studied

And he took the books of his fathers, and these were written in Hebrew, and he transcribed them, and he began from henceforth to study them, and I made known to him that which he could not (understand), and he studied them during the six rainy months.

And a philosopher who was there present, a skilful astronomer, asked the Lord Jesus whether He had studied astronomy. And the Lord Jesus answered him, and explained the number of the spheres, and of the heavenly bodies, their natures and operations; their opposition; their aspect, triangular, square, and sextile; their course, direct and retrograde; the twenty-fourths, and sixtieths of twenty-fourths; and other things beyond the reach of reason.

There was also among those philosophers one very skilled in treating of natural science, and he asked the Lord Jesus whether He had studied medicine. And He, in reply, explained to him physics and metaphysics, hyperphysics and hypophysics, the powers likewise and humours of the body, and the effects of the same; also the number of members and bones, of veins, arteries, and nerves; also the effect of heat and dryness, of cold and moisture, and what these give rise to; what was the operation of the soul upon the body, and its perceptions and powers; what was the operation of the faculty of speech, of anger, of desire; lastly, their conjunction and disjunction, and other things beyond the reach of any created intellect. Then that philosopher rose up, and adored the Lord Jesus, and said: O Lord, from this time I will be your disciple and slave.

They were men who had not only acquired proficiency in Jewish literature but had studied most carefully that of the Greeks as well.

My son Isaac is grown up and he has not for some time studied the service of his God, now tomorrow I will go and bring him to Shem, and Eber his son, and there he will learn the ways of the Lord, for they will teach him to know the Lord as well as to know that when he prayeth continually before the Lord, he will answer him, therefore there he will know the way of serving the Lord his God.

Now Alexander left the kingdom to Alexandra his wife, and depended upon it that the Jews would now very readily submit to her, because she had been very averse to such cruelty as he had treated them with, and had opposed his violation of their laws, and had thereby got the good-will of the people. Nor was he mistaken as to his expectations; for this woman kept the dominion, by the opinion that the people had of her piety; for she chiefly studied the ancient customs of her country, and cast those men out of the government that offended against their holy laws. And as she had two sons by Alexander, she made Hyrcanus the elder high priest, on account of his age, as also, besides that, on account of his inactive temper, no way disposing him to disturb the public. But she retained the younger, Aristobulus, with her as a private person, by reason of the warmth of his temper.

There have been indeed some bad men, who have attempted to calumniate my history, and took it to be a kind of scholastic performance for the exercise of young men. A strange sort of accusation and calumny this! since every one that undertakes to deliver the history of actions truly ought to know them accurately himself in the first place, as either having been concerned in them himself, or been informed of them by such as knew them. Now both these methods of knowledge I may very properly pretend to in the composition of both my works; for, as I said, I have translated the Antiquities out of our sacred books; which I easily could do, since I was a priest by my birth, and have studied that philosophy which is contained in those writings: and for the History of the War, I wrote it as having been an actor myself in many of its transactions, an eye-witness in the greatest part of the rest, and was not unacquainted with any thing whatsoever that was either said or done in it. How impudent then must those deserve to be esteemed that undertake to contradict me about the true state of those affairs! who, although they pretend to have made use of both the emperors' own memoirs, yet could not they he acquainted with our affairs who fought against them.

I omit to speak concerning punishments, and how many ways of escaping them the greatest part of the legislators have afforded malefactors, by ordaining that, for adulteries, fines in money should be allowed, and for corrupting [virgins] they need only marry them as also what excuses they may have in denying the facts, if any one attempts to inquire into them; for amongst most other nations it is a studied art how men may transgress their laws; but no such thing is permitted amongst us; for though we be deprived of our wealth, of our cities, or of the other advantages we have, our law continues immortal; nor can any Jew go so far from his own country, nor be so aftrighted at the severest lord, as not to be more aftrighted at the law than at him. If, therefore, this be the disposition we are under, with regard to the excellency of our laws, let our enemies make us this concession, that our laws are most excellent; and if still they imagine, that though we so firmly adhere to them, yet are they bad laws notwithstanding, what penalties then do they deserve to undergo who do not observe their own laws, which they esteem so far superior to them? Whereas, therefore, length of time is esteemed to be the truest touchstone in all cases, I would make that a testimonial of the excellency of our laws, and of that belief thereby delivered to us concerning God. For as there hath been a very long time for this comparison, if any one will but compare its duration with the duration of the laws made by other legislators, he will find our legislator to have been the ancientest of them all.

For birth is an aid towards an individual’s becoming famous, and distinguished, and talked about; viz., when a man’s parents happen to be in a position of rank and influence, and are possessed of wealth, and are able to spend it upon the education of their son, and when the country of one’s birth is great and illustrious; but when a man having all these things against him is able, notwithstanding these hindrances, to make himself known, and to produce an impression on those who hear of him, and to become distinguished and visible to the whole world, which speaks of him as it did not do before, how can we help admiring such a nature as being both noble in itself, and devoting itself to great deeds, and possessing a courage which is not by any means to be despised? And if one were to examine more fully the history of such an individual, why should he not seek to know in what manner, after being reared up in frugality and poverty, and without receiving any complete education, and without having studied systems and opinions by means of which he might have acquired confidence to associate with multitudes, and play the demagogue, and attract to himself many hearers, he nevertheless devoted himself to the teaching of new opinions, introducing among men a doctrine which not only subverted the customs of the Jews, while preserving due respect for their prophets, but which especially overturned the established observances of the Greeks regarding the Divinity? And how could such a person—one who had been so brought up, and who, as his calumniators admit, had learned nothing great from men—have been able to teach, in a manner not at all to be despised, such doctrines as he did regarding the divine judgment, and the punishments that are to overtake wickedness, and the rewards that are to be conferred upon virtue; so that not only rustic and ignorant individuals were won by his words, but also not a few of those who were distinguished by their wisdom, and who were able to discern the hidden meaning in those more common doctrines, as they were considered, which were in circulation, and which secret meaning enwrapped, so to speak, some more recondite signification still? The Seriphian, in Plato, who reproaches Themistocles after he had become celebrated for his military skill, saying that his reputation was due not to his own merits, but to his good fortune in having been born in the most illustrious country in Greece, received from the good-natured Athenian, who saw that his native country did contribute to his renown, the following reply: “Neither would I, had I been a Seriphian, have been so distinguished as I am, nor would you have been a Themistocles, even if you had had the good fortune to be an Athenian!” And now, our Jesus, who is reproached with being born in a village, and that not a Greek one, nor belonging to any nation widely esteemed, and being despised as the son of a poor labouring woman, and as having on account of his poverty left his native country and hired himself out in Egypt, and being, to use the instance already quoted, not only a Seriphian, as it were, a native of a very small and undistinguished island, but even, so to speak, the meanest of the Seriphians, has yet been able to shake the whole inhabited world not only to a degree far above what Themistocles the Athenian ever did, but beyond what even Pythagoras or Plato, or any other wise man in any part of the world whatever, or any prince or general, ever succeeded in doing.

Now, if these arguments hold good, why should we not defend, in the same way, the existence of heresies in Christianity? And respecting these, Paul appears to me to speak in a very striking manner when he says, “For there must be heresies among you, that they who are approved may be made manifest among you.” For as that man is “approved” in medicine who, on account of his experience in various [medical] heresies, and his honest examination of the majority of them, has selected the preferable system,—and as the great proficient in philosophy is he who, after acquainting himself experimentally with the various views, has given in his adhesion to the best,—so I would say that the wisest Christian was he who had carefully studied the heresies both of Judaism and Christianity. Whereas he who finds fault with Christianity because of its heresies would find fault also with the teaching of Socrates, from whose school have issued many others of discordant views. Nay, the opinions of Plato might be chargeable with error, on account of Aristotle’s having separated from his school, and founded a new one,—on which subject we have remarked in the preceding book. But it appears to me that Celsus has become acquainted with certain heresies which do not possess even the name of Jesus in common with us. Perhaps he had heard of the sects called Ophites and Cainites, or some others of a similar nature, which had departed in all points from the teaching of Jesus. And yet surely this furnishes no ground for a charge against the Christian doctrine.

This statement also is untrue, that it is “only foolish and low individuals, and persons devoid of perception, and slaves, and women, and children, of whom the teachers of the divine word wish to make converts.” Such indeed does the gospel invite, in order to make them better; but it invites also others who are very different from these, since Christ is the Saviour of all men, and especially of them that believe, whether they be intelligent or simple; and “He is the propitiation with the Father for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.” After this it is superfluous for us to wish to offer a reply to such statements of Celsus as the following: “For why is it an evil to have been educated, and to have studied the best opinions, and to have both the reality and appearance of wisdom? What hindrance does this offer to the knowledge of God? Why should it not rather be an assistance, and a means by which one might be better able to arrive at the truth?” Truly it is no evil to have been educated, for education is the way to virtue; but to rank those amongst the number of the educated who hold erroneous opinions is what even the wise men among the Greeks would not do. On the other hand, who would not admit that to have studied the best opinions is a blessing? But what shall we call the best, save those which are true, and which incite men to virtue? Moreover, it is an excellent thing for a man to be wise, but not to seem so, as Celsus says. And it is no hindrance to the knowledge of God, but an assistance, to have been educated, and to have studied the best opinions, and to be wise. And it becomes us rather than Celsus to say this, especially if it be shown that he is an Epicurean.

This statement also is untrue, that it is “only foolish and low individuals, and persons devoid of perception, and slaves, and women, and children, of whom the teachers of the divine word wish to make converts.” Such indeed does the gospel invite, in order to make them better; but it invites also others who are very different from these, since Christ is the Saviour of all men, and especially of them that believe, whether they be intelligent or simple; and “He is the propitiation with the Father for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.” After this it is superfluous for us to wish to offer a reply to such statements of Celsus as the following: “For why is it an evil to have been educated, and to have studied the best opinions, and to have both the reality and appearance of wisdom? What hindrance does this offer to the knowledge of God? Why should it not rather be an assistance, and a means by which one might be better able to arrive at the truth?” Truly it is no evil to have been educated, for education is the way to virtue; but to rank those amongst the number of the educated who hold erroneous opinions is what even the wise men among the Greeks would not do. On the other hand, who would not admit that to have studied the best opinions is a blessing? But what shall we call the best, save those which are true, and which incite men to virtue? Moreover, it is an excellent thing for a man to be wise, but not to seem so, as Celsus says. And it is no hindrance to the knowledge of God, but an assistance, to have been educated, and to have studied the best opinions, and to be wise. And it becomes us rather than Celsus to say this, especially if it be shown that he is an Epicurean.

This statement also is untrue, that it is “only foolish and low individuals, and persons devoid of perception, and slaves, and women, and children, of whom the teachers of the divine word wish to make converts.” Such indeed does the gospel invite, in order to make them better; but it invites also others who are very different from these, since Christ is the Saviour of all men, and especially of them that believe, whether they be intelligent or simple; and “He is the propitiation with the Father for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.” After this it is superfluous for us to wish to offer a reply to such statements of Celsus as the following: “For why is it an evil to have been educated, and to have studied the best opinions, and to have both the reality and appearance of wisdom? What hindrance does this offer to the knowledge of God? Why should it not rather be an assistance, and a means by which one might be better able to arrive at the truth?” Truly it is no evil to have been educated, for education is the way to virtue; but to rank those amongst the number of the educated who hold erroneous opinions is what even the wise men among the Greeks would not do. On the other hand, who would not admit that to have studied the best opinions is a blessing? But what shall we call the best, save those which are true, and which incite men to virtue? Moreover, it is an excellent thing for a man to be wise, but not to seem so, as Celsus says. And it is no hindrance to the knowledge of God, but an assistance, to have been educated, and to have studied the best opinions, and to be wise. And it becomes us rather than Celsus to say this, especially if it be shown that he is an Epicurean.

After this, being desirous to show that it is nothing either wonderful or new which we state regarding floods or conflagrations, but that, from misunderstanding the accounts of these things which are current among Greeks or barbarous nations, we have accorded our belief to our own Scriptures when treating of them, he writes as follows: “The belief has spread among them, from a misunderstanding of the accounts of these occurrences, that after lengthened cycles of time, and the returns and conjunctions of planets, conflagrations and floods are wont to happen, and because after the last flood, which took place in the time of Deucalion, the lapse of time, agreeably to the vicissitude of all things, requires a conflagration; and this made them give utterance to the erroneous opinion that God will descend, bringing fire like a torturer.” Now in answer to this we say, that I do not understand how Celsus, who has read a great deal, and who shows that he has perused many histories, had not his attention arrested by the antiquity of Moses, who is related by certain Greek historians to have lived about the time of Inachus the son of Phoroneus, and is acknowledged by the Egyptians to be a man of great antiquity, as well as by those who have studied the history of the Phœnicians. And any one who likes may peruse the two books of Flavius Josephus on the antiquities of the Jews, in order that he may see in what way Moses was more ancient than those who asserted that floods and conflagrations take place in the world after long intervals of time; which statement Celsus alleges the Jews and Christians to have misunderstood, and, not comprehending what was said about a conflagration, to have declared that “God will descend, bringing fire like a torturer.”

The argument of Celsus appears to point by these illustrations to this conclusion: that it is “an obligation incumbent on all men to live according to their country’s customs, in which case they will escape censure; whereas the Christians, who have abandoned their native usages, and who are not one nation like the Jews, are to be blamed for giving their adherence to the teaching of Jesus.” Let him then tell us whether it is a becoming thing for philosophers, and those who have been taught not to yield to superstition, to abandon their country’s customs, so as to eat of those articles of food which are prohibited in their respective cities? or whether this proceeding of theirs is opposed to what is becoming? For if, on account of their philosophy, and the instructions which they have received against superstition, they should eat, in disregard of their native laws, what was interdicted by their fathers, why should the Christians (since the gospel requires them not to busy themselves about statues and images, or even about any of the created works of God, but to ascend on high, and present the soul to the Creator), when acting in a similar manner to the philosophers, be censured for so doing? But if, for the sake of defending the theses which he has proposed to himself, Celsus, or those who think with him, should say, that even one who had studied philosophy would keep his country’s laws, then philosophers in Egypt, for example, would act most ridiculously in avoiding the eating of onions, in order to observe their country’s laws, or certain parts of the body, as the head and shoulders, in order not to transgress the traditions of their fathers. And I do not speak of those Egyptians who shudder with fear at the discharge of wind from the body, because if any one of these were to become a philosopher, and still observe the laws of his country, he would be a ridiculous philosopher, acting very unphilosophically. In the same way, then, he who has been led by the gospel to worship the God of all things, and, from regard to his country’s laws, lingers here below among images and statues of men, and does not desire to ascend to the Creator, will resemble those who have indeed learned philosophy, but who are afraid of things which ought to inspire no terrors, and who regard it as an act of impiety to eat of those things which have been enumerated.

In the next place, with regard to the declaration of Jesus against rich men, when He said, “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God,” Celsus alleges that this saying manifestly proceeded from Plato, and that Jesus perverted the words of the philosopher, which were, that “it was impossible to be distinguished for goodness, and at the same time for riches.” Now who is there that is capable of giving even moderate attention to affairs—not merely among the believers on Jesus, but among the rest of mankind—that would not laugh at Celsus, on hearing that Jesus, who was born and brought up among the Jews, and was supposed to be the son of Joseph the carpenter, and who had not studied literature—not merely that of the Greeks, but not even that of the Hebrews—as the truth-loving Scriptures testify regarding Him, had read Plato, and being pleased with the opinion he expressed regarding rich men, to the effect that “it was impossible to be distinguished for goodness and riches at the same time,” had perverted this, and changed it into, “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God!” Now, if Celsus had not perused the Gospels in a spirit of hatred and dislike, but had been imbued with a love of truth, he would have turned his attention to the point why a camel—that one of animals which, as regards its physical structure, is crooked—was chosen as an object of comparison with a rich man, and what signification the “narrow eye of a needle” had for him who saw that “strait and narrow was the way that leadeth unto life;” and to this point also, that this animal, according to the law, is described as “unclean,” having one element of acceptability, viz. that it ruminates, but one of condemnation, viz. that it does not divide the hoof. He would have inquired, moreover, how often the camel was adduced as an object of comparison in the sacred Scriptures, and in reference to what objects, that he might thus ascertain the meaning of the Logos concerning the rich men. Nor would he have left without examination the fact that “the poor” are termed “blessed” by Jesus, while “the rich” are designated as “miserable;” and whether these words refer to the rich and poor who are visible to the senses, or whether there is any kind of poverty known to the Logos which is to be deemed “altogether blessed,” and any rich man who is to be wholly condemned. For even a common individual would not thus indiscriminately have praised the poor, many of whom lead most wicked lives. But on this point we have said enough.

Now if this is a true account of what constitutes the right and the wrong use of personification, have we not grounds for holding Celsus up to ridicule for thus ascribing to Christians words which they never uttered? For if those whom he represents as speaking are the unlearned, how is it possible that such persons could distinguish between “sense” and “reason,” between “objects of sense” and “objects of the reason?” To argue in this way, they would require to have studied under the Stoics, who deny all intellectual existences, and maintain that all that we apprehend is apprehended through the senses, and that all knowledge comes through the senses. But if, on the other hand, he puts these words into the mouth of philosophers who search carefully into the meaning of Christian doctrines, the statements in question do not agree with their character and principles. For no one who has learnt that God is invisible, and that certain of His works are invisible, that is to say, apprehended by the reason, can say, as if to justify his faith in a resurrection, “How can they know God, except by the perception of the senses?” or, “How otherwise than through the senses can they gain any knowledge?” For it is not in any secret writings, perused only by a few wise men, but in such as are most widely diffused and most commonly known among the people, that these words are written: “The invisible things of God from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made.” From whence it is to be inferred, that though men who live upon the earth have to begin with the use of the senses upon sensible objects, in order to go on from them to a knowledge of the nature of things intellectual, yet their knowledge must not stop short with the objects of sense. And thus, while Christians would not say that it is impossible to have a knowledge of intellectual objects without the senses, but rather that the senses supply the first means of obtaining knowledge, they might well ask the question, “Who can gain any knowledge without the senses?” without deserving the abuse of Celsus, when he adds, “This is not the language of a man; it comes not from the soul, but from the flesh.”

"'2. Thy tongue hath studied unrighteousness all the day long; as a sharp razor hast thou practised craft.

He [Rabbi Tarfon] used to say: It is not your duty to finish the work, but neither are you at liberty to neglect it; If you have studied much Torah, you shall be given much reward. Faithful is your employer to pay you the reward of your labor; And know that the grant of reward unto the righteous is in the age to come.

Samuel said: If one got up early to study before he recited the Shema‘ he has to recite the benediction. After the recitation of Shema‘ he does not have to recite the benediction. Rebbi Abba said, that is only if he studied immediately. Rebbi Ḥuna said: It is reasonable to say that for exegesis one has to recite the benediction, for practical rules one does not have to recite the benediction. Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Both for exegesis and for practical rules one has to recite the benediction. Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi said: When we were sitting before Rav, he always required us to recite the benediction both for exegesis and for practical rules.

Rebbi Jonah objected: There is the chapter on the induction and the chapter on the generation of the deluge which will have no future use. Should they have been eliminated from what is studied? They are there to inform you. So here also to inform you. Rebbi Mana said, as we stated there: “If a person says, so is my tradition, one will say to him, you heard the opinion of Rebbi X.” And so, if somebody should say, I heard that it is forbidden to plough until the New Year, they will say to him, you heard the prohibition of the first two terms.

Rebbi Jonah gave his tithes to Rebbi Aḥa bar Ulla, not because he was a Cohen but because he studied Torah. What is the reason? (2Chr. 31:4) “He said to the people, the inhabitants of Jerusalem, to give the part of the Cohanim and the Levites, so they should be strong in the Torah of the Eternal.” Rebbi Huna did not take tithe, Rebbi Aḥa did not take tithe. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba instructed himself to go outside the Land, not to take tithe. A person asked Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman who asked Rebbi Jonathan, may one take? He said to him, take, what fell to your tribe fell to you.

The great Ḥizqiah, when he had studied Torah as much as he could, used to go and sit before the assembly hall in order to see old men and get up before them. Jehudah bar Ḥiyya used to go and greet his father-in-law Rebbi Yannai every Sabbath eve. He used to sit on a hilly place in order to see him and get up before him. His students said to him, did the teacher not instruct us, “for an Elder four cubits”? He said to them, one does not sit before Sinai. Once he did not come. He said it is impossible that my son Jehudah should change his habits, it is impossible that sufferings should come over this holy body. It is reasonable that we lost the great Jehudah.

There, we have stated: “If somebody bathes in a cave or in the waters of Tiberias he may dry himself even with ten linen towels but may not bring them in his hand.” Samuel said, what should an opinionated person do who never studied and never served? This Mishnah was before they permitted to bring linen towels. Rebbi Jeremiah and Rebbi Zeˋira, Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: Rebbi permitted linen towels. It was stated: One takes a shower neither with hot water nor with cold water. Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi said, this baraita was before the Sages permitted the hot springs of Tiberias, as it was stated: One who bathes in the hot springs of Tiberias may sprinkle on himself, but others may not sprinkle on him. Rebbi Simeon ben Menassia said, he may not even sprinkle on himself since he increases vapor and sweeps the floor.

“Nor with a city of gold.” Rav Jehudah said, for example a Jerusalem of gold The rabbis of Caesarea said, פרוש טוק טקלין. It happened that Rebbi Aqiba made a city of gold for his wife. Rabban Gamliel’s wife saw her and became jealous. She came and mentioned it before her husband. He told her, if you had done for me what she did for him, for she sold the braids of her head, gave him, and he studied Torah. There, we have stated: “Two in the name of Rebbi Eliezer. A woman may go out with a city of gold and participants in pigeon contests are disqualified for testimony.” It was stated, Rebbi Meïr declares liable. Between Rebbi Meïr and the rabbis it is understandable, Rebbi Meïr declares liable and the Sages declare not liable. Between Rebbi Eliezer and the rabbis it is understandable, Rebbi Eliezer permits and the Sages prohibit. Between Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Eliezer it is difficult, Rebbi Meïr declares liable and Rebbi Eliezer permits.

The sons of the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya worked on this Chapter for six months. They produced six derivatives for each single one. The sons of the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya follow the method of their father, as Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: “One who cuts grain, harvests grapes, harvests olives, cuts tree branches, tears out, plucks fruits, are all [liable] because of harvesting.” Rebbi Sidor said, Jehudah the son of the rabbi studied Makhširin for six months. In the end there came a student of Rebbi Simai and asked him, but he could not answer. He said, it is recognizable that this one never passed by the gate of the Torah.

Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: one adds a limb to it. He lifted his eyes and looked at him. He told him, why are you looking at me? Do I need you that you enjoy it? Thirteen years he went and came before his teacher even though he did not need him. Rebbi Samuel in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira: Was it not enough for him to have paid his respects to his teacher since anybody who pays his respects to his teacher is as if he paid his respects to the Divine Presence. Rebbi Berekhiah, Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba. It is written and Moses would take the Tent, etc. How far away was it? One mil. It is not written “and it was that anybody asking Moses” but and it was that anybody asking the Eternal. From here that anybody visiting his teacher is as if he was visiting the Divine Presence. Rebbi Ḥelbo, Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of Rav: It is written, Eliahu from Tisbe said, etc. Was not Eliahu the ruler of the prophets? But it teaches that all the time he was standing before his teacher Aḥiyya from Shilo it was as if he stood before the Divine Presence. Rebbi Ḥelbo in the name of those of the House of Shilo: Even when Eliahu wanted water for his face Elisha would put it on his hands. What is the reason? Here is Elisha ben Shafaṭ, it is not written here “who studied Torah”, but who poured water on Eliahu’s hands. It is written: The lad Samuel was serving the Eternal before Eli. Did he not only serve Eli? But this teaches that all service which he rendered before his teacher Eli was as if he rendered if before the Divine Presence. Rebbi Ismael stated: And Aaron and all the Elders of Israel came to eat bread with Moses’s father-in-law before god. Did they eat before God? But from here that anyone who receives a friend is as if he received the Divine Presence.

Rebbi Phineas said, it happened that a bright student studied completions for three and a half years from his teacher; he went and completed Galilee. He could not finish to complete the South before the time made it impossible.

MISHNAH: If he read it piecewise while dozing he fulfilled his obligation. If he wrote it, studied it, corrected it, if he had the intention he fulfilled his obligation. If it was written with a chemical, or vermillion, or gum, or vitriol, on papyrus, or on vellum, he did not fulfill his obligation unless it is written in square letters on a scroll in ink.

“If he wrote it,” this implies that work is permitted. Should we say on the Fourteenth, in walled cities? “Studied it,” only he should not let his mind wander to other topics. “He corrected it.” It was stated: one is not explicit about its mistakes. Rebbi Isaac bar Abba from Mehasia and Rebbi Ḥananel were sitting before Rav. One said, Yehudim. And the other one said, Yehudiim, and neither of them changed his opinion. Rebbi Joḥanan was reading always “Yehudim”. Rebbi Ḥelbo, Rav Jeremiah in the name of Rav: One verse says “book”, another verse says “letter.” How is this? They made it light for sewing. They were lenient regarding its sewing, that if he stitched two or three stitches it is qualified.

Rebbi Meïr was sitting and preaching in the House of Study of Tiberias when his teacher Elisha passed by riding on a horse on the Sabbath. They came and told him, your teacher is outside. He stopped his sermon and went out to him. He asked him, what did you preach today? He told him, and the Eternal blessed the end etc. He asked him, what did you explain about this? He answered him, and the Eternal added double all that Job had owned; that he doubled his money. He said, woe for those who are lost and not found, your teacher Aqiba did not preach this but, the Eternal blessed the end of Job from his beginning, by the merit of commandments and good works which were in his hand from his beginning. He asked him, and what did you preach further? He told him, the end of a matter is better than the beginning. He asked him, what did you explain about this? For example, a man who had children in his youth but they died, and in his old age they lived; that is the end of a matter is better than the beginning. For example, a man who traded in his youth and lost, and in his old age and gained; that is the end of a matter is better than the beginning. For example, a man who studied Torah in his youth and forgot, in his old age he remembered; that is the end of a matter is better than the beginning. He said, woe for those who are lost and not found, your teacher Aqiba did not preach this but, the end of a matter is good from the beginning, in case it is good from the start, and this applies to me. My father Abuya was one of the leading Jerusalemites. On the day he came to circumcise me he invited all the leading Jerusalemites and sat them in one room, and Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Joshua in another room. After they ate and drank they started to clap with their hands and dance. Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Joshua said, while they are occupied in theirs let us be occupied with ours. They sat occupied with words of the Torah, from the Torah to Prophets, from Prophets to Hagiographs. Fire descended from Heaven and surrounded them. Abuya told them, my teachers! Why do you come to burn down my house? They told him, Heaven forbid! But we were sitting reviewing the words of the Torah, from the Torah to Prophets, from Prophets to Hagiographs, and the words were joyful as at their giving on Sinai. And was the main giving on Sinai not in fire? And the Mountain burns in the fire up to the heart of Heaven. My father Abuya told them, my teachers! If that is the power of Torah, if this son of mine survives I dedicate him to Torah. Because his intent was not for Heaven, it did not succeed with this man. He asked him, and what did you preach further? He told him, it cannot be valued by gold or glass. He asked him, what did you explain about this? He told him, the words of the Torah are as difficult to acquire as golden vessels, and as easy to lose as glass vessels. And like golden and glass vessels when they are broken he can make them vessels as before, also the student of the Sages who forgot his learning can learn it anew. He said to him, this is enough, Meïr, up to here is the Sabbath domain. He asked him, how do you know? He told him, from the horse’s hooves which I continuously counted for 2’000 cubits. He said to him, all that wisdom is in you and you do not repent? He told him, I cannot. He asked him, why? He told him, once I was passing by the Holiest of Holies riding on a horse on the Day of Atonement which fell on a Sabbath and I heard an unembodied voice coming from the Holiest of Holies, saying, return, erring children, except for Elisha ben Abuya who knew My power and rebelled against Me. And all that came to him because he was sitting memorizing in the valley of Genezareth and saw a man climbing to the top of a date palm taking the mother with the chicks and descending safely. The next day he saw another man climbing to the top of a date palm, taking the chicks and sending away the mother. When climbing down he was bitten by a snake, and he died. He said, it is written, sending away you shall send the mother, but the chicks you may take for yourself, so it will be good for you and prolong your days. Where is the good for this one? Where is the prolongation of days of this one? He did not know that Rebbi Jacob had explained it preceding him, so it will be good for you in the future world which is all good, and prolong your days, in the future which is all long. But some are saying, because he saw the tongue of Rebbi Jehudah the baker in the mouth of a dog, oozing blood. He said, is this the Torah and this is its reward? This is the tongue which was delivering the words of the Torah correctly; this is the tongue which occupied itself with Torah all its days; [is this the Torah and this is its reward?] It appears that there is no reward and no resurrection of the dead. But some are saying, when his mother was pregnant with him she passed by pagan temples and smelled of this kind. And this smell was bubbling in her body like the poison of a viper. Later Elisha fell sick. They came and informed Rebbi Meïr, your teacher is sick. He went to visit him and found him sick. He asked him, are you not repenting? He asked, and if one repents, is one accepted? He told him, is it not written, man shall repent up to extinction, one receives up to the extinction of the breath. At that moment Elisha cried, passed away, and died. Rebbi Meïr was happy internally and said, it seems that my teacher passed away repentant. After they buried him, fire descended from Heaven and burned his grave. They came and informed Rebbi Meïr, your teacher’s grave is on fire. He went to visit it and found it burning. What did he do? He took his kaftan and spread it over it. He said, stay for the night, etc. Stay for this world which compares to the night, and it will be in the morning, this is the Future World which is all morning, if the Good One will redeem, this is the Holy One, praise to Him, who is Good, as it is written, the Eternal is good to all, and His mercies are on all His creatures. And if He does not want to redeem you I shall redeem you, living is the Eternal, and it was extinguished. They asked Rebbi Meïr, if they ask you in that World, whom do you want to visit, your father or your teacher? He told them, I shall visit my teacher first and afterwards my father. They said, will they listen to you? He told them, did we not state, “one saves the case of a scroll with the scroll, and the case of phylacteries with the phylacteries”? One saves Elisha Aher by the merit of his Torah. Later his daughters went to take charity from Rebbi. Rebbi decided and said, nobody shall show him grace nor be friendly to his orphans. They told him, Rebbi. Do not look at his deeds, do look at his Torah. At this moment Rebbi cried and decided for them that they be provided for. He said, if this one who toiled in Torah not for Heaven’s sake, see what he produced; one who toils in the Torah for itself not so much more?

What happened in Ascalon supports him who said, Simeon ben Sheṭaḥ was president. Two pious men were in Ascalon. They ate together, drank together, and studied Torah together. One of them died, and nobody attended his funeral. The son of Ma`yan the publican died; the entire city stopped working to attend his funeral. The other pious man started crying and said woe, do the haters of Israel have no hope? He was shown in a dream that it was said to him, do not denigrate your Master’s children. This one committed one sin and died with it, the other one did one good deed and died with it. What sin did this pious man commit? Far be it that he committed a sin, but once he put on his head phylacteries before his arm phylacteries. What good deed did the son of publican Ma`yan do? Far be it that he ever committed a good deed, but once he prepared a breakfast for the city council but they did not come to eat it. He said, let the poor eat it, so it should not go to waste. Some say, he was walking in the street when a loaf fell down from him and a poor person picked it up. He did not say anything [in order not to embarrass him]. After days this pious man saw his comrade the pious walking in gardens, in orchards, at water sources, and he saw the son of Ma`yan the publican with his tongue out on the river bank trying in vain to reach the water. He also saw Miriam, Onion-leaf’s daughter. Rebbi Eleazar bar Yose said, she was hanging on her breast nipples. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, the hinge of Hell’s door was fixed in her ear. He asked them, why? They told him, because she fasted and made herself famous. Some say, she fasted one day and was dissolute two. He asked them for how long is she in this state? They told him, until Simeon ben Shetah comes, when we shall remove it from her ear and put it in his ear. [He asked them, and why?] They told him, because he said, that if I would be elected Patriarch, I would kill sorcerers. But now he was made Patriarch and he did not kill them. In fact, there are eighty women sorcerers in the cave of Ascalon who hurt the world. You shall go and tell him! He told them, I am afraid that since he is Patriarch he will not believe me. They told him, if he will believe you it will be good. In case that he will not believe you, perform a sign in front of him: put your hand on an eye and take it out, put it back and it will be back. He went and told him. He wanted to perform [the miracle] before him, but he told him, I know that you are a pious person; more than that you could do. In fact, I never spoke it with my mouth even though I intended so in my thoughts. Immediately Simeon ben Shetaḥ went on a stormy day and took with him eighty select men. He gave them eighty clean garments, put them in eighty new amphoras, and put them on them upside down. He told them, when I whistle once, put on your garments. When I whistle for the second time, come in all of you together. When you enter, each of you shall choose one and lift her from the ground, since the nature of this sorcery is that separated from the earth it cannot do anything. He went and stood at the entrance to the cave. He said אוים, אוים, open for me, I am one of yours. They asked, how did you come here on such a day? He said, I was walking between the raindrops. They asked him, what do you want to do here? He said, to learn and to teach. Every one should make what he is able to. One of them said what she said and produced bread. One of them said what she said and produced meat. One of them said what she said and produced dishes. One said what she said and produced wine. They asked him, what can you do? He told them, when I whistle twice, I shall bring here eighty select men for your pleasure and entertainment. They told him, that is what we desire. When he whistled the first time, they put on their garments; when he whistled for the second time, they all entered together. He said, every one who comes shall select his mate. They lifted them, took them away, and crucified them. That is what we have stated: “It happened that Simeon ben Shetaḥ hanged women in Ascalon. [They said, he hanged eighty women but one does not try two on the same day.” But the hour needed it.]

Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked: may a fistful be offered from two vessels? Rebbi Ḥanin objected, did we not state, “the vessel combines”? If you would say that a fistful can be offered from two vessels, for which purpose did we state “the vessel combines”? Rebbi Eleazar the Southerner said, did not Rebbi Yose bar Zamina say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, why did they say, leftovers of flour-offerings do combine together? Because they need their vessel. Here also because they have to be in their vessel. Rebbi Mattaniah said, are not fine flour, and incense, and frankincense, and coals offered in many vessels? Nevertheless you are saying, “the vessel combines”; and here “the vessel combines”. Cahana asked the rabbis there, a flour-offering split in the mixing bowl, if one became impure did the other become impure? They said to him, if one became impure the other became impure. Did impurity jump? They said to him, impurity did jump. Even if another {vessel} was in between? They said to him, even if another {vessel} was in between. Taking a fistful from one on the other? They said to him, we did not hear any tradition, we studied a Mishnah, as what we did state there, “if two flour offerings from which no fistfuls were taken were combined together, if he is able to take a fistful from one separately and from the other separately they are qualified, otherwise disqualified.” Do not the remainders of one interrupt between one and the other? There came Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If a fistful was taken from one for the other, if one became impure he other became impure. Anything in-between did not become impure. Was it not stated, “one cup? Which makes its contents one.” Rebbi Ḥinena said, a vessel combines only what is tied to it.

For his father, and for his mother, and for his teacher who taught him wisdom, from where? And Elisa saw, and he cried ‘my father, my father, chariot of Israel and its charioteers’. Rebbi Mattun asked before Rebbi Joḥanan: May one infer instruction from Elisa? He said to him Mattun, Mattun, just as a dead person from the moment he is deceased cannot see him, so also from the moment he disappeared he did not see him. In the same way one tears for the Sages so one tears for their students. Who is a student of the Sages? Ḥizqiah said, any who has studied practices up to the Torah. Rebbi Yose said to him, that you are saying for earlier ones. But today only practices. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Any who neglects his business for his learning. It was stated: Any whom one asks and he answers. Rebbi Hoshaia said, for example, we, since our instructors supervise us and we answer them. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, any who can explain his Mishnah. But as relates to us, even our teachers are not wise to explain our Mishnah.

Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Tanḥum ben Rebbi Ḥiyya. If somebody studied and taught, kept and did, and it was in his power to strengthen, but he did not strengthen, that one is in the set of the cursed. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: If somebody did not study, did not teach, did not keep and did not do, and it was not in his hand to strengthen but he did strengthen, that one is in the set of the blessed. And Rebbi Ḥana, Rebbi Jeremiah, said in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: In the future [world], the Holy One, praise to Him, will make shadow of those who perform commandments in the shadow of those who study Torah. What is the reason? “For in the shadow of Torah, in the shadow of money”. And it is said, “it is a tree of life for those who support it.”

HALAKHAH: “A vow inside a vow is possible,” etc. Rebbi Yose asked: An oath, an oath, an oath that I shall not eat, but he ate? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, let us hear from the following: “An oath that I shall not eat this loaf, an oath that I shall not eat, an oath that I shall not eat. If he ate, he is guilty only once.” Because he said this. Therefore, if he had not said this, he would be guilty for each of the oaths. Avime the brother of Ḥefa said, I studied vows, I studied oaths. Ḥefa wanted to examine him: There were five loaves before him and he said, an oath that I shall not eat this loaf. Then he said, these two loaves. Then he said, these three loaves. Then he said, these four loaves. Then he said, these five loaves. Then he ate the first, what are the rules? He said to him, he is guilty for each [oath] separately. He said to him, he is guilty only once. From the moment he mentioned “oath” about it, he made it like carcass meat. From there on he is as if he wanted to apply oaths to prohibitions, but no oath can be applied to prohibitions. He examined him a second time. There were five loaves and he said, an oath about these five loaves. Then he said, these four. Then he said, these three. Then he said, these two. Then he said, this single one. Then he ate all of them? He said to him, he is guilty only once. He said to him, he is guilty for each [oath] separately. If somebody had said, an oath that I shall not eat five, and he ate four, would he be free from punishment? Rebbi Yose said, it is reasonable following Ḥefa’s brother in the last case, following Ḥefa in the first.

HALAKHAH: “A vow inside a vow is possible,” etc. Rebbi Yose asked: An oath, an oath, an oath that I shall not eat, but he ate? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, let us hear from the following: “An oath that I shall not eat this loaf, an oath that I shall not eat, an oath that I shall not eat. If he ate, he is guilty only once.” Because he said this. Therefore, if he had not said this, he would be guilty for each of the oaths. Avime the brother of Ḥefa said, I studied vows, I studied oaths. Ḥefa wanted to examine him: There were five loaves before him and he said, an oath that I shall not eat this loaf. Then he said, these two loaves. Then he said, these three loaves. Then he said, these four loaves. Then he said, these five loaves. Then he ate the first, what are the rules? He said to him, he is guilty for each [oath] separately. He said to him, he is guilty only once. From the moment he mentioned “oath” about it, he made it like carcass meat. From there on he is as if he wanted to apply oaths to prohibitions, but no oath can be applied to prohibitions. He examined him a second time. There were five loaves and he said, an oath about these five loaves. Then he said, these four. Then he said, these three. Then he said, these two. Then he said, this single one. Then he ate all of them? He said to him, he is guilty only once. He said to him, he is guilty for each [oath] separately. If somebody had said, an oath that I shall not eat five, and he ate four, would he be free from punishment? Rebbi Yose said, it is reasonable following Ḥefa’s brother in the last case, following Ḥefa in the first.

What happened in Ascalon supports him who said, Simeon ben Sheṭaḥ was president. Two students were in Ascalon. They ate together, drank together, and studied Torah together. One of them died, and nobody attended his funeral. The son of Ma`yan the publican died; the entire city stopped working to attend his funeral. The other student started crying and said woe, do the haters of Israel have no hope? It was shown to him in his dream and said, do not denigrate your Master’s children. This one did one good deed and died with it, the other one committed one sin and died with it. What sin did he commit? Far be it that he committed a sin, but once he put on his head phylacteries before his arm phylacteries. What good deed did the son of publican Ma`yan do? Far be it that he committed a good deed, but once he prepared a breakfast for the city council but they did not show up. He said, let the poor come and eat it, so it should not go to waste. Some say, he was walking in the street, having a loaf under his shoulder. It fell down and a poor person picked it up. He did not say anything in order not to embarrass him. This student saw gardens and water sources. He saw the son of Ma`yan the publican standing on the river bank trying in vain to reach the water. He also saw Miriam, Onion-leaf’s daughter, hanging on her breast nipples; but some say, the door of Hell was fixed in her ear. He asked, [why? They told him, because she fasted and made herself famous among her neighbors. Some say, she fasted one day and was dissolute two days. He asked them] for how long? They told him, when Simeon ben Sheṭaḥ comes, we shall remove it from her ear and put is in his ear. He asked them, what is his misdeed? They told him, because he made a personal vow that if he were elected president, he would kill all sorcerers. But now he was made president and he did not kill them. In fact, there are eighty women in the cave of Ascalon who hurt the world; go and tell him! He told them, he is an important personality, he will not believe me. They told him, he is very meek and will believe you. In case that he will not believe you, take out one of your eyes and put it in your hand. He took out one of his eyes and put it in his hand. They said, return it; it was even with the other. He went and told him. He wanted to perform his miracle before him, but he told him, you do not need to. I know that you are a pious person. Even though I intended so in my thoughts, I never spoke it with my mouth. It was a day of rainstorms. He took eighty select men in clean garments and took with them eighty amphoras. He told them, when I whistle once, put on your garments. When I whistle for the second time, come. When he came to the cave of Ascalon, he said אוים, אוים, open for me, I am one of yours. When he entered, one said what she said and produced bread. One said what she said and produced a dish. One said what she said and produced wine. They asked him, what can you do? He told them, when I whistle twice, I shall bring here eighty select men in dry garments for your pleasure and entertainment. They told him, we desire them. When he whistled, they put on their garments; when he whistled for the second time, they all entered together. He made them a sign for each one to grab one of them and lift her from the earth. Then they did not succeed in what they were trying to do. He told the one who brought bread, bring bread! She did not succeed. He said, take her to be crucified. Bring a dish! She did not succeed. He said, take her to be crucified. Bring wine! She did not succeed. He said, take her to be crucified. This he did to all of them. That is what we have stated: “Simeon ben Shetaḥ hanged eighty women in Ascalon, but one does not try two on the same day.” But the hour needed it.

Abime the brother of Ḥefa said, I had studied Nedarim and Ševuot; Ḥefa wanted to examine him. He had before him five loaves and said, an oath that I would not eat this loaf. He returned and said, these two. He returned and said, these three. He returned and said, these four. He returned and said, these five. Then he ate the first. He said to him, he is liable for each single one. He answered, he is liable only once, for when he mentioned the first he made it like carcass meat; the following make an oath fall on something prohibited and oaths cannot fall on prohibitions.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, all these 40 days which Moses spent on the Mountain, he studied Torah and forgot it. At the end it was given to him as a gift. Why so much? To return the stupid ones.

R. Johanan also said in the name of R. Simeon b. Johai : Greater is the service of Torah than its study : as it is said, "Elisha the son of Shaphat is here, who poured water on the hands of Elijah" (II Kings iii. 11). It is not mentioned that he studied [with Elijah] but that he poured water. That teaches that its service is greater than its study.

R. Ammi and R. Assi, although there were thirteen Synagogues in Tiberias, used to pray only between the pillars where they studied.

Although there were thirteen Synagogues in Tiberias, R. Ammi and R. Assi never said the Tefillah except between the pillars where they studied.

Our Rabbis have taught : Who is an 'Am ha'ares? Whoever does not read the Shema' evening and morning — these are the words of R. Eliezer; but R. Joshua says : Whoever does not lay Tefillin. Ben 'Azzai says : Whoever has no Sisit on his garment. R. Nathan says : Whoever has no Mezuzah on his door. R. Nathan b. Joseph says : Whoever has sons and does not rear them to the study of Torah. Others declare : Even if one has studied Torah and Mishnah but has not ministered to the disciples of the wise, he is an 'Am ha'ares. Rab Huna said : The Halakah is in accord with the last mentioned.

Rammi b. Hamma refused to include for Zimmun Rab Menashya b.Tahlifa who taught Sifra, Sifre and the Halakah. When Rammi b. Hamma departed this life, Raba said : He only died because he refused to include Rab Menashya b. Tahlifa for Zimmun. But there is a teaching : Others declare ; Even if one has studied Torah and Mishnah but has not ministered to the disciplas of the wise, he is an 'Am ha'ares ! It is different with Rab Menashya b. Tahlifa because he did minister to the Rabbis, but Rammi b. Hamma failed to make careful inquiry about him. Another version is : Rab Menashya heard the teachings from the mouth of the Rabbis and studied them, and therefore was like a Rabbinical scholar.

Rammi b. Hamma refused to include for Zimmun Rab Menashya b.Tahlifa who taught Sifra, Sifre and the Halakah. When Rammi b. Hamma departed this life, Raba said : He only died because he refused to include Rab Menashya b. Tahlifa for Zimmun. But there is a teaching : Others declare ; Even if one has studied Torah and Mishnah but has not ministered to the disciplas of the wise, he is an 'Am ha'ares ! It is different with Rab Menashya b. Tahlifa because he did minister to the Rabbis, but Rammi b. Hamma failed to make careful inquiry about him. Another version is : Rab Menashya heard the teachings from the mouth of the Rabbis and studied them, and therefore was like a Rabbinical scholar.

But is this so? But did not Rava say, Scripture and Mishnah [should be studied] in the Sukkah, but reciting outside the Sukkah? There is no difficulty, One refers to reciting, one refers to examination.

R. Hama b. Papa stated: Any man who is endowed with grace is known to be a God-fearing man, for it is said, ‘But the loving kindness of the Lord is from everlasting time to everlasting time to them that fear Him.” R. Elazar further stated: What is it that is written, “She opens her mouth with wisdom, and the Torah of loving kindness is on her tongue?” (Proverbs 31:26): Is there then a Torah of loving kindness and a Torah which is not of loving kindness? Rather Torah [which is studied] for its own sake is a ‘Torah of loving kindness’, whereas Torah [which is studied] for an ulterior motive is a Torah which is not of loving kindness. There are those who say, Torah [which is studied] in order to teach it is a ‘Torah of loving kindness’, but Torah [which is] not [studied] in order to teach it is a Torah which is not of loving kindness.

R. Hama b. Papa stated: Any man who is endowed with grace is known to be a God-fearing man, for it is said, ‘But the loving kindness of the Lord is from everlasting time to everlasting time to them that fear Him.” R. Elazar further stated: What is it that is written, “She opens her mouth with wisdom, and the Torah of loving kindness is on her tongue?” (Proverbs 31:26): Is there then a Torah of loving kindness and a Torah which is not of loving kindness? Rather Torah [which is studied] for its own sake is a ‘Torah of loving kindness’, whereas Torah [which is studied] for an ulterior motive is a Torah which is not of loving kindness. There are those who say, Torah [which is studied] in order to teach it is a ‘Torah of loving kindness’, but Torah [which is] not [studied] in order to teach it is a Torah which is not of loving kindness.

R. Hama b. Papa stated: Any man who is endowed with grace is known to be a God-fearing man, for it is said, ‘But the loving kindness of the Lord is from everlasting time to everlasting time to them that fear Him.” R. Elazar further stated: What is it that is written, “She opens her mouth with wisdom, and the Torah of loving kindness is on her tongue?” (Proverbs 31:26): Is there then a Torah of loving kindness and a Torah which is not of loving kindness? Rather Torah [which is studied] for its own sake is a ‘Torah of loving kindness’, whereas Torah [which is studied] for an ulterior motive is a Torah which is not of loving kindness. There are those who say, Torah [which is studied] in order to teach it is a ‘Torah of loving kindness’, but Torah [which is] not [studied] in order to teach it is a Torah which is not of loving kindness.

R. Hama b. Papa stated: Any man who is endowed with grace is known to be a God-fearing man, for it is said, ‘But the loving kindness of the Lord is from everlasting time to everlasting time to them that fear Him.” R. Elazar further stated: What is it that is written, “She opens her mouth with wisdom, and the Torah of loving kindness is on her tongue?” (Proverbs 31:26): Is there then a Torah of loving kindness and a Torah which is not of loving kindness? Rather Torah [which is studied] for its own sake is a ‘Torah of loving kindness’, whereas Torah [which is studied] for an ulterior motive is a Torah which is not of loving kindness. There are those who say, Torah [which is studied] in order to teach it is a ‘Torah of loving kindness’, but Torah [which is] not [studied] in order to teach it is a Torah which is not of loving kindness.

Rabbah b. Bar Ḥana said: Why have the words of the Torah been likened unto fire, as it is said (Jer., 23.29): "Is not My word like as fire?" In order to indicate that just as fire does not burn when isolated, so will the words of the Torah not be preserved when studied by oneself, alone. It is in keeping herewith that R. Jose b. Ḥanina said: What is the meaning of the verse (ibid., 50.36): "A sword is upon the boasters, and they shall become fools"? It means: a sword upon the necks of the enemies of the learned who are occupied in the study of the Torah each one by himself. Nay, more, they become dull, as it is said: "And they shall become fools." The same idea may be derived from the following verse (Is., 19.13): "The princes of Zoan are become fools."

R. Samuel b. 'Idi, R. Huna b. Manoah and R. Ḥiyya of Vastania used to study under Raba. After Raba's death they studied under R. Papa. Whenever the latter taught them something which did not appeal to them, he noticed that they were winking to one another. R. Papa therefore felt discouraged,

R. Jochanan went into the College and expounded thus, "Yet they seek me daily, and delight to know my ways" (Is. lviii. 2). And while they seek Him by day, do they not seek Him by night also? Yes, but it is to inform thee that every one who studieth in the Law even one day in the year, the Scripture reckoneth it to him, as if he studied all the year; and so in the case of punishments, as it is written, "After the number of the days that ye spied out the land" (Numb. xiv. 34). And was it that they sinned forty years? Was it not forty days that they sinned? but it was to inform thee, that every one who committeth a transgression even one day in the year, the Scripture reckoneth it to him, as if he had transgressed all the year.

When Acher died, they said, Let him not be brought into judgment, but let him not be admitted to the world to come. Let him not be brought into judgment, because he studied the Law; but let him not be admitted to the world to come, because he sinned. R. Meir said, It were good to bring him to judgment, but also to admit him to the world to come. Would that I might die, that I might cause smoke to go up from his grave. When R. Meir died, smoke went up from the grave of Acher. R. Jochanan said, A mighty deed it was to consign his teacher to the flames. There was one among us, and we found not a way to deliver him. If I take him by the hand, who will snatch him away from me. He also said, Would that I might die, and extinguish the smoke from his grave. When R. Jochanan died, the smoke ceased from the grave of Acher. The public mourner uttered this expression over him, Even the keeper of the door of Gehenna stood not his ground before thee, O our teacher.