tearing

Let fire, and the cross; let the companies of wild beasts; let breakings of bones and tearing of members; let the shattering in pieces of the whole body, and all the wicked torments of the devil come upon me; only let me enjoy Jesus Christ.

And notwithstanding all this those eagles and vultures and ravens and kites still kept tearing the sheep and swooping down upon them and devouring them: still the sheep remained silent, but the rams lamented and cried out.

And I looked and saw men and women clad in white (bright) apparel, and their eyes were blind, and they were set in a pit, and I asked: Who are these, Lord? And he said unto me: These are they of the heathen that gave alms and knew not the Lord God; wherefore without ceasing they pay the due penalty. And I looked and saw other men and women upon a spit of fire, and beasts tearing them, and they were not suffered to say: Lord, have mercy on us. And I saw the angel of the torments laying most fierce torments upon them and saying: Acknowledge the Son of God. For it was told you before, but when the scriptures of God were read unto you, ye paid no heed: wherefore the judgement of God is just, for your evil doings have taken hold upon you, and brought you into these torments. But I sighed and wept; and I inquired and said: Who are these men and women that are strangled in the fire and pay the penalty? And he answered me: These are the women which defiled the creation of God when they brought forth children from the womb, and these are the men that lay with them. But their children appealed unto the Lord God and unto the angels that are over the torments, saying: Avenge us of our parents: for they have defiled the creation of God. Having the name of God, but not observing his commandments, they gave us for food unto dogs and to be trampled on by swine, and others they cast into the river. But those children were delivered unto the angels of Tartarus that they should bring them into a spacious place of mercy: but their fathers and mothers were haled (strangled) into everlasting torment. And thereafter I saw men and women clad in rags full of pitch and brimstone of fire, and there were dragons twined about their necks and shoulders and feet, and angels having horns of fire constrained them and smote them and closed up their nostrils, saying unto them: Wherefore knew ye not the time wherein it was right for you to repent and serve God, and ye did not? And I asked: Who are these, Lord? And he said unto me: These are they that seemed to renounce the world, wearing our garb, but the snares of the world made them to be miserable: they showed no charity and had no pity upon the widows and fatherless: the stranger and pilgrim they did not take in, neither offered one oblation nor had pity on their neighbour: and their prayer went not up even one day pure unto the Lord God; but the many snares of the world held them back, and they were not able to do right in the sight of God. And the angels carried them about into the place of torments: and they that were in torments saw them and said unto them: We indeed when we lived in the world neglected God, and ye did so likewise. And we when we were in the world knew that we were sinners, but of you it was said: These are righteous and servants of God: now we know that ye were only called by the name of the Lord. Wherefore also they pay the due penalty. And I sighed and wept and said: Woe unto men! woe unto the sinners! to what end were they born? And the angel answered and said unto me: Wherefore weepest thou? Art thou more merciful than the Lord God which is blessed for ever, who hath established the judgement and left every man of his own will to choose good or evil and to do as pleaseth him? Yet again I wept very sore, and he said unto me: Weepest thou, when as yet thou hast not seen the greater torments? Follow me, and thou shalt see sevenfold greater than these.

And while he was speaking, they came to the place where the old man lay dead, and many passers-by were standing near thereto. And John said to the youth: Thou wretched man, didst thou not spare even the old age of thy father? And he, weeping and tearing his hair, said that he repented thereof; and John the servant of the Lord said: Thou didst show me I was to set forth for this place, thou knewest that this would come to pass, from whom nothing can be hid of things done in life, that givest me power to work every cure and healing by thy will: now also give me this old man alive, for thou seest that his murderer is become his own judge: and spare him, thou only Lord, that spared not his father (because he) counselled him for the best.

And as the executioners led him unto the place to fulfil that which was commanded them, Stratocles heard what was come to pass, and ran hastily and overtook them, and beheld the blessed Andrew violently haled by the executioners like a malefactor. And he spared them not, but beating every one of them soundly and tearing their coats from top to bottom, he caught Andrew away from them, saying: Ye may thank the blessed man who hath instructed me and taught me to refrain from extremity of wrath: for else I would have showed you what Stratocles is able to do, and what is the power of the foul Aegeates. For we have learnt to endure that which others inflict upon us. And he took the hand of the apostle and went with him to the place by the sea-shore where he was to be crucified.

But the prefect desired to show patience unto both, that he might not appear to do aught unjustly. And the prefect put forward one of his servants and said thus unto Simon: Take this man and deliver him to death. And to Peter he said: And do thou revive him. And unto the people the prefect said: It is now for you to judge whether of these two is acceptable unto God, he that killeth or he that maketh alive. And straightway Simon spake in the ear of the lad and made him speechless, and he died. And as there began to be a murmuring among the people, one of the widows who were nourished (refreshed) in Marcellus' house, standing behind the multitude, cried out: O Peter, servant of God, my son is dead, the only one that I had. And the people made place for her and led her unto Peter: and she cast herself down at his feet, saying: I had one only son, which with his hands (shoulders) furnished me with nourishment: he raised me up, he carried me: now that he is dead, who shall reach me a hand? Unto whom Peter said: Go, with these for witness, and bring hither thy son, that they may see and be able to believe that by the power of God he is raised, and that this man (Simon) may behold it and fail (or, and she when she saw him, fell down). And Peter said to the young men: We have need of some young men, and, moreover, of such as will believe. And forthwith thirty young men arose, which were prepared to carry her or to bring thither her son that was dead. And whereas the widow was hardly returned to herself, the young men took her up; and she was crying out and saying: Lo, my son, the servant of Christ hath sent unto thee: tearing her hair and her face. Now the young men which were come examined the lad's nostrils to see whether he were indeed dead; and seeing that he was dead of a truth, they had compassion on the old woman and said: If thou so will, mother, and hast confidence in the God of Peter, we will take him up and carry him thither that he may raise him up and restore him unto thee.

While the king was saying thus, Ahimaaz appeared, and worshipped the king. And when the king inquired of him about the battle, he said he brought him the good news of victory and dominion. And when he inquired what he had to say concerning his son, he said that he came away on the sudden as soon as the enemy was defeated, but that he heard a great noise of those that pursued Absalom, and that he could learn no more, because of the haste he made when Joab sent him to inform him of the victory. But when Cushi was come, and had worshipped him, and informed him of the victory, he asked him about his son, who replied, "May the like misfortune befall thine enemies as hath befallen Absalom." That word did not permit either himself or his soldiers to rejoice for the victory, though it was a very great one; but David went up to the highest part of the city, and wept for his son, and beat his breast, tearing [the hair of] his head, tormenting himself all manner of ways, and crying out, "O my son! I wish that I had died myself, and ended my days with thee!" for he was of a tender natural affection, and had extraordinary compassion for this son in particular. But when the army and Joab heard that the king mourned for his son, they were ashamed to enter the city in the habit of conquerors, but they all came in as cast down, and in tears, as if they had been beaten. Now while the king covered himself, and grievously lamented his son, Joab went in to him, and comforted him, and said, "O my lord the king, thou art not aware that thou layest a blot on thyself by what thou now doest; for thou seemest to hate those that love thee, and undergo dangers for thee nay, to hate thyself and thy family, and to love those that are thy bitter enemies, and to desire the company of those that are no more, and who have been justly slain; for had Absalom gotten the victory, and firmly settled himself in the kingdom, there had been none of us left alive, but all of us, beginning with thyself and thy children, had miserably perished, while our enemies had not wept for his, but rejoiced over us, and punished even those that pitied us in our misfortunes; and thou art not ashamed to do this in the case of one that has been thy bitter enemy, who, while he was thine own son hath proved so wicked to thee. Leave off, therefore, thy unreasonable grief, and come abroad and be seen of thy soldiers, and return them thanks for the alacrity they showed in the fight; for I myself will this day persuade the people to leave thee, and to give the kingdom to another, if thou continuest to do thus; and then I shall make thee to grieve bitterly and in earnest." Upon Joab's speaking thus to him, he made the king leave off his sorrow, and brought him to the consideration of his affairs. So David changed his habit, and exposed himself in a manner fit to be seen by the multitude, and sat at the gates; whereupon all the people heard of it, and ran together to him, and saluted him. And this was the present state of David's affairs.

There was also Judas, the son of that Ezekias who had been head of the robbers; which Ezekias was a very strong man, and had with great difficulty been caught by Herod. This Judas, having gotten together a multitude of men of a profligate character about Sepphoris in Galilee, made an assault upon the palace [there,] and seized upon all the weapons that were laid up in it, and with them armed every one of those that were with him, and carried away what money was left there; and he became terrible to all men, by tearing and rending those that came near him; and all this in order to raise himself, and out of an ambitious desire of the royal dignity; and he hoped to obtain that as the reward not of his virtuous skill in war, but of his extravagance in doing injuries.

At the very same time with the forementioned revolt of the Germans did the bold attempt of the Scythians against the Romans occur; for those Scythians who are called Sarmatians, being a very numerous people, transported themselves over the Danube into Mysia, without being perceived; after which, by their violence, and entirely unexpected assault, they slew a great many of the Romans that guarded the frontiers; and as the consular legate Fonteius Agrippa came to meet them, and fought courageously against them, he was slain by them. They then overran all the region that had been subject to him, tearing and rending every thing that fell in their way. But when Vespasian was informed of what had happened, and how Mysia was laid waste, he sent away Rubrius Gallus to punish these Sarmatians; by whose means many of them perished in the battles he fought against them, and that part which escaped fled with fear to their own country. So when this general had put an end to the war, he provided for the future security of the country also; for he placed more and more numerous garrisons in the place, till he made it altogether impossible for the barbarians to pass over the river any more. And thus had this war in Mysia a sudden conclusion.

I think, then, that it has been pretty well established not only that our Saviour was to be born of a virgin, but also that there were prophets among the Jews who uttered not merely general predictions about the future,—as e.g. regarding Christ and the kingdoms of the world, and the events that were to happen to Israel, and those nations which were to believe on the Saviour, and many other things concerning Him,—but also prophecies respecting particular events; as, for instance, how the asses of Kish, which were lost, were to be discovered, and regarding the sickness which had fallen upon the son of the king of Israel, and any other recorded circumstance of a similar kind. But as a further answer to the Greeks, who do not believe in the birth of Jesus from a virgin, we have to say that the Creator has shown, by the generation of several kinds of animals, that what He has done in the instance of one animal, He could do, if it pleased Him, in that of others, and also of man himself. For it is ascertained that there is a certain female animal which has no intercourse with the male (as writers on animals say is the case with vultures), and that this animal, without sexual intercourse, preserves the succession of race. What incredibility, therefore, is there in supposing that, if God wished to send a divine teacher to the human race, He caused Him to be born in some manner different from the common? Nay, according to the Greeks themselves, all men were not born of a man and woman. For if the world has been created, as many even of the Greeks are pleased to admit, then the first men must have been produced not from sexual intercourse, but from the earth, in which spermatic elements existed; which, however, I consider more incredible than that Jesus was born like other men, so far as regards the half of his birth. And there is no absurdity in employing Grecian histories to answer Greeks, with the view of showing that we are not the only persons who have recourse to miraculous narratives of this kind. For some have thought fit, not in regard to ancient and heroic narratives, but in regard to events of very recent occurrence, to relate as a possible thing that Plato was the son of Amphictione, Ariston being prevented from having marital intercourse with his wife until she had given birth to him with whom she was pregnant by Apollo. And yet these are veritable fables, which have led to the invention of such stories concerning a man whom they regarded as possessing greater wisdom and power than the multitude, and as having received the beginning of his corporeal substance from better and diviner elements than others, because they thought that this was appropriate to persons who were too great to be human beings. And since Celsus has introduced the Jew disputing with Jesus, and tearing in pieces, as he imagines, the fiction of His birth from a virgin, comparing the Greek fables about Danae, and Melanippe, and Auge, and Antiope, our answer is, that such language becomes a buffoon, and not one who is writing in a serious tone.

The primary labors are forty less one: sowing, plowing, reaping, binding sheaves, threshing, winnowing, selecting, grinding, sifting, kneading, baking, shearing wool, bleaching, hackling, dyeing, spinning, weaving, the making of two loops, weaving two threads, dividing two threads, tying and untying, sewing two stitches, tearing in order to sew two stitches, capturing a deer, slaughtering, or flaying, or salting it, curing its hide, scraping it [of its hair], cutting it up, writing two letters, erasing in order to write two letters [over the erasure], building, tearing down, extinguishing, kindling, striking with a hammer, [and] carrying out from one domain to another, These are the forty primary labors less one.

The primary labors are forty less one: sowing, plowing, reaping, binding sheaves, threshing, winnowing, selecting, grinding, sifting, kneading, baking, shearing wool, bleaching, hackling, dyeing, spinning, weaving, the making of two loops, weaving two threads, dividing two threads, tying and untying, sewing two stitches, tearing in order to sew two stitches, capturing a deer, slaughtering, or flaying, or salting it, curing its hide, scraping it [of its hair], cutting it up, writing two letters, erasing in order to write two letters [over the erasure], building, tearing down, extinguishing, kindling, striking with a hammer, [and] carrying out from one domain to another, These are the forty primary labors less one.

There is no difference between a zav who sees [genital discharge] twice and one who sees three, except the sacrifice. There is no difference between a metzora who is under observation and one declared to be a definite metzora except the disheveling of hair and tearing the clothes. There is no difference between a metzora who has been declared clean after being under observation and one who has been declared clean after having been a definite metzorah except shaving and [sacrificing] the birds.

A basket [for figs] is susceptible to uncleanness but a basket for wheat is clean. Small baskets made of leaves are clean, but those made of branches are susceptible to uncleanness. The palm wrapping [in which dates are left] and into which they can be easily put and from which they can easily be taken out is susceptible to uncleanness, but if this cannot be done without tearing it or undoing it, it is clean.

In the case of a stone in a corner, when the stone is taken out it, he must take it all out; But when [the house is] torn down he tears down his own [part] and leaves that which belongs to his neighbor. Thus it follows that there is a greater stringency for taking out than for tearing down. Rabbi Elazar says: if a house is built of rows of head stones and small stones, and a nega appears on a head stone, all of it must be taken out; but if it appeared on the small stones, he takes out his stones and leaves the others.

The people from Sepphoris said: We shall kill anybody who tells us that Rebbi died. Bar Qappara associated with them, his head covered and his garments torn. He said to them: Earthlings and angels held the Tablets of the Covenant; the angels were stronger and they took away the Tablets. They said to him: Rebbi died. He said to them: You said it. They tore their clothes and the sound of the tearing was heard at Goffta at a distance of three mil.

Rebbi Yose explains the Mishnah before the New Year of the Sabbatical: If one planted before the New Year of the Sabbatical, it formed a bulb before the Sabbatical; he pressed [the leaves] down during the Sabbatical and tore them out after the Sabbatical. If you say that pressing down is like tearing out, everything is for the poor. If you say that pressing down is not like tearing out, not everything is for the poor. Because of this doubt, he should settle with the poor.

Rebbi Yose explains the Mishnah before the New Year of the Sabbatical: If one planted before the New Year of the Sabbatical, it formed a bulb before the Sabbatical; he pressed [the leaves] down during the Sabbatical and tore them out after the Sabbatical. If you say that pressing down is like tearing out, everything is for the poor. If you say that pressing down is not like tearing out, not everything is for the poor. Because of this doubt, he should settle with the poor.

Rebbi Ḥizqiah explains the Mishnah as referring to the eve of New Year’s Day of the Sabbatical. If he planted on the eve of New Year’s Day of the Sabbatical, it grew a bulb at the start of the Sabbatical; then he pressed [the leaves] down during the Sabbatical and tore them out after the Sabbatical. If you say that pressing down is like tearing out, everything belongs to the farmer. If you say that pressing down is not like tearing out, not everything belongs to the farmer; therefore, the poor have no settlement with the farmer.

Rebbi Ḥizqiah explains the Mishnah as referring to the eve of New Year’s Day of the Sabbatical. If he planted on the eve of New Year’s Day of the Sabbatical, it grew a bulb at the start of the Sabbatical; then he pressed [the leaves] down during the Sabbatical and tore them out after the Sabbatical. If you say that pressing down is like tearing out, everything belongs to the farmer. If you say that pressing down is not like tearing out, not everything belongs to the farmer; therefore, the poor have no settlement with the farmer.

“Arum of the year before the Sabbatical” etc. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Zeїra: Is it not so also in the other years of the cycle since we have stated: “If it was the second year entering the third, he may not bend it or withhold water from it so it should be Second Tithe; if it was the third year entering the fourth, he may bend it and withhold water from it so it should be tithe of the poor”? This implies that bending down is like tearing out! Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi La: Explain that he tore them out before they started to grow.

If leprous stones were turned into lime, some Tannaїm state they rose from their impurity; some Tannaїm state they did not rise from their impurity. For him who stated they rose from their impurity, are they permitted, but for him who stated they did not rise from their impurity, are they forbidden? Even for him who stated they rose from their impurity, they are forbidden since it is written (Lev. 14:44): “A cursed plague”, it should be cursed and you shall have no usufruct from it. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The ashes of everything burned are permitted except ashes coming from idolatry. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph objected before Rebbi Joḥanan: There are the ashes of the (leprous) house which do not come from idolatry and you say they are forbidden! He said to him, there is a difference since it is written “tearing down, tearing down.”

If leprous stones were turned into lime, some Tannaїm state they rose from their impurity; some Tannaїm state they did not rise from their impurity. For him who stated they rose from their impurity, are they permitted, but for him who stated they did not rise from their impurity, are they forbidden? Even for him who stated they rose from their impurity, they are forbidden since it is written (Lev. 14:44): “A cursed plague”, it should be cursed and you shall have no usufruct from it. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The ashes of everything burned are permitted except ashes coming from idolatry. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph objected before Rebbi Joḥanan: There are the ashes of the (leprous) house which do not come from idolatry and you say they are forbidden! He said to him, there is a difference since it is written “tearing down, tearing down.”

“He who shears wool.” If he shore without specification, what? Let us hear from the following: If one brought out ink, if it was in a reed, in order to write two letters, if to correct, enough to correct one letter. There, we have stated: “He who slaughters the firstling makes space for the dagger on both sides and tears out the hair, but he should not move it from its place. Similarly, he who tears out hair to see a defect.” Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: One who tears out hair from a dedicated animal is not liable. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish follows his own opinion, as they disagreed: If one tears out hair from a dedicated animal, Rebbi Joḥanan said, he is liable; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he is not liable. Rebbi Jeremiah asked, is not Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish’s reasoning inverted? Since they disagreed. “One who tears out a wing of a bird, who plucks it, and who cuts it is liable under three [categories].” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, they do not disagree. He who tears out is liable because of shearing; he who plucks out is liable because of wiping clean; he who cuts it is liable because of hitting with a hammer. But it cannot be compared; for a bird which has no shearing, tearing out is its shearing. But here he is not liable unless he sheared. You should know that this is so since it was stated: If he tore from a dead animal he is liable since tearing is its shearing.

“He who shears wool.” If he shore without specification, what? Let us hear from the following: If one brought out ink, if it was in a reed, in order to write two letters, if to correct, enough to correct one letter. There, we have stated: “He who slaughters the firstling makes space for the dagger on both sides and tears out the hair, but he should not move it from its place. Similarly, he who tears out hair to see a defect.” Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: One who tears out hair from a dedicated animal is not liable. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish follows his own opinion, as they disagreed: If one tears out hair from a dedicated animal, Rebbi Joḥanan said, he is liable; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he is not liable. Rebbi Jeremiah asked, is not Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish’s reasoning inverted? Since they disagreed. “One who tears out a wing of a bird, who plucks it, and who cuts it is liable under three [categories].” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, they do not disagree. He who tears out is liable because of shearing; he who plucks out is liable because of wiping clean; he who cuts it is liable because of hitting with a hammer. But it cannot be compared; for a bird which has no shearing, tearing out is its shearing. But here he is not liable unless he sheared. You should know that this is so since it was stated: If he tore from a dead animal he is liable since tearing is its shearing.

Tearing applies to textiles and cutting to hides. Tearing in the middle and cutting from the sides. There are some who switch, tearing of hides and cutting of textiles. Tearing of hides, those soft ones, and cutting of textiles, felt.

Tearing applies to textiles and cutting to hides. Tearing in the middle and cutting from the sides. There are some who switch, tearing of hides and cutting of textiles. Tearing of hides, those soft ones, and cutting of textiles, felt.

Tearing applies to textiles and cutting to hides. Tearing in the middle and cutting from the sides. There are some who switch, tearing of hides and cutting of textiles. Tearing of hides, those soft ones, and cutting of textiles, felt.

Tearing applies to textiles and cutting to hides. Tearing in the middle and cutting from the sides. There are some who switch, tearing of hides and cutting of textiles. Tearing of hides, those soft ones, and cutting of textiles, felt.

HALAKHAH: There is written abomination about the menstruating woman, and there is written abomination about idolatry, and there is written abomination about vermin. There is written abomination about the menstruating woman, for anybody who would commit any of these abomination s, etc. Abomination about idolatry, and do not bring any abomination into your house, etc. Abomination about vermin, do not eat any abomination. But I do not know to which of them it was compared. Rebbi Aqiba says, it was compared to abomination regarding the menstruating woman. As the menstruating woman imparts impurity by load, also idolatry imparts impurity by load. Or since the menstruating woman imparts impurity through a cover stone, does idolatry impart impurity through a cover stone? Rebbi Zeriqan in the name of Rav Jehudah, but some say in the name of Rav Ḥisda: Rebbi Aqiba agrees with the Sages that idolatry does not impart impurity through a cover stone. But the rabbis say it was compared to abomination s of vermin. As vermin imparts impurity by motion, so also idolatry imparts impurity by motion. Or as vermin in the size of a lentil imparts impurity does idolatry in the size of a lentil also impart impurity? Rebbi Zeˋira, Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They were yoked to Baal Peor and ate sacrifices to the dead. As the dead in the volume of an olive impart impurity so idolatry in the volume of an olive imparts impurity. Or since a corpse imparts impurity once a person puts his finger tips in, could I think that idolatry imparts once a person puts his finger tips in? Tearing down, tearing down from the leprous house. Since in a leprous house when he entered with his head and most of his body, so idolatry when he entered with his head and most of his body. Rebbi Ḥanania said, this means that the impurity of idolatry is not consistent. For otherwise, why does one compare if for the facile [impurity] and does not compare for the strict? Rebbi Mana said, it is consistent. Why was it compared to a corpse and to vermin? To inform in both cases about the facile [impurity] attached to it. This is for a broken idol. But a whole one even in the most minute size, as Rebbi Ḥuna, Rebbi Ḥama bar Gorion said in the name of Rav: Baal was the penis gland in the form of a bean: They selected the Baal of circumcision as god.

HALAKHAH: There is written abomination about the menstruating woman, and there is written abomination about idolatry, and there is written abomination about vermin. There is written abomination about the menstruating woman, for anybody who would commit any of these abomination s, etc. Abomination about idolatry, and do not bring any abomination into your house, etc. Abomination about vermin, do not eat any abomination. But I do not know to which of them it was compared. Rebbi Aqiba says, it was compared to abomination regarding the menstruating woman. As the menstruating woman imparts impurity by load, also idolatry imparts impurity by load. Or since the menstruating woman imparts impurity through a cover stone, does idolatry impart impurity through a cover stone? Rebbi Zeriqan in the name of Rav Jehudah, but some say in the name of Rav Ḥisda: Rebbi Aqiba agrees with the Sages that idolatry does not impart impurity through a cover stone. But the rabbis say it was compared to abomination s of vermin. As vermin imparts impurity by motion, so also idolatry imparts impurity by motion. Or as vermin in the size of a lentil imparts impurity does idolatry in the size of a lentil also impart impurity? Rebbi Zeˋira, Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They were yoked to Baal Peor and ate sacrifices to the dead. As the dead in the volume of an olive impart impurity so idolatry in the volume of an olive imparts impurity. Or since a corpse imparts impurity once a person puts his finger tips in, could I think that idolatry imparts once a person puts his finger tips in? Tearing down, tearing down from the leprous house. Since in a leprous house when he entered with his head and most of his body, so idolatry when he entered with his head and most of his body. Rebbi Ḥanania said, this means that the impurity of idolatry is not consistent. For otherwise, why does one compare if for the facile [impurity] and does not compare for the strict? Rebbi Mana said, it is consistent. Why was it compared to a corpse and to vermin? To inform in both cases about the facile [impurity] attached to it. This is for a broken idol. But a whole one even in the most minute size, as Rebbi Ḥuna, Rebbi Ḥama bar Gorion said in the name of Rav: Baal was the penis gland in the form of a bean: They selected the Baal of circumcision as god.

HALAKHAH: 3. They asked before Rebbi Abba: Just as you are saying there, “one who slaughtered his purification sacrifice on the Sabbath did atone but has to bring another one,” so one should say also here, he did not accomplish his tearing. But it must follow Rebbi Simeon, since Rebbi Simeon said, only if he needed the thing itself. He told them, there he caused it himself, but here you caused it to him. Rebbi Yose said, and even there you caused it to him for had you not told him to come how could it be atoning? Is there need to say that it follows Rebbi Simeon?

It was stated: “The day of information is like the day of burial as regards tearing, and mourning, and counting Seven and Thirty; but to eat sancta it is like gathering bones, (he immerses himself and eats sancta).” About gathering bones, may he immerse himself and eat sancta? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav Ḥisda, explain it if he was buried after nightfall. “In both cases they immerse themselves and eat their Pesaḥ in the evening.” After burial may one eat sancta? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, both are about information. If he was informed that a relative died the day before, he immerses himself and eats sancta; if he was informed that bones were collected the day before, he immerses himself and eats sancta.

“The sexless.” Everybody agrees that a sexless who was torn open and turned out to be a male on the first day of a holiday is liable. Where do they disagree? On the remaining days. Ḥizqiah said, he shall be seen, he shall be seen, he who is liable on the first {day} is liable on the second; he who is not liable on the first {day} is not liable on the second. Rebbi Joḥanan said, all seven {days} are make-up for the first. Rebbi Ila said, Rebbi Joḥanan inferred this from the Second Pesaḥ. As Rebbi Joḥanan said there, the Second Pesaḥ is make-up for the first, so he says here, all seven {days} are make-up for the first. Rebbi Hoshaia said, all seven {days} are obligatory. What results between them? A proselyte who converted on one of the other days. In Ḥizqiah’s opinion he is not liable; in Rebbi Joḥanan’s and Rebbi Hoshaia’s opinions he is liable. Is it the same for the impure one? In Ḥizqiah’s opinion is he not liable; in Rebbi Joḥanan’s and Rebbi Hoshaia’s opinions is he liable? Rebbi Yose said, there he is suitable; the tearing caused it. But here the impure person himself is not suitable.

If he was informed on the holiday about the death of a relative but the Thirty were completed before the end of the holiday. The colleagues are saying, since he was informed within the Thirty, he counts Seven after the Thirty. Rebbi Yose said to them, since he heard at a moment where he could not mourn it is as if he was informed after Thirty(;) [and] he observes only one day. Rabbi Idi of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If he received recent information on the Sabbath, he tears {his garment} the next day and mourns. Rebbi Ḥanania said, he does not mourn. Rebbi Mana said to him, is there tearing without mourning? Since for his father or his mother even after a length of time he is obligated to tear. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Even as derivative of a derivative he is forbidden to shave. As the following: Rebbi Mana was in Caesarea. He heard that his grandson had died, and he went and eulogized. They said to him, did the Rabbi not teach us, even as derivative of a derivative he is forbidden to shave? He said to them, those who were with him. We were not there. Rebbi Eudaimon bar Tobi in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: even as derivative of a derivative he is obligated to tear, as Rebbi Abbahu said, groan silently, from here that he has to cry. Do not arrange mourning for the dead, from here that he has to mourn. Your splendor put on yourself, some want to say, these are tefillin. Some want to say, this is pressing. He who says these are tefillin; just as tefillin refer to two days, also mourning two days? He who says this is pressing; just as pressing is for thirty days, also mourning thirty days? Put your shoes on your feet, from here that he is forbidden wearing shoes. And do not cover your mustache, from here that he has to cover his mouth. Could he cover it from below? Rav Ḥisda said, so they should not say, he has a mouth-ache. And do not eat men’s bread, from here that the smaller ones go to the greater ones. And from where that the greater ones go to the smaller ones? Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said, it is written: For so says the Eternal, do not go to a funeral repast, etc.

They told him, Reuben died, and he rent. After that they said to him, it was Simeon. He already fulfilled his obligation tearing. They told him, Reuben died, and he rent. After that they said to him, he was alive but then died. There are Tannaim who state, he fulfilled his obligation tearing. There are Tannaim who state, he did not fulfill his obligation tearing. He who said, he fulfilled his obligation tearing; already he rent. He who said, he did not fulfill his obligation tearing, did he not rent about a living person? Furthermore, from what was stated: He rent but then his soul returned. If immediately, he does not have to rend. If after a delay he has to rend. What is immediately? The time for speech. What is the time for speech? Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: up to a greeting from one person to another. Abba bar bar Ḥana in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: up to a greeting from a student to his teacher, that he would say: “peace be with you, my teacher.”

They told him, Reuben died, and he rent. After that they said to him, it was Simeon. He already fulfilled his obligation tearing. They told him, Reuben died, and he rent. After that they said to him, he was alive but then died. There are Tannaim who state, he fulfilled his obligation tearing. There are Tannaim who state, he did not fulfill his obligation tearing. He who said, he fulfilled his obligation tearing; already he rent. He who said, he did not fulfill his obligation tearing, did he not rent about a living person? Furthermore, from what was stated: He rent but then his soul returned. If immediately, he does not have to rend. If after a delay he has to rend. What is immediately? The time for speech. What is the time for speech? Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: up to a greeting from one person to another. Abba bar bar Ḥana in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: up to a greeting from a student to his teacher, that he would say: “peace be with you, my teacher.”

They told him, Reuben died, and he rent. After that they said to him, it was Simeon. He already fulfilled his obligation tearing. They told him, Reuben died, and he rent. After that they said to him, he was alive but then died. There are Tannaim who state, he fulfilled his obligation tearing. There are Tannaim who state, he did not fulfill his obligation tearing. He who said, he fulfilled his obligation tearing; already he rent. He who said, he did not fulfill his obligation tearing, did he not rent about a living person? Furthermore, from what was stated: He rent but then his soul returned. If immediately, he does not have to rend. If after a delay he has to rend. What is immediately? The time for speech. What is the time for speech? Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: up to a greeting from one person to another. Abba bar bar Ḥana in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: up to a greeting from a student to his teacher, that he would say: “peace be with you, my teacher.”

They told him, Reuben died, and he rent. After that they said to him, it was Simeon. He already fulfilled his obligation tearing. They told him, Reuben died, and he rent. After that they said to him, he was alive but then died. There are Tannaim who state, he fulfilled his obligation tearing. There are Tannaim who state, he did not fulfill his obligation tearing. He who said, he fulfilled his obligation tearing; already he rent. He who said, he did not fulfill his obligation tearing, did he not rent about a living person? Furthermore, from what was stated: He rent but then his soul returned. If immediately, he does not have to rend. If after a delay he has to rend. What is immediately? The time for speech. What is the time for speech? Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: up to a greeting from one person to another. Abba bar bar Ḥana in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: up to a greeting from a student to his teacher, that he would say: “peace be with you, my teacher.”

They told him, Reuben died, and he rent. After that they said to him, it was Simeon. He already fulfilled his obligation tearing. They told him, Reuben died, and he rent. After that they said to him, he was alive but then died. There are Tannaim who state, he fulfilled his obligation tearing. There are Tannaim who state, he did not fulfill his obligation tearing. He who said, he fulfilled his obligation tearing; already he rent. He who said, he did not fulfill his obligation tearing, did he not rent about a living person? Furthermore, from what was stated: He rent but then his soul returned. If immediately, he does not have to rend. If after a delay he has to rend. What is immediately? The time for speech. What is the time for speech? Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: up to a greeting from one person to another. Abba bar bar Ḥana in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: up to a greeting from a student to his teacher, that he would say: “peace be with you, my teacher.”

The people from Sepphoris said: We shall kill anybody who tells us that Rebbi died. Bar Qappara associated with them, his head covered and his garments torn. He said to them: Earthlings and angels held the Tablets of the Covenant; the angels were stronger and they took away the Tablets. They said to him: Rebbi died. He said to them: You said it. They tore their clothes and the sound of the tearing was heard from the gate to a distance of three mil.

There is a rule about the slaughterer which does not apply to the seller and to the seller which does not apply to the slaughterer, for he who slaughters on the Sabbath is criminally liable but he who sells on the Sabbath cannot be prosecuted. Rebbi Yannai ben Rebbi Ismael said, we find a case of sale for which one is criminally liable on the Sabbath. Think of it, if somebody said to another: tear something off from this ground to acquire, did he not acquire? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, the tearing makes him liable, not the sale.

Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Gamda asked: What was the gatherer’s guilt? Because of tearing off or because of reaping? Let us hear from the following: The Children of Israel were in the desert when they found … This teaches that he was tearing wood off the ground.

Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Gamda asked: What was the gatherer’s guilt? Because of tearing off or because of reaping? Let us hear from the following: The Children of Israel were in the desert when they found … This teaches that he was tearing wood off the ground.

HALAKHAH: “If one’s house was connected to a house of pagan worship,” etc. There is written abomination about the menstruating women, abomination about vermin, abomination about idolatry. About the menstruating woman, for anybody who would commit any of these abominations. About vermin, do not eat any abomination. About idolatry, and do not bring any abomination into your house. But I do not know for which purpose it was compared. Rebbi Aqiba says, it was compared to abomination regarding the menstruating woman. As the menstruating woman imparts impurity by load, also idolatry imparts impurity by load. Or since the menstruating woman imparts impurity through a cover stone, does idolatry impart impurity through a cover stone? Rebbi Zeriqa in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina, but some say in the name of Rav Ḥisda: Rebbi Aqiba agrees with the Sages that idolatry does not impart impurity through a cover stone. But the rabbis say it was compared to abominations of vermin. As vermin imparts impurity by motion, so also idolatry imparts impurity by motion. Or as vermin in the size of a lentil imparts impurity does also idolatry in the size of a lentil impart impurity? Rebbi Zeˋira, Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman, Rebbi Eleazar, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They were yoked to Baal Peor and ate sacrifices to the dead. As the dead in the size of an olive impart impurity so idolatry in the size of an olive imparts impurity. Or since a corpse imparts impurity once a person puts his finger tips in, could I think that idolatry imparts once a person puts his finger tips in? Tearing down, tearing down one infers from the leprous house. Since in a leprous house when he entered with his head and most of his body, so idolatry when he entered with his head and most of his body. Rebbi Ḥanina said, this means that the impurity of idolatry is not consistent. For otherwise, why does one compare if for the facile [impurity] and does not compare for the strict? Rebbi Mana said, it is consistent. Why was it compared to a corpse and to vermin? To inform in both cases about the facile [impurity] attached to it. This is for a broken idol. But an entire one even in the most minute size, as Rebbi Yose hen Rebbi Abun said, Rav Ḥama bar Gorion in the name of Rav: Baal was the penis gland in the form of a bean. What is the reason? They selected the Baal of circumcision as god.

HALAKHAH: “If one’s house was connected to a house of pagan worship,” etc. There is written abomination about the menstruating women, abomination about vermin, abomination about idolatry. About the menstruating woman, for anybody who would commit any of these abominations. About vermin, do not eat any abomination. About idolatry, and do not bring any abomination into your house. But I do not know for which purpose it was compared. Rebbi Aqiba says, it was compared to abomination regarding the menstruating woman. As the menstruating woman imparts impurity by load, also idolatry imparts impurity by load. Or since the menstruating woman imparts impurity through a cover stone, does idolatry impart impurity through a cover stone? Rebbi Zeriqa in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina, but some say in the name of Rav Ḥisda: Rebbi Aqiba agrees with the Sages that idolatry does not impart impurity through a cover stone. But the rabbis say it was compared to abominations of vermin. As vermin imparts impurity by motion, so also idolatry imparts impurity by motion. Or as vermin in the size of a lentil imparts impurity does also idolatry in the size of a lentil impart impurity? Rebbi Zeˋira, Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman, Rebbi Eleazar, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They were yoked to Baal Peor and ate sacrifices to the dead. As the dead in the size of an olive impart impurity so idolatry in the size of an olive imparts impurity. Or since a corpse imparts impurity once a person puts his finger tips in, could I think that idolatry imparts once a person puts his finger tips in? Tearing down, tearing down one infers from the leprous house. Since in a leprous house when he entered with his head and most of his body, so idolatry when he entered with his head and most of his body. Rebbi Ḥanina said, this means that the impurity of idolatry is not consistent. For otherwise, why does one compare if for the facile [impurity] and does not compare for the strict? Rebbi Mana said, it is consistent. Why was it compared to a corpse and to vermin? To inform in both cases about the facile [impurity] attached to it. This is for a broken idol. But an entire one even in the most minute size, as Rebbi Yose hen Rebbi Abun said, Rav Ḥama bar Gorion in the name of Rav: Baal was the penis gland in the form of a bean. What is the reason? They selected the Baal of circumcision as god.

It is written, do not make idols for yourselves, statue and stele you shall not erect for yourselves. Is not making the same as erecting? Rebbi Hila said, making is from new; erecting, if it falls down one shall not re-erect it. It is written, you shall tear down their altars and break their steles. From where to apply one to the other? Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, it was said to refer to both sides; either breaking, or cutting down, or tearing down for each of them.

There is no difference between a metzora who is under observation and one declared to be a definite metzora except the disheveling of hair and tearing the clothes.

And should you reply that that is so, [how can this be] seeing that it states, There is no difference between a metzora who is under observation and one declared to be a definite metzora except the disheveling of hair and tearing the clothes., from which it may be inferred that in the matter of being sent out [of the camp] and defiling by entrance they are on the same footing?