant and unphilosophic state of mind, inasmuch as the proper course is to state the case, and candidly to investigate it; and, according to the best of his ability, to bring forward what occurs to him with regard to it. But as the Jew of Celsus has, with the above remarks, brought to a close his charges against Jesus, so we also shall here bring to a termination the contents of our first book in reply to him. And if God bestow the gift of that truth which destroys all falsehood, agreeably to the words of the prayer, “Cut them off in thy truth,” we shall begin, in what follows, the consideration of the second appearance of the Jew, in which he is represented by Celsus as addressing those who have become converts to Jesus.

But let us look at what Celsus next with great ostentation announces in the following fashion: “And again,” he says, “let us resume the subject from the beginning, with a larger array of proofs. And I make no new statement, but say what has been long settled. God is good, and beautiful, and blessed, and that in the best and most beautiful degree. But if he come down among men, he must undergo a change, and a change from good to evil, from virtue to vice, from happiness to misery, and from best to worst. Who, then, would make choice of such a change? It is the nature of a mortal, indeed, to undergo change and remoulding, but of an immortal to remain the same and unaltered. God, then, could not admit of such a change.” Now it appears to me that the fitting answer has been returned to these objections, when I have related what is called in Scripture the “condescension” of God to human affairs; for which purpose He did not need to undergo a transformation, as Celsus thinks we assert, nor a change from good to evil, nor from virtue to vice, nor from happiness to misery, nor from best to worst. For, continuing unchangeable in His essence, He condescends to human affairs by the economy of His providence. We show, accordingly, that the Holy Scriptures represent God as unchangeable, both by such words as “Thou art the same,” and “I change not;” whereas the gods of Epicurus, being composed of atoms, and, so far as their structure is concerned, capable of dissolution, endeavour to throw off the atoms which contain the elements of destruction. Nay, even the god of the Stoics, as being corporeal, at one time has his whole essence composed of the guiding principle when the conflagration [of the world] takes place; and at another, when a rearrangement of things occurs, he again becomes partly material. For even the Stoics were unable distinctly to comprehend the natural idea of God, as of a being altogether incorruptible and simple, and uncompounded and indivisible.

Celsus goes on to say of us: “They set no value on the oracles of the Pythian priestess, of the priests of Dodona, of Clarus, of Branchidæ, of Jupiter Ammon, and of a multitude of others; although under their guidance we may say that colonies were sent forth, and the whole world peopled. But those sayings which were uttered or not uttered in Judea, after the manner of that country, as indeed they are still delivered among the people of Phœnicia and Palestine—these they look upon as marvellous sayings, and unchangeably true.” In regard to the oracles here enumerated, we reply that it would be possible for us to gather from the writings of Aristotle and the Peripatetic school not a few things to overthrow the authority of the Pythian and the other oracles. From Epicurus also, and his followers, we could quote passages to show that even among the Greeks themselves there were some who utterly discredited the oracles which were recognised and admired throughout the whole of Greece. But let it be granted that the responses delivered by the Pythian and other oracles were not the utterances of false men who pretended to a divine inspiration; and let us see if, after all, we cannot convince any sincere inquirers that there is no necessity to attribute these oracular responses to any divinities, but that, on the other hand, they may be traced to wicked demons—to spirits which are at enmity with the human race, and which in this way wish to hinder the soul from rising upwards, from following the path of virtue, and from returning to God in sincere piety. It is said of the Pythian priestess, whose oracle seems to have been the most celebrated, that when she sat down at the mouth of the Castalian cave, the prophetic spirit of Apollo entered her private parts; and when she was filled with it, she gave utterance to responses which are regarded with awe as divine truths. Judge by this whether that spirit does not show its profane and impure nature, by choosing to enter the soul of the prophetess not through the more becoming medium of the bodily pores which are both open and invisible, but by means of what no modest man would ever see or speak of. And this occurs not once or twice, which would be more permissible, but as often as she was believed to receive inspiration from Apollo. Moreover, it is not the part of a divine spirit to drive the prophetess into such a state of ecstasy and madness that she loses control of herself. For he who is under the influence of the Divine Spirit ought to be the first to receive the beneficial effects; and these ought not to be first enjoyed by the persons who consult the oracle about the concerns of natural or civil life, or for purposes of temporal gain or interest; and, moreover, that should be the time of clearest perception, when a person is in close intercourse with the Deity.

[A considerable lacuna here occurs in the text.]

[As to] an onen, and one who is removing a heap [of stones], and likewise one whom they promised to take out of prison, and a sick or an old person who can eat as much as an olive, they slaughter on their behalf. [Yet in the case of] all these, they may not slaughter for them alone, lest they bring the pesah to disqualification. Therefore if a disqualification occurs to them, they are exempt from keeping the second pesah, except for one who was removing the heap, because he was unclean from the beginning.

If the court ruled that an entire principle has to be uprooted; if they said that [the law concerning the] menstruant is not found in the Torah or the [law concerning the] Sabbath is not found in the torah or [the law concerning] idolatry is not found in the torah, they are exempt. If, however, they ruled that a part [of a commandment] was to be annulled and a part fulfilled, they are liable. How is this so? If they said: [the law concerning the] menstruant occurs in the Torah but if a man has relations with a woman that awaits a day corresponding to a day he is exempt, [or that the law concerning the] Sabbath occurs in the Torah but if a man carries anything from a private domain to a public domain he is exempt, [or that the law of] idolatry occurs in the Torah, but if a man only bows down to an idol he is exempt, they are liable, for it says, “And if some matter escapes [the notice of the congregation]” (Leviticus 4:13), “some matter” but not the entire principle.

If the court ruled that an entire principle has to be uprooted; if they said that [the law concerning the] menstruant is not found in the Torah or the [law concerning the] Sabbath is not found in the torah or [the law concerning] idolatry is not found in the torah, they are exempt. If, however, they ruled that a part [of a commandment] was to be annulled and a part fulfilled, they are liable. How is this so? If they said: [the law concerning the] menstruant occurs in the Torah but if a man has relations with a woman that awaits a day corresponding to a day he is exempt, [or that the law concerning the] Sabbath occurs in the Torah but if a man carries anything from a private domain to a public domain he is exempt, [or that the law of] idolatry occurs in the Torah, but if a man only bows down to an idol he is exempt, they are liable, for it says, “And if some matter escapes [the notice of the congregation]” (Leviticus 4:13), “some matter” but not the entire principle.

If the court ruled that an entire principle has to be uprooted; if they said that [the law concerning the] menstruant is not found in the Torah or the [law concerning the] Sabbath is not found in the torah or [the law concerning] idolatry is not found in the torah, they are exempt. If, however, they ruled that a part [of a commandment] was to be annulled and a part fulfilled, they are liable. How is this so? If they said: [the law concerning the] menstruant occurs in the Torah but if a man has relations with a woman that awaits a day corresponding to a day he is exempt, [or that the law concerning the] Sabbath occurs in the Torah but if a man carries anything from a private domain to a public domain he is exempt, [or that the law of] idolatry occurs in the Torah, but if a man only bows down to an idol he is exempt, they are liable, for it says, “And if some matter escapes [the notice of the congregation]” (Leviticus 4:13), “some matter” but not the entire principle.

All persons can substitute, both men and women. Not that one is permitted to substitute, but that if one did so, the substitute is sacred, and he receives forty lashes. Priests have the power to substitute their own [animal] and Israelites also have the power to substitute their own [animal]. Priests do not have the power to substitute a hatat, an asham or a first-born: Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri: what is the reason [priests] do not have the power to substitute a first-born? Rabbi Akiva said: a hatat and an asham are priestly gifts and a first-born is also a priestly gift. Just as in the case of a hatat and an asham [priests] have no power to substitute them, so in the case of a first-born [priests] have no power to substitute it. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri said to him: So what that priests should have no power to substitute a hatat and an asham, for there they have do not have a claim on these [offerings] while they are alive. How can you say that the same applies to a first-born upon which [the priests] do have a claim when it is alive? Rabbi Akiva replied to him: Has not Scripture already said: “Then it and its substitute shall be holy?” (Leviticus 27:10). Now where does the holiness [of the original animal] occur? In the house of the owners; so too the substitution occurs in the house of the owners.

In all cases of breaking out and covering the ends of the limbs whereby the unclean have been pronounced clean, if they reappeared they become unclean again. In all cases of reappearance of the ends of the limbs whereby the clean have been pronounced unclean, if they were covered again these become clean again. If subsequently they become uncovered these are unclean, even if this occurs a hundred times.

Rab Joseph said : There is no contradiction ; the statement of the Mishnah being the view of R. Eleazar b. 'Azariah, the other the view of R. 'Akiba. For there is a teaching : "And they shall eat the flesh in that night" (Exod. xii. 8). R. Eleazar b. 'Azariah said, "Here it is stated, 'in that night' and the same phrase occurs in 'For I will go through the land of Egypt in that night' (ibid. 5:12) ; as in the latter passage it means 'until midnight', so also in the former it means 'until midnight'."

R. Jose says : The Ba'al Keri may study what is familiar to him, but he must not expound the Mishnah. R. Jonathan b. Joseph says : He may expound the Mishnah but not the Talmud. R. Nathan b. Abishalom says : Also the Talmud may he expound, but he must not pronounce the name of God when it occurs. R. Johanan the Sandal-maker, disciple of R.'Akiba, said in the name of R.'Akiba : Such a man should not enter upon study at all. Another version of this statement is : Such a man should not enter a House of Study at all. R. Judah says : He may study the Halakot of Derek Eres.

They answered : In this latter case, since it comes at the beginning of the prayer, it would not cause confusion ; but in the former, since it occurs in the middle of the prayer, it would.

R. Zera was riding on an ass, and R. Hiyya b. Abin was following him. He said to him, "Is it really so as thou didst state in the name of R. Johanan : The Halakah is in agreement with R. Eliezer on a Festival which occurs on the conclusion of the Sabbath ?" He replied, "Yes."

"On which point do the Rabbis differ?" "On the other days of the year." "Do they differ on the question of a Festival which occurs at the conclusion of the Sabbath?

Rab Huna b. Ammi stated that R. Pedat said in the name of R. Johanan : He who sees a dream and his soul is depressed should go and have it interpreted in the presence of three. He should have it interpreted ! But Rab Hisda has said : An uninterpreted dream is like an unread letter ! Nay, but say : He should have it turned into good in the presence of three. He should assemble three men and say to them, "I have seen a good dream" ; and they should say to him, "Good it is and may it be good. May the All-merciful turn it to good ; seven times may it be decreed concerning thee from Heaven that it should be good, and may it be good." Then they should recite three verses in which the word hapak "turn" occurs, three in which padah "redeem" occurs, and three in which shalom "peace" occurs.

Rab Huna b. Ammi stated that R. Pedat said in the name of R. Johanan : He who sees a dream and his soul is depressed should go and have it interpreted in the presence of three. He should have it interpreted ! But Rab Hisda has said : An uninterpreted dream is like an unread letter ! Nay, but say : He should have it turned into good in the presence of three. He should assemble three men and say to them, "I have seen a good dream" ; and they should say to him, "Good it is and may it be good. May the All-merciful turn it to good ; seven times may it be decreed concerning thee from Heaven that it should be good, and may it be good." Then they should recite three verses in which the word hapak "turn" occurs, three in which padah "redeem" occurs, and three in which shalom "peace" occurs.

Rab Huna b. Ammi stated that R. Pedat said in the name of R. Johanan : He who sees a dream and his soul is depressed should go and have it interpreted in the presence of three. He should have it interpreted ! But Rab Hisda has said : An uninterpreted dream is like an unread letter ! Nay, but say : He should have it turned into good in the presence of three. He should assemble three men and say to them, "I have seen a good dream" ; and they should say to him, "Good it is and may it be good. May the All-merciful turn it to good ; seven times may it be decreed concerning thee from Heaven that it should be good, and may it be good." Then they should recite three verses in which the word hapak "turn" occurs, three in which padah "redeem" occurs, and three in which shalom "peace" occurs.

Three verses in which "turn" occurs — "Thou didst turn for me my mourning into dancing ; Thou didst loose my sackcloth and gird me with gladness" (Ps. xxx. 12); "Then shall the virgin rejoice in the dance, and the young men and the old together; for I will turn their mourning into joy, and will comfort them, and make them rejoice from their sorrow" (Jer. xxxi. 12); "Nevertheless the Lord thy God would not hearken unto Balaam; but the Lord thy God turned the curse into a blessing unto thee" (Deut. xxiii. 6).

Three verses in which the word "redeem" occurs — "He hath redeemed my soul in peace so that none came nigh me" (Ps. Iv. 19) ; "And the redeemed of the Lord shall return and come with singing unto Zion...and sorrow and sighing shall flee away" (Is. 35:10) ; "And the people said unto Saul, Shall Jonathan die, who hath wrought this great salvation in Israel?... So the people rescued [padah] Jonathan, that he died not" (I Sam. xiv, 45).

Three verses in which the word "peace" occurs — "Peace, peace, to him that is far off and to him that is near, saith the Lord that createth the fruit of the lips ; and I will heal him" (Is. lvii. 19) ; "Then the spirit clothed Amasai, who was chief of the captains : Thine are we, David, and on thy side, thou son of Jesse ; peace, peace be unto thee, and peace be to thy helpers; for thy God helpeth thee" (I Chron. xii. 18); "Thus ye shall say, All hail! and peace be both unto thee, and peace be to thy house, and peace be unto all that thou hast" (I Sam. xxv. 6).

R. Joshua b. Levi said : Who dreams of a river should on rising say, "Behold I will extend peace to her like a river" (Is. Ixvi. 12), before another verse occurs to him, viz. : "For distress will come in like a river" (ibid. lix. 19). Who dreams of a bird should on rising say, "As birds hovering so will the Lord of hosts protect" (ibid. xxxi. 5), before another verse occurs to him, viz. : "As a bird that wandereth from her nest, so is a man that wandereth from his place" (Prov. xxvii. 8). Who dreams of a pot should on rising say, "Lord, Thou wilt establish [shapat] peace for us" (Is. xxvi. 12), before another verse occurs to him, viz. : "Set on [shapat] the pot, set it on" (Ezek. xxiv. 3).

R. Joshua b. Levi said : Who dreams of a river should on rising say, "Behold I will extend peace to her like a river" (Is. Ixvi. 12), before another verse occurs to him, viz. : "For distress will come in like a river" (ibid. lix. 19). Who dreams of a bird should on rising say, "As birds hovering so will the Lord of hosts protect" (ibid. xxxi. 5), before another verse occurs to him, viz. : "As a bird that wandereth from her nest, so is a man that wandereth from his place" (Prov. xxvii. 8). Who dreams of a pot should on rising say, "Lord, Thou wilt establish [shapat] peace for us" (Is. xxvi. 12), before another verse occurs to him, viz. : "Set on [shapat] the pot, set it on" (Ezek. xxiv. 3).

R. Joshua b. Levi said : Who dreams of a river should on rising say, "Behold I will extend peace to her like a river" (Is. Ixvi. 12), before another verse occurs to him, viz. : "For distress will come in like a river" (ibid. lix. 19). Who dreams of a bird should on rising say, "As birds hovering so will the Lord of hosts protect" (ibid. xxxi. 5), before another verse occurs to him, viz. : "As a bird that wandereth from her nest, so is a man that wandereth from his place" (Prov. xxvii. 8). Who dreams of a pot should on rising say, "Lord, Thou wilt establish [shapat] peace for us" (Is. xxvi. 12), before another verse occurs to him, viz. : "Set on [shapat] the pot, set it on" (Ezek. xxiv. 3).

Who dreams of grapes should on rising say, "I found Israel like grapes in the wilderness" (Hos. ix. 10) before another verse occurs to him, viz.: "Their grapes are grapes of gall" (Deut. xxxii. 32). Who dreams of a mountain should on rising say, "How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of the messenger of good things" (Is. lii. 7), before another verse occurs to him, viz.: "For the mountains will I take up a weeping and wailing" (Jer. ix. 9).

Who dreams of grapes should on rising say, "I found Israel like grapes in the wilderness" (Hos. ix. 10) before another verse occurs to him, viz.: "Their grapes are grapes of gall" (Deut. xxxii. 32). Who dreams of a mountain should on rising say, "How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of the messenger of good things" (Is. lii. 7), before another verse occurs to him, viz.: "For the mountains will I take up a weeping and wailing" (Jer. ix. 9).

Who dreams of a horn should on rising say, "And it shall come to pass in that day, that a great horn shall be blown" (Is. xxvii. 13), before another verse occurs to him, viz. : "Blow ye the horn of Gibeah" (Hos. 5:8).

Who dreams of a dog should on rising say, "But against any of the children of Israel shall not a dog whet his tongue" (Exod. xi. 7), before another verse occurs to him, viz. : "Yea, the dogs are greedy" (Is. Ivi. 11). Who dreams of a lion should on rising say, "The lion hath roared, who will not fear?" (Amos iii. 8), before another verse occurs to him, viz. : "A lion is gone up from his thicket" (Jer. iv. 7) [is gone up] [a lion from his thicket].

Who dreams of a dog should on rising say, "But against any of the children of Israel shall not a dog whet his tongue" (Exod. xi. 7), before another verse occurs to him, viz. : "Yea, the dogs are greedy" (Is. Ivi. 11). Who dreams of a lion should on rising say, "The lion hath roared, who will not fear?" (Amos iii. 8), before another verse occurs to him, viz. : "A lion is gone up from his thicket" (Jer. iv. 7) [is gone up] [a lion from his thicket].

Who dreams of shaving should on rising say, "And [Joseph] shaved himself and changed his raiment" (Gen. xli. 14), before another verse occurs to him, viz. : "If I be shaven, then my strength will go from me" (Judges xvi. 17). Who dreams of a well should on rising say, "A well of living waters" (Cant. iv. 15), before another verse occurs to him, viz. : "As a cistern welleth with her waters, so she welleth with her wickedness" (Jer. vi. 7). Who dreams of a reed should on rising say, "A bruised reed shall he not break" (Is. xlii. 3), before another verse occurs to him, viz. : "Behold, thou trustest upon the staff of this bruised reed" (ibid, xxxvi. 6).

Who dreams of shaving should on rising say, "And [Joseph] shaved himself and changed his raiment" (Gen. xli. 14), before another verse occurs to him, viz. : "If I be shaven, then my strength will go from me" (Judges xvi. 17). Who dreams of a well should on rising say, "A well of living waters" (Cant. iv. 15), before another verse occurs to him, viz. : "As a cistern welleth with her waters, so she welleth with her wickedness" (Jer. vi. 7). Who dreams of a reed should on rising say, "A bruised reed shall he not break" (Is. xlii. 3), before another verse occurs to him, viz. : "Behold, thou trustest upon the staff of this bruised reed" (ibid, xxxvi. 6).

Who dreams of shaving should on rising say, "And [Joseph] shaved himself and changed his raiment" (Gen. xli. 14), before another verse occurs to him, viz. : "If I be shaven, then my strength will go from me" (Judges xvi. 17). Who dreams of a well should on rising say, "A well of living waters" (Cant. iv. 15), before another verse occurs to him, viz. : "As a cistern welleth with her waters, so she welleth with her wickedness" (Jer. vi. 7). Who dreams of a reed should on rising say, "A bruised reed shall he not break" (Is. xlii. 3), before another verse occurs to him, viz. : "Behold, thou trustest upon the staff of this bruised reed" (ibid, xxxvi. 6).

Who dreams of an ox should on rising say, "His firstling bullock, majesty is his" (Deut. xxxiii. 17), before another occurs to him, viz. : "If an ox gore a man" (Exod. xxi. 28).

Master says: ‘It is free from the obligations of Mezuzah, and parapet, does not become tamay from leprosy, is not irredeemable among the houses of a walled city, nor does one return on account [of it just being built] from the war’ What is the reason? Because the term ‘house’ occurs in all [these commandments].

‘The rabbis hold that the traditional Scriptural text is authoritative’, and the word Sukkoth occurs twice defectively and once with the full spelling, making four references. Deduct one for the law itself, and three remain;

He deduces it from the word ‘tent’ [common to this and to] the Tabernacle. It is written here (Numbers 19:14), "This is the law, when a man dies in a tent," and it is written there (Exodus 40:19), "And he spread the tent over the Tabernacle" Just as there [‘tent’ means one] made by the hands of man, so here [it means one made] by the hands of man. And the rabbis? The word ‘tent’ occurs many times, to include [all tents].

What is the reason of R. Judah? He deduces it from the word "take" [which occurs here (Leviticus 23:40) and with] the "taking" with regard to the bundle of hyssop (Exodus 12:22). It is written here, "And you shall take on the first day" and there it is written, "And you shall take a bundle of hyssop." Just as there [it must be] a bundle, so here also [it must be] a bundle. And the Rabbis? They do not deduce from the mention of the word "take" in the two passages.

If [the minor] knows how to take care of his body we may eat food that has been prepared in ritual purity though his body [touched it]; If he knows how to take care of hands, we may eat food that has been prepared in ritual purity even though his hands [touched it]. If he knows how to answer [questions on whether he touched any ritual uncleanliness], a doubtful case on his part that occurs in a private domain is regarded as unclean, but if in a public domain as clean. [If he knows how] to spread out his hands [in priestly benediction] they may give him terumah on the threshingfloors.

R. Isaac b. Jacob Bar-Giyore sent the following statement in the name of R. Johanan: Although it was said that linen garments are not subject to the law forbidding washing, it is nevertheless forbidden to put on washed linen garments during the week in which the ninth of Ab occurs. Said Rab, this prohibition applies only to the days preceding the ninth (within the same week), but on the days following, the wearing is permitted. Samuel, however, said, it is forbidden even on the days following. An objection was raised from this Baraita: During the week in which the ninth of Ab occurs, one is not allowed to cut one's hair or to wash one's clothes. What is the exact meaning of this law? It is as follows: If the ninth happens to be on Sunday, it is allowed to wash during all the following days of the week; if it be on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday, it is not allowed to wash on any of the days (of the week) preceding it, while on the days following, it is allowed; if the ninth happens to be on Friday, it is allowed to wash on Thursday for the honor of the Sabbath; if, however, one failed to wash on Thursday, he may do so on Friday from Minḥah time and onward, but prior to Minḥah time it is forbidden. ['Abbayi, however, or, as some say, R. 'Aḥa b. Jacob, deprecated this deed.] If the ninth be on Monday or Thursday, three men are called up to read the Torah, the last one of whom reads also the Haftarah, but if it be on Tuesday or Wednesday, one man reads both the Torah and the Haftarah; R. Jose said, always three men must read the Torah, the last one of whom also reads the Haftarah. Now, is not this Baraita (which teaches explicitly that on the days following the ninth, washing is allowed) a refutation of Samuel? Samuel can answer that the Tannaim differ regarding this matter, for it is taught in a Baraita: If the ninth of Ab or the eve of the ninth of Ab is on Saturday, one may continue eating as much as one wants and one may place on his table a royal banquet like that of king Solomon in his time; cutting the hair and washing clothes are forbidden from the first of the month of Ab to the day of the fast; this is the opinion of R. Meir; R. Judah said, cutting the hair and washing are forbidden during the entire month; Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel says, they are forbidden only during the week in which the ninth occurs. Another Baraita teaches: Mourning must be observed from the first of the month to the day of the fast; this is the opinion of R. Meir; R. Judah says, it must be observed during the entire month; Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel says, only during the week in which the ninth occurs.

R. Isaac b. Jacob Bar-Giyore sent the following statement in the name of R. Johanan: Although it was said that linen garments are not subject to the law forbidding washing, it is nevertheless forbidden to put on washed linen garments during the week in which the ninth of Ab occurs. Said Rab, this prohibition applies only to the days preceding the ninth (within the same week), but on the days following, the wearing is permitted. Samuel, however, said, it is forbidden even on the days following. An objection was raised from this Baraita: During the week in which the ninth of Ab occurs, one is not allowed to cut one's hair or to wash one's clothes. What is the exact meaning of this law? It is as follows: If the ninth happens to be on Sunday, it is allowed to wash during all the following days of the week; if it be on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday, it is not allowed to wash on any of the days (of the week) preceding it, while on the days following, it is allowed; if the ninth happens to be on Friday, it is allowed to wash on Thursday for the honor of the Sabbath; if, however, one failed to wash on Thursday, he may do so on Friday from Minḥah time and onward, but prior to Minḥah time it is forbidden. ['Abbayi, however, or, as some say, R. 'Aḥa b. Jacob, deprecated this deed.] If the ninth be on Monday or Thursday, three men are called up to read the Torah, the last one of whom reads also the Haftarah, but if it be on Tuesday or Wednesday, one man reads both the Torah and the Haftarah; R. Jose said, always three men must read the Torah, the last one of whom also reads the Haftarah. Now, is not this Baraita (which teaches explicitly that on the days following the ninth, washing is allowed) a refutation of Samuel? Samuel can answer that the Tannaim differ regarding this matter, for it is taught in a Baraita: If the ninth of Ab or the eve of the ninth of Ab is on Saturday, one may continue eating as much as one wants and one may place on his table a royal banquet like that of king Solomon in his time; cutting the hair and washing clothes are forbidden from the first of the month of Ab to the day of the fast; this is the opinion of R. Meir; R. Judah said, cutting the hair and washing are forbidden during the entire month; Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel says, they are forbidden only during the week in which the ninth occurs. Another Baraita teaches: Mourning must be observed from the first of the month to the day of the fast; this is the opinion of R. Meir; R. Judah says, it must be observed during the entire month; Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel says, only during the week in which the ninth occurs.

R. Isaac b. Jacob Bar-Giyore sent the following statement in the name of R. Johanan: Although it was said that linen garments are not subject to the law forbidding washing, it is nevertheless forbidden to put on washed linen garments during the week in which the ninth of Ab occurs. Said Rab, this prohibition applies only to the days preceding the ninth (within the same week), but on the days following, the wearing is permitted. Samuel, however, said, it is forbidden even on the days following. An objection was raised from this Baraita: During the week in which the ninth of Ab occurs, one is not allowed to cut one's hair or to wash one's clothes. What is the exact meaning of this law? It is as follows: If the ninth happens to be on Sunday, it is allowed to wash during all the following days of the week; if it be on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday, it is not allowed to wash on any of the days (of the week) preceding it, while on the days following, it is allowed; if the ninth happens to be on Friday, it is allowed to wash on Thursday for the honor of the Sabbath; if, however, one failed to wash on Thursday, he may do so on Friday from Minḥah time and onward, but prior to Minḥah time it is forbidden. ['Abbayi, however, or, as some say, R. 'Aḥa b. Jacob, deprecated this deed.] If the ninth be on Monday or Thursday, three men are called up to read the Torah, the last one of whom reads also the Haftarah, but if it be on Tuesday or Wednesday, one man reads both the Torah and the Haftarah; R. Jose said, always three men must read the Torah, the last one of whom also reads the Haftarah. Now, is not this Baraita (which teaches explicitly that on the days following the ninth, washing is allowed) a refutation of Samuel? Samuel can answer that the Tannaim differ regarding this matter, for it is taught in a Baraita: If the ninth of Ab or the eve of the ninth of Ab is on Saturday, one may continue eating as much as one wants and one may place on his table a royal banquet like that of king Solomon in his time; cutting the hair and washing clothes are forbidden from the first of the month of Ab to the day of the fast; this is the opinion of R. Meir; R. Judah said, cutting the hair and washing are forbidden during the entire month; Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel says, they are forbidden only during the week in which the ninth occurs. Another Baraita teaches: Mourning must be observed from the first of the month to the day of the fast; this is the opinion of R. Meir; R. Judah says, it must be observed during the entire month; Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel says, only during the week in which the ninth occurs.

R. Isaac b. Jacob Bar-Giyore sent the following statement in the name of R. Johanan: Although it was said that linen garments are not subject to the law forbidding washing, it is nevertheless forbidden to put on washed linen garments during the week in which the ninth of Ab occurs. Said Rab, this prohibition applies only to the days preceding the ninth (within the same week), but on the days following, the wearing is permitted. Samuel, however, said, it is forbidden even on the days following. An objection was raised from this Baraita: During the week in which the ninth of Ab occurs, one is not allowed to cut one's hair or to wash one's clothes. What is the exact meaning of this law? It is as follows: If the ninth happens to be on Sunday, it is allowed to wash during all the following days of the week; if it be on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday, it is not allowed to wash on any of the days (of the week) preceding it, while on the days following, it is allowed; if the ninth happens to be on Friday, it is allowed to wash on Thursday for the honor of the Sabbath; if, however, one failed to wash on Thursday, he may do so on Friday from Minḥah time and onward, but prior to Minḥah time it is forbidden. ['Abbayi, however, or, as some say, R. 'Aḥa b. Jacob, deprecated this deed.] If the ninth be on Monday or Thursday, three men are called up to read the Torah, the last one of whom reads also the Haftarah, but if it be on Tuesday or Wednesday, one man reads both the Torah and the Haftarah; R. Jose said, always three men must read the Torah, the last one of whom also reads the Haftarah. Now, is not this Baraita (which teaches explicitly that on the days following the ninth, washing is allowed) a refutation of Samuel? Samuel can answer that the Tannaim differ regarding this matter, for it is taught in a Baraita: If the ninth of Ab or the eve of the ninth of Ab is on Saturday, one may continue eating as much as one wants and one may place on his table a royal banquet like that of king Solomon in his time; cutting the hair and washing clothes are forbidden from the first of the month of Ab to the day of the fast; this is the opinion of R. Meir; R. Judah said, cutting the hair and washing are forbidden during the entire month; Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel says, they are forbidden only during the week in which the ninth occurs. Another Baraita teaches: Mourning must be observed from the first of the month to the day of the fast; this is the opinion of R. Meir; R. Judah says, it must be observed during the entire month; Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel says, only during the week in which the ninth occurs.

derives it from the word "ḥaggah" (her feast, which sometimes designates new moon); he who says "the entire month" derives it from "ḥodshah" (her new moon, which means also the whole month), while he who says: "only during the week in which the ninth occurs," derives it from "shabbattah" (her sabbath, which means also week).

R. Oshaya said: This is what he meant: The festival sacrifice [is postponed if its time] occurs on Shabbat, and the “burnt-offering of appearance” is postponed even until after the festival day which is the proper time for a festival sacrifice.

Araboth is that in which are righteousness and judgment and grace, the treasures of life and the treasures of peace and the treasures of blessing, and the souls of the righteous, and the spirits and souls which are about to be created, and the dew with which the Holy One, blessed be He, is about to quicken mortals: righteousness and judgment; for it is written, "Righteousness and judgment are the foundation of thy throne:" (Ps. lxxxix. 15; E.V. 14) grace; for it is written, "And he put on grace as a coat of mail:" (Is. lix. 17) the treasures of life; for it is written, "For with thee is the fountain of life:" (Ps. xxxvi. 9) and the treasures of peace; for it is written, "and called it, The LORD is peace:" (Jud. vi. 24) and the treasures of blessing; for it is written, "He shall receive a blessing from the LORD:" (Ps. xxiv. 5) the souls of the righteous; for it is written, "Yet the soul of my lord shall be bound in the bundle of life with the LORD thy God:" (1 Sam. xxv. 29) the spirits and souls which are about to be created; for it is written, "For the spirit before me shall join itself to a body, and the souls which I have made:" (Is. lvii. 16) and the dew with which the Holy One, blessed be He, is about to quicken mortals; for it is written, "Thou, O God, didst send a plentiful rain, thou didst confirm thine inheritance when it was weary" (Ps. lxviii. 10; E.V. 9). There there are celestials and seraphs and holy beings and ministering angels, and the throne of glory, and the King, the Living God, high and lifted up, sitting over them among the clouds, as it is said, "Cast up a highway for him that rideth upon the clouds (Araboth); his name is Jah" (Ps. lxviii. 4). And whence do we get it that they are called heaven? Because mention of riding occurs in two passages. It is written in one place, "Cast up a highway for him that rideth upon the clouds," and it is written in another, "who rideth upon the heaven for thy help" (Deut. xxxiii. 26). And darkness and cloud and thick darkness surround Him, as it is said, "He made darkness his hiding place, his pavilion round about him; darkness of waters, thick clouds" (Ps. xviii. 12; E.V. 11). And how is there darkness in the presence of the Lord? For against this, there is the passage, "He revealeth the deep and secret things; he knoweth what is in the darkness and the light dwelleth with him" (Dan. ii. 22). There is no difficulty.