supports

“What, then, sir,” I said, “if these men, being such as they are, repent and put away their desires after these women, and return again to the virgins, and walk in their strength and in their works, shall they not enter into the house of God?” “They shall enter in,” he said, “if they put away the works of these women, and put on again the strength of the virgins, and walk in their works. For on this account was there a cessation in the building, in order that, if these repent, they may depart into the building of the tower. But if they do not repent, then others will come in their place, and these at the end will be cast out. For all these things I gave thanks to the Lord, because He had pity on all that call upon His name; and sent the angel of repentance to us who sinned against Him, and renewed our spirit; and when we were already destroyed, and had no hope of life, He restored us to newness of life.” “Now, sir,” I continued, “show me why the tower was not built upon the ground, but upon the rock and upon the gate.” “Are you still,” he said, “without sense and understanding?” “I must, sir,” I said, “ask you of all things, because I am wholly unable to understand them; for all these things are great and glorious, and difficult for man to understand.” “Listen,” he said: “the name of the Son of God is great, and cannot be contained, and supports the whole world. If, then, the whole creation is supported by the Son of God, what think ye of those who are called by Him, and bear the name of the Son of God, and walk in His commandments? do you see what kind of persons He supports? Those who bear His name with their whole heart. He Himself, accordingly, became a foundation to them, and supports them with joy, because they are not ashamed to bear His name.”

“What, then, sir,” I said, “if these men, being such as they are, repent and put away their desires after these women, and return again to the virgins, and walk in their strength and in their works, shall they not enter into the house of God?” “They shall enter in,” he said, “if they put away the works of these women, and put on again the strength of the virgins, and walk in their works. For on this account was there a cessation in the building, in order that, if these repent, they may depart into the building of the tower. But if they do not repent, then others will come in their place, and these at the end will be cast out. For all these things I gave thanks to the Lord, because He had pity on all that call upon His name; and sent the angel of repentance to us who sinned against Him, and renewed our spirit; and when we were already destroyed, and had no hope of life, He restored us to newness of life.” “Now, sir,” I continued, “show me why the tower was not built upon the ground, but upon the rock and upon the gate.” “Are you still,” he said, “without sense and understanding?” “I must, sir,” I said, “ask you of all things, because I am wholly unable to understand them; for all these things are great and glorious, and difficult for man to understand.” “Listen,” he said: “the name of the Son of God is great, and cannot be contained, and supports the whole world. If, then, the whole creation is supported by the Son of God, what think ye of those who are called by Him, and bear the name of the Son of God, and walk in His commandments? do you see what kind of persons He supports? Those who bear His name with their whole heart. He Himself, accordingly, became a foundation to them, and supports them with joy, because they are not ashamed to bear His name.”

“What, then, sir,” I said, “if these men, being such as they are, repent and put away their desires after these women, and return again to the virgins, and walk in their strength and in their works, shall they not enter into the house of God?” “They shall enter in,” he said, “if they put away the works of these women, and put on again the strength of the virgins, and walk in their works. For on this account was there a cessation in the building, in order that, if these repent, they may depart into the building of the tower. But if they do not repent, then others will come in their place, and these at the end will be cast out. For all these things I gave thanks to the Lord, because He had pity on all that call upon His name; and sent the angel of repentance to us who sinned against Him, and renewed our spirit; and when we were already destroyed, and had no hope of life, He restored us to newness of life.” “Now, sir,” I continued, “show me why the tower was not built upon the ground, but upon the rock and upon the gate.” “Are you still,” he said, “without sense and understanding?” “I must, sir,” I said, “ask you of all things, because I am wholly unable to understand them; for all these things are great and glorious, and difficult for man to understand.” “Listen,” he said: “the name of the Son of God is great, and cannot be contained, and supports the whole world. If, then, the whole creation is supported by the Son of God, what think ye of those who are called by Him, and bear the name of the Son of God, and walk in His commandments? do you see what kind of persons He supports? Those who bear His name with their whole heart. He Himself, accordingly, became a foundation to them, and supports them with joy, because they are not ashamed to bear His name.”

In this way, the Word of the Father goes out in all, as the fruit [of] his heart and an expression of his will. But it supports all. It chooses them and also takes the expression of all, purifying them, returning them to the Father and to the Mother, Jesus of infinite sweetness.

And I Solomon took from the mine of that stone 200 shekels for the supports of the table of incense, which was similar in appearance. And I Solomon glorified the Lord God, and then closed round the treasure of that stone. And I ordered afresh the demons to cut marble for the construction of the house of God. And I Solomon prayed to the Lord, and asked the hound, saying: "By what angel art thou frustrated?" And the demon replied: "By the great Brieus."

And the queen of the South saw all this, and marvelled, glorifying the God of Israel; and she beheld the Temple of the Lord being builded. And she gave a siklos of gold and one hundred myriads of silver and choice bronze, and she went into the Temple. And (she beheld) the altar of incense and the brazen supports of this altar, and the gems of the lamps flashing forth of different colours, and of the lamp-stand of stone, and of emerald, and hyacinth, and sapphire; and she beheld the vessels of gold, and silver, and bronze, and wood, and the folds of skins dyed red with madder. And she saw the bases of the pillars of the Temple of the Lord. All were of one gold ... apart from the demons whom I condemned to labour. And there was peace in the circle of my kingdom and over all the earth.

After this, king Alexander, although he fell into a distemper by hard drinking, and had a quartan ague, which held him three years, yet would not leave off going out with his army, till he was quite spent with the labors he had undergone, and died in the bounds of Ragaba, a fortress beyond Jordan. But when his queen saw that he was ready to die, and had no longer any hopes of surviving, she came to him weeping and lamenting, and bewailed herself and her sons on the desolate condition they should be left in; and said to him, "To whom dost thou thus leave me and my children, who are destitute of all other supports, and this when thou knowest how much ill-will thy nation bears thee?" But he gave her the following advice: That she need but follow what he would suggest to her, in order to retain the kingdom securely, with her children: that she should conceal his death from the soldiers till she should have taken that place; after this she should go in triumph, as upon a victory, to Jerusalem, and put some of her authority into the hands of the Pharisees; for that they would commend her for the honor she had done them, and would reconcile the nation to her for he told her they had great authority among the Jews, both to do hurt to such as they hated, and to bring advantages to those to whom they were friendly disposed; for that they are then believed best of all by the multitude when they speak any severe thing against others, though it be only out of envy at them. And he said that it was by their means that he had incurred the displeasure of the nation, whom indeed he had injured. "Do thou, therefore," said he, "when thou art come to Jerusalem, send for the leading men among them, and show them my body, and with great appearance of sincerity, give them leave to use it as they themselves please, whether they will dishonor the dead body by refusing it burial, as having severely suffered by my means, or whether in their anger they will offer any other injury to that body. Promise them also that thou wilt do nothing without them in the affairs of the kingdom. If thou dost but say this to them, I shall have the honor of a more glorious Funeral from them than thou couldst have made for me; and when it is in their power to abuse my dead body, they will do it no injury at all, and thou wilt rule in safety." So when he had given his wife this advice, he died, after he had reigned twenty-seven years, and lived fifty years within one.

"Had I perceived that you were all zealously disposed to go to war with the Romans, and that the purer and more sincere part of the people did not propose to live in peace, I had not come out to you, nor been so bold as to give you counsel; for all discourses that tend to persuade men to do what they ought to do are superfluous, when the hearers are agreed to do the contrary. But because some are earnest to go to war because they are young, and without experience of the miseries it brings, and because some are for it out of an unreasonable expectation of regaining their liberty, and because others hope to get by it, and are therefore earnestly bent upon it, that in the confusion of your affairs they may gain what belongs to those that are too weak to resist them, I have thought proper to get you all together, and to say to you what I think to be for your advantage; that so the former may grow wiser, and change their minds, and that the best men may come to no harm by the ill conduct of some others. And let not any one be tumultuous against me, in case what they hear me say do not please them; for as to those that admit of no cure, but are resolved upon a revolt, it will still be in their power to retain the same sentiments after my exhortation is over; but still my discourse will fall to the ground, even with a relation to those that have a mind to hear me, unless you will all keep silence. I am well aware that many make a tragical exclamation concerning the injuries that have been offered you by your procurators, and concerning the glorious advantages of liberty; but before I begin the inquiry, who you are that must go to war, and who they are against whom you must fight, I shall first separate those pretenses that are by some connected together; for if you aim at avenging yourselves on those that have done you injury, why do you pretend this to be a war for recovering your liberty? but if you think all servitude intolerable, to what purpose serve your complaint against your particular governors? for if they treated you with moderation, it would still be equally an unworthy thing to be in servitude. Consider now the several cases that may be supposed, how little occasion there is for your going to war. Your first occasion is the accusations you have to make against your procurators; now here you ought to be submissive to those in authority, and not give them any provocation; but when you reproach men greatly for small offenses, you excite those whom you reproach to be your adversaries; for this will only make them leave off hurting you privately, and with some degree of modesty, and to lay what you have waste openly. Now nothing so much damps the force of strokes as bearing them with patience; and the quietness of those who are injured diverts the injurious persons from afflicting. But let us take it for granted that the Roman ministers are injurious to you, and are incurably severe; yet are they not all the Romans who thus injure you; nor hath Caesar, against whom you are going to make war, injured you: it is not by their command that any wicked governor is sent to you; for they who are in the west cannot see those that are in the east; nor indeed is it easy for them there even to hear what is done in these parts. Now it is absurd to make war with a great many for the sake of one, to do so with such mighty people for a small cause; and this when these people are not able to know of what you complain: nay, such crimes as we complain of may soon be corrected, for the same procurator will not continue for ever; and probable it is that the successors will come with more moderate inclinations. But as for war, if it be once begun, it is not easily laid down again, nor borne without calamities coming therewith. However, as to the desire of recovering your liberty, it is unseasonable to indulge it so late; whereas you ought to have labored earnestly in old time that you might never have lost it; for the first experience of slavery was hard to be endured, and the struggle that you might never have been subject to it would have been just; but that slave who hath been once brought into subjection, and then runs away, is rather a refractory slave than a lover of liberty; for it was then the proper time for doing all that was possible, that you might never have admitted the Romans [into your city], when Pompey came first into the country. But so it was, that our ancestors and their kings, who were in much better circumstances than we are, both as to money, and strong bodies, and [valiant] souls, did not bear the onset of a small body of the Roman army. And yet you, who have now accustomed yourselves to obedience from one generation to another, and who are so much inferior to those who first submitted, in your circumstances will venture to oppose the entire empire of the Romans. While those Athenians, who, in order to preserve the liberty of Greece, did once set fire to their own city; who pursued Xerxes, that proud prince, when he sailed upon the land, and walked upon the sea, and could not be contained by the seas, but conducted such an army as was too broad for Europe; and made him run away like a fugitive in a single ship, and brake so great a part of Asia at the Lesser Salamis; are yet at this time servants to the Romans; and those injunctions which are sent from Italy become laws to the principal governing city of Greece. Those Lacedemonians also who got the great victories at Thermopylae and Platea, and had Agesilaus [for their king], and searched every corner of Asia, are contented to admit the same lords. Those Macedonians also, who still fancy what great men their Philip and Alexander were, and see that the latter had promised them the empire over the world, these bear so great a change, and pay their obedience to those whom fortune hath advanced in their stead. Moreover, ten thousand ether nations there are who had greater reason than we to claim their entire liberty, and yet do submit. You are the only people who think it a disgrace to be servants to those to whom all the world hath submitted. What sort of an army do you rely on? What are the arms you depend on? Where is your fleet, that may seize upon the Roman seas? and where are those treasures which may be sufficient for your undertakings? Do you suppose, I pray you, that you are to make war with the Egyptians, and with the Arabians? Will you not carefully reflect upon the Roman empire? Will you not estimate your own weakness? Hath not your army been often beaten even by your neighboring nations, while the power of the Romans is invincible in all parts of the habitable earth? nay, rather they seek for somewhat still beyond that; for all Euphrates is not a sufficient boundary for them on the east side, nor the Danube on the north; and for their southern limit, Libya hath been searched over by them, as far as countries uninhabited, as is Cadiz their limit on the west; nay, indeed, they have sought for another habitable earth beyond the ocean, and have carried their arms as far as such British islands as were never known before. What therefore do you pretend to? Are you richer than the Gauls, stronger than the Germans, wiser than the Greeks, more numerous than all men upon the habitable earth? What confidence is it that elevates you to oppose the Romans? Perhaps it will be said, It is hard to endure slavery. Yes; but how much harder is this to the Greeks, who were esteemed the noblest of all people under the sun! These, though they inhabit in a large country, are in subjection to six bundles of Roman rods. It is the same case with the Macedonians, who have juster reason to claim their liberty than you have. What is the case of five hundred cities of Asia? Do they not submit to a single governor, and to the consular bundle of rods? What need I speak of the Henlochi, and Colchi and the nation of Tauri, those that inhabit the Bosphorus, and the nations about Pontus, and Meotis, who formerly knew not so much as a lord of their own, but are now subject to three thousand armed men, and where forty long ships keep the sea in peace, which before was not navigable, and very tempestuous? How strong a plea may Bithynia, and Cappadocia, and the people of Pamphylia, the Lycians, and Cilicians, put in for liberty! But they are made tributary without an army. What are the circumstances of the Thracians, whose country extends in breadth five days' journey, and in length seven, and is of a much more harsh constitution, and much more defensible, than yours, and by the rigor of its cold sufficient to keep off armies from attacking them? do not they submit to two thousand men of the Roman garrisons? Are not the Illyrlans, who inhabit the country adjoining, as far as Dalmatia and the Danube, governed by barely two legions? by which also they put a stop to the incursions of the Daeians. And for the Dalmatians, who have made such frequent insurrections in order to regain their liberty, and who could never before be so thoroughly subdued, but that they always gathered their forces together again, revolted, yet are they now very quiet under one Roman legion. Moreover, great advantages might provoke any people to revolt, the Gauls might do it best of all, as being so thoroughly walled round by nature; on the east side by the Alps, on the north by the river Rhine, on the south by the Pyrenean mountains, and on the west by the ocean. Now although these Gauls have such obstacles before them to prevent any attack upon them, and have no fewer than three hundred and five nations among them, nay have, as one may say, the fountains of domestic happiness within themselves, and send out plentiful streams of happiness over almost the whole world, these bear to be tributary to the Romans, and derive their prosperous condition from them; and they undergo this, not because they are of effeminate minds, or because they are of an ignoble stock, as having borne a war of eighty years in order to preserve their liberty; but by reason of the great regard they have to the power of the Romans, and their good fortune, which is of greater efficacy than their arms. These Gauls, therefore, are kept in servitude by twelve hundred soldiers, which are hardly so many as are their cities; nor hath the gold dug out of the mines of Spain been sufficient for the support of a war to preserve their liberty, nor could their vast distance from the Romans by land and by sea do it; nor could the martial tribes of the Lusitanians and Spaniards escape; no more could the ocean, with its tide, which yet was terrible to the ancient inhabitants. Nay, the Romans have extended their arms beyond the pillars of Hercules, and have walked among the clouds, upon the Pyrenean mountains, and have subdued these nations. And one legion is a sufficient guard for these people, although they were so hard to be conquered, and at a distance so remote from Rome. Who is there among you that hath not heard of the great number of the Germans? You have, to be sure, yourselves seen them to be strong and tall, and that frequently, since the Romans have them among their captives every where; yet these Germans, who dwell in an immense country, who have minds greater than their bodies, and a soul that despises death, and who are in rage more fierce than wild beasts, have the Rhine for the boundary of their enterprises, and are tamed by eight Roman legions. Such of them as were taken captive became their servants; and the rest of the entire nation were obliged to save themselves by flight. Do you also, who depend on the walls of Jerusalem, consider what a wall the Britons had; for the Romans sailed away to them, an subdued them while they were encompassed by the ocean, and inhabited an island that is not less than the [continent of this] habitable earth; and four legions are a sufficient guard to so large an island And why should I speak much more about this matter, while the Parthians, that most warlike body of men, and lords of so many nations, and encompassed with such mighty forces, send hostages to the Romans? whereby you may see, if you please, even in Italy, the noblest nation of the East, under the notion of peace, submitting to serve them. Now when almost all people under the sun submit to the Roman arms, will you be the only people that make war against them? and this without regarding the fate of the Carthaginians, who, in the midst of their brags of the great Hannibal, and the nobility of their Phoenician original, fell by the hand of Scipio. Nor indeed have the Cyrenians, derived from the Lacedemonians, nor the Marmaridite, a nation extended as far as the regions uninhabitable for want of water, nor have the Syrtes, a place terrible to such as barely hear it described, the Nasamons and Moors, and the immense multitude of the Numidians, been able to put a stop to the Roman valor. And as for the third part of the habitable earth, [Africa,] whose nations are so many that it is not easy to number them, and which is bounded by the Atlantic Sea and the pillars of Hercules, and feeds an innumerable multitude of Ethiopians, as far as the Red Sea, these have the Romans subdued entirely. And besides the annual fruits of the earth, which maintain the multitude of the Romans for eight months in the year, this, over and above, pays all sorts of tribute, and affords revenues suitable to the necessities of the government. Nor do they, like you, esteem such injunctions a disgrace to them, although they have but one Roman legion that abides among them. And indeed what occasion is there for showing you the power of the Romans over remote countries, when it is so easy to learn it from Egypt, in your neighborhood? This country is extended as far as the Ethiopians, and Arabia the Happy, and borders upon India; it hath seven millions five hundred thousand men, besides the inhabitants of Alexandria, as may be learned from the revenue of the poll tax; yet it is not ashamed to submit to the Roman government, although it hath Alexandria as a grand temptation to a revolt, by reason it is so full of people and of riches, and is besides exceeding large, its length being thirty furlongs, and its breadth no less than ten; and it pays more tribute to the Romans in one month than you do in a year; nay, besides what it pays in money, it sends corn to Rome that supports it for four months [in the year]: it is also walled round on all sides, either by almost impassable deserts, or seas that have no havens, or by rivers, or by lakes; yet have none of these things been found too strong for the Roman good fortune; however, two legions that lie in that city are a bridle both for the remoter parts of Egypt, and for the parts inhabited by the more noble Macedonians. Where then are those people whom you are to have for your auxiliaries? Must they come from the parts of the world that are uninhabited? for all that are in the habitable earth are [under the] Romans. Unless any of you extend his hopes as far as beyond the Euphrates, and suppose that those of your own nation that dwell in Adiabene will come to your assistance; but certainly these will not embarrass themselves with an unjustifiable war, nor, if they should follow such ill advice, will the Parthians permit them so to do; for it is their concern to maintain the truce that is between them and the Romans, and they will be supposed to break the covenants between them, if any under their government march against the Romans. What remains, therefore, is this, that you have recourse to Divine assistance; but this is already on the side of the Romans; for it is impossible that so vast an empire should be settled without God's providence. Reflect upon it, how impossible it is for your zealous observations of your religious customs to be here preserved, which are hard to be observed even when you fight with those whom you are able to conquer; and how can you then most of all hope for God's assistance, when, by being forced to transgress his law, you will make him turn his face from you? and if you do observe the custom of the sabbath days, and will not be revealed on to do any thing thereon, you will easily be taken, as were your forefathers by Pompey, who was the busiest in his siege on those days on which the besieged rested. But if in time of war you transgress the law of your country, I cannot tell on whose account you will afterward go to war; for your concern is but one, that you do nothing against any of your forefathers; and how will you call upon God to assist you, when you are voluntarily transgressing against his religion? Now all men that go to war do it either as depending on Divine or on human assistance; but since your going to war will cut off both those assistances, those that are for going to war choose evident destruction. What hinders you from slaying your children and wives with your own hands, and burning this most excellent native city of yours? for by this mad prank you will, however, escape the reproach of being beaten. But it were best, O my friends, it were best, while the vessel is still in the haven, to foresee the impending storm, and not to set sail out of the port into the middle of the hurricanes; for we justly pity those who fall into great misfortunes without fore-seeing them; but for him who rushes into manifest ruin, he gains reproaches [instead of commiseration]. But certainly no one can imagine that you can enter into a war as by agreement, or that when the Romans have got you under their power, they will use you with moderation, or will not rather, for an example to other nations, burn your holy city, and utterly destroy your whole nation; for those of you who shall survive the war will not be able to find a place whither to flee, since all men have the Romans for their lords already, or are afraid they shall have hereafter. Nay, indeed, the danger concerns not those Jews that dwell here only, but those of them which dwell in other cities also; for there is no people upon the habitable earth which have not some portion of you among them, whom your enemies will slay, in case you go to war, and on that account also; and so every city which hath Jews in it will be filled with slaughter for the sake of a few men, and they who slay them will be pardoned; but if that slaughter be not made by them, consider how wicked a thing it is to take arms against those that are so kind to you. Have pity, therefore, if not on your children and wives, yet upon this your metropolis, and its sacred walls; spare the temple, and preserve the holy house, with its holy furniture, for yourselves; for if the Romans get you under their power, they will no longer abstain from them, when their former abstinence shall have been so ungratefully requited. I call to witness your sanctuary, and the holy angels of God, and this country common to us all, that I have not kept back any thing that is for your preservation; and if you will follow that advice which you ought to do, you will have that peace which will be common to you and to me; but if you indulge four passions, you will run those hazards which I shall be free from."

So upon the exhortations of Mucianus, and the other commanders, that he would accept of the empire, and upon that of the rest of the army, who cried out that they were willing to be led against all his opposers, he was in the first place intent upon gaining the dominion over Alexandria, as knowing that Egypt was of the greatest consequence, in order to obtain the entire government, because of its supplying of corn [to Rome]; which corn, if he could be master of, he hoped to dethrone Vitellius, supposing he should aim to keep the empire by force [for he would not be able to support himself, if the multitude at Rome should once be in want of food]; and because he was desirous to join the two legions that were at Alexandria to the other legions that were with him. He also considered with himself, that he should then have that country for a defense to himself against the uncertainty of fortune; for Egypt is hard to be entered by land, and hath no good havens by sea. It hath on the west the dry deserts of Libya; and on the south Siene, that divides it from Ethiopia, as well as the cataracts of the Nile, that cannot be sailed over; and on the east the Red Sea extended as far as Coptus; and it is fortified on the north by the land that reaches to Syria, together with that called the Egyptian Sea, having no havens in it for ships. And thus is Egypt walled about on every side. Its length between Pelusium and Siene is two thousand furlongs, and the passage by sea from Plinthine to Pelusium is three thousand six hundred furlongs. Its river Nile is navigable as far as the city called Elephantine, the forenamed cataracts hindering ships from going any farther, The haven also of Alexandria is not entered by the mariners without difficulty, even in times of peace; for the passage inward is narrow, and full of rocks that lie under the water, which oblige the mariners to turn from a straight direction: its left side is blocked up by works made by men's hands on both sides; on its right side lies the island called Pharus, which is situated just before the entrance, and supports a very great tower, that affords the sight of a fire to such as sail within three hundred furlongs of it, that ships may cast anchor a great way off in the night time, by reason of the difficulty of sailing nearer. About this island are built very great piers, the handiwork of men, against which, when the sea dashes itself, and its waves are broken against those boundaries, the navigation becomes very troublesome, and the entrance through so narrow a passage is rendered dangerous; yet is the haven itself, when you are got into it, a very safe one, and of thirty furlongs in largeness; into which is brought what the country wants in order to its happiness, as also what abundance the country affords more than it wants itself is hence distributed into all the habitable earth.

Now of those that perished by famine in the city, the number was prodigious, and the miseries they underwent were unspeakable; for if so much as the shadow of any kind of food did any where appear, a war was commenced presently, and the dearest friends fell a fighting one with another about it, snatching from each other the most miserable supports of life. Nor would men believe that those who were dying had no food, but the robbers would search them when they were expiring, lest any one should have concealed food in their bosoms, and counterfeited dying; nay, these robbers gaped for want, and ran about stumbling and staggering along like mad dogs, and reeling against the doors of the houses like drunken men; they would also, in the great distress they were in, rush into the very same houses two or three times in one and the same day. Moreover, their hunger was so intolerable, that it obliged them to chew every thing, while they gathered such things as the most sordid animals would not touch, and endured to eat them; nor did they at length abstain from girdles and shoes; and the very leather which belonged to their shields they pulled off and gnawed: the very wisps of old hay became food to some; and some gathered up fibres, and sold a very small weight of them for four Attic [drachmae]. But why do I describe the shameless impudence that the famine brought on men in their eating inanimate things, while I am going to relate a matter of fact, the like to which no history relates, either among the Greeks or Barbarians? It is horrible to speak of it, and incredible when heard. I had indeed willingly omitted this calamity of ours, that I might not seem to deliver what is so portentous to posterity, but that I have innumerable witnesses to it in my own age; and besides, my country would have had little reason to thank me for suppressing the miseries that she underwent at this time.

And that the understanding of this matter may not appear very difficult, we may draw some considerations from the evil effects of those passions which are wont to befall some souls, as when a soul is consumed by the fire of love, or wasted away by zeal or envy, or when the passion of anger is kindled, or one is consumed by the greatness of his madness or his sorrow; on which occasions some, finding the excess of these evils unbearable, have deemed it more tolerable to submit to death than to endure perpetually torture of such a kind. You will ask indeed whether, in the case of those who have been entangled in the evils arising from those vices above enumerated, and who, while existing in this life, have been unable to procure any amelioration for themselves, and have in this condition departed from the world, it be sufficient in the way of punishment that they be tortured by the remaining in them of these hurtful affections, i.e. of the anger, or of the fury, or of the madness, or of the sorrow, whose fatal poison was in this life lessened by no healing medicine; or whether, these affections being changed, they will be subjected to the pains of a general punishment. Now I am of opinion that another species of punishment may be understood to exist; because, as we feel that when the limbs of the body are loosened and torn away from their mutual supports, there is produced pain of a most excruciating kind, so, when the soul shall be found to be beyond the order, and connection, and harmony in which it was created by God for the purposes of good and useful action and observation, and not to harmonize with itself in the connection of its rational movements, it must be deemed to bear the chastisement and torture of its own dissension, and to feel the punishments of its own disordered condition. And when this dissolution and rending asunder of soul shall have been tested by the application of fire, a solidification undoubtedly into a firmer structure will take place, and a restoration be effected.

Let the ancient sages, then, make known their sayings to those who are capable of understanding them. Suppose that Plato, for example, the son of Ariston, in one of his Epistles, is discoursing about the “chief good,” and that he says, “The chief good can by no means be described in words, but is produced by long habit, and bursts forth suddenly as a light in the soul, as from a fire which had leapt forth.” We, then, on hearing these words, admit that they are well said, for it is God who revealed to men these as well as all other noble expressions. And for this reason it is that we maintain that those who have entertained correct ideas regarding God, but who have not offered to Him a worship in harmony with the truth, are liable to the punishments which fall on sinners. For respecting such Paul says in express words: “The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath showed it unto them. For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: because that, when they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things.” The truth, then, is verily held [in unrighteousness], as our Scriptures testify, by those who are of opinion that “the chief good cannot be described in words,” but who assert that, “after long custom and familiar usage, a light becomes suddenly kindled in the soul, as if by a fire springing forth, and that it now supports itself alone.”

Moreover, if it is believed not only among Christians and Jews, but also by many others among the Greeks and barbarians, that the human soul lives and subsists after its separation from the body; and if reason supports the idea that pure souls which are not weighed down with sin as with a weight of lead ascend on high to the region of purer and more etherial bodies, leaving here below their grosser bodies along with their impurities; whereas souls that are polluted and dragged down to the earth by their sins, so that they are unable even to breathe upwards, wander hither and thither, at some times about sepulchres, where they appear as the apparitions of shadowy spirits, at others among other objects on the ground;—if this is so, what are we to think of those spirits that are attached for entire ages, as I may say, to particular dwellings and places, whether by a sort of magical force or by their own natural wickedness? Are we not compelled by reason to set down as evil such spirits as employ the power of prophesying—a power in itself neither good nor bad—for the purpose of deceiving men, and thus turn them away from God, and from the purity of His service? It is moreover evident that this is their character, when we add that they delight in the blood of victims, and in the smoke and odour of sacrifices, and that they feed their bodies on these, and that they take pleasure in such haunts as these, as though they sought in them the sustenance of their lives; in this resembling those depraved men who despise the purity of a life apart from the senses, and who have no inclination except for the pleasures of the body, and for that earthly and bodily life in which these pleasures are found. If the Delphian Apollo were a god, as the Greeks suppose, would he not rather have chosen as his prophet some wise man? or if such an one was not to be found, then one who was endeavouring to become wise? How came he not to prefer a man to a woman for the utterance of his prophecies? And if he preferred the latter sex, as though he could only find pleasure in the breast of a woman, why did he not choose among women a virgin to interpret his will?

Celsus afterwards states what is adduced by Jews and Christians alike in defence of abstinence from idol sacrifices, namely, that it is wrong for those who have dedicated themselves to the Most High God to eat with demons. What he brings forward against this view, we have already seen. In our opinion, a man can only be said to eat and drink with demons when he eats the flesh of what are called sacred victims, and when he drinks the wine poured out to the honour of the demons. But Celsus thinks that we cannot eat bread or drink wine in any way whatever, or taste fruits, or even take a draught of water, without eating and drinking with demons. He adds also, that the air which we breathe is received from demons, and that not an animal can breathe without receiving the air from the demons who are set over the air. If any one wishes to defend this statement of Celsus, let him show that it is not the divine angels of God, but demons, the whole race of whom are bad, that have been appointed to communicate all those blessings which have been mentioned. We indeed also maintain with regard not only to the fruits of the earth, but to every flowing stream and every breath of air, that the ground brings forth those things which are said to grow up naturally,—that the water springs in fountains, and refreshes the earth with running streams,—that the air is kept pure, and supports the life of those who breathe it only in consequence of the agency and control of certain beings whom we may call invisible husbandmen and guardians; but we deny that those invisible agents are demons. And if we might speak boldly, we would say that if demons have any share at all in these things, to them belong famine, blasting of the vine and fruit trees, pestilence among men and beasts: all these are the proper occupations of demons, who in the capacity of public executioners receive power at certain times to carry out the divine judgments, for the restoration of those who have plunged headlong into wickedness, or for the trial and discipline of the souls of the wise. For those who through all their afflictions preserve their piety pure and unimpaired, show their true character to all spectators, whether visible or invisible, who behold them; while those who are otherwise minded, yet conceal their wickedness, when they have their true character exposed by misfortunes, become manifest to themselves as well as to those whom we may also call spectators.

One who has fifty zuz and he is using them for his business, he must not take. And anyone who does not need to take [charity] and yet takes, will not depart from this world before he actually needs [charity] from others. And anyone who needs to take and does not take, will not die of old age until he supports others with his own money. Concerning him the verse says: “Blessed is the man who trusts in the Lord and whose hope is the Lord” (Jeremiah 17:7). And so too a judge who judges in truth according to its truth. And anyone who is not lame or blind but pretends to be as one of these, he will not die of old age before he actually becomes one of these, as it is said, “He who searches for evil, it shall come upon him” (Proverbs 11:27) and it is also said: “Righteousness, righteousness shall you pursue" (Deuteronomy 16:20). And any judge who accepts a bribe or who perverts justice will not die in old age before his eyes have become dim, as it is said: “And you shall not accept a bribe, for a bribe blinds the eyes of those who have sight. (Exodus 23:8)”

A crippled person [lacking a leg] may go out with his wooden stump, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yose forbids it. And if it has a receptacle for pads, it is unclean. His supports are unclean through midras, and one may go out with them on Shabbat, and enter the Temple court while wearing them. His chair and its supports are unclean through midras, and one may not go out with them on Shabbat, and one may not enter the Temple court with them. An artificial arm is clean, but one may not go out with it [on Shabbat].

A crippled person [lacking a leg] may go out with his wooden stump, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yose forbids it. And if it has a receptacle for pads, it is unclean. His supports are unclean through midras, and one may go out with them on Shabbat, and enter the Temple court while wearing them. His chair and its supports are unclean through midras, and one may not go out with them on Shabbat, and one may not enter the Temple court with them. An artificial arm is clean, but one may not go out with it [on Shabbat].

One who supports his sukkah with the posts of a bed, it is valid. Rabbi Judah says: if it cannot stand on its own, it is invalid. A disorderly sukkah (and whose shade is more than its sun is valid. One whose [skhakh] is thick like [the roof] of a house is valid, even though the stars cannot be seen through it.

Bet Shammai says: one may not take hallah or priestly gifts to a priest on Yom Tov, whether they were separated on the day before or on that day. But Bet Hillel permits it. Bet Shammai said to them: An analogy [supports our view]: hallah and priestly gifts go to the priest and terumah [likewise] goes to the priest; just as one may not take [to the priest] terumah so one may not take [to him] priestly gifts. Bet Hillel said to them: No! If you say in the case of terumah which he has not the right to separate, will you say [the same] with respect to priestly gifts which he is permitted to separate?

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: He who puts on tefillin in the night transgresses a positive commandment. What is the reason? (Ex. 13:10) “ “You shall keep this law in its time, from day to day;” “days” not night, “to days” to exclude Sabbaths and holidays. But Rebbi Abbahu sat studying at night with his tefillin on his head! He put them on the side; they were like a deposit in his keeping. Some want to say, he only meant not to put them on, but when they were on him during daytime it would be permitted. Some want to say, let us hear it from there (Ex. 13:9): “It shall be for you a sign,” when you need it for a sign, but not holiday or Sabbaths that are all sign. But is it not written “to days”? You have only what Rebbi Yoḥanan said: Everything that is not clear one supports from many places.

It was stated: “Entering a bathhouse, in the room where everybody is fully clothed one may read the Bible, pray, and needless to say, one may greet people. One may put on tefillin, and needless to say, one does not remove them. In the room where most people are naked one may not exchange greetings and needless to say, there is no Bible reading or prayer; one removes one’s tefillin and needless to say, one does not put them on. Where some are naked and some are clothed there is greeting, no Bible reading and no prayer, one does not remove tefillin and one does not put them on. But one does not put them on again until he has completely left the grounds of that bathhouse.” This supports what Rebbi Isaac said about Rebbi Yoḥanan, that he wore them until he came to Jacob, the bath master.

When is Neïlah? The rabbis of Caesarea say: Rav and Rebbi Yoḥanan disagree. Rav said, when the gates of Heaven are locked. And Rebbi Yoḥanan said, when the gates of the Temple are locked. Rebbi Yudan Antordaya said: A Mishnah supports Rebbi Yoḥanan (Taäniot 4:1): “On three occasions do the Cohanim lift their hands four times in one day, mornings, Musaph, Minḥah, and at the locking of the gates: on fastdays, at support services, and on Yom Kippur. May you say that the gates of heaven are locked while it is still daytime?

What are “seven similar to eighteen”? Rav says the end of each benediction and Samuel says the head of each benediction. Some formulate “seven similar to eighteen” and some formulate “eighteen similar to eighteen.” He who says “seven similar to eighteen” supports Samuel, he who says “eighteen similar to eighteen” supports Rav.

What are “seven similar to eighteen”? Rav says the end of each benediction and Samuel says the head of each benediction. Some formulate “seven similar to eighteen” and some formulate “eighteen similar to eighteen.” He who says “seven similar to eighteen” supports Samuel, he who says “eighteen similar to eighteen” supports Rav.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Phineas in the name of Rebbi Simeon: He is like one who quarrels with the measures of the Holy One, praise to Him: Your mercies reached over a bird’s nest but did not reach this man! Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Simeon: He is like one who makes finite the measures of the Holy One, praise to Him: Your mercies reach down to the bird’s nest. Some Tannaïm formulate “over”, some Tannaïm formulate “to”. He who says “over” supports Rebbi Phineas, he who says “to” supports Rebbi Yose. Rebbi Yose bar Abun said: They do not act well who declare the measures of the Holy One, praise to Him, to be mercy. And those who translate (Lev. 22:21) “My people Israel, just as I am merciful in Heaven so you should be merciful on earth. A cow or a mother sheep, it and its young you should not slaughter together on one day,” they do not act well because they declare the measures of the Holy One, praise to Him, to be mercy.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Phineas in the name of Rebbi Simeon: He is like one who quarrels with the measures of the Holy One, praise to Him: Your mercies reached over a bird’s nest but did not reach this man! Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Simeon: He is like one who makes finite the measures of the Holy One, praise to Him: Your mercies reach down to the bird’s nest. Some Tannaïm formulate “over”, some Tannaïm formulate “to”. He who says “over” supports Rebbi Phineas, he who says “to” supports Rebbi Yose. Rebbi Yose bar Abun said: They do not act well who declare the measures of the Holy One, praise to Him, to be mercy. And those who translate (Lev. 22:21) “My people Israel, just as I am merciful in Heaven so you should be merciful on earth. A cow or a mother sheep, it and its young you should not slaughter together on one day,” they do not act well because they declare the measures of the Holy One, praise to Him, to be mercy.

Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Yoḥanan: One says “Creator of the fruit of the tree” on marinated olives. Rebbi Benjamin bar Jephet in the name of Rebbi Yoḥanan: One says “By Whose word everything was created” on water-cooked vegetables. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said: a Mishnah supports Rebbi Benjamin bar Yephet: (Pesaḥim 2:6) “but not marinated or cooked in water or cooked in broth”; if they were recognizable in their state one could fulfill his duty with them on Passover. Rebbi Zeïra said, who understands well what Rebbi Yoḥanan said, Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba or Rebbi Benjamin bar Yephet? Not Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba? And in addition from the fact that we see great rabbis going to a mourner’s meal, eat lupines and recite on them “Creator of the fruit of the earth;” Are not lupines certainly cooked? If you want, you may say there is a difference, since the Torah said “bitter herbs”, and cooked lupines have lost their bitterness. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, they have no disagreement. Since olives usually are eaten fresh, they are recognizable in their state even if they are marinated. Vegetables are changed once they are cooked.

Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav Ḥuna, a baraita supports Rav Abba bar Ḥuna and Rebbi Joḥanan: “ A healthy person who wrote a will and a bedridden one who wrote a gift document may change their minds.” A healthy person who wrote a will may change his mind, even as long as he is healthy. Similarly, a bedridden person who wrote a gift document may change his mind, even while he still is bedridden.

How do the House of Hillel deal with the reason of the House of Shammai? “Relinquish them” is a restriction, these are for the poor, not for the rich, but what is spoken of elsewhere is for poor and rich alike. How do the House of Shammai deal with the reason of the House of Hillel? “Let it drop and abandon it” is a restriction, this abandoning is for poor and rich alike, but what is spoken of elsewhere is for the poor but not for the rich. Rebbi Avin said, the Mishnah supports Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: “Abandoned also to the rich, as in the Sabbatical year.”

So far, if he abandoned it for a longer period of time. But if he abandoned only for a short time? Let us hear from the following: “If he abandoned his field, he may cancel his action during two or three days.” Rebbi Simeon Dima stated before Rebbi Zeïra: Even after three he may cancel his action. He said to him, since you say after three days, is it the same after three or after many? The language of a baraitha supports Rebbi Zeïra: “About when is this said? If he abandoned in an unspecified way. But if he said: My field shall be abandoned one day, one week, one month, one year, a sabbatical period, as long as nobody took it over, either he or another person, he may cancel. But after somebody acquired it, either he or somebody else, he cannot cancel.” This means that short or long periods are the same. It also means that they were not worried about dishonesty. That obviously answers Rebbi Zeïra’s question, since Rebbi Zeïra had said, are short and long times the same?

Some Tannaïm state: “it is found.” Some Tannaïm state: “It is found standing.” He who says “it is found” supports Rebbi Joḥanan. He who says “it is found standing” supports Rebbi Eleazar. A baraita supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “When has this been said? If he does not recognize it. But if he recognizes it, he runs after it even 100 cubits.”

Some Tannaïm state: “it is found.” Some Tannaïm state: “It is found standing.” He who says “it is found” supports Rebbi Joḥanan. He who says “it is found standing” supports Rebbi Eleazar. A baraita supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “When has this been said? If he does not recognize it. But if he recognizes it, he runs after it even 100 cubits.”

Some Tannaïm state: “it is found.” Some Tannaïm state: “It is found standing.” He who says “it is found” supports Rebbi Joḥanan. He who says “it is found standing” supports Rebbi Eleazar. A baraita supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “When has this been said? If he does not recognize it. But if he recognizes it, he runs after it even 100 cubits.”

HALAKHAH: It was stated: A quarter of rice, an ukla of spices, a pound of vegetables, three qab carob, half a log of wine, a quarter of a log of olive oil, ten nuts, five peaches, two pomegranates, one etrog. What is the reason? (Deut. 26:12) “They shall eat in your gates and be satiated,” give him to satisfy him. Ḥizqiah asked his father: From where do we get all these amounts? He said to them, a pebble supports a tower. Rebbi Ḥananiah was sitting before Rebbi Ilaï, the latter was giving a reason and the former destroyed it, the latter was giving a reason and the former destroyed it, until he said to him, is it not depraved to destroy instead of building up?

The Mishnah supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “From Akhzib and further on it is free from demay.” Is not from Akhzib and further on no difference between demay and certainty? Here also there is no difference between demay and certainty.

One statement supports this and a second statement supports Rebbi Eleazar. “The trader’s produce everywhere is demay. When is that? If most of his supply is from Jews. But if he buys from Gentiles, it is certain.” A statement supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “Rebbi Neḥemiah stated: “Whether from a Gentile, a Jewish Samaritan, or an am haareẓ seller, if at times he buys from the Gentile, at times from the Jew, it is demay.”

One statement supports this and a second statement supports Rebbi Eleazar. “The trader’s produce everywhere is demay. When is that? If most of his supply is from Jews. But if he buys from Gentiles, it is certain.” A statement supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “Rebbi Neḥemiah stated: “Whether from a Gentile, a Jewish Samaritan, or an am haareẓ seller, if at times he buys from the Gentile, at times from the Jew, it is demay.”

One statement supports this and a second statement supports Rebbi Eleazar. “The trader’s produce everywhere is demay. When is that? If most of his supply is from Jews. But if he buys from Gentiles, it is certain.” A statement supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “Rebbi Neḥemiah stated: “Whether from a Gentile, a Jewish Samaritan, or an am haareẓ seller, if at times he buys from the Gentile, at times from the Jew, it is demay.”

The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Because of the children lest they should eat ṭevel. Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, in retail, because the seller takes the large margin, the seller separates. In wholesale, because the buyer will take the large margin, the buyer separates. One statement supports one and another statement supports the other. A statement supports the colleagues: “Rebbi Neḥemiah said, that which is connected to a retail outlet is like retail, connected to a wholesale outlet it is wholesale.” A statement supports Rebbi La. It was stated: “Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa said, if he measured with a retail measure, he is obligated. Even if he did measure only one seah and a quarter qab, he must tithe the quarter qab.” Rebbi Zeïra said, computation of gain is between them. If he measured for him the seah at the rate of quarter qabs, since the seller takes the large margin, the seller separates. If he measures the quarter qab at the rate of seahs, since the buyer will take the large margin, the buyer separates.

The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Because of the children lest they should eat ṭevel. Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, in retail, because the seller takes the large margin, the seller separates. In wholesale, because the buyer will take the large margin, the buyer separates. One statement supports one and another statement supports the other. A statement supports the colleagues: “Rebbi Neḥemiah said, that which is connected to a retail outlet is like retail, connected to a wholesale outlet it is wholesale.” A statement supports Rebbi La. It was stated: “Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa said, if he measured with a retail measure, he is obligated. Even if he did measure only one seah and a quarter qab, he must tithe the quarter qab.” Rebbi Zeïra said, computation of gain is between them. If he measured for him the seah at the rate of quarter qabs, since the seller takes the large margin, the seller separates. If he measures the quarter qab at the rate of seahs, since the buyer will take the large margin, the buyer separates.

The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Because of the children lest they should eat ṭevel. Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, in retail, because the seller takes the large margin, the seller separates. In wholesale, because the buyer will take the large margin, the buyer separates. One statement supports one and another statement supports the other. A statement supports the colleagues: “Rebbi Neḥemiah said, that which is connected to a retail outlet is like retail, connected to a wholesale outlet it is wholesale.” A statement supports Rebbi La. It was stated: “Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa said, if he measured with a retail measure, he is obligated. Even if he did measure only one seah and a quarter qab, he must tithe the quarter qab.” Rebbi Zeïra said, computation of gain is between them. If he measured for him the seah at the rate of quarter qabs, since the seller takes the large margin, the seller separates. If he measures the quarter qab at the rate of seahs, since the buyer will take the large margin, the buyer separates.

The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Because of the children lest they should eat ṭevel. Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, in retail, because the seller takes the large margin, the seller separates. In wholesale, because the buyer will take the large margin, the buyer separates. One statement supports one and another statement supports the other. A statement supports the colleagues: “Rebbi Neḥemiah said, that which is connected to a retail outlet is like retail, connected to a wholesale outlet it is wholesale.” A statement supports Rebbi La. It was stated: “Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa said, if he measured with a retail measure, he is obligated. Even if he did measure only one seah and a quarter qab, he must tithe the quarter qab.” Rebbi Zeïra said, computation of gain is between them. If he measured for him the seah at the rate of quarter qabs, since the seller takes the large margin, the seller separates. If he measures the quarter qab at the rate of seahs, since the buyer will take the large margin, the buyer separates.

HALAKHAH: The Mishnah is Rebbi Meïr’s, since Rebbi Meïr says that a Gentile may not acquire real estate in the Land of Israel to remove it from tithe; Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Simeon say, a Gentile may acquire real estate in the Land of Israel to free it from tithe. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: The reason of Rebbi Meïr (Lev.25:46): “You shall transmit them by inheritance to your sons after you, to inherit by the rules of real estate.” This brackets real estate with slaves. Just as you may buy slaves from them but they cannot buy from you, so real estate you may buy from them but they cannot buy from you. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose said before Rebbi Yasa, the following supports Rebbi Meïr (Lev. 25:23): “The land shall not be sold permanently, because the land belongs to Me,” absolutely. He said to him, that in itself supports Rebbi Simeon. “It shall not be sold”, because if it was sold, it would be sold absolutely.

HALAKHAH: The Mishnah is Rebbi Meïr’s, since Rebbi Meïr says that a Gentile may not acquire real estate in the Land of Israel to remove it from tithe; Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Simeon say, a Gentile may acquire real estate in the Land of Israel to free it from tithe. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: The reason of Rebbi Meïr (Lev.25:46): “You shall transmit them by inheritance to your sons after you, to inherit by the rules of real estate.” This brackets real estate with slaves. Just as you may buy slaves from them but they cannot buy from you, so real estate you may buy from them but they cannot buy from you. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose said before Rebbi Yasa, the following supports Rebbi Meïr (Lev. 25:23): “The land shall not be sold permanently, because the land belongs to Me,” absolutely. He said to him, that in itself supports Rebbi Simeon. “It shall not be sold”, because if it was sold, it would be sold absolutely.

One baraita supports one and one baraita supports the other. One baraita supports the colleagues. “He who leases a field from a Gentile separates heave and delivers to him. Rebbi Meïr says, he tithes and delivers to him.” Could the rabbis say, the Sages fined him who leases from a Gentile but they did not fine him who leases from a Jew? How can a fine apply to leasing from a Jew? But so it is: The rabbis say, the strict law applies to him who leases from a Jew, but Rebbi Meïr said, the strict law does not apply to him who leases from a Jew. One baraita supports Rebbi La: “He who leases a field from a Gentile tithes and delivers to him. Rebbi Simeon says, he separates heave and delivers to him.” Could the rabbis say, the strict law applies to him who leases from a Gentile, but the strict law does not apply to him who leases from a Jew; Rebbi Simeon said, the strict law does not apply to him who leases from a Gentile? Can anybody make such a statement? But so it is, the Sages fined him who leases from a Gentile but they did not fine him who leases from a Jew. Rebbi Simeon said, the Sages did not fine him who leases from a Gentile; hence, if the Gentile converted or sold to another Jew, it is permitted.

One baraita supports one and one baraita supports the other. One baraita supports the colleagues. “He who leases a field from a Gentile separates heave and delivers to him. Rebbi Meïr says, he tithes and delivers to him.” Could the rabbis say, the Sages fined him who leases from a Gentile but they did not fine him who leases from a Jew? How can a fine apply to leasing from a Jew? But so it is: The rabbis say, the strict law applies to him who leases from a Jew, but Rebbi Meïr said, the strict law does not apply to him who leases from a Jew. One baraita supports Rebbi La: “He who leases a field from a Gentile tithes and delivers to him. Rebbi Simeon says, he separates heave and delivers to him.” Could the rabbis say, the strict law applies to him who leases from a Gentile, but the strict law does not apply to him who leases from a Jew; Rebbi Simeon said, the strict law does not apply to him who leases from a Gentile? Can anybody make such a statement? But so it is, the Sages fined him who leases from a Gentile but they did not fine him who leases from a Jew. Rebbi Simeon said, the Sages did not fine him who leases from a Gentile; hence, if the Gentile converted or sold to another Jew, it is permitted.

One baraita supports one and one baraita supports the other. One baraita supports the colleagues. “He who leases a field from a Gentile separates heave and delivers to him. Rebbi Meïr says, he tithes and delivers to him.” Could the rabbis say, the Sages fined him who leases from a Gentile but they did not fine him who leases from a Jew? How can a fine apply to leasing from a Jew? But so it is: The rabbis say, the strict law applies to him who leases from a Jew, but Rebbi Meïr said, the strict law does not apply to him who leases from a Jew. One baraita supports Rebbi La: “He who leases a field from a Gentile tithes and delivers to him. Rebbi Simeon says, he separates heave and delivers to him.” Could the rabbis say, the strict law applies to him who leases from a Gentile, but the strict law does not apply to him who leases from a Jew; Rebbi Simeon said, the strict law does not apply to him who leases from a Gentile? Can anybody make such a statement? But so it is, the Sages fined him who leases from a Gentile but they did not fine him who leases from a Jew. Rebbi Simeon said, the Sages did not fine him who leases from a Gentile; hence, if the Gentile converted or sold to another Jew, it is permitted.

One baraita supports one and one baraita supports the other. One baraita supports the colleagues. “He who leases a field from a Gentile separates heave and delivers to him. Rebbi Meïr says, he tithes and delivers to him.” Could the rabbis say, the Sages fined him who leases from a Gentile but they did not fine him who leases from a Jew? How can a fine apply to leasing from a Jew? But so it is: The rabbis say, the strict law applies to him who leases from a Jew, but Rebbi Meïr said, the strict law does not apply to him who leases from a Jew. One baraita supports Rebbi La: “He who leases a field from a Gentile tithes and delivers to him. Rebbi Simeon says, he separates heave and delivers to him.” Could the rabbis say, the strict law applies to him who leases from a Gentile, but the strict law does not apply to him who leases from a Jew; Rebbi Simeon said, the strict law does not apply to him who leases from a Gentile? Can anybody make such a statement? But so it is, the Sages fined him who leases from a Gentile but they did not fine him who leases from a Jew. Rebbi Simeon said, the Sages did not fine him who leases from a Gentile; hence, if the Gentile converted or sold to another Jew, it is permitted.

Rebbi Yannai said, it is a controversy whether two kinds join together to save but do not join together to prohibit. Rav said, it is everybody’s opinion that just as two kinds join together to save so they do join together to prohibit. Our Mishnah supports Rebbi Yannai, as we have stated: “Rebbi Eliezer permits it.” Our Mishnah differs with Rav: “One row of melons, one row of pumpkin, one row of Egyptian beans, and one row of melons.” Before he started the fourth one, was it not already forbidden? Explain it that he planted the four rows simultaneously.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Simeon said to them: Those about which you say that one disregards the ones in the middle as if nonexistent, are the essence of the vineyard! Rebbi Ḥananiah said, that applies in the case where there are six parallel six. But if there are five parallel five, everybody agrees that one disregards the ones in the middle as if nonexistent. Rebbi Mana said, that means if there are five parallel five. But if there are six parallel six, if you disregard the ones in the middle as if nonexistent, these are like those! What does that mean which we have stated: One disregards the ones in the middle as if nonexistent? Rebbi Huna said, that one is permitted to draw them over his seeds. Rebbi Mana said, that supports what Rebbi Yose had said, that if one sows within six hand-breadths all is forbidden, outside of six hand-breadths single vines are permitted and a vineyard is forbidden

“When is this? In case they are planted four four or five five apart.” This supports Rebbi Zeïra, since Rebbi Eleazar said: Eight except for the place of the trunks. “If they were planted six six or seven seven apart”, that supports Rebbi Eleazar, since Rebbi Eleazar said: From four cubits to eight, it is forbidden and “sanctifies”, from eight to sixteen it is forbidden but does not “sanctify”.

“When is this? In case they are planted four four or five five apart.” This supports Rebbi Zeïra, since Rebbi Eleazar said: Eight except for the place of the trunks. “If they were planted six six or seven seven apart”, that supports Rebbi Eleazar, since Rebbi Eleazar said: From four cubits to eight, it is forbidden and “sanctifies”, from eight to sixteen it is forbidden but does not “sanctify”.

“When does grain start to sanctify? When it is a third grown.” Some Tannaïm state: When it grew roots. He who says when it is a third grown supports Rebbi Joḥanan. He who says when it grew roots supports Rebbi Hoshaia.

“When does grain start to sanctify? When it is a third grown.” Some Tannaïm state: When it grew roots. He who says when it is a third grown supports Rebbi Joḥanan. He who says when it grew roots supports Rebbi Hoshaia.

“I could think one would whip because of the additions.” Rebbi Joḥanan explains the baraita, I could think that one would whip because of ploughing in the Sabbatical. Rebbi Eleazar explains the baraita, I could think that one would whip because of the prohibition of the first two terms. Some Tannaïm state (Lev. 25:3): “Six years you shall sow your field, six years you shall prune your vineyard.” Some Tannaïm state (Lev. 25:4) “Your field you should not sow, your vineyard you should not prune.” He who states: “Six years you shall sow your field, six years you shall prune your vineyard,” supports Rebbi Joḥanan. He who states: “Your field you should not sow, your vineyard you should not prune,” supports Rebbi Eleazar.

“I could think one would whip because of the additions.” Rebbi Joḥanan explains the baraita, I could think that one would whip because of ploughing in the Sabbatical. Rebbi Eleazar explains the baraita, I could think that one would whip because of the prohibition of the first two terms. Some Tannaïm state (Lev. 25:3): “Six years you shall sow your field, six years you shall prune your vineyard.” Some Tannaïm state (Lev. 25:4) “Your field you should not sow, your vineyard you should not prune.” He who states: “Six years you shall sow your field, six years you shall prune your vineyard,” supports Rebbi Joḥanan. He who states: “Your field you should not sow, your vineyard you should not prune,” supports Rebbi Eleazar.

“How long are they called saplings, etc.” What means “until they become profane”? Until they are redeemed or until they become profane by themselves. Rebbi Abba bar Jacob in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The Mishnah means “until they become profane by themselves.” Rebbi Yudan said, a baraita supports Rebbi Joshua: “ Rebbi says, when they said five, six, or seven years old, for vines five years old, for figs six years old, for olives seven years old.” But do we not see the growth of the fig tree come with fruits? Rebbi Yudan said, according to Rebbi we throw it on its width.

“ The palm pith is wood in every respect except that it may be bought with tithe money. Palm spathe used as food is free from tithes.” Rebbi Judah ben Pazi explained in the study house: Palm pith is not subject to the holiness of the Sabbatical year. But Rebbi Yose commanded about those who were asking; they said that it was said from his part. He made them say that Rebbi Yose told them, a baraita disagrees with Rebbi Judah ben Pazi and supports us, as it was stated: “One may not cook unripe figs of the Sabbatical year but it is permitted for the late ones because that is their treatment.”

There, we have stated: One does not knead or form bread with a baker working in impurity. And it was stated additionally: One should neither cull nor grind nor sift with him. And here, it says so? Rebbi La said, Here for profane [bread], there for heave. But did we not stated "a baker"? Can you say heave at a baker’s? The colleagues say, one if he washes, there if he does not wash. The Mishnah supports the colleagues: “But she may not touch hers once water has been put in because one does not support transgressors.”

They asked Rebbi Joḥanan: May Sabbatical produce become freed by redemption? He said to them, why not? Rebbi Eleazar said, Sabbatical produce cannot become freed by redemption, only by sale. A baraita supports one, a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “Anybody who has money that is Sabbatical and he wants to redeem it by his dough may redeeem it.” A baraita supports Rebbi Eleazar: “If somebody has a tetradrachma of Sabbatical money and he wants to buy a garment goes to the grocer he usually deals with and says to him, give me fruits for this. He gives them to him. Then he says, these fruits are given to you as a gift and the grocer says, this tetradrachma is given to you as a gift. Then he goes and buys himself a garment.”

They asked Rebbi Joḥanan: May Sabbatical produce become freed by redemption? He said to them, why not? Rebbi Eleazar said, Sabbatical produce cannot become freed by redemption, only by sale. A baraita supports one, a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “Anybody who has money that is Sabbatical and he wants to redeem it by his dough may redeeem it.” A baraita supports Rebbi Eleazar: “If somebody has a tetradrachma of Sabbatical money and he wants to buy a garment goes to the grocer he usually deals with and says to him, give me fruits for this. He gives them to him. Then he says, these fruits are given to you as a gift and the grocer says, this tetradrachma is given to you as a gift. Then he goes and buys himself a garment.”

They asked Rebbi Joḥanan: May Sabbatical produce become freed by redemption? He said to them, why not? Rebbi Eleazar said, Sabbatical produce cannot become freed by redemption, only by sale. A baraita supports one, a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “Anybody who has money that is Sabbatical and he wants to redeem it by his dough may redeeem it.” A baraita supports Rebbi Eleazar: “If somebody has a tetradrachma of Sabbatical money and he wants to buy a garment goes to the grocer he usually deals with and says to him, give me fruits for this. He gives them to him. Then he says, these fruits are given to you as a gift and the grocer says, this tetradrachma is given to you as a gift. Then he goes and buys himself a garment.”

They asked Rebbi Joḥanan: May Sabbatical produce become freed by redemption? He said to them, why not? Rebbi Eleazar said, Sabbatical produce cannot become freed by redemption, only by sale. A baraita supports one, a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “Anybody who has money that is Sabbatical and he wants to redeem it by his dough may redeeem it.” A baraita supports Rebbi Eleazar: “If somebody has a tetradrachma of Sabbatical money and he wants to buy a garment goes to the grocer he usually deals with and says to him, give me fruits for this. He gives them to him. Then he says, these fruits are given to you as a gift and the grocer says, this tetradrachma is given to you as a gift. Then he goes and buys himself a garment.”

There, we have stated: “Everybody is obligated for appearance except the deaf-mute, the insane, and the minor.” The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Eleazar (Deut. 31:12): “So they should hear and learn.” So far one who speaks but cannot hear; what about one who hears but cannot speak? Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Eleazar (Deut. 31:12): “So they should learn,” so they should teach. Rebbi Jonah said, this means that the principles of Rebbi are no principles, since we have stated: “A ḥereš who speaks but cannot hear should not give heave,” and we thought that one who hears but does not speak is ḥereš, one who speaks but does not hear is not ḥereš. But we have stated: “The ḥereš whose shoe was taken off, the female ḥereš who took off the shoe, and she who takes off the shoe of a minor, all performed invalid ceremonies.” And Rebbi Joḥanan said, because they cannot say (Deut. 25:8): “he shall say”, (Deut. 25:7,9) “she shall say.” We also have stated: “A “deaf person” mentioned anywhere by the Sages is a deaf-mute.” This supports Rebbi Jonah, for Rebbi Jonah said, this means that the principles of Rebbi are no principles.

“ A pound of cut figs which somebody pressed into the mouth of an amphora and does not remember where he pressed, into the mouth of a vase and does not remember where he pressed; Rebbi Eliezer says, if there are 100 pounds it may be lifted, otherwise it cannot be lifted; Rebbi Joshua says, if there are 100 mouths there it may be lifted, otherwise the mouths are forbidden and the sides are permitted, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Meїr says, Rebbi Eliezer says, if there are 100 mouths there it may be lifted, otherwise the mouths are forbidden and the sides are permitted; Rebbi Joshua says even if there are 300 mouths it cannot be lifted.” This means that they considered mouths as something that usually is counted. This supports Rebbi Joḥanan who said, it is a disagreement of Tannaїm. This supports him who says, the words of Rebbi Meїr that everything sanctifies. This supports him who says it is a disagreement of Tannaїm. This means that even one hundredth of a pumpkin forbids.

“ A pound of cut figs which somebody pressed into the mouth of an amphora and does not remember where he pressed, into the mouth of a vase and does not remember where he pressed; Rebbi Eliezer says, if there are 100 pounds it may be lifted, otherwise it cannot be lifted; Rebbi Joshua says, if there are 100 mouths there it may be lifted, otherwise the mouths are forbidden and the sides are permitted, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Meїr says, Rebbi Eliezer says, if there are 100 mouths there it may be lifted, otherwise the mouths are forbidden and the sides are permitted; Rebbi Joshua says even if there are 300 mouths it cannot be lifted.” This means that they considered mouths as something that usually is counted. This supports Rebbi Joḥanan who said, it is a disagreement of Tannaїm. This supports him who says, the words of Rebbi Meїr that everything sanctifies. This supports him who says it is a disagreement of Tannaїm. This means that even one hundredth of a pumpkin forbids.

“ A pound of cut figs which somebody pressed into the mouth of an amphora and does not remember where he pressed, into the mouth of a vase and does not remember where he pressed; Rebbi Eliezer says, if there are 100 pounds it may be lifted, otherwise it cannot be lifted; Rebbi Joshua says, if there are 100 mouths there it may be lifted, otherwise the mouths are forbidden and the sides are permitted, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Meїr says, Rebbi Eliezer says, if there are 100 mouths there it may be lifted, otherwise the mouths are forbidden and the sides are permitted; Rebbi Joshua says even if there are 300 mouths it cannot be lifted.” This means that they considered mouths as something that usually is counted. This supports Rebbi Joḥanan who said, it is a disagreement of Tannaїm. This supports him who says, the words of Rebbi Meїr that everything sanctifies. This supports him who says it is a disagreement of Tannaїm. This means that even one hundredth of a pumpkin forbids.

Everybody agrees that water which was heated is forbidden. What is the difference between bread and water? Here the fire rules, there the fire does not rule. There, a vessel separates, here no vessel separates. Samuel said, what can this evil one do to me? I only drink hot [water]. His word says, cold water that was heated is permitted. Rebbi Ḥanina said, this evil one has a delicate taste; he will not drink hot water that cooled. His word says, hot water that cooled is permitted. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Both are forbidden. A baraita supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “Hot water is permitted as long as it is steaming. But water left uncovered is forbidden even after it was heated. Pickling, preserving, and lupine water is permitted. Water in which he soaked[food for] pickling or preserving, or lupines, is forbidden. If he soaked wild grapes for a sick person, it is forbidden.”

How far? Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi, Rebbi Simon, in the name of Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina: Unless he would burn his hand if he put it in. Everybody agrees that a second vessel is permitted. What is the difference between first and second vessels? Rebbi Yose bar Abun said, here the hand holds, there the hand does not hold. Rebbi Jonah said, in both cases the hand does not hold but they decreed removal for a first but not a second vessel. Rebbi Mana said, that platter of rice supports my father, that platter of grits supports my father since you remove it from place to place and it is still boiling.

How far? Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi, Rebbi Simon, in the name of Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina: Unless he would burn his hand if he put it in. Everybody agrees that a second vessel is permitted. What is the difference between first and second vessels? Rebbi Yose bar Abun said, here the hand holds, there the hand does not hold. Rebbi Jonah said, in both cases the hand does not hold but they decreed removal for a first but not a second vessel. Rebbi Mana said, that platter of rice supports my father, that platter of grits supports my father since you remove it from place to place and it is still boiling.

There, we have stated: “If he worked with his hands but not with his feet, with his feet but not with his hands, even on his shoulder, he eats.” We have stated about this, with his hands he makes bundles, with his feet he creates support, even on his shoulder he carries. “Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah says, only if he works with his hands, feet, and body,” as in threshing where he works with his hands, feet, and body, so for anything he works with his hands, feet, and body. Threshing, just as threshing is particular in that it applies to plucked [grain], so for anything plucked. This excludes him who thins among garlic and onions, makes supports for vines, and weeds under an olive tree. Threshing, just as threshing is particular in that it applies to growth from the earth, so for anything growing from the earth. This excludes him who milks, makes cheese, or churns milk. Threshing, just as threshing is particular in that it does not apply after processing, so for anything not after processing. This excludes him who separates dates or dried figs, wine after it is fermented and olive oil when it descends into the vat. Threshing, just as threshing is particular in that it applies before the obligation of tithes, so for anything before the obligation of tithes. This excludes him who kneads dough, separates, or bakes.

Rebbi Yose said, we teach all these words but a Mishnah supports Rebbi Zeïra: “He should not bring from wheat of Second Tithe but from money of Second Tithe.” What is the difference between wheat and money? It must be that when it was bought, the holiness of tithe left it. Rebbi Ḥinena asked before Rebbi Mana: Why should he not bring wheat, the heave to the Cohen and the rest for the owners, why does he not bring? He said to him, think of it, if the blood is spilled does the bread not become unusable?

It supports him because he says it is all praise, as Rebbi Joḥanan said, Joḥanan the High Priest sent and checked in all localities of Israel and found that they separated only Great Heave. But First and Second Tithes some were separating and some did not. He said, since [omitting] First Tithe is a deadly sin and [omitting] Second Tithe [implies] the sin of ṭevel, a person should give a name to heave and heave of the tithe and give them to the Cohen; Second Tithe he exchanges for coins. About the remaining tithe of the poor, he who has a claim on another person must bring proof.

“They are forbidden as new grain before Passover.” Some Tannaïm state: before Passover; some Tannaïm state: before the ‘omer. He who said “before Passover” supports Rebbi Joḥanan; he who said “before the ‘omer” supports Ḥizqiah. As Rebbi Jonah said in the name of Ḥizqiah: If there is sacrifice, the sacrifice permits; if there is no sacrifice, the day permits. Rebbi Yose in the name of Ḥizqiah: If there is sacrifice, the sacrifice permits. Ḥizqiah agrees that if there is no sacrifice, the day permits. Rebbi Joḥanan said: Whether there is sacrifice or there is no sacrifice, the day permits.

“They are forbidden as new grain before Passover.” Some Tannaïm state: before Passover; some Tannaïm state: before the ‘omer. He who said “before Passover” supports Rebbi Joḥanan; he who said “before the ‘omer” supports Ḥizqiah. As Rebbi Jonah said in the name of Ḥizqiah: If there is sacrifice, the sacrifice permits; if there is no sacrifice, the day permits. Rebbi Yose in the name of Ḥizqiah: If there is sacrifice, the sacrifice permits. Ḥizqiah agrees that if there is no sacrifice, the day permits. Rebbi Joḥanan said: Whether there is sacrifice or there is no sacrifice, the day permits.

Rebbi Jonah said, before presentation. Rebbi Yose said, before cutting. Rebbi Jonah said, Cahana’s word supports me, as Cahana said (Lev. 214): “If you bring a cereal gift of first fruits to the Eternal.” This one is first fruit, the others are not first fruit. Think of it, even if it were only grasses or only roots the ‘omer comes and permits it. Do we not hold before cutting? In addition, from the following which was stated: “If somebody weeds on the thirteenth and a stalk remains in his hand, he should replant it in a moist spot but not a dry one.” Here you have the 13th, the 14th, the 15th, and part of a day is counted as whole.

Rebbi Yose said, the word of Rebbi Abinna supports me, since Rebbi Abinna said, explain it following this baraita: “In a place where one does not usually work on the 14th, but not in a place where one is used to work on the 14th.” If it is cut; maybe also when it is standing? It was found stated: “In a place where people are used to work on cut produce, one may work even on standing grain.”

Rebbi Yose said, even three years old it will not have the thickness of a tenter’s needle. Rebbi Yudan said, a baraita supports Rebbi Yose: “Rebbi says, when they said five, six, or seven years old, for vines five years old, for figs six years old, for olives seven years old.” But do we not see the growth of the fig tree come with fruits? Rebbi Yudan said, according to Rebbi Tryphon we throw it on its width.

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One does not whip for anything imparting taste except imparting taste for the nazir. Rebbi Zeïra said, one does not whip for anything imparting taste until he tasted the forbidden thing itself except the nazir even if he did not taste the forbidden thing itself. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, for food imparting taste what is forbidden and what is permitted are not combined, but for the nazir forbidden and permitted do combine. A baraita supports one and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Zeïra: If wine in the volume of an olive fell into a dish and he ate from it, he cannot be prosecuted unless he ate the entire dish. In the opinion of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal, if he ate the volume of an olive from it he is guilty. A baraita supports Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: “What do we understand when it is said (Num. 6:3): ‘Anything in which grapes were soaked he should not eat’? What did the verse leave out that was not said? But since it was said (Num. 6:4): ‘anything made from the wine-vine, from seeds to grape skins he should not eat;’ (Num. 6:3) ‘from wine and liquor he shall abstain.’ Why does the verse say ‘anything in which grapes were soaked he should not eat’? That means that if he soaked grapes and then soaked his bread in that, if it adds up to the volume of an olive, he is guilty. From here you argue about all prohibitions of the Torah. Since for all that comes from the vine, whose prohibition is neither permanent, nor a prohibition of usufruct, and whose prohibition can be lifted, He made taste like the thing itself; is it not logical that for all prohibitions of the Torah, whose prohibition is permanent, is a prohibition of usufruct, and whose prohibition cannot be lifted, that we treat taste like the thing itself? From here, the Sages inferred that everything imparting taste is forbidden.” This is difficult for Rebbi Zeïra who says everywhere “unless he tasted”, and here he says, “even if he did not taste.”

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One does not whip for anything imparting taste except imparting taste for the nazir. Rebbi Zeïra said, one does not whip for anything imparting taste until he tasted the forbidden thing itself except the nazir even if he did not taste the forbidden thing itself. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, for food imparting taste what is forbidden and what is permitted are not combined, but for the nazir forbidden and permitted do combine. A baraita supports one and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Zeïra: If wine in the volume of an olive fell into a dish and he ate from it, he cannot be prosecuted unless he ate the entire dish. In the opinion of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal, if he ate the volume of an olive from it he is guilty. A baraita supports Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: “What do we understand when it is said (Num. 6:3): ‘Anything in which grapes were soaked he should not eat’? What did the verse leave out that was not said? But since it was said (Num. 6:4): ‘anything made from the wine-vine, from seeds to grape skins he should not eat;’ (Num. 6:3) ‘from wine and liquor he shall abstain.’ Why does the verse say ‘anything in which grapes were soaked he should not eat’? That means that if he soaked grapes and then soaked his bread in that, if it adds up to the volume of an olive, he is guilty. From here you argue about all prohibitions of the Torah. Since for all that comes from the vine, whose prohibition is neither permanent, nor a prohibition of usufruct, and whose prohibition can be lifted, He made taste like the thing itself; is it not logical that for all prohibitions of the Torah, whose prohibition is permanent, is a prohibition of usufruct, and whose prohibition cannot be lifted, that we treat taste like the thing itself? From here, the Sages inferred that everything imparting taste is forbidden.” This is difficult for Rebbi Zeïra who says everywhere “unless he tasted”, and here he says, “even if he did not taste.”

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One does not whip for anything imparting taste except imparting taste for the nazir. Rebbi Zeïra said, one does not whip for anything imparting taste until he tasted the forbidden thing itself except the nazir even if he did not taste the forbidden thing itself. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, for food imparting taste what is forbidden and what is permitted are not combined, but for the nazir forbidden and permitted do combine. A baraita supports one and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Zeïra: If wine in the volume of an olive fell into a dish and he ate from it, he cannot be prosecuted unless he ate the entire dish. In the opinion of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal, if he ate the volume of an olive from it he is guilty. A baraita supports Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: “What do we understand when it is said (Num. 6:3): ‘Anything in which grapes were soaked he should not eat’? What did the verse leave out that was not said? But since it was said (Num. 6:4): ‘anything made from the wine-vine, from seeds to grape skins he should not eat;’ (Num. 6:3) ‘from wine and liquor he shall abstain.’ Why does the verse say ‘anything in which grapes were soaked he should not eat’? That means that if he soaked grapes and then soaked his bread in that, if it adds up to the volume of an olive, he is guilty. From here you argue about all prohibitions of the Torah. Since for all that comes from the vine, whose prohibition is neither permanent, nor a prohibition of usufruct, and whose prohibition can be lifted, He made taste like the thing itself; is it not logical that for all prohibitions of the Torah, whose prohibition is permanent, is a prohibition of usufruct, and whose prohibition cannot be lifted, that we treat taste like the thing itself? From here, the Sages inferred that everything imparting taste is forbidden.” This is difficult for Rebbi Zeïra who says everywhere “unless he tasted”, and here he says, “even if he did not taste.”

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One does not whip for anything imparting taste except imparting taste for the nazir. Rebbi Zeïra said, one does not whip for anything imparting taste until he tasted the forbidden thing itself except the nazir even if he did not taste the forbidden thing itself. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, for food imparting taste what is forbidden and what is permitted are not combined, but for the nazir forbidden and permitted do combine. A baraita supports one and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Zeïra: If wine in the volume of an olive fell into a dish and he ate from it, he cannot be prosecuted unless he ate the entire dish. In the opinion of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal, if he ate the volume of an olive from it he is guilty. A baraita supports Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: “What do we understand when it is said (Num. 6:3): ‘Anything in which grapes were soaked he should not eat’? What did the verse leave out that was not said? But since it was said (Num. 6:4): ‘anything made from the wine-vine, from seeds to grape skins he should not eat;’ (Num. 6:3) ‘from wine and liquor he shall abstain.’ Why does the verse say ‘anything in which grapes were soaked he should not eat’? That means that if he soaked grapes and then soaked his bread in that, if it adds up to the volume of an olive, he is guilty. From here you argue about all prohibitions of the Torah. Since for all that comes from the vine, whose prohibition is neither permanent, nor a prohibition of usufruct, and whose prohibition can be lifted, He made taste like the thing itself; is it not logical that for all prohibitions of the Torah, whose prohibition is permanent, is a prohibition of usufruct, and whose prohibition cannot be lifted, that we treat taste like the thing itself? From here, the Sages inferred that everything imparting taste is forbidden.” This is difficult for Rebbi Zeïra who says everywhere “unless he tasted”, and here he says, “even if he did not taste.”

Rebbi Jonah said, one did not say “simply holy sacrifices.” Are piggul and leftovers not after sprinkling as before sprinkling? It mentions only piggul and leftovers, things which sprinkling does not permit, together with most holy sacrifices. Therefore, for simply holy sacrifices, which are permitted after sprinkling, one never can whip because of laity. Rebbi Yose said, did one not say “simply holy sacrifices?” Are piggul and leftovers not after sprinkling as before sprinkling? Why were piggul and leftovers mentioned, not to exclude simply holy sacrifices after sprinkling? Therefore, before sprinkling when simply holy sacrifices are forbidden, lay persons will be whipped for [eating] them. Rebbi Avun said, a baraita supports Rebbi Yose: “(Deut. 12”17) ‘Your dedications’, thanksgiving and well-being sacrifices, if one ate of them before sprinkling he is whipped.”

A baraita supports both of them. The baraita supports Rebbi Eleazar. “(Ex. 13:3) ‘Sour bread shall not be eaten’, to make the feeder equal to the eater. You say for this, or is it only to forbid its usufruct? Since it says (Deut. 16:3): ‘You shall not eat sour bread with it,’ we learned that usufruct is forbidden. Therefore, why does the verse say, sour bread shall not be eaten? To make the feeder equal to the eater, the words of Rebbi Josia. Rebbi Isaac says, this is unnecessary. Since for crawling things, a minor prohibition, He made the feeder equal to the eater; regarding sour bread which is a major prohibition it should only be logical that he feeder be equal to the eater. Therefore, why does the verse say, sour bread shall not be eaten? The verse comes only to forbid its usufruct.” Since it is written “sour bread shall not be eaten.” Therefore, from “you shall not eat” one cannot infer anything. This supports Rebbi Joḥanan.

A baraita supports both of them. The baraita supports Rebbi Eleazar. “(Ex. 13:3) ‘Sour bread shall not be eaten’, to make the feeder equal to the eater. You say for this, or is it only to forbid its usufruct? Since it says (Deut. 16:3): ‘You shall not eat sour bread with it,’ we learned that usufruct is forbidden. Therefore, why does the verse say, sour bread shall not be eaten? To make the feeder equal to the eater, the words of Rebbi Josia. Rebbi Isaac says, this is unnecessary. Since for crawling things, a minor prohibition, He made the feeder equal to the eater; regarding sour bread which is a major prohibition it should only be logical that he feeder be equal to the eater. Therefore, why does the verse say, sour bread shall not be eaten? The verse comes only to forbid its usufruct.” Since it is written “sour bread shall not be eaten.” Therefore, from “you shall not eat” one cannot infer anything. This supports Rebbi Joḥanan.

A baraita supports both of them. The baraita supports Rebbi Eleazar. “(Ex. 13:3) ‘Sour bread shall not be eaten’, to make the feeder equal to the eater. You say for this, or is it only to forbid its usufruct? Since it says (Deut. 16:3): ‘You shall not eat sour bread with it,’ we learned that usufruct is forbidden. Therefore, why does the verse say, sour bread shall not be eaten? To make the feeder equal to the eater, the words of Rebbi Josia. Rebbi Isaac says, this is unnecessary. Since for crawling things, a minor prohibition, He made the feeder equal to the eater; regarding sour bread which is a major prohibition it should only be logical that he feeder be equal to the eater. Therefore, why does the verse say, sour bread shall not be eaten? The verse comes only to forbid its usufruct.” Since it is written “sour bread shall not be eaten.” Therefore, from “you shall not eat” one cannot infer anything. This supports Rebbi Joḥanan.

It was stated: If he provined with permission, he brings and makes the declaration. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Ammi: Only if the permission was permanent, not temporary. Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Ammi: Even temporary. The force of Rebbi Jonah comes from the following: “If somebody digs a cistern, a ditch, or a cave, he may cut down as he works and the wood is his.” Is the wood not as if temporary? What does Rebbi Yose do with this? Roots always regrow; since roots do regrow it is as if permanent. Rebbi Mana said, the statement of Rebbi Joḥanan supports my father, as Rebbi Joḥanan said in all cases they judged by the rules of robbers. In our case, if he gave permission to provine even temporarily, the proviner is not a robber.

The following is obvious: If somebody dedicated First Fruits not from the Seven Kinds it was not sanctified. Where is there a disagreement? About mountain dates and valley fruits. Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Assi in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: They were not sanctified. Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Immi: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagree. Rebbi Joḥanan said they were not sanctified, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said they were sanctified. Rebbi Jonah said, the reason of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is that if somebody transgressed and gave heave from bad for good produce, his heave is heave. Rebbi Yose said, we have heard that bad produce is subject to tithes; did we hear that bad produce is subject to First Fruits? A baraita supports Rebbi Yose: “One does not bring [fruits] from Sepphoris and Bet Shean, and if he brought they are not sanctified.” Rebbi Zeïra said, but there it is stated: “Figs pierced on the branch and grapes dusted and smoked one does not bring. But one brings bat šeba figs and white grapes.” The latter are highest quality. What can you say? But Rebbi Abba Mari said, one should not say that one should not bring these because they are late.

Cahana asked Rebbi Zeïra: A layman who ate heave? He said to him, it is a deadly sin. After he had prayed, he said to him (Lev. 22:3): “I am the Eternal” closed the statement. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: A layman who ate heave committed a deadly sin. A baraita supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “Those who eat heave intentionally, whether pure [person] eating pure [heave], or impure eating impure, or pure eating impure, or impure eating pure, have commited a deadly sin. Cohanim eating heave, pure [person] eating pure [heave] fulfills its commandment; pure eating impure [has violated] a positive commandment; impure eating pure or impure eating impure [has violated] a prohibition. What did you see to say that a pure [person] eating impure [heave has violated] a positive commandment? Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, (Lev. 22:7) “Afterwards he shall eat of the hallowed [food]”, of what is pure but not of what is impure. Any prohibition which is implied by a positive commandment has the status of a positive commandment.

A baraita supports one and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rav Huna: If he was standing in the public domain and threw over karmelit into a stable or corral, he is liable; but if he carried it he is not liable. A baraita supports Rebbi Jehudah: “If one carries out foodstuffs and puts them on the threshold; whether he or another person then carries it out, he is not liable since the work was not performed in one step.” Therefore if the work was completed in one step he would be liable. Ben Azzai said, even if be completed the work at one time he would not be liable. But did we not state: “Rebbi Meïr says, if it was Sabbath and he carried it out. They told him, it is not the category.” Because this one is liable because of walking and that one is liable because of putting down. In the opinion of Rav Huna one is not following Ben Azzai. In the opinion of Rav Jehudah one follows neither Ben Azzai nor the Sages. Rebbi Ḥinena said, who is :they said to him”? The Sages who follow Ben Azzai.

A baraita supports one and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rav Huna: If he was standing in the public domain and threw over karmelit into a stable or corral, he is liable; but if he carried it he is not liable. A baraita supports Rebbi Jehudah: “If one carries out foodstuffs and puts them on the threshold; whether he or another person then carries it out, he is not liable since the work was not performed in one step.” Therefore if the work was completed in one step he would be liable. Ben Azzai said, even if be completed the work at one time he would not be liable. But did we not state: “Rebbi Meïr says, if it was Sabbath and he carried it out. They told him, it is not the category.” Because this one is liable because of walking and that one is liable because of putting down. In the opinion of Rav Huna one is not following Ben Azzai. In the opinion of Rav Jehudah one follows neither Ben Azzai nor the Sages. Rebbi Ḥinena said, who is :they said to him”? The Sages who follow Ben Azzai.

A baraita supports one and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rav Huna: If he was standing in the public domain and threw over karmelit into a stable or corral, he is liable; but if he carried it he is not liable. A baraita supports Rebbi Jehudah: “If one carries out foodstuffs and puts them on the threshold; whether he or another person then carries it out, he is not liable since the work was not performed in one step.” Therefore if the work was completed in one step he would be liable. Ben Azzai said, even if be completed the work at one time he would not be liable. But did we not state: “Rebbi Meïr says, if it was Sabbath and he carried it out. They told him, it is not the category.” Because this one is liable because of walking and that one is liable because of putting down. In the opinion of Rav Huna one is not following Ben Azzai. In the opinion of Rav Jehudah one follows neither Ben Azzai nor the Sages. Rebbi Ḥinena said, who is :they said to him”? The Sages who follow Ben Azzai.

A baraita supports one and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rav Huna: If he was standing in the public domain and threw over karmelit into a stable or corral, he is liable; but if he carried it he is not liable. A baraita supports Rebbi Jehudah: “If one carries out foodstuffs and puts them on the threshold; whether he or another person then carries it out, he is not liable since the work was not performed in one step.” Therefore if the work was completed in one step he would be liable. Ben Azzai said, even if be completed the work at one time he would not be liable. But did we not state: “Rebbi Meïr says, if it was Sabbath and he carried it out. They told him, it is not the category.” Because this one is liable because of walking and that one is liable because of putting down. In the opinion of Rav Huna one is not following Ben Azzai. In the opinion of Rav Jehudah one follows neither Ben Azzai nor the Sages. Rebbi Ḥinena said, who is :they said to him”? The Sages who follow Ben Azzai.

Everybody agrees that a secondary vessel is permitted. What is the difference between a primary and a secondary vessel? Rebbi Yose said, here the hand rules, there the hand does not rule. Rebbi Jonah said, in neither case does the hand rule. But they forced distance for a primary vessel; they did not force distance for a secondary vessel. (Mishnah: “Into a pan or a pot which was taken off the fire boiling,” etc.) Rebbi Mana said, a pot of rice supports my father, a pot of groats supports my father, for you move them from place to place and they still are boiling hot.

Everybody agrees that a secondary vessel is permitted. What is the difference between a primary and a secondary vessel? Rebbi Yose said, here the hand rules, there the hand does not rule. Rebbi Jonah said, in neither case does the hand rule. But they forced distance for a primary vessel; they did not force distance for a secondary vessel. (Mishnah: “Into a pan or a pot which was taken off the fire boiling,” etc.) Rebbi Mana said, a pot of rice supports my father, a pot of groats supports my father, for you move them from place to place and they still are boiling hot.

“Nor a calf with gimun.” Rav Huna said, a small yoke. Rav Ḥisda said, a wooden tablet. Abba bar Rav Huna said, a spit. Some Tannaim state gimun. Some Tannaim state gimul. He who said gimun, to bend his head like a reed. He who said gimul, she brought him up with her after she had weaned him. He who said gimun supports Rav Ḥisda. He who said gimul supports Abba bar Rav Huna and Rav Huna.

“Nor a calf with gimun.” Rav Huna said, a small yoke. Rav Ḥisda said, a wooden tablet. Abba bar Rav Huna said, a spit. Some Tannaim state gimun. Some Tannaim state gimul. He who said gimun, to bend his head like a reed. He who said gimul, she brought him up with her after she had weaned him. He who said gimun supports Rav Ḥisda. He who said gimul supports Abba bar Rav Huna and Rav Huna.

MISHNAH: The amputee goes out with his prosthesis, the words of Rebbi Yose, but Rebbi Meїr prohibits. If it has an extensive reception area it is impure. His stilts are impure by stepping on, one goes out with them on the Sabbath, and one may enter the Temple Court with them. A wheelchair and its supports are impure by stepping on, one may not go out with them on the Sabbath, and one may not enter the Temple Court with them. Donkey figures are pure but one may not go out with them.

HALAKHAH: Samuel said, one goes out with them because they are like a sandal, and one may enter the Temple Court with them. Rebbi Yannai asked, one goes out with them because they are like sandals, and one may enter the Temple Court with them, because they are not sandals? Rebbi (asked) [Mana] said, instead of asking about Samuel he should have asked about the Mishnah, “its supports are impure by stepping on, one may go out with them on the Sabbath, and one may not enter the Temple Court with them.” Rebbi Mana said, say does its last part not disagree with Samuel? “Its supports are impure by stepping on, one may not go out with them on the Sabbath, and one may not enter the Temple Court with them. Donkey figures are pure and one may go out with them.” What are pure donkey figures? Rebbi Abbahu said, ὄνος κατʹ ὦμον, arm’s donkey.

HALAKHAH: Samuel said, one goes out with them because they are like a sandal, and one may enter the Temple Court with them. Rebbi Yannai asked, one goes out with them because they are like sandals, and one may enter the Temple Court with them, because they are not sandals? Rebbi (asked) [Mana] said, instead of asking about Samuel he should have asked about the Mishnah, “its supports are impure by stepping on, one may go out with them on the Sabbath, and one may not enter the Temple Court with them.” Rebbi Mana said, say does its last part not disagree with Samuel? “Its supports are impure by stepping on, one may not go out with them on the Sabbath, and one may not enter the Temple Court with them. Donkey figures are pure and one may go out with them.” What are pure donkey figures? Rebbi Abbahu said, ὄνος κατʹ ὦμον, arm’s donkey.