preceded

These things, brethren, I write to you concerning righteousness, not because I take anything upon myself, but because ye have invited me to do so. For neither I, nor any other such one, can come up to the wisdom of the blessed and glorified Paul. He, when among you, accurately and stedfastly taught the word of truth in the presence of those who were then alive. And when absent from you, he wrote you a letter, which, if you carefully study, you will find to be the means of building you up in that faith which has been given you, and which, being followed by hope, and preceded by love towards God, and Christ, and our neighbour, “is the mother of us all.” For if any one be inwardly possessed of these graces, he hath fulfilled the command of righteousness, since he that hath love is far from all sin.

To write concerning the Antiquities of the Jews, who they were [originally], and how they revolted from the Egyptians, and what country they traveled over, and what countries they seized upon afterward, and how they were removed out of them, I think this not to be a fit opportunity, and, on other accounts, also superfluous; and this because many Jews before me have composed the histories of our ancestors very exactly; as have some of the Greeks done it also, and have translated our histories into their own tongue, and have not much mistaken the truth in their histories. But then, where the writers of these affairs and our prophets leave off, thence shall I take my rise, and begin my history. Now as to what concerns that war which happened in my own time, I will go over it very largely, and with all the diligence I am able; but for what preceded mine own age, that I shall run over briefly.

There were besides these other robbers that came out of the country, and came into the city, and joining to them those that were worse than themselves, omitted no kind of barbarity; for they did not measure their courage by their rapines and plunderings only, but preceded as far as murdering men; and this not in the night time or privately, or with regard to ordinary men, but did it openly in the day time, and began with the most eminent persons in the city; for the first man they meddled with was Antipas, one of the royal lineage, and the most potent man in the whole city, insomuch that the public treasures were committed to his care; him they took and confined; as they did in the next place to Levias, a person of great note, with Sophas, the son of Raguel, both which were of royal lineage also. And besides these, they did the same to the principal men of the country. This caused a terrible consternation among the people, and everyone contented himself with taking care of his own safety, as they would do if the city had been taken in war.

Thus were the miserable people persuaded by these deceivers, and such as belied God himself; while they did not attend nor give credit to the signs that were so evident, and did so plainly foretell their future desolation, but, like men infatuated, without either eyes to see or minds to consider, did not regard the denunciations that God made to them. Thus there was a star resembling a sword, which stood over the city, and a comet, that continued a whole year. Thus also before the Jews' rebellion, and before those commotions which preceded the war, when the people were come in great crowds to the feast of unleavened bread, on the eighth day of the month Xanthicus, [Nisan,] and at the ninth hour of the night, so great a light shone round the altar and the holy house, that it appeared to be bright day time; which lasted for half an hour. This light seemed to be a good sign to the unskillful, but was so interpreted by the sacred scribes, as to portend those events that followed immediately upon it. At the same festival also, a heifer, as she was led by the high priest to be sacrificed, brought forth a lamb in the midst of the temple. Moreover, the eastern gate of the inner [court of the] temple, which was of brass, and vastly heavy, and had been with difficulty shut by twenty men, and rested upon a basis armed with iron, and had bolts fastened very deep into the firm floor, which was there made of one entire stone, was seen to be opened of its own accord about the sixth hour of the night. Now those that kept watch in the temple came hereupon running to the captain of the temple, and told him of it; who then came up thither, and not without great difficulty was able to shut the gate again. This also appeared to the vulgar to be a very happy prodigy, as if God did thereby open them the gate of happiness. But the men of learning understood it, that the security of their holy house was dissolved of its own accord, and that the gate was opened for the advantage of their enemies. So these publicly declared that the signal foreshowed the desolation that was coming upon them. Besides these, a few days after that feast, on the one and twentieth day of the month Artemisius, [Jyar,] a certain prodigious and incredible phenomenon appeared: I suppose the account of it would seem to be a fable, were it not related by those that saw it, and were not the events that followed it of so considerable a nature as to deserve such signals; for, before sun-setting, chariots and troops of soldiers in their armor were seen running about among the clouds, and surrounding of cities. Moreover, at that feast which we call Pentecost, as the priests were going by night into the inner [court of the temple,] as their custom was, to perform their sacred ministrations, they said that, in the first place, they felt a quaking, and heard a great noise, and after that they heard a sound as of a great multitude, saying, "Let us remove hence." But, what is still more terrible, there was one Jesus, the son of Ananus, a plebeian and a husbandman, who, four years before the war began, and at a time when the city was in very great peace and prosperity, came to that feast whereon it is our custom for every one to make tabernacles to God in the temple, began on a sudden to cry aloud, "A voice from the east, a voice from the west, a voice from the four winds, a voice against Jerusalem and the holy house, a voice against the bridegrooms and the brides, and a voice against this whole people!" This was his cry, as he went about by day and by night, in all the lanes of the city. However, certain of the most eminent among the populace had great indignation at this dire cry of his, and took up the man, and gave him a great number of severe stripes; yet did not he either say any thing for himself, or any thing peculiar to those that chastised him, but still went on with the same words which he cried before. Hereupon our rulers, supposing, as the case proved to be, that this was a sort of divine fury in the man, brought him to the Roman procurator, where he was whipped till his bones were laid bare; yet he did not make any supplication for himself, nor shed any tears, but turning his voice to the most lamentable tone possible, at every stroke of the whip his answer was, "Woe, woe to Jerusalem!" And when Albinus [for he was then our procurator] asked him, Who he was? and whence he came? and why he uttered such words? he made no manner of reply to what he said, but still did not leave off his melancholy ditty, till Albinus took him to be a madman, and dismissed him. Now, during all the time that passed before the war began, this man did not go near any of the citizens, nor was seen by them while he said so; but he every day uttered these lamentable words, as if it were his premeditated vow, "Woe, woe to Jerusalem!" Nor did he give ill words to any of those that beat him every day, nor good words to those that gave him food; but this was his reply to all men, and indeed no other than a melancholy presage of what was to come. This cry of his was the loudest at the festivals; and he continued this ditty for seven years and five months, without growing hoarse, or being tired therewith, until the very time that he saw his presage in earnest fulfilled in our siege, when it ceased; for as he was going round upon the wall, he cried out with his utmost force, "Woe, woe to the city again, and to the people, and to the holy house!" And just as he added at the last, "Woe, woe to myself also!" there came a stone out of one of the engines, and smote him, and killed him immediately; and as he was uttering the very same presages he gave up the ghost.

This is Manetho's account. And evident it is from the number of years by him set down belonging to this interval, if they be summed up together, that these shepherds, as they are here called, who were no other than our forefathers, were delivered out of Egypt, and came thence, and inhabited this country, three hundred and ninety-three years before Danaus came to Argos; although the Argives look upon him as their most ancient king Manetho, therefore, hears this testimony to two points of the greatest consequence to our purpose, and those from the Egyptian records themselves. In the first place, that we came out of another country into Egypt; and that withal our deliverance out of it was so ancient in time as to have preceded the siege of Troy almost a thousand years; but then, as to those things which Manetbo adds, not from the Egyptian records, but, as he confesses himself, from some stories of an uncertain original, I will disprove them hereafter particularly, and shall demonstrate that they are no better than incredible fables.

Now although I cannot but think that I have already demonstrated, and that abundantly more than was necessary, that our fathers were not originally Egyptians, nor were thence expelled, either on account of bodily diseases, or any other calamities of that sort; yet will I briefly take notice of what Apion adds upon that subject; for in his third book, which relates to the affairs of Egypt, he speaks thus: "I have heard of the ancient men of Egypt, that Moses was of Heliopolis, and that he thought himself obliged to follow the customs of his forefathers, and offered his prayers in the open air, towards the city walls; but that he reduced them all to be directed towards sun-rising, which was agreeable to the situation of Heliopolis; that he also set up pillars instead of gnomons, under which was represented a cavity like that of a boat, and the shadow that fell from their tops fell down upon that cavity, that it might go round about the like course as the sun itself goes round in the other." This is that wonderful relation which we have given us by this grammarian. But that it is a false one is so plain, that it stands in need of few words to prove it, but is manifest from the works of Moses; for when he erected the first tabernacle to God, he did himself neither give order for any such kind of representation to be made at it, nor ordain that those that came after him should make such a one. Moreover, when in a future age Solomon built his temple in Jerusalem, he avoided all such needless decorations as Apion hath here devised. He says further, how he had "heard of the ancient men, that Moses was of Hellopolis." To be sure that was, because being a younger man himself, he believed those that by their elder age were acquainted and conversed with him. Now this grammarian, as he was, could not certainly tell which was the poet Homer's country, no more than he could which was the country of Pythagoras, who lived comparatively but a little while ago; yet does he thus easily determine the age of Moses, who preceded them such a vast number of years, as depending on his ancient men's relation, which shows how notorious a liar he was. But then as to this chronological determination of the time when he says he brought the leprous people, the blind, and the lame out of Egypt, see how well this most accurate grammarian of ours agrees with those that have written before him! Manetho says that the Jews departed out of Egypt, in the reign of Tethmosis, three hundred ninety-three years before Danaus fled to Argos; Lysimaehus says it was under king Bocchoris, that is, one thousand seven hundred years ago; Molo and some others determined it as every one pleased: but this Apion of ours, as deserving to be believed before them, hath determined it exactly to have been in the seventh olympiad, and the first year of that olympiad; the very same year in which he says that Carthage was built by the Phoenicians. The reason why he added this building of Carthage was, to be sure, in order, as he thought, to strengthen his assertion by so evident a character of chronology. But he was not aware that this character confutes his assertion; for if we may give credit to the Phoenician records as to the time of the first coming of their colony to Carthage, they relate that Hirom their king was above a hundred and fifty years earlier than the building of Carthage; concerning whom I have formerly produced testimonials out of those Phoenician records, as also that this Hirom was a friend of Solomon when he was building the temple of Jerusalem, and gave him great assistance in his building that temple; while still Solomon himself built that temple six hundred and twelve years after the Jews came out of Egypt. As for the number of those that were expelled out of Egypt, he hath contrived to have the very same number with Lysimaehus, and says they were a hundred and ten thousand. He then assigns a certain wonderful and plausible occasion for the name of Sabbath; for he says that "when the Jews had traveled a six days' journey, they had buboes in their groins; and that on this account it was that they rested on the seventh day, as having got safely to that country which is now called Judea; that then they preserved the language of the Egyptians, and called that day the Sabbath, for that malady of buboes on their groin was named Sabbatosis by the Egyptians." And would not a man now laugh at this fellow's trifling, or rather hate his impudence in writing thus? We must, it seems, fake it for granted that all these hundred and ten thousand men must have these buboes. But, for certain, if those men had been blind and lame, and had all sorts of distempers upon them, as Apion says they had, they could not have gone one single day's journey; but if they had been all able to travel over a large desert, and, besides that, to fight and conquer those that opposed them, they had not all of them had buboes on their groins after the sixth day was over; for no such distemper comes naturally and of necessity upon those that travel; but still, when there are many ten thousands in a camp together, they constantly march a settled space [in a day]. Nor is it at all probable that such a thing should happen by chance; this would be prodigiously absurd to be supposed. However, our admirable author Apion hath before told us that "they came to Judea in six days' time;" and again, that "Moses went up to a mountain that lay between Egypt and Arabia, which was called Sinai, and was concealed there forty days, and that when he came down from thence he gave laws to the Jews." But, then, how was it possible for them to tarry forty days in a desert place where there was no water, and at the same time to pass all over the country between that and Judea in the six days? And as for this grammatical translation of the word Sabbath, it either contains an instance of his great impudence or gross ignorance; for the words Sabbo and Sabbath are widely different from one another; for the word Sabbath in the Jewish language denotes rest from all sorts of work; but the word Sabbo, as he affirms, denotes among the Egyptians the malady of a bubo in the groin.

But this world, which is itself called an age, is said to be the conclusion of many ages. Now the holy apostle teaches that in that age which preceded this, Christ did not suffer, nor even in the age which preceded that again; and I know not that I am able to enumerate the number of anterior ages in which He did not suffer. I will show, however, from what statements of Paul I have arrived at this understanding. He says, “But now once in the consummation of ages, He was manifested to take away sin by the sacrifice of Himself.” For he says that He was once made a victim, and in the consummation of ages was manifested to take away sin. Now that after this age, which is said to be formed for the consummation of other ages, there will be other ages again to follow, we have clearly learned from Paul himself, who says, “That in the ages to come He might show the exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness towards us.” He has not said, “in the age to come,” nor “in the two ages to come,” whence I infer that by his language many ages are indicated. Now if there is something greater than ages, so that among created beings certain ages may be understood, but among other beings which exceed and surpass visible creatures, [ages still greater] (which perhaps will be the case at the restitution of all things, when the whole universe will come to a perfect termination), perhaps that period in which the consummation of all things will take place is to be understood as something more than an age. But here the authority of holy Scripture moves me, which says, “For an age and more.” Now this word “more” undoubtedly means something greater than an age; and see if that expression of the Saviour, “I will that where I am, these also may be with me; and as I and Thou are one, these also may be one in us,” may not seem to convey something more than an age and ages, perhaps even more than ages of ages,—that period, viz., when all things are now no longer in an age, but when God is in all.

But this world, which is itself called an age, is said to be the conclusion of many ages. Now the holy apostle teaches that in that age which preceded this, Christ did not suffer, nor even in the age which preceded that again; and I know not that I am able to enumerate the number of anterior ages in which He did not suffer. I will show, however, from what statements of Paul I have arrived at this understanding. He says, “But now once in the consummation of ages, He was manifested to take away sin by the sacrifice of Himself.” For he says that He was once made a victim, and in the consummation of ages was manifested to take away sin. Now that after this age, which is said to be formed for the consummation of other ages, there will be other ages again to follow, we have clearly learned from Paul himself, who says, “That in the ages to come He might show the exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness towards us.” He has not said, “in the age to come,” nor “in the two ages to come,” whence I infer that by his language many ages are indicated. Now if there is something greater than ages, so that among created beings certain ages may be understood, but among other beings which exceed and surpass visible creatures, [ages still greater] (which perhaps will be the case at the restitution of all things, when the whole universe will come to a perfect termination), perhaps that period in which the consummation of all things will take place is to be understood as something more than an age. But here the authority of holy Scripture moves me, which says, “For an age and more.” Now this word “more” undoubtedly means something greater than an age; and see if that expression of the Saviour, “I will that where I am, these also may be with me; and as I and Thou are one, these also may be one in us,” may not seem to convey something more than an age and ages, perhaps even more than ages of ages,—that period, viz., when all things are now no longer in an age, but when God is in all.

After this he wilfully sets aside, I know not why, the strongest evidence in confirmation of the claims of Jesus, viz. that His coming was predicted by the Jewish prophets—Moses, and those who succeeded as well as preceded that legislator—from inability, as I think, to meet the argument that neither the Jews nor any other heretical sect refuse to believe that Christ was the subject of prophecy. But perhaps he was unacquainted with the prophecies relating to Christ. For no one who was acquainted with the statements of the Christians, that many prophets foretold the advent of the Saviour, would have ascribed to a Jew sentiments which it would have better befitted a Samaritan or a Sadducee to utter; nor would the Jew in the dialogue have expressed himself in language like the following: “But my prophet once declared in Jerusalem, that the Son of God will come as the Judge of the righteous and the Punisher of the wicked.” Now it is not one of the prophets merely who predicted the advent of Christ. But although the Samaritans and Sadducees, who receive the books of Moses alone, would say that there were contained in them predictions regarding Christ, yet certainly not in Jerusalem, which is not even mentioned in the times of Moses, was the prophecy uttered. It were indeed to be desired, that all the accusers of Christianity were equally ignorant with Celsus, not only of the facts, but of the bare letter of Scripture, and would so direct their assaults against it, that their arguments might not have the least available influence in shaking, I do not say the faith, but the little faith of unstable and temporary believers. A Jew, however, would not admit that any prophet used the expression, “The ‘Son of God’ will come;” for the term which they employ is, “The ‘Christ of God’ will come.” And many a time indeed do they directly interrogate us about the “Son of God,” saying that no such being exists, or was made the subject of prophecy. We do not of course assert that the “Son of God” is not the subject of prophecy; but we assert that he most inappropriately attributes to the Jewish disputant, who would not allow that He was, such language as, “My prophet once declared in Jerusalem that the ‘Son of God’ will come.”

And if we should ask for a second prophecy, which may appear to us to have a clear reference to Jesus, we would quote that which was written by Moses very many years before the advent of Christ, when he makes Jacob, on his departure from this life, to have uttered predictions regarding each of his sons, and to have said of Judah along with the others: “The ruler will not fail from Judah, and the governor from his loins, until that which is reserved for him come.” Now, any one meeting with this prophecy, which is in reality much older than Moses, so that one who was not a believer might suspect that it was not written by him, would be surprised that Moses should be able to predict that the princes of the Jews, seeing there are among them twelve tribes, should be born of the tribe of Judah, and should be the rulers of the people; for which reason also the whole nation are called Jews, deriving their name from the ruling tribe. And, in the second place, one who candidly considers the prophecy, would be surprised how, after declaring that the rulers and governors of the people were to proceed from the tribe of Judah, he should determine also the limit of their rule, saying that “the ruler should not fail from Judah, nor the governor from his loins, until there should come that which was reserved for him, and that He is the expectation of the Gentiles.” For He came for whom these things were reserved, viz. the Christ of God, the ruler of the promises of God. And manifestly He is the only one among those who preceded, and, I might make bold to say, among those also who followed Him, who was the expectation of the Gentiles; for converts from among all the Gentile nations have believed on God through Him, and that in conformity with the prediction of Isaiah, that in His name the Gentiles had hoped: “In Thy name shall the Gentiles hope.” And this man said also to those who are in prison, as every man is a captive to the chains of his sins, “Come forth;” and to the ignorant, “Come into the light:” these things also having been thus foretold: “I have given Thee for a covenant of the people, to establish the earth, to cause to inherit the desolate heritage; saying to the prisoners, Go forth; and to them that are in darkness, Show yourselves.” And we may see at the appearing of this man, by means of those who everywhere throughout the world have reposed a simple faith in Him, the fulfilment of this prediction: “They shall feed in the ways, and their pastures shall be in all the beaten tracks.”

But observe whether this Jew of Celsus does not talk very blindly, in saying that it is impossible for any one to rise from the dead with a veritable body, his language being: “But this is the question, whether any one who was really dead ever rose again with a veritable body?” Now a Jew would not have uttered these words, who believed what is recorded in the third and fourth books of Kings regarding little children, of whom the one was raised up by Elijah, and the other by Elisha. And on this account, too, I think it was that Jesus appeared to no other nation than the Jews, who had become accustomed to miraculous occurrences; so that, by comparing what they themselves believed with the works which were done by Him, and with what was related of Him, they might confess that He, in regard to whom greater things were done, and by whom mightier marvels were performed, was greater than all those who preceded Him.

And it is not matter of surprise that in certain generations there have existed prophets who, in the reception of divine influence, surpassed, by means of their stronger and more powerful [religious] life, other prophets who were their contemporaries, and others also who lived before and after them. And so it is not at all wonderful that there should also have been a time when something of surpassing excellence took up its abode among the human race, and which was distinguished above all that preceded or even that followed it. But there is an element of profound mystery in the account of these things, and one which is incapable of being received by the popular understanding. And in order that these difficulties should be made to disappear, and that the objections raised against the advent of Christ should be answered—viz. that, “after so long a period of time, then, did God now bethink himself of making men live righteous lives, but neglect to do so before?”—it is necessary to touch upon the narrative of the divisions [of the nations], and to make it evident why it was, that “when the Most High divided the nations, when He separated the sons of Adam, He set the bounds of the nations according to the number of the angels of God, and the portion of the Lord was His people Jacob, Israel the cord of His inheritance;” and it will be necessary to state the reason why the birth of each man took place within each particular boundary, under him who obtained the boundary by lot, and how it rightly happened that “the portion of the Lord was His people Jacob, and Israel the cord of His inheritance,” and why formerly the portion of the Lord was His people Jacob, and Israel the cord of His inheritance. But with respect to those who come after, it is said to the Saviour by the Father, “Ask of me, and I will give Thee the heathen for Thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for Thy possession.” For there are certain connected and related reasons, bearing upon the different treatment of human souls, which are difficult to state and to investigate.

But the statement of Celsus which we wish to examine at present is the following: “Let us then pass over the refutations which might be adduced against the claims of their teacher, and let him be regarded as really an angel. But is he the first and only one who came [to men], or were there others before him? If they should say that he is the only one, they would be convicted of telling lies against themselves. For they assert that on many occasions others came, and sixty or seventy of them together, and that these became wicked, and were cast under the earth and punished with chains, and that from this source originate the warm springs, which are their tears; and, moreover, that there came an angel to the tomb of this said being—according to some, indeed, one, but according to others, two—who answered the women that he had arisen. For the Son of God could not himself, as it seems, open the tomb, but needed the help of another to roll away the stone. And again, on account of the pregnancy of Mary, there came an angel to the carpenter, and once more another angel, in order that they might take up the young child and flee away [into Egypt]. But what need is there to particularize everything, or to count up the number of angels said to have been sent to Moses, and others amongst them? If, then, others were sent, it is manifest that he also came from the same God. But he may be supposed to have the appearance of announcing something of greater importance [than those who preceded him], as if the Jews had been committing sin, or corrupting their religion, or doing deeds of impiety; for these things are obscurely hinted at.”

But Celsus challenges the account also that an angel rolled away the stone from the sepulchre where the body of Jesus lay, acting like a lad at school, who should bring a charge against any one by help of a string of commonplaces. And, as if he had discovered some clever objection to the narrative, he remarks: “The Son of God, then, it appears, could not open his tomb, but required the aid of another to roll away the stone.” Now, not to overdo the discussion of this matter, or to have the appearance of unreasonably introducing philosophical remarks, by explaining the figurative meaning at present, I shall simply say of the narrative alone, that it does appear in itself a more respectful proceeding, that the servant and inferior should have rolled away the stone, than that such an act should have been performed by Him whose resurrection was to be for the advantage of mankind. I do not speak of the desire of those who conspired against the Word, and who wished to put Him to death, and to show to all men that He was dead and non-existent, that His tomb should not be opened, in order that no one might behold the Word alive after their conspiracy; but the “Angel of God” who came into the world for the salvation of men, with the help of another angel, proved more powerful than the conspirators, and rolled away the weighty stone, that those who deemed the Word to be dead might be convinced that He is not with the “departed,” but is alive, and precedes those who are willing to follow Him, that He may manifest to them those truths which come after those which He formerly showed them at the time of their first entrance [into the school of Christianity], when they were as yet incapable of receiving deeper instruction. In the next place, I do not understand what advantage he thinks will accrue to his purpose when he ridicules the account of “the angel’s visit to Joseph regarding the pregnancy of Mary;” and again, that of the angel to warn the parents “to take up the new-born child, whose life was in danger, and to flee with it into Egypt.” Concerning these matters, however, we have in the preceding pages answered his statements. But what does Celsus mean by saying, that “according to the Scriptures, angels are recorded to have been sent to Moses, and others as well?” For it appears to me to contribute nothing to his purpose, and especially because none of them made any effort to accomplish, as far as in his power, the conversion of the human race from their sins. Let it be granted, however, that other angels were sent from God, but that he came to announce something of greater importance [than any others who preceded him]; and when the Jews had fallen into sin, and corrupted their religion, and had done unholy deeds, transferred the kingdom of God to other husbandmen, who in all the churches take special care of themselves, and use every endeavour by means of a holy life, and by a doctrine conformable thereto, to win over to the God of all things those who would rush away from the teaching of Jesus.

And observe the recklessness of that expression, “For if thou worship any other of the things in the universe,” as though he would have us believe that we are led by our service of God to the worship of any other things which belong to God, without any injury to ourselves. But, as if feeling his error, he corrects the words, “If thou worship any other of the things in the universe,” by adding, “We may honour none, however, except those to whom that right has been given by God.” And we would put to Celsus this question in regard to those who are honoured as gods, as demons, or as heroes: “Now, sir, can you prove that the right to be honoured has been given to these by God, and that it has not arisen from the ignorance and folly of men who in their wanderings have fallen away from Him to whom alone worship and service are properly due? You said a little ago, O Celsus, that Antinous, the favourite of Adrian, is honoured; but surely you will not say that the right to be worshipped as a god was given to him by the God of the universe? And so of the others, we ask proof that the right to be worshipped was given to them by the Most High God.” But if the same question is put to us in regard to the worship of Jesus, we will show that the right to be honoured was given to Him by God, “that all may honour the Son, even as they honour the Father.” For all the prophecies which preceded His birth were preparations for His worship. And the wonders which He wrought—through no magical art, as Celsus supposes, but by a divine power, which was foretold by the prophets—have served as a testimony from God in behalf of the worship of Christ. He who honours the Son, who is the Word and Reason, acts in nowise contrary to reason, and gains for himself great good; he who honours Him, who is the Truth, becomes better by honouring truth: and this we may say of honouring wisdom, righteousness, and all the other names by which the sacred Scriptures are wont to designate the Son of God.

I conjure ye anew, I constrain and command ye with the utmost vehemence and power, by that most potent and powerful name of God, EL, strong and wonderful, by him who spake and it was done; and by the name IAH, which Moses heard, and spoke with God; and by the name AGLA, which Joseph invoked, and was delivered out of the hands of his brethren; and by the name VAU, which Abraham heard, and knew God the Almighty One; and by the name of Four Letters, TETRAGRAMMATON, which Joshua named and invoked, and he was rendered worthy and found deserving to lead the Army of Israel into the Promised Land; and by the name ANABONA, by which God formed Man and the whole Universe; and by the name ARPHETON, and in the name ARPHETON, by which the angels who are destined to that end will summon the Universe, in visible body and form, and will assemble (all people) together by the sound of the Trumpet at that terrible and awful Day of Judgment, when the memory of the wicked and ungodly shall perish; and by the name ADONAI, by which God will judge all human flesh, at whose voice all men, both good and evil, will rise again, and all men and angels will assemble in the air before the Lord, who will judge and condemn the wicked; and by the name ONEIPHETON, by which God will summon the dead, and raise them up again unto life; and by the name ELOHIM, and in the name ELOHIM, by which God will disturb and excite tempests throughout all the seas, so that they will cast out the fish therefrom, and in one day the third part of men about the sea and the rivers shall die; and by the name ELOHI, and in the name ELOHI, by which God will dry up the sea and the rivers, so that men can go on foot through their channels; and by the name ON, and in the name ON, by which God shall restore and replace the sea, the rivers, the streams, and the brooks, in their previous state; and by the name MESSIACH, and in the name MESSIACH, by which God will make all animals combat together, so that they shall die in a single day; and by the name ARIEL, by which God shall destroy in a single day all buildings, so that there shall not be left one stone upon another; and by the name IAHT, by which God will cast one stone upon another, so that all people and nations will fly from the sea-shore, and will say unto them cover us and hide us; and by the name EMANUEL, by which God will perform wonders, and the winged creatures and birds of the air shall contend with one another; and by the name ANAEL, and in the name ANAEL, by which God will cast down the mountains and fill up the valleys, so that the surface of the earth shall be level in all parts; and by the name ZEDEREZA, and in the name ZEDEREZA, by which God will cause the Sun and Moon to be darkened, and the stars of heaven to fall; and by the name SEPHERIEL, by which God will come to Universal Judgment, like a Prince newly crowned entering in triumph into his capital city, girded with a zone of gold, and preceded by angels, and at his aspect all climes and parts of the Universe shall be troubled and astonished, and a fire shall go forth before him, and flames and storm shall surround him; and by the name TAU, by which God brought the Deluge, and the waters prevailed above the mountains, and fifteen cubits above their summits; and by the name RUACHIAH, by which God having purged the Ages, he will make his Holy Spirit to descend upon the Universe, and will cast ye, ye rebellious spirits, and unclean beings, into the depths of the lake of the abyss, in misery, filth, and mire, and will place ye in impure and foul dungeons bound with eternal chains of fire.

If a man who was married to four wives died, his first wife takes precedence over the second, the second over the third and the third over the fourth. The first must take an oath to the second, the second to the third, and the third to the fourth, and the fourth recovers payment without an oath. Ben Nannus says: Should she be rewarded because she is the last? She too may not exact payment except by an oath. If all were issued on the same day then the woman [whose kethubah] preceded that of the other, even if only by one hour, gets [her ketubah first]. And so it was the custom in Jerusalem to write the hours. If all kethuboth were issued at the same hour and the estate is worth no more than a maneh, they divide it equally.

[If a husband says,] “If I do not come back within twelve months, write a get and give it to my wife”, and they wrote a get before twelve months had passed and gave it to her after, it is not a get. [If he said,] “Write a get and give it to my wife if I do not come back within twelve months”, and they wrote it before the twelve months had passed and gave it after, it is no get. Rabbi Yose says: like this is a get. If they wrote it after twelve months and delivered it after twelve months and he died, if the delivery of the get preceded his death the get is valid, but if his death preceded the delivery of the get it is not valid. If it is not known which was first, this is the woman about whom they said, “[She is] divorced and not divorced.”

[If a husband says,] “If I do not come back within twelve months, write a get and give it to my wife”, and they wrote a get before twelve months had passed and gave it to her after, it is not a get. [If he said,] “Write a get and give it to my wife if I do not come back within twelve months”, and they wrote it before the twelve months had passed and gave it after, it is no get. Rabbi Yose says: like this is a get. If they wrote it after twelve months and delivered it after twelve months and he died, if the delivery of the get preceded his death the get is valid, but if his death preceded the delivery of the get it is not valid. If it is not known which was first, this is the woman about whom they said, “[She is] divorced and not divorced.”

If a man gives permission to his agent to give his daughter in betrothal, and then he himself goes and gives her in betrothal to another, if his [betrothal] was first, his betrothal is valid; if the agent’s was first, his betrothal is valid. And if it is unknown, both must give her a divorce. And if they wish, one gives a divorce, and the other marries her. Similarly, if a woman gives permission to her agent to give her in betrothal, and she goes and betroths herself [to another]: if her own preceded, her betrothal is valid; if her agent’s preceded, his betrothal is valid. And if they do not know, both must give her a divorce. And if they wish, one gives a divorce and the other marries her.

If a man gives permission to his agent to give his daughter in betrothal, and then he himself goes and gives her in betrothal to another, if his [betrothal] was first, his betrothal is valid; if the agent’s was first, his betrothal is valid. And if it is unknown, both must give her a divorce. And if they wish, one gives a divorce, and the other marries her. Similarly, if a woman gives permission to her agent to give her in betrothal, and she goes and betroths herself [to another]: if her own preceded, her betrothal is valid; if her agent’s preceded, his betrothal is valid. And if they do not know, both must give her a divorce. And if they wish, one gives a divorce and the other marries her.

“I adjure you that, when you know any testimony for me, you should come and bear testimony for me,” they are exempt, because the oath preceded the testimony.

If a person slaughtered [an animal] and it was found to be terefah, or if he slaughtered [it as an offering] to idols, or if he slaughtered the red cow, or an ox which was condemned to be stoned, or a heifer whose neck was to be broken: Rabbi Shimon exempts [him from having transgressed the law of “it and its young”]; but the sages make him liable. If a person slaughtered [an animal] and it became nevelah under his hand, or if he stabbed it, or tore away [the organs of the throat], he does not thereby transgress the law of it and its young. If two people bought a cow and its young, he who bought first can slaughter first; but if the second preceded him, he holds his advantage. If a person slaughtered a cow and then two of its calves, he is liable for eighty lashes. If he slaughtered its two calves and then the cow, he is liable for forty lashes. If he slaughtered it and then its calf and then the calf's offspring, he is liable for eighty lashes. If he slaughtered it and then its calf's offspring and then the calf, he is liable for forty lashes. Symmachos says in the name of Rabbi Meir: he is liable for eighty lashes. At four periods in the year he who sells a beast to another must inform him, “I sold today its mother to be slaughtered,” or “I sold today its young to be slaughtered,” and these are they: on the eve of the last day of the feast [of Sukkot], on the eve of the first day of Pesah, on the eve of Shavuot, and on the eve of Rosh Hashanah. According to Rabbi Yose the Galilean, also on the eve of Yom Kippur, in the Galilee. Rabbi Judah says, this is so, only when there was no time in between the sales, but if there was time, he need not inform him. Rabbi Judah agrees that if he sold the mother to the bridegroom and the young to the bride, he must inform them of it, for it is certain that they will each slaughter on the same day.

All consecrated animals whose permanent physical blemish preceded their consecration and were then redeemed: Are subject to the law of the firstling and to the priestly gifts, And when they become like hullin [by being redeemed] they may be shorn and may be put to work. And their young and their milk are permitted after they have been redeemed. And he who slaughtered them outside the sanctuary is not liable. And they do not render what is substituted for them [holy]. And if they died they may be redeemed, except for the firstling and the tithe of cattle. All [consecrated animals] whose consecration preceded their permanent, or their impermanent blemish [preceded] their consecration and subsequently they contracted a permanent blemish, and they were redeemed: Are exempt from the law of the firstling, and from priestly gifts; And they are not like unconsecrated animals to be shorn or put to work; And [even] after they have been redeemed their young and their milk are forbidden; And he who slaughtered them outside the sanctuary is liable; And they render what was substituted for them [holy], And if they died they must be buried.

All consecrated animals whose permanent physical blemish preceded their consecration and were then redeemed: Are subject to the law of the firstling and to the priestly gifts, And when they become like hullin [by being redeemed] they may be shorn and may be put to work. And their young and their milk are permitted after they have been redeemed. And he who slaughtered them outside the sanctuary is not liable. And they do not render what is substituted for them [holy]. And if they died they may be redeemed, except for the firstling and the tithe of cattle. All [consecrated animals] whose consecration preceded their permanent, or their impermanent blemish [preceded] their consecration and subsequently they contracted a permanent blemish, and they were redeemed: Are exempt from the law of the firstling, and from priestly gifts; And they are not like unconsecrated animals to be shorn or put to work; And [even] after they have been redeemed their young and their milk are forbidden; And he who slaughtered them outside the sanctuary is liable; And they render what was substituted for them [holy], And if they died they must be buried.

All consecrated animals whose permanent physical blemish preceded their consecration and were then redeemed: Are subject to the law of the firstling and to the priestly gifts, And when they become like hullin [by being redeemed] they may be shorn and may be put to work. And their young and their milk are permitted after they have been redeemed. And he who slaughtered them outside the sanctuary is not liable. And they do not render what is substituted for them [holy]. And if they died they may be redeemed, except for the firstling and the tithe of cattle. All [consecrated animals] whose consecration preceded their permanent, or their impermanent blemish [preceded] their consecration and subsequently they contracted a permanent blemish, and they were redeemed: Are exempt from the law of the firstling, and from priestly gifts; And they are not like unconsecrated animals to be shorn or put to work; And [even] after they have been redeemed their young and their milk are forbidden; And he who slaughtered them outside the sanctuary is liable; And they render what was substituted for them [holy], And if they died they must be buried.

All consecrated animals whose permanent physical blemish preceded their consecration and were then redeemed: Are subject to the law of the firstling and to the priestly gifts, And when they become like hullin [by being redeemed] they may be shorn and may be put to work. And their young and their milk are permitted after they have been redeemed. And he who slaughtered them outside the sanctuary is not liable. And they do not render what is substituted for them [holy]. And if they died they may be redeemed, except for the firstling and the tithe of cattle.

All [consecrated animals] whose consecration preceded their permanent, or their impermanent blemish [preceded] their consecration and subsequently they contracted a permanent blemish, and they were redeemed: Are exempt from the law of the firstling, and from priestly gifts; And they are not like unconsecrated animals to be shorn or put to work; And [even] after they have been redeemed their young and their milk are forbidden; And he who slaughtered them outside the sanctuary is liable; And they render what was substituted for them [holy], And if they died they must be buried.

All [consecrated animals] whose consecration preceded their permanent, or their impermanent blemish [preceded] their consecration and subsequently they contracted a permanent blemish, and they were redeemed: Are exempt from the law of the firstling, and from priestly gifts; And they are not like unconsecrated animals to be shorn or put to work; And [even] after they have been redeemed their young and their milk are forbidden; And he who slaughtered them outside the sanctuary is liable; And they render what was substituted for them [holy], And if they died they must be buried.

With regard to [an animal] that was born through a cesarean section and the first born which came after it: Rabbi Tarfon says: both go out to pasture until blemished and are eaten with their blemishes by the owners. But Rabbi Akiva says: neither of them is a first born; the first because it did not open its mother’s womb, and the second, because another preceded it.

A bright spot the size of a split bean and there was nothing else, and then there appeared a bright spot of the size of half a split bean having two hairs, this one is declared unclean. Because they said: if the bright spot preceded the white hair he is unclean; if the white hair preceded the bright spot he is clean; and if it is doubtful he is unclean. Rabbi Joshua regards this as unsolvable.

A bright spot the size of a split bean and there was nothing else, and then there appeared a bright spot of the size of half a split bean having two hairs, this one is declared unclean. Because they said: if the bright spot preceded the white hair he is unclean; if the white hair preceded the bright spot he is clean; and if it is doubtful he is unclean. Rabbi Joshua regards this as unsolvable.

Yellow hair that preceded a scall is clean. Rabbi Judah says that it is unclean. Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob says: it neither causes uncleanness nor does it afford protection. Rabbi Shimon says: anything in a scall that is not a sign of uncleanness is a sign of cleanness.

If one sees an issue of semen on the third day of counting his zov: Bet Shammai says: it undoes the two preceding days; But Bet Hillel says: it undoes only that day. Rabbi Ishmael says: one who sees it on the second day, it undoes the preceding day. But Rabbi Akiva says: it matters not whether he saw it on the second day or on the third day: Bet Shammai says: it undoes the two preceding days; And Bet Hillel says: it undoes only that day. But they agree that if he saw it on the fourth day [of counting] it undoes only that day. This is if he saw semen; but he saw zov, then even if this had occurred on the seventh day, it undoes all the days that had preceded.

Rebbi Zeriqan and Rebbi Ammi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: The reason of Rebbi is (Ps. 119:62): “At midnight I get up to thank You for Your just laws.” And it is written (Ps. 119:148): “My eyes preceded night watches.” Rebbi Ḥizqiah said: Rebbi Zeriqan and Rebbi Abba, one explained the reason of Rebbi, the other the reason of Rebbi Nathan. He who explained the reason of Rebbi: “at midnight”. He who explained the reason of Rebbi Nathan (Jud. 7:19): “at the start of the middle watch.” How does Rebbi Nathan uphold the basis of Rebbi’s reason, “at midnight”? Sometimes “at midnight,” sometimes “my eyes preceded night watches.” How is that? When David had a state dinner, “at midnight.” When he ate by himself, “my eyes preceded night watches.” In no case did dawn come and found David asleep. That is what David said (Ps. 57:9): “Wake up, my honor, wake up, o harp and lute, I shall awake dawn.” My honor has to be awake because of the honor of my Creator. My honor counts for nothing before the honor of my Creator. I shall awake dawn, dawn will not awake me. His evil instinct was trying to seduce him and told him: David, usually dawn awakes kings and you say “I shall awake dawn!” Usually kings sleep until three hours into the day and you say “at midnight I get up!” But he answers, “for Your just laws.” What did David do? Rebbi Phineas in the name of Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Menaḥem: He took a harp, put it on his headboard, got up at midnight and started playing on it so that his companions in the study of Torah should hear it. What were his companions in the study of Torah saying? When king David studies Torah, certainly we have to do it also! Rebbi Levi said: a lute was hanging in David’s window and in the night the North wind was blowing and moving it and it was playing by itself. This refers to what is written (2Kings 3:15): “It happened when the musical instrument was playing.” It does not say “when he played on the musical instrument” but “when the instrument was playing”; it was playing by itself.

Rebbi Zeriqan and Rebbi Ammi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: The reason of Rebbi is (Ps. 119:62): “At midnight I get up to thank You for Your just laws.” And it is written (Ps. 119:148): “My eyes preceded night watches.” Rebbi Ḥizqiah said: Rebbi Zeriqan and Rebbi Abba, one explained the reason of Rebbi, the other the reason of Rebbi Nathan. He who explained the reason of Rebbi: “at midnight”. He who explained the reason of Rebbi Nathan (Jud. 7:19): “at the start of the middle watch.” How does Rebbi Nathan uphold the basis of Rebbi’s reason, “at midnight”? Sometimes “at midnight,” sometimes “my eyes preceded night watches.” How is that? When David had a state dinner, “at midnight.” When he ate by himself, “my eyes preceded night watches.” In no case did dawn come and found David asleep. That is what David said (Ps. 57:9): “Wake up, my honor, wake up, o harp and lute, I shall awake dawn.” My honor has to be awake because of the honor of my Creator. My honor counts for nothing before the honor of my Creator. I shall awake dawn, dawn will not awake me. His evil instinct was trying to seduce him and told him: David, usually dawn awakes kings and you say “I shall awake dawn!” Usually kings sleep until three hours into the day and you say “at midnight I get up!” But he answers, “for Your just laws.” What did David do? Rebbi Phineas in the name of Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Menaḥem: He took a harp, put it on his headboard, got up at midnight and started playing on it so that his companions in the study of Torah should hear it. What were his companions in the study of Torah saying? When king David studies Torah, certainly we have to do it also! Rebbi Levi said: a lute was hanging in David’s window and in the night the North wind was blowing and moving it and it was playing by itself. This refers to what is written (2Kings 3:15): “It happened when the musical instrument was playing.” It does not say “when he played on the musical instrument” but “when the instrument was playing”; it was playing by itself.

Rebbi Zeriqan and Rebbi Ammi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: The reason of Rebbi is (Ps. 119:62): “At midnight I get up to thank You for Your just laws.” And it is written (Ps. 119:148): “My eyes preceded night watches.” Rebbi Ḥizqiah said: Rebbi Zeriqan and Rebbi Abba, one explained the reason of Rebbi, the other the reason of Rebbi Nathan. He who explained the reason of Rebbi: “at midnight”. He who explained the reason of Rebbi Nathan (Jud. 7:19): “at the start of the middle watch.” How does Rebbi Nathan uphold the basis of Rebbi’s reason, “at midnight”? Sometimes “at midnight,” sometimes “my eyes preceded night watches.” How is that? When David had a state dinner, “at midnight.” When he ate by himself, “my eyes preceded night watches.” In no case did dawn come and found David asleep. That is what David said (Ps. 57:9): “Wake up, my honor, wake up, o harp and lute, I shall awake dawn.” My honor has to be awake because of the honor of my Creator. My honor counts for nothing before the honor of my Creator. I shall awake dawn, dawn will not awake me. His evil instinct was trying to seduce him and told him: David, usually dawn awakes kings and you say “I shall awake dawn!” Usually kings sleep until three hours into the day and you say “at midnight I get up!” But he answers, “for Your just laws.” What did David do? Rebbi Phineas in the name of Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Menaḥem: He took a harp, put it on his headboard, got up at midnight and started playing on it so that his companions in the study of Torah should hear it. What were his companions in the study of Torah saying? When king David studies Torah, certainly we have to do it also! Rebbi Levi said: a lute was hanging in David’s window and in the night the North wind was blowing and moving it and it was playing by itself. This refers to what is written (2Kings 3:15): “It happened when the musical instrument was playing.” It does not say “when he played on the musical instrument” but “when the instrument was playing”; it was playing by itself.

Rebbi Zeïra asked before Rebbi Yasa: It this not from the fruits that are exempt at Caesarea? He said to him, did not Rebbi permit fruits at Caesarea? But Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel preceded Rebbi!

If one gives tithe and after that heave, one has preceded. First heave and after that tithe, might he not give too little tithe or add to his tithe? As we have stated, he who gives too little tithe, his tithes are in order but his produce is damaged, if he gives too much tithe, his tithes are damaged but his produce is in order. Rebbi Yose said, he relies on a stipulation by the Court. What is the stipulation by the Court? As far as one’s mind might err.

Rebbi Samuel bar Abba asked: First Tithe which he preceded to ears, does he transgress or is he transgressing only the right order?

“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.

“If one slaughtered it before noon it is disqualified,” [after noontime] immediately it is qualified. “If one slaughtered it before the daily sacrifice it is qualified.” It was stated thus: One could think that if Pesaḥ preceded the daily sacrifice, the daily sacrifice could not be delayed. The verse says, do, adding. Rebbi Abun said, the Mishnah implies that the Pesaḥ itself is qualified. If you would say, it is disqualified, it would be as if it did not precede.

It happened that one preceded another to within four cubits of the altar. The other took the knife and stuck it into his heart. Rebbi Sadoq stood on the steps of the Hall and said to them, listen to me, my brethren, the House of Israel. It is written, if a corpse be found. etc. Your elders and your judges shall go out. From where do we have to measure, from the Temple or from the courtyards? All the people started to cry. While they still were crying, the father of the child came and told them, I am atoning for you. The child is still fluttering, so the knife did not become impure. This teaches that impurity was worse for them than spilling blood, a shame.

HALAKHAH: It is written about the daily sacrifice in the morning, and it is written about wood in the morning. Something about which is written in the morning, in the morning, shall precede something about which in the morning is written only once. Then even before its blood? Rebbi Hila said, you shall do, preceded action for it. It is written about the daily sacrifice in the morning, and it is written about incense in the morning, in the morning. Something about which is written in the morning, in the morning, shall precede something about which only [one] in the morning is written. Where do we hold? If about limbs, are they not like wood? But we are holding, even for its blood. It is written about wood in the morning, in the morning, and it is written about incense in the morning, in the morning, and I do not know which of the two is preceding. Which one is enabling what? Wood enables the incense; the wood shall precede the incense. Come and see, wood precedes the blood and blood precedes incense, and you are saying so? Rebbi Hila said, no. Since I could not prove by a logical argument that wood enables the incense, you needed that baraita. They wanted to say, what enables the incense? Charcoal. Rebbi Eleazar said, smoke-creating herb.

It says for the afternoon daily sacrifice, in the evening, and it says about incense, in the evening, close to the lights. (Not) [You say] about the lights, from evening to morning(?)[.] A matter where it is said in the evening close to the lights shall be delayed after a matter where only in the evening is said. Then even after the libations? Rebbi Hila said, you shall do, delayed action for it. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Hila: Here you are saying, “you shall do, preceded action for it”, and there you are saying, “you shall do, delayed action for it”? Rebbi Hila said, each one according to its subject. The daily morning sacrifice was shown to be later; you shall do, preceded action for it. The daily evening sacrifice was shown to be earlier, the verse says you shall do, delayed action for it. Rebbi Zeˋira acclaimed him and called him “son of the Torah.”

It says for the afternoon daily sacrifice, in the evening, and it says about incense, in the evening, close to the lights. (Not) [You say] about the lights, from evening to morning(?)[.] A matter where it is said in the evening close to the lights shall be delayed after a matter where only in the evening is said. Then even after the libations? Rebbi Hila said, you shall do, delayed action for it. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Hila: Here you are saying, “you shall do, preceded action for it”, and there you are saying, “you shall do, delayed action for it”? Rebbi Hila said, each one according to its subject. The daily morning sacrifice was shown to be later; you shall do, preceded action for it. The daily evening sacrifice was shown to be earlier, the verse says you shall do, delayed action for it. Rebbi Zeˋira acclaimed him and called him “son of the Torah.”

The bull, the ram, and the seven unblemished sheep were brought with the daily morning offering; the remainder were brought with the daily afternoon offering. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, the reason of this Tanna is to join purification sacrifice to purification sacrifice and elevation sacrifice to elevation sacrifice. But some want to say, the bull, the ram, the people’s ram, and the seven unblemished sheep were brought with the daily morning offering; the remainder were brought with the daily afternoon offering. This Tanna distributes the services. What is the reason? He leaves and brings hiselevation sacrifice and the people’s elevation sacrifice. As mentioned in the matter. What is mentioned in the matter? His ram and the people’s ram. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, what is the reason for the he-goat? Of the blood of the atoning purification sacrifice. The atoning purification sacrifice already preceded.

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked, what could He have said instead of will not be deprived? “Shall not eat”? All eating in the Torah is by the volume of an olive, but here by the volume of a date. Rav Hoshaia said, “watch yourself, lest, not be deprived,” would be three warnings. Rebbi Ḥuna said, watch yourself regarding the saying which I said to you, watch yourself in matters of skin disease to be very careful and act, etc. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: Punishment could [not] have been said about work since it is unnecessary. I could have inferred it from deprivation. [Since for deprivation] which is minor one is liable to extirpation, for work which is major it should be logical that one should be liable for extirpation. Therefore punishment was spelled out for work only to imply a warning preceding it. Since the punishment indicated for work is preceded by a warning, also the punishment indicated for deprivation is preceded by a warning. Rebbi Zeˋira said, this implies that one may infer about an “equal cut” even if it is free only on one side. Rebbi Yudan said, Is that not Rebbi Aqiba’s? And Rebbi Aqiba said, one infers about an “equal cut” even if it is not free.

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked, what could He have said instead of will not be deprived? “Shall not eat”? All eating in the Torah is by the volume of an olive, but here by the volume of a date. Rav Hoshaia said, “watch yourself, lest, not be deprived,” would be three warnings. Rebbi Ḥuna said, watch yourself regarding the saying which I said to you, watch yourself in matters of skin disease to be very careful and act, etc. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: Punishment could [not] have been said about work since it is unnecessary. I could have inferred it from deprivation. [Since for deprivation] which is minor one is liable to extirpation, for work which is major it should be logical that one should be liable for extirpation. Therefore punishment was spelled out for work only to imply a warning preceding it. Since the punishment indicated for work is preceded by a warning, also the punishment indicated for deprivation is preceded by a warning. Rebbi Zeˋira said, this implies that one may infer about an “equal cut” even if it is free only on one side. Rebbi Yudan said, Is that not Rebbi Aqiba’s? And Rebbi Aqiba said, one infers about an “equal cut” even if it is not free.

They wanted to say that the large {hole} was for water, the small one for wine, for Rebbi Jonah said in the name of Rebbi Immi: A hole which does not let pass water passes wine, what does not let pass wine passes oil, does not let pass oil passes honey. And even if you say it is the other way around, is that not Rebbi Jehudah’s? And Rebbi Jehudah said, a log he was pouring all eight days. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked before Rebbi Joḥanan: If he preceded them before the sacrifice, what? If he poured in the night, what? If he did not pour today may he pour the next day? He said to him, let us hear from the following which Rebbi Ila said in the name of Rebbi Yasa: And its libations, the same for libations of water as for libations of wine. This implies that if he preceded them before the sacrifice, it is qualified. If he poured in the night, it is qualified. If he did not pour today he may not pour the next day, because if the day passed, its sacrifice passed.

They wanted to say that the large {hole} was for water, the small one for wine, for Rebbi Jonah said in the name of Rebbi Immi: A hole which does not let pass water passes wine, what does not let pass wine passes oil, does not let pass oil passes honey. And even if you say it is the other way around, is that not Rebbi Jehudah’s? And Rebbi Jehudah said, a log he was pouring all eight days. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked before Rebbi Joḥanan: If he preceded them before the sacrifice, what? If he poured in the night, what? If he did not pour today may he pour the next day? He said to him, let us hear from the following which Rebbi Ila said in the name of Rebbi Yasa: And its libations, the same for libations of water as for libations of wine. This implies that if he preceded them before the sacrifice, it is qualified. If he poured in the night, it is qualified. If he did not pour today he may not pour the next day, because if the day passed, its sacrifice passed.

What is the difference whether one says that one counts from Nisan or one counts from Tishre? Rebbi Jonah says, the difference is the proof power of documents. If he took a loan in Iyar and wrote in it, the second year of government; he sold real estate in Marḥeshwan and wrote in it, the second year of government. For him who says that one counts from Nisan, the loan preceded. For him who said that one counts from Tishre, the sale preceded.

What is the difference whether one says that one counts from Nisan or one counts from Tishre? Rebbi Jonah says, the difference is the proof power of documents. If he took a loan in Iyar and wrote in it, the second year of government; he sold real estate in Marḥeshwan and wrote in it, the second year of government. For him who says that one counts from Nisan, the loan preceded. For him who said that one counts from Tishre, the sale preceded.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Ḥama bar Uqba in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: One blows the shofar for the failure of the flax crop. What is the reason? Horrible and execrable things happened in the land. Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: One blows the shofar about hot East wind. What is the reason? I went black without sun, I rose in the assembly to pray. Rebbi Eleazar said, honor your healer before you need him. What is the reason? If your prayer had preceded your need, and all efforts of power. Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. Rebbi Joḥanan said, [if you prayed, no one up high will begrudge you, but all will reinforce your power, and all efforts of power. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, if you prayed,] do not keep your mouth narrow, but open your mouth and I shall fill it.

Assyrian has a script but no language; Hebrew has a language but no script. They choose for themselves Assyrian script and Hebrew language. Why is it called Assyrian? Because it is beautiful script; Rebbi Levi said, because they brought it with them from Assyria. It was stated: Rebbi Yose said, Ezra was worthy that the Torah could have been given through him, only Moses’s generation preceded him. Even though the Torah was not given through him, but he gave writing and language; and the script of the letter written in Aramaic and explained in Aramaic. And they could not read this script; this teaches that it was given on that day. Rebbi Nathan says, the Torah was given in paleo-Hebrew; this follows Rebbi Yose. Rebbi said, the Torah was given in Assyrian, but when they sinned it was changed into paleo-Hebrew. When they merited it in the days of Ezra it was changed into Assyrian: Also today I shall return to you what was told to change; he shall write for himself this changing Torah in a scroll, a script which in the future is apt to change. It was stated: Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says in the name of Rebbi Eleazar ben Protos who said it in the name of Rebbi Eleazar from Modiin, the Torah was given in Assyrian script. What is the reason? The hooks of the pillars, that the letters vav of the Torah look like pillars. Rebbi Levi said, for him who said, the Torah was given in paleo-Hebrew, the letter ayin was a miracle. He who said, the Torah was given Assyrian, the letter samekh was a miracle. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba and Rebbi Simon both were saying, in earlier copies of the Torah neither he nor final mem were closed. Therefore samekh was closed.

The House of Shammai are saying, heaven was created first and afterwards earth. But the House of Hillel are saying, earth was created first and afterwards heaven. These are bringing proof for their assertion, and those are bringing proof for their assertion. What is the reason of the House of Shammai? In the Beginning God created heaven and earth. {A parable} of a king who made a chair. After he had made it he made its footstool: the Heavens are My throne and the Earth My footstool. What is the reason of the House of Hillel? On the day of the Eternal’s, God’s, making of earth and heaven {A parable} of a king who made a palace. After he built the foundations he built the upper structure: also My left hand founded the Earth and My right hand tended the Heavens. Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi said, also the following supports the House of Hillel: in earlier times You founded the Earth, and the Heavens are the work of Your hands. Rebbi Ḥanina said, from the place from where the House of Shammai prove their assertion, from there the House of Hillel remove them. What is the reason of the House of Shammai? In the Beginning God created heaven and earth. From there the House of Hillel remove them: and the earth was, it already was. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of the Sages: As for creation, the heaven preceded. As for perfecting, the earth preceded. As for creation, the heaven preceded, in the Beginning God created. As for perfecting, the earth preceded, on the day of the Eternal’s, God’s, making of earth and heaven. According to the House of Shammai, the heaven after the First waited three days, First, Second, Third, to have offspring. On the Fourth, there shall be lights. According to the House of Shammai, the sea after the Second waited three days, Second, Third, Fourth, to have offspring. On the Fifth, the waters shall teem. According to the House of Shammai, the earth after the Third waited three days, Third, Fourth, Fifth, to have offspring. On the Sixth, the earth shall produce. According to the House of Hillel, the earth after the First waited two days, First and Second, to have offspring. On the Third, the earth shall be covered with grass. According to the House of Hillel, the sea after the Third waited two days, Third and Fourth, to have offspring. On the Fifth, the waters shall teem. Rebbi Simeon ben Yohai said, I am wondering how the fathers of the world could disagree about the creation of the world. Heaven and earth were only created like a pan and its cover. What is the reason? Also My left hand founded the Earth and My right hand tended the Heavens. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon said, following this, my father’s opinion, sometimes heaven precedes earth, sometimes earth precedes heaven, which teaches that they are equivalent one to another.

The House of Shammai are saying, heaven was created first and afterwards earth. But the House of Hillel are saying, earth was created first and afterwards heaven. These are bringing proof for their assertion, and those are bringing proof for their assertion. What is the reason of the House of Shammai? In the Beginning God created heaven and earth. {A parable} of a king who made a chair. After he had made it he made its footstool: the Heavens are My throne and the Earth My footstool. What is the reason of the House of Hillel? On the day of the Eternal’s, God’s, making of earth and heaven {A parable} of a king who made a palace. After he built the foundations he built the upper structure: also My left hand founded the Earth and My right hand tended the Heavens. Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi said, also the following supports the House of Hillel: in earlier times You founded the Earth, and the Heavens are the work of Your hands. Rebbi Ḥanina said, from the place from where the House of Shammai prove their assertion, from there the House of Hillel remove them. What is the reason of the House of Shammai? In the Beginning God created heaven and earth. From there the House of Hillel remove them: and the earth was, it already was. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of the Sages: As for creation, the heaven preceded. As for perfecting, the earth preceded. As for creation, the heaven preceded, in the Beginning God created. As for perfecting, the earth preceded, on the day of the Eternal’s, God’s, making of earth and heaven. According to the House of Shammai, the heaven after the First waited three days, First, Second, Third, to have offspring. On the Fourth, there shall be lights. According to the House of Shammai, the sea after the Second waited three days, Second, Third, Fourth, to have offspring. On the Fifth, the waters shall teem. According to the House of Shammai, the earth after the Third waited three days, Third, Fourth, Fifth, to have offspring. On the Sixth, the earth shall produce. According to the House of Hillel, the earth after the First waited two days, First and Second, to have offspring. On the Third, the earth shall be covered with grass. According to the House of Hillel, the sea after the Third waited two days, Third and Fourth, to have offspring. On the Fifth, the waters shall teem. Rebbi Simeon ben Yohai said, I am wondering how the fathers of the world could disagree about the creation of the world. Heaven and earth were only created like a pan and its cover. What is the reason? Also My left hand founded the Earth and My right hand tended the Heavens. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon said, following this, my father’s opinion, sometimes heaven precedes earth, sometimes earth precedes heaven, which teaches that they are equivalent one to another.

The House of Shammai are saying, heaven was created first and afterwards earth. But the House of Hillel are saying, earth was created first and afterwards heaven. These are bringing proof for their assertion, and those are bringing proof for their assertion. What is the reason of the House of Shammai? In the Beginning God created heaven and earth. {A parable} of a king who made a chair. After he had made it he made its footstool: the Heavens are My throne and the Earth My footstool. What is the reason of the House of Hillel? On the day of the Eternal’s, God’s, making of earth and heaven {A parable} of a king who made a palace. After he built the foundations he built the upper structure: also My left hand founded the Earth and My right hand tended the Heavens. Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi said, also the following supports the House of Hillel: in earlier times You founded the Earth, and the Heavens are the work of Your hands. Rebbi Ḥanina said, from the place from where the House of Shammai prove their assertion, from there the House of Hillel remove them. What is the reason of the House of Shammai? In the Beginning God created heaven and earth. From there the House of Hillel remove them: and the earth was, it already was. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of the Sages: As for creation, the heaven preceded. As for perfecting, the earth preceded. As for creation, the heaven preceded, in the Beginning God created. As for perfecting, the earth preceded, on the day of the Eternal’s, God’s, making of earth and heaven. According to the House of Shammai, the heaven after the First waited three days, First, Second, Third, to have offspring. On the Fourth, there shall be lights. According to the House of Shammai, the sea after the Second waited three days, Second, Third, Fourth, to have offspring. On the Fifth, the waters shall teem. According to the House of Shammai, the earth after the Third waited three days, Third, Fourth, Fifth, to have offspring. On the Sixth, the earth shall produce. According to the House of Hillel, the earth after the First waited two days, First and Second, to have offspring. On the Third, the earth shall be covered with grass. According to the House of Hillel, the sea after the Third waited two days, Third and Fourth, to have offspring. On the Fifth, the waters shall teem. Rebbi Simeon ben Yohai said, I am wondering how the fathers of the world could disagree about the creation of the world. Heaven and earth were only created like a pan and its cover. What is the reason? Also My left hand founded the Earth and My right hand tended the Heavens. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon said, following this, my father’s opinion, sometimes heaven precedes earth, sometimes earth precedes heaven, which teaches that they are equivalent one to another.

The House of Shammai are saying, heaven was created first and afterwards earth. But the House of Hillel are saying, earth was created first and afterwards heaven. These are bringing proof for their assertion, and those are bringing proof for their assertion. What is the reason of the House of Shammai? In the Beginning God created heaven and earth. {A parable} of a king who made a chair. After he had made it he made its footstool: the Heavens are My throne and the Earth My footstool. What is the reason of the House of Hillel? On the day of the Eternal’s, God’s, making of earth and heaven {A parable} of a king who made a palace. After he built the foundations he built the upper structure: also My left hand founded the Earth and My right hand tended the Heavens. Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi said, also the following supports the House of Hillel: in earlier times You founded the Earth, and the Heavens are the work of Your hands. Rebbi Ḥanina said, from the place from where the House of Shammai prove their assertion, from there the House of Hillel remove them. What is the reason of the House of Shammai? In the Beginning God created heaven and earth. From there the House of Hillel remove them: and the earth was, it already was. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of the Sages: As for creation, the heaven preceded. As for perfecting, the earth preceded. As for creation, the heaven preceded, in the Beginning God created. As for perfecting, the earth preceded, on the day of the Eternal’s, God’s, making of earth and heaven. According to the House of Shammai, the heaven after the First waited three days, First, Second, Third, to have offspring. On the Fourth, there shall be lights. According to the House of Shammai, the sea after the Second waited three days, Second, Third, Fourth, to have offspring. On the Fifth, the waters shall teem. According to the House of Shammai, the earth after the Third waited three days, Third, Fourth, Fifth, to have offspring. On the Sixth, the earth shall produce. According to the House of Hillel, the earth after the First waited two days, First and Second, to have offspring. On the Third, the earth shall be covered with grass. According to the House of Hillel, the sea after the Third waited two days, Third and Fourth, to have offspring. On the Fifth, the waters shall teem. Rebbi Simeon ben Yohai said, I am wondering how the fathers of the world could disagree about the creation of the world. Heaven and earth were only created like a pan and its cover. What is the reason? Also My left hand founded the Earth and My right hand tended the Heavens. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon said, following this, my father’s opinion, sometimes heaven precedes earth, sometimes earth precedes heaven, which teaches that they are equivalent one to another.

It was stated: “‘Except your husband,” which excludes that other semen preceded your husband’s. Rebbi Hila said, parallel what has been said, “except the morning elevation offering.” But did we not state: “Just as the water examines her, so the water examines him. Just as she is forbidden to her husband, so she is forbidden to her paramour”? Just as she is forbidden to her husband’s brother, so she is forbidden to her paramour’s brother. Just as the water examines her for every intercourse in which she receives her husband after [she had slept with] her paramour, so it examines him? Rebbi Abin in the name of Rebbi Hila: Here, if he knows, there, if he does not know.

From where that weaves precede presentations? Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Pedat: They learned that from the case of the suspected wife. Rebbi Yose said, the suspected wife is different because of its novelty and one cannot infer from anything that is different because of its novelty. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya understood it from the following: “This is the teaching about the flour offering, present.” Where is the weave? It already preceded. Rebbi Yose said, explain it about flour offerings that do not need weaves; you cannot infer anything. Which [verse] says anything? “You shall bring,” to include the ‘Omer flour offering in presentations. “He shall present,” to include the suspected wife’s flour offering in presentations. It is written after that: “He shall lift a fist full”; where is the weave? It already preceded.

From where that weaves precede presentations? Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Pedat: They learned that from the case of the suspected wife. Rebbi Yose said, the suspected wife is different because of its novelty and one cannot infer from anything that is different because of its novelty. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya understood it from the following: “This is the teaching about the flour offering, present.” Where is the weave? It already preceded. Rebbi Yose said, explain it about flour offerings that do not need weaves; you cannot infer anything. Which [verse] says anything? “You shall bring,” to include the ‘Omer flour offering in presentations. “He shall present,” to include the suspected wife’s flour offering in presentations. It is written after that: “He shall lift a fist full”; where is the weave? It already preceded.

Rebbi Joḥanan explained the Mishnah: If somebody is forbidden any profit from another person by a vow made before the Sabbatical year, he cannot enter that person’s field nor can he eat from the overhang. In the Sabbatical year, he can enter his field and eat of the fruits. If he vowed during the Sabbatical year, he enters and eats. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish explains the Mishnah: If somebody is forbidden any profit from another person by a vow made before the Sabbatical year, he cannot enter that person’s field nor can he eat of its fruits. If he made the vow in the Sabbatical year, he cannot enter his field but he can eat of the fruits. If he vowed not to eat from the other before the Sabbatical year, he can enter his field but he cannot eat of its fruits. If he made the vow during the Sabbatical year he enters and eats. That statement of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish follows Rebbi Yose, for Rebbi Yose said, for his vow preceded his abandoning, his abandoning his vow. Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Abba bar Ḥiyya, in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi Yose agrees that he is permitted in the case of biblical abandoning.

“This one can come and eat, but Rebbi Yose forbids.” What is Rebbi Yose’s reason? Because his vow preceded his abandonment. Therefore, not if his abandonment preceded his vow. They asked before Rebbi Yose: What is the difference if his vow preceded his abandonment? He said to them, it did not occur to him to forbid what he abandoned. Rebbi Jonah said, so they asked before him: That means, not if it applies to a single person? But did we not state: “This one can come and eat, but Rebbi Yose forbids”? He said to them, it did not occur to him to forbid what he abandoned. Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya, in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Joṣadaq: If somebody abandons his field to ten persons he cannot retract. Rebbi Yose said, that follows Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Mana asked: When you said, “to three,” [did you not mean] “in the presence of three”? Instead of asking about Rebbi Meïr, ask about Rebbi Yose! When you said, “to ten,” [did you not mean] “in the presence of ten”? He said to him, if he abandoned it before two persons, he can retract and it remains subject to tithes. If he abandoned it before three persons, he cannot retract and it is free from tithes.

“This one can come and eat, but Rebbi Yose forbids.” What is Rebbi Yose’s reason? Because his vow preceded his abandonment. Therefore, not if his abandonment preceded his vow. They asked before Rebbi Yose: What is the difference if his vow preceded his abandonment? He said to them, it did not occur to him to forbid what he abandoned. Rebbi Jonah said, so they asked before him: That means, not if it applies to a single person? But did we not state: “This one can come and eat, but Rebbi Yose forbids”? He said to them, it did not occur to him to forbid what he abandoned. Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya, in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Joṣadaq: If somebody abandons his field to ten persons he cannot retract. Rebbi Yose said, that follows Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Mana asked: When you said, “to three,” [did you not mean] “in the presence of three”? Instead of asking about Rebbi Meïr, ask about Rebbi Yose! When you said, “to ten,” [did you not mean] “in the presence of ten”? He said to him, if he abandoned it before two persons, he can retract and it remains subject to tithes. If he abandoned it before three persons, he cannot retract and it is free from tithes.

“This one can come and eat, but Rebbi Yose forbids.” What is Rebbi Yose’s reason? Because his vow preceded his abandonment. Therefore, not if his abandonment preceded his vow. They asked before Rebbi Yose: What is the difference if his vow preceded his abandonment? He said to them, it did not occur to him to forbid what he abandoned. Rebbi Jonah said, so they asked before him: That means, not if it applies to a single person? But did we not state: “This one can come and eat, but Rebbi Yose forbids”? He said to them, it did not occur to him to forbid what he abandoned. Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya, in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Joṣadaq: If somebody abandons his field to ten persons he cannot retract. Rebbi Yose said, that follows Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Mana asked: When you said, “to three,” [did you not mean] “in the presence of three”? Instead of asking about Rebbi Meïr, ask about Rebbi Yose! When you said, “to ten,” [did you not mean] “in the presence of ten”? He said to him, if he abandoned it before two persons, he can retract and it remains subject to tithes. If he abandoned it before three persons, he cannot retract and it is free from tithes.

Rav Ḥisda said, [the Mishnah] implies that it is permitted to remove a corpse of obligation. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, explain it if the burial was unauthorized or subject to question. Should one not be afraid that it might be a corpse of obligation? Rebbi Ze‘ira thinks that corpses of obligation are infrequent. “It turns out that there are three kinds of burials. A grave which is found one removes; after removal the place is impure and forbidden for use. A known grave may not be removed; but if it was removed the place is pure and permitted for use. A grave which endangers the public is removed; after removal the place is impure and forbidden for use.” Rebbi Abba bar Cohen instructed in Kefar Aqabia that its place is permitted for use. Does he disagree? There if it preceded the village, here if the village preceded it. It was stated: “A grave surrounded by a village on three sides can be removed,” on two sides, some Tannaïm state that one removes it, some state that one may not remove it. Rav Ḥisda said, he who says that one removes it, if it is within slightly more than 70 cubits. He who says that one does not remove it, if it is outside slightly more than 70 cubits. He who says that one removes it, if [the village] is built in the form of a Γ. He who says that one does not remove it, if [the village] is built in the form of a ה. “All kinds of graves may be removed except the graves of a king or a prophet. They said to him, were not the graves of David’s sons removed but the graves of the sons of Ḥulda were in Jerusalem and nobody ever touched them to remove them. Rebbi Aqiba told them, is that a proof? A duct was there and the impurity exited from there horizontally into the Qidron valley.”

Rav Ḥisda said, [the Mishnah] implies that it is permitted to remove a corpse of obligation. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, explain it if the burial was unauthorized or subject to question. Should one not be afraid that it might be a corpse of obligation? Rebbi Ze‘ira thinks that corpses of obligation are infrequent. “It turns out that there are three kinds of burials. A grave which is found one removes; after removal the place is impure and forbidden for use. A known grave may not be removed; but if it was removed the place is pure and permitted for use. A grave which endangers the public is removed; after removal the place is impure and forbidden for use.” Rebbi Abba bar Cohen instructed in Kefar Aqabia that its place is permitted for use. Does he disagree? There if it preceded the village, here if the village preceded it. It was stated: “A grave surrounded by a village on three sides can be removed,” on two sides, some Tannaïm state that one removes it, some state that one may not remove it. Rav Ḥisda said, he who says that one removes it, if it is within slightly more than 70 cubits. He who says that one does not remove it, if it is outside slightly more than 70 cubits. He who says that one removes it, if [the village] is built in the form of a Γ. He who says that one does not remove it, if [the village] is built in the form of a ה. “All kinds of graves may be removed except the graves of a king or a prophet. They said to him, were not the graves of David’s sons removed but the graves of the sons of Ḥulda were in Jerusalem and nobody ever touched them to remove them. Rebbi Aqiba told them, is that a proof? A duct was there and the impurity exited from there horizontally into the Qidron valley.”

If [Reuben] robbed a field from Simeon and sold it to Levi, then Simeon came and foreclosed it from Levi; then Levi collects from Reuben’s encumbered property and Simeon collects the usufruct from Levi’s free property. If Levi in the meantime improved [the property], Levi collects the capital from Reuben’s encumbered property and the improvement from Simeon’s free property. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan said, only if a third party’s buying preceded the improvement by this one. But if the improvement by this one preceded a third party’s buying, Levi can collect the capital even from Simeon’s encumbered property. Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan said: With usufruct one proceeds in the same way. If he spent four denars and the improvement is worth six, Levi collects four denars from Reuben’s encumbered property and another two from Simeon’s free property. Rebbi Abin in the name of the rabbis there: Since he did not enter with permission, his hand is weak against Simeon. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of the rabbis there: Since he entered with permission, his hand is strong against Reuben.

If [Reuben] robbed a field from Simeon and sold it to Levi, then Simeon came and foreclosed it from Levi; then Levi collects from Reuben’s encumbered property and Simeon collects the usufruct from Levi’s free property. If Levi in the meantime improved [the property], Levi collects the capital from Reuben’s encumbered property and the improvement from Simeon’s free property. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan said, only if a third party’s buying preceded the improvement by this one. But if the improvement by this one preceded a third party’s buying, Levi can collect the capital even from Simeon’s encumbered property. Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan said: With usufruct one proceeds in the same way. If he spent four denars and the improvement is worth six, Levi collects four denars from Reuben’s encumbered property and another two from Simeon’s free property. Rebbi Abin in the name of the rabbis there: Since he did not enter with permission, his hand is weak against Simeon. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of the rabbis there: Since he entered with permission, his hand is strong against Reuben.

MISHNAH: “This is your bill of divorce if I should not return within twelve months,” if he died within the twelve months it is no bill of divorce. “This is your bill of divorce from today if I should not return within twelve months,” if he died within the twelve months it is a bill of divorce. “If I should not return within twelve months from today write a bill of divorce and deliver to my wife;” if they wrote a bill of divorce within twelve months and delivered it within twelve months, it is no bill of divorce. “Write a bill of divorce and deliver to my wife if I should not return within twelve months from today;” if they wrote a bill of divorce within twelve months and delivered it after twelve months, it is no bill of divorce; Rebbi Yose says, this is an example of a bill of divorce. If they wrote after twelve months and delivered after twelve months but he had died, if the bill of divorce preceded the death it is a bill of divorce but if the death preceded the bill of divorce it is no bill of divorce. If it is not known, it is a case where they say, she is divorced and not divorced.

MISHNAH: “This is your bill of divorce if I should not return within twelve months,” if he died within the twelve months it is no bill of divorce. “This is your bill of divorce from today if I should not return within twelve months,” if he died within the twelve months it is a bill of divorce. “If I should not return within twelve months from today write a bill of divorce and deliver to my wife;” if they wrote a bill of divorce within twelve months and delivered it within twelve months, it is no bill of divorce. “Write a bill of divorce and deliver to my wife if I should not return within twelve months from today;” if they wrote a bill of divorce within twelve months and delivered it after twelve months, it is no bill of divorce; Rebbi Yose says, this is an example of a bill of divorce. If they wrote after twelve months and delivered after twelve months but he had died, if the bill of divorce preceded the death it is a bill of divorce but if the death preceded the bill of divorce it is no bill of divorce. If it is not known, it is a case where they say, she is divorced and not divorced.

A person sold his entire house; he reserved for himself one stone bench where he went and sat. The case came before Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose. They said, it is not in your power to go and sit there and observe who comes and goes in his house. A person sold half his house; he reserved a bake shop for himself. The case came before Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose. They said, you are coming to him; he is not coming to you, as it is stated: “If the barn or the store preceded the storage room, he cannot object.”

Somebody became impure through a corpse and knew it; by a crawling animal and did not know it. The minor impurity is not mentioned with the severe impurity. Somebody became impure through a corpse and did not know it; by a crawling animal and did not know it. Then it became known to him about the crawling animal, and after that it became known to him about the corpse. Since it first became known to him about the crawling animal, is there minor impurity together with the severe one, or since the impurity of the corpse preceded, should the impurity of the crawling animal and the knowledge about it be pushed aside so that the minor impurity not be mentioned with the severe impurity? Somebody became impure through a corpse and knew it; by a crawling animal and did not know it, and entered the Sanctuary. When he was oblivious of the corpse he is liable; when he was oblivious of the crawling animal he is not liable. If he went to immerse himself for the severe impurity and the minor impurity was additional, it is counted also for the minor impurity. In which respect? If he immersed himself and then entered the Sanctuary he is not liable.

MISHNAH: “I am putting an oath on you that you should come and testify for me that Mr. X promised to give me 200 zuz but did not give them to me.” These are not liable since one is liable only for an (oath about) money similar to a deposit. “I am putting an oath on you, that you shall come and testify for me when you know testimony for me.” These are not liable since the oath preceded the testimony. If he stood in the synagogue and said, “I am putting an oath on you, that you shall come and testify for me if you know testimony for me.” These are not liable.

HALAKHAH: “If he said to two persons, I am putting an oath on you,” etc. Rebbi Mana understood it from the following, “or one of them was a relative or disqualified.” Therefore, unless one of them was a relative or disqualified, they are liable. And he knows who they are. Therefore the reason can only be that he does not intend them. Rebbi Yose understood it from the preceding, “since the oath preceded the testimony.” Therefore, if the oath did not precede the testimony, they are liable. And he knows who they are. Therefore the reason can only be that he does not intend them.

“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.

HALAKHAH: “Anything which is more frequent than another,” etc. [“If the bull of the Anointed and the bull of the community are standing, the Anointed’s bull precedes the community’s bull”,] for one is atoning, the other is being atoned for. It is preferable that the atoner precede the atoned for, as it is written, he shall atone for himself, and for his house, and for all the congregation of Israel. Between a voluntary gift of the Anointed and a voluntary gift of the prince, the voluntary gift of the Anointed has precedence. Between a voluntary gift of the community and a voluntary gift of the prince, the voluntary gift of the prince has precedence. Between a voluntary gift of the Anointed and a voluntary gift of the community, which one has precedence? Let us hear from the following: A voluntary gift of the Anointed and rams of idolatry were standing. The rams of idolatry have precedence since their blood enters inside. He only said “since their blood enters inside;” this implies that between a voluntary gift of the Anointed and a voluntary gift of the community, the voluntary gift of the Anointed has precedence. If there were standing the bull of idolatry, the ram which accompanies it, and another purification sacrifice. The bull precedes the ram, the ram precedes the other purification sacrifice, and the other purification sacrifice precedes the bull. How is this done? Rebbi Yose said, since the ram is dependent in time on the bull, it is as if the bull preceded it, and the other purification sacrifice precedes the bull. The bull of idolatry precedes the ram because it precedes in Scripture. Rebbi Samuel the brother of Rebbi Berekhiah asked: But then that of the New Moon should precede the ram which comes with it because it precedes [in Scripture.] Rebbi Abba Mari said, you cannot do this; its purification sacrifice is defective: After the permanent elevation offering it shall be made, with its libation; it made it lean on the permanent elevation offering. Between the sacrifice of a man and the sacrifice of a woman, the man’s sacrifice has precedence. That is, if both were equal. But if one was a bull and the other a lamb, it is what Rebbi Phineas said in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: A slave brings a bull and his master brings a bull, the slave’s precedes the master’s, as we have stated there: “If the bull of the Anointed and the bull of the community are standing, the Anointed’s bull precedes the community’s bull in all its ceremonies.”

If this be so, in the sequel where he teaches : In the morning [the reading of the Shema'] is preceded by two benedictions and followed by one; in the evening it is preceded by two and followed by two, let him likewise treat of the evening first !

If this be so, in the sequel where he teaches : In the morning [the reading of the Shema'] is preceded by two benedictions and followed by one; in the evening it is preceded by two and followed by two, let him likewise treat of the evening first !

Mar b. Rabina quoted in objection : In the evening [the reading of the Shema'] is both preceded and followed by two benedictions. If, then, thou sayest that the Ge'ullah must be joined to the Tefillah, behold that condition is not fulfilled because one is required to say the prayer "Cause us, O Lord our God, to lie down!

MISHNAH IV In the morning [the reading of the Shema'] is preceded by two benedictions and followed by one ; in the evening it is preceded by two and followed by two, one long and one short. Where [the Rabbis] order to say a long benediction, it is not permissible to say a short one ;

MISHNAH IV In the morning [the reading of the Shema'] is preceded by two benedictions and followed by one ; in the evening it is preceded by two and followed by two, one long and one short. Where [the Rabbis] order to say a long benediction, it is not permissible to say a short one ;

If thou wilt I can say [that this controversy] preceded the Bat Kol ; or if thou wilt I can say it followed after the Bat Kol,

But why have you seen fit to include the last night of the Festival and to exclude the first night? I include the last night since it is preceded by rejoicing and exclude the first night which is not preceded by rejoicing.

But why have you seen fit to include the last night of the Festival and to exclude the first night? I include the last night since it is preceded by rejoicing and exclude the first night which is not preceded by rejoicing.

What is the reason of R. Judah? — Scripture says, “And you shall sound (utekatem) a teruah,” (Numbers 10:5) showing that the How is this so? tekiah and the teruah are regarded as one. What then is the reason of the Rabbis? — That verse is required to teach that the Teru'ah must be preceded and followed by a sustained blast. (From Where does R. Judah deduce the necessity for a sustained blast preceding and following the Teru'ah? — He deduces it from the expression, a second time (Numbers 6:6).

R. Ḥiyya and R. Simeon b. Rabbi disagree with regard to this matter. One reads yēsar (he bound himself by a vow), the other reads yĕ'ĕsar (is forbidden). If we read yēsar we must understand it in the way we explained it above, but if we read yĕ'ĕsar, we must understand it in accordance with the following Baraita: "'People for whom the time of fasting has arrived because of previous resolutions are required to fast only in case they bound themselves by a vow during prayer.' This means that if an individual has taken upon himself to fast on Mondays and Thursdays of the whole year, and it happens that those days conflict with some of the holidays recorded in the Scroll of Fasts, the following rule is to be observed. If his vow preceded our proclamation of the holidays, our proclamation must be disregarded on account of his vow, but if our proclamation preceded his vow, his vow must be disregarded on account of our proclamation."

R. Ḥiyya and R. Simeon b. Rabbi disagree with regard to this matter. One reads yēsar (he bound himself by a vow), the other reads yĕ'ĕsar (is forbidden). If we read yēsar we must understand it in the way we explained it above, but if we read yĕ'ĕsar, we must understand it in accordance with the following Baraita: "'People for whom the time of fasting has arrived because of previous resolutions are required to fast only in case they bound themselves by a vow during prayer.' This means that if an individual has taken upon himself to fast on Mondays and Thursdays of the whole year, and it happens that those days conflict with some of the holidays recorded in the Scroll of Fasts, the following rule is to be observed. If his vow preceded our proclamation of the holidays, our proclamation must be disregarded on account of his vow, but if our proclamation preceded his vow, his vow must be disregarded on account of our proclamation."

And why do I find the expression, v'eth ha-aretz? To shew that the heaven preceded the earth. "And the earth was chaos and desolation" (Gen. i. 2). Assuredly He began with heaven at first. What reason then was there for His considering the affairs of the earth? The house of R. Ishmael teaches thus, He is like a king of flesh and blood, who saith to his servants, Rise up early and come to my door. He himself rises early, and finds women and men. Whom does he praise? Him who was under no obligation to rise early, yet did rise early.

Rabba bar bar Channa said in the name of Rebbi Yochanon, Any negative prohibition preceded by a positive commandment, [Lo saseh sh'kadmu asheh] is subject to malkus.

They asked him [Rebbi Yochanon] Did you say this? [that any prohibition preceded by a positive commandment is subject to flogging i.e. a lo saseah s'kedmu asseah]... He responded to them, No. [I retract what I said.] Rabbah said, By God! He said it. And it is backed by a posuk [verse] and a mishnah. It is written (Numbers 5,2) "And they shall send forth from the camp. etc. And they shall not defile their camps" [which is a lo saseah s'kedmu asseah] and it was taught in a mishna "One who enters the temple whilst impure [receives lashes].