participate

Since, then, we have addressed you concerning God, so far as our discourse can bear upon him, let us now come to the race of men, that we may know which of them participate in the truth of which we have spoken, and which of them go astray from it.

And His inheritance is immortal life, and those who participate in it are incorrupt. Hallelujah.

And since many saints participate in the Holy Spirit, He cannot therefore be understood to be a body, which being divided into corporeal parts, is partaken of by each one of the saints; but He is manifestly a sanctifying power, in which all are said to have a share who have deserved to be sanctified by His grace. And in order that what we say may be more easily understood, let us take an illustration from things very dissimilar. There are many persons who take a part in the science or art of medicine: are we therefore to suppose that those who do so take to themselves the particles of some body called medicine, which is placed before them, and in this way participate in the same? Or must we not rather understand that all who with quick and trained minds come to understand the art and discipline itself, may be said to be partakers of the art of healing? But these are not to be deemed altogether parallel instances in a comparison of medicine to the Holy Spirit, as they have been adduced only to establish that that is not necessarily to be considered a body, a share in which is possessed by many individuals. For the Holy Spirit differs widely from the method or science of medicine, in respect that the Holy Spirit is an intellectual existence, and subsists and exists in a peculiar manner, whereas medicine is not at all of that nature.

And since many saints participate in the Holy Spirit, He cannot therefore be understood to be a body, which being divided into corporeal parts, is partaken of by each one of the saints; but He is manifestly a sanctifying power, in which all are said to have a share who have deserved to be sanctified by His grace. And in order that what we say may be more easily understood, let us take an illustration from things very dissimilar. There are many persons who take a part in the science or art of medicine: are we therefore to suppose that those who do so take to themselves the particles of some body called medicine, which is placed before them, and in this way participate in the same? Or must we not rather understand that all who with quick and trained minds come to understand the art and discipline itself, may be said to be partakers of the art of healing? But these are not to be deemed altogether parallel instances in a comparison of medicine to the Holy Spirit, as they have been adduced only to establish that that is not necessarily to be considered a body, a share in which is possessed by many individuals. For the Holy Spirit differs widely from the method or science of medicine, in respect that the Holy Spirit is an intellectual existence, and subsists and exists in a peculiar manner, whereas medicine is not at all of that nature.

That the working of the Father and the Son operates both in saints and in sinners, is manifest from this, that all who are rational beings are partakers of the word, i.e. of reason, and by this means bear certain seeds, implanted within them, of wisdom and justice, which is Christ. Now, in Him who truly exists, and who said by Moses, “I am what I am,” all things, whatever they are, participate; which participation in God the Father is shared both by just men and sinners, by rational and irrational beings, and by all things universally which exist. The Apostle Paul also shows truly that all have a share in Christ, when he says, “Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (i.e. to bring Christ down from above;) or who shall descend into the deep? (that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead.) But what saith the Scripture? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart.” By which he means that Christ is in the heart of all, in respect of His being the word or reason, by participating in which they are rational beings. That declaration also in the Gospel, “If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin,” renders it manifest and patent to all who have a rational knowledge of how long a time man is without sin, and from what period he is liable to it, how, by participating in the word or reason, men are said to have sinned, viz. from the time they are made capable of understanding and knowledge, when the reason implanted within has suggested to them the difference between good and evil; and after they have already begun to know what evil is, they are made liable to sin, if they commit it. And this is the meaning of the expression, that “men have no excuse for their sin,” viz. that, from the time the divine word or reason has begun to show them internally the difference between good and evil, they ought to avoid and guard against that which is wicked: “For to him who knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.” Moreover, that all men are not without communion with God, is taught in the Gospel thus, by the Saviour’s words: “The kingdom of God cometh not with observation; neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! but the kingdom of God is within you.” But here we must see whether this does not bear the same meaning with the expression in Genesis: “And He breathed into his face the breath of life, and man became a living soul.” For if this be understood as applying generally to all men, then all men have a share in God.

Again, we are taught as follows by the prophet Isaiah regarding another opposing power. The prophet says, “How is Lucifer, who used to arise in the morning, fallen from heaven! He who assailed all nations is broken and beaten to the ground. Thou indeed saidst in thy heart, I shall ascend into heaven; above the stars of heaven shall I place my throne; I shall sit upon a lofty mountain, above the lofty mountains which are towards the north; I shall ascend above the clouds; I shall be like the Most High. Now shalt thou be brought down to the lower world, and to the foundations of the earth. They who see thee shall be amazed at thee, and shall say, This is the man who harassed the whole earth, who moved kings, who made the whole world a desert, who destroyed cities, and did not unloose those who were in chains. All the kings of the nations have slept in honour, every one in his own house; but thou shalt be cast forth on the mountains, accursed with the many dead who have been pierced through with swords, and have descended to the lower world. As a garment clotted with blood, and stained, will not be clean; neither shalt thou be clean, because thou hast destroyed my land and slain my people: thou shalt not remain for ever, most wicked seed. Prepare thy sons for death on account of the sins of thy father, lest they rise again and inherit the earth, and fill the earth with wars. And I shall rise against them, saith the Lord of hosts, and I shall cause their name to perish, and their remains, and their seed.” Most evidently by these words is he shown to have fallen from heaven, who formerly was Lucifer, and who used to arise in the morning. For if, as some think, he was a nature of darkness, how is Lucifer said to have existed before? Or how could he arise in the morning, who had in himself nothing of the light? Nay, even the Saviour Himself teaches us, saying of the devil, “Behold, I see Satan fallen from heaven like lightning.” For at one time he was light. Moreover our Lord, who is the truth, compared the power of His own glorious advent to lightning, in the words, “For as the lightning shineth from the height of heaven even to its height again, so will the coming of the Son of man be.” And notwithstanding He compares him to lightning, and says that he fell from heaven, that He might show by this that he had been at one time in heaven, and had had a place among the saints, and had enjoyed a share in that light in which all the saints participate, by which they are made angels of light, and by which the apostles are termed by the Lord the light of the world. In this manner, then, did that being once exist as light before he went astray, and fell to this place, and had his glory turned into dust, which is peculiarly the mark of the wicked, as the prophet also says; whence, too, he was called the prince of this world, i.e. of an earthly habitation: for he exercised power over those who were obedient to his wickedness, since “the whole of this world”—for I term this place of earth, world—“lieth in the wicked one,” and in this apostate. That he is an apostate, i.e. a fugitive, even the Lord in the book of Job says, “Thou wilt take with a hook the apostate dragon,” i.e. a fugitive. Now it is certain that by the dragon is understood the devil himself. If then they are called opposing powers, and are said to have been once without stain, while spotless purity exists in the essential being of none save the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, but is an accidental quality in every created thing; and since that which is accidental may also fall away, and since those opposite powers once were spotless, and were once among those which still remain unstained, it is evident from all this that no one is pure either by essence or nature, and that no one was by nature polluted. And the consequence of this is, that it lies within ourselves and in our own actions to possess either happiness or holiness; or by sloth and negligence to fall from happiness into wickedness and ruin, to such a degree that, through too great proficiency, so to speak, in wickedness (if a man be guilty of so great neglect), he may descend even to that state in which he will be changed into what is called an “opposing power.”

Seeing, then, that such is the end, when all enemies will be subdued to Christ, when death—the last enemy—shall be destroyed, and when the kingdom shall be delivered up by Christ (to whom all things are subject) to God the Father; let us, I say, from such an end as this, contemplate the beginnings of things. For the end is always like the beginning: and, therefore, as there is one end to all things, so ought we to understand that there was one beginning; and as there is one end to many things, so there spring from one beginning many differences and varieties, which again, through the goodness of God, and by subjection to Christ, and through the unity of the Holy Spirit, are recalled to one end, which is like unto the beginning: all those, viz., who, bending the knee at the name of Jesus, make known by so doing their subjection to Him: and these are they who are in heaven, on earth, and under the earth: by which three classes the whole universe of things is pointed out, those, viz., who from that one beginning were arranged, each according to the diversity of his conduct, among the different orders, in accordance with their desert; for there was no goodness in them by essential being, as in God and His Christ, and in the Holy Spirit. For in the Trinity alone, which is the author of all things, does goodness exist in virtue of essential being; while others possess it as an accidental and perishable quality, and only then enjoy blessedness, when they participate in holiness and wisdom, and in divinity itself. But if they neglect and despise such participation, then is each one, by fault of his own slothfulness, made, one more rapidly, another more slowly, one in a greater, another in a less degree, the cause of his own downfall. And since, as we have remarked, the lapse by which an individual falls away from his position is characterized by great diversity, according to the movements of the mind and will, one man falling with greater ease, another with more difficulty, into a lower condition; in this is to be seen the just judgment of the providence of God, that it should happen to every one according to the diversity of his conduct, in proportion to the desert of his declension and defection. Certain of those, indeed, who remained in that beginning which we have described as resembling the end which is to come, obtained, in the ordering and arrangement of the world, the rank of angels; others that of influences, others of principalities, others of powers, that they may exercise power over those who need to have power upon their head. Others, again, received the rank of thrones, having the office of judging or ruling those who require this; others dominion, doubtless, over slaves; all of which are conferred by Divine Providence in just and impartial judgment according to their merits, and to the progress which they had made in the participation and imitation of God. But those who have been removed from their primal state of blessedness have not been removed irrecoverably, but have been placed under the rule of those holy and blessed orders which we have described; and by availing themselves of the aid of these, and being remoulded by salutary principles and discipline, they may recover themselves, and be restored to their condition of happiness. From all which I am of opinion, so far as I can see, that this order of the human race has been appointed in order that in the future world, or in ages to come, when there shall be the new heavens and new earth, spoken of by Isaiah, it may be restored to that unity promised by the Lord Jesus in His prayer to God the Father on behalf of His disciples: “I do not pray for these alone, but for all who shall believe on me through their word: that they all may be one, as Thou, Father, art in me, and I in Thee, that they also may be one in us;” and again, when He says: “That they may be one, even as we are one; I in them, and Thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one.” And this is further confirmed by the language of the Apostle Paul: “Until we all come in the unity of the faith to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ.” And in keeping with this is the declaration of the same apostle, when he exhorts us, who even in the present life are placed in the church, in which is the form of that kingdom which is to come, to this same similitude of unity: “That ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.”

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

We must therefore know that the Paraclete is the Holy Spirit, who teaches truths which cannot be uttered in words, and which are, so to speak, unutterable, and “which it is not lawful for a man to utter,” i.e. which cannot be indicated by human language. The phrase “it is not lawful” is, we think, used by the apostle instead of “it is not possible;” as also is the case in the passage where he says, “All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not.” For those things which are in our power because we may have them, he says are lawful for us. But the Paraclete, who is called the Holy Spirit, is so called from His work of consolation, paraclesis being termed in Latin consolatio. For if any one has deserved to participate in the Holy Spirit by the knowledge of His ineffable mysteries, he undoubtedly obtains comfort and joy of heart. For since he comes by the teaching of the Spirit to the knowledge of the reasons of all things which happen—how or why they occur—his soul can in no respect be troubled, or admit any feeling of sorrow; nor is he alarmed by anything, since, clinging to the Word of God and His wisdom, he through the Holy Spirit calls Jesus Lord. And since we have made mention of the Paraclete, and have explained as we were able what sentiments ought to be entertained regarding Him; and since our Saviour also is called the Paraclete in the Epistle of John, when he says, “If any of us sin, we have a Paraclete with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous, and He is the propitiation for our sins;” let us consider whether this term Paraclete should happen to have one meaning when applied to the Saviour, and another when applied to the Holy Spirit. Now Paraclete, when spoken of the Saviour, seems to mean intercessor. For in Greek, Paraclete has both significations—that of intercessor and comforter. On account, then, of the phrase which follows, when he says, “And He is the propitiation for our sins,” the name Paraclete seems to be understood in the case of our Saviour as meaning intercessor; for He is said to intercede with the Father because of our sins. In the case of the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete must be understood in the sense of comforter, inasmuch as He bestows consolation upon the souls to whom He openly reveals the apprehension of spiritual knowledge.

It is now time, after the rapid consideration which to the best of our ability we have given to the topics discussed, to recapitulate, by way of summing up what we have said in different places, the individual points, and first of all to restate our conclusions regarding the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Seeing God the Father is invisible and inseparable from the Son, the Son is not generated from Him by “prolation,” as some suppose. For if the Son be a “prolation” of the Father (the term “prolation” being used to signify such a generation as that of animals or men usually is), then, of necessity, both He who “prolated” and He who was “prolated” are corporeal. For we do not say, as the heretics suppose, that some part of the substance of God was converted into the Son, or that the Son was procreated by the Father out of things non-existent, i.e. beyond His own substance, so that there once was a time when He did not exist; but, putting away all corporeal conceptions, we say that the Word and Wisdom was begotten out of the invisible and incorporeal without any corporeal feeling, as if it were an act of the will proceeding from the understanding. Nor, seeing He is called the Son of [His] love, will it appear absurd if in this way He be called also the Son of [His] will. Nay, John also indicates that “God is Light,” and Paul also declares that the Son is the splendour of everlasting light. As light, accordingly, could never exist without splendour, so neither can the Son be understood to exist without the Father; for He is called the “express image of His person,” and the Word and Wisdom. How, then, can it be asserted that there once was a time when He was not the Son? For that is nothing else than to say that there was once a time when He was not the Truth, nor the Wisdom, nor the Life, although in all these He is judged to be the perfect essence of God the Father; for these things cannot be severed from Him, or even be separated from His essence. And although these qualities are said to be many in understanding, yet in their nature and essence they are one, and in them is the fulness of divinity. Now this expression which we employ—“that there never was a time when He did not exist”—is to be understood with an allowance. For these very words “when” or “never” have a meaning that relates to time, whereas the statements made regarding Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are to be understood as transcending all time, all ages, and all eternity. For it is the Trinity alone which exceeds the comprehension not only of temporal but even of eternal intelligence; while other things which are not included in it are to be measured by times and ages. This Son of God, then, in respect of the Word being God, which was in the beginning with God, no one will logically suppose to be contained in any place; nor yet in respect of His being “Wisdom,” or “Truth,” or the “Life,” or “Righteousness,” or “Sanctification,” or “Redemption:” for all these properties do not require space to be able to act or to operate, but each one of them is to be understood as meaning those individuals who participate in His virtue and working.

It will not, I consider, be opposed to the nature of our undertaking, if we restate with all possible brevity our opinions on the immortality of rational natures. Every one who participates in anything, is unquestionably of one essence and nature with him who is partaker of the same thing. For example, as all eyes participate in the light, so accordingly all eyes which partake of the light are of one nature; but although every eye partakes of the light, yet, inasmuch as one sees more clearly, and another more obscurely, every eye does not equally share in the light. And again, all hearing receives voice or sound, and therefore all hearing is of one nature; but each one hears more rapidly or more slowly, according as the quality of his hearing is clear and sound. Let us pass now from these sensuous illustrations to the consideration of intellectual things. Every mind which partakes of intellectual light ought undoubtedly to be of one nature with every mind which partakes in a similar manner of intellectual light. If the heavenly virtues, then, partake of intellectual light, i.e. of divine nature, because they participate in wisdom and holiness, and if human souls have partaken of the same light and wisdom, and thus are mutually of one nature and of one essence,—then, since the heavenly virtues are incorruptible and immortal, the essence of the human soul will also be immortal and incorruptible. And not only so, but because the nature of Father, and Son, and Holy Spirit, of whose intellectual light alone all created things have a share, is incorruptible and eternal, it is altogether consistent and necessary that every substance which partakes of that eternal nature should last for ever, and be incorruptible and eternal, so that the eternity of divine goodness may be understood also in this respect, that they who obtain its benefits are also eternal. But as, in the instances referred to, a diversity in the participation of the light was observed, when the glance of the beholder was described as being duller or more acute, so also a diversity is to be noted in the participation of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, varying with the degree of zeal or capacity of mind. If such were not the case, we have to consider whether it would not seem to be an act of impiety to say that the mind which is capable of [receiving] God should admit of a destruction of its essence; as if the very fact that it is able to feel and understand God could not suffice for its perpetual existence, especially since, if even through neglect the mind fall away from a pure and complete reception of God, it nevertheless contains within it certain seeds of restoration and renewal to a better understanding, seeing the “inner,” which is also called the “rational” man, is renewed after “the image and likeness of God, who created him.” And therefore the prophet says, “All the ends of the earth shall remember, and turn unto the Lord; and all the kindreds of the nations shall worship before Thee.”

It will not, I consider, be opposed to the nature of our undertaking, if we restate with all possible brevity our opinions on the immortality of rational natures. Every one who participates in anything, is unquestionably of one essence and nature with him who is partaker of the same thing. For example, as all eyes participate in the light, so accordingly all eyes which partake of the light are of one nature; but although every eye partakes of the light, yet, inasmuch as one sees more clearly, and another more obscurely, every eye does not equally share in the light. And again, all hearing receives voice or sound, and therefore all hearing is of one nature; but each one hears more rapidly or more slowly, according as the quality of his hearing is clear and sound. Let us pass now from these sensuous illustrations to the consideration of intellectual things. Every mind which partakes of intellectual light ought undoubtedly to be of one nature with every mind which partakes in a similar manner of intellectual light. If the heavenly virtues, then, partake of intellectual light, i.e. of divine nature, because they participate in wisdom and holiness, and if human souls have partaken of the same light and wisdom, and thus are mutually of one nature and of one essence,—then, since the heavenly virtues are incorruptible and immortal, the essence of the human soul will also be immortal and incorruptible. And not only so, but because the nature of Father, and Son, and Holy Spirit, of whose intellectual light alone all created things have a share, is incorruptible and eternal, it is altogether consistent and necessary that every substance which partakes of that eternal nature should last for ever, and be incorruptible and eternal, so that the eternity of divine goodness may be understood also in this respect, that they who obtain its benefits are also eternal. But as, in the instances referred to, a diversity in the participation of the light was observed, when the glance of the beholder was described as being duller or more acute, so also a diversity is to be noted in the participation of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, varying with the degree of zeal or capacity of mind. If such were not the case, we have to consider whether it would not seem to be an act of impiety to say that the mind which is capable of [receiving] God should admit of a destruction of its essence; as if the very fact that it is able to feel and understand God could not suffice for its perpetual existence, especially since, if even through neglect the mind fall away from a pure and complete reception of God, it nevertheless contains within it certain seeds of restoration and renewal to a better understanding, seeing the “inner,” which is also called the “rational” man, is renewed after “the image and likeness of God, who created him.” And therefore the prophet says, “All the ends of the earth shall remember, and turn unto the Lord; and all the kindreds of the nations shall worship before Thee.”

And when he returned tard the battle of the kings, the agency of God called him, and he crossed the mountain of Yabhés (Jebus?), and Melchisedek, the king of Shalim, the priest of the Most High God, went forth to meet him. And when Abraham saw Melchisedek, he made haste and fell upon his face, and did homage to him, and he rose up from the ground and embraced him, and kissed him, and was blessed by him; and Melchisedek blessed Abraham. And Abraham gave Melchisedek tithes of everything which he had with him, and Melchisedek made him to participate in the Holy Mysteries, [of] the bread of the Offering and the wine of redemption. And after Melchisedek had blessed him, and made him to participate in the Holy Mysteries, God spake unto Abraham, and said unto him, “ Thy reward is exceedingly great. Since Melchisedek hath blessed thee, and hath made thee to partake of bread and wine [with him], I also will assuredly bless thee, and I will assuredly multiply thy seed.”

And when he returned tard the battle of the kings, the agency of God called him, and he crossed the mountain of Yabhés (Jebus?), and Melchisedek, the king of Shalim, the priest of the Most High God, went forth to meet him. And when Abraham saw Melchisedek, he made haste and fell upon his face, and did homage to him, and he rose up from the ground and embraced him, and kissed him, and was blessed by him; and Melchisedek blessed Abraham. And Abraham gave Melchisedek tithes of everything which he had with him, and Melchisedek made him to participate in the Holy Mysteries, [of] the bread of the Offering and the wine of redemption. And after Melchisedek had blessed him, and made him to participate in the Holy Mysteries, God spake unto Abraham, and said unto him, “ Thy reward is exceedingly great. Since Melchisedek hath blessed thee, and hath made thee to partake of bread and wine [with him], I also will assuredly bless thee, and I will assuredly multiply thy seed.”

If one of the [residents] of the outer courtyard forgot to participate in the eruv, the inner courtyard is permitted but the outer one is forbidden. If one of the [residents] of the inner courtyard forgot to contribute to the eruv, both courtyards are forbidden. If they gave their eruv in the same place and one [resident], whether of the inner courtyard or of the outer courtyard, forgot to contribute to the eruv, both courtyards are forbidden. If the courtyards belonged to individuals, they need not prepare any eruv.

If the tenants of a courtyard and the tenants of its gallery forgot and did not participate [together] in the eruv, anything that is higher than ten handbreadths belongs to the [residents of the] gallery, and anything lower belongs to the [residents of the] courtyard. The rim around a cistern, or a rock, if they are ten handbreadths high they belong to the gallery but if lower than they belong to the courtyard. To what does this apply? To one that is adjacent to the gallery, but one that is distanced from it, even if ten handbreadths high, belongs to the courtyard. And what is regarded as adjacent? One that is not further than four handbreadths.

If one put his eruv in a gate-house, a portico or a gallery it is not a valid eruv; And one who dwells in it does not prohibit [others from carrying if he doesn’t participate in the eruv]. [If one put his eruv] in a straw-shed, a cattle-shed, a wood-shed or storehouse it is a valid eruv; And one who dwells in it prohibits [others from carrying if he doesn’t participate in the eruv]. Rabbi Judah says: if the householder has there any ownership the resident does not prohibit.

If one put his eruv in a gate-house, a portico or a gallery it is not a valid eruv; And one who dwells in it does not prohibit [others from carrying if he doesn’t participate in the eruv]. [If one put his eruv] in a straw-shed, a cattle-shed, a wood-shed or storehouse it is a valid eruv; And one who dwells in it prohibits [others from carrying if he doesn’t participate in the eruv]. Rabbi Judah says: if the householder has there any ownership the resident does not prohibit.

All the time that his deceased in lying before him, he eats at his neighbor’s, and if he has no neighbor, he eats in another room. If he has no other room, he makes a wall of separation and eats. If he is unable to make a wall of separation, he turns his face towards the wall and eats. He does not eat reclining; he does neither eat nor drink his fill. He eats neither meat nor drinks wine. One does not allow him to participate in a group to say Grace. If he recited Grace, one does not answer “amen” after him. If others recited Grace, he does not anwer “amen”. That is meant on weekdays. But on the Sabbath, he does eat reclining; he eats meat and drinks wine, eats and drinks his fill. One lets him participate in a group to say Grace. If he recited Grace, one does answer “amen” after him. If others recited Grace, he answers “amen”. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said: Because I allowed all of these, oblige him for all other obligations of the Torah. If I permitted him temporary life, so much more eternal life. Rebbi Judah ben Pazi in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Practice follows Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel.

All the time that his deceased in lying before him, he eats at his neighbor’s, and if he has no neighbor, he eats in another room. If he has no other room, he makes a wall of separation and eats. If he is unable to make a wall of separation, he turns his face towards the wall and eats. He does not eat reclining; he does neither eat nor drink his fill. He eats neither meat nor drinks wine. One does not allow him to participate in a group to say Grace. If he recited Grace, one does not answer “amen” after him. If others recited Grace, he does not anwer “amen”. That is meant on weekdays. But on the Sabbath, he does eat reclining; he eats meat and drinks wine, eats and drinks his fill. One lets him participate in a group to say Grace. If he recited Grace, one does answer “amen” after him. If others recited Grace, he answers “amen”. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said: Because I allowed all of these, oblige him for all other obligations of the Torah. If I permitted him temporary life, so much more eternal life. Rebbi Judah ben Pazi in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Practice follows Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel.

It is stated: The eulogizer and all who participate in a eulogy interrupt for the recitation of Shema‘ and do not interrupt for prayer. It happened that our teachers interrupted for the recitation of Shema‘ and prayer. Did we not formulate: “If they are able to start and finish”? Our Mishnah speaks of the first day, what is stated for the second day.

“And Havdalah in ‘He Who by His grace grants knowledge’ ”. Simeon bar Abba asked before Rebbi Yoḥanan: Something that one does all the time, and the Sages differ about it? He said to him: Since its main place is over a cup they forgot it in prayer. His statement means that its main place is over a cup. Rebbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of the old Rebbi Isaac: If he said it over a cup he must repeat it in prayer; it was in order to let children participate. His statement means that its main place is in prayer. Rebbi Zeïra, Rav Yehudah in the name of Samuel: If he said it over a cup he must repeat it in prayer, if he said it in prayer he must repeat it over a cup. His statement means that its main place is here as well as there.

MISHNAH: With demay, one may make eruv, participate, recite grace, and recite grace in a group. One may separate it while naked or at twilight. And if one lifted the Second Tithe before the First, it is also acceptable. The oil the weaver puts on his hands is obligated for demay, that which the carder puts on wool is free from demay.

According to Rav, what is the difference between himself and his children? He is forbidden because he depends on muqẓeh. His children who do not depend on muqẓeh are permitted. We understand his children, but his wife? Does she not have a claim for food against him? Following him who says, the wife’s food is not from the Torah. Following what we have stated: “The court will not determine food for a wife from Sabbatical money, but she may be given Sabbatical produce to eat at her husband’s.” Can she not be considered like a worker whose work is not worth a peruṭah? It implies that she is not considered like a worker whose work is not worth a peruṭah. Even according to him who says, the wife’s food is not from the Torah, does she not have a claim to a dwelling? Following what we stated: “If men participate with food without the knowledge of their wives, the participation is valid. But if wives participate without the knowledge of their husbands, the participation is invalid”.

According to Rav, what is the difference between himself and his children? He is forbidden because he depends on muqẓeh. His children who do not depend on muqẓeh are permitted. We understand his children, but his wife? Does she not have a claim for food against him? Following him who says, the wife’s food is not from the Torah. Following what we have stated: “The court will not determine food for a wife from Sabbatical money, but she may be given Sabbatical produce to eat at her husband’s.” Can she not be considered like a worker whose work is not worth a peruṭah? It implies that she is not considered like a worker whose work is not worth a peruṭah. Even according to him who says, the wife’s food is not from the Torah, does she not have a claim to a dwelling? Following what we stated: “If men participate with food without the knowledge of their wives, the participation is valid. But if wives participate without the knowledge of their husbands, the participation is invalid”.

Rebbi Binjamin bar Gidul and Rebbi Aḥa were sitting together and saying, is it not written (Neh. 10:39): “The Cohen, descendant of Aaron, will share with the Levites in the Levite’s tithe”? To give him heave of the tithe. But is it not written (Neh. 10:39): “The Levites shall bring [the tithe of] the tithe”? Rebbi Ḥuna and the colleagues, one of them said “to the descendants of Levi”. Why does the verse say (Num. 18:21): “And to the descendants of Levi”? From here that one gives tithes to Cohanim. The other said, even if it were only written “to the descendants” one would give tithes to Cohanim. If somebody would say, my son X shall take property Y [before distribution] and the rest of my properties my sons shall inherit, does he not participate with them?

“From here did Rebbi Phineas ben Yair say, promptitude brings to cleanliness, cleanliness brings to purity, purity brings to holiness, holiness to meekness, meekness to fear of sin, fear of sin to the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit to piety, piety to the Resurrection of the Dead, the Resurrection of the Dead through Elijah, may his remembrance be a blessing.”“Promptitude to cleanliness,” he finishes, and he atones.“Cleanliness to purity,” the Cohen shall atone for her, then she will be pure.“Purity to holiness,” he shall purify it and sanctify it.“Holiness to meekness,” for so says the High and Elevated One, Who thrones eternally, His name is Holy, in sublimity and holiness I dwell, and the suppressed and of meek spirit.“Meekness to fear of sin,” the consequence of meekness is fear of the Eternal. Rebbi Isaac bar Eleazar said, what wisdom proclaimed as a crown to its head, meekness made a heel for its sandal, for it is written, the head of wisdom is the fear of the Eternal, but it is written, the heel of meekness is fear of the Eternal.“Fear of sin to the Holy Spirit,” as it is written, then you will understand and knowledge of God you will find.“The Holy Spirit to piety,” as it is written, then You spoke in a vision to Your pious.“Piety to the Resurrection of the Dead,” as it is written, I shall give My Spirit into you and you will live.“The Resurrection of the Dead through Elijah, may his remembrance be a blessing,” as it is written, behold I am sending to you Elijah the prophet, before the coming of the great and awesome day of the Eternal, that he turn the fathers’ hearts to the sons and the sons’ hearts to their fathers.It was stated in the name of Rebbi Meïr: Anybody permanently in the Land of Israel who eats his profane food in purity, speaks in the holy language, and recites the Shemaˋ mornings and evenings is assured to participate in the life of the World to Come.

They asked before Rebbi Yose: Since you say about implements which were resting anywhere in the courtyard one may move them in the entire courtyard, similarly concerning implements which were resting anywhere in a dead-end street, may one move them in the entire dead-end street? They asked him in Šabbat and he did not answer since Rebbi Yose said each matter only at its place. When they came to Eruvin he told them in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: one may move implements which were resting anywhere in a dead-end street in the entire dead-end street; similarly implements which were resting in a courtyard one may move in the entire courtyard; Rav said, one may move them only four cubits. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rav is consistent and Rebbi Johanan is consistent. Since Rebbi Joḥanan says that a beam permits without participation, it is he who says that one may move in the entire dead-end street. Since Rav said that a beam does not permit without participation, it is he who says that one may move them only within four cubits. In Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion, why does one participate in the entire dead-end street? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, to make all domains one.

MISHNAH: With anything one may make an eruv or participate except with water or salt. Anything may be bought with money of [Second] Tithe except water and salt. One who vows not to eat food is permitted water and salt. One may make an eruv for a nazir with wine and for an Israel with heave. Symmachos says, also with profane food for a Cohen in a bet happeras. Rebbi Jehudah says among the graves since he could be shielded and eat.

HALAKHAH: “With anything one may make an eruv or participate,” etc. Rebbi Aḥa said, this is Rebbi Eliezer’s, as we have stated there, “with anything one may make an eruv or participate except with water or salt, the words of Rebbi Eliezer.” Rebbi Yose said, it is everybody’s opinion. One makes an eruv for courtyards and participates both for courtyards and for domains. Our Mishnah is Rebbi Meïr’s, as it was stated: one may make an eruv with anything eaten raw as is; with bread, one does not make an eruv with it. Garlic and onions, in the opinion of Rebbi Meïr one does not make an eruv with them, as it was stated: Rebbi Jehudah said, it happened that Rebbi Meïr spent a Sabbath at Ardaksam; there came a person who said, I made an eruv with onions and Rebbi Meïr restricted him to his four cubits. Even though Rebbi Meïr said, with everything one may make an eruv or participate except with water or salt, on condition that it be something eaten raw as is. Arum and colocasia: in the rabbis’ opinion one does not make an eruv with.

HALAKHAH: “With anything one may make an eruv or participate,” etc. Rebbi Aḥa said, this is Rebbi Eliezer’s, as we have stated there, “with anything one may make an eruv or participate except with water or salt, the words of Rebbi Eliezer.” Rebbi Yose said, it is everybody’s opinion. One makes an eruv for courtyards and participates both for courtyards and for domains. Our Mishnah is Rebbi Meïr’s, as it was stated: one may make an eruv with anything eaten raw as is; with bread, one does not make an eruv with it. Garlic and onions, in the opinion of Rebbi Meïr one does not make an eruv with them, as it was stated: Rebbi Jehudah said, it happened that Rebbi Meïr spent a Sabbath at Ardaksam; there came a person who said, I made an eruv with onions and Rebbi Meïr restricted him to his four cubits. Even though Rebbi Meïr said, with everything one may make an eruv or participate except with water or salt, on condition that it be something eaten raw as is. Arum and colocasia: in the rabbis’ opinion one does not make an eruv with.

HALAKHAH: “With anything one may make an eruv or participate,” etc. Rebbi Aḥa said, this is Rebbi Eliezer’s, as we have stated there, “with anything one may make an eruv or participate except with water or salt, the words of Rebbi Eliezer.” Rebbi Yose said, it is everybody’s opinion. One makes an eruv for courtyards and participates both for courtyards and for domains. Our Mishnah is Rebbi Meïr’s, as it was stated: one may make an eruv with anything eaten raw as is; with bread, one does not make an eruv with it. Garlic and onions, in the opinion of Rebbi Meïr one does not make an eruv with them, as it was stated: Rebbi Jehudah said, it happened that Rebbi Meïr spent a Sabbath at Ardaksam; there came a person who said, I made an eruv with onions and Rebbi Meïr restricted him to his four cubits. Even though Rebbi Meïr said, with everything one may make an eruv or participate except with water or salt, on condition that it be something eaten raw as is. Arum and colocasia: in the rabbis’ opinion one does not make an eruv with.

We have stated two principles which are not comparable one with the other. “With anything one may make an eruv or participate except with water or salt,” whether it is something eaten raw as is or something which is not eaten raw. “Anything may be bought with money of [Second] Tithe except water and salt,” but only something eaten raw as is. “With anything one may make an eruv or participate except with water or salt,” both according to Rebbi Aqiba and Rebbi Ismael. “Anything may be bought with money of [Second] Tithe except water and salt,” according to Rebbi Aqiba. But according to Rebbi Ismael?

We have stated two principles which are not comparable one with the other. “With anything one may make an eruv or participate except with water or salt,” whether it is something eaten raw as is or something which is not eaten raw. “Anything may be bought with money of [Second] Tithe except water and salt,” but only something eaten raw as is. “With anything one may make an eruv or participate except with water or salt,” both according to Rebbi Aqiba and Rebbi Ismael. “Anything may be bought with money of [Second] Tithe except water and salt,” according to Rebbi Aqiba. But according to Rebbi Ismael?

“With anything one may make an eruv or participate except with water or salt.” Rebbi Yasa said, because the body is not fed by them. Rebbi Levi said, because they are agents of curse. Rebbi Eleazar said, if he made them into brine it may be bought with Tithe money. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Miasha: only if he mixed oil into it. Rebbi Yose asked, then should he be able to use it for eruv only in proportion?

MISHNAH: Five courtyards were open to one another and open to an alley. If they made eruvin in the courtyards but did not participate in the alley, they are permitted in the courtyards and forbidden the alley, but if they participated in the alley the are permitted both here and there. If they made eruvin for the courtyards and participated in the alley and one of the dwellers in a courtyard forgot and did not make an eruv all parties are permitted; if he dwelt in the alley and did not participate, they are permitted in the courtyards but forbidden in the alley since the relationship of alley to courtyards is like the one of courtyards to houses.

MISHNAH: Five courtyards were open to one another and open to an alley. If they made eruvin in the courtyards but did not participate in the alley, they are permitted in the courtyards and forbidden the alley, but if they participated in the alley the are permitted both here and there. If they made eruvin for the courtyards and participated in the alley and one of the dwellers in a courtyard forgot and did not make an eruv all parties are permitted; if he dwelt in the alley and did not participate, they are permitted in the courtyards but forbidden in the alley since the relationship of alley to courtyards is like the one of courtyards to houses.

“If the courtyards made eruvin but did not participate in the alley.” The Mishnah is Rebbi Meïr’s since Rebbi Meïr said, by an eruv and by participation. Everybody follows Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Even about the reading of the Esther scroll everybody follows Rebbi Meïr. In matters of eruvin and public fast-days everybody follows Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name Rebbi Joḥanan and in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Even though Rebbi Meïr says that he may cede rights he agrees that if one of them forgot and did not contribute to the eruv, that he may rely on his participation. Who holds “by an eruv and by participation,” not Rebbi Meïr? Since Rebbi Meïr said, by an eruv and by participation. He told him, why do you make us forget the practices of eruvin? Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Ila; it should be like one of them. For one of them said, maybe he comes to a courtyard which does not need participation. Which is a courtyard which does not need participation? That is the customary courtyard. He sees them preparing an eruv but not participating. Then he will infer to say that maybe an eruv is valid without participation? But no eruv is valid without participation. And the other one will say, maybe he comes to a courtyard which already participated. He sees them preparing an eruv but not participating. Then he will neither make an eruv nor participate.

“If the courtyards made eruvin but did not participate in the alley.” The Mishnah is Rebbi Meïr’s since Rebbi Meïr said, by an eruv and by participation. Everybody follows Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Even about the reading of the Esther scroll everybody follows Rebbi Meïr. In matters of eruvin and public fast-days everybody follows Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name Rebbi Joḥanan and in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Even though Rebbi Meïr says that he may cede rights he agrees that if one of them forgot and did not contribute to the eruv, that he may rely on his participation. Who holds “by an eruv and by participation,” not Rebbi Meïr? Since Rebbi Meïr said, by an eruv and by participation. He told him, why do you make us forget the practices of eruvin? Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Ila; it should be like one of them. For one of them said, maybe he comes to a courtyard which does not need participation. Which is a courtyard which does not need participation? That is the customary courtyard. He sees them preparing an eruv but not participating. Then he will infer to say that maybe an eruv is valid without participation? But no eruv is valid without participation. And the other one will say, maybe he comes to a courtyard which already participated. He sees them preparing an eruv but not participating. Then he will neither make an eruv nor participate.

It is obvious that “one makes eruv for courtyards and participates in alleys. If one makes eruv for courtyards, if they want to participate in the alley they may not participate. But if they participated in an alley, if they want to make it eruv they may do so.” And it was stated: “One makes eruv and participates simultaneously, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, one makes eruv for courtyards or participates in alleys.” If they made eruv for the courtyards, they are permitted in the courtyards and forbidden in the alley. But if they participated in the alley they are permitted here and there. He told them, also you will cause the rules of eruv to be forgotten among us, for the relationship of alley to courtyards is like the one of courtyards to houses.

It is obvious that “one makes eruv for courtyards and participates in alleys. If one makes eruv for courtyards, if they want to participate in the alley they may not participate. But if they participated in an alley, if they want to make it eruv they may do so.” And it was stated: “One makes eruv and participates simultaneously, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, one makes eruv for courtyards or participates in alleys.” If they made eruv for the courtyards, they are permitted in the courtyards and forbidden in the alley. But if they participated in the alley they are permitted here and there. He told them, also you will cause the rules of eruv to be forgotten among us, for the relationship of alley to courtyards is like the one of courtyards to houses.

They asked before Rebbi Yasa: Since you say about implements which were resting anywhere in the courtyard, one may move them in the entire courtyard, similarly concerning implements which were resting anywhere in a dead-end street, may one move them in the entire dead-end street? They asked him in Šabbat and he did not answer since Rebbi Yasa said, each matter only at its place. When they came to Eruvin he told them in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: one may move implements which were resting anywhere in a dead-end street in the entire dead-end street. Rav said, one may move them only four cubits. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rav is consistent and Rebbi Johanan is consistent. Since Rebbi Joḥanan says that a beam permits without participation, it is he who says that one may move in the entire dead-end street. Since Rav said that a beam does not permit without participation, it is he who says that one may move it only within four cubits. In Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion, why does one participate in the entire dead-end street? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, to make all domains as one.

MISHNAH: How may one participate in an alley? One puts down an amphora and says, this shall be for all dwellers in the alley, and transfers rights through his adult son or daughter or his male or female Hebrew slave or through his wife. But he cannot transfer rights through his minor son or daughter or his Canaanite male or female slave because their hand is like his own.

MISHNAH: How does one participate for domains? One puts down an amphora and says, this is for all people of my town who intend to go to a house of mourning or to a wedding feast. Anybody who accepted when it still was daytime is permitted, after dark it is prohibited since one may not make an eruv after dark.

HALAKHAH: “How does one participate for domains,” etc. One does not state “one transfers rights.” Why does one not state “one transfers rights”? Samuel said, there we stated that “one transfers rights,” one has to transfer rights; but here, where we did not state “one transfers rights”, one does not have to transfer rights. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is a matter of a conclusion de minore ad maius. If there, where eruvin of courtyards are a rabbinic institution you are saying that one has to transfer rights, not so much more eruvin of domains which are words of the Torah? Rav follows Rebbi Joḥanan, (and) Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, to treat all domains equally.

MISHNAH: The third lottery, newcomers for incense come and participate in the lottery. The fourth, newcomers and old-timers, who brings the limbs from the ramp to the altar?

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Ḥanina said, nobody ever participated in the lottery and repeated. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah says so, “newcomers for incense come and participate in the lottery.” Rebbi Ḥanina said, the same is true for the pan. Rebbi Yose said, a baraita says so, “the one winning the incense says to the one on his right side, you are with me with the pan,” You have to say that two Cohanim are blessed every time. Rav said, May the Eternal bless his might and may You desire the action of his hands. It happened that a man whose arm atrophied but he did not refrain from it, to uphold what had been said, may the Eternal bless his might and may You desire the action of his hands.

Why was Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish offended by this? He was worried about what Rebbi Eleazar said, since Rebbi Eleazar said: My hand will be against the prophets who see vain things and who conjure lies, in my people’s council they shall not be; that is the secret of intercalation; in the documents of the House of Israel they will not be inscribed; that is ordination; and to the earth of Israel they shall not come; that is the Land of Israel. Rebbi Eleazar said, when I came here, I said, I have one. When they ordained me, I said, I have two. When I was asked to participate in the intercalation, I said, I have all three with me.

It was stated: “A person may not say to another, I participate with you for a tetradrachma, I participate with you for a sheqel; but he may say to him, I am standing for half, third, or quarter.” The great Rebbi Ḥiyya and Rebbi Simeon ben Rebbi did weigh a firstling piece against piece. When was this said? On a weekday. Therefore on a holiday it is forbidden because “one does not use scales at all.” Rav Avun, Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: Even to hang it on the scales because of the rats is forbidden. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, not because of this reason but because we did state, “Rebbi Jehudah says a person may weigh against a vessel or against a dagger, but the Sages are saying that one does not use scales at all.” Therefore a first Tanna is of the opinion that one may use them, and therefore to hang it on the scales because of the rats is permitted.

It was stated: “A person may not say to another, I participate with you for a tetradrachma, I participate with you for a sheqel; but he may say to him, I am standing for half, third, or quarter.” The great Rebbi Ḥiyya and Rebbi Simeon ben Rebbi did weigh a firstling piece against piece. When was this said? On a weekday. Therefore on a holiday it is forbidden because “one does not use scales at all.” Rav Avun, Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: Even to hang it on the scales because of the rats is forbidden. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, not because of this reason but because we did state, “Rebbi Jehudah says a person may weigh against a vessel or against a dagger, but the Sages are saying that one does not use scales at all.” Therefore a first Tanna is of the opinion that one may use them, and therefore to hang it on the scales because of the rats is permitted.

All the time that his deceased is lying before him, he eats at his neighbor’s. If he has no neighbor, he eats in another room. If he has no other room, he makes a wall of separation and eats. If he is unable to make a wall of separation, he turns his face towards the wall and eats. He does not eat reclining; he does neither eat nor drink his fill. He eats neither meat nor drinks wine. One does not allow him to participate in a group to say Grace. If he recited Grace, one does not answer “amen” after him. If others recited Grace, he does not answer “amen”. That is on weekdays. But on the Sabbath, he does eat reclining; he eats meat and drinks wine, eats and drinks his fill. One lets him participate in a group to say Grace. If he recited Grace, one does answer “amen” after him. If others recited Grace, he answers “amen”. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said: Because you allowed all of these, oblige him for all other obligations of the Torah. If you permitted him temporary life, so much more eternal life. Rebbi Judah ben Pazi in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Practice follows Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. If he was handed over to the public, he may eat meat and drink wine. If he was handed over to the carriers it is as if he was handed to the public.

All the time that his deceased is lying before him, he eats at his neighbor’s. If he has no neighbor, he eats in another room. If he has no other room, he makes a wall of separation and eats. If he is unable to make a wall of separation, he turns his face towards the wall and eats. He does not eat reclining; he does neither eat nor drink his fill. He eats neither meat nor drinks wine. One does not allow him to participate in a group to say Grace. If he recited Grace, one does not answer “amen” after him. If others recited Grace, he does not answer “amen”. That is on weekdays. But on the Sabbath, he does eat reclining; he eats meat and drinks wine, eats and drinks his fill. One lets him participate in a group to say Grace. If he recited Grace, one does answer “amen” after him. If others recited Grace, he answers “amen”. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said: Because you allowed all of these, oblige him for all other obligations of the Torah. If you permitted him temporary life, so much more eternal life. Rebbi Judah ben Pazi in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Practice follows Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. If he was handed over to the public, he may eat meat and drink wine. If he was handed over to the carriers it is as if he was handed to the public.

HALAKHAH: “Only the relatives of the deceased tear their clothes, or take them off, or are brought the first meal. Rebbi Jeremiah said, only relatives who have to mourn. As this which was stated: If a Sage dies [all] are his relatives, even relatives who do not have to mourn. As the following: Rebbi Abun died on a holiday and Rebbi Mana did not participate in mourning. The Sepphoreans said, he hates him even in death. After the holiday he eulogized him. He preached and said in front of them, as was stated: If a Sage dies all are his relatives, referring to those who were present. We were not present.

MISHNAH: [A woman] did not wait three months after [the death of] her husband, married, and gave birth, and it is not known whether it is a nine months’ child of the first or a seven months’ child of the second. If she had sons from the first and the second, they perform ḥalîṣah but not levirate. Similarly, he performs ḥalîṣah but not levirate. If he had brothers from the first or from the second not from the same mother, he may perform ḥalîṣah or levirate and they may perform ḥalîṣah or levirate. If one was an Israel and the other a priest, he may marry a woman appropriate for the priesthood, may not defile himself for the dead, but if he became defiled he does not suffer forty lashes. He may not eat heave but if he ate, he does not have to pay its value and additional fifth. He cannot attend distributions on the threshing floor. He has to sell his heave but the money is his. He has no part in the Temple sacrifices, one does not give him sacrifices but one cannot take his from him. He is exempt from the foreleg, the chin, and the first stomach. His firstborn animal should graze until it develops a blemish. One charges him with the disabilities of an Israel and those of Cohanim. If both were Cohanim, he has to mourn intensely for them and they for him. He may not defile himself for them, they may not defile themselves for him. He does not inherit from them but they inherit from him. He is not prosecutable if he injures or curses either one of them. He may serve on the watch of either one but does not participate in distributions. If both were of the same watch, he takes one part.

Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon. If anybody does not want to participate in an ‘eruv one enters his house and makes the ‘eruv against his will. But was it not stated: if he does not want to make an ‘eruv, if he does not refuse one enters his house and makes the ‘eruv against his will? Because he does not refuse. But not if he does refuse. But was it not stated: “The dwellers at a dead end alley may force one another to make a lath or a beam for the dead end alley.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, not that he refused but out of ill-will he does not want to participate in an ‘eruv.

Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon. If anybody does not want to participate in an ‘eruv one enters his house and makes the ‘eruv against his will. But was it not stated: if he does not want to make an ‘eruv, if he does not refuse one enters his house and makes the ‘eruv against his will? Because he does not refuse. But not if he does refuse. But was it not stated: “The dwellers at a dead end alley may force one another to make a lath or a beam for the dead end alley.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, not that he refused but out of ill-will he does not want to participate in an ‘eruv.

Why was Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish offended by this? He was worried about what Rebbi Eleazar said, since Rebbi Eleazar said: My hand will be against the prophets who see … vain things, in my people’s councilthey shall not be; that is [the secret of] intercalation; in the documents of the House of Israel they will not be inscribed; that is ordination; and to the earth of Israel they shall not come; that is the Land of Israel. When Rebbi Eleazar came here, he said, I have one. When they ordained him, he said, I have two.When he was asked to participate in the intercalation, he said, I have all three [with me].

HALAKHAH: “The High Priest judges and one judges him,” etc. One understands that he judges. Why does one judge him? Can he not appoint a plenipotentiary? Think of it, if an oath should be imposed on him, may a plenipotentiary take the oath? His monetary suits are heard by how many? By 23, as we understand from the following: “The king may not sit in the Synhedrion, neither king nor High Priest may participate in intercalations.” Rebbi Ḥanina and Rabbi Mana, one said the king does not sit in the Synhedrion because of suspicion; he cannot participate in intercalations because of suspicion. Neither king nor High Priest may participate in intercalations since it is not to the king’s honor to sit with seven, so much less with three. This implies that his monetary suits are heard by 23.

HALAKHAH: “The High Priest judges and one judges him,” etc. One understands that he judges. Why does one judge him? Can he not appoint a plenipotentiary? Think of it, if an oath should be imposed on him, may a plenipotentiary take the oath? His monetary suits are heard by how many? By 23, as we understand from the following: “The king may not sit in the Synhedrion, neither king nor High Priest may participate in intercalations.” Rebbi Ḥanina and Rabbi Mana, one said the king does not sit in the Synhedrion because of suspicion; he cannot participate in intercalations because of suspicion. Neither king nor High Priest may participate in intercalations since it is not to the king’s honor to sit with seven, so much less with three. This implies that his monetary suits are heard by 23.

HALAKHAH: “The High Priest judges and one judges him,” etc. One understands that he judges. Why does one judge him? Can he not appoint a plenipotentiary? Think of it, if an oath should be imposed on him, may a plenipotentiary take the oath? His monetary suits are heard by how many? By 23, as we understand from the following: “The king may not sit in the Synhedrion, neither king nor High Priest may participate in intercalations.” Rebbi Ḥanina and Rabbi Mana, one said the king does not sit in the Synhedrion because of suspicion; he cannot participate in intercalations because of suspicion. Neither king nor High Priest may participate in intercalations since it is not to the king’s honor to sit with seven, so much less with three. This implies that his monetary suits are heard by 23.

It is stated: The eulogizer and all who participate in a eulogy interrupt for the recitation of Shemaˋ but do not interrupt for prayer. It happened that our teachers interrupted for the recitation of Shemaˋ and prayer. Did we not state: “If they are able to start and finish”? Our Mishnah refers to the first day; that the Tanna stated for the second day.

Whose view is followed in that which has been taught: All the watches repeated a second and a third time, except for two who repeated a second time but not a third one? Must we say that it follows that of Rabbi, and not that of the Rabbis? You could even say that this follows the view of the rabbis. And what does "they did not participate a third time" mean? In [offering] the bulls for the festival.