partnership

Girls who had entered the bridal chamber quite lately, to enjoy the partnership of marriage, exchanged pleasure for misery; and with dust scattered upon their myrrh-anointed heads, were hurried along unveiled; and, in the midst of outlandish insults, set up with one accord a lamentable cry instead of the marriage hymn.

And he came near and besought her again, saying: If thou wilt be persuaded of me, I shall henceforth have no grief; remember that day when thou didst meet me first; tell the truth: was I more beautiful unto thee at that time, or Jesus at this? And Mygdonia said: That time required its own, and this time also; that was the time of the beginning, but this of the end; that was the time of temporal life, this of eternal; that of pleasure that passeth away, but this of pleasure that abideth for ever; that, of day and night, this of day without night. Thou sawest that marriage that was passing, and here, and single but this marriage continueth for ever; that was a partnership of corruption, but this of eternal life; those groomsmen (and maids) were men and women of time, but these abide unto the end. That marriage upon earth setteth up dropping dew of the love of men; that bride-chamber is taken down again, but this remaineth always; that bed was strown with coverlets (that grow old), but this with love and faith. Thou art a bridegroom that passest away and art dissolved (changed), but Jesus is a true bridegroom, enduring for ever immortal, that dowry was of money and robes that grow old, but this is of living words which never pass away.

The blessed John was in Ephesus with the brethren, rejoicing in the Lord. Now on the first day of the week all the brethren were gathered together, and John began to speak to them, saying, 'My brethren, my fellow heirs, and my partners in the Christ Jesus, our Lord, know ye that unto you hath the Lord given from His hand power, [and] that He hath wrought for you very many mighty works, and miracles, and acts of grace. And ye know of what kind are the teachings, and the guiding directions, and the refreshing, and the service, and the gracious acts, and the gifts, and all the other things which ye see with your eyes, which are given unto you from the hand of our Master. He hath never made Himself manifest unto you through the eyes of the body, neither have ye hearkened unto Him through the ears of the body, but He hath made Himself visible unto you through the integrity of your heart, and by visions, and by works which are holy. Strengthen ye yourselves, then, in Him, and ye shall remember Him at all times; moreover, ye shall also remember the mystery and the association (or, partnership) which hath come unto you, and which our Lord hath fulfilled.

[The one who's been] formed [is beautiful, but] you'd find his children being noble forms. If he weren't formed but begotten, you'd find that his seed was noble. But now he was formed, and he begot. What nobility is this? First there was adultery, and then murder; and he (Cain) was begotten in adultery, because he was the son of the serpent. Because of this he became a murderer like his father too, and he killed his brother (Abel). Every partnership between those who are dissimilar is adultery.

. And now perhaps it may not seem unreasonable to some, that such an inveterate hatred might increase so much [on both sides], as to proceed further, and overcome nature; but it may justly deserve consideration, whether it be to be laid to the charge of the young men, that they gave such an occasion to their father's anger, and led him to do what he did, and by going on long in the same way put things past remedy, and brought him to use them so unmercifully; or whether it be to be laid to the father's charge, that he was so hard-hearted, and so very tender in the desire of government, and of other things that would tend to his glory, that tae would take no one into a partnership with him, that so whatsoever he would have done himself might continue immovable; or, indeed, whether fortune have not greater power than all prudent reasonings; whence we are persuaded that human actions are thereby determined beforehand by an inevitable necessity, and we call her Fate, because there is nothing which is not done by her; wherefore I suppose it will be sufficient to compare this notion with that other, which attribute somewhat to ourselves, and renders men not unaccountable for the different conducts of their lives, which notion is no other than the philosophical determination of our ancient law. Accordingly, of the two other causes of this sad event, any body may lay the blame on the young men, who acted by youthful vanity, and pride of their royal birth, that they should bear to hear the calumnies that were raised against their father, while certainly they were not equitable judges of the actions of his life, but ill-natured in suspecting, and intemperate in speaking of it, and on both accounts easily caught by those that observed them, and revealed them to gain favor; yet cannot their father be thought worthy excuse, as to that horrid impiety which he was guilty of about them, while he ventured, without any certain evidence of their treacherous designs against him, and without any proofs that they had made preparations for such attempt, to kill his own sons, who were of very comely bodies, and the great darlings of other men, and no way deficient in their conduct, whether it were in hunting, or in warlike exercises, or in speaking upon occasional topics of discourse; for in all these they were skillful, and especially Alexander, who was the eldest; for certainly it had been sufficient, even though he had condemned them, to have kept them alive in bonds, or to let them live at a distance from his dominions in banishment, while he was surrounded by the Roman forces, which were a strong security to him, whose help would prevent his suffering any thing by a sudden onset, or by open force; but for him to kill them on the sudden, in order to gratify a passion that governed him, was a demonstration of insufferable impiety. He also was guilty of so great a crime in his older age; nor will the delays that he made, and the length of time in which the thing was done, plead at all for his excuse; for when a man is on a sudden amazed, and in commotion of mind, and then commits a wicked action, although this be a heavy crime, yet is it a thing that frequently happens; but to do it upon deliberation, and after frequent attempts, and as frequent puttings-off, to undertake it at last, and accomplish it, was the action of a murderous mind, and such as was not easily moved from that which is evil. And this temper he showed in what he did afterward, when he did not spare those that seemed to be the best beloved of his friends that were left, wherein, though the justice of the punishment caused those that perished to be the less pitied, yet was the barbarity of the man here equal, in that he did not abstain from their slaughter also. But of those persons we shall have occasion to discourse more hereafter.

Demai may be used to make an eruv, and to make an [alley] partnership, and they recite a blessing over it, and they make an invitation [to recite Birkat Hamazon] over it, and one may separate [tithes] from it even when one is naked, or when it is twilight [on the eve of Shabbat]. And if he took out second tithe from it before the first tithe, it doesn’t matter. The oil with which the weaver greases his fingers is liable to [the rules of] demai, but [the oil] which the wool-comber puts on the wool is exempt from [the rules of] demai.

A householder who was in partnership with his neighbors: with this one in wine and with the other in wine, they need not prepare an eruv. But if his partnership was with the one in wine and with the other in oil, they must make an eruv. Rabbi Shimon says: neither in the one case nor in the other need they make an eruv.

A householder who was in partnership with his neighbors: with this one in wine and with the other in wine, they need not prepare an eruv. But if his partnership was with the one in wine and with the other in oil, they must make an eruv. Rabbi Shimon says: neither in the one case nor in the other need they make an eruv.

How does one make an “alley partnership”? One [of the residents] places a jar and declares, “Behold, this belongs to all the residents of the alley”, and he confers possession upon [the other residents] through his adult son or daughter, through his Hebrew servant or maidservant or through his wife. But he may not confer possession through his minor son or daughter or through his Canaanite slave or female slave, because their hand is as his hand.

[An Israelite] who buys a fetus of a donkey belonging to a non-Jew or who sells one to him, although this is not permitted, or who forms a partnership with him, or who receives [an animal] from him to look after or who gives [his donkey] to him to look after, is exempt from the [law of the] bekhor, for it says: [“I sanctified to me all the firstborn] in Israel,” (Numbers 3:13) but not in non-Jews. Priests and levites are exempt through [an argument made by a] kal vehomer: if they exempted the first-born belonging to the Israelites in the wilderness, it follows all the more so that they should exempt their own.

[An Israelite] who buys a fetus of a cow belonging to a non-Jew or who sells one to him, although this is not permitted, or who forms a partnership with him, or who receives [an animal] from him to look after or who gives [his cow] to him to look after, is exempt from the [law of the] bekhor, for it says: [“I sanctified to Me all the firstborn] in Israel,” (Numbers 3:13) but not in non-Jews. Priests and Levites are subject [to the law of the first-born pure animal]. They are not exempt from [the law of] the first-born of a clean animal, but only of a first-born son and the first-born of a donkey.

What is meant by one "name"? For a birth and a birth, or for zivah and zivah, that is one name. And "two names"? For a birth, [and the other] for a zivah. What is meant by "two women"? [When] one [woman] brings [her offering] for a birth and the other for a birth, or [when one brings] for a zivah and the other for a zivah this is "of one name". And a case "of two names"? When one brings for a birth and the other for a zivah. Rabbi Yose says: when two women purchased their kinnim in partnership, or gave the price of their kinnim to the priest [for him to purchase them], then the priest can offer whichever one he wants as a hatat or as an olah, whether they are of one name or of two names.

HALAKHAH: Everybody agrees that he who sells ten bunches to somebody else may not touch them. Everybody agrees in a partnership that just as he thins out his, so he thins out that of his partner. Rebbi Jehudah considers him to be a partner, Rebbi Meïr considers him to be a seller. Rebbi Immi said to him: Think about it, if a wild animal ate it, if you consider him a partner he is required to pay him!

HALAKHAH: It was stated: “If a Jew and a Gentile bought a field in Syria, it is as if ṭevel and tithed produce were mixed together, the words of Rebbi. Rebbi Simeon ben Gamliel says, the Jew’s part is obligated, the Gentile’s part is free.” Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: When do they disagree? If they split the field while the grain was standing. But if they split grain stacks, even Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel will agree with Rebbi that every single stalk belongs to the partnership. Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: When do they disagree? If they split the field while the grain was standing. But if they split sheaves, even Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel will agree with Rebbi that every single stalk belongs to the partnership. According to Rebbi Jonah, what is the difference between stacks and sheaves? If he harvests a small amount and shares with his partner. Rebbi Hoshaia said, that is, if they bought with the idea that they would not split. But if they bought with the idea that they always would split, Rebbi will agree with Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel that his part already belonged to him from the first moment. Rebbi Yose said, the words of the rabbis disagree since Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan said that partners are the subject of the disagreement between Rebbi and Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. Are brothers who split not like these partners?

HALAKHAH: It was stated: “If a Jew and a Gentile bought a field in Syria, it is as if ṭevel and tithed produce were mixed together, the words of Rebbi. Rebbi Simeon ben Gamliel says, the Jew’s part is obligated, the Gentile’s part is free.” Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: When do they disagree? If they split the field while the grain was standing. But if they split grain stacks, even Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel will agree with Rebbi that every single stalk belongs to the partnership. Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: When do they disagree? If they split the field while the grain was standing. But if they split sheaves, even Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel will agree with Rebbi that every single stalk belongs to the partnership. According to Rebbi Jonah, what is the difference between stacks and sheaves? If he harvests a small amount and shares with his partner. Rebbi Hoshaia said, that is, if they bought with the idea that they would not split. But if they bought with the idea that they always would split, Rebbi will agree with Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel that his part already belonged to him from the first moment. Rebbi Yose said, the words of the rabbis disagree since Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan said that partners are the subject of the disagreement between Rebbi and Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. Are brothers who split not like these partners?

Rav said, only if both lender and borrower have real estate. But Rebbi Joḥanan says, if the creditor does but not the borrower, or the borrower but not the lender. If he has no real estate but one who owes him has real estate then one writes him a prozbol. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav: Even if he has only one stalk in a field, one writes him a prozbol. But did we not state: Partners, sharecroppers, and guardians have no prozbol? They say, there each single stalk is property of the partnership but here it is his.

HALAKHAH: From where that a cow of a Cohen which was appraised at an Israel’s cannot be fed vetch? The verse says (Lev. 22:11): “If a Cohen buys a living being with his money, etc.” I could think, he may not feed it vetch, the verse says, “they”. Some Tannaïm state: I could think, he may not feed it vetch or fenugreek. Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Ḥiyya, in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The word of the Torah is that here, there is no “fenugreek”. Did we not state: From where that a Cohen who bought a slave in partnership with an Israel, even if the latter has only a one percent interest, cannot feed him heave? The verse says, “If a Cohen buys.” Bar Qappara stated: Neither one of them may eat heave.

MISHNAH: A dough which a Non-Jew gave to a Jew to make is exempt from ḥallah. If he gave it as a gift before it was rolled it is obligated, after it was rolled it is free. If somebody makes dough in partnership with a Non-Jew, it is exempt from ḥallah if the Jew’s part is less than the measure. If a proselyte became Jewish while he had dough, if it was made before he became Jewish it is exempt, after he became Jewish it is obligated. In case of doubt it is obligated but one does not owe a fifth because of it. Rebbi Aqiba says, all goes after forming a crust in the oven.

“Rebbi Jehudah permits damaged ones.” Rebbi Jehudah said this only for a damaged one which cannot be healed. They told him, may they not bring a male to her, she is fertilized and gives birth? He said to them, I also said this only about a male damaged one which cannot be healed. They told him, may they not bring a female to him, he fertilizes her and she gives birth? Rav Abun in the name of the rabbis there: This implies that one is forbidden to provide them with semen. There, we have stated: “If somebody buys a Non-Jew’s donkey fetus or who sells one to him even though he is not authorized, or one who enters into partnership, or accepts from him as contractor, or lets it in contract, is not liable for firstling.” Rebbi Haggai asked before Rebbi Yose, does this not imply that one is forbidden to provide them with (slaves) [fetuses]? He said to them, Rebbi Abun in the name of the rabbis there already preceded you, since Rebbi Abun said in the name of the rabbis there, this implies that one is forbidden to provide them with semen.

Brothers or partners who are liable for the agio and not liable for animal tithe,” if they distributed and then formed a partnership; “if they are liable for animal tithe and not liable for the agio,” if they never distributed.

“A person who pays the sheqel for a poor person,” etc. Rebbi Eleazar said, only if they counted lambs against rams and rams against lambs, but if they counted lambs against lambs and rams against rams, it was his part from the first hour. Rebbi Joḥanan said, even if they counted lambs against lambs and rams against rams, they are like buyers, as we have stated there: “The buyer or recipient of a gift is not liable for animal tithe. Rebbi Ḥizkiah said that Rebbi Jeremiah asked: And why are we not saying that sometimes they are liable for both and sometimes they are not liable for either. How is this done? If they distributed the properties and afterwards distributed the animals they are liable for both. If they distributed the animals and afterwards distributed the properties they are not liable for either. Rebbi Mana said, this holds only if the animals were not a majority, but if the animals were a majority they form the main property. Rebbi Abun said that Rebbi Shammai asked: Because you made them like one person for animal tithe, you made them not liable for agios? He said to him, no. There is a difference because he is giving a complete tetradrachma. Then even if they distributed and then formed a partnership, they should be liable for animal tithe and not liable for the agio. But we have stated, “they are liable for the agio, not liable for animal tithe.” Rebbi Abba in the name of Abba bar Rav Huna it is the same for two brothers inheriting from their father or two brothers-in-law inheriting from their father-in-law.

It was stated: [A claim based on] any of these three types of documents can be collected only from unincumbered property, not from mortgaged property. Rebbi Abba said, that means, if the document in the hand of the lender has not been confirmed. But if the document in the hand of the lender has been confirmed, he may collect. Rebbi Yose asked: If the document in the hand of the lender has not been confirmed, he should not be able to collect even from unincumbered property! But one must deal with a document confirmed in the hand of the lender. And why can he not collect? Rebbi Bisna said, because of action in partnership. Rebbi Abun said, because it is invalid. So far, if the old man took the loan and [later] the old man mortgaged. But if the old man took the loan and [later] the son mortgaged, can you say because of a conspiracy? No, because it is invalid. And here, because it is invalid. Rebbi Abun said, and was it not stated: The same holds for bills of divorce. Can you say there, because of action in partnership? No, because it is invalid. And here, because it is invalid.

It was stated: [A claim based on] any of these three types of documents can be collected only from unincumbered property, not from mortgaged property. Rebbi Abba said, that means, if the document in the hand of the lender has not been confirmed. But if the document in the hand of the lender has been confirmed, he may collect. Rebbi Yose asked: If the document in the hand of the lender has not been confirmed, he should not be able to collect even from unincumbered property! But one must deal with a document confirmed in the hand of the lender. And why can he not collect? Rebbi Bisna said, because of action in partnership. Rebbi Abun said, because it is invalid. So far, if the old man took the loan and [later] the old man mortgaged. But if the old man took the loan and [later] the son mortgaged, can you say because of a conspiracy? No, because it is invalid. And here, because it is invalid. Rebbi Abun said, and was it not stated: The same holds for bills of divorce. Can you say there, because of action in partnership? No, because it is invalid. And here, because it is invalid.

“A man is sold for his theft,” for his theft but not for the double restitution. For his theft but not for his perjury. For his theft he is not sold twice. There is only a monetary claim on him. That means, for one theft, but for two thefts he can be sold a second time. Rebbi Jeremiah asked: If he stole from a partnership, how are you treating this? As one theft or as two thefts? If he stole and removed [things] in the night, we would say that if the owners realized [the loss] in the meantime, there are two thefts; otherwise, it is one theft.

It was stated: [A claim based on] any of these three types of documents can be collected only from unincumbered property, not from mortgaged property. Rebbi Abba said, that means, if the document in the hand of the lender has not been confirmed. [But if the document in the hand of the lender has been confirmed, he may collect. Rebbi Yose asked: If the document in the hand of the lender has not been confirmed,] he should not be able to collect even from unincumbered property! But one must deal with a document confirmed in the hand of the lender. And why can he not collect? Rebbi Bisna said, because of action in partnership. Rebbi Abina said, because it is invalid And here, because it is invalid. Rebbi Abin asked, so far, if the old man took the loan [and the old man mortgaged. But if the old man took the loan and the son mortgaged,] can you say because of a conspiracy? No, because it is invalid. Rebbi Abun asked, was it not stated: The same holds for bills of divorce? Can you say there, because of action in partnership? No, because it is invalid. And here, because it is invalid.

It was stated: [A claim based on] any of these three types of documents can be collected only from unincumbered property, not from mortgaged property. Rebbi Abba said, that means, if the document in the hand of the lender has not been confirmed. [But if the document in the hand of the lender has been confirmed, he may collect. Rebbi Yose asked: If the document in the hand of the lender has not been confirmed,] he should not be able to collect even from unincumbered property! But one must deal with a document confirmed in the hand of the lender. And why can he not collect? Rebbi Bisna said, because of action in partnership. Rebbi Abina said, because it is invalid And here, because it is invalid. Rebbi Abin asked, so far, if the old man took the loan [and the old man mortgaged. But if the old man took the loan and the son mortgaged,] can you say because of a conspiracy? No, because it is invalid. Rebbi Abun asked, was it not stated: The same holds for bills of divorce? Can you say there, because of action in partnership? No, because it is invalid. And here, because it is invalid.

Rebbi Abun said, it follows Rebbi, since Rebbi said that a person can free half of his slave. But do the rabbis not hold that a person can free half of his slave? They admit it for a slave held in partnership. But there is a difference for a slave who entirely belongs to him, for it is as if he gave something from his right into his left hand. Does Rebbi hold that it is not as if he gave something from his right into his left hand? He admits it if he gave to him through a third party. Do the rabbis not hold that he may give to him through a third party? The rabbis hold that one who can acquire by himself can acquire through a third party; one who cannot acquire by himself cannot acquire through a third party. Rebbi says, even though he cannot acquire by himself, he can acquire through third parties.

Rebbi Abbahu asked: Why did we not state that double restitution is due if a claim of theft is made in a partnership, where quadruple or quintuple restitution does not apply?

MISHNAH: One who sold it except for a one percent interest in it, or had a partnership interest in it, one who slaughtered and it became a carcass in his hand, or one who stabs or tears out, pays double restitution but not quadruple or quintuple. He who stole on the owner’s property but slaughtered or sold off their property, or stole off their property and slaughtered or sold on their property, or stole and slaughtered or sold off their property has to pay quadruple or quintuple restitution. But if he stole and slaughtered or sold on their property, he is not liable.

MISHNAH: He who robbed at least a peruṭa’s worth from a fellow man and swore to him should deliver it to him even in Media. He should deliver neither to [the victim’s] son nor to his agent, but he may deliver to an agent of the court, and if [the victim] had died, he has to make restitution to his heirs. If he had returned the capital but not the fifth, or [the victim] had forgiven him the capital but not the fifth or had forgiven him both except for less than a peruṭa’s worth of the capital, he need not follow him. If he had returned the fifth but not the capital, or [the victim] had forgiven him the fifth but not the capital or had forgiven him both except for a peruṭa’s worth of the capital, he has to follow him. If he paid the capital but swore on the fifth, he pays a fifth for the fifth until the capital becomes less than a peruṭa’s worth. And so “for a deposit, or a partnership, or robbery, or if he oppressed his neighbor, or found lost property and denied it, and swore falsely,” has to pay the capital, and a fifth, and a reparation sacrifice.

MISHNAH: Similarly did Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel say that if a person was guarantor for a woman’s ketubah and her husband divorced her, the latter has to make a vow not to have any usufruct from her so they could not plan a partnership against that person’s property and then he would take back his wife.

“Rebbi Jehudah permits damaged ones.” Rebbi Jehudah said this only for a damaged one which cannot be healed. They told him, may he not bring a male to it, he fertilizes it and it gives birth? He said to them, I also said this only about a male (horse) [damaged one] which cannot be healed. They told him, may he not bring a female to him, she is fertilized by him and gives birth? Rav Abin in the name of the rabbis there: This implies that one is forbidden to provide them with fetuses. There, we have stated: “If somebody buys a Non-Jew’s donkey fetus or who sells one to him even though he is not authorized, or one who enters into partnership, or accepts from him as contractor, or lets it in contract, is not liable for firstling.” Rebbi Ḥaggai asked before Rebbi Yose, does this not imply that one is forbidden to provide them with fetuses? He said to them, Rebbi Abin in the name of the rabbis there already preceded you: This implies that one is forbidden to provide them with fetuses.

There is no contradiction; one refers to where there is a partnership, the other to where there is no partnership. And there is a teaching : The summary of the matter is : Over things of his own he says "Blessed... Who hast kept us in life and preserved us" etc. ; over things which belong to him and another he says "Blessed... Who art good and dispensest good."

There is no contradiction; one refers to where there is a partnership, the other to where there is no partnership. And there is a teaching : The summary of the matter is : Over things of his own he says "Blessed... Who hast kept us in life and preserved us" etc. ; over things which belong to him and another he says "Blessed... Who art good and dispensest good."

Abuha b. Ihi and Minyamin b. Ihi: One said: May I be rewarded because I have never looked at a non-Jew, and the other said, May I be rewarded because I have never gone into partnership with a non-Jew.