oneself

And there shall be no iron for war, Nor shall one clothe oneself with a breastplate. Bronze shall be of no service, And tin shall be of no service and shall not be esteemed, And lead shall not be desired.

“Truly I tell you, (God) won’t ever forgive the sin of the soul or the guilt of the flesh, because no one who’s worn the flesh will be saved. Do you think that many have found the kingdom of heaven? Blessed is the one who’s seen oneself (at) the fourth (stage) in heaven.”

For if one keep oneself from these evil things, then even among his enemies shall wisdom be a glory to him, and in a strange country a fatherland, and in the midst of foes shall prove a friend.

'To keep oneself,' he answered, 'free from bribery and to practise sobriety during the greater part of one's life, to honour rightousness above all things, and to make friends of men of this type. For God, too, is a lover of justice! Having signified his approval, the king said to another, 'What is the true mark of piety?'

And he replied, 'To rule oneself well and not to be led astray by wealth or fame to immoderate or unseemly desires, this is the true way of ruling if you reason the matter well out. For all that you really need is yours, and God is free from need and benignant withal. Let your thoughts be such as become a man, and desire not many things but only such as are necessary for ruling!

And he replied, 'To rule oneself and not to be carried away by impulses. For all men possess a certain natural bent of mind. It is probable that most men have an inclination towards food and drink and pleasure, and kings a bent towards the acquisition of territory and great renown. But it is good that there should be moderation in all things.

Now there was at this time a man among the Jews, low of stature he was, and of a despicable appearance; of no character either as to his family, or in other respects: his name was Jonathan. He went out at the high priest John's monument, and uttered many other insolent things to the Romans, and challenged the best of them all to a single combat. But many of those that stood there in the army huffed him, and many of them [as they might well be] were afraid of him. Some of them also reasoned thus, and that justly enough: that it was not fit to fight with a man that desired to die, because those that utterly despaired of deliverance had, besides other passions, a violence in attacking men that could not be opposed, and had no regard to God himself; and that to hazard oneself with a person, whom, if you overcome, you do no great matter, and by whom it is hazardous that you may be taken prisoner, would be an instance, not of manly courage, but of unmanly rashness. So there being nobody that came out to accept the man's challenge, and the Jew cutting them with a great number of reproaches, as cowards, [for he was a very haughty man in himself, and a great despiser of the Romans,] one whose name was Pudens, of the body of horsemen, out of his abomination of the other's words, and of his impudence withal, and perhaps out of an inconsiderate arrogance, on account of the other's lowness of stature, ran out to him, and was too hard for him in other respects, but was betrayed by his ill fortune; for he fell down, and as he was down, Jonathan came running to him, and cut his throat, and then, standing upon his dead body, he brandished his sword, bloody as it was, and shook his shield with his left hand, and made many acclamations to the Roman army, and exulted over the dead man, and jested upon the Romans; till at length one Priscus, a centurion, shot a dart at him as he was leaping and playing the fool with himself, and thereby pierced him through; upon which a shout was set up both by the Jews and the Romans, though on different accounts. So Jonathan grew giddy by the pain of his wounds, and fell down upon the body of his adversary, as a plain instance how suddenly vengeance may come upon men that have success in war, without any just deserving the same.

And do not suppose that it is not in keeping with the Christian religion for me to have accepted, against Celsus, the opinions of those philosophers who have treated of the immortality or after-duration of the soul; for, holding certain views in common with them, we shall more conveniently establish our position, that the future life of blessedness shall be for those only who have accepted the religion which is according to Jesus, and that devotion towards the Creator of all things which is pure and sincere, and unmingled with any created thing whatever. And let him who likes show what “better things” we persuade men to despise, and let him compare the blessed end with God in Christ,—that is, the word, and the wisdom, and all virtue,—which, according to our view, shall be bestowed, by the gift of God, on those who have lived a pure and blameless life, and who have felt a single and undivided love for the God of all things, with that end which is to follow according to the teaching of each philosophic sect, whether it be Greek or barbarian, or according to the professions of religious mysteries; and let him prove that the end which is predicted by any of the others is superior to that which we promise, and consequently that that is true, and ours not befitting the gift of God, nor those who have lived a good life; or let him prove that these words were not spoken by the divine Spirit, who filled the souls of the holy prophets. And let him who likes show that those words which are acknowledged among all men to be human, are superior to those which are proved to be divine, and uttered by inspiration. And what are the “better” things from which we teach those who receive them that it would be better to abstain? For if it be not arrogant so to speak, it is self-evident that nothing can be denied which is better than to entrust oneself to the God of all, and yield oneself up to the doctrine which raises us above all created things, and brings us, through the animate and living word—which is also living wisdom and the Son of God—to God who is over all. However, as the third book of our answers to the treatise of Celsus has extended to a sufficient length, we shall here bring our present remarks to a close, and in what is to follow shall meet what Celsus has subsequently written.

And do not suppose that it is not in keeping with the Christian religion for me to have accepted, against Celsus, the opinions of those philosophers who have treated of the immortality or after-duration of the soul; for, holding certain views in common with them, we shall more conveniently establish our position, that the future life of blessedness shall be for those only who have accepted the religion which is according to Jesus, and that devotion towards the Creator of all things which is pure and sincere, and unmingled with any created thing whatever. And let him who likes show what “better things” we persuade men to despise, and let him compare the blessed end with God in Christ,—that is, the word, and the wisdom, and all virtue,—which, according to our view, shall be bestowed, by the gift of God, on those who have lived a pure and blameless life, and who have felt a single and undivided love for the God of all things, with that end which is to follow according to the teaching of each philosophic sect, whether it be Greek or barbarian, or according to the professions of religious mysteries; and let him prove that the end which is predicted by any of the others is superior to that which we promise, and consequently that that is true, and ours not befitting the gift of God, nor those who have lived a good life; or let him prove that these words were not spoken by the divine Spirit, who filled the souls of the holy prophets. And let him who likes show that those words which are acknowledged among all men to be human, are superior to those which are proved to be divine, and uttered by inspiration. And what are the “better” things from which we teach those who receive them that it would be better to abstain? For if it be not arrogant so to speak, it is self-evident that nothing can be denied which is better than to entrust oneself to the God of all, and yield oneself up to the doctrine which raises us above all created things, and brings us, through the animate and living word—which is also living wisdom and the Son of God—to God who is over all. However, as the third book of our answers to the treatise of Celsus has extended to a sufficient length, we shall here bring our present remarks to a close, and in what is to follow shall meet what Celsus has subsequently written.

Second tithe is set apart for eating, for drinking and for anointing; for eating what is usually eaten, for drinking what is usually drunk, and for anointing what is usually used for anointing. One may not anoint oneself with wine or with vinegar, but one may anoint oneself with oil. One may not spice oil of second tithe, nor may one buy spiced oil with second tithe money. But one may spice wine. If honey or spices fell into wine and improved its value, the improved value [is divided] according to the proportion. If fish was cooked with leek of second tithe and it improved in value, the improved value [is divided] according to the proportion. If dough of second tithe was baked and it improved in value, the whole improved value is second [tithe]. This is the general rule: whenever the improvement is recognizable the improved value [is divided] according to the proportion, but whenever the improved value is not recognizable the improved value belongs to the second [tithe].

Second tithe is set apart for eating, for drinking and for anointing; for eating what is usually eaten, for drinking what is usually drunk, and for anointing what is usually used for anointing. One may not anoint oneself with wine or with vinegar, but one may anoint oneself with oil. One may not spice oil of second tithe, nor may one buy spiced oil with second tithe money. But one may spice wine. If honey or spices fell into wine and improved its value, the improved value [is divided] according to the proportion. If fish was cooked with leek of second tithe and it improved in value, the improved value [is divided] according to the proportion. If dough of second tithe was baked and it improved in value, the whole improved value is second [tithe]. This is the general rule: whenever the improvement is recognizable the improved value [is divided] according to the proportion, but whenever the improved value is not recognizable the improved value belongs to the second [tithe].

Rabbi Shimon says: one may not anoint oneself with oil of second tithe in Jerusalem. But the sages allow it. They said to Rabbi Shimon: if a lenient ruling has been adopted in the case of terumah which is a grave matter, should we not also adopt a lenient ruling in the case of second tithe which is a light matter? He said to them: No; a lenient ruling has been adopted in the case of terumah though it is a grave matter, because in terumah we have adopted a lenient ruling also with regard to vetches and fenugreek, but how can we adopt a lenient ruling in the case of second tithe though it is a light matter, when we have not adopted a lenient ruling in second tithe with regard to vetches and fenugreek?

Meisah: Bet Shammai exempts [from hallah], And Bet Hillel makes liable [for hallah]. Halita: Bet Shammai makes liable, And Bet Hillel exempts. The loaves of the thanksgiving sacrifice and the wafers of a nazirite: if one made them for oneself, they are exempt [from hallah]. [If one made them] to sell in the market, they are subject [to hallah].

[On] Yom HaKippurim it is forbidden to eat, to drink, to wash, to anoint oneself, to put on sandals, or to have intercourse. A king or bride may wash their face, and a woman after childbirth may put on sandals, the words of Rabbi Eliezer. But the sages forbid it.

If Rosh Hodesh Kislev came and no rain fell the court ordains upon the community three fasts; they may eat and drink while it is still dark and it is permissible to do work, to bathe, to anoint oneself with oil, to wear shoes, and to have marital relations.

Rabbi Yose says: there are six instances of lenient rulings by Beth Shammai and stringent rulings by Beth Hillel. A fowl may be put on a table [together] with cheese but may not be eaten [with it], according to the opinion of Beth Shammai. But Beth Hillel says: it may neither be put on [the table together with it] nor eaten [with it]. Olives may be given as terumah for oil and grapes for wine, according to the opinion of Beth Shammai. But Beth Hillel says: they may not be given. One who sows seed [within] four cubits of a vineyard: Beth Shammai says: he has caused one row [of vines] to be prohibited. But Beth Hillel says: he has caused two rows to be prohibited. Flour paste [flour that had been mixed with boiling water]: Beth Shammai exempts [from the law of hallah]; But Beth Hillel pronounces it liable. One may immerse oneself in a rain-torrent, according to the opinion of Beth Shammai; But Beth Hillel say: one may not immerse oneself [therein]. One who became a proselyte on the eve of Passover: Beth Shammai says: he may immerse himself and eat his Passover sacrifice in the evening. But Beth Hillel says: one who separates himself from uncircumcision is as one who separates himself from the grave.

Rabbi Yose says: there are six instances of lenient rulings by Beth Shammai and stringent rulings by Beth Hillel. A fowl may be put on a table [together] with cheese but may not be eaten [with it], according to the opinion of Beth Shammai. But Beth Hillel says: it may neither be put on [the table together with it] nor eaten [with it]. Olives may be given as terumah for oil and grapes for wine, according to the opinion of Beth Shammai. But Beth Hillel says: they may not be given. One who sows seed [within] four cubits of a vineyard: Beth Shammai says: he has caused one row [of vines] to be prohibited. But Beth Hillel says: he has caused two rows to be prohibited. Flour paste [flour that had been mixed with boiling water]: Beth Shammai exempts [from the law of hallah]; But Beth Hillel pronounces it liable. One may immerse oneself in a rain-torrent, according to the opinion of Beth Shammai; But Beth Hillel say: one may not immerse oneself [therein]. One who became a proselyte on the eve of Passover: Beth Shammai says: he may immerse himself and eat his Passover sacrifice in the evening. But Beth Hillel says: one who separates himself from uncircumcision is as one who separates himself from the grave.

If one derived a perutah's worth of benefit from a sacred thing, he is guilty of sacrilege even though he did not lessen its value, the words of Rabbi Akiva. But the sages say: Anything that can deteriorate [through use], the law of sacrilege applies to it only after it has suffered deterioration. And anything that does not deteriorate [through use], the law of sacrilege applies to it as soon as he made use of it. How is this so? If [a woman] puts a necklace round her neck or a ring on her finger, or if she drank from a golden cup, she is liable to the law of sacrilege as soon as she made use of it [to the value of a perutah]. But if one puts on a shirt or covers oneself with a cloak, or if one chopped [wood] with an axe, he is subject to the law of sacrilege only if [those objects] have suffered deterioration. If one sheared a hatat while it was alive, he is not liable for sacrilege unless he has diminished its value. If when dead, he is liable as soon as he made use of it.

One who filled the water with one hand and did some other work with the other hand, or filled the water for himself and for another man, or filled two jars at the same time, the water of both is invalid, for work causes invalidity whether one acts for oneself or for another person.

Flowing water is considered like a spring and dripping water is considered like a mikveh. Rabbi Zadok testified that if flowing water exceeded dripping water [with which it was mixed] it was valid [as flowing water]. If dripping water became flowing water, its flow may be blocked by a stick or by a reed or even by a zav or a zavah, and then one may go down and immerse oneself in it, the words of Rabbi Judah. Rabbi Yose says: one may not stop the flow of water with anything which is liable to uncleanness.

If a wave was separated [from the sea] and was forty seahs, and it fell on a man or on vessels, they become clean. Any place containing forty seahs is valid for immersing oneself and for immersing other things. One may immerse in trenches or in ditches or even in a donkey-track whose water is connected in a valley. Bet Shammai say: one may immerse in a rain torrent. But Bet Hillel say: one may not immerse. They agree that one may block its flow with vessels and immerse oneself in it, but the vessels with which the flow is blocked are not thereby [validly] immersed.

If a wave was separated [from the sea] and was forty seahs, and it fell on a man or on vessels, they become clean. Any place containing forty seahs is valid for immersing oneself and for immersing other things. One may immerse in trenches or in ditches or even in a donkey-track whose water is connected in a valley. Bet Shammai say: one may immerse in a rain torrent. But Bet Hillel say: one may not immerse. They agree that one may block its flow with vessels and immerse oneself in it, but the vessels with which the flow is blocked are not thereby [validly] immersed.

If he immersed a bed in it, even though its legs sink into the thick mud, it still becomes clean because the water touched them before [the mud]. The water of a mikveh which is shallow, one may press down even bundles of sticks, even bundles of reeds, so that the level of the water may rise, and then go down and immerse oneself. If an [unclean] needle is placed on the step [leading down to a mikveh] in a cavern, and the water is put in motion, once a wave has passed over it, [the needle] becomes clean.

The matted hair on the heart and on the beard and on a woman's hidden parts; pus outside the eye, hardened pus outside a wound and the plaster over it, dried-up juice, clots of excrement on the body, dough under the finger nails, sweat-crumbs, miry clay, potter's clay, and road-clay. What is meant by 'miry clay’? This means the clay in pits, for it is written: "He lifted me out of the miry pit, the slimy clay" (Psalms 40:3). "Potter's clay" according to its literal sense. Rabbi Yose declares potter's clay clean, but clay for putty unclean. And "road-clay." These become like road-side pegs in these [kinds of clay] one may not immerse oneself nor immerse [other things] with them; But in all other clay one may immerse when it is wet. One may not immerse oneself with dust [still] on one's feet. One may not immerse a kettle with soot [on it] unless he scraped it.

The matted hair on the heart and on the beard and on a woman's hidden parts; pus outside the eye, hardened pus outside a wound and the plaster over it, dried-up juice, clots of excrement on the body, dough under the finger nails, sweat-crumbs, miry clay, potter's clay, and road-clay. What is meant by 'miry clay’? This means the clay in pits, for it is written: "He lifted me out of the miry pit, the slimy clay" (Psalms 40:3). "Potter's clay" according to its literal sense. Rabbi Yose declares potter's clay clean, but clay for putty unclean. And "road-clay." These become like road-side pegs in these [kinds of clay] one may not immerse oneself nor immerse [other things] with them; But in all other clay one may immerse when it is wet. One may not immerse oneself with dust [still] on one's feet. One may not immerse a kettle with soot [on it] unless he scraped it.

Rebbi Nehemiah the son of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said: My father did not walk under the arch of Caesarea. Rebbi Ammi, Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Cohen and Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa went walking on those streets of Sepphoris. They came to the arch and Rebbi Cohen left. They reached a place of purity and he returned to them. He asked them: “What were you discussing?” Rebbi Ḥizqiah said to Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa: “Do not tell him anything!” We do not know whether it was because he was angry that he left since one defiles oneself for words of Torah or whether it was because he was haughty.

MISHNAH: If someone was standing and praying when he remembered that he had qeri, he should not stop but shorten his prayer. If he descended to immerse himself, if he can ascend, get dressed, and recite by the time of sunrise he should ascend, get dressed, and recite; otherwise, he should cover himself with water and recite. He should cover himself neither with stinking water nor with steeping water unless he diluted them with water. How much does one have to remove oneself from these and excrement? Four cubits.

Rebbi Ḥalaphta ben Shaul stated: It is a bad sign if one lets wind during one’s prayer. That means on one’s bottom, but not on one’s top. This parallels what Rebbi Ḥanina said: I saw Rebbi yawning, belching, putting his hand on his mouth, but not spitting. Rebbi Yoḥanan said, one may even spit so that one’s cup should be clean; forward is forbidden, behind oneself is permitted. To one’s right is forbidden, to one’s left is permitted; that is what is written (Ps. 91: 7): “On your left hand side will fall a thousand.” Everybody agrees about one who spits toward the stele, that he is forbidden to do so. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi says, he who spits in the synagogue is like one who spits into his own eye. Rebbi Jonah spat and rubbed out. Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Samuel bar Ḥalaphta in the name of Rav Ada bar Aḥava: He who prayed should not spit until he walked four cubits. Rebbi Yose bar Rebbi Abun said, similarly he who spat should not pray until he walked four cubits.

Rebbi Joḥanan said to Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: Babylonian, two things came from you, prostrating oneself on fast days and the willow of the seventh day. The rabbis of Caesarea say, and the moving.

MISHNAH: Olives containing a quarter log [of oil] per seah one may break open and eat in the field. When they contain half a log, one may pound them and [use the oil to] anoint oneself in the field. When they contain a third, one may pound them on the field and bring them to the house; in a similar circumstance in the other years of the Sabbatical cycle they are subject to tithes. For all other tree fruits, as their time for tithes so is their time for the Sabbatical year.

It was stated: “A water source belonging to the townspeople, between them and outsiders, they have precedence over outsiders. Between outsiders and their animals, the outsiders have precedence. Their washing and the lives of outsiders, their washing has precedence over the lives of outsiders.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, who is the Tanna who saidthat washing is a necessity for survival? Rebbi Yose! As it was stated: “One may use it neither for steeping nor for washing. But Rebbi Yose permits it for washing.” The opinions of Rebbi Yose are contradictory. There he says, washing oneself is not a necessity of life. And here, he says washing one’s garments is a necessity of life. Rebbi Mana said, a person might put off washing himself but nobody puts off washing his clothes.

Rebbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: One may ask about practice of the bath in the bathhouse and the practice of the toilet in the toilet. As the following: Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar went bathing with Rebbi Meïr. He asked him, how about drying oneself with a towel? He told him, it is forbidden. How about rinsing? He told him, it is forbidden. But did not Samuel ask Rav, may one say Amen at a dirty place? He told him: it is forbidden and it is forbidden for me to tell you it is forbidden. There was found a Tanna who stated: One does (not) ask about practice of the bath in the bathhouse and the practice of the toilet in the toilet.

Rebbi Zakkai stated before Rebbi Joḥanan: If somebody sacrificed, burned incense, and poured a libation in one forgetting, he is guilty for each action separately. Rebbi Joḥanan told him, Babylonian! You crossed three rivers with your hands and were broken. He is guilty only once! {Before he broke it in his hand there is “one” but not “those”; after he broke it in his hand there are “those” but not “one”.} Rebbi Abba bar Mamal asked before Rebbi Zeˋira: Should he not be guilty for each action separately? As you say for the Sabbath: Do not perform any work, principle. Do not light fire in any of your dwelling places, a detail. Was not lighting fire subsumed under the principle, but it is mentioned separately from this principle! Since lighting fire is special in that it is the work of a single individual and one would be guilty for it alone, so everything for which one alone is guilty. Also here: Do not worship them, a principle. Do not prostrate yourself, a detail. Was not prostrating itself included in the principle and why was it mentioned separately? To infer, to tell you that prostrating oneself is special in that it is the action of a single individual and one would be guilty for it alone, so everything for which one alone is guilty. He answered: For the Sabbath, He mentioned the principle at one place and the details at another place. For idol worship, the principle is found close to the detail. He retorted: Is it not written: Do not prostrate yourself before another power? He who sacrifices to Elohim shall be banned. He mentioned the principle at one place and the details at another place! He said, since you do [not] infer anything from it close up, you cannot infer anything from afar. The colleagues say, it makes no difference; whether He gave the principle at one place and the detail at another, or gave principle and detail at the same place, it is a matter of principle and detail. For the Sabbath, He first gave the principle and then the detail. For idolatry, He gave the detail and only later the principle. Rebbi Yose said, it makes no difference whether He first gave the principle and then the detail or He gave the detail and only later the principle, or He gave principle, detail, and principle; it is a matter of principle and detail. For the Sabbath, He gave a general prohibition of work, followed by details; for idolatry, He gave the general principle regarding its worship but detailed the works of Heaven.

Rebbi Mana said, lighting fire was mentioned unnecessarily; prostrating oneself was mentioned by necessity to explain about itself since it is not work. This follows what Ḥizqiah stated: He who sacrifices to powers shall be banned. Sacrificing was mentioned separately to teach about everything, prostrating oneself to explain about itself since it is not work. Rebbi Jeremiah said, lighting fire was mentioned by necessity, to teach that courts should not sit on the Sabbath. What is the reason? It says here, in all your settlements, and it says there, these . . should be rules of law for your generations, in all your settlements. Since “settlements” mentioned there refers to courts, “settlements” referred to here also refers to courts. Rebbi Samuel bar Eudaimon said, even if you say that it was mentioned separately necessarily is as if it was mentioned separately not by necessity, and any item mentioned separately unnecessarily instructs.

Rebbi Mana said, lighting fire was mentioned unnecessarily; prostrating oneself was mentioned by necessity to explain about itself since it is not work. This follows what Ḥizqiah stated: He who sacrifices to powers shall be banned. Sacrificing was mentioned separately to teach about everything, prostrating oneself to explain about itself since it is not work. Rebbi Jeremiah said, lighting fire was mentioned by necessity, to teach that courts should not sit on the Sabbath. What is the reason? It says here, in all your settlements, and it says there, these . . should be rules of law for your generations, in all your settlements. Since “settlements” mentioned there refers to courts, “settlements” referred to here also refers to courts. Rebbi Samuel bar Eudaimon said, even if you say that it was mentioned separately necessarily is as if it was mentioned separately not by necessity, and any item mentioned separately unnecessarily instructs.

It was stated: “A smooth stone the size of an olive, or a walnut, or an egg, he may take and cleanse his feet with it. Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose said in his father’s name: up to a full hand.” Rav Jehudah said, Boetius ben Zenon was sitting and repeating before Rebbi; he said, so we are saying, it is necessary that he sit down and take it in his hand. He told him, everything is permitted except what is formed like a small sack. Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Yannai: it may be like the base of a small mortar of a spice dealer. Rebbi Yose said, they only said, of a spice. But not of spices. Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: A pebble on which grasses grew he may take and cleanse his feet with it. But if he plucks off from it on the Sabbath he is liable for a purification sacrifice. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: It is forbidden to cleanse oneself with any potsherd. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, not only potsherds but even handles of amphoras, and anything which was brought into the fire and came out again. Rebbi Yose ben Yose said, a pebble which had been used by another person and water in a volume of less than 40 se’ah one may not use to cleanse himself. Rebbi Ḥanania in the name of Rebbi Mana: It is forbidden to cleanse himself with water which a dog licked. And it was stated so: One cleans himself neither with a dog’s mouth, nor in presence of a dog, nor with water which the dog had licked off, nor with water in a volume of less than 40 se’ah. And if somebody washes in the bath house or washes in a bathtub, it is bad for hemorrhoids. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav Ḥuna: Five things were said about a reed blade: One does not use it to slaughter, nor to circumcise, nor to clean teeth with it, nor does one use it to cut meat on the table, nor does one cleanse himself, because an evil spirit resides on it.

HALAKHAH: So is the Mishnah: Before they are on fire. Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Abba bar Mamal in the name of Rav: If a scroll started burning at one side one puts water on the other side; if it was extinguished it was extinguished. If the fire burned on both sides one spreads it out and reads in it; if it was extinguished it was extinguished. If a toga started burning at one side one puts water on the other side; if it was extinguished it was extinguished. If the fire burned on both sides one takes it and wraps oneself in it; if it was extinguished it was extinguished.

Who is the Tanna of “whether it be weekday or Sabbath”? Rebbi Ismael, as it was stated: “As its order is on a weekday so its order is on a Sabbath, the words of Rebbi Ismael. Rebbi Aqiba says, as its order is on a Friday so is its order on a Sabbath.” This means that Rebbi Ismael makes it an hour later for its arguments, and Rebbi Aqiba makes it an hour earlier to occupy oneself with it, so they would not fulfill the commandment while inebriated. Could not the Pesaḥ be brought first and the daily sacrifice afterwards? If you are saying so, you are eliminating between the evenings of the Pesaḥ. If you are keeping between the evenings of the Pesaḥ, are you not eliminating between the evenings of the daily sacrifice? If you are neglecting between the evenings of the daily sacrifice now, you can observe it at other times. If you are neglecting it now for the Pesaḥ, when can you ever observe it? Could not Pesaḥ be brought first, followed by the daily sacrifice? The one about which is written in the evening and between the evenings shall be delayed more than one about which is written [only] between the evenings.

“And sexual relations.” Come and see, he is forbidden to wash, not so much more to have sexual relations? Explain it that it was a place where one does not immerse oneself, or before Ezra instituted immersion for people having had an emission. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Qeri is only from sexual intercourse. Rav Ḥuna said, even if he saw himself enjoying in his dream. They wanted to say, only from a woman. Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose both say, even from something else. But did we not state: On the Day of Atonement eating, drinking, washing, anointing, wearing shoes, and sexual relations, are forbidden?. And it was stated in that respect: Men with qeri immerse themselves secretly in their normal way on the day of Atonement. Does this not contradict Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, since Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, qeri is only from sexual intercourse? Explain it if he had intercourse on the previous day and forgot and did not immerse himself. But it was stated: It happened that one saw Rebbi Yose bar Halaphta immersing himself secretly on Yom Kippur. Can you say about that holy body that he forgot?]

HALAKHAH: “Lulav and willow six and seven,” etc. Rebbi Ze`ira, Rebbi Ila, Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The “willow” is practice going back to Moses on Mount Sinai. This is against Abba Shaul, since Abba Shaul said, the willow is a word of the Torah: and brook willows, two. One willow for the lulav, the other willow for the Temple. Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: willow and pouring water are practice going back to Moses on Mount Sinai. This is against Rebbi Aqiba, since Rebbi Aqiba said the pouring of water is a word of the Torah: On the second day and their libations. On the sixth say, and its libations. On the seventh day, and its rules. מ י מ spells “water”. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba asked before Rebbi Joḥanan, why does one now plough because of old trees? He said to him, when the practice was established it was given so that when they desired to plough they might plough. Rebbi Abba bar Zavda in the name of Rebbi Onias from Hauran: Willow, water libation, and ten saplings are institution of the prophets. Do they disagree? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Levi: That was the current practice; they forgot it, but the later ones got up and agreed to the opinion of the earlier ones to teach you that everything the court insists on will come to be in the end just as Moses was told on Sinai, as Rebbi Mana said, for it is not an empty word, if it is empty it is from you. Why? Because you do not exert yourselves. Because it is your life; when is it your life? At the time that you exert yourselves. Rebbi Joḥanan said to Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: Babylonian, two things came from you, prostrating oneself on the fast day, and the willow of the seventh day. The rabbis of Caesarea say, also the moving.

“And sexual relations.” Come and see, he is forbidden to wash, not so much more to have sexual relations? Explain it that it was a place where one does not immerse oneself, or before Ezra instituted immersion for people having had an emission. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi.: Qeri is only from sexual intercourse. Rav Huna said, even if he saw himself enjoying in his dream. They wanted to say, only from a woman. Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose both say, even from something else. There, we did state: “On the Day of Atonement eating, drinking, washing, anointing, wearing shoes, and sexual relations, are forbidden”? And it was stated in that respect: Men with qeri immerse themselves secretly in their normal way on the day of Atonement. Does this not contradict Rebbi Joshua ben Levi? Explain it if he had intercourse on the previous day and forgot and did not immerse himself. But it was stated: It happened that one saw Rebbi Yose bar Ḥalaphta immersing himself secretly on Yom Kippur. Can you say about that holy body that he forgot?

HALAKHAH: “One who made a vow to abstain from garments,” etc. One who made a vow to abstain from clothing is permitted sack-cloth, carpet, and goat’s hair cloth, leather apron, and bandages. He is forbidden fascia and belt. One who vows to abstain from clothing is forbidden all kinds of clothing but permitted these. Rebbi Jeremiah said, Rebbi Ze‘ira asked: If one said, a qônām, that I shall not wear a garment, that I shall not cover myself with clothing? Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar said, if he said, a qônām for anything that is generally used to cover oneself and a derivative of it is generally used to cover oneself; generally he is permitted the derivative; if he made a vow to abstain from the derivative he is permitted the material itself. What is an example? For example, sheepskin. For anything that is generally used to cover oneself but no derivative of it is generally used to cover oneself; if he vowed about it, he is permitted the derivative; if he made a vow to abstain from the derivative he is forbidden the material itself. What is an example? For example, goatskin. And anything that is generally not used to cover oneself but a derivative of it is generally used to cover oneself; if he vowed about it, he intended only the derivative. What is an example? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, for example raw cotton.

HALAKHAH: “One who made a vow to abstain from garments,” etc. One who made a vow to abstain from clothing is permitted sack-cloth, carpet, and goat’s hair cloth, leather apron, and bandages. He is forbidden fascia and belt. One who vows to abstain from clothing is forbidden all kinds of clothing but permitted these. Rebbi Jeremiah said, Rebbi Ze‘ira asked: If one said, a qônām, that I shall not wear a garment, that I shall not cover myself with clothing? Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar said, if he said, a qônām for anything that is generally used to cover oneself and a derivative of it is generally used to cover oneself; generally he is permitted the derivative; if he made a vow to abstain from the derivative he is permitted the material itself. What is an example? For example, sheepskin. For anything that is generally used to cover oneself but no derivative of it is generally used to cover oneself; if he vowed about it, he is permitted the derivative; if he made a vow to abstain from the derivative he is forbidden the material itself. What is an example? For example, goatskin. And anything that is generally not used to cover oneself but a derivative of it is generally used to cover oneself; if he vowed about it, he intended only the derivative. What is an example? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, for example raw cotton.

HALAKHAH: “One who made a vow to abstain from garments,” etc. One who made a vow to abstain from clothing is permitted sack-cloth, carpet, and goat’s hair cloth, leather apron, and bandages. He is forbidden fascia and belt. One who vows to abstain from clothing is forbidden all kinds of clothing but permitted these. Rebbi Jeremiah said, Rebbi Ze‘ira asked: If one said, a qônām, that I shall not wear a garment, that I shall not cover myself with clothing? Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar said, if he said, a qônām for anything that is generally used to cover oneself and a derivative of it is generally used to cover oneself; generally he is permitted the derivative; if he made a vow to abstain from the derivative he is permitted the material itself. What is an example? For example, sheepskin. For anything that is generally used to cover oneself but no derivative of it is generally used to cover oneself; if he vowed about it, he is permitted the derivative; if he made a vow to abstain from the derivative he is forbidden the material itself. What is an example? For example, goatskin. And anything that is generally not used to cover oneself but a derivative of it is generally used to cover oneself; if he vowed about it, he intended only the derivative. What is an example? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, for example raw cotton.

HALAKHAH: “One who made a vow to abstain from garments,” etc. One who made a vow to abstain from clothing is permitted sack-cloth, carpet, and goat’s hair cloth, leather apron, and bandages. He is forbidden fascia and belt. One who vows to abstain from clothing is forbidden all kinds of clothing but permitted these. Rebbi Jeremiah said, Rebbi Ze‘ira asked: If one said, a qônām, that I shall not wear a garment, that I shall not cover myself with clothing? Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar said, if he said, a qônām for anything that is generally used to cover oneself and a derivative of it is generally used to cover oneself; generally he is permitted the derivative; if he made a vow to abstain from the derivative he is permitted the material itself. What is an example? For example, sheepskin. For anything that is generally used to cover oneself but no derivative of it is generally used to cover oneself; if he vowed about it, he is permitted the derivative; if he made a vow to abstain from the derivative he is forbidden the material itself. What is an example? For example, goatskin. And anything that is generally not used to cover oneself but a derivative of it is generally used to cover oneself; if he vowed about it, he intended only the derivative. What is an example? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, for example raw cotton.

HALAKHAH: “One who made a vow to abstain from garments,” etc. One who made a vow to abstain from clothing is permitted sack-cloth, carpet, and goat’s hair cloth, leather apron, and bandages. He is forbidden fascia and belt. One who vows to abstain from clothing is forbidden all kinds of clothing but permitted these. Rebbi Jeremiah said, Rebbi Ze‘ira asked: If one said, a qônām, that I shall not wear a garment, that I shall not cover myself with clothing? Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar said, if he said, a qônām for anything that is generally used to cover oneself and a derivative of it is generally used to cover oneself; generally he is permitted the derivative; if he made a vow to abstain from the derivative he is permitted the material itself. What is an example? For example, sheepskin. For anything that is generally used to cover oneself but no derivative of it is generally used to cover oneself; if he vowed about it, he is permitted the derivative; if he made a vow to abstain from the derivative he is forbidden the material itself. What is an example? For example, goatskin. And anything that is generally not used to cover oneself but a derivative of it is generally used to cover oneself; if he vowed about it, he intended only the derivative. What is an example? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, for example raw cotton.

HALAKHAH: “One who made a vow to abstain from garments,” etc. One who made a vow to abstain from clothing is permitted sack-cloth, carpet, and goat’s hair cloth, leather apron, and bandages. He is forbidden fascia and belt. One who vows to abstain from clothing is forbidden all kinds of clothing but permitted these. Rebbi Jeremiah said, Rebbi Ze‘ira asked: If one said, a qônām, that I shall not wear a garment, that I shall not cover myself with clothing? Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar said, if he said, a qônām for anything that is generally used to cover oneself and a derivative of it is generally used to cover oneself; generally he is permitted the derivative; if he made a vow to abstain from the derivative he is permitted the material itself. What is an example? For example, sheepskin. For anything that is generally used to cover oneself but no derivative of it is generally used to cover oneself; if he vowed about it, he is permitted the derivative; if he made a vow to abstain from the derivative he is forbidden the material itself. What is an example? For example, goatskin. And anything that is generally not used to cover oneself but a derivative of it is generally used to cover oneself; if he vowed about it, he intended only the derivative. What is an example? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, for example raw cotton.

Rebbi Jeremiah had his vow dissolved but kept it. Whether it was because he did not trust him who dissolved it, we do not know. Whether it was because one has urges only for things forbidden to oneself, we do not know. When Rebbi Jeremiah was not in the mood to judge, he said, my eyes are weak. “Following their pronouncements shall be all quarrels and all disfiguration.” This compares quarrels to disfigurations. Since disfigurations are “for all the Cohen sees”, so also quarrels are “for all the Cohen sees”.

“If I wash, if I do not wash.” It was stated: “If I wash, if I do not wash; if I wear jewels, if I do not wear jewels”, these are vows of mortification. Both according to Rebbi Ze‘ira or according to Rebbi Hila, Rebbi Yose seems to contradict his own opinion, as it was stated: “A water source belonging to the townspeople, between them and outsiders, they have precedence over outsiders. Between outsiders and their animals, the outsiders have precedence over their animals. Their washing and the lives of outsiders, their washing has precedence over the lives of outsiders.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, who is the Tanna who said that washing is a necessity for survival? Rebbi Yose! As it was stated: “One may use it neither for steeping nor for washing. But Rebbi Yose permits it for washing.” The opinions of Rebbi Yose are contradictory. There he says, washing oneself is not a necessity of life. And here, he says washing one’s garments is a necessity of life! Rebbi Mana said, a person might put off washing himself but nobody puts off washing his clothes.

Does the Mishnah follow Rebbi Simeon? For “Rebbi Simeon declares him free, because his offering was not according to the way of offerers.” And Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, there is a difference because he reserved shaving. Rebbi Jeremiah asked: If it is because he reserved shaving, does not the following state “it is forbidden to him, but Rebbi Simeon permits.” Did he not reserve shaving [and] impurity but Rebbi Simeon frees him? There is a difference, because of an opening for the vow. If it was because of an opening for the vow, does not the following state “he is permitted but Rebbi Simeon forbids”? Rebbi Simeon does not recognize it as an opening for the vow but the rabbis recognize it as an opening for the vow. Why? Because he connects his vow with his life. One understands, to drink wine. The defile oneself for the dead? It is his profession to bury the dead.

Rav Zakkai stated before Rebbi Joḥanan: If somebody sacrificed, burned incense, and poured a libation in one forgetting, he is guilty for each action separately. Rebbi Joḥanan told him, Babylonian! You crossed three rivers with your hands and were broken. He is guilty only once! {Before he broke in his hand there is “one” but not “those”; after he broke in his hand there are “those” but not “one”.} Rebbi Abba bar Mamal asked before Rebbi Ze‘ira: Should he not be guilty for each action separately? As you say for the Sabbath: “Do not perform any work,” principle. “Do not light fire in any of your dwelling places,” a detail. Was not lighting fire subsumed under the principle, but it is mentioned separately from this principle! Since lighting fire is special in that it is the work of a single individual and one would be guilty for it alone, so everything for which alone one is guilty. Also here: “Do not worship them,” a principle. “Do not prostrate yourself,” a detail. Was not prostrating itself included in the principle and why was it mentioned separately? To infer, to tell you that prostrating oneself is special in that it is the work of a single individual and one would be guilty for it alone, so everything for which alone one is guilty. He answered: For the Sabbath, he mentioned the principle at one place and the details at another place. For idol worship, the principle is found close to the detail. He retorted: Is it not witten: “Do not prostrate yourself before another power”? He did not state the principle and the detail at the same spot! He said, since you do not infer anything from it close up, you cannot infer anything from afar. The colleagues say, it makes no difference; whether He gave the principle at one place and the detail at another, or gave principle and detail at the same place, it is a matter of principle and detail. For the Sabbath, He first gave the principle and then the detail. For idolatry, He gave the detail and only later the principle. Rebbi Yose said, it makes no difference whether [He first gave the principle and then the detail or He gave the detail and only later the principle, or He gave principle, detail, and principle]; it is a matter of principle and detail. For the Sabbath, He gave a general prohibition of work, followed by details; for idolatry, He was indeterminate regarding its worship but detailed the worship of Heaven.

Rebbi Mana said, lighting fire was mentioned unnecessarily; prostrating oneself was mentioned by necessity to explain about itself since it is not work. This follows what Ḥizqiah stated: “He who sacrifices to powers shall be banned.” Sacrificing was mentioned separately to teach about everything, prostrating oneself to explain about itself since it is not work. Rebbi Jeremiah said, lighting fire was mentioned by necessity, to teach that courts should not sit on the Sabbath. What is the reason? It says here, “in all your settlements” and it says there, “these should be rules of law for your generations, in all your settlements.” Since “settlements” mentioned there refers to courts, “settlements” referred to here also refers to courts. Rebbi Samuel bar Eudaimon said, even if you say that it was mentioned by necessity, it is as if it were mentioned unnecessarily, and anything mentioned unnecessarily teaches.

Rebbi Mana said, lighting fire was mentioned unnecessarily; prostrating oneself was mentioned by necessity to explain about itself since it is not work. This follows what Ḥizqiah stated: “He who sacrifices to powers shall be banned.” Sacrificing was mentioned separately to teach about everything, prostrating oneself to explain about itself since it is not work. Rebbi Jeremiah said, lighting fire was mentioned by necessity, to teach that courts should not sit on the Sabbath. What is the reason? It says here, “in all your settlements” and it says there, “these should be rules of law for your generations, in all your settlements.” Since “settlements” mentioned there refers to courts, “settlements” referred to here also refers to courts. Rebbi Samuel bar Eudaimon said, even if you say that it was mentioned by necessity, it is as if it were mentioned unnecessarily, and anything mentioned unnecessarily teaches.

Rebbi Nihumi the son of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said: My father did not walk under the arch of Caesarea. Rebbi Ammi walked. Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Cohen and Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa went walking in the streets of Caesarea. They came to the arch and Rebbi Cohen left. They reached a place of purity and he returned to them. He asked them: “What were you discussing?” Rebbi Ḥizqiah said to Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa: “Do not tell him anything!” We do not know whether it was because he was angry that he left since one defiles oneself for words of Torah or whether it was because he was haughty.

But would you not have eliminated the entire notion of one who watches a day for the next day? If they said, the night is permitted but the day is forbidden. Would you not have eliminated the entire notion of bending? Samuel bar Abba said, if they said, one cubit is permitted but two are forbidden. Would you not have eliminated the entire notion of prostrating? If they said, it is permitted to prostrate oneself but forbidden to sink down. Would you not have eliminated the entire notion of taking out? Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, if they said, one dried fig is permitted but two dried figs are forbidden. This follows him who said that bringing in and taking out are the same. But for him who said that bringing in and taking out are two notions, would you not have eliminated the entire notion of bringing in? Rebbi Yose said, not that they said that it was permitted to eat fat; they knew that it is forbidden to eat fat, but the Torah gave permission to the Court to instruct. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked, the [amount of] an olive today and of two olives tomorrow? What about a prophet and seducer? I could think that if they said to you, do not put on phylacteries today, put them on tomorrow, that you should listen to them. The verse says, to walk in them, in all of them, not only in part of them; you would have eliminated the notion of that entire day. You can say that this is not elimination of the entire subject. And here it is not elimination of the entire subject. Rebbi Mana understood it from the following; Samuel bar Abba said, if they said, one cubit is permitted but two are forbidden. You can say that this is not elimination of the entire subject. And here it is not elimination of the entire subject.

"He who prolongs his stay in the privy" — is that a virtue? Lo, there is a teaching : Ten things cause a man piles : Eating the leaves of reeds, the leaves of the vine, the sprouts of the vine, the palate of an animal, the backbone of a fish, salted fish which has not been sufficiently cooked, to drink the lees of wine, to wipe oneself [after evacuation] with lime, potters' clay, or pebbles with which another has wiped himself ; and some add : Also unduly to strain oneself in the privy !

"He who prolongs his stay in the privy" — is that a virtue? Lo, there is a teaching : Ten things cause a man piles : Eating the leaves of reeds, the leaves of the vine, the sprouts of the vine, the palate of an animal, the backbone of a fish, salted fish which has not been sufficiently cooked, to drink the lees of wine, to wipe oneself [after evacuation] with lime, potters' clay, or pebbles with which another has wiped himself ; and some add : Also unduly to strain oneself in the privy !

Rab Judah also said : Three things shorten a man's days and years : To be given a Scroll of the Torah from which to read [a portion in the Synagogue] and decline to read ; to be handed the cup of benediction to say Grace and decline ; and to give oneself an air of superiority.

"To be given a Scroll of the Torah from which to read and decline to read" — for it is written, "For that is thy life and the length of thy days" (Deut. 30:20). "To be handed the cup of benediction to say Grace and decline" — for it is written, "I will bless them that bless thee" (Gen. 12:3). "To give oneself an air of superiority" — for R. Hamma b. R. Hannina said : Why did Joseph die before his brothers? Because he gave himself superior airs.

If [a child] is able to eat an olive size of grain, one must remove oneself a distance of at least four cubits from his excrement or water. R. Hisda explained: This applies only where the child is able to consume it in the time [which it takes an ordinary adult] to eat half a loaf. R. Hiyya the son of R. Yeva said: But in the case of an adult [the law applies] even if he cannot eat it in the time [which it takes a normal person] to eat half a loaf, since it is written, He that increases knowledge increases sorrow.

6. If these fast days are over and the community's prayer has not been answered, the court orders three more fasts for the community. On the days preceding these fasts one may eat and drink until sunset only, and on the fast days proper, work, bathing, anointing oneself, wearing shoes, and cohabitation are forbidden. The bath-houses must be closed. If these fast days, too, are over and the community has not been answered, the court orders seven additional fasts for the community, making in all thirteen fasts. In what respect are these (seven) fasts more rigorous than the (three) immediately preceding ones? In that on these the alarm must be sounded and the shops must be closed. On the fasts falling on a Monday, the doors of the shops may be slightly opened toward nightfall, while on Thursdays they may be kept open all day for the sake of the approaching Sabbath.

R. 'Ashi said: A scholar who is not hard like iron is not a real scholar, as it is said: "And like a hammer that breaketh the rock in pieces." Said R. 'Abba to R. 'Ashi, you derive it from that verse, we derive it from the following (Deut. 8.9): "A land whose stones are iron"; do not read 'ābānēha (its stones), but bōnēha (its builders, i.e., the scholars). Said Rabina: It is nevertheless one's duty to train oneself to be gentle, as it is said (Eccl., 11.10): "Remove anger from thy heart and put away evil from thy flesh."

Rabbah b. Bar Ḥana said: Why have the words of the Torah been likened unto fire, as it is said (Jer., 23.29): "Is not My word like as fire?" In order to indicate that just as fire does not burn when isolated, so will the words of the Torah not be preserved when studied by oneself, alone. It is in keeping herewith that R. Jose b. Ḥanina said: What is the meaning of the verse (ibid., 50.36): "A sword is upon the boasters, and they shall become fools"? It means: a sword upon the necks of the enemies of the learned who are occupied in the study of the Torah each one by himself. Nay, more, they become dull, as it is said: "And they shall become fools." The same idea may be derived from the following verse (Is., 19.13): "The princes of Zoan are become fools."

R. Judah said in the name of Rab, who said it in the name of R. Ḥiyya: He who denies himself food in years of famine will be saved from an unnatural death, for it is said (Job, 5. 20): "In famine He will redeem thee from death, and in war from the power of the sword." Now, for "In famine He shall redeem thee from death" he should have said "from famine"! The meaning, therefore, is that for denying food to oneself in years of famine one will be saved from an unnatural death.

How does Samuel account for the fact that he (the Nazirite) is called holy? This term is applied to him only in view of his having purified himself (after the defilement). How does R. Eleazar account for the fact that he is also called sinner? This term is applied to him only in view of his having defiled himself (by contact with a dead body). But did R. Eleazar say so? Did he not say one should always consider oneself

Samuel said: A fast which one did not take upon oneself before sunset of the preceding day has not the validity of a fast. But what if one did fast? Said Rabbah b. R. Shila: Such a one is comparable to a bellows full of wind. What is the exact time for one to take a fast upon himself? Rab says, during the hours of Minḥah (afternoon); Samuel says, he must insert the vow in the Minḥah prayer itself. Said R. Joseph; Samuel's view is reasonable, because it is written in the Scroll of Fasts—"People for whom the time of fasting has arrived because of previous resolutions are required to fast only in case they bound themselves by a vow during prayer." Now, does that not mean that they have bound themselves to fast while praying? No, it means only they have bound themselves.

the corner of a field, and the first-fruits and the appearing before the Lord, and the conferring of kindnesses and the teaching contained in the Law. R. Jochanan said, We were of opinion that the appearing before the Lord had no superior limit but had an inferior limit, until R. Oshaia, in the name of a great teacher, came and taught that appearing before the Lord has no limit either superior or inferior. But wise men say, that the holocaust involves a meah of silver, but the Chagigah two pieces of silver. What does the appearing mean? R. Jochanan said, The presenting of oneself in the Court, but Resh Lakish said, The presenting of oneself with an offering. All the world is agreed that on the first day it means, the presenting of oneself with an offering, but men differ as regards the remainder of the days of the Feast. Every time that a man comes and brings an offering, all the world agrees that we are to receive it from him, but men differ in the case of one who comes and does not bring; for R. Jochanan considers that the presenting of oneself in the Court is sufficient, because it is not necessary, every time that he comes, to bring an offering; but Resh Lakish says, The presenting oneself with an offering is the meaning, for it is necessary, every time that he comes, to bring an offering. Resh Lakish put this difficulty to R. Jochanan, "None shall appear before me empty" (Exod. xxiii. 15). He said to him, Yes, but only on the first day of the Feast. He put this further difficulty to him. The passage "None shall appear before me empty" refers to coming with sacrifices. If thou sayest, With sacrifices? perhaps not, but with birds and meal-offerings; then here is an argument against thee. The Chagigah is assigned to a private person, but the appearing is assigned to the Most High. As the Chagigah, which is assigned to a private person, involves sacrifices, so must the appearing, which is assigned to the Most High, involve sacrifices. And what are these sacrifices? They are burnt-offerings. If thou sayest, Burnt-offerings? perhaps not, but peace-offerings; then here is an argument against thee. The Chagigah is assigned to a private person, and the appearing is assigned to the Most High. As the Chagigah, which is assigned to a private person, is suited to him, so must the appearing, which is assigned to the Most High, be suited to Him. And so it is fitting that thy table should not be full and the table of thy Master empty. He said to him, Yes, but only on the first day of the Feast. R. Jose, in the name of R. Jehudah, put this difficulty to him, saying, Three times in the year Israel was commanded to go up to a Feast, viz., at the Feast of the Passover, and at the Feast of Weeks, and at the Feast of Tabernacles, and they must not appear by halves, inasmuch as it is said, "all thy males" (Exod. xxiii. 17; Deut. xvi. 16), and they must not appear empty, inasmuch as it is said, "none shall appear before me empty" (Exod. xxiii. 15). He said to him, Yes, but only on the first day of the Feast.

the corner of a field, and the first-fruits and the appearing before the Lord, and the conferring of kindnesses and the teaching contained in the Law. R. Jochanan said, We were of opinion that the appearing before the Lord had no superior limit but had an inferior limit, until R. Oshaia, in the name of a great teacher, came and taught that appearing before the Lord has no limit either superior or inferior. But wise men say, that the holocaust involves a meah of silver, but the Chagigah two pieces of silver. What does the appearing mean? R. Jochanan said, The presenting of oneself in the Court, but Resh Lakish said, The presenting of oneself with an offering. All the world is agreed that on the first day it means, the presenting of oneself with an offering, but men differ as regards the remainder of the days of the Feast. Every time that a man comes and brings an offering, all the world agrees that we are to receive it from him, but men differ in the case of one who comes and does not bring; for R. Jochanan considers that the presenting of oneself in the Court is sufficient, because it is not necessary, every time that he comes, to bring an offering; but Resh Lakish says, The presenting oneself with an offering is the meaning, for it is necessary, every time that he comes, to bring an offering. Resh Lakish put this difficulty to R. Jochanan, "None shall appear before me empty" (Exod. xxiii. 15). He said to him, Yes, but only on the first day of the Feast. He put this further difficulty to him. The passage "None shall appear before me empty" refers to coming with sacrifices. If thou sayest, With sacrifices? perhaps not, but with birds and meal-offerings; then here is an argument against thee. The Chagigah is assigned to a private person, but the appearing is assigned to the Most High. As the Chagigah, which is assigned to a private person, involves sacrifices, so must the appearing, which is assigned to the Most High, involve sacrifices. And what are these sacrifices? They are burnt-offerings. If thou sayest, Burnt-offerings? perhaps not, but peace-offerings; then here is an argument against thee. The Chagigah is assigned to a private person, and the appearing is assigned to the Most High. As the Chagigah, which is assigned to a private person, is suited to him, so must the appearing, which is assigned to the Most High, be suited to Him. And so it is fitting that thy table should not be full and the table of thy Master empty. He said to him, Yes, but only on the first day of the Feast. R. Jose, in the name of R. Jehudah, put this difficulty to him, saying, Three times in the year Israel was commanded to go up to a Feast, viz., at the Feast of the Passover, and at the Feast of Weeks, and at the Feast of Tabernacles, and they must not appear by halves, inasmuch as it is said, "all thy males" (Exod. xxiii. 17; Deut. xvi. 16), and they must not appear empty, inasmuch as it is said, "none shall appear before me empty" (Exod. xxiii. 15). He said to him, Yes, but only on the first day of the Feast.

the corner of a field, and the first-fruits and the appearing before the Lord, and the conferring of kindnesses and the teaching contained in the Law. R. Jochanan said, We were of opinion that the appearing before the Lord had no superior limit but had an inferior limit, until R. Oshaia, in the name of a great teacher, came and taught that appearing before the Lord has no limit either superior or inferior. But wise men say, that the holocaust involves a meah of silver, but the Chagigah two pieces of silver. What does the appearing mean? R. Jochanan said, The presenting of oneself in the Court, but Resh Lakish said, The presenting of oneself with an offering. All the world is agreed that on the first day it means, the presenting of oneself with an offering, but men differ as regards the remainder of the days of the Feast. Every time that a man comes and brings an offering, all the world agrees that we are to receive it from him, but men differ in the case of one who comes and does not bring; for R. Jochanan considers that the presenting of oneself in the Court is sufficient, because it is not necessary, every time that he comes, to bring an offering; but Resh Lakish says, The presenting oneself with an offering is the meaning, for it is necessary, every time that he comes, to bring an offering. Resh Lakish put this difficulty to R. Jochanan, "None shall appear before me empty" (Exod. xxiii. 15). He said to him, Yes, but only on the first day of the Feast. He put this further difficulty to him. The passage "None shall appear before me empty" refers to coming with sacrifices. If thou sayest, With sacrifices? perhaps not, but with birds and meal-offerings; then here is an argument against thee. The Chagigah is assigned to a private person, but the appearing is assigned to the Most High. As the Chagigah, which is assigned to a private person, involves sacrifices, so must the appearing, which is assigned to the Most High, involve sacrifices. And what are these sacrifices? They are burnt-offerings. If thou sayest, Burnt-offerings? perhaps not, but peace-offerings; then here is an argument against thee. The Chagigah is assigned to a private person, and the appearing is assigned to the Most High. As the Chagigah, which is assigned to a private person, is suited to him, so must the appearing, which is assigned to the Most High, be suited to Him. And so it is fitting that thy table should not be full and the table of thy Master empty. He said to him, Yes, but only on the first day of the Feast. R. Jose, in the name of R. Jehudah, put this difficulty to him, saying, Three times in the year Israel was commanded to go up to a Feast, viz., at the Feast of the Passover, and at the Feast of Weeks, and at the Feast of Tabernacles, and they must not appear by halves, inasmuch as it is said, "all thy males" (Exod. xxiii. 17; Deut. xvi. 16), and they must not appear empty, inasmuch as it is said, "none shall appear before me empty" (Exod. xxiii. 15). He said to him, Yes, but only on the first day of the Feast.

the corner of a field, and the first-fruits and the appearing before the Lord, and the conferring of kindnesses and the teaching contained in the Law. R. Jochanan said, We were of opinion that the appearing before the Lord had no superior limit but had an inferior limit, until R. Oshaia, in the name of a great teacher, came and taught that appearing before the Lord has no limit either superior or inferior. But wise men say, that the holocaust involves a meah of silver, but the Chagigah two pieces of silver. What does the appearing mean? R. Jochanan said, The presenting of oneself in the Court, but Resh Lakish said, The presenting of oneself with an offering. All the world is agreed that on the first day it means, the presenting of oneself with an offering, but men differ as regards the remainder of the days of the Feast. Every time that a man comes and brings an offering, all the world agrees that we are to receive it from him, but men differ in the case of one who comes and does not bring; for R. Jochanan considers that the presenting of oneself in the Court is sufficient, because it is not necessary, every time that he comes, to bring an offering; but Resh Lakish says, The presenting oneself with an offering is the meaning, for it is necessary, every time that he comes, to bring an offering. Resh Lakish put this difficulty to R. Jochanan, "None shall appear before me empty" (Exod. xxiii. 15). He said to him, Yes, but only on the first day of the Feast. He put this further difficulty to him. The passage "None shall appear before me empty" refers to coming with sacrifices. If thou sayest, With sacrifices? perhaps not, but with birds and meal-offerings; then here is an argument against thee. The Chagigah is assigned to a private person, but the appearing is assigned to the Most High. As the Chagigah, which is assigned to a private person, involves sacrifices, so must the appearing, which is assigned to the Most High, involve sacrifices. And what are these sacrifices? They are burnt-offerings. If thou sayest, Burnt-offerings? perhaps not, but peace-offerings; then here is an argument against thee. The Chagigah is assigned to a private person, and the appearing is assigned to the Most High. As the Chagigah, which is assigned to a private person, is suited to him, so must the appearing, which is assigned to the Most High, be suited to Him. And so it is fitting that thy table should not be full and the table of thy Master empty. He said to him, Yes, but only on the first day of the Feast. R. Jose, in the name of R. Jehudah, put this difficulty to him, saying, Three times in the year Israel was commanded to go up to a Feast, viz., at the Feast of the Passover, and at the Feast of Weeks, and at the Feast of Tabernacles, and they must not appear by halves, inasmuch as it is said, "all thy males" (Exod. xxiii. 17; Deut. xvi. 16), and they must not appear empty, inasmuch as it is said, "none shall appear before me empty" (Exod. xxiii. 15). He said to him, Yes, but only on the first day of the Feast.

the corner of a field, and the first-fruits and the appearing before the Lord, and the conferring of kindnesses and the teaching contained in the Law. R. Jochanan said, We were of opinion that the appearing before the Lord had no superior limit but had an inferior limit, until R. Oshaia, in the name of a great teacher, came and taught that appearing before the Lord has no limit either superior or inferior. But wise men say, that the holocaust involves a meah of silver, but the Chagigah two pieces of silver. What does the appearing mean? R. Jochanan said, The presenting of oneself in the Court, but Resh Lakish said, The presenting of oneself with an offering. All the world is agreed that on the first day it means, the presenting of oneself with an offering, but men differ as regards the remainder of the days of the Feast. Every time that a man comes and brings an offering, all the world agrees that we are to receive it from him, but men differ in the case of one who comes and does not bring; for R. Jochanan considers that the presenting of oneself in the Court is sufficient, because it is not necessary, every time that he comes, to bring an offering; but Resh Lakish says, The presenting oneself with an offering is the meaning, for it is necessary, every time that he comes, to bring an offering. Resh Lakish put this difficulty to R. Jochanan, "None shall appear before me empty" (Exod. xxiii. 15). He said to him, Yes, but only on the first day of the Feast. He put this further difficulty to him. The passage "None shall appear before me empty" refers to coming with sacrifices. If thou sayest, With sacrifices? perhaps not, but with birds and meal-offerings; then here is an argument against thee. The Chagigah is assigned to a private person, but the appearing is assigned to the Most High. As the Chagigah, which is assigned to a private person, involves sacrifices, so must the appearing, which is assigned to the Most High, involve sacrifices. And what are these sacrifices? They are burnt-offerings. If thou sayest, Burnt-offerings? perhaps not, but peace-offerings; then here is an argument against thee. The Chagigah is assigned to a private person, and the appearing is assigned to the Most High. As the Chagigah, which is assigned to a private person, is suited to him, so must the appearing, which is assigned to the Most High, be suited to Him. And so it is fitting that thy table should not be full and the table of thy Master empty. He said to him, Yes, but only on the first day of the Feast. R. Jose, in the name of R. Jehudah, put this difficulty to him, saying, Three times in the year Israel was commanded to go up to a Feast, viz., at the Feast of the Passover, and at the Feast of Weeks, and at the Feast of Tabernacles, and they must not appear by halves, inasmuch as it is said, "all thy males" (Exod. xxiii. 17; Deut. xvi. 16), and they must not appear empty, inasmuch as it is said, "none shall appear before me empty" (Exod. xxiii. 15). He said to him, Yes, but only on the first day of the Feast.

R. Jochanan put this difficulty to Resh Lakish; "he shall be seen," "He shall see" (Exod. xxiii. 17; Deut. xvi. 16). As I am seen freely, so shall ye see me freely. But every one who comes and does not bring an offering, all the world agrees that he goes up and allows himself to be seen and goes away. But they differ in the case of one who comes and brings an offering. R. Jochanan says, The simple presenting of oneself in the Court is the real presenting of oneself, and so has no limit of times prescribed, while on the contrary the presenting of oneself for an offering has a limit of times prescribed. But Resh Lakish said, The presenting of oneself with an offering is alone the real presenting of oneself, for if it be the case of an offering also, there is no limit. He put this difficulty to him, "Let thy foot be seldom in thy neighbour's house" (Prov. xxv. 17). But here it has to do with sin-offerings and trespass-offerings. So is the opinion of R. Levi. For R. Levi adduces the passage, "Let thy foot be seldom in thy neighbour's house," and the passage, "I will come into thy house with burnt-offerings" (Ps. lxvi. 12). There is no difficulty. In the one case it has to do with sin-offerings and trespass-offerings, in the other with burnt-offerings and peace-offerings. There is a Baraitha also to this effect, viz., "Let thy foot be seldom in thy neighbour's house:" the passage speaks of sin-offerings and trespass-offerings; if thou sayest, Of sin-offerings and trespass-offerings? perhaps not, but of burnt-offerings and peace-offerings, as he says, "I will come into thy house with burnt-offerings, I will pay thee my vows" (Ps. lxvi. 12), for see, they actually speak there of burnt-offerings and peace-offerings; Nay, but look thou how I explain, "Let thy foot be seldom in thy neighbour's house," viz., that the passage is speaking of sin-offerings and trespass-offerings.

R. Jochanan put this difficulty to Resh Lakish; "he shall be seen," "He shall see" (Exod. xxiii. 17; Deut. xvi. 16). As I am seen freely, so shall ye see me freely. But every one who comes and does not bring an offering, all the world agrees that he goes up and allows himself to be seen and goes away. But they differ in the case of one who comes and brings an offering. R. Jochanan says, The simple presenting of oneself in the Court is the real presenting of oneself, and so has no limit of times prescribed, while on the contrary the presenting of oneself for an offering has a limit of times prescribed. But Resh Lakish said, The presenting of oneself with an offering is alone the real presenting of oneself, for if it be the case of an offering also, there is no limit. He put this difficulty to him, "Let thy foot be seldom in thy neighbour's house" (Prov. xxv. 17). But here it has to do with sin-offerings and trespass-offerings. So is the opinion of R. Levi. For R. Levi adduces the passage, "Let thy foot be seldom in thy neighbour's house," and the passage, "I will come into thy house with burnt-offerings" (Ps. lxvi. 12). There is no difficulty. In the one case it has to do with sin-offerings and trespass-offerings, in the other with burnt-offerings and peace-offerings. There is a Baraitha also to this effect, viz., "Let thy foot be seldom in thy neighbour's house:" the passage speaks of sin-offerings and trespass-offerings; if thou sayest, Of sin-offerings and trespass-offerings? perhaps not, but of burnt-offerings and peace-offerings, as he says, "I will come into thy house with burnt-offerings, I will pay thee my vows" (Ps. lxvi. 12), for see, they actually speak there of burnt-offerings and peace-offerings; Nay, but look thou how I explain, "Let thy foot be seldom in thy neighbour's house," viz., that the passage is speaking of sin-offerings and trespass-offerings.

R. Jochanan put this difficulty to Resh Lakish; "he shall be seen," "He shall see" (Exod. xxiii. 17; Deut. xvi. 16). As I am seen freely, so shall ye see me freely. But every one who comes and does not bring an offering, all the world agrees that he goes up and allows himself to be seen and goes away. But they differ in the case of one who comes and brings an offering. R. Jochanan says, The simple presenting of oneself in the Court is the real presenting of oneself, and so has no limit of times prescribed, while on the contrary the presenting of oneself for an offering has a limit of times prescribed. But Resh Lakish said, The presenting of oneself with an offering is alone the real presenting of oneself, for if it be the case of an offering also, there is no limit. He put this difficulty to him, "Let thy foot be seldom in thy neighbour's house" (Prov. xxv. 17). But here it has to do with sin-offerings and trespass-offerings. So is the opinion of R. Levi. For R. Levi adduces the passage, "Let thy foot be seldom in thy neighbour's house," and the passage, "I will come into thy house with burnt-offerings" (Ps. lxvi. 12). There is no difficulty. In the one case it has to do with sin-offerings and trespass-offerings, in the other with burnt-offerings and peace-offerings. There is a Baraitha also to this effect, viz., "Let thy foot be seldom in thy neighbour's house:" the passage speaks of sin-offerings and trespass-offerings; if thou sayest, Of sin-offerings and trespass-offerings? perhaps not, but of burnt-offerings and peace-offerings, as he says, "I will come into thy house with burnt-offerings, I will pay thee my vows" (Ps. lxvi. 12), for see, they actually speak there of burnt-offerings and peace-offerings; Nay, but look thou how I explain, "Let thy foot be seldom in thy neighbour's house," viz., that the passage is speaking of sin-offerings and trespass-offerings.

R. Jochanan put this difficulty to Resh Lakish; "he shall be seen," "He shall see" (Exod. xxiii. 17; Deut. xvi. 16). As I am seen freely, so shall ye see me freely. But every one who comes and does not bring an offering, all the world agrees that he goes up and allows himself to be seen and goes away. But they differ in the case of one who comes and brings an offering. R. Jochanan says, The simple presenting of oneself in the Court is the real presenting of oneself, and so has no limit of times prescribed, while on the contrary the presenting of oneself for an offering has a limit of times prescribed. But Resh Lakish said, The presenting of oneself with an offering is alone the real presenting of oneself, for if it be the case of an offering also, there is no limit. He put this difficulty to him, "Let thy foot be seldom in thy neighbour's house" (Prov. xxv. 17). But here it has to do with sin-offerings and trespass-offerings. So is the opinion of R. Levi. For R. Levi adduces the passage, "Let thy foot be seldom in thy neighbour's house," and the passage, "I will come into thy house with burnt-offerings" (Ps. lxvi. 12). There is no difficulty. In the one case it has to do with sin-offerings and trespass-offerings, in the other with burnt-offerings and peace-offerings. There is a Baraitha also to this effect, viz., "Let thy foot be seldom in thy neighbour's house:" the passage speaks of sin-offerings and trespass-offerings; if thou sayest, Of sin-offerings and trespass-offerings? perhaps not, but of burnt-offerings and peace-offerings, as he says, "I will come into thy house with burnt-offerings, I will pay thee my vows" (Ps. lxvi. 12), for see, they actually speak there of burnt-offerings and peace-offerings; Nay, but look thou how I explain, "Let thy foot be seldom in thy neighbour's house," viz., that the passage is speaking of sin-offerings and trespass-offerings.

R. Jochanan put this difficulty to Resh Lakish; "he shall be seen," "He shall see" (Exod. xxiii. 17; Deut. xvi. 16). As I am seen freely, so shall ye see me freely. But every one who comes and does not bring an offering, all the world agrees that he goes up and allows himself to be seen and goes away. But they differ in the case of one who comes and brings an offering. R. Jochanan says, The simple presenting of oneself in the Court is the real presenting of oneself, and so has no limit of times prescribed, while on the contrary the presenting of oneself for an offering has a limit of times prescribed. But Resh Lakish said, The presenting of oneself with an offering is alone the real presenting of oneself, for if it be the case of an offering also, there is no limit. He put this difficulty to him, "Let thy foot be seldom in thy neighbour's house" (Prov. xxv. 17). But here it has to do with sin-offerings and trespass-offerings. So is the opinion of R. Levi. For R. Levi adduces the passage, "Let thy foot be seldom in thy neighbour's house," and the passage, "I will come into thy house with burnt-offerings" (Ps. lxvi. 12). There is no difficulty. In the one case it has to do with sin-offerings and trespass-offerings, in the other with burnt-offerings and peace-offerings. There is a Baraitha also to this effect, viz., "Let thy foot be seldom in thy neighbour's house:" the passage speaks of sin-offerings and trespass-offerings; if thou sayest, Of sin-offerings and trespass-offerings? perhaps not, but of burnt-offerings and peace-offerings, as he says, "I will come into thy house with burnt-offerings, I will pay thee my vows" (Ps. lxvi. 12), for see, they actually speak there of burnt-offerings and peace-offerings; Nay, but look thou how I explain, "Let thy foot be seldom in thy neighbour's house," viz., that the passage is speaking of sin-offerings and trespass-offerings.