throws

“Hear now,” said he, “how wicked is the action of anger, and in what way it overthrows the servants of God by its action, and turns them from righteousness. But it does not turn away those who are full of faith, nor does it act on them, for the power of the Lord is with them. It is the thoughtless and doubting that it turns away. For as soon as it sees such men standing stedfast, it throws itself into their hearts, and for nothing at all the man or woman becomes embittered on account of occurrences in their daily life, as for instance on account of their food, or some superfluous word that has been uttered, or on account of some friend, or some gift or debt, or some such senseless affair. For all these things are foolish and empty and unprofitable to the servants of God. But patience is great, and mighty, and strong, and calm in the midst of great enlargement, joyful, rejoicing, free from care, glorifying God at all times, having no bitterness in her, and abiding continually meek and quiet. Now this patience dwells with those who have complete faith. But anger is foolish, and fickle, and senseless. Now, of folly is begotten bitterness, and of bitterness anger, and of anger frenzy. This frenzy, the product of so many evils, ends in great and incurable sin. For when all these spirits dwell in one vessel in which the Holy Spirit also dwells, the vessel cannot contain them, but overflows. The tender Spirit, then, not being accustomed to dwell with the wicked spirit, nor with hardness, withdraws from such a man, and seeks to dwell with meekness and peacefulness. Then, when he withdraws from the man in whom he dwelt, the man is emptied of the righteous Spirit; and being henceforward filled with evil spirits, he is in a state of anarchy in every action, being dragged hither and thither by the evil spirits, and there is a complete darkness in his mind as to everything good. This, then, is what happens to all the angry. Wherefore do you depart from that most wicked spirit anger, and put on patience, and resist anger and bitterness, and you will be found in company with the purity which is loved by the Lord. Take care, then, that you neglect not by any chance this commandment: for if you obey this commandment, you will be able to keep all the other commandments which I am to give you. Be strong, then, in these commandments, and put on power, and let all put on power, as many as wish to walk in them.”

Over this he wore a linen vestment, made of fine flax doubled: it is called Chethone, and denotes linen, for we call linen by the name of Chethone. This vestment reaches down to the feet, and sits close to the body; and has sleeves that are tied fast to the arms: it is girded to the breast a little above the elbows, by a girdle often going round, four fingers broad, but so loosely woven, that you would think it were the skin of a serpent. It is embroidered with flowers of scarlet, and purple, and blue, and fine twined linen, but the warp was nothing but fine linen. The beginning of its circumvolution is at the breast; and when it has gone often round, it is there tied, and hangs loosely there down to the ankles: I mean this, all the time the priest is not about any laborious service, for in this position it appears in the most agreeable manner to the spectators; but when he is obliged to assist at the offering sacrifices, and to do the appointed service, that he may not be hindered in his operations by its motion, he throws it to the left, and bears it on his shoulder. Moses indeed calls this belt Albaneth; but we have learned from the Babylonians to call it Emia, for so it is by them called. This vestment has no loose or hollow parts any where in it, but only a narrow aperture about the neck; and it is tied with certain strings hanging down from the edge over the breast and back, and is fastened above each shoulder: it is called Massabazanes.

Now the law requires, both in private and public sacrifices, that the finest flour be also brought; for a lamb the measure of one tenth deal,—for a ram two,—and for a bull three. This they consecrate upon the altar, when it is mingled with oil; for oil is also brought by those that sacrifice; for a bull the half of an hin, and for a ram the third part of the same measure, and one quarter of it for a lamb. This hin is an ancient Hebrew measure, and is equivalent to two Athenian choas [or congiuses]. They bring the same quantity of oil which they do of wine, and they pour the wine about the altar; but if any one does not offer a complete sacrifice of animals, but brings fine flour only for a vow, he throws a handful upon the altar as its first-fruits, while the priests take the rest for their food, either boiled or mingled with oil, but made into cakes of bread. But whatsoever it be that a priest himself offers, it must of necessity be all burnt. Now the law forbids us to sacrifice any animal at the same time with its dam; and, in other cases, not till the eighth day after its birth. Other sacrifices there are also appointed for escaping distempers, or for other occasions, in which meat-offerings are consumed, together with the animals that are sacrificed; of which it is not lawful to leave any part till the next day, only the priests are to take their own share.

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

From what has been said, it is clear then that Jesus, “the man of Nazareth,” did not promulgate laws opposed to those just considered in regard to riches, when He said, “It is hard for the rich man to enter into the kingdom of God;” whether we take the word “rich” in its simplest sense, as referring to the man whose mind is distracted by his wealth, and, as it were, entangled with thorns, so that he brings forth no spiritual fruit; or whether it is the man who is rich in the sense of abounding in false notions, of whom it is written in the Proverbs, “Better is the poor man who is just, than the rich man who is false.” Perhaps it is the following passages which have led Celsus to suppose that Jesus forbids ambition to His disciples: “Whoever of you will be the chiefest shall be servant of all;” “The princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them,” and “they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors.” But there is nothing here inconsistent with the promise, “Thou shalt rule over many nations, and they shall not rule over thee,” especially after the explanation which we have given of these words. Celsus next throws in an expression in regard to wisdom, as though he thought that, according to the teaching of Christ, no wise man could come to the Father. But we would ask in what sense he speaks of a wise man. For if he means one who is wise in “the wisdom of this world,” as it is called, “which is foolishness with God,” then we would agree with him in saying that access to the Father is denied to one who is wise in that sense. But if by wisdom any one means Christ, who is “the power and wisdom of God,” far from such a wise man being refused access to the Father, we hold that he who is adorned by the Holy Spirit with that gift which is called “the word of wisdom,” far excels all those who have not received the same grace.

Seeds of terumah [fruit]: When he gathers them in, they are prohibited. But if he throws them away, they are permitted. Similarly, the bones of holy things: When he gathers them in, they are prohibited. But if he throws them away, they are permitted. Coarse bran is permitted. Fine bran of new wheat is forbidden, and old wheat permitted. One may act with regard to terumah as one does with hullin. One who sifts a kav or two [of fine flour] from a seah of wheat, must not leave the rest to ruin, but rather he should put it in a hidden place.

Seeds of terumah [fruit]: When he gathers them in, they are prohibited. But if he throws them away, they are permitted. Similarly, the bones of holy things: When he gathers them in, they are prohibited. But if he throws them away, they are permitted. Coarse bran is permitted. Fine bran of new wheat is forbidden, and old wheat permitted. One may act with regard to terumah as one does with hullin. One who sifts a kav or two [of fine flour] from a seah of wheat, must not leave the rest to ruin, but rather he should put it in a hidden place.

If one throws from the private domain into the public domain [or] from the public domain into the private domain, he is liable. From one private domain to another private domain, and the public domain lies between: Rabbi Akiva makes him liable, But the sages exempt him.

How so? If there are two balconies facing each other in the public domain, he who reaches over or throws [an article] from one to the other is exempt. If both are on the same row, he who reaches over is liable, while he who throws is exempt, for thus was the service of the Levites. Two wagons, this one behind this one in the public domain, [and] they reached over the boards from one to another, but they did not throw. [As for] the borders of a cistern, and a rock, which are ten [handbreadths] high and four in breath, if one removes [something] from them or places [something] upon them, his is liable; If less than this, he is exempt.

How so? If there are two balconies facing each other in the public domain, he who reaches over or throws [an article] from one to the other is exempt. If both are on the same row, he who reaches over is liable, while he who throws is exempt, for thus was the service of the Levites. Two wagons, this one behind this one in the public domain, [and] they reached over the boards from one to another, but they did not throw. [As for] the borders of a cistern, and a rock, which are ten [handbreadths] high and four in breath, if one removes [something] from them or places [something] upon them, his is liable; If less than this, he is exempt.

One who throws [something] four cubits on to a wall: if [the wall] is above ten handbreadths, it is as if he throws it into the air; if below, it is as if it he throws it on to the ground. And one who throws [something] four cubits on the ground is liable. If one threw [something] within four cubits and it rolled beyond four cubits, he is exempt; [If one threw something] beyond four cubits and it rolled within four cubits, he is liable.

One who throws [something] four cubits on to a wall: if [the wall] is above ten handbreadths, it is as if he throws it into the air; if below, it is as if it he throws it on to the ground. And one who throws [something] four cubits on the ground is liable. If one threw [something] within four cubits and it rolled beyond four cubits, he is exempt; [If one threw something] beyond four cubits and it rolled within four cubits, he is liable.

One who throws [something] four cubits on to a wall: if [the wall] is above ten handbreadths, it is as if he throws it into the air; if below, it is as if it he throws it on to the ground. And one who throws [something] four cubits on the ground is liable. If one threw [something] within four cubits and it rolled beyond four cubits, he is exempt; [If one threw something] beyond four cubits and it rolled within four cubits, he is liable.

One who throws [something] four cubits on to a wall: if [the wall] is above ten handbreadths, it is as if he throws it into the air; if below, it is as if it he throws it on to the ground. And one who throws [something] four cubits on the ground is liable. If one threw [something] within four cubits and it rolled beyond four cubits, he is exempt; [If one threw something] beyond four cubits and it rolled within four cubits, he is liable.

If one throws in the sea four cubits, he is exempt. If there is a pool of water and a public road crosses it, and one throws [an object] four cubits in it, he is liable. And how deep is a pool of water? Less than ten handbreadths. [For] if there is a pool of water and a public road crosses it, and one throws [an object] four cubits in it, he is liable.

If one throws in the sea four cubits, he is exempt. If there is a pool of water and a public road crosses it, and one throws [an object] four cubits in it, he is liable. And how deep is a pool of water? Less than ten handbreadths. [For] if there is a pool of water and a public road crosses it, and one throws [an object] four cubits in it, he is liable.

If one throws in the sea four cubits, he is exempt. If there is a pool of water and a public road crosses it, and one throws [an object] four cubits in it, he is liable. And how deep is a pool of water? Less than ten handbreadths. [For] if there is a pool of water and a public road crosses it, and one throws [an object] four cubits in it, he is liable.

If one throws [something] from the sea to dry land, or from dry land to the sea, from the sea to a ship or from a ship to the sea or from one ship to another, he is exempt. If ships are tied together, one may carry from one to another. If they are not tied together, even though they lie close [to each other], one may not carry from one to another.

If one throws [something] and remembers [that it is Shabbat] after it leaves his hand, and another catches it, or a dog catches it or it is burnt, he is not liable. If one throws [something] in order to inflict a wound whether to a person or a beast, and he remembers [that it is Shabbat] before the wound is inflicted he is not liable. This is the general principle: all who are liable to sin-offerings are liable only if the beginning and the end [of the forbidden action] are unwitting. If their beginning is unwitting while their end is intentional, if their beginning is intentional while their end is unwitting, they are not liable, unless their beginning and end are intentional.

If one throws [something] and remembers [that it is Shabbat] after it leaves his hand, and another catches it, or a dog catches it or it is burnt, he is not liable. If one throws [something] in order to inflict a wound whether to a person or a beast, and he remembers [that it is Shabbat] before the wound is inflicted he is not liable. This is the general principle: all who are liable to sin-offerings are liable only if the beginning and the end [of the forbidden action] are unwitting. If their beginning is unwitting while their end is intentional, if their beginning is intentional while their end is unwitting, they are not liable, unless their beginning and end are intentional.

If a husband throws a get to his wife, and she is in her house or in her courtyard, she is divorced. If he throws it to her in his house or in his courtyard, even though it is with her on the same bed, she is not divorced. If he throws it into her lap or into her basket, she is divorced.

If a husband throws a get to his wife, and she is in her house or in her courtyard, she is divorced. If he throws it to her in his house or in his courtyard, even though it is with her on the same bed, she is not divorced. If he throws it into her lap or into her basket, she is divorced.

If a husband throws a get to his wife, and she is in her house or in her courtyard, she is divorced. If he throws it to her in his house or in his courtyard, even though it is with her on the same bed, she is not divorced. If he throws it into her lap or into her basket, she is divorced.

One who throws an unclean object from one place to another: [for instance] a loaf among keys or a key among loaves, [that which was clean remains] clean. Rabbi Judah says: if a loaf was thrown among keys the former becomes unclean, but if a key was thrown among loaves the latter remain clean.

We have stated there: “If somebody throws from four cubits [distance] to a wall, if [the projectile hits] higher than ten hand-breadths, he is like one throwing into the air, if lower than ten hand-breadths, he is like one throwing onto the ground.” Rav Ḥisda said, if it extends slanting. But will it not finally descend? Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, explain it that it was a soft fig cake and it stuck. Rebbi Ḥaggai asked before Rebbi Yose, does this not imply that the declivity of a terrace belongs to the level below? He said to him, there the vegetables profit from the terrace but here people rub it and it falls down. If it would say, if there is a hole [in the wall] and it profits from the hole just as vegetables profit from the terrace, you would be justified.

We have stated thus: “When has this been said? If he scoops out piece by piece and puts them before himself, he has to proceed in the way indicated. But if he scoops out piece by piece and throws them away, even more than was indicated is permitted.”

How do we hold? If she is an adult, she acquired [her freedom] by the signs [of puberty]; if she is a minor, may a minor acquire? Rebbi Yudan bar Shalom said before Rebbi Yose, explain it following him who said, a minor may give heave. He said to him, even following him who said, a minor may give heave, may a minor acquire? Following the opinion of the rabbis there it is acceptable since there, they say in the name of Rav Naḥman bar Jacob: One to whom one gives a nut and he throws it away, a pebble and he keeps it, what is found in his hand is as if found on a garbage heap; a nut and he keeps it, a pebble and he throws it away, what is robbed from him is robbed because of communal peace; a nut or a pebble he takes, hides them, and produces them later, what is robbed from him is total robbery. He can acquire for himself but not for others. Rav Huna said, just as he can acquire for himself so he can acquire for others. Everybody agrees that his gift is not a gift since it is written (Ex. 22:6): “If a man give.” The gift of a man is a gift, but the gift of a minor is no gift, the words of the Sages. Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, robbing from him is not total robbery unless he grew two pubic hairs. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, that is, to recover from him by a law suit, but to have to bring a sacrifice for [a false] oath only if he grew two pubic hairs. But following the rabbis here, Rebbi Yose asked that even for himself he should not be able to acquire since it is written (Ex. 22:6): “To his neighbor”, until he be like his neighbor. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Samuel ben Rav Isaac explained it by the method of small children. As we have stated there: “For school children, their buying is buying and their selling selling, for movables.” But did we not state: “He cannot make them acquire through his minor son or daughter or his Canaanite male or female slave, because their hand is like his hand.” The rabbis of Caesarea say, here a minor with knowledge, there a minor without knowledge.

How do we hold? If she is an adult, she acquired [her freedom] by the signs [of puberty]; if she is a minor, may a minor acquire? Rebbi Yudan bar Shalom said before Rebbi Yose, explain it following him who said, a minor may give heave. He said to him, even following him who said, a minor may give heave, may a minor acquire? Following the opinion of the rabbis there it is acceptable since there, they say in the name of Rav Naḥman bar Jacob: One to whom one gives a nut and he throws it away, a pebble and he keeps it, what is found in his hand is as if found on a garbage heap; a nut and he keeps it, a pebble and he throws it away, what is robbed from him is robbed because of communal peace; a nut or a pebble he takes, hides them, and produces them later, what is robbed from him is total robbery. He can acquire for himself but not for others. Rav Huna said, just as he can acquire for himself so he can acquire for others. Everybody agrees that his gift is not a gift since it is written (Ex. 22:6): “If a man give.” The gift of a man is a gift, but the gift of a minor is no gift, the words of the Sages. Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, robbing from him is not total robbery unless he grew two pubic hairs. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, that is, to recover from him by a law suit, but to have to bring a sacrifice for [a false] oath only if he grew two pubic hairs. But following the rabbis here, Rebbi Yose asked that even for himself he should not be able to acquire since it is written (Ex. 22:6): “To his neighbor”, until he be like his neighbor. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Samuel ben Rav Isaac explained it by the method of small children. As we have stated there: “For school children, their buying is buying and their selling selling, for movables.” But did we not state: “He cannot make them acquire through his minor son or daughter or his Canaanite male or female slave, because their hand is like his hand.” The rabbis of Caesarea say, here a minor with knowledge, there a minor without knowledge.

“There are four kinds of domain on the Sabbath: Private domain, public domain, karmelit, and dead-end streets. What is private domain? A ditch ten deep and four wide, or a wall ten high and four wide; this is completely private domain. And what is completely public domain? A street, a wide road, desert, and passages open at both ends. One does not export from a private to a public domain nor import from a public to a private domain. If somebody exported or imported in error he is liable for a purification sacrifice; intentionally he is liable for extirpation or is stoned, whether he exports or imports, or lifts or throws. An ocean, or a valley, or a platform, or a threshold, or karmelit are neither public nor private domain; one does not carry there but if one carried he is not liable.”

Rav Joseph said, in fact we have stated all of these. The sea as we have stated there: “One who in the sea throws four cubits is not liable.” Not only in the sea four cubits, but even if he throws the entire length of the sea he is not liable, for the entire sea is called karmelit. A valley as we have stated: “A valley during the dry season is private domain for the Sabbath but public domain for impurity. During the rainy season it is (private) [public] domain for both.” If you say private domain for both it should not need surrounding by animals’ gear, but we have stated: “If they surrounded it by animals’ gear one carries in the interior.” A platform, as we have stated: “And similarly one carries under open bridges on the Sabbath, the words of Rebbi Jehudah; but the rabbis forbid.” A threshold, as we have stated: “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 he completed the work at one time he would not be liable. Karmelit. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: karmel “soft full”, neither moist nor dry but average. And here it is neither public nor private domain but karmelit. What is karmelit? Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, for example the store of Bar Justinus. A multi-party courtyard and dead-end streets: if there is an eruv they are permitted, but if no eruv was made they are forbidden.

Rav Joseph said, in fact we have stated all of these. The sea as we have stated there: “One who in the sea throws four cubits is not liable.” Not only in the sea four cubits, but even if he throws the entire length of the sea he is not liable, for the entire sea is called karmelit. A valley as we have stated: “A valley during the dry season is private domain for the Sabbath but public domain for impurity. During the rainy season it is (private) [public] domain for both.” If you say private domain for both it should not need surrounding by animals’ gear, but we have stated: “If they surrounded it by animals’ gear one carries in the interior.” A platform, as we have stated: “And similarly one carries under open bridges on the Sabbath, the words of Rebbi Jehudah; but the rabbis forbid.” A threshold, as we have stated: “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 he completed the work at one time he would not be liable. Karmelit. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: karmel “soft full”, neither moist nor dry but average. And here it is neither public nor private domain but karmelit. What is karmelit? Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, for example the store of Bar Justinus. A multi-party courtyard and dead-end streets: if there is an eruv they are permitted, but if no eruv was made they are forbidden.

Mishnah “He should not check his garments for lice nor read by candlelight,” etc. Even on weekdays it is forbidden since it is not decent. It was stated: One who checks his garments takes and throws away; only he should not rub. Abba Shaul says, he may rub and throw away, only he should not kill. Ḥizqiah said, one who kills a louse is like one who kills a camel. Samuel broke off its hands and feet and gave if to the children. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun put it in a flask. Rebbi Simeon ben Ḥalafta said, did we not understand this from the purple snail? Does the purple snail have sinews and bones? But was it not stated: Any which has neither sinews nor bones does not live more than six months? For Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said in the name of Rav Zevid, the Holy One, praise to Him, turns around His world once in seven years. Qamqama turns into Ḥu-Rav-Padah. Ḥar-Efer turns into Šer. The head louse turns into a scorpion and the one of garments into a lizard. A horse worm turns into a wasp, that of cattle into a bee. A male hyena turns into a female, a field rat turns into a wild boar. The spine of a fish turns into a centipede, of a human into a snake. When? If he does not bow down with his entire spine.

MISHNAH: If one throws from a private domain to the public domain or from the public domain to a private domain, he is liable. From a private domain to another private domain when a public domain is between them, Rebbi Aqiba declares him liable but the Sages declare him not liable.

HALAKHAH: “If one throws from a private domain,” etc. Throwing is a derivative of transporting.

MISHNAH: How is this? Two balconies one vis-a-vis the other in the public domain: one who hands over or throws from one to the other is not liable. If they both were on the same floor, the one who hands over is liable but the one who throws is not liable, for this was the service of the Levites. Two carts, one parallel to the other in the public domain: they used to hand over from one to the other but did not throw. The enclosure of a cistern or a rock high ten [hand-breadths] and wide four [hand-breadths]: one who takes from them or puts on them is liable, less than this he is not liable.

MISHNAH: How is this? Two balconies one vis-a-vis the other in the public domain: one who hands over or throws from one to the other is not liable. If they both were on the same floor, the one who hands over is liable but the one who throws is not liable, for this was the service of the Levites. Two carts, one parallel to the other in the public domain: they used to hand over from one to the other but did not throw. The enclosure of a cistern or a rock high ten [hand-breadths] and wide four [hand-breadths]: one who takes from them or puts on them is liable, less than this he is not liable.

MISHNAH: One who throws four cubits to a wall higher than ten hand-breadths is like one who throws in the air, lower than ten hand-breadths is like one who throws on the ground and one who throws four cubits on the ground is liable. One who threw less than four cubits and it rolled further than four cubits is not liable; one who threw more than four cubits and it rolled back within four cubits is liable.

MISHNAH: One who throws four cubits to a wall higher than ten hand-breadths is like one who throws in the air, lower than ten hand-breadths is like one who throws on the ground and one who throws four cubits on the ground is liable. One who threw less than four cubits and it rolled further than four cubits is not liable; one who threw more than four cubits and it rolled back within four cubits is liable.

MISHNAH: One who throws four cubits to a wall higher than ten hand-breadths is like one who throws in the air, lower than ten hand-breadths is like one who throws on the ground and one who throws four cubits on the ground is liable. One who threw less than four cubits and it rolled further than four cubits is not liable; one who threw more than four cubits and it rolled back within four cubits is liable.

MISHNAH: One who throws four cubits to a wall higher than ten hand-breadths is like one who throws in the air, lower than ten hand-breadths is like one who throws on the ground and one who throws four cubits on the ground is liable. One who threw less than four cubits and it rolled further than four cubits is not liable; one who threw more than four cubits and it rolled back within four cubits is liable.

MISHNAH: One who throws four cubits in the ocean is not liable. If there was a shallow spot in the water and a public thoroughfare passed through it, one who throws four cubits into it is liable. What is a shallow spot in the water? Less than ten hand-breadths. Shallow water and a public thoroughfare passed through it: one who throws four cubits in it is liable.

MISHNAH: One who throws four cubits in the ocean is not liable. If there was a shallow spot in the water and a public thoroughfare passed through it, one who throws four cubits into it is liable. What is a shallow spot in the water? Less than ten hand-breadths. Shallow water and a public thoroughfare passed through it: one who throws four cubits in it is liable.

MISHNAH: One who throws four cubits in the ocean is not liable. If there was a shallow spot in the water and a public thoroughfare passed through it, one who throws four cubits into it is liable. What is a shallow spot in the water? Less than ten hand-breadths. Shallow water and a public thoroughfare passed through it: one who throws four cubits in it is liable.

MISHNAH: He who throws from the sea to dry land, or from dry land to the sea, of from the sea to a ship, or from a ship to the sea, or from one ship to another is not liable. If ships are tied to one another one carries from one to the other; if they are not tied to one another, even though they be surrounded, one does not carry from one to the other.

MISHNAH: One who throws and remembers before it leaves his hand, if another person caught it, or a dog caught it, or it was burned, he is not liable. If one threw with the intention of causing an injury whether on a human or an animal and he remembered before it caused an injury, he is not liable. This is the principle: All who are liable for a purification sacrifice are liable only if beginning and end were in error. If the beginning was unintentional but the end criminal or the beginning criminal and the end unintentional they are not liable unless beginning and end be unintentional.

“Where does one save it to? To a side street which is a dead end.” Therefore not to one which is a thoroughfare. Everywhere you are saying, one who is walking is not like one who is putting down, but here you are saying, one who is walking is not like one who is putting down. But one who is throwing. Everywhere you are saying, one who throws is not liable, but here you are saying, one who throws is liable. Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: we are dealing with the case that they did not make an eruv. Ben Bathyra is like Rebbi Jehudah, as we have stated there: “One may move things under bridges which are thoroughfares, the words of Rebbi Jehudah, but the Sages prohibit.”

“Where does one save it to? To a side street which is a dead end.” Therefore not to one which is a thoroughfare. Everywhere you are saying, one who is walking is not like one who is putting down, but here you are saying, one who is walking is not like one who is putting down. But one who is throwing. Everywhere you are saying, one who throws is not liable, but here you are saying, one who throws is liable. Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: we are dealing with the case that they did not make an eruv. Ben Bathyra is like Rebbi Jehudah, as we have stated there: “One may move things under bridges which are thoroughfares, the words of Rebbi Jehudah, but the Sages prohibit.”

Where do we hold? If she is an adult, she becomes free by the signs [of puberty]. If she is underage, may an underage person transfer rights? Rebbi Yudan bar Shalom said before Rebbi Yose: Explain it following him who said that a minor may give heave. He answered him, but even according to him who says that a minor cannot give heave, the minor can acquire rights. This is acceptable following the opinion of the rabbis there. There, they are saying in the name of Rav Naḥman bar Jacob: One to whom one gives a nut and he throws it away, a pebble and he keeps it, what one finds in his hand is as if found on a garbage heap; a nut and he keeps it, a pebble and he throws it away, what one robs from him is robbery because of the ways of peace; a nut or a pebble and he takes, hides them, and produces them later, what is robbed from him is total robbery. He can acquire for himself but not for others. Rav Huna said, just as he can acquire for himself so he can acquire for others. Everybody agrees that his gift is not a gift, since it is written, if a man give, a man’s gift is a gift, the gift of a minor is no gift, the words of the Sages. Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Jacob [bar Aḥa] in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Robbing from him is never clear robbery unless he grew two pubic hairs. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: That which you say is to make one pay by a law suit; but to have to bring a sacrifice for a [false] oath everybody agrees only after he grew two pubic hairs. But following to the rabbis here, Rebbi Yose asked that even for himself he should not be able to acquire since it is written to his neighbor, only if he be like his neighbor. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac: They came to it by the rules of school children as we have stated: “School children’s buying is buying and their selling is selling, for movables.” But did we not state: “But he cannot transfer rights through his minor son or daughter or his Canaanite male or female slave because their hand is like his hand.” The rabbis of Caesarea say, here a minor with knowledge, there a minor without knowledge.

Where do we hold? If she is an adult, she becomes free by the signs [of puberty]. If she is underage, may an underage person transfer rights? Rebbi Yudan bar Shalom said before Rebbi Yose: Explain it following him who said that a minor may give heave. He answered him, but even according to him who says that a minor cannot give heave, the minor can acquire rights. This is acceptable following the opinion of the rabbis there. There, they are saying in the name of Rav Naḥman bar Jacob: One to whom one gives a nut and he throws it away, a pebble and he keeps it, what one finds in his hand is as if found on a garbage heap; a nut and he keeps it, a pebble and he throws it away, what one robs from him is robbery because of the ways of peace; a nut or a pebble and he takes, hides them, and produces them later, what is robbed from him is total robbery. He can acquire for himself but not for others. Rav Huna said, just as he can acquire for himself so he can acquire for others. Everybody agrees that his gift is not a gift, since it is written, if a man give, a man’s gift is a gift, the gift of a minor is no gift, the words of the Sages. Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Jacob [bar Aḥa] in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Robbing from him is never clear robbery unless he grew two pubic hairs. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: That which you say is to make one pay by a law suit; but to have to bring a sacrifice for a [false] oath everybody agrees only after he grew two pubic hairs. But following to the rabbis here, Rebbi Yose asked that even for himself he should not be able to acquire since it is written to his neighbor, only if he be like his neighbor. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac: They came to it by the rules of school children as we have stated: “School children’s buying is buying and their selling is selling, for movables.” But did we not state: “But he cannot transfer rights through his minor son or daughter or his Canaanite male or female slave because their hand is like his hand.” The rabbis of Caesarea say, here a minor with knowledge, there a minor without knowledge.

MISHNAH: Any time one is permitted to eat one feeds it to domestic or wild animals or birds, or sells it to a Non-Jew, and one may have usufruct from it. If its time has passed one may not have usufruct from it, nor use it to heat an oven or a cooking stove. Rebbi Jehudah says, leavened matter may only be eliminated by burning. But the Sages say, he makes crumbs and scatters them in the wind or throws it into the Sea.

Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: If a person could construct an equal cut by himself, he could make a creeping animal causing impurity in a tent and a corpse causing impurity in the volume of a lentil, by explaining textile, leather; textile, leather. So if a creeping animal is in a person’s hand, even if he immerses himself in the waters of the Siloam, or in waters of a primeval ocean, he never can achieve purity. If he throws it away, immediately he becomes pure. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: A person may use an equal cut to confirm what he has learned; nobody may use an equal cut to invalidate what he has learned. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: A person may argue de minore ad majus by himself; a person may not argue an equal cut by himself. Therefore one can contradict an argument de minore ad majus; one cannot contradict an equal cut.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Simon, Rebbi Joshua ben Levi in the name of Bar Pedaya: Piggul and leftovers add together to make hands impure in the amount that exposes to punishment, the volume of an olive. Do they disqualify heave? It is a argument de minore ad majus. If they make hands impure to disqualify heave, they themselves not so much more? This which left what are you doing with it? Does it make hands impure or does it not make hands impure? If you are saying that this which left makes hands impure, would piggul and leftovers not disqualify heave? If you are saying that piggul and leftovers do not disqualify heave, about that which left they did not decide anything. For if it were not so, the outer part would make the inner part impure. Rebbi Abbin said, who holds that something can become impure by [touching] itself? Rebbi Meïr. Did not Rebbi Joḥanan say, everything becomes pure by its greater part? When he cut off the greater part, is it not separated? Then it would be touching and be disqualified. Rebbi Ḥananiah said, if he cuts off minimal pieces and throws away.

Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Piggul and leftovers add together to make hands impure in the amount that exposes to punishment, the volume of an olive. Do they disqualify heave? It is a argument de minore ad maius. If they make hands impure to disqualify heave, they themselves not so much more? This which was left, what are you doing with it? Does it make hands impure or does it not make hands impure? If you are saying that this which was left makes hands impure, would piggul and leftovers not disqualify heave? About that which was left they did not decide anything. For if it were not so, the outer part would make the inner part impure. Rebbi Abbin said, who holds that something can become impure by touching itself? Rebbi Meïr. Did not Rebbi Joḥanan say, everything becomes pure by its greater part? When he cut off the greater part, is it not separated? Then it would be touching and be disqualified. Rebbi Ḥananiah said, if he cuts off minimal pieces and throws away.

And he shall lift. There is no lifting unless he left a remainder. Which ate. there is no eating less than the volume of an olive. If all of it was the volume of an olive? You may not take part of it since there would not be the volume of an olive; you may not take all of it since there would not be a remainder. And he lifts … what the fire ate. I could think wood, the verse says, the elevation sacrifice. If elevation sacrifice, I could think limbs of an elevation sacrifice; the verse says, what the fire ate. How is this? He scoops up from what has been consumed in the middle and descends. It is an obligation to bring wood before fire, as it is said, they shall arrange on thefire, He mentioned wood before fire. If one arranged before he removed, he throws down and removes, disassembles and removes.

Stones quarried for a corpse are forbidden for usufruct. For a corpse or a living person they are permitted for usufruct. If somebody throws an implement near the bier of a corpse, within four cubits it is forbidden for usufruct; anything outside four cubits is permitted for usufruct

HALAKHAH: It was stated: He enters South of the candelabrum, the words of Rebbi Meïr; Rebbi Yose says, he enters North of the Table. Some Tannaim state, he was entering between the golden altar and the candelabrum. He walks between them until he reaches the North. He pushes with his elbows so that the gobelins should not be burned. When he arrives at the North he turns his face to the South. He retraces his steps lest he be seen as striding between the beams. How does he do it? Rebbi Ḥanina said, he puts the bowl on the ground, throws it in the air and catches it with the fire-pan. Samuel said, he pushes it with his hands. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he empties the cup and it rises straight up, then it expands and descends.

MISHNAH: Two lodges were in the Temple, one the silence lodge and one the vessel lodge. The silence lodge: Silently did sin-fearing people contribute there and poor people from good families were supported from there in silence. The vessel lodge: Anybody who vowed a vessel throws it in there. Once in 30 days the treasurers open it. Any vessel which they deem is needed for the upkeep of the Temple they keep, but the remainder is sold and their proceeds belong to the lodge of upkeep of the Temple.

MISHNAH: All seven days a person makes his sukkah permanent and his house casual. If it started to rain when is one permitted to leave? When the cereal becomes smelly. One has for this a parable, to what does this compare? To a slave who comes to mix a cup for his owner and the latter throws the pitcher in his face.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, Amaleq was a sorcerer. What did he do? He put people up on their birthday, implying that no man easily falls on his birthday. What did Moses do? He mixed planets. That is what is written, sun, moon stood in the sky, etc. And it is written, the abyss sounded, the elevated lifted his hands. Since the elevated lifted his hands, the abyss sounded. Samuel said, and the host will be given against the daily sacrifice by vice, the vice of the Torah. And truth will be thrown to the ground; anytime that Israel throws the words of the Torah to the ground, this evil government decides and succeeds. What is the reason? It threw truth to the ground, did, and succeeded. And there is no truth like Torah, as you are saying, buy truth and do not sell, wisdom, ethics, and insight. Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi said, Israel has neglected the good, an enemy will pursue it, and there is no good but the Torah, as you are saying, for a good acquisition I gave to you, do not abandon my Torah.

Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah: A splinter one leans on the wall lest it scratches. It was stated: One does not extinguish a splinter to save it; if to prevent it filling the house or the pot with smoke it is permitted. Rebbi Ḥanania said, if there is no empty space there. But if there is empty space there one throws it into the empty space and this is enough. Rebbi Nasa said, is this correct? Are we saying so, salve one is permitted to rub on to use kohl on the holiday? Rebbi Mana said, one is to guard, the other for healing.

Explanation. Rebbi Abba bar Zavda, Rebbi Tanḥum bar Ilai, and Rebbi Joshia came to the fast. Rebbi Abba bar Zavda preached: Let us lift our hearts on the palms. Is this possible? May a person take his heart and put it on his hand? So what means “let us lift”? Let us treat our hearts equal to our hands, and then to God in Heaven. So if somebody would hold a crawling animal in his hand, even if he immerses himself in the waters of Siloam or of the ocean, he never can become pure. But if he throws it from his hand he immediately is pure. Rebbi Tanḥum bar Ilai preached: The ministers of Israel and the King submitted and said, the Eternal is just. And when the Eternal saw that they submitted, the Eternal’s word was to Shemaya as oracle. It is not written “their fast” but they submitted, I shall not destroy them. Rebbi Joshia preached: Become improved and improve, let us purify ourselves before we purify others. Since here are people present who calumniate me before Rebbi Joḥanan. But every single one is called to justice. Attending were Rebbi Ḥiyya, Rebbi Issy, and Rebbi Immi. They got up and left.

Stones quarried for a corpse are forbidden for usufruct. For a corpse or a living person they are permitted for usufruct. If somebody throws an implement near the bier of a corpse, within four cubits [of him] it is forbidden for usufruct; anything outside four cubits is permitted for usufruct.

“Nor the Creation to two.” Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah: This is Rebbi Aqiba’s, but following Rebbi Ismael one investigates what happened. Since Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi was sitting and explaining that originally the world was water in water; this implies that practice follows Rebbi Ismael. Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi was preaching: Originally the world was water in water. What is the reason? God’s wind was hovering over the water. Then He turned it into snow, He throws his ice like small breads. Then He turned it into land, for He will tell the snow, be land. And the land stands on water, to Him Who spreads the earth over the water. And the water stands on mountains, on mountains shall the water stand. And the mountains stand on wind, behold the Maker of mountains and Creator of wind. And the wind depends on storm, the wind storm executes His word. And the Holy One, praise to Him, turned storm into a kind of amulet and hung it on His arm, as it is said, and below eternal arms.

There we have stated: “If he ate a fig cake with dirty hands, put his hand into his mouth to remove a pebble, …” Ḥizqiah said, one stated this only for a fig cake where he desires the fluid remaining on his finger, therefore not for anything else. Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is no difference, equally a fig cake where he desires the fluid remaining on his finger or anything other. The Mishnah disagrees with Ḥizqiah: “Touching by a person impure in the impurity of the dead who had food or drink in his mouth: if he put his head inside a pure stove he made it impure. If a pure person with food or drink in his mouth put his head inside the impure stove he became impure.” One understands drinks. From where was the food susceptible to impurity? Not from his saliva! Explain it either from a moist fig cake or as food which already outside were susceptible to impurity. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “One eats dry food with dirty hands with heave but not with sancta.” Explain it if he throws. If he throws then even for sancta. Maybe he will forget and touch. If maybe he will forget and touch then it should be forbidden also for heave. Eaters of heave are vigilant and he will not forget but eaters of sancta are not vigilant and he forgets.

There we have stated: “If he ate a fig cake with dirty hands, put his hand into his mouth to remove a pebble, …” Ḥizqiah said, one stated this only for a fig cake where he desires the fluid remaining on his finger, therefore not for anything else. Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is no difference, equally a fig cake where he desires the fluid remaining on his finger or anything other. The Mishnah disagrees with Ḥizqiah: “Touching by a person impure in the impurity of the dead who had food or drink in his mouth: if he put his head inside a pure stove he made it impure. If a pure person with food or drink in his mouth put his head inside the impure stove he became impure.” One understands drinks. From where was the food susceptible to impurity? Not from his saliva! Explain it either from a moist fig cake or as food which already outside were susceptible to impurity. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “One eats dry food with dirty hands with heave but not with sancta.” Explain it if he throws. If he throws then even for sancta. Maybe he will forget and touch. If maybe he will forget and touch then it should be forbidden also for heave. Eaters of heave are vigilant and he will not forget but eaters of sancta are not vigilant and he forgets.

It was stated in the name of Rebbi Meïr: Just as there are opinions in eating and drinking, so opinions are [varied] among men. There is a man, if a fly falls into his cup, he takes it out, throws it away and drinks. That is like a normal man who sees his wife talking to her neighbors and relatives. Or you have a man who if a fly flies over his cup, takes it, pours [the contents] out, and does not taste them. That is a bad human attitude because he thinks of divorcing her. Or you have a man who, if a fly sits on his cup, takes it and leaves [the cup] untouched. That is Pappos ben Jehudah who locked his wife in. They said to him, did your forefathers behave like this? Or you have a man who finds a dead fly in his cup, takes it, licks it, and drinks. That is the wicked one who sees that his wife is overbearing with her slaves and slave-girls, where he would be commanded to divorce her, as it is said: “She left his house and went and married another man.” The verse called him other because he is not of the class of the first who expelled his wife because of a sexual transgression and the other one stumbled over her. If Heaven gives him credit, he will divorce her; otherwise, at the end she will bury him as it is said, “or if the latter man dies.” That man deserves to die since he brought that woman into his house.

Following the opinion of the rabbis there it is acceptable since there, they say in the name of Rav Naḥman bar Jacob: One to whom one gives a nut and he throws it away, a pebble and he keeps it, what is found in his hand is as if found on a garbage heap; a nut and he keeps it, a pebble and he throws it away, what is robbed from him is robbed because of communal peace; a nut or a pebble he takes, hides them, and produces them later, what is robbed from him is total robbery. He can acquire for himself but not for others. Rav Huna said, just as he can acquire for himself so he can acquire for others. Everybody agrees that his gift is not a gift since it is written (Ex. 22:6): “If a man give.” The gift of a man is a gift, but the gift of a minor is no gift, the words of the Sages. Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, robbing from him is not clear unless he grew two pubic hairs. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, that is, to recover from him by a law suit, but to have to bring a sacrifice for [a false] oath only if he grew two pubic hairs. But following the rabbis here, Rebbi Yose asked that even for himself he should not be able to acquire since it is written (Ex. 22:6): “A man to his neighbor”, until he be like his neighbor. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac explained it by the method of the artless. As we have stated there: “For underage children, their buying is buying and their selling selling, for movables.” But did we not state there: “He cannot make them acquire through his minor son or daughter or his Canaanite male or female slave, because their hand is like his hand.” The rabbis of Caesarea say, here a minor with knowledge, there a minor without knowledge.

Following the opinion of the rabbis there it is acceptable since there, they say in the name of Rav Naḥman bar Jacob: One to whom one gives a nut and he throws it away, a pebble and he keeps it, what is found in his hand is as if found on a garbage heap; a nut and he keeps it, a pebble and he throws it away, what is robbed from him is robbed because of communal peace; a nut or a pebble he takes, hides them, and produces them later, what is robbed from him is total robbery. He can acquire for himself but not for others. Rav Huna said, just as he can acquire for himself so he can acquire for others. Everybody agrees that his gift is not a gift since it is written (Ex. 22:6): “If a man give.” The gift of a man is a gift, but the gift of a minor is no gift, the words of the Sages. Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, robbing from him is not clear unless he grew two pubic hairs. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, that is, to recover from him by a law suit, but to have to bring a sacrifice for [a false] oath only if he grew two pubic hairs. But following the rabbis here, Rebbi Yose asked that even for himself he should not be able to acquire since it is written (Ex. 22:6): “A man to his neighbor”, until he be like his neighbor. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac explained it by the method of the artless. As we have stated there: “For underage children, their buying is buying and their selling selling, for movables.” But did we not state there: “He cannot make them acquire through his minor son or daughter or his Canaanite male or female slave, because their hand is like his hand.” The rabbis of Caesarea say, here a minor with knowledge, there a minor without knowledge.

MISHNAH: If somebody throws a bill of divorce to his wife while she is in her own house or her own courtyard, she is divorced. If he threw it to her inside his house or his courtyard, even if he was together with her in a bed, she is not divorced. Into her bosom or her wool basket, she is divorced.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody throws a bill of divorce to his wife,” etc. “He shall write,” “he shall deliver into her hand.” Not only into her hand; from where also into her garden or into her courtyard? The verse says “he shall deliver, he shall deliver.” Is this following Rebbi Ismael? It is following Rebbi Aqiba. It was stated in the name of Rebbi Ismael, “he took all his land from his hand, up to the Arnon.” Did he take it out of his hand? What means “from his hand”? From his possession.

MISHNAH: The order of burning: One makes him sink into manure up to his knees, puts a stiff cloth into soft ones and winds them around his throat. One person draws in his direction, the other draws in his direction until he opens his mouth. Then one lights a wick and throws it into his mouth that it enters his innards and chars his intestines. Rebbi Jehudah says, in that case, if he would die in their hands they would not have fulfilled the duty of burning; one opens his mouth forcefully with tongs, lights a wire and throws it into his mouth that it enters his innards and chars his intestines. Rebbi Eleazar ben Ṣadoq said, it happened that a Cohen’s daughter whored; they surrounded her with firewood and burned her. They told him, because the court at that time was incompetent.

MISHNAH: The order of burning: One makes him sink into manure up to his knees, puts a stiff cloth into soft ones and winds them around his throat. One person draws in his direction, the other draws in his direction until he opens his mouth. Then one lights a wick and throws it into his mouth that it enters his innards and chars his intestines. Rebbi Jehudah says, in that case, if he would die in their hands they would not have fulfilled the duty of burning; one opens his mouth forcefully with tongs, lights a wire and throws it into his mouth that it enters his innards and chars his intestines. Rebbi Eleazar ben Ṣadoq said, it happened that a Cohen’s daughter whored; they surrounded her with firewood and burned her. They told him, because the court at that time was incompetent.

Rebbi Crispus in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The Mishnah speaks of a ba `aṣ wire. What is a ba `aṣ wire? The rabbis of Caesarea say, a mixture of lead and tin. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, this follows him who said, “one lights a wire and throws it into his mouth.” But for him, who says, “it enters his innards and chars his intestines,” the Mishnah speaks of a wick of Naphtha.

MISHNAH: The worshipper of strange worship whether he worships, or sacrifices, or burns incense, or makes a libation, or prostrates himself; also one who accepts it as a god and says to it: you are my god. But one who embraces, or kisses, or sweeps clean, or sprinkles water; one who washes, rubs with oil, clothes, or puts shoes on it, violates a prohibition. He who makes a vow in its name or keeps one in its name violates a prohibition. One who defecates in front of Baal Pe`or follows its worship. One who throws a stone at a statue of Mercury follows its worship.

But what did the evil Bileam do? Because he counseled Balaq ben Ṣippor to fell Israel by the sword. He told him, the God of this people hates whoring. If you put up your daughters for whoring, you may rule over them. He answered, but will they listen to me? He told him, put your own daughter up, they will see and listen to you. That is what is written: he is the head of related tribes in Midian. What did they do? They built dining rooms from Bet Hayyešimon to the Snow Mountain and installed there women selling pastries. They put an old woman outside and a young girl inside. Israel were eating and drinking. If one of them went to stroll around, to buy himself something from the grocer, the old woman would offer to sell to him for the going price, but the girl told him, come and take it for less. This happened that first day, the second day, the third day. After that, she told him, from now on you are like a member of the family; enter and select for yourself. When he entered, there was a pitcher full of wine, of the strong Ammonite wine which seduces the body to whoring. Its smell was seething and (Gentile wine) [libation wine] was not yet forbidden for Israel. She told him, maybe you want to drink a cup of wine? He answered her, yes. She gave to him and he drank. When he drank, the wine was burning in him like a viper’s poison; he told her, consent to me. She told him, do you want me to consent to you? He answered, yes. Immediately she took out a shape of Peˋor from her bosom and told him, bow down before this one and I shall consent to you. But he answered her, should I bow down before foreign worship? She told him, you do not bow down, you only strip for it. This is what the Sages said, “one who defecates in front of Baal Peˋor follows its worship. One who throws a stone at a statue of Mercury follows its worship.” There was a pitcher full of wine, of the strong Ammonite wine which seduces the body to whoring. Its smell was seething and libation wine was not yet forbidden for Israel. She told him, maybe you want to drink a cup of wine? He answered her, yes. She gave to him and he drank. When he drank, the wine was burning in him like a viper’s poison; he told her, consent to me. She told him, do you want me to consent to you? He answered, yes. She told him, make a vow to deny the teachings of Moses and I shall consent to you. That is what is written: They came to Baal-Peˋor, made vows for the shame, and turned into abominations like their love life.

Doëg was a man great in Torah. Israel came and asked David, does the showbread supersede the Sabbath? He told them, its arrangement supersedes the Sabbath, but neither its kneading nor its forming supersedes the Sabbath. Doëg was there and said, who is the one who comes to instruct in my presence? They told him, it is David ben Jesse. He went immediately and counseled Saul, the king of Israel, to kill the priests of Nob, the city of priests. This is what is written: The king said to the runners who stood by him, surround and kill the priests of the Eternal for they also are involved with David, etc., up to they did not inform me. Who were they? Rebbi Samuel bat Rav Isaac said, they were Abner and Amasa. They told him, you have us indebted to you only for this belt and this כלינירין. Here they are torn for you. The king’s servants did not want to kill the priests of the Eternal. The king said to Doyeg. Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi said, it is written to Doyeg. They told him, you are caught like a fish; you committed a great sin. Turn you and smite the priests of the Eternal. Doëg the Edomite turned and smote the priests, etc. But did not Rebbi Ḥiyya state, “one does not appoint two High Priests together”? But this teaches that all of them were qualified for the High Priesthood. How was he removed? Rebbi Ḥanina and Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: One said, fire came from the Holiest of Holies and burned around him. But the other said, competent students came to him, they were learning but he was forgetting, to confirm what is written: The property swallowed by him he throws up; God removes it from his belly.

MISHNAH: If somebody finds vessels and on them the form of the sun, the form of the moon, the form of a dragon, he should bring them to the Dead Sea. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, on honored ones it is forbidden, on contemptible ones permitted. Rebbi Yose said, he grinds them and disperses them into the wind or throws them into the Sea. They told him, but then it becomes fertilizer and it was said, nothing of the ban should cling to your hand.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody finds vessels,” etc. They stated only “vessels and on them the form of the sun, the form of the moon,” therefore not any of the other planets. They only stated “dragon”, therefore not any snakes. What is a dragon? Any which has spikes on its neck. It was stated thus: “Rebbi Simeon ben (Azzai) [Eleazar] says, what is a dragon? Any which has spikes on its neck. “If it is smooth it is permitted. If one finds a dragon in the form of a something crawling it is forbidden. Something crawling and on it a dragon, he takes the crawling thing and throws away the dragon.

“Both are equal in the office of the day of Atonement,” etc.] He, not the king. He, not the chieftain. He, to include the priest Anointed for War. A woman in her virginity he shall marry; this excludes an adult whose hymen has atrophied. Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Simeon qualify the adult. Rebbi Isaac asked, are these things so in all other things? He takes the fist full and the other burns it; he receives and the other throws, he burns and the other sprinkles? Rebbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rebbi Isaac: They made it like a (great) [robbed] purification sacrifice which was not publicly known. This implies that he takes the fistful and the other burns it, he receives and the other throws, he burns and the other sprinkles. Rebbi Berekhiah, Rebbi Jacob bar Idi: Rebbi Isaac asked. If he was standing sacrificing on the altar when it became known that he was the son of a divorcee or the son of a woman having received ḥaliṣah, how do you treat him? [As if] he had died and the homicide might return to his home town or should he be treated as one whose trial had been concluded without a High Priest and he never can leave from there?

“Both are equal in the office of the day of Atonement,” etc.] He, not the king. He, not the chieftain. He, to include the priest Anointed for War. A woman in her virginity he shall marry; this excludes an adult whose hymen has atrophied. Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Simeon qualify the adult. Rebbi Isaac asked, are these things so in all other things? He takes the fist full and the other burns it; he receives and the other throws, he burns and the other sprinkles? Rebbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rebbi Isaac: They made it like a (great) [robbed] purification sacrifice which was not publicly known. This implies that he takes the fistful and the other burns it, he receives and the other throws, he burns and the other sprinkles. Rebbi Berekhiah, Rebbi Jacob bar Idi: Rebbi Isaac asked. If he was standing sacrificing on the altar when it became known that he was the son of a divorcee or the son of a woman having received ḥaliṣah, how do you treat him? [As if] he had died and the homicide might return to his home town or should he be treated as one whose trial had been concluded without a High Priest and he never can leave from there?

Rab Judah said in the name of Rab : As for the caper-bush which is still in a state of 'Orlah outside the [Holy] Land, one throws away the berries but eats the buds ; that is to say, the berries are fruit but not the buds. Against this [deduction] I quote : ln the case of the various kinds of capers, over the leaves and their young shoots one says "...Who createst the fruit of the ground," but over the berries and buds "...Who createst the fruit of the tree!"

If [a child] can eat an olive of roast meat, they slaughter the pesah sacrifice on his behalf, as it is said, "According to the eating of every man" (Exodus 12:4). Rabbi Judah said: Until he is able to pick out food. How so? If they give him a splinter, he throws it away; if they give him a nut, he eats it.

Our Rabbis have taught: If a man is guilty of a sin and confesses it, but does not change his way, unto what is he like? He is like a man who holds a reptile in his hand, to whom, though he should immerse himself in all the waters of the world, it will avail nothing; but as soon as he throws away the defiling reptile, an immersion in forty se'ah of water will be accounted to him as a cleansing bath, as it is said (Prov., 28. 13): "But whoso confesseth and forsaketh them shall obtain mercy," and as it is further said (Lament., 3. 41): "Let us lift up our heart with our hands unto God in the heavens."

“Their laws are diverse from those of every other people”: they do not eat of our food, nor do they marry our women nor give us theirs in marriage. “Neither keep they the king’s laws”, since they evade taxes the whole year by saying today is Shabbat, today is Pesah. “Therefore it does not profit the king to suffer them”, because they eat and drink and despise the throne. For if a fly falls into the cup of one of them, he throws it out and drinks the wine, but if my lord the king were to touch his cup, he would dash it on the ground and not drink from it.

Mishnah: The one who throws a stone into the public domain and killed [someone], behold, he is exiled. Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says: If, from when the stone left his hand, another person stuck out their head and received [the stone and was killed], behold, he is exempt [from exile].

Gemara: [The one who throws a stone] into the public domain is an intentional [sinner]! Rav Shmuel bar Yitzchak said: [Rather this is in a case when] he is taking down his wall. He should have been paying attention! [Rather this is in a case when] he is taking down his wall at night. At night also, he should have been paying attention!

The one who throws the stone, etc. One of the rabbis said to Rava: From what [basis are we stating the case] that he is cutting wood because it is optional? Perhaps he is cutting wood because [it is for a] sukkah or cutting wood [for the altar] (which would be a requirement and not an option), and even this, Scripture said, he should be exiled [for doing something required]?! He (Rava) said to him: since he found it cut and he does not cut [it himself], it is not a mitzvah, also now [regarding cutting wood] is not a mitzvah.