refers

Having made these declarations regarding the unity of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, let us return to the order in which we began the discussion. God the Father bestows upon all, existence; and participation in Christ, in respect of His being the word of reason, renders them rational beings. From which it follows that they are deserving either of praise or blame, because capable of virtue and vice. On this account, therefore, is the grace of the Holy Ghost present, that those beings which are not holy in their essence may be rendered holy by participating in it. Seeing, then, that firstly, they derive their existence from God the Father; secondly, their rational nature from the Word; thirdly, their holiness from the Holy Spirit,—those who have been previously sanctified by the Holy Spirit are again made capable of receiving Christ, in respect that He is the righteousness of God; and those who have earned advancement to this grade by the sanctification of the Holy Spirit, will nevertheless obtain the gift of wisdom according to the power and working of the Spirit of God. And this I consider is Paul’s meaning, when he says that to “some is given the word of wisdom, to others the word of knowledge, according to the same Spirit.” And while pointing out the individual distinction of gifts, he refers the whole of them to the source of all things in the words, “There are diversities of operations, but one God who worketh all in all.” Whence also the working of the Father, which confers existence upon all things, is found to be more glorious and magnificent, while each one, by participation in Christ, as being wisdom, and knowledge, and sanctification, makes progress, and advances to higher degrees of perfection; and seeing it is by partaking of the Holy Spirit that any one is made purer and holier, he obtains, when he is made worthy, the grace of wisdom and knowledge, in order that, after all stains of pollution and ignorance are cleansed and taken away, he may make so great an advance in holiness and purity, that the nature which he received from God may become such as is worthy of Him who gave it to be pure and perfect, so that the being which exists may be as worthy as He who called it into existence. For, in this way, he who is such as his Creator wished him to be, will receive from God power always to exist, and to abide for ever. That this may be the case, and that those whom He has created may be unceasingly and inseparably present with Him, who IS, it is the business of wisdom to instruct and train them, and to bring them to perfection by confirmation of His Holy Spirit and unceasing sanctification, by which alone are they capable of receiving God. In this way, then, by the renewal of the ceaseless working of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in us, in its various stages of progress, shall we be able at some future time perhaps, although with difficulty, to behold the holy and the blessed life, in which (as it is only after many struggles that we are able to reach it) we ought so to continue, that no satiety of that blessedness should ever seize us; but the more we perceive its blessedness, the more should be increased and intensified within us the longing for the same, while we ever more eagerly and freely receive and hold fast the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. But if satiety should ever take hold of any one of those who stand on the highest and perfect summit of attainment, I do not think that such an one would suddenly be deposed from his position and fall away, but that he must decline gradually and little by little, so that it may sometimes happen that if a brief lapsus take place, and the individual quickly repent and return to himself, he may not utterly fall away, but may retrace his steps, and return to his former place, and again make good that which had been lost by his negligence.

But that we may not appear to build our assertions on subjects of such importance and difficulty on the ground of inference alone, or to require the assent of our hearers to what is only conjectural, let us see whether we can obtain any declarations from holy Scripture, by the authority of which these positions may be more credibly maintained. And, firstly, we shall adduce what holy Scripture contains regarding wicked powers; we shall next continue our investigation with regard to the others, as the Lord shall be pleased to enlighten us, that in matters of such difficulty we may ascertain what is nearest to the truth, or what ought to be our opinions agreeably to the standard of religion. Now we find in the prophet Ezekiel two prophecies written to the prince of Tyre, the former of which might appear to any one, before he heard the second also, to be spoken of some man who was prince of the Tyrians. In the meantime, therefore, we shall take nothing from that first prophecy; but as the second is manifestly of such a kind as cannot be at all understood of a man, but of some superior power which had fallen away from a higher position, and had been reduced to a lower and worse condition, we shall from it take an illustration, by which it may be demonstrated with the utmost clearness, that those opposing and malignant powers were not formed or created so by nature, but fell from a better to a worse position, and were converted into wicked beings; that those blessed powers also were not of such a nature as to be unable to admit what was opposed to them if they were so inclined and became negligent, and did not guard most carefully the blessedness of their condition. For if it is related that he who is called the prince of Tyre was amongst the saints, and was without stain, and was placed in the paradise of God, and adorned also with a crown of comeliness and beauty, is it to be supposed that such an one could be in any degree inferior to any of the saints? For he is described as having been adorned with a crown of comeliness and beauty, and as having walked stainless in the paradise of God: and how can any one suppose that such a being was not one of those holy and blessed powers which, as being placed in a state of happiness, we must believe to be endowed with no other honour than this? But let us see what we are taught by the words of the prophecy themselves. “The word of the Lord,” says the prophet, “came to me, saying, Son of man, take up a lamentation over the prince of Tyre, and say to him, Thus saith the Lord God, Thou hast been the seal of a similitude, and a crown of comeliness among the delights of paradise; thou wert adorned with every good stone or gem, and wert clothed with sardonyx, and topaz, and emerald, and carbuncle, and sapphire, and jasper, set in gold and silver, and with agate, amethyst, and chrysolite, and beryl, and onyx: with gold also didst thou fill thy treasures, and thy storehouses within thee. From the day when thou wert created along with the cherubim, I placed thee in the holy mount of God. Thou wert in the midst of the fiery stones: thou wert stainless in thy days, from the day when thou wert created, until iniquities were found in thee: from the greatness of thy trade, thou didst fill thy storehouses with iniquity, and didst sin, and wert wounded from the mount of God. And a cherub drove thee forth from the midst of the burning stones; and thy heart was elated because of thy comeliness, thy discipline was corrupted along with thy beauty: on account of the multitude of thy sins, I cast thee forth to the earth before kings; I gave thee for a show and a mockery on account of the multitude of thy sins, and of thine iniquities: because of thy trade thou hast polluted thy holy places. And I shall bring forth fire from the midst of thee, and it shall devour thee, and I shall give thee for ashes and cinders on the earth in the sight of all who see thee: and all who know thee among the nations shall mourn over thee. Thou hast been made destruction, and thou shalt exist no longer for ever.” Seeing, then, that such are the words of the prophet, who is there that on hearing, “Thou wert a seal of a similitude, and a crown of comeliness among the delights of paradise,” or that “From the day when thou wert created with the cherubim, I placed thee in the holy mount of God,” can so enfeeble the meaning as to suppose that this language is used of some man or saint, not to say the prince of Tyre? Or what fiery stones can he imagine in the midst of which any man could live? Or who could be supposed to be stainless from the very day of his creation, and wickedness being afterwards discovered in him, it be said of him then that he was cast forth upon the earth? For the meaning of this is, that He who was not yet on the earth is said to be cast forth upon it: whose holy places also are said to be polluted. We have shown, then, that what we have quoted regarding the prince of Tyre from the prophet Ezekiel refers to an adverse power, and by it it is most clearly proved that that power was formerly holy and happy; from which state of happiness it fell from the time that iniquity was found in it, and was hurled to the earth, and was not such by nature and creation. We are of opinion, therefore, that these words are spoken of a certain angel who had received the office of governing the nation of the Tyrians, and to whom also their souls had been entrusted to be taken care of. But what Tyre, or what souls of Tyrians, we ought to understand, whether that Tyre which is situated within the boundaries of the province of Phœnicia, or some other of which this one which we know on earth is the model; and the souls of the Tyrians, whether they are those of the former or those which belong to that Tyre which is spiritually understood, does not seem to be a matter requiring examination in this place; lest perhaps we should appear to investigate subjects of so much mystery and importance in a cursory manner, whereas they demand a labour and work of their own.

But since the apostle in one place does not pretend that the becoming of a vessel unto honour or dishonour depends upon God, but refers back the whole to ourselves, saying, “If, then, a man purge himself, he will be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, meet for the Master’s use, and prepared unto every good work;” and elsewhere does not even pretend that it is dependent upon ourselves, but appears to attribute the whole to God, saying, “The potter hath power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour and another to dishonour;” and as his statements are not contradictory, we must reconcile them, and extract one complete statement from both. Neither does our own power, apart from the knowledge of God, compel us to make progress; nor does the knowledge of God [do so], unless we ourselves also contribute something to the good result; nor does our own power, apart from the knowledge of God, and the use of the power that worthily belongs to us, make a man become [a vessel] unto honour or dishonour; nor does the will of God alone form a man to honour or dishonour, unless He hold our will to be a kind of matter that admits of variation, and that inclines to a better or worse course of conduct. And these observations are sufficient to have been made by us on the subject of free-will.

What, then, are we to say of this, which the prophets had beforehand foretold of Him, that princes would not cease from Judah, nor leaders from between his thighs, until He should come for whom it has been reserved (viz. the kingdom), and until the expectation of the Gentiles should come? For it is most distinctly evident from the history itself, from what is clearly seen at the present day, that from the times of Christ onwards there were no kings amongst the Jews. Nay, even all those objects of Jewish pride, of which they vaunted so much, and in which they exulted, whether regarding the beauty of the temple or the ornaments of the altar, and all those sacerdotal fillets and robes of the high priests, were all destroyed together. For the prophecy was fulfilled which had declared, “For the children of Israel shall abide many days without king and prince: there shall be no victim, nor altar, nor priesthood, nor answers.” These testimonies, accordingly, we employ against those who seem to assert that what is spoken in Genesis by Jacob refers to Judah; and who say that there still remains a prince of the race of Judah—he, viz., who is the prince of their nation, whom they style Patriarch—and that there cannot fail [a ruler] of his seed, who will remain until the advent of that Christ whom they picture to themselves. But if the prophet’s words be true, when he says, “The children of Israel shall abide many days without king, without prince; and there shall be no victim, nor altar, nor priesthood;” and if, certainly, since the overthrow of the temple, victims are neither offered, nor any altar found, nor any priesthood exists, it is most certain that, as it is written, princes have departed from Judah, and a leader from between his thighs, until the coming of him for whom it has been reserved. It is established, then, that he is come for whom it has been reserved, and in whom is the expectation of the Gentiles. And this manifestly seems to be fulfilled in the multitude of those who have believed on God through Christ out of the different nations.

Now, if the statements made to us regarding Israel, and its tribes and its families, are calculated to impress us, when the Saviour says, “I was not sent but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel,” we do not understand the expression as the Ebionites do, who are poor in understanding (deriving their name from the poverty of their intellect—Ebion signifying “poor” in Hebrew), so as to suppose that the Saviour came specially to the “carnal” Israelites; for “they who are the children of the flesh are not the children of God.” Again, the apostle teaches regarding Jerusalem as follows: “The Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.” And in another epistle: “But ye are come unto mount Zion, and to the city of the living God, to the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, to the general assembly and to the church of the first-born which are written in heaven.” If, then, Israel is among the race of souls, and if there is in heaven a city of Jerusalem, it follows that the cities of Israel have for their metropolis the heavenly Jerusalem, and it consequently is the metropolis of all Judea. Whatever, therefore, is predicted of Jerusalem, and spoken of it, if we listen to the words of Paul as those of God, and of one who utters wisdom, we must understand the Scriptures as speaking of the heavenly city, and of the whole territory included within the cities of the holy land. For perhaps it is to these cities that the Saviour refers us, when to those who have gained credit by having managed their “pounds” well, He assigns the presidency over five or ten cities. If, therefore, the prophecies relating to Judea, and Jerusalem, and Israel, and Judah, and Jacob, not being understood by us in a “carnal” sense, indicate some such mysteries [as already mentioned], it will follow also that the predictions concerning Egypt and the Egyptians, Babylon and the Babylonians, Tyre and the Tyrians, Sidon and the Sidonians, or the other nations, are spoken not only of these “bodily” Egyptians, and Babylonians, and Tyrians, and Sidonians, but also of their “spiritual” [counterparts]. For if there be “spiritual” Israelites, it follows that there are also “spiritual” Egyptians and Babylonians. For what is related in Ezekiel concerning Pharaoh king of Egypt does not at all apply to the case of a certain man who ruled or was said to rule over Egypt, as will be evident to those who give it careful consideration. Similarly, what is said about the ruler of Tyre cannot be understood of a certain man who ruled over Tyre. And what is said in many places, and especially in Isaiah, of Nebuchadnezzar, cannot be explained of that individual. For the man Nebuchadnezzar neither fell from heaven, nor was he the morning star, nor did he arise upon the earth in the morning. Nor would any man of understanding interpret what is said in Ezekiel about Egypt—viz. that in forty years it should be laid desolate, so that the footstep of man should not be found thereon, and that the ravages of war should be so great that the blood should run throughout the whole of it, and rise to the knees—of that Egypt which is situated beside the Ethiopians whose bodies are blackened by the sun.

But probably to this you will say, Why then is the “History” not in their Daniel, if, as you say, their wise men hand down by tradition such stories? The answer is, that they hid from the knowledge of the people as many of the passages which contained any scandal against the elders, rulers, and judges, as they could, some of which have been preserved in uncanonical writings (Apocrypha). As an example, take the story told about Esaias, and guaranteed by the Epistle to the Hebrews, which is found in none of their public books. For the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, in speaking of the prophets, and what they suffered, says, “They were stoned, they were sawn asunder, they were slain with the sword.” To whom, I ask, does the “sawn asunder” refer (for by an old idiom, not peculiar to Hebrew, but found also in Greek, this is said in the plural, although it refers to but one person)? Now we know very well that tradition says that Esaias the prophet was sawn asunder; and this is found in some apocryphal work, which probably the Jews have purposely tampered with, introducing some phrases manifestly incorrect, that discredit might be thrown on the whole. However, some one hard pressed by this argument may have recourse to the opinion of those who reject this epistle as not being Paul’s; against whom I must at some other time use other arguments to prove that it is Paul’s. At present I shall adduce from the Gospel what Jesus Christ testifies concerning the prophets, together with a story which He refers to, but which is not found in the Old Testament, since in it also there is a scandal against unjust judges in Israel. The words of our Saviour run thus: “Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous, and say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets. Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets. Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers. Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of Gehenna? Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes; and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city: that upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar. Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.” And what follows is of the same tenor: “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.” Let us see now if in these cases we are not forced to the conclusion, that while the Saviour gives a true account of them, none of the Scriptures which could prove what He tells are to be found. For they who build the tombs of the prophets and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous, condemning the crimes their fathers committed against the righteous and the prophets, say, “If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.” In the blood of what prophets, can any one tell me? For where do we find anything like this written of Esaias, or Jeremias, or any of the twelve, or Daniel? Then about Zacharias the son of Barachias, who was slain between the temple and the altar, we learn from Jesus only, not knowing it otherwise from any Scripture. Wherefore I think no other supposition is possible, than that they who had the reputation of wisdom, and the rulers and elders, took away from the people every passage which might bring them into discredit among the people. We need not wonder, then, if this history of the evil device of the licentious elders against Susanna is true, but was concealed and removed from the Scriptures by men themselves not very far removed from the counsel of these elders. In the Acts of the Apostles also, Stephen, in his other testimony, says, “Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? And they have slain them which showed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers.” That Stephen speaks the truth, every one will admit who receives the Acts of the Apostles; but it is impossible to show from the extant books of the Old Testament how with any justice he throws the blame of having persecuted and slain the prophets on the fathers of those who believed not in Christ. And Paul, in the first Epistle to the Thessalonians, testifies this concerning the Jews: “For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which in Judea are in Christ Jesus: for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews; who both killed the Lord Jesus and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men.” What I have said is, I think, sufficient to prove that it would be nothing wonderful if this history were true, and the licentious and cruel attack was actually made on Susanna by those who were at that time elders, and written down by the wisdom of the Spirit, but removed by these rulers of Sodom, as the Spirit would call them.

But probably to this you will say, Why then is the “History” not in their Daniel, if, as you say, their wise men hand down by tradition such stories? The answer is, that they hid from the knowledge of the people as many of the passages which contained any scandal against the elders, rulers, and judges, as they could, some of which have been preserved in uncanonical writings (Apocrypha). As an example, take the story told about Esaias, and guaranteed by the Epistle to the Hebrews, which is found in none of their public books. For the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, in speaking of the prophets, and what they suffered, says, “They were stoned, they were sawn asunder, they were slain with the sword.” To whom, I ask, does the “sawn asunder” refer (for by an old idiom, not peculiar to Hebrew, but found also in Greek, this is said in the plural, although it refers to but one person)? Now we know very well that tradition says that Esaias the prophet was sawn asunder; and this is found in some apocryphal work, which probably the Jews have purposely tampered with, introducing some phrases manifestly incorrect, that discredit might be thrown on the whole. However, some one hard pressed by this argument may have recourse to the opinion of those who reject this epistle as not being Paul’s; against whom I must at some other time use other arguments to prove that it is Paul’s. At present I shall adduce from the Gospel what Jesus Christ testifies concerning the prophets, together with a story which He refers to, but which is not found in the Old Testament, since in it also there is a scandal against unjust judges in Israel. The words of our Saviour run thus: “Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous, and say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets. Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets. Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers. Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of Gehenna? Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes; and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city: that upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar. Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.” And what follows is of the same tenor: “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.” Let us see now if in these cases we are not forced to the conclusion, that while the Saviour gives a true account of them, none of the Scriptures which could prove what He tells are to be found. For they who build the tombs of the prophets and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous, condemning the crimes their fathers committed against the righteous and the prophets, say, “If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.” In the blood of what prophets, can any one tell me? For where do we find anything like this written of Esaias, or Jeremias, or any of the twelve, or Daniel? Then about Zacharias the son of Barachias, who was slain between the temple and the altar, we learn from Jesus only, not knowing it otherwise from any Scripture. Wherefore I think no other supposition is possible, than that they who had the reputation of wisdom, and the rulers and elders, took away from the people every passage which might bring them into discredit among the people. We need not wonder, then, if this history of the evil device of the licentious elders against Susanna is true, but was concealed and removed from the Scriptures by men themselves not very far removed from the counsel of these elders. In the Acts of the Apostles also, Stephen, in his other testimony, says, “Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? And they have slain them which showed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers.” That Stephen speaks the truth, every one will admit who receives the Acts of the Apostles; but it is impossible to show from the extant books of the Old Testament how with any justice he throws the blame of having persecuted and slain the prophets on the fathers of those who believed not in Christ. And Paul, in the first Epistle to the Thessalonians, testifies this concerning the Jews: “For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which in Judea are in Christ Jesus: for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews; who both killed the Lord Jesus and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men.” What I have said is, I think, sufficient to prove that it would be nothing wonderful if this history were true, and the licentious and cruel attack was actually made on Susanna by those who were at that time elders, and written down by the wisdom of the Spirit, but removed by these rulers of Sodom, as the Spirit would call them.

After this he continues: “These herdsmen and shepherds concluded that there was but one God, named either the Highest, or Adonai, or the Heavenly, or Sabaoth, or called by some other of those names which they delight to give this world; and they knew nothing beyond that.” And in a subsequent part of his work he says, that “It makes no difference whether the God who is over all things be called by the name of Zeus, which is current among the Greeks, or by that, e.g., which is in use among the Indians or Egyptians.” Now, in answer to this, we have to remark that this involves a deep and mysterious subject—that, viz., respecting the nature of names: it being a question whether, as Aristotle thinks, names were bestowed by arrangement, or, as the Stoics hold, by nature; the first words being imitations of things, agreeably to which the names were formed, and in conformity with which they introduce certain principles of etymology; or whether, as Epicurus teaches (differing in this from the Stoics), names were given by nature,—the first men having uttered certain words varying with the circumstances in which they found themselves. If, then, we shall be able to establish, in reference to the preceding statement, the nature of powerful names, some of which are used by the learned amongst the Egyptians, or by the Magi among the Persians, and by the Indian philosophers called Brahmans, or by the Samanæans, and others in different countries; and shall be able to make out that the so-called magic is not, as the followers of Epicurus and Aristotle suppose, an altogether uncertain thing, but is, as those skilled in it prove, a consistent system, having words which are known to exceedingly few; then we say that the name Sabaoth, and Adonai, and the other names treated with so much reverence among the Hebrews, are not applicable to any ordinary created things, but belong to a secret theology which refers to the Framer of all things. These names, accordingly, when pronounced with that attendant train of circumstances which is appropriate to their nature, are possessed of great power; and other names, again, current in the Egyptian tongue, are efficacious against certain demons who can only do certain things; and other names in the Persian language have corresponding power over other spirits; and so on in every individual nation, for different purposes. And thus it will be found that, of the various demons upon the earth, to whom different localities have been assigned, each one bears a name appropriate to the several dialects of place and country. He, therefore, who has a nobler idea, however small, of these matters, will be careful not to apply differing names to different things; lest he should resemble those who mistakenly apply the name of God to lifeless matter, or who drag down the title of “the Good” from the First Cause, or from virtue and excellence, and apply it to blind Plutus, and to a healthy and well-proportioned mixture of flesh and blood and bones, or to what is considered to be noble birth.

After these assertions, he takes from the Gospel of Matthew, and perhaps also from the other Gospels, the account of the dove alighting upon our Saviour at His baptism by John, and desires to throw discredit upon the statement, alleging that the narrative is a fiction. Having completely disposed, as he imagined, of the story of our Lord’s birth from a virgin, he does not proceed to deal in an orderly manner with the accounts that follow it; since passion and hatred observe no order, but angry and vindictive men slander those whom they hate, as the feeling comes upon them, being prevented by their passion from arranging their accusations on a careful and orderly plan. For if he had observed a proper arrangement, he would have taken up the Gospel, and, with the view of assailing it, would have objected to the first narrative, then passed on to the second, and so on to the others. But now, after the birth from a virgin, this Celsus, who professes to be acquainted with all our history, attacks the account of the appearance of the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove at the baptism. He then, after that, tries to throw discredit upon the prediction that our Lord was to come into the world. In the next place, he runs away to what immediately follows the narrative of the birth of Jesus—the account of the star, and of the wise men who came from the east to worship the child. And you yourself may find, if you take the trouble, many confused statements made by Celsus throughout his whole book; so that even in this account he may, by those who know how to observe and require an orderly method of arrangement, be convicted of great rashness and boasting, in having inscribed upon his work the title of A True Discourse,—a thing which is never done by a learned philosopher. For Plato says, that it is not an indication of an intelligent man to make strong assertions respecting those matters which are somewhat uncertain; and the celebrated Chrysippus even, who frequently states the reasons by which he is decided, refers us to those whom we shall find to be abler speakers than himself. This man, however, who is wiser than those already named, and than all the other Greeks, agreeably to his assertion of being acquainted with everything, inscribed upon his book the words, A True Discourse!

“But what the legends are of every kind which we gather together, or the terrors which we invent,” as Celsus without proof asserts, he who likes may show. I know not, indeed, what he means by “inventing terrors,” unless it be our doctrine of God as Judge, and of the condemnation of men for their deeds, with the various proofs derived partly from Scripture, partly from probable reason. And yet—for truth is precious—Celsus says, at the close, “Forbid that either I, or these, or any other individual should ever reject the doctrine respecting the future punishment of the wicked and the reward of the good!” What terrors, then, if you except the doctrine of punishment, do we invent and impose upon mankind? And if he should reply that “we weave together erroneous opinions drawn from ancient sources, and trumpet them aloud, and sound them before men, as the priests of Cybele clash their cymbals in the ears of those who are being initiated in their mysteries;” we shall ask him in reply, “Erroneous opinions from what ancient sources?” For, whether he refers to Grecian accounts, which taught the existence of courts of justice under the earth, or Jewish, which, among other things, predicted the life that follows the present one; he will be unable to show that we who, striving to believe on grounds of reason, regulate our lives in conformity with such doctrines, have failed correctly to ascertain the truth.

“Altogether absurd, and out of season,” he continues, “is the [account of the] begetting of children,” where, although he has mentioned no names, it is evident that he is referring to the history of Abraham and Sarah. Cavilling also at the “conspiracies of the brothers,” he alludes either to the story of Cain plotting against Abel, or, in addition, to that of Esau against Jacob; and [speaking] of “a father’s sorrow,” he probably refers to that of Isaac on account of the absence of Jacob, and perhaps also to that of Jacob because of Joseph having been sold into Egypt. And when relating the “crafty procedure of mothers,” I suppose he means the conduct of Rebecca, who contrived that the blessing of Isaac should descend, not upon Esau, but upon Jacob. Now if we assert that in all these cases God interposed in a very marked degree, what absurdity do we commit, seeing we are persuaded that He never withdraws His providence from those who devote themselves to Him in an honourable and vigorous life? He ridicules, moreover, the acquisition of property made by Jacob while living with Laban, not understanding to what these words refer: “And those which had no spots were Laban’s, and those which were spotted were Jacob’s;” and he says that “God presented his sons with asses, and sheep, and camels,” and did not see that “all these things happened unto them for ensamples, and were written for our sake, upon whom the ends of the world are come.” The varying customs [prevailing among the different nations] becoming famous, are regulated by the word of God, being given as a possession to him who is figuratively termed Jacob. For those who become converts to Christ from among the heathen, are indicated by the history of Laban and Jacob.

Celsus, moreover, sneers at the “hatred” of Esau (to which, I suppose, he refers) against Jacob, although he was a man who, according to the Scriptures, is acknowledged to have been wicked; and not clearly stating the story of Simeon and Levi, who sallied out [on the Shechemites] on account of the insult offered to their sister, who had been violated by the son of the Shechemite king, he inveighs against their conduct. And passing on, he speaks of “brothers selling [one another],” alluding to the sons of Jacob; and of “a brother sold,” Joseph to wit; and of “a father deceived,” viz. Jacob, because he entertained no suspicion of his sons when they showed him Joseph’s coat of many colours, but believed their statement, and mourned for his son, who was a slave in Egypt, as if he were dead. And observe in what a spirit of hatred and falsehood Celsus collects together the statements of the sacred history; so that wherever it appeared to him to contain a ground of accusation he produces the passage, but wherever there is any exhibition of virtue worthy of mention—as when Joseph would not gratify the lust of his mistress, refusing alike her allurements and her threats—he does not even mention the circumstance! He should see, indeed, that the conduct of Joseph was far superior to what is related of Bellerophon, since the former chose rather to be shut up in prison than do violence to his virtue. For although he might have offered a just defence against his accuser, he magnanimously remained silent, entrusting his cause to God.

I do not know what led Celsus, when saying, “But what things were spoken or not spoken in the land of Judea, according to the custom of the country,” to use the words “or not spoken,” as though implying that he was incredulous, and that he suspected that those things which were written were never spoken. In fact, he is unacquainted with these times; and he does not know that those prophets who foretold the coming of Christ, predicted a multitude of other events many years beforehand. He adds, with the view of casting a slight upon the ancient prophets, that “they prophesied in the same way as we find them still doing among the inhabitants of Phœnicia and Palestine.” But he does not tell us whether he refers to persons who are of different principles from those of the Jews and Christians, or to persons whose prophecies are of the same character as those of the Jewish prophets. However it be, his statement is false, taken in either way. For never have any of those who have not embraced our faith done anything approaching to what was done by the ancient prophets; and in more recent times, since the coming of Christ, no prophets have arisen among the Jews, who have confessedly been abandoned by the Holy Spirit on account of their impiety towards God, and towards Him of whom their prophets spoke. Moreover, the Holy Spirit gave signs of His presence at the beginning of Christ’s ministry, and after His ascension He gave still more; but since that time these signs have diminished, although there are still traces of His presence in a few who have had their souls purified by the gospel, and their actions regulated by its influence. “For the holy spirit of discipline will flee deceit, and remove from thoughts that are without understanding.”

When, then, the letter of the law promises riches to the just, Celsus may follow the letter which killeth, and understand it of worldly riches, which blind men; but we say that it refers to those riches which enlighten the eyes, and which enrich a man “in all utterance and in all knowledge.” And in this sense we “charge them that are rich in this world, that they be not high-minded, nor trust in uncertain riches, but in the living God, who giveth us richly all things to enjoy; that they do good, that they be rich in good works, ready to distribute, willing to communicate.” For, as Solomon says, “riches” are the true good, which “are the ransom of the life of a man;” but the poverty which is the opposite of these riches is destructive, for by it “the poor cannot bear rebuke.” And what has been said of riches applies to dominion, in regard to which it is said, “The just man shall chase a thousand, and two put ten thousand to flight.” Now if riches are to be taken in the sense we have just explained, consider if it is not according to God’s promise that he who is rich in all utterance, in all knowledge, in all wisdom, in all good works, may not out of these treasures of utterance, of wisdom, and of knowledge, lend to many nations. It was thus that Paul lent to all the nations that he visited, “carrying the gospel of Christ from Jerusalem, and round about unto Illyricum.” And as the divine knowledge was given to him by revelation, and his mind was illumined by the Divine Word, he himself therefore needed to borrow from no one, and required not the ministry of any man to teach him the word of truth. Thus, as it had been written, “Thou shalt have dominion over many nations, and they shall not have dominion over thee,” he ruled over the Gentiles whom he brought under the teaching of Jesus Christ; and he never “gave place by subjection to men, no, not for an hour,” as being himself mightier than they. And thus also he “filled the earth.”

After thus misrepresenting our views of the nature of God, Celsus goes on to ask of us “where we hope to go after death;” and he makes our answer to be, “to another land better than this.” On this he comments as follows: “The divine men of a former age have spoken of a happy life reserved for the souls of the blessed. Some designated it ‘the isles of the blest,’ and others ‘the Elysian plain,’ so called because they were there to be delivered from their present evils. Thus Homer says: ‘But the gods shall send thee to the Elysian plain, on the borders of the earth, where they lead a most quiet life.’ Plato also, who believed in the immortality of the soul, distinctly gives the name ‘land’ to the place where it is sent. ‘The extent of it,’ says he, ‘is immense, and we only occupy a small portion of it, from the Phasis to the Pillars of Hercules, where we dwell along the shores of the sea, as grasshoppers and frogs beside a marsh. But there are many other places inhabited in like manner by other men. For there are in different parts of the earth cavities, varying in form and in magnitude, into which run water, and clouds, and air. But that land which is pure lies in the pure region of heaven.’” Celsus therefore supposes that what we say of a land which is much better and more excellent than this, has been borrowed from certain ancient writers whom he styles “divine,” and chiefly from Plato, who in his Phœdon discourses on the pure land lying in a pure heaven. But he does not see that Moses, who is much older than the Greek literature, introduces God as promising to those who lived according to His law the holy land, which is “a good land and a large, a land flowing with milk and honey;” which promise is not to be understood to refer, as some suppose, to that part of the earth which we call Judæa; for it, however good it may be, still forms part of the earth, which was originally cursed for the transgression of Adam. For these words, “Cursed shall the ground be for what thou hast done; with grief, that is, with labour, shalt thou eat of the fruit of it all the days of thy life,” were spoken of the whole earth, the fruit of which every man who died in Adam eats with sorrow or labour all the days of his life. And as all the earth has been cursed, it brings forth thorns and briers all the days of the life of those who in Adam were driven out of paradise; and in the sweat of his face every man eats bread until he returns to the ground from which he was taken. For the full exposition of all that is contained in this passage much might be said; but we have confined ourselves to these few words at present, which are intended to remove the idea, that what is said of the good land promised by God to the righteous, refers to the land of Judæa.

But let us consider who those persons are whose guidance Celsus would have us to follow, so that we may not be in want of guides who are recommended both by their antiquity and sanctity. He refers us to divinely inspired poets, as he calls them, to wise men and philosophers, without mentioning their names; so that, after promising to point out those who should guide us, he simply hands us over in a general way to divinely inspired poets, wise men, and philosophers. If he had specified their names in particular, we should have felt ourselves bound to show him that he wished to give us as guides men who were blinded to the truth, and who must therefore lead us into error; or that if not wholly blinded, yet they are in error in many matters of belief. But whether Orpheus, Parmenides, Empedocles, or even Homer himself, and Hesiod, are the persons whom he means by “inspired poets,” let any one show how those who follow their guidance walk in a better way, or lead a more excellent life, than those who, being taught in the school of Jesus Christ, have rejected all images and statues, and even all Jewish superstition, that they may look upward through the Word of God to the one God, who is the Father of the Word. Who, then, are those wise men and philosophers from whom Celsus would have us to learn so many divine truths, and for whom we are to give up Moses the servant of God, the prophets of the Creator of the world, who have spoken so many things by a truly divine inspiration, and even Him who has given light and taught the way of piety to the whole human race, so that no one can reproach Him if he remains without a share in the knowledge of His mysteries? Such, indeed, was the abounding love which He had for men, that He gave to the more learned a theology capable of raising the soul far above all earthly things; while with no less consideration He comes down to the weaker capacities of ignorant men, of simple women, of slaves, and, in short, of all those who from Jesus alone could have received that help for the better regulation of their lives which is supplied by His instructions in regard to the Divine Being, adapted to their wants and capacities.

Celsus next refers us to Plato as to a more effective teacher of theological truth, and quotes the following passage from the Timœus: “It is a hard matter to find out the Maker and Father of this universe; and after having found Him, it is impossible to make Him known to all.” To which he himself adds this remark: “You perceive, then, how divine men seek after the way of truth, and how well Plato knew that it was impossible for all men to walk in it. But as wise men have found it for the express purpose of being able to convey to us some notion of Him who is the first, the unspeakable Being,—a notion, namely, which may represent Him to us through the medium of other objects,—they endeavour either by synthesis, which is the combining of various qualities, or by analysis, which is the separation and setting aside of some qualities, or finally by analogy;—in these ways, I say, they endeavour to set before us that which it is impossible to express in words. I should therefore be surprised if you could follow in that course, since you are so completely wedded to the flesh as to be incapable of seeing aught but what is impure.” These words of Plato are noble and admirable; but see if Scripture does not give us an example of a regard for mankind still greater in God the Word, who was “in the beginning with God,” and “who was made flesh,” in order that He might reveal to all men truths which, according to Plato, it would be impossible to make known to all men, even after he had found them himself. Plato may say that “it is a hard thing to find out the Creator and Father of this universe;” by which language he implies that it is not wholly beyond the power of human nature to attain to such a knowledge as is either worthy of God, or if not, is far beyond that which is commonly attained (although if it were true that Plato or any other of the Greeks had found God, they would never have given homage and worship, or ascribed the name of God, to any other than to Him: they would have abandoned all others, and would not have associated with this great God objects which can have nothing in common with Him). For ourselves, we maintain that human nature is in no way able to seek after God, or to attain a clear knowledge of Him without the help of Him whom it seeks. He makes Himself known to those who, after doing all that their powers will allow, confess that they need help from Him, who discovers Himself to those whom He approves, in so far as it is possible for man and the soul still dwelling in the body to know God.

Note that each experiment or magical operation should be performed under the planet, and usually in the hour, which refers to the same. For example: -- In the days and hours of Saturn thou canst perform experiments to summon the souls from Hades, but only of those who have died a natural death. Similarly on these days and hours thou canst operate to bring either good or bad fortune to buildings; to have familiar spirits attend thee in sleep; to cause good or ill success in business, possessions, goods, seeds, fruits, and similar things, in order to acquire learning; to bring destruction and to give death, and to sow hatred and discord. The days and hours of Jupiter are proper for obtaining honours, acquiring riches; contracting friendships, preserving health; and arriving at all that thou canst desire. In the days and hours of Mars thou canst make experiments regarding war; to arrive at military honour; to acquire courage; to overthrow enemies; and further to cause ruin, slaughter, cruelty, discord; to wound and to give death. The days and hours of the Sun are very good for perfecting experiments regarding temporal wealth, hope, gain, fortune, divination, the favour of princes, to dissolve hostile feeling, and to make friends. The days and hours of Venus are good for forming friendships; for kindness and love; for joyous and pleasant undertakings, and for traveling. The days and hours of Mercury are good to operate for eloquence and intelligence; promptitude in business; science and divination; wonders; apparitions; and answers regarding the future. Thou canst also operate under this Planet for thefts; writings; deceit; and merchandise.

Therein are His two nostrils like mighty galleries, whence His spirit rusheth forth over all. (The Mantuan Codex adds that this is the seventh conformation, which refers to MLKVTh, Malkuth, or “the kingdom,” the tenth emanation or Sephira of the Deity.)

Heaven is like a roof to the material world, and will serve as the floor of the new world. It is by nature shining and glorious, and is the dwelling-place of the invisible hosts. When God spread out this firmament, He brought up above it a third part of the waters, and above these is the heaven of light and of the luminaries. Hence people say ‘the heaven, and the heaven of heavens’; for we call both the firmament and the waters which are above it ‘ heaven.’ Some consider that the verse ‘Let the waters which are above the heavens praise the name of the Lord’ refers to the holy angels and to our Lord’s humanity; but neither the Church nor the orthodox teachers accept this.

When Reu was born in the days of Peleg, the sons of Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japhet, together with Arphaxar and their children, were gathered together in Shinar. And they took counsel together, saying, ‘ Come, let us build for ourselves a high tower, the top of which shall be in the heavens, lest a flood come again upon us, and destroy us from off the face of the earth.’ And they began to make bricks and to build, until (the tower) was reared a great height from the ground. Then they determined to build seventy-two other towers around it, and to set up a chief over each tower to govern those who were under his authority. God saw the weariness of their oppression and the hardness of their toil, and in His mercy had compassion upon them; for the higher they went, the more severe became their labour, and their pain went on increasing, by reason of the violence of the winds and storms and the heat of the luminaries and the necessity of carrying up everything they needed. And God said, ‘ Come, let us go down and divide the tongues there.’ The expression ‘ Come, let us,’ resembles ‘ Come, let us make man in our image and in our likeness,’ and refers to the persons of the adorable Trinity. While they were tormenting themselves with that vain labour, their language was suddenly confounded so as to become seventy-two languages, and they understood not each other’s speech, and were scattered throughout the whole world, and built cities, every man with his fellow who spoke the same language. From Adam to the building of the tower, there was only one language, and that was Syriac. Some have said that it was Hebrew; but the Hebrews were not called by this name until after Abraham had crossed the river Euphrates and dwelt in Harran; and from his crossing they were called Hebrews. It was grievous to Peleg that the tongues were confounded (or, that God had confounded the tongues of mankind) in his days, and he died; and his sons Serug and Nahor buried him in the town of Palgin, which he built after his name.

They mention the Exodus from Egypt at night. Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah said: "Behold, I am almost a seventy-year old man and I have not succeeded in [understanding why] the Exodus from Egypt should be mentioned at night, until Ben Zoma explained it from a verse (Deuteronomy 16:3): ‘In order that you may remember the day you left Egypt all the days of your life.’ ‘The days of your life’ refers to the days. ‘All the days of your life’ refers to the nights. And the sages say: ‘the days of your life’ refers to this world. ‘All the days of your life’ includes the days of the Messiah.

They mention the Exodus from Egypt at night. Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah said: "Behold, I am almost a seventy-year old man and I have not succeeded in [understanding why] the Exodus from Egypt should be mentioned at night, until Ben Zoma explained it from a verse (Deuteronomy 16:3): ‘In order that you may remember the day you left Egypt all the days of your life.’ ‘The days of your life’ refers to the days. ‘All the days of your life’ refers to the nights. And the sages say: ‘the days of your life’ refers to this world. ‘All the days of your life’ includes the days of the Messiah.

They mention the Exodus from Egypt at night. Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah said: "Behold, I am almost a seventy-year old man and I have not succeeded in [understanding why] the Exodus from Egypt should be mentioned at night, until Ben Zoma explained it from a verse (Deuteronomy 16:3): ‘In order that you may remember the day you left Egypt all the days of your life.’ ‘The days of your life’ refers to the days. ‘All the days of your life’ refers to the nights. And the sages say: ‘the days of your life’ refers to this world. ‘All the days of your life’ includes the days of the Messiah.

At minhah on the last festival day they would make the confession. How was the confession made? “I have cleared out the holy portion from the house” this refers to maaser sheni and the fruit of plants in their fourth year. “I have given them to the Levite” this refers to the tithe of the levites. “And also I have given them” this refers to terumah and the terumah of tithe. “To the stranger, to the orphans, and to the widow” this refers to the tithe of the poor, gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and the corners of the field, even though these do not prevent [one from making] the confession. “Out of the house” this refers to hallah.

At minhah on the last festival day they would make the confession. How was the confession made? “I have cleared out the holy portion from the house” this refers to maaser sheni and the fruit of plants in their fourth year. “I have given them to the Levite” this refers to the tithe of the levites. “And also I have given them” this refers to terumah and the terumah of tithe. “To the stranger, to the orphans, and to the widow” this refers to the tithe of the poor, gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and the corners of the field, even though these do not prevent [one from making] the confession. “Out of the house” this refers to hallah.

At minhah on the last festival day they would make the confession. How was the confession made? “I have cleared out the holy portion from the house” this refers to maaser sheni and the fruit of plants in their fourth year. “I have given them to the Levite” this refers to the tithe of the levites. “And also I have given them” this refers to terumah and the terumah of tithe. “To the stranger, to the orphans, and to the widow” this refers to the tithe of the poor, gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and the corners of the field, even though these do not prevent [one from making] the confession. “Out of the house” this refers to hallah.

At minhah on the last festival day they would make the confession. How was the confession made? “I have cleared out the holy portion from the house” this refers to maaser sheni and the fruit of plants in their fourth year. “I have given them to the Levite” this refers to the tithe of the levites. “And also I have given them” this refers to terumah and the terumah of tithe. “To the stranger, to the orphans, and to the widow” this refers to the tithe of the poor, gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and the corners of the field, even though these do not prevent [one from making] the confession. “Out of the house” this refers to hallah.

At minhah on the last festival day they would make the confession. How was the confession made? “I have cleared out the holy portion from the house” this refers to maaser sheni and the fruit of plants in their fourth year. “I have given them to the Levite” this refers to the tithe of the levites. “And also I have given them” this refers to terumah and the terumah of tithe. “To the stranger, to the orphans, and to the widow” this refers to the tithe of the poor, gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and the corners of the field, even though these do not prevent [one from making] the confession. “Out of the house” this refers to hallah.

Seven days before Yom HaKippurim they remove the high priest from his house to the chamber of the counselors and they set up another priest to take his place lest something should occur to him to disqualify him [from being able to worship]. Rabbi Judah said: they even prepare another wife for him in case his wife should die, as it says “And he shall make atonement for himself and for his house” (Leviticus 16:6): “his house” this refers to his wife. They said to him: if so there would be no end to the matter.

The flute was for five or six days. This refers to the flute at the Bet Hashoevah [the place of the water-drawing] which does not override Shabbat or the festival day. They said: he who has not seen the Simchat Bet Hashoevah has never seen rejoicing in his life.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel said: There were no days of joy in Israel greater than the fifteenth of Av and Yom Kippur. On these days the daughters of Jerusalem would go out in borrowed white garments in order not to shame any one who had none. All these garments required immersion. The daughters of Jerusalem come out and dance in the vineyards. What would they say? Young man, lift up your eyes and see what you choose for yourself. Do not set your eyes on beauty but set your eyes on the family. “Grace is deceitful, and beauty is vain, but a woman that fears the Lord, she shall be praised” (Proverbs 31:30). And it further says, “Give her of the fruit of her hands; and let her works praise her in the gates” (ibid, 31:31). Similarly it says, “O maidens of Zion, go forth and gaze upon King Solomon wearing the crown that his mother gave him on his wedding day, on the day of the gladness of his heart” (Song of Songs 3:11). “On his wedding day”: this refers to Matan Torah (the Giving of the Torah). “And on the day of the gladness of his heart”: this refers to the building of the Temple; may it be rebuilt speedily in our days, Amen.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel said: There were no days of joy in Israel greater than the fifteenth of Av and Yom Kippur. On these days the daughters of Jerusalem would go out in borrowed white garments in order not to shame any one who had none. All these garments required immersion. The daughters of Jerusalem come out and dance in the vineyards. What would they say? Young man, lift up your eyes and see what you choose for yourself. Do not set your eyes on beauty but set your eyes on the family. “Grace is deceitful, and beauty is vain, but a woman that fears the Lord, she shall be praised” (Proverbs 31:30). And it further says, “Give her of the fruit of her hands; and let her works praise her in the gates” (ibid, 31:31). Similarly it says, “O maidens of Zion, go forth and gaze upon King Solomon wearing the crown that his mother gave him on his wedding day, on the day of the gladness of his heart” (Song of Songs 3:11). “On his wedding day”: this refers to Matan Torah (the Giving of the Torah). “And on the day of the gladness of his heart”: this refers to the building of the Temple; may it be rebuilt speedily in our days, Amen.

A “prohibition due to a commandment” [refers to] the secondary incest prohibitions forbidden by the scribes. “A prohibition due to holiness” [refers to the following forbidden relationships]: a widow to a high priest; a divorced woman, or one that had performed halitzah to a regular priest; a mamzereth or a netinah to an Israelite; and an Israelite woman to a natin or a mamzer.

A “prohibition due to a commandment” [refers to] the secondary incest prohibitions forbidden by the scribes. “A prohibition due to holiness” [refers to the following forbidden relationships]: a widow to a high priest; a divorced woman, or one that had performed halitzah to a regular priest; a mamzereth or a netinah to an Israelite; and an Israelite woman to a natin or a mamzer.

If a man forbade his wife by vow that she should not adorn herself with any type of adornment he must divorce her and give her the ketubah. Rabbi Yose says: [this refers] to poor women if no time limit is given, and to rich women [if the time limit is] thirty days.

When the anointed for battle addresses the people he speaks in the holy tongue, as it is said, “And it shall be, when you draw near the battle, that the priest shall approach” (Deuteronomy 20:2) this refers to the anointed for battle. “And speak to the people” (ibid) – in the holy tongue. “He shall say to them, “Hear, O Israel, you are about to join battle with your enemy” (vs. “with your enemy” but not against your brother, not Judah against Shimon nor Shimon against Benjamin, that if you fall into their hand they shall have mercy on you, as it is said, “Then the men named above proceeded to take the captives in hand, and with booty they clothed all the naked among them they clothed them and shod them and gave them to eat and drink and anointed them and provide donkeys for all who were failing and brought them to Jericho, the city of palms, back to their kinsmen. Then they returned to Samaria” (II Chronicles 28:15). Rather against your enemies do you march, so that if you fall into their hand they will have no mercy on you. “Let not your courage falter, fear not, and do not tremble or be in dread of them” (Deuteronomy 20: “Let not your courage falter”-- at the neighing of the horses and the brandishing of swords; “Fear not” --at the crash of shields and the tramp of the soldiers shoes; “Do not tremble” -- at the sound of trumpets; “Or be in dread of them” -- at the sound of battle cries. “For it is the Lord your God that goes with you”--they come [relying] upon the might of flesh and blood, but you come [relying] upon the might of the Omnipresent. The Philistines came [relying] upon the power of Goliath (I Samuel 17:4 ff.), but what happened to him in the end? In the end he fell by the sword and they fell with him. The Ammonites came [relying] upon the power of Shobach (II Samuel 10:16-18), but what happened to him in the end? In the end he fell by the sword and they fell with him. But with you it is otherwise, “For it is the Lord your God is that goes with you” this refers to the camp of the ark.

When the anointed for battle addresses the people he speaks in the holy tongue, as it is said, “And it shall be, when you draw near the battle, that the priest shall approach” (Deuteronomy 20:2) this refers to the anointed for battle. “And speak to the people” (ibid) – in the holy tongue. “He shall say to them, “Hear, O Israel, you are about to join battle with your enemy” (vs. “with your enemy” but not against your brother, not Judah against Shimon nor Shimon against Benjamin, that if you fall into their hand they shall have mercy on you, as it is said, “Then the men named above proceeded to take the captives in hand, and with booty they clothed all the naked among them they clothed them and shod them and gave them to eat and drink and anointed them and provide donkeys for all who were failing and brought them to Jericho, the city of palms, back to their kinsmen. Then they returned to Samaria” (II Chronicles 28:15). Rather against your enemies do you march, so that if you fall into their hand they will have no mercy on you. “Let not your courage falter, fear not, and do not tremble or be in dread of them” (Deuteronomy 20: “Let not your courage falter”-- at the neighing of the horses and the brandishing of swords; “Fear not” --at the crash of shields and the tramp of the soldiers shoes; “Do not tremble” -- at the sound of trumpets; “Or be in dread of them” -- at the sound of battle cries. “For it is the Lord your God that goes with you”--they come [relying] upon the might of flesh and blood, but you come [relying] upon the might of the Omnipresent. The Philistines came [relying] upon the power of Goliath (I Samuel 17:4 ff.), but what happened to him in the end? In the end he fell by the sword and they fell with him. The Ammonites came [relying] upon the power of Shobach (II Samuel 10:16-18), but what happened to him in the end? In the end he fell by the sword and they fell with him. But with you it is otherwise, “For it is the Lord your God is that goes with you” this refers to the camp of the ark.

The following do not move from their place: He who built a new house and dedicated it, He who planted a vineyard and used its fruit, He who married his betrothed, Or brought in his yevamah; As it is said, “He shall be exempt one year for the sake of his household [to give happiness to the woman he married]” (Deuteronomy 24:5) “His household,” this refers to his house; “Shall be” refers to his vineyard; “To give happiness to the wife” refers to his wife; “He married” to include his yevamah’s widow. These do not supply water and food and repair the roads [for the army].

The following do not move from their place: He who built a new house and dedicated it, He who planted a vineyard and used its fruit, He who married his betrothed, Or brought in his yevamah; As it is said, “He shall be exempt one year for the sake of his household [to give happiness to the woman he married]” (Deuteronomy 24:5) “His household,” this refers to his house; “Shall be” refers to his vineyard; “To give happiness to the wife” refers to his wife; “He married” to include his yevamah’s widow. These do not supply water and food and repair the roads [for the army].

The following do not move from their place: He who built a new house and dedicated it, He who planted a vineyard and used its fruit, He who married his betrothed, Or brought in his yevamah; As it is said, “He shall be exempt one year for the sake of his household [to give happiness to the woman he married]” (Deuteronomy 24:5) “His household,” this refers to his house; “Shall be” refers to his vineyard; “To give happiness to the wife” refers to his wife; “He married” to include his yevamah’s widow. These do not supply water and food and repair the roads [for the army].

The greater Sanhedrin was made up of seventy one and the little Sanhedrin of twenty three. From where do we learn that the greater Sanhedrin should be made up of seventy one? As it says, “Gather unto me seventy men of the elders of Israel” (Num. 11:16), and when Moses is added to them there is seventy one. Rabbi Judah says: “Seventy.” From where do we learn that the little Sanhedrin should be made up of twenty three? As it says, “The assembly shall judge”, “The assembly shall deliver” (Num. 35:24-25), an assembly that judges and an assembly that delivers, thus we have twenty. And from where do we know that an assembly has ten? As it says, “How long shall I bear this evil congregation?” (Num. 14:27) [which refers to the twelve spies] but Joshua and Caleb were not included. And from where do we learn that we should bring three others [to the twenty]? By inference from what it says, “You shall not follow after the many to do evil” (Ex. 23:2), I conclude that I must be with them to do well. Then why does it say, “[To follow] after the many to change judgment” (Ex. 23:2). [It means that] your verdict of condemnation should not be like your verdict of acquittal, for your verdict of acquittal is reached by the decision of a majority of one, but your verdict of condemnation must be reached by the decision of a majority of two. The court must not be divisible equally, therefore they add to them one more; thus they are twenty three. And how many should there be in a city that it may be fit to have a Sanhedrin? A hundred and twenty. Rabbi Nehemiah says: “Two hundred and thirty, so that [the Sanhedrin of twenty three] should correspond with them that are chiefs of [at least] groups of ten.

One who incites [individuals to idolatry] -- this refers to an ordinary person who incites an individual who said, “There is an idol in such and such a place; it eats thus, it drinks thus, it does good [to those who worship it] and harm [to those who do not].” For all who are liable for the death penalty according to the Torah no witnesses are hidden to entrap them, excepting for this one. If he said [these things] to two, they themselves are witnesses against him, and he is brought to court and stoned. But if he said [these things] to one, he should reply, “I have friends who wish to do so likewise [come and propose it to them too].” But if he was cunning and declined to speak before them, witnesses are hidden behind a partition, while he [who was incited] says to him, make your proposal to me now in private. When the inciter says to him (repeats to him what he had already said), the other replies, “How can we abandon our God in heaven to go and serve wood and stones?” Should he retract, it is well. But if he answers, “It is our duty [to worship idols], and is seemly for us”, then the witnesses stationed behind the partition take him to court, and have him stoned. He who incites [individuals to idolatry is one who] is one who says, “I will worship it”, or, “I will go and worship”, or, “let us go and worship”; or, “I will sacrifice [to it]”, “I will go and sacrifice”, “let us go and sacrifice”; “I will burn incense, “I will go and burn incense”; “let us go and burn incense”; or “I will make libations to it”, “I will go and make libations to it”, “let us go and make libations”; “I will prostrate myself before it”, “I will go and prostrate myself”, “let us go and prostrate ourselves”. One who seduces [a whole town to idolatry] is one who says, “Let us go and serve idols”.

The generation of the flood has no portion in the world to come, nor will they stand at the [last] judgment, as it says, “[And the Lord said,] my spirit will not always enter into judgment with man” (Genesis 6:3), [meaning] there will be neither judgment nor [my] spirit for them. The generation of the dispersion have no portion in the world to come, as it says, “So the Lord scattered them from there upon the face of all the earth” (Genesis 11:8): “So the lord scattered them”, refers to this world, “And from there the Lord scattered them” (Genesis 11:9), refers to the world to come. The men of Sodom have no portion in the world to come, as it says, “And the men of Sodom were wicked and great sinners before the Lord” (Genesis 13:1: “wicked” in this world, and “sinners” in the world to come; Yet will they stand at judgment. R. Nehemiah says: “Neither [the generation of the flood nor the men of Sodom] will stand at judgment, as it says, “Therefore the wicked shall not stand in judgment, nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous” (Psalms 1:5) “Therefore the wicked shall not stand in judgment”, refers to the generation of the flood; “nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous”, refers to the men of Sodom. They [the Sages] said to him: “They will not stand in the congregation of the righteous, but they will stand in the congregation of the wicked.” The spies have no portion in the world to come, as it says, “And those men that spread such calumnies about the land, died by the plague before the lord” (Numbers 14:37): “[they] died” in this world, “by the plague” in the world to come. The generation of the wilderness have no share in the world to come and will not stand at the [last] judgment, as it says, “In this wilderness they shall be consumed, and there they shall die” (Numbers 14:3, according to the words of Rabbi Akiba. Rabbi Eliezer says: “Concerning them it is said, ‘Bring in My devotees, who made a covenant with Me over sacrifice” (Psalms 50:5). The congregation of Korah is not destined to ascend [from the earth], as it says, “And the earth closed upon them” in this world, “and they perished from among the congregation” (Numbers 16:33) in the world to come, according to the words of Rabbi Akiba. Rabbi Eliezer says: “Concerning them it is said, ‘The Lord kills and makes alive: He brings down to Sheol, and brings up” (I Samuel 2:6). The ten tribes will not return [to the Land of Israel], for it is said, “And He cast them into another land, as is this day” (Deuteronomy 29:2: just as the day goes and does not return, so they too went and will not return: according to the words of Rabbi Akiba. Rabbi Eliezer says: “As is this day’, just as the day darkens and then becomes light again, so the ten tribes even as it went dark for them, so will it in the future become light for them.

The generation of the flood has no portion in the world to come, nor will they stand at the [last] judgment, as it says, “[And the Lord said,] my spirit will not always enter into judgment with man” (Genesis 6:3), [meaning] there will be neither judgment nor [my] spirit for them. The generation of the dispersion have no portion in the world to come, as it says, “So the Lord scattered them from there upon the face of all the earth” (Genesis 11:8): “So the lord scattered them”, refers to this world, “And from there the Lord scattered them” (Genesis 11:9), refers to the world to come. The men of Sodom have no portion in the world to come, as it says, “And the men of Sodom were wicked and great sinners before the Lord” (Genesis 13:1: “wicked” in this world, and “sinners” in the world to come; Yet will they stand at judgment. R. Nehemiah says: “Neither [the generation of the flood nor the men of Sodom] will stand at judgment, as it says, “Therefore the wicked shall not stand in judgment, nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous” (Psalms 1:5) “Therefore the wicked shall not stand in judgment”, refers to the generation of the flood; “nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous”, refers to the men of Sodom. They [the Sages] said to him: “They will not stand in the congregation of the righteous, but they will stand in the congregation of the wicked.” The spies have no portion in the world to come, as it says, “And those men that spread such calumnies about the land, died by the plague before the lord” (Numbers 14:37): “[they] died” in this world, “by the plague” in the world to come. The generation of the wilderness have no share in the world to come and will not stand at the [last] judgment, as it says, “In this wilderness they shall be consumed, and there they shall die” (Numbers 14:3, according to the words of Rabbi Akiba. Rabbi Eliezer says: “Concerning them it is said, ‘Bring in My devotees, who made a covenant with Me over sacrifice” (Psalms 50:5). The congregation of Korah is not destined to ascend [from the earth], as it says, “And the earth closed upon them” in this world, “and they perished from among the congregation” (Numbers 16:33) in the world to come, according to the words of Rabbi Akiba. Rabbi Eliezer says: “Concerning them it is said, ‘The Lord kills and makes alive: He brings down to Sheol, and brings up” (I Samuel 2:6). The ten tribes will not return [to the Land of Israel], for it is said, “And He cast them into another land, as is this day” (Deuteronomy 29:2: just as the day goes and does not return, so they too went and will not return: according to the words of Rabbi Akiba. Rabbi Eliezer says: “As is this day’, just as the day darkens and then becomes light again, so the ten tribes even as it went dark for them, so will it in the future become light for them.

The generation of the flood has no portion in the world to come, nor will they stand at the [last] judgment, as it says, “[And the Lord said,] my spirit will not always enter into judgment with man” (Genesis 6:3), [meaning] there will be neither judgment nor [my] spirit for them. The generation of the dispersion have no portion in the world to come, as it says, “So the Lord scattered them from there upon the face of all the earth” (Genesis 11:8): “So the lord scattered them”, refers to this world, “And from there the Lord scattered them” (Genesis 11:9), refers to the world to come. The men of Sodom have no portion in the world to come, as it says, “And the men of Sodom were wicked and great sinners before the Lord” (Genesis 13:1: “wicked” in this world, and “sinners” in the world to come; Yet will they stand at judgment. R. Nehemiah says: “Neither [the generation of the flood nor the men of Sodom] will stand at judgment, as it says, “Therefore the wicked shall not stand in judgment, nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous” (Psalms 1:5) “Therefore the wicked shall not stand in judgment”, refers to the generation of the flood; “nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous”, refers to the men of Sodom. They [the Sages] said to him: “They will not stand in the congregation of the righteous, but they will stand in the congregation of the wicked.” The spies have no portion in the world to come, as it says, “And those men that spread such calumnies about the land, died by the plague before the lord” (Numbers 14:37): “[they] died” in this world, “by the plague” in the world to come. The generation of the wilderness have no share in the world to come and will not stand at the [last] judgment, as it says, “In this wilderness they shall be consumed, and there they shall die” (Numbers 14:3, according to the words of Rabbi Akiba. Rabbi Eliezer says: “Concerning them it is said, ‘Bring in My devotees, who made a covenant with Me over sacrifice” (Psalms 50:5). The congregation of Korah is not destined to ascend [from the earth], as it says, “And the earth closed upon them” in this world, “and they perished from among the congregation” (Numbers 16:33) in the world to come, according to the words of Rabbi Akiba. Rabbi Eliezer says: “Concerning them it is said, ‘The Lord kills and makes alive: He brings down to Sheol, and brings up” (I Samuel 2:6). The ten tribes will not return [to the Land of Israel], for it is said, “And He cast them into another land, as is this day” (Deuteronomy 29:2: just as the day goes and does not return, so they too went and will not return: according to the words of Rabbi Akiba. Rabbi Eliezer says: “As is this day’, just as the day darkens and then becomes light again, so the ten tribes even as it went dark for them, so will it in the future become light for them.

The generation of the flood has no portion in the world to come, nor will they stand at the [last] judgment, as it says, “[And the Lord said,] my spirit will not always enter into judgment with man” (Genesis 6:3), [meaning] there will be neither judgment nor [my] spirit for them. The generation of the dispersion have no portion in the world to come, as it says, “So the Lord scattered them from there upon the face of all the earth” (Genesis 11:8): “So the lord scattered them”, refers to this world, “And from there the Lord scattered them” (Genesis 11:9), refers to the world to come. The men of Sodom have no portion in the world to come, as it says, “And the men of Sodom were wicked and great sinners before the Lord” (Genesis 13:1: “wicked” in this world, and “sinners” in the world to come; Yet will they stand at judgment. R. Nehemiah says: “Neither [the generation of the flood nor the men of Sodom] will stand at judgment, as it says, “Therefore the wicked shall not stand in judgment, nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous” (Psalms 1:5) “Therefore the wicked shall not stand in judgment”, refers to the generation of the flood; “nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous”, refers to the men of Sodom. They [the Sages] said to him: “They will not stand in the congregation of the righteous, but they will stand in the congregation of the wicked.” The spies have no portion in the world to come, as it says, “And those men that spread such calumnies about the land, died by the plague before the lord” (Numbers 14:37): “[they] died” in this world, “by the plague” in the world to come. The generation of the wilderness have no share in the world to come and will not stand at the [last] judgment, as it says, “In this wilderness they shall be consumed, and there they shall die” (Numbers 14:3, according to the words of Rabbi Akiba. Rabbi Eliezer says: “Concerning them it is said, ‘Bring in My devotees, who made a covenant with Me over sacrifice” (Psalms 50:5). The congregation of Korah is not destined to ascend [from the earth], as it says, “And the earth closed upon them” in this world, “and they perished from among the congregation” (Numbers 16:33) in the world to come, according to the words of Rabbi Akiba. Rabbi Eliezer says: “Concerning them it is said, ‘The Lord kills and makes alive: He brings down to Sheol, and brings up” (I Samuel 2:6). The ten tribes will not return [to the Land of Israel], for it is said, “And He cast them into another land, as is this day” (Deuteronomy 29:2: just as the day goes and does not return, so they too went and will not return: according to the words of Rabbi Akiba. Rabbi Eliezer says: “As is this day’, just as the day darkens and then becomes light again, so the ten tribes even as it went dark for them, so will it in the future become light for them.

If he slaughtered it with the intention of leaving its blood or its innards for the next day, or of carrying them outside of their place: Rabbi Judah disqualifies [it], But the sages declare it valid. [If he slaughtered it] with the intention of sprinkling [the blood] on the ascent, [or on the altar] but not against its base; or of applying below [the scarlet line] what should be applied above, or above what should be applied below, or without what should be applied within, or within what should be applied without; [Or with the intention] that unclean [persons] should eat it, [or] that unclean [priests] should offer it; [Or] that uncircumcised [persons] should eat it, [or] that uncircumcised persons should offer it; [Or with the intention] of breaking the bones of the pesah, or eating of it before it is roasted; Or of mingling its blood with the blood of invalid [sacrifices]; [In all of these cases] it is valid, because an [illegitimate] intention does not disqualify [a sacrifice] except when it refers to after its time or outside its prescribed place, and [in the case of] a pesah and a hatat, [the intention to slaughter them] for the sake of their being a different sacrifice.

The pomegranate of which they spoke refers to one that is neither small nor big but of moderate size. And why did they mention the pomegranates of Baddan? That whatever their quantity they cause [other pomegranates] to be forbidden, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri said: to use them as a measure for holes in vessels. Rabbi Akiva said: they were mentioned for both reasons: that they are to be used as a measure for holes in vessels and that whatever their quantity they cause [other pomegranates] to be forbidden. Rabbi Yose said: the pomegranates of Baddan and the leeks of Geba were mentioned only to indicate that they must be tithed everywhere with certain tithe.

And sometimes they stated a large measure: A ladleful of corpse mould refers to the big ladle of physicians; The split bean in the case of skin disease refers to the Cilician kind; One who eats on Yom Kippur a quantity of the bulk of a large date, refers to the size of the date and its pit; In the case of skins of wine and oil [the holes] must be as big as their large stopper; In the case of a light hole that was not made by man's hands the prescribed size of which is that of a large fist, the reference is to the fist of Ben Batiah Rabbi Yose said: and it is as big as a large human head. And in the case of one made by human hands the prescribed size is that of the large drill in the Temple chamber which is the size of the Italian pondium or the Neronian sela or like the hole in a yoke.

And sometimes they stated a large measure: A ladleful of corpse mould refers to the big ladle of physicians; The split bean in the case of skin disease refers to the Cilician kind; One who eats on Yom Kippur a quantity of the bulk of a large date, refers to the size of the date and its pit; In the case of skins of wine and oil [the holes] must be as big as their large stopper; In the case of a light hole that was not made by man's hands the prescribed size of which is that of a large fist, the reference is to the fist of Ben Batiah Rabbi Yose said: and it is as big as a large human head. And in the case of one made by human hands the prescribed size is that of the large drill in the Temple chamber which is the size of the Italian pondium or the Neronian sela or like the hole in a yoke.

And sometimes they stated a large measure: A ladleful of corpse mould refers to the big ladle of physicians; The split bean in the case of skin disease refers to the Cilician kind; One who eats on Yom Kippur a quantity of the bulk of a large date, refers to the size of the date and its pit; In the case of skins of wine and oil [the holes] must be as big as their large stopper; In the case of a light hole that was not made by man's hands the prescribed size of which is that of a large fist, the reference is to the fist of Ben Batiah Rabbi Yose said: and it is as big as a large human head. And in the case of one made by human hands the prescribed size is that of the large drill in the Temple chamber which is the size of the Italian pondium or the Neronian sela or like the hole in a yoke.

If a piece of cloth three [handbreadths] square [was found] in a rubbish heap it must be both sound and capable of wrapping up salt; But [if it was found] in the house it need only be either sound or capable of wrapping up salt. How much salt must it be capable of wrapping up? A quarter of a kav. Rabbi Judah says: this refers to fine salt, But the sages stated: it refers to coarse salt. Both intended to be lenient. Rabbi Shimon says: the law concerning a piece of cloth three [handbreadths] square found in a rubbish heap is the same as that for a piece of cloth that was three [fingerbreadths] square in a house.

If a piece of cloth three [handbreadths] square [was found] in a rubbish heap it must be both sound and capable of wrapping up salt; But [if it was found] in the house it need only be either sound or capable of wrapping up salt. How much salt must it be capable of wrapping up? A quarter of a kav. Rabbi Judah says: this refers to fine salt, But the sages stated: it refers to coarse salt. Both intended to be lenient. Rabbi Shimon says: the law concerning a piece of cloth three [handbreadths] square found in a rubbish heap is the same as that for a piece of cloth that was three [fingerbreadths] square in a house.

"A condition of doubt concerning non-sacred food"--this refers to the cleanness practiced by Pharisees. "A condition of doubt concerning a sheretz" –according [to their condition at] the time they are found. "A condition of doubt concerning negaim" it is deemed clean in the beginning before it had been determined to be unclean, but after it had been determined to be unclean, a condition of doubt is deemed unclean. "A condition of doubt concerning a nazirite vow" [in such a condition of doubt he] is permitted [all that is forbidden to a nazirite]. "A condition of doubt concerning first-borns" whether they are human firstborn or firstborn of cattle, whether the firstborn of an unclean beast or a clean one, for the one who wishes to extract from his fellow bears the burden of proof.

And of what did they speak when they said that "it suffices [for them to reckon] their period of uncleanness from the time [of their discovering of the flow]"? [This refers to] the first observation, but after a second observation she defiles retroactively for a period of twenty-four hours. If she saw the first flow on account of an accident even it suffices for her even a subsequent observation [to reckon her uncleanness from] the time of her [observing of the flow].

If a girl has grown two pubic hairs she may perform either halitzah or contract levirate marriage, and she is obligated in all the commandments in the Torah. So too if a boy has grown two pubic hairs, he is obligated in all of the commandments in the Torah. He is fit to become a wayward and rebellious son from the time he has grown two hairs until the time when his beard forms a circle. This refers to the lower, and not to the upper one, but the sages spoke using a euphemism. A girl who has grown two hairs may no longer refuse the marriage. Rabbi Judah says: [she may refuse] until the black [hairs] predominate.

Handles to food, which count as connectives when touched by a "father of uncleanness," also count as connectives when touched by a tevul yom. If a food was divided into two yet a small part was still attached: Rabbi Meir says: if one takes hold of the larger part and the smaller part is pulled away with it, behold it is like it. Rabbi Judah says: if one takes hold of the smaller part and the greater is also pulled away with it, then behold it is like it. Rabbi Nehemiah says: [this refers] to the case of the clean portion. But the sages say: [it refers] to the unclean portion. In the case of all other foods, those usually held by the leaf should be taken by the leaf, and those usually held by the stalk should be taken by the stalk.

Handles to food, which count as connectives when touched by a "father of uncleanness," also count as connectives when touched by a tevul yom. If a food was divided into two yet a small part was still attached: Rabbi Meir says: if one takes hold of the larger part and the smaller part is pulled away with it, behold it is like it. Rabbi Judah says: if one takes hold of the smaller part and the greater is also pulled away with it, then behold it is like it. Rabbi Nehemiah says: [this refers] to the case of the clean portion. But the sages say: [it refers] to the unclean portion. In the case of all other foods, those usually held by the leaf should be taken by the leaf, and those usually held by the stalk should be taken by the stalk.

On that day they said: all animal sacrifices which have been sacrificed under the name of some other offering are [nevertheless] valid, but they are not accounted to their owners as a fulfillment of their obligations, with the exception of the pesah and the sin-offering. [This is true of] the pesah in its correct time and the sin-offering at any time. Rabbi Eliezer says: [with the exception] also of the guilt-offering; [so that this refers to] the pesah in its correct time and to the sin- and guilt-offerings at any time. Rabbi Shimon ben Azzai said: I received a tradition from the seventy-two elders on the day when they appointed Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah head of the college that all animal sacrifices which are eaten and which have not been sacrificed under their own name are nevertheless valid, but they are not accounted to their owners as a fulfillment of their obligations, with the exception of the pesah and the sin-offering. Ben Azzai only added [to these exceptions] the wholly burnt-offering, but the sages did not agree with him.

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.

Ben Zoma said: There will be a future time when Israel will no longer mention the Exodus. What is the reason? (Jer. 23:7–8) “Therefore, days will come, says the Eternal, that one no longer will say, by the Eternal Who brought the Children of Israel up from Egypt, but rather, by the Eternal Who raised and brought the descendants of the House of Israel from the Northern land …” They said to him, not that the Exodus will be eliminated but the Exodus will be additional to the Kingdoms. The Kingdoms will be principal and the Exodus additional. And similarly it was said (Gen. 35:10): :Your name shall not be called Jacob anymore, but Israel shall be your name.” Not that the name Jacob will be taken away but Jacob will be additional to Israel. Israel will be principal and Jacob additional. And so it says (Is. 43:18–19): “Do not remember the first things”; this means the Egyptians, “And what was earlier do not dwell on”; this means the Kingdoms, “Behold, I create something new, now it will grow”; this refers to Gog. They gave a simile: to what can this be compared? To someone who encountered a wolf and was saved from it. He started telling about the wolf when he encountered a lion and was saved from it. He forget about the wolf and started telling about the lion.After that, he encountered a snake and was saved from it. He forgot about both of them and started telling about the snake. So it is with Israel, the last troubles make them forget the earlier ones.

Rebbi Zeïra in the name of (Rebbi) Abba [bar Jeremiah]: A person should not enter a urinal with his books or tefillin in his hands. Rebbi Yoḥanan, when he had a book in his hand he gave it to somebody else. When his tefillin were on him, he stood in them. A baraita disagrees with Abba bar Jeremiah: A man may enter a urinal with his books or tefillin in his hand. Rebbi Zeïra said: Abba bar Jeremiah refers to one case where he can wear them, and to another case where he cannot wear them. For if he cannot perform a mitzwah with them, why should he degrade them?

It was stated: If he wants to be more stringent with himself one does not listen to him. Why? Because of the honor of the deceased or because he has nobody to carry his load? What is the difference between them? If he has someone who is carrying his load; if you say because of the honor of the deceased it is forbidden, but if you say because he has nobody to carry his load, here he has somebody to carry his load. Has it not been stated: he is free from taking the lulab? Explain that it refers to weekdays. But has it not been stated: he is free from blowing the shofar. Can you say on weekday? No, on holiday. Rebbi Ḥanina said: Because he is obliged to bring him a casket and burial shrouds as we have stated (Šabbat 23:4): “One waits for nightfall at the borders of the Šabbat domain to oversee matters for a bride and matters for a deceased to bring for him a casket, burial shrouds, fifes, and women mourners;” it is as if someone was carrying his load.

May a Cohen defile himself in honor of the public? It is stated: When there are two acceptable roads, one long and pure, the other one short and impure: If the public was walking on the long one, he goes on the long one; otherwise, he goes on the short one in honor of the public. That refers to impurity by their words; also for impurity that is from the words of the Torah? From what Rebbi Zeïra said, so great is the honor of the public that it temporarily pushes aside a prohibition, that means even impurity that is from the words of the Torah.

HALAKHAH: The Mishnah refers to someone in public, but if he is alone he interrupts following Rebbi Meïr. But following Rebbi Yehudah he does not interrupt even when alone, on condition that he have no water to immerse himself. But if he has water to immerse himself even Rebbi Yehudah agrees that he must interrupt.

HALAKHAH: It is written (Deut. 11:13) “To love the Eternal, your God, and to work for Him with all yor heart and all your soul,” does there exist work in the heart? This refers to prayer. And so it says (Dan. 6:17): “Your God, whom you serve permanently, may rescue you.” Is there any service in Babylonia? This refers to prayer.

HALAKHAH: It is written (Deut. 11:13) “To love the Eternal, your God, and to work for Him with all yor heart and all your soul,” does there exist work in the heart? This refers to prayer. And so it says (Dan. 6:17): “Your God, whom you serve permanently, may rescue you.” Is there any service in Babylonia? This refers to prayer.

HALAKHAH: It was stated: He who recites the blessings for the Shema‘, he who stands before the ark, he who lifts his hands, he who reads in the Torah, he who recites Haphtarah from the prophets, and he who recites any blessing for obligations spelled out in the Torah, should not recite Amen after his own benediction. If he answered, he is uncivilized. Some Tannaïm have stated: he is uncivilized; and some Tannaïm have stated: he is wise. Rav Ḥisda said: He who said “he is wise” refers to him who answers at the end, but he who says “he is uncivilized” refers to him who answers every single benediction.

HALAKHAH: It was stated: He who recites the blessings for the Shema‘, he who stands before the ark, he who lifts his hands, he who reads in the Torah, he who recites Haphtarah from the prophets, and he who recites any blessing for obligations spelled out in the Torah, should not recite Amen after his own benediction. If he answered, he is uncivilized. Some Tannaïm have stated: he is uncivilized; and some Tannaïm have stated: he is wise. Rav Ḥisda said: He who said “he is wise” refers to him who answers at the end, but he who says “he is uncivilized” refers to him who answers every single benediction.

And Torah study. They asked Rebbi Joshua: May a person teach Greek to his son? He said to them, he may teach him at an hour that is neither day nor night as it is written (Jos. 1:8): “You shall meditate about it day and night.” If it is so, a man would be forbidden to teach a profession to his son since it is written: “You shall meditate about it day and night.” But Rebbi Ismael stated (Deut. 30:19): “Choose life!” That refers to a profession. Rebbi Abba, son of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Because of informants. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: A person may teach Greek to his daughter since it is an ornament for her. Simeon bar Abba heard that and said: Because he wants to teach his daughters, he attaches it to Rebbi Joḥanan. It should come over me if I ever heard it from Rebbi Joḥanan.

The Holy One, praise to Him, adds good intention to deeds; the Holy One, praise to Him, does not add bad intention to deeds. The Holy One, praise to Him, adds good intention to deeds as it is written (Mal. 3:16): “Then those who fear the Eternal will speak together, each man with his neighbor.” The Holy One, praise to Him, does not add bad intention to deeds (Ps. 66:12): “If I saw mischief in my heart, the Eternal would not listen.” That refers to Israel, but for Gentiles it is the reverse; the Holy One, praise to Him, does not add good intention; bad intention the Holy One, praise to Him, does add. The Holy One, praise to Him, does not add good intention, as it is written (Dan. 6:15): “Until sundown he tried to rescue him;” it does not say “to save him.” The Holy One, praise to Him, adds bad intention: (Obad. 9–10) “From killing. Because of the oppression of your brother Jacob.” But did he kill him? This teaches that he thought about killing him and the verse counts it as if he had killed him.

Rav said: Fallow land and ploughed land of a bet rova‘, other produce even the tiniest amount. Rebbi Joḥanan said: Fallow land, ploughed land, and other produce at three preliminary furrows. Do they disagree? What Rav said refers to produce subject to peah, what Rebbi Joḥanan said refers to produce not subject to peah. But did we not state that fallow or ploughed land is subject to peah? What Rav said refers to an average field, what Rebbi Joḥanan said refers to a plot 50 by 2.

Rav said: Fallow land and ploughed land of a bet rova‘, other produce even the tiniest amount. Rebbi Joḥanan said: Fallow land, ploughed land, and other produce at three preliminary furrows. Do they disagree? What Rav said refers to produce subject to peah, what Rebbi Joḥanan said refers to produce not subject to peah. But did we not state that fallow or ploughed land is subject to peah? What Rav said refers to an average field, what Rebbi Joḥanan said refers to a plot 50 by 2.

Rav said: Fallow land and ploughed land of a bet rova‘, other produce even the tiniest amount. Rebbi Joḥanan said: Fallow land, ploughed land, and other produce at three preliminary furrows. Do they disagree? What Rav said refers to produce subject to peah, what Rebbi Joḥanan said refers to produce not subject to peah. But did we not state that fallow or ploughed land is subject to peah? What Rav said refers to an average field, what Rebbi Joḥanan said refers to a plot 50 by 2.

Rav said: Fallow land and ploughed land of a bet rova‘, other produce even the tiniest amount. Rebbi Joḥanan said: Fallow land, ploughed land, and other produce at three preliminary furrows. Do they disagree? What Rav said refers to produce subject to peah, what Rebbi Joḥanan said refers to produce not subject to peah. But did we not state that fallow or ploughed land is subject to peah? What Rav said refers to an average field, what Rebbi Joḥanan said refers to a plot 50 by 2.

HALAKHAH: We have stated: “between olive trees.” In the House of Rebbi they stated “between fruit trees.” Our Mishnah needs the one of the House of Rebbi and that of the House of Rebbi needs our Mishnah. If we had stated, but not the House of Rebbi, we would say that it said only “between olive trees”, which in themselves are subject to peah, but for those which are free from the obligation of peah even the House of Shammai will agree that he gives one peah for all of them. Hence, our Mishnah needs that of Rebbi. Or if there were the declaration of the House of Rebbi but we had not stated ours, we would say that it refers only to those which are between trees free from the obligation of peah, but for trees which in themselves are subject to peah even the House of Hillel will agree that he gives peah from each single one. Hence, both our Mishnah and the baraita of the House of Rebbi are needed.

HALAKHAH: It was stated in the name of Rebbi Meïr: “One punishes him and takes away from him both the cut and the standing produce.” That refers to intentional misconduct; does it apply even to action in error or even to small sheaves?

Rebbi Yasa said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: That refers to divorce documents, but it does not apply to a gift. Rebbi Joḥanan adds something, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish adds something. Rebbi Joḥanan adds something. Since a find which cannot be acquired by the knowledge of another person can be acquired within four cubits, should this rule not apply a fortiori to a gift that is acquired by the knowledge of another person? Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish adds something. Since a gift which cannot be acquired within four cubits can be acquired by the knowledge of another person, should this not a fortiori apply to a find?

Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: This is from the House of Shammai, since the House of Shammai say that property abandoned to the poor is abandoned. Rebbi Yasa said to him: We understand that it is free from tithes because property abandoned by a court order is abandoned. It is written (Ezra 10:8): “Anybody who will not come within three days conforming to the decree of the rulers and the elders, all his property shall be devoted to destruction.” From where that it is free from tithes? Rebbi Jonathan, the son of Rebbi Isaac bar Aḥa understood it from the following: One intercalates years neither in the Sabbatical year, nor in the year following the Sabbatical; but if they did intercalate it is intercalated. The one month he adds, is it not free from tithes? That refers to the Sabbatical year. What about the year after the Sabbatical? Rebbi Abun said, not to prolong the prohibition of new grain.

Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: That is only before Rebbi permitted the importation of vegetables from outside the Land. But after Rebbi permitted the importation of vegetables from outside the Land, the Sabbatical year is as any other year. It was stated: One does not intercalate in the Sabbatical Year but only in other years of a Sabbatical period, but if they did intercalate it is intercalated. Rebbi Mana said, that refers to earlier times when years were in order, but now that years are not in order, the Sabbatical year is like any other year.

HALAKHAH: From where about heads of rows? Rebbi Jonah said, it is written (Deut. 24:19): “When you are harvesting your harvest on your field and you forget,” what you harvest you can forget. That refers to the start of rows of standing grain. End of rows of standing grain? Rebbi Jonah said, “do not return to take it.” From the place you came from you should not return to take it. So far, about starts of rows of sheaves, ends of rows of sheaves? Rebbi Jonah said, we learn starts of rows of sheaves from starts of rows of standing grain and ends of rows of standing grain from ends of rows of sheaves.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Jonah refers the Mishnah to the case when he has more than the measure: If he wanted to save, he takes away half and gives half, but if he has only the measure, he puts it before them and they divide it up among themselves. Rebbi Ḥizqiah refers the Mishnah to the case when he has the exact measure: If he wants to save, he takes away one half and gives one half; since if he takes away one half and gives one half it becomes less, he puts it before them and they divide it up among themselves.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Jonah refers the Mishnah to the case when he has more than the measure: If he wanted to save, he takes away half and gives half, but if he has only the measure, he puts it before them and they divide it up among themselves. Rebbi Ḥizqiah refers the Mishnah to the case when he has the exact measure: If he wants to save, he takes away one half and gives one half; since if he takes away one half and gives one half it becomes less, he puts it before them and they divide it up among themselves.

Rebbi Ḥanina said: A person has to have two outer garments, one for weekdays and one for the Sabbath. What is the reason (Ruth 3:3): “Wash, rub yourself with oil, and put on your clothes.” Was she naked? But that refers to her Sabbath clothes. When Rebbi Simlai preached this in public, the companions cried and said to him, our teacher, as our garments are on weekdays so our garments are on the Sabbath. He said to them, nevertheless, you have to change, from this: “Wash, rub yourself with oil, and put your clothes on yourself and descend to the threshing floor.” (It is written “I will decend,” she said to her, my merits will go down with you. Was she naked? No, she said to her: put on your Sabbath garments.)

Rebbi Jonah said, it is not written, “hail to him who gives to the needy,” but (Ps. 41:2): “Hail to him who is considerate to the needy;” this refers to him who fulfills this commandment intelligently. How did Rebbi Jonah do it? When he saw a son of a prominent family who had lost his property, he used to say to him: My son, since I heard that an inheritance fell to you at another place, take and you will pay back. When he had taken it, he said to him, it is a gift.

What is a stipulation by the Court? That one should fix the First Tithe to the North, Second Tithe to the South, and the heave of the tithe at the extreme North. What is a stipulation by the Court? It is that if the Second Tithe is redeemed, that which is in excess is also redeemed. All this refers to dry produce; for fluids?

“If he received a field to harvest for early ears, grapes to harvest for baskets of grapes, olives to harvest for baskets of olives, he delivers as is.” That means, if (he is paid) in the same kind; but from another field, or from that field but not from the same kind, he must tithe before he delivers. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: “From the same field, whether it be the same kind or another kind, he separates heave and delivers. From another field, whether it be the same kind or another kind, he tithes and delivers.” The Mishnah follows Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel; what Rebbi Ḥiyya stated follows the Sages, and they disagree. We also may come and state that the Mishnah deals with some place where barley usually does not yield twice as much as wheat; what Rebbi Ḥiyya stated refers to a place where barley usually yields twice as much as wheat.

Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi asked before Rebbi Jeremiah: Is our Mishnah from Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose? As it was stated: “Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose says in the name of his father that one may take heave from wine on vinegar but not from vinegar on wine. If somebody transgressed, his heave is heave. Rebbi says that wine and vinegar are two distinct kinds and one does not give heave nor does one tithe from one on the other.” He was looking at him. He said to him, what are you staring at me? Bring a lash for yourself; there it is for tithing, here it is for kilaim. Rebbi Jonah said, he should not have stared at him since the earlier rabbis wanted to understand this matter and understood that there it refers to tithing but here to kilaim.

Rebbi Isaac and Rebbi Immi were sitting and asking, did we not state: “If it had a wall around it at least one hand-breadth high, one may sow in it thirteen kinds: three at each of the three sides of the wall, and one in the middle.” Should we not state, ‘six in the middle?’ Explain it if the walls diminish six. If the walls diminish six, is it that about which we stated: “Rebbi Jehudah says, six kinds may be in the middle?” We upheld it, but we do not know whether the colleagues upheld it or Rebbi Immi did; it refers to the beginning. And if it refers to the beginning, it is that about which Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: Rebbi Jehudah says, 18.

Rebbi Isaac and Rebbi Immi were sitting and asking, did we not state: “If it had a wall around it at least one hand-breadth high, one may sow in it thirteen kinds: three at each of the three sides of the wall, and one in the middle.” Should we not state, ‘six in the middle?’ Explain it if the walls diminish six. If the walls diminish six, is it that about which we stated: “Rebbi Jehudah says, six kinds may be in the middle?” We upheld it, but we do not know whether the colleagues upheld it or Rebbi Immi did; it refers to the beginning. And if it refers to the beginning, it is that about which Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: Rebbi Jehudah says, 18.

HALAKHAH: It is written (Deut. 22:9): “Do not sow kilaim in your vineyard.” This refers to your own vineyard. From where about another person’s vineyard? The verse says, kilaim, no vineyard and no kilaim. Rebbi Eleazar said, this is Rebbi Meïr’s, for Rebbi Meïr said that a Gentile cannot acquire real estate in the Land of Israel to free it from tithes. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is the opinion of everybody, explain it by a Gentile who sowed his vineyard kilaim and a Jew bought it from him.

HALAKHAH: Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If somebody buys three trees on another person’s property, spaced so that ten trees could be planted in a bet seah and that the ox and its harness could pass between them, then he acquired the ground under them, the ground between them, and outside the space for the harvester and his basket. Rav said, if they form a group. Samuel says, also if they are in a straight line. Rebbi Yose said, this refers to there but not to here. Rebbi Jonah said, it refers even to here, if they are close. Rebbi Mana said to him, did we not state “that the ox and its harness could pass between them”? Come and see, if the ox and its harness can pass between them, the roots can expand laterally, but if the ox and its harness cannot pass between them, the roots cannot expand laterally.

HALAKHAH: Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If somebody buys three trees on another person’s property, spaced so that ten trees could be planted in a bet seah and that the ox and its harness could pass between them, then he acquired the ground under them, the ground between them, and outside the space for the harvester and his basket. Rav said, if they form a group. Samuel says, also if they are in a straight line. Rebbi Yose said, this refers to there but not to here. Rebbi Jonah said, it refers even to here, if they are close. Rebbi Mana said to him, did we not state “that the ox and its harness could pass between them”? Come and see, if the ox and its harness can pass between them, the roots can expand laterally, but if the ox and its harness cannot pass between them, the roots cannot expand laterally.

MISHNAH: Any useless or fruit trees are considered as if they were fig trees. If they would produce a fig cake in the weight of a talent of 60 Italic minas one ploughs the entire bet seah because of them. If less, one ploughs for them only as necessary. If one tree yields a “fig cake” but two do not, or two do and one does not, one only ploughs for them as necessary, unless there are three, and so from three to nine. If there are ten or more than ten one ploughs the entire bet seah because of them, whether they produce or not, since it is said (Ex. 34:21): : “You shall rest from ploughing and harvesting.” One does not have to mention ploughing and harvesting of the Sabbatical, but it refers to ploughing in the year preceding the Sabbatical in preparation of the Sabbatical, and harvesting of Sabbatical growth after the Sabbatical. Rebbi Ismael says, just as ploughing is voluntary so harvesting is voluntary; this excludes the harvest of the ‘omer.

“One ploughs the entire bet seah because of them since it is said (Ex. 34:21): ‘You shall rest from ploughing and harvesting.’ ” That refers only to the first part, “one ploughs for them only as necessary because it is said ‘you shall rest from ploughing and harvesting.’ ”.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Crispus in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, Ḥananiah ben Gamliel: The Mishnah refers to the prohibition of the two terms. It was stated: “Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Neḥemiah forbid it.” Does this not refer to the prohibition of the two terms, so here also about the prohibition of the two terms. Rebbi Shammai inquired: If this is about the prohibition of the two terms, did we state that one is permitted to plough but forbidden to build? So it must refer to the permission of the two terms. If it refers to the permission of the two terms, we have stated: “But he may build during the Sabbatical year after the rains stopped because that is preparation for the year after the Sabbatical.” Rebbi Mana said, is Rebbi Shammai correct? In the first case, one is permitted to plough because that prepares for the year after the Sabbatical. It is forbidden to build since that prepares for the Sabbatical. The Mishnah does not say so, “but he may build during the Sabbatical year after the rains stopped because that is preparation for the year after the Sabbatical.”

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Crispus in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, Ḥananiah ben Gamliel: The Mishnah refers to the prohibition of the two terms. It was stated: “Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Neḥemiah forbid it.” Does this not refer to the prohibition of the two terms, so here also about the prohibition of the two terms. Rebbi Shammai inquired: If this is about the prohibition of the two terms, did we state that one is permitted to plough but forbidden to build? So it must refer to the permission of the two terms. If it refers to the permission of the two terms, we have stated: “But he may build during the Sabbatical year after the rains stopped because that is preparation for the year after the Sabbatical.” Rebbi Mana said, is Rebbi Shammai correct? In the first case, one is permitted to plough because that prepares for the year after the Sabbatical. It is forbidden to build since that prepares for the Sabbatical. The Mishnah does not say so, “but he may build during the Sabbatical year after the rains stopped because that is preparation for the year after the Sabbatical.”

Explanation: Rebbi Ḥinena bar Pappa and Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman passed by one of the ploughmen in the Sabbatical. Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman said to him, may you succed. Rebbi Ḥinena bar Pappa said to him, did not Rebbi teach us (Ps. 129:8): “The passers-by did not say,” this implies that it is forbidden to say “may you succeed” to one who ploughs in the Sabbatical. He told him, you know how to read but you do not know how to make a homily. “The passers-by did not say,” refers to the nations of the world who pass out of the world, they did not say to Israel “the blessing of the Eternal is on you.” What does Israel say to them, “we bless you in the Name of the Eternal.” All blessings that come into the world because of us are not enough for you, you do not say, come and take from these blessing for yourselves, but you roll over us pro-rated contributions and fines, head taxes and annonae.

Rebbi Yose said, they disagree for general usage, but for drinking even Rebbi Yose would agree. Who is the Tanna of “but one may give to drink to the water drawer”? Rebbi Yose! Rebbi Yose said, it is the opinion of everybody; one statement refers to humans, the other to animals.