phrase

When the decree was brought to be read over to the king for his approval, it contained all the other provisions except the phrase 'any captives who were in the land before that time or were brought hither afterwards,' and in his magnanimity and the largeness of his heart the king inserted this clause and gave orders that the grant of money required for the redemption should be deposited in full with the paymasters of the forces and the royal bankers, and so the matter was decided and the decree ratified within seven days.

Then, finally, that the Scriptures were written by the Spirit of God, and have a meaning, not such only as is apparent at first sight, but also another, which escapes the notice of most. For those [words] which are written are the forms of certain mysteries, and the images of divine things. Respecting which there is one opinion throughout the whole church, that the whole law is indeed spiritual; but that the spiritual meaning which the law conveys is not known to all, but to those only on whom the grace of the Holy Spirit is bestowed in the word of wisdom and knowledge. The term ἀσώματον, i.e. incorporeal, is disused and unknown, not only in many other writings, but also in our own Scriptures. And if any one should quote it to us out of the little treatise entitled The Doctrine of Peter, in which the Saviour seems to say to His disciples, “I am not an incorporeal demon,” I have to reply, in the first place, that that work is not included among ecclesiastical books; for we can show that it was not composed either by Peter or by any other person inspired by the Spirit of God. But even if the point were to be conceded, the word ἀσώματον there does not convey the same meaning as is intended by Greek and Gentile authors when incorporeal nature is discussed by philosophers. For in the little treatise referred to he used the phrase “incorporeal demon” to denote that that form or outline of demoniacal body, whatever it is, does not resemble this gross and visible body of ours; but, agreeably to the intention of the author of the treatise, it must be understood to mean that He had not such a body as demons have, which is naturally fine, and thin as if formed of air (and for this reason is either considered or called by many incorporeal), but that He had a solid and palpable body. Now, according to human custom, everything which is not of that nature is called by the simple or ignorant incorporeal; as if one were to say that the air which we breathe was incorporeal, because it is not a body of such a nature as can be grasped and held, or can offer resistance to pressure.

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.

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.

And as if the sun, uttering a voice, were to say, “I liquefy and dry up,” liquefaction and drying up being opposite things, he would not speak falsely as regards the point in question; wax being melted and mud being dried by the same heat; so the same operation, which was performed through the instrumentality of Moses, proved the hardness of Pharaoh on the one hand, the result of his wickedness, and the yielding of the mixed Egyptian multitude who took their departure with the Hebrews. And the brief statement that the heart of Pharaoh was softened, as it were, when he said, “But ye shall not go far: ye will go a three days’ journey, and leave your wives,” and anything else which he said, yielding little by little before the signs, proves that the wonders made some impression even upon him, but did not accomplish all [that they might]. Yet even this would not have happened, if that which is supposed by the many—the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart—had been produced by God Himself. And it is not absurd to soften down such expressions agreeably to common usage: for good masters often say to their slaves, when spoiled by their kindness and forbearance, “I have made you bad, and I am to blame for offences of such enormity.” For we must attend to the character and force of the phrase, and not argue sophistically, disregarding the meaning of the expression. Paul accordingly, having examined these points clearly, says to the sinner: “Or despisest thou the riches of His goodness, and forbearance, and long-suffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance? but, after thy hardness and impenitent heart, treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God.” Now, let what the apostle says to the sinner be addressed to Pharaoh, and then the announcements made to him will be understood to have been made with peculiar fitness, as to one who, according to his hardness and unrepentant heart, was treasuring up to himself wrath; seeing that his hardness would not have been proved nor made manifest unless miracles had been performed, and miracles, too, of such magnitude and importance.

This point, indeed, is not to be idly passed by, that the holy Scriptures have called the creation of the world by a new and peculiar name, terming it καταβολή, which has been very improperly translated into Latin by “constitutio;” for in Greek καταβολή signifies rather “dejicere,” i.e. to cast downwards,—a word which has been, as we have already remarked, improperly translated into Latin by the phrase “constitutio mundi,” as in the Gospel according to John, where the Saviour says, “And there will be tribulation in those days, such as was not since the beginning of the world;” in which passage καταβολή is rendered by beginning (constitutio), which is to be understood as above explained. The apostle also, in the Epistle to the Ephesians, has employed the same language, saying, “Who hath chosen us before the foundation of the world;” and this foundation he calls καταβολή, to be understood in the same sense as before. It seems worth while, then, to inquire what is meant by this new term; and I am, indeed, of opinion that, as the end and consummation of the saints will be in those [ages] which are not seen, and are eternal, we must conclude (as frequently pointed out in the preceding pages), from a contemplation of that very end, that rational creatures had also a similar beginning. And if they had a beginning such as the end for which they hope, they existed undoubtedly from the very beginning in those [ages] which are not seen, and are eternal. And if this is so, then there has been a descent from a higher to a lower condition, on the part not only of those souls who have deserved the change by the variety of their movements, but also on that of those who, in order to serve the whole world, were brought down from those higher and invisible spheres to these lower and visible ones, although against their will—“Because the creature was subjected to vanity, not willingly, but because of him who subjected the same in hope;” so that both sun, and moon, and stars, and angels might discharge their duty to the world, and to those souls which, on account of their excessive mental defects, stood in need of bodies of a grosser and more solid nature; and for the sake of those for whom this arrangement was necessary, this visible world was also called into being. From this it follows, that by the use of the word καταβολή, a descent from a higher to a lower condition, shared by all in common, would seem to be pointed out. The hope indeed of freedom is entertained by the whole of creation—of being liberated from the corruption of slavery—when the sons of God, who either fell away or were scattered abroad, shall be gathered together into one, or when they shall have fulfilled their other duties in this world, which are known to God alone, the Disposer of all things. We are, indeed, to suppose that the world was created of such quality and capacity as to contain not only all those souls which it was determined should be trained in this world, but also all those powers which were prepared to attend, and serve, and assist them. For it is established by many declarations that all rational creatures are of one nature: on which ground alone could the justice of God in all His dealings with them be defended, seeing every one has the reason in himself, why he has been placed in this or that rank in life.

After this, Celsus, without condemning circumcision as practised by the Jews, asserts that this usage was derived from the Egyptians; thus believing the Egyptians rather than Moses, who says that Abraham was the first among men who practised the rite. And it is not Moses alone who mentions the name of Abraham, assigning to him great intimacy with God; but many also of those who give themselves to the practice of the conjuration of evil spirits, employ in their spells the expression “God of Abraham,” pointing out by the very name the friendship [that existed] between that just man and God. And yet, while making use of the phrase “God of Abraham,” they do not know who Abraham is! And the same remark applies to Isaac, and Jacob, and Israel; which names, although confessedly Hebrew, are frequently introduced by those Egyptians who profess to produce some wonderful result by means of their knowledge. The rite of circumcision, however, which began with Abraham, and was discontinued by Jesus, who desired that His disciples should not practise it, is not before us for explanation; for the present occasion does not lead us to speak of such things, but to make an effort to refute the charges brought against the doctrine of the Jews by Celsus, who thinks that he will be able the more easily to establish the falsity of Christianity, if, by assailing its origin in Judaism, he can show that the latter also is untrue.

Celsus appears to me to have misunderstood the statement of the apostle, which declares that “in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils, speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their conscience seared with a hot iron, forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them who believe;” and to have misunderstood also those who employed these declarations of the apostle against such as had corrupted the doctrines of Christianity. And it is owing to this cause that Celsus has said that “certain among the Christians are called ‘cauterized in the ears;’” and also that some are termed “enigmas,”—a term which we have never met. The expression “stumbling-block” is, indeed, of frequent occurrence in these writings,—an appellation which we are accustomed to apply to those who turn away simple persons, and those who are easily deceived, from sound doctrine. But neither we, nor, I imagine, any other, whether Christian or heretic, know of any who are styled Sirens, who betray and deceive, and stop their ears, and change into swine those whom they delude. And yet this man, who affects to know everything, uses such language as the following: “You may hear,” he says, “all those who differ so widely, and who assail each other in their disputes with the most shameless language, uttering the words, ‘The world is crucified to me, and I unto the world.’” And this is the only phrase which, it appears, Celsus could remember out of Paul’s writings; and yet why should we not also employ innumerable other quotations from the Scriptures, such as, “For though we do walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh; (for the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strongholds,) casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God?”

With respect to the question, “How is he incapable of persuading and admonishing men?” it has been already stated that, if such an objection were really a ground of charge, then the objection of Celsus might be brought against those who accept the doctrine of providence. Any one might answer the charge that God is incapable of admonishing men; for He conveys His admonitions throughout the whole of Scripture, and by means of those persons who, through God’s gracious appointment, are the instructors of His hearers. Unless, indeed, some peculiar meaning be understood to attach to the word “admonish,” as if it signified both to penetrate into the mind of the person admonished, and to make him hear the words of his instructor, which is contrary to the usual meaning of the word. To the objection, “How is he incapable of persuading?”—which also might be brought against all who believe in providence,—we have to make the following remarks. Since the expression “to be persuaded” belongs to those words which are termed, so to speak, “reciprocal” (compare the phrase “to shave a man,” when he makes an effort to submit himself to the barber), there is for this reason needed not merely the effort of him who persuades, but also the submission, so to speak, which is to be yielded to the persuader, or the acceptance of what is said by him. And therefore it must not be said that it is because God is incapable of persuading men that they are not persuaded, but because they will not accept the faithful words of God. And if one were to apply this expression to men who are the “artificers of persuasion,” he would not be wrong; for it is possible for a man who has thoroughly learned the principles of rhetoric, and who employs them properly, to do his utmost to persuade, and yet appear to fail, because he cannot overcome the will of him who ought to yield to his persuasive arts. Moreover, that persuasion does not come from God, although persuasive words may be uttered by him, is distinctly taught by Paul, when he says: “This persuasion cometh not of him that calleth you.” Such also is the view indicated by these words: “If ye be willing and obedient, ye shall eat the good of the land; but if ye refuse and rebel, a sword shall devour you.” For that one may [really] desire what is addressed to him by one who admonishes, and may become deserving of those promises of God which he hears, it is necessary to secure the will of the hearer, and his inclination to what is addressed to him. And therefore it appears to me, that in the book of Deuteronomy the following words are uttered with peculiar emphasis: “And now, O Israel, what doth the Lord thy God require of thee, but to fear the Lord thy God, and to walk in all His ways, and to love Him, and to keep His commandments?”

Celsus proceeds to say of God that “of Him are all things,” abandoning [in so speaking], I know not how, all his principles; while our Paul declares, that “of Him, and through Him, and to Him are all things,” showing that He is the beginning of the substance of all things by the words “of Him,” and the bond of their subsistence by the expression “through Him,” and their final end by the terms “to Him.” Of a truth, God is of nothing. But when Celsus adds, that “He is not to be reached by word,” I make a distinction, and say that if he means the word that is in us—whether the word conceived in the mind, or the word that is uttered—I, too, admit that God is not to be reached by word. If, however, we attend to the passage, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God,” we are of opinion that God is to be reached by this Word, and is comprehended not by Him only, but by any one whatever to whom He may reveal the Father; and thus we shall prove the falsity of the assertion of Celsus, when he says, “Neither is God to be reached by word.” The statement, moreover, that “He cannot be expressed by name,” requires to be taken with a distinction. If he means, indeed, that there is no word or sign that can represent the attributes of God, the statement is true, since there are many qualities which cannot be indicated by words. Who, for example, could describe in words the difference betwixt the quality of sweetness in a palm and that in a fig? And who could distinguish and set forth in words the peculiar qualities of each individual thing? It is no wonder, then, if in this way God cannot be described by name. But if you take the phrase to mean that it is possible to represent by words something of God’s attributes, in order to lead the hearer by the hand, as it were, and so enable him to comprehend something of God, so far as attainable by human nature, then there is no absurdity in saying that “He can be described by name.” And we make a similar distinction with regard to the expression, “for He has undergone no suffering that can be conveyed by words.” It is true that the Deity is beyond all suffering. And so much on this point.

And it is not we alone who speak of wicked demons, but almost all who acknowledge the existence of demons. Thus, then, it is not true that all observe the law of the Most High; for all who fall away from the divine law, whether through heedlessness, or through depravity and vice, or through ignorance of what is right, all such do not keep the law of God, but, to use a new phrase which we find in Scripture, “the law of sin.” I say, then, that in the opinion of most of those who believe in the existence of demons, some of them are wicked; and these, instead of keeping the law of God, offend against it. But, according to our belief, it is true of all demons, that they were not demons originally, but they became so in departing from the true way; so that the name “demons” is given to those beings who have fallen away from God. Accordingly, those who worship God must not serve demons. We may also learn the true nature of demons if we consider the practice of those who call upon them by charms to prevent certain things, or for many other purposes. For this is the method they adopt, in order by means of incantations and magical arts to invoke the demons, and induce them to further their wishes. Wherefore the worship of all demons would be inconsistent in us who worship the supreme God; and the service of demons is the service of so-called gods, for “all the gods of the heathen are demons.” The same thing also appears from the fact that the dedication of the most famous of the so-called sacred places, whether temples or statues, was accompanied by curious magical incantations, which were performed by those who zealously served the demons with magical arts. Hence we are determined to avoid the worship of demons even as we would avoid death; and we hold that the worship, which is supposed among the Greeks to be rendered to gods at the altars, and images, and temples, is in reality offered to demons.

In a former passage, Celsus had spoken at length on the subject of oracles, and had referred us to their answers as being the voice of the gods; but now he makes amends, and confesses that “those who foretell the fortunes of men and cities, and concern themselves about mortal affairs, are earth-spirits, who are given up to fleshly lust, blood, odours, sweet sounds, and other such things, and who are unable to rise above these sensual objects.” Perhaps, when we opposed the theological teaching of Celsus in regard to oracles, and the honour done to those called gods, some one might suspect us of impiety when we alleged that these were stratagems of demoniacal powers, to draw men away to carnal indulgence. But any who entertained this suspicion against us, may now believe that the statements put forth by Christians were well-founded, when they see the above passage from the writings of one who is a professed adversary of Christianity, but who now at length writes as one who has been overcome by the spirit of truth. Although, therefore, Celsus says that “we must offer sacrifices to them, in so far as they are profitable to us, for to offer them indiscriminately is not allowed by reason,” yet we are not to offer sacrifices to demons addicted to blood and odours; nor is the Divine Being to be profaned in our minds, by being brought down to the level of wicked demons. If Celsus had carefully weighed the meaning of the word “profitable,” and had considered that the truest profit lies in virtue and in virtuous action, he would not have applied the phrase “as far as it is profitable” to the service of such demons, as he has acknowledged them to be. If, then, health of body and success in life were to come to us on condition of our serving such demons, we should prefer sickness and misfortune accompanied with the consciousness of our being truly devoted to the will of God. For this is preferable to being mortally diseased in mind, and wretched through being separate and outcasts from God, though healthy in body and abounding in earthly prosperity. And we would rather go for help to one who seeks nothing whatever but the well-being of men and of all rational creatures, than to those that delight in blood and sacrificial odours.

The thirteenth (that is, “of the waters,” HMIM, Hamim, which is the thirteenth word) raiseth up these (that is, as well the sanctuary which is above as that which is below) through mercy (since the water symbolizeth that measure of mercy through which judgment and punishments are mitigated), and they are renewed as before (for the six words follow afresh, as in the beginning the six members are enumerated). For all those six continue and stand fast (they are the members of the Microprosopus, and are not as his bride, and from them is the restitution), since it is written BRA, Bera, “created” (which hath a sense of permanence), and then it is written HIThH, Hayitha, “it was” (which also is a phrase of permanence and not of interpolation), for it is very truth (plainly, therefore, the kingdom perished not, although it might be formless and void, but it retaineth hitherto the essence).

“But concerning him who is firm in spirit it is written: ‘But the faithful in spirit concealeth the word.’ (But this phrase) ‘faithful in spirit’ denoteth firmness of spirit; like as it is said, Isa. xxii. 23: ‘And I will fasten him as a nail in a sure place.’ Matter dependeth upon Spirit.

“What doth this phrase teach, ‘passing over transgression’? ShPO, Shephau, influence, (it teacheth) if Sh (in PShO) be placed before the P.

“And this compassion of the Ancient of Days is the mercy of truth. And (this phrase) ‘mercy of truth’ is not said concerning the life of the body, but concerning the life of the soul.

When therefore it is said, “Incline, O Tetragrammaton, Thine ear,” (this phrase) “Thine ear,” is that of Microprosopus.

And it is written: “And they came in unto them . . . the same were mighty men, who were from the Earth,” &c. From that place, namely, which is called the earth, like as the tradition is concerning the phrase IMI OVLM, Yemi Olahm, the day of the world.

Assuredly thus is the tradition, since also He prolongeth His wrath against the wicked. But the phrase ARK APIM, Arikh Aphim, also implies the same as “‘ healing power of countenance.”

How is it to be known, however, that the phrase "When the sun is down" means the [complete] setting of the sun, and the phrase "It is clean" means the day is clean?

How is it to be known, however, that the phrase "When the sun is down" means the [complete] setting of the sun, and the phrase "It is clean" means the day is clean?

In the West, this explanation of Rabbah b. Rab Shela had not been heard by them, and they raised the question: The phrase "When the sun is down" means the [complete] setting of the sun, and the phrase "It is clean" means the day is clean ; but perhaps the former signifies the setting of its light, and the latter the man shall be clean !

In the West, this explanation of Rabbah b. Rab Shela had not been heard by them, and they raised the question: The phrase "When the sun is down" means the [complete] setting of the sun, and the phrase "It is clean" means the day is clean ; but perhaps the former signifies the setting of its light, and the latter the man shall be clean !

How does Rabbi explain the phrase "middle watch" ? He takes it to mean one of the middle watches.

Are we to suppose that the Holy One, blessed be He, used the phrase "about midnight" to Moses ? Can there be any doubt in the mind of God ? Nay ; God told him "At midnight"; but Moses came and said "about midnight." Hence it is to be understood that Moses was in doubt, but David did know it !

But what does the phrase "and teachest him out of Thy law" (Ps. xciv, 12) intend to convey to us ? Read not telammedennu "and teachest him" but telammedennu "and teachest us"; i.e., Thou teachest us this matter out of Thy law as a deduction from the ordinance

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

What, then, do Bet Shammai make of the phrase "and when thou walkest by the way"?

R. Eliezer said : Even if he used the phrase "holy God," he has complied with the requirements of the law ; as it is said, "But the Lord of hosts is exalted through justice, and the holy God is sanctified through righteousness" (Is. v. 16). When is "the Lord of hosts exalted through justice"? During the ten days from the New Year until the Day of Atonement, and yet it is stated thereby "the holy God" !

They draw no conclusion from it at all. It is possible to say that Rabbi holds that the whole Torah can be read in any language. For if thou maintainest that it may be read only in the holy tongue, what are we to make of the phrase "and these words shall be" which the All-merciful wrote?

It is likewise possible to say that the Sages hold that the whole Torah must be read in the holy tongue. For if thou maintainest that it can be read in any language, what are we to make of the phrase "Hear, O Israel" which the All-merciful wrote?

It is quite right for him who says, "It applies even [to water] in vessels," for that is what has been stated, viz. : "R. Judah says that in every case forty Saot are required" ; but for him who says, "In the ground, yes, but in vessels, no," what does the phrase "in every case" include?

Rab Ashe said : The phrase "If the man has waited" must be altered to "If the man has not waited"; because everybody agrees that if he waited sufficient time to finish the remainder of the Tefillah, he recommences from the beginning; but the point of divergence there [between Rab Hisda and Rab Hamnuna] is the case where the man did not wait. One is of the opinion that the man was in an uncomfortable state and unfit [to pray], and therefore his Tefillah is invalid; while the other is of opinion that the man was fit [to pray] and his Tefillah is valid.

It has been taught : That same day 'Eduyyot was learnt, and wherever we find the phrase "on that day" it refers to that occasion. There was not a Halakah which had been left in a state of uncertainty in the House of Study which was not then made clear. Even Rabban Gamaliel did not absent himself from the House of Study. For there is a Mishnaic teaching:

"And Thou saidst unto them, I will multiply your seed as the stars of heaven, and all this land that I have spoken of will I give unto your seed" (ibid.). The phrase "that I have spoken of" should rather be "that Thou hast spoken of" !

GEMARA Whence is this derived ? For our Rabbis have taught: "The fruit thereof shall be holy, for giving praise [hillulim] unto the Lord" (Lev. xix. 24) — this teaches that they require a benediction before and after partaking of them. Hence said R. 'Akiba : A man is forbidden to taste anything without previously saying a benediction. But is the phrase "holy for giving praise" intended to teach that ?

Rab Judah said in the name of Rab : The phrase "until one can make use of its illumination" does not mean that one must actually use it, but if one who stands near to it can use its light, then even those who are at a distance [may say the benediction]. Similarly said Rab Ashe : We have learnt that one at a distance [may say the benediction].

That [phrase] is needed to exclude a stolen [Sukkah]. But in the other case too it is needed to exclude stolen [tzitzit]?

No. For didn't Rava say [about Rabbi Yehudah's use of the phrase 'with its own species'], "[One can bind the Lulav] even with the vines, and even with the bark, of the palm [which are not beautiful]. Rather, what is the reasoning for Rabbi Yehudah's [statement] there? He had thought, "A Lulav needs binding, and if he brings another species [as binding material], it would be for him five species."

But according to R. Yose, is it not written “for food”? He needs that phrase to deduce, “for food”, but not for a salve, as it has been taught, “for food”, but not for a salve. You say “for food” but not for a salve; why not say, “[for food”] but not for washing? When it says, “for you” washing is included. So how then do I understand, “for food”? “For food”, but not for a salve. But what reason did you see for including washing and excluding a salve?

R. Isaac, with the permission of his father R. Judah, delivered the following discourse: An individual who has taken upon himself a fast must recite the prayer provided for fasts. Where does he insert it? Between the benediction ending with "Redeemer" and that ending with "Healer" (of Israel). R. Isaac objected: Is an individual entitled to insert a benediction for himself? He should rather, said R. Isaac, include it in the benediction ending with the words: "Who hearest prayer." The same opinion was given also by R. Sheshet. An objection was raised to this view from the following Baraita: There is no difference between an individual and a community, except that the former recites eighteen benedictions, while the latter recites nineteen. Now what is meant by "individual" and "community"? Is "individual" to be understood literally and "community" in the sense of representative of the community? If so, the benedictions here spoken of would not be nineteen, but twenty-four! Consequently by "individual" can be meant only one who takes upon himself a fast which is known as a "private fast," while by "community" is meant an individual who takes upon himself a "public fast," and yet the Baraita reads: "except that the former recites eighteen benedictions and the latter nineteen," which proves that an individual may insert a benediction for himself! Answer: No, by "community" is no doubt meant its representative, but (as to your objection that in this case twenty-four benedictions are recited, it must be understood that) the Baraita has reference to the first three public fasts, during which the number of benedictions is not increased to twenty-four. Is this true? Is it not stated in a Baraita: "There is no difference between the three first and the three intermediary public fasts, except that during the former work is allowed, while during the latter it is prohibited," from which you must infer that with regard to the number of benedictions they are alike!? Answer: The author of this Baraita mentioned one difference and omitted the other. Is there anything else that he omitted, so that we may be justified in assuming that he omitted this difference? I will say this, then: The teacher of the Baraita was concerned only in pointing out a difference regarding things prohibited on fast days, but did not care to mention a difference in the number of benedictions recited. If you prefer, I may also say that the number of benedictions is not increased to twenty-four even during the intermediary public fasts. Is this true? Is it not stated in a Baraita: "There is no difference between the three intermediary and the seven (last) public fasts except that during the latter the alarm is sounded and the shops are closed," which proves that with regard to the twenty-four benedictions both groups of fasts are alike? If, however, you should say that here, too, the author of the Baraita mentions one difference and omits the other, what will you do, then, with the explicit words of the Baraita, saying that "there is no difference between them except"? Answer: Do you mean to say that the phrase "there is no difference" is to be taken literally?

Said R. 'Ashi: The same view can be deduced from the text of our Mishnah, for it reads: "In what respect are these (seven) fasts more rigorous than the (three) immediately preceding ones? In that on these (seven) fast days the alarm is sounded and the shops are closed," which shows that with respect to the twenty-four benedictions both groups of fasts are alike. If, however, you should say that here, too, the Mishnah mentions one difference and omits another, what will you do with the words of the Mishnah: "In what respect"? Answer: Do you think that the phrase "in what respect" is to be taken strictly? Did not the Mishnah omit mentioning the ark? No, this is no omission, because the Mishnah mentions it in the next chapter. Now that you have arrived at this point, you may just as well say that failing to mention the increase in the number of benedictions to twenty-four is no omission either, because the Mishnah speaks of it in the next chapter.

It was said above: "Who labors without success and whose house is empty." Are not both the same thing? Said R. Ḥisda, the latter phrase means one whose house is free of sin.

Rabbah b. Bar-Ḥanah said in the name of R. Johanan, the fifteenth of Ab is the day on which the tribe of Benjamin was permitted to enter the congregation of Israel (to marry the daughters of the other tribes), as it is said (Jud., 21. 1): "Now the men of Israel had sworn in Mizpah, saying: There shall not any of us give his daughter unto Benjamin to wife." How did they derive the permission? The phrase "any of us" was interpreted to imply: "but not of our descendants."

Why did R. Shmuel b. Nahmani not derive the rule from the phrase “in their times’? He does not accept the distinction [made above between] “time,” “their time” and “their times.”

Rav Chiyah bar Ashi said in the name of Rav: Both [the Sages and Rebi] interpreted one verse. The iron breaks off from the wood [Ve'neshal]. Rebi holds that the transmission [how the written word appears in the text] is what matters, and 'Ve'Neyshal' it is written [the form of which implies that the phrase should be understood as meaning that the axe blade caused something else—i.e., a wood chip—to come loose], but the Sages hold that the pronunciation [how we actually read the word] is what matters and "nashal" we read [the form of which implies that the actual axe head flew off].

They challenged [from a baraita]: "'And for him there is no death penalty' (Deuteronomy 19:6)—about the murderer the verse speaks. You say it's about the murderer or perhaps it's actually about the blood avenger? When it says, 'And he didn't hate him recently' (Deuteronomy 19:4)—thus [you would] say that the verse is speaking about the murderer." [Just as the earlier phrase "he didn't hate him" is clearly referring to the murderer, so too when the phrase appears in verse 6 it is also referring to the murderer. Thus the rest of the verse should also be read as referring to the murderer].

They challenged [from a baraita]: "'And for him there is no death penalty' (Deuteronomy 19:6)—about the murderer the verse speaks. You say it's about the murderer or perhaps it's actually about the blood avenger? When it says, 'And he didn't hate him recently' (Deuteronomy 19:4)—thus [you would] say that the verse is speaking about the murderer." [Just as the earlier phrase "he didn't hate him" is clearly referring to the murderer, so too when the phrase appears in verse 6 it is also referring to the murderer. Thus the rest of the verse should also be read as referring to the murderer].