treats

But the Christians, O King, while they went about and made search, have found the truth; and as we learned from their writings, they have come nearer to truth and genuine knowledge than the rest of the nations. For they know and trust in God, the Creator of heaven and of earth, in whom and from whom are all things, to whom there is no other god as companion, from whom they received commandments which they engraved upon their minds and observe in hope and expectation of the world which is to come. Wherefore they do not commit adultery nor fornication, nor bear false witness, nor embezzle what is held in pledge, nor covet what is not theirs. They honour father and mother, and show kindness to those near to them; and whenever they are judges, they judge uprightly. They do not worship idols (made) in the image of man; and whatsoever they would not that others should do unto them, they do not to others; and of the food which is consecrated to idols they do not eat, for they are pure. And their oppressors they appease (lit: comfort) and make them their friends; they do good to their enemies; and their women, O King, are pure as virgins, and their daughters are modest; and their men keep themselves from every unlawful union and from all uncleanness, in the hope of a recompense to come in the other world. Further, if one or other of them have bondmen and bondwomen or children, through love towards them they persuade them to become Christians, and when they have done so, they call them brethren without distinction. They do not worship strange gods, and they go their way in all modesty and cheerfulness. Falsehood is not found among them; and they love one another, and from widows they do not turn away their esteem; and they deliver the orphan from him who treats him harshly. And he, who has, gives to him who has not, without boasting. And when they see a stranger, they take him in to their homes and rejoice over him as a very brother; for they do not call them brethren after the flesh, but brethren after the spirit and in God. And whenever one of their poor passes from the world, each one of them according to his ability gives heed to him and carefully sees to his burial. And if they hear that one of their number is imprisoned or afflicted on account of the name of their Messiah, all of them anxiously minister to his necessity, and if it is possible to redeem him they set him free. And if there is among them any that is poor and needy, and if they have no spare food, they fast two or three days in order to supply to the needy their lack of food. They observe the precepts of their Messiah with much care, living justly and soberly as the Lord their God commanded them. Every morning and every hour they give thanks and praise to God for His loving-kindnesses toward them; and for their food and their drink they offer thanksgiving to Him. And if any righteous man among them passes from the world, they rejoice and offer thanks to God; and they escort his body as if he were setting out from one place to another near. And when a child has been born to one of them, they give thanks to God; and if moreover it happen to die in childhood, they give thanks to God the more, as for one who has passed through the world without sins. And further if they see that anyone of them dies in his ungodliness or in his sins, for him they grieve bitterly, and sorrow as for one who goes to meet his doom.

When David was at Bahurim, a place so called, there came out a kinsman of Saul's, whose name was Shimei, and threw stones at him, and gave him reproachful words; and as his friends stood about the king and protected him, he persevered still more in his reproaches, and called him a bloody man, and the author of all sorts of mischief. He bade him also go out of the land as an impure and accursed wretch; and he thanked God for depriving him of his kingdom, and causing him to be punished for what injuries he had done to his master [Saul], and this by the means of his own son. Now when they were all provoked against him, and angry at him, and particularly Abishai, who had a mind to kill Shimei, David restrained his anger. "Let us not," said he, "bring upon ourselves another fresh misfortune to those we have already, for truly I have not the least regard nor concern for this dog that raves at me: I submit myself to God, by whose permission this man treats me in such a wild manner; nor is it any wonder that I am obliged to undergo these abuses from him, while I experience the like from an impious son of my own; but perhaps God will have some commiseration upon us; if it be his will we shall overcome them." So he went on his way without troubling himself with Shimei, who ran along the other side of the mountain, and threw out his abusive language plentifully. But when David was come to Jordan, he allowed those that were with him to refresh themselves; for they were weary.

When Antipater had made this speech, Cæsar appointed Hyrcauus to be high priest, and gave Antipater what principality he himself should choose, leaving the determination to himself; so he made him procurator of Judea. He also gave Hyrcanus leave to raise up the walls of his own city, upon his asking that favor of him, for they had been demolished by Pompey. And this grant he sent to the consuls to Rome, to be engraven in the capitol. The decree of the senate was this that follows: "Lucius Valerius, the son of Lucius the praetor, referred this to the senate, upon the Ides of December, in the temple of Concord. There were present at the writing of this decree Lucius Coponius, the son of Lucius of the Colline tribe, and Papirius of the Quirine tribe, concerning the affairs which Alexander, the son of Jason, and Numenius, the son of Antiochus, and Alexander, the son of Dositheus, ambassadors of the Jews, good and worthy men, proposed, who came to renew that league of goodwill and friendship with the Romans which was in being before. They also brought a shield of gold, as a mark of confederacy, valued at fifty thousand pieces of gold; and desired that letters might be given them, directed both to the free cities and to the kings, that their country and their havens might be at peace, and that no one among them might receive any injury. It therefore pleased [the senate] to make a league of friendship and good-will with them, and to bestow on them whatsoever they stood in need of, and to accept of the shield which was brought by them. This was done in the ninth year of Hyrcanus the high priest and ethnarch, in the month Panemus." Hyrcanus also received honors from the people of Athens, as having been useful to them on many occasions. And when they wrote to him, they sent him this decree, as it here follows "Under the prutaneia and priesthood of Dionysius, the son of Esculapius, on the fifth day of the latter part of the month Panemus, this decree of the Athenians was given to their commanders, when Agathocles was archon, and Eucles, the son of Menander of Alimusia, was the scribe. In the month Munychion, on the eleventh day of the prutaneia, a council of the presidents was held in the theater. Dorotheus the high priest, and the fellow presidents with him, put it to the vote of the people. Dionysius, the son of Dionysius, gave the sentence. Since Hyrcanus, the son of Alexander, the high priest and ethnarch of the Jews, continues to bear good-will to our people in general, and to every one of our citizens in particular, and treats them with all sorts of kindness; and when any of the Athenians come to him, either as ambassadors, or on any occasion of their own, he receives them in an obliging manner, and sees that they are conducted back in safety, of which we have had several former testimonies; it is now also decreed, at the report of Theodosius, the son of Theodorus, and upon his putting the people in mind of the virtue of this man, and that his purpose is to do us all the good that is in his power, to honor him with a crown of gold, the usual reward according to the law, and to erect his statue in brass in the temple of Demus and of the Graces; and that this present of a crown shall be proclaimed publicly in the theater, in the Dionysian shows, while the new tragedies are acting; and in the Panathenean, and Eleusinian, and Gymnical shows also; and that the commanders shall take care, while he continues in his friendship, and preserves his good-will to us, to return all possible honor and favor to the man for his affection and generosity; that by this treatment it may appear how our people receive the good kindly, and repay them a suitable reward; and he may be induced to proceed in his affection towards us, by the honors we have already paid him. That ambassadors be also chosen out of all the Athenians, who shall carry this decree to him, and desire him to accept of the honors we do him, and to endeavor always to be doing some good to our city." And this shall suffice us to have spoken as to the honors that were paid by the Romans and the people of Athens to Hyrcanus.

As for Herod, he had spent vast sums about the cities, both without and within his own kingdom; and as he had before heard that Hyrcanus, who had been king before him, had opened David's sepulcher, and taken out of it three thousand talents of silver, and that there was a much greater number left behind, and indeed enough to suffice all his wants, he had a great while an intention to make the attempt; and at this time he opened that sepulcher by night, and went into it, and endeavored that it should not be at all known in the city, but took only his most faithful friends with him. As for any money, he found none, as Hyrcanus had done, but that furniture of gold, and those precious goods that were laid up there; all which he took away. However, he had a great desire to make a more diligent search, and to go farther in, even as far as the very bodies of David and Solomon; where two of his guards were slain, by a flame that burst out upon those that went in, as the report was. So he was terribly affrighted, and went out, and built a propitiatory monument of that fright he had been in; and this of white stone, at the mouth of the sepulcher, and that at great expense also. And even Nicolaus his historiographer makes mention of this monument built by Herod, though he does not mention his going down into the sepulcher, as knowing that action to be of ill repute; and many other things he treats of in the same manner in his book; for he wrote in Herod's lifetime, and under his reign, and so as to please him, and as a servant to him, touching upon nothing but what tended to his glory, and openly excusing many of his notorious crimes, and very diligently concealing them. And as he was desirous to put handsome colors on the death of Mariamne and her sons, which were barbarous actions in the king, he tells falsehoods about the incontinence of Mariamne, and the treacherous designs of his sons upon him; and thus he proceeded in his whole work, making a pompous encomium upon what just actions he had done, but earnestly apologizing for his unjust ones. Indeed, a man, as I said, may have a great deal to say by way of excuse for Nicolaus; for he did not so properly write this as a history for others, as somewhat that might be subservient to the king himself. As for ourselves, who come of a family nearly allied to the Asamonean kings, and on that account have an honorable place, which is the priesthood, we think it indecent to say any thing that is false about them, and accordingly we have described their actions after an unblemished and upright manner. And although we reverence many of Herod's posterity, who still reign, yet do we pay a greater regard to truth than to them, and this though it sometimes happens that we incur their displeasure by so doing.

Now the Jews are not much acquainted with Greek literature; but suppose that there was a Jew so well versed in it [as to make such a quotation on his part appropriate], how [does it follow] that Jesus could not liberate Himself, because He did not do so? For let him believe from our own Scriptures that Peter obtained his freedom after having been bound in prison, an angel having loosed his chains; and that Paul, having been bound in the stocks along with Silas in Philippi of Macedonia, was liberated by divine power, when the gates of the prison were opened. But it is probable that Celsus treats these accounts with ridicule, or that he never read them; for he would probably say in reply, that there are certain sorcerers who are able by incantations to unloose chains and to open doors, so that he would liken the events related in our histories to the doings of sorcerers. “But,” he continues, “no calamity happened even to him who condemned him, as there did to Pentheus, viz. madness or discerption.” And yet he does not know that it was not so much Pilate that condemned Him (who knew that “for envy the Jews had delivered Him”), as the Jewish nation, which has been condemned by God, and rent in pieces, and dispersed over the whole earth, in a degree far beyond what happened to Pentheus. Moreover, why did he intentionally omit what is related of Pilate’s wife, who beheld a vision, and who was so moved by it as to send a message to her husband, saying: “Have thou nothing to do with that just man; for I have suffered many things this day in a dream because of him?” And again, passing by in silence the proofs of the divinity of Jesus, Celsus endeavours to cast reproach upon Him from the narratives in the Gospel, referring to those who mocked Jesus, and put on Him the purple robe, and the crown of thorns, and placed the reed in His hand. From what source now, Celsus, did you derive these statements, save from the Gospel narratives? And did you, accordingly, see that they were fit matters for reproach, while they who recorded them did not think that you, and such as you, would turn them into ridicule; but that others would receive from them an example how to despise those who ridiculed and mocked Him on account of His religion, who appropriately laid down His life for its sake? Admire rather their love of truth, and that of the Being who bore these things voluntarily for the sake of men, and who endured them with all constancy and long-suffering. For it is not recorded that He uttered any lamentation, or that after His condemnation He either did or uttered anything unbecoming.

There came, then, although Celsus may not wish to admit it, after the numerous prophets who were the reformers of that well-known Israel, the Christ, the Reformer of the whole world, who did not need to employ against men whips, and chains, and tortures, as was the case under the former economy. For when the sower went forth to sow, the doctrine sufficed to sow the word everywhere. But if there is a time coming which will necessarily circumscribe the duration of the world, by reason of its having had a beginning, and if there is to be an end to the world, and after the end a just judgment of all things, it will be incumbent on him who treats the declarations of the Gospels philosophically, to establish these doctrines by arguments of all kinds, not only derived directly from the sacred Scriptures, but also by inferences deducible from them; while the more numerous and simpler class of believers, and those who are unable to comprehend the many varied aspects of the divine wisdom, must entrust themselves to God, and to the Saviour of our race, and be contented with His “ipse dixit,” instead of this or any other demonstration whatever.

Let us now see on what grounds Celsus urges us to make use of the idol offerings and the public sacrifices in the public feasts. His words are, “If these idols are nothing, what harm will there be in taking part in the feast? On the other hand, if they are demons, it is certain that they too are God’s creatures, and that we must believe in them, sacrifice to them according to the laws, and pray to them that they may be propitious.” In reference to this statement, it would be profitable for us to take up and clearly explain the whole passage of the First Epistle to the Corinthians, in which Paul treats of offerings to idols. The apostle draws from the fact that “an idol is nothing in the world,” the consequence that it is injurious to use things offered to idols; and he shows to those who have ears to hear on such subjects, that he who partakes of things offered to idols is worse than a murderer, for he destroys his own brethren, for whom Christ died. And further, he maintains that the sacrifices are made to demons; and from that he proceeds to show that those who join the table of demons become associated with the demons; and he concludes that a man cannot both be a partaker of the table of the Lord and of the table of demons. But since it would require a whole treatise to set forth fully all that is contained on this subject in the Epistle to the Corinthians, we shall content ourselves with this brief statement of the argument; for it will be evident to any one who carefully considers what has been said, that even if idols are nothing, nevertheless it is an awful thing to join in idol festivals. And even supposing that there are such beings as demons to whom the sacrifices are offered, it has been clearly shown that we are forbidden to take part in these festivals, when we know the difference between the table of the Lord and the table of demons. And knowing this, we endeavour as much as we can to be always partakers of the Lord’s table, and beware to the utmost of joining at any time the table of demons.

Let us see what Celsus next goes on to say. It is as follows: “What need is there to collect all the oracular responses, which have been delivered with a divine voice by priests and priestesses, as well as by others, whether men or women, who were under a divine influence?—all the wonderful things that have been heard issuing from the inner sanctuary?—all the revelations that have been made to those who consulted the sacrificial victims?—and all the knowledge that has been conveyed to men by other signs and prodigies? To some the gods have appeared in visible forms. The world is full of such instances. How many cities have been built in obedience to commands received from oracles; how often, in the same way, delivered from disease and famine! Or again, how many cities, from disregard or forgetfulness of these oracles, have perished miserably! How many colonies have been established and made to flourish by following their orders! How many princes and private persons have, from this cause, had prosperity or adversity! How many who mourned over their childlessness, have obtained the blessing they asked for! How many have turned away from themselves the anger of demons! How many who were maimed in their limbs, have had them restored! And again, how many have met with summary punishment for showing want of reverence to the temples—some being instantly seized with madness, others openly confessing their crimes, others having put an end to their lives, and others having become the victims of incurable maladies! Yea, some have been slain by a terrible voice issuing from the inner sanctuary.” I know not how it comes that Celsus brings forward these as undoubted facts, whilst at the same time he treats as mere fables the wonders which are recorded and handed down to us as having happened among the Jews, or as having been performed by Jesus and His disciples. For why may not our accounts be true, and those of Celsus fables and fictions? At least, these latter were not believed by the followers of Democritus, Epicurus, and Aristotle, although perhaps these Grecian sects would have been convinced by the evidence in support of our miracles, if Moses or any of the prophets who wrought these wonders, or Jesus Christ Himself, had come in their way.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Jehudah treats olives like fields but the rabbis do not treat olives like fields. Now it seems that Rebbi Judah is thinking like Rebbi Eliezer, as Rebbi Eliezer says, “the tithe is theirs because they came because of it.” So here, if a Cohen or a Levite received a field (as sharecroppers), the tithes are theirs because they came because of them.

HALAKHAH: “ If he brought heave from his house one treats it as ṭevel and Great Heave, the words of Rebbi; Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, it is certainly heave. If he brought First Tithe from his house, one treats it as ṭevel and First Tithe, the words of Rebbi; Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, he needs only to separate First Tithe. If he brought Second Tithe from his house, one treats it as ṭevel and Second Tithe, the words of Rebbi; Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, he needs only to separate Second Tithe.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rebbi worries that maybe he gave from one kind on another but Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel worries thay maybe he inverted the order.

HALAKHAH: “ If he brought heave from his house one treats it as ṭevel and Great Heave, the words of Rebbi; Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, it is certainly heave. If he brought First Tithe from his house, one treats it as ṭevel and First Tithe, the words of Rebbi; Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, he needs only to separate First Tithe. If he brought Second Tithe from his house, one treats it as ṭevel and Second Tithe, the words of Rebbi; Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, he needs only to separate Second Tithe.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rebbi worries that maybe he gave from one kind on another but Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel worries thay maybe he inverted the order.

HALAKHAH: “ If he brought heave from his house one treats it as ṭevel and Great Heave, the words of Rebbi; Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, it is certainly heave. If he brought First Tithe from his house, one treats it as ṭevel and First Tithe, the words of Rebbi; Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, he needs only to separate First Tithe. If he brought Second Tithe from his house, one treats it as ṭevel and Second Tithe, the words of Rebbi; Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, he needs only to separate Second Tithe.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rebbi worries that maybe he gave from one kind on another but Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel worries thay maybe he inverted the order.

MISHNAH: Two boxes, one of heave and one profane. A seah of heave fell into one of them and it is not known into which one; I say it fell into heave. If it is not known which [box] is heave and which one is profane, if one ate [the contents of] one of them, he is free. The [contents of] the second he treats as heave but it is subject to ḥallah, the words of Rebbi Meïr; but Rebbi Yose declares it free. If another person ate from the second [box], he is free. If he ate from both of them, he pays according to the lesser of the two. If one of them fell into profane [produce] it would not make it dema‘. The [contents of] the second he treats as heave but it is subject to ḥallah, the words of Rebbi Meïr; but Rebbi Yose declares it free. If the [contents of the] second [box] fell into another place, they would not make it dema‘. If both together fell into one place they would create dema‘ relative to the smaller one. sup>118 If he sowed [the contents of] one of them, he is free. The [contents o f ] the second he treats as heave but it is subject to ḥallah, the words of Rebbi Meir; but Rebbi Yose declares it free. If another person sowed the second one, he is free. If one person sowed [the contents of] both of them, if it is a kind whose seeds disappear, all is permitted, if they do not disappear, it is forbidden.

MISHNAH: Two boxes, one of heave and one profane. A seah of heave fell into one of them and it is not known into which one; I say it fell into heave. If it is not known which [box] is heave and which one is profane, if one ate [the contents of] one of them, he is free. The [contents of] the second he treats as heave but it is subject to ḥallah, the words of Rebbi Meïr; but Rebbi Yose declares it free. If another person ate from the second [box], he is free. If he ate from both of them, he pays according to the lesser of the two. If one of them fell into profane [produce] it would not make it dema‘. The [contents of] the second he treats as heave but it is subject to ḥallah, the words of Rebbi Meïr; but Rebbi Yose declares it free. If the [contents of the] second [box] fell into another place, they would not make it dema‘. If both together fell into one place they would create dema‘ relative to the smaller one. sup>118 If he sowed [the contents of] one of them, he is free. The [contents o f ] the second he treats as heave but it is subject to ḥallah, the words of Rebbi Meir; but Rebbi Yose declares it free. If another person sowed the second one, he is free. If one person sowed [the contents of] both of them, if it is a kind whose seeds disappear, all is permitted, if they do not disappear, it is forbidden.

MISHNAH: Two boxes, one of heave and one profane. A seah of heave fell into one of them and it is not known into which one; I say it fell into heave. If it is not known which [box] is heave and which one is profane, if one ate [the contents of] one of them, he is free. The [contents of] the second he treats as heave but it is subject to ḥallah, the words of Rebbi Meïr; but Rebbi Yose declares it free. If another person ate from the second [box], he is free. If he ate from both of them, he pays according to the lesser of the two. If one of them fell into profane [produce] it would not make it dema‘. The [contents of] the second he treats as heave but it is subject to ḥallah, the words of Rebbi Meïr; but Rebbi Yose declares it free. If the [contents of the] second [box] fell into another place, they would not make it dema‘. If both together fell into one place they would create dema‘ relative to the smaller one. sup>118 If he sowed [the contents of] one of them, he is free. The [contents o f ] the second he treats as heave but it is subject to ḥallah, the words of Rebbi Meir; but Rebbi Yose declares it free. If another person sowed the second one, he is free. If one person sowed [the contents of] both of them, if it is a kind whose seeds disappear, all is permitted, if they do not disappear, it is forbidden.

MISHNAH: The seeds of heave, as long as they are collected, are forbidden but if they are thrown away they are permitted. And so bones of sacrifices, as long as they are collected, are forbidden but if they are thrown away they are permitted. Coarse bran is permitted; fine bran of new grain is forbidden, of old it is permitted. One treats heave as one treats profane food. If one makes fine flour, one or two qab from a seah, he should not throw away the remainder but put it down in a hidden place. If someone removed heave wheat from a chest, one does not oblige him to sit down and pick out the last grains but he sweeps it as usual and then fills it with profane grain. Similarly, if someone empties an amphora of oil, one does not oblige him to sit down and clean it with his fingers but he treats it as he treats profane vessels. If one pours from pitcher to pitcher one lets drip three drops and then may fill it with profane [wine]. If he turned it and it accumulated, that is heave. How much should heave of the tithe of demay be that he is required to deliver it to a Cohen? An eighth of an eighth.

MISHNAH: The seeds of heave, as long as they are collected, are forbidden but if they are thrown away they are permitted. And so bones of sacrifices, as long as they are collected, are forbidden but if they are thrown away they are permitted. Coarse bran is permitted; fine bran of new grain is forbidden, of old it is permitted. One treats heave as one treats profane food. If one makes fine flour, one or two qab from a seah, he should not throw away the remainder but put it down in a hidden place. If someone removed heave wheat from a chest, one does not oblige him to sit down and pick out the last grains but he sweeps it as usual and then fills it with profane grain. Similarly, if someone empties an amphora of oil, one does not oblige him to sit down and clean it with his fingers but he treats it as he treats profane vessels. If one pours from pitcher to pitcher one lets drip three drops and then may fill it with profane [wine]. If he turned it and it accumulated, that is heave. How much should heave of the tithe of demay be that he is required to deliver it to a Cohen? An eighth of an eighth.

MISHNAH: The seeds of heave, as long as they are collected, are forbidden but if they are thrown away they are permitted. And so bones of sacrifices, as long as they are collected, are forbidden but if they are thrown away they are permitted. Coarse bran is permitted; fine bran of new grain is forbidden, of old it is permitted. One treats heave as one treats profane food. If one makes fine flour, one or two qab from a seah, he should not throw away the remainder but put it down in a hidden place. If someone removed heave wheat from a chest, one does not oblige him to sit down and pick out the last grains but he sweeps it as usual and then fills it with profane grain. Similarly, if someone empties an amphora of oil, one does not oblige him to sit down and clean it with his fingers but he treats it as he treats profane vessels. If one pours from pitcher to pitcher one lets drip three drops and then may fill it with profane [wine]. If he turned it and it accumulated, that is heave. How much should heave of the tithe of demay be that he is required to deliver it to a Cohen? An eighth of an eighth.

MISHNAH: The seeds of heave, as long as they are collected, are forbidden but if they are thrown away they are permitted. And so bones of sacrifices, as long as they are collected, are forbidden but if they are thrown away they are permitted. Coarse bran is permitted; fine bran of new grain is forbidden, of old it is permitted. One treats heave as one treats profane food. If one makes fine flour, one or two qab from a seah, he should not throw away the remainder but put it down in a hidden place. If someone removed heave wheat from a chest, one does not oblige him to sit down and pick out the last grains but he sweeps it as usual and then fills it with profane grain. Similarly, if someone empties an amphora of oil, one does not oblige him to sit down and clean it with his fingers but he treats it as he treats profane vessels. If one pours from pitcher to pitcher one lets drip three drops and then may fill it with profane [wine]. If he turned it and it accumulated, that is heave. How much should heave of the tithe of demay be that he is required to deliver it to a Cohen? An eighth of an eighth.

Ḥizqiah said, when he exchanges it, he treats it as bad. But if he exchanges for it, he treats it as a good one. But did we not state: “He chooses the better of the two and exchanges it for them”? Why can he not take the worse [coin] and treat it as a good one? Rebbi Jonah said, I say that this one was Second Tithe.

Ḥizqiah said, when he exchanges it, he treats it as bad. But if he exchanges for it, he treats it as a good one. But did we not state: “He chooses the better of the two and exchanges it for them”? Why can he not take the worse [coin] and treat it as a good one? Rebbi Jonah said, I say that this one was Second Tithe.

MISHNAH: If what was bought with tithe money became impure, it should be redeemed. Rebbi Jehudah says, it should be buried. They said to Rebbi Jehudah, if original Second Tithe which became impure is redeemed, what was bought with tithe money and became impure certainly should be redeemed. He said to them, no! If you said about original Second Tithe, which can be redeemed when it is pure and far from the Place, can you say the same about what was bought with tithe money which cannot be redeemed when it is pure and far from the Place? If a deer bought with tithe money died, it should be buried in its hide. Rebbi Simeon says, it should be redeemed. If he bought it alive and slaughtered it, if it became impure it should be redeemed. Rebbi Yose said, it should be buried. If he bought it slaughtered and it became impure, he treats it following the rules of produce. If somebody lends flasks for Second Tithe, even if he closed the top with clay, tithe did not acquire it. If he filled them without saying anything, before he closed the top with clay, tithe did not acquire it; after he closed the top with clay, tithe acquired it. Before he closed the top with clay, one may lift by 101, after he closed the top with clay any one sanctifies. Before he closed the top with clay, he gives heave from one for all, after he closed the top with clay he has to give heave from each single one. The House of Shammai say, he opens and pours into a vat, but the House of Hillel say, he opens and does not have to pour. Where has this been said? At a place where usually one sells sealed, but at a place where usually one sells open, the flask did not become profane. However, if he is meticulous to sell by volume, the flask did become profane. Rebbi Simeon said, also if somebody says to another person, I am selling to you this amphora except its flask, the flask became profane.

Rebbi Jehudah treats trees like straws. There, we have stated: “If he pronounced the benediction ‘Creator of the fruit of the soil’ on fruits of the tree, he has fulfilled his obligation.” Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa: This is Rebbi Yehuda’s since Rebbi Jehudah treats trees like straws. Rebbi Yose said, it is everybody’s opinion since fruits of a tree are also fruits of the soil but fruits of the soil are not fruits of the tree.

Rebbi Jehudah treats trees like straws. There, we have stated: “If he pronounced the benediction ‘Creator of the fruit of the soil’ on fruits of the tree, he has fulfilled his obligation.” Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa: This is Rebbi Yehuda’s since Rebbi Jehudah treats trees like straws. Rebbi Yose said, it is everybody’s opinion since fruits of a tree are also fruits of the soil but fruits of the soil are not fruits of the tree.

There, we have stated: “One who loses semen on the third day is pure, the words of Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah. Rebbi Ismael says, sometimes they are four terms, sometimes they are five, sometimes they are six. Rebbi Aqiba says, always they are five. If part of the first term had elapsed, one completes it by the sixth term.” Therefore Rebbi Ismael makes the day one term and the night one term; Rebbi Aqiba makes the day one term and the night one term. In what do they differ? They differ in complete terms. Rebbi Ismael treats part of a term like the whole, but Rebbi Aqiba does not treat part of a term like the whole. It was stated so about Rebbi Aqiba: “Therefore if part of the first term had elapsed, one completes it by the sixth term”. It was stated: Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah says, day and night each are a term, and part of a term is like the whole. It was stated so about Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah: Sometimes after slightly more than a day she is pure; sometimes after slightly less than two days she is impure. How does it happen that after slightly more than a day she is pure? She had intercourse Friday afternoon before sundown and lost Saturday night after nightfall; there is slightly more than a day she is pure. How does it happen that after slightly less than two days she is impure? She had intercourse Friday night after sundown and lost Sunday night before nightfall; there is slightly less than two days she is impure. Rebbi Joḥanan said, from the words of all of them, Israel received the Torah as immersed on the same day. That is, the women; but the men already were purified. What is the reason? Sanctify them today and tomorrow and let them wash their garments. Rebbi Joḥanan said, these are the words of Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah, and Rebbi Ismael, and Rebbi Aqiba. But the word of the Sages is, up to three days; after that it decayed. This parallels what Rebbi Zeˋira said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: This are the instructions for the sufferer from gonorrhea and from whom semen is ejaculated. Since the instructions of the sufferer from gonorrhea are based on three days, also the instructions for semen are up to three days.

The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Zavda: Anything inside of the lips one heals on the Sabbath. Rebbi Ze‘ira objected, did we not state: “One whose teeth are aching may not sip vinegar,”? Is this not inside from the lips? [Rebbi Ze‘ira] did not say so, but Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Zavda: Anything inside a body cavity one heals on the Sabbath. Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rebbi Abba bar Zuṭra, Rebbi Ḥanina in the name of Rebbi: One treats the bone of the skull on the Sabbath. Rebbi Ḥiyya the Mede, Rebbi Jona, Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rebbi Abba bar Zuṭra, Rebbi Ḥanina in the name of Rebbi: One treats glands of the throat on the Sabbath. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One treats an infected eye on the Sabbath. There, they say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Tops of hands and feet are a danger. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Red color is dangerous. Rebbi Abin said, one removes the sting of a scorpion on the Sabbath. Rav said, wine for exterior treatment of the eye is permitted, inside the eye it is forbidden. Samuel said, tasteless spittle is forbidden for the eye on the Sabbath From this you infer for lichen. The rabbis of Caesarea said, ranula is dangerous. Rebbi Ḥizqiah from Acco in the name of the rabbis of Caesarea: spider sickness is dangerous. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: gangrene is dangerous. Rebbi Jeremiah said, one can put sour dough on it on Passover. A boil is permitted. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah says this: “A small needle to remove a thorn.” Otherwise, what is the difference between a thorn and a boil? Darkening of the eye, they asked Rebbi Jeremiah. He told them, is not Rebbi Abba available for you? They asked Rebbi Abba who permitted. He told them, also I am permitting it.

The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Zavda: Anything inside of the lips one heals on the Sabbath. Rebbi Ze‘ira objected, did we not state: “One whose teeth are aching may not sip vinegar,”? Is this not inside from the lips? [Rebbi Ze‘ira] did not say so, but Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Zavda: Anything inside a body cavity one heals on the Sabbath. Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rebbi Abba bar Zuṭra, Rebbi Ḥanina in the name of Rebbi: One treats the bone of the skull on the Sabbath. Rebbi Ḥiyya the Mede, Rebbi Jona, Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rebbi Abba bar Zuṭra, Rebbi Ḥanina in the name of Rebbi: One treats glands of the throat on the Sabbath. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One treats an infected eye on the Sabbath. There, they say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Tops of hands and feet are a danger. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Red color is dangerous. Rebbi Abin said, one removes the sting of a scorpion on the Sabbath. Rav said, wine for exterior treatment of the eye is permitted, inside the eye it is forbidden. Samuel said, tasteless spittle is forbidden for the eye on the Sabbath From this you infer for lichen. The rabbis of Caesarea said, ranula is dangerous. Rebbi Ḥizqiah from Acco in the name of the rabbis of Caesarea: spider sickness is dangerous. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: gangrene is dangerous. Rebbi Jeremiah said, one can put sour dough on it on Passover. A boil is permitted. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah says this: “A small needle to remove a thorn.” Otherwise, what is the difference between a thorn and a boil? Darkening of the eye, they asked Rebbi Jeremiah. He told them, is not Rebbi Abba available for you? They asked Rebbi Abba who permitted. He told them, also I am permitting it.

The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Zavda: Anything inside of the lips one heals on the Sabbath. Rebbi Ze‘ira objected, did we not state: “One whose teeth are aching may not sip vinegar,”? Is this not inside from the lips? [Rebbi Ze‘ira] did not say so, but Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Zavda: Anything inside a body cavity one heals on the Sabbath. Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rebbi Abba bar Zuṭra, Rebbi Ḥanina in the name of Rebbi: One treats the bone of the skull on the Sabbath. Rebbi Ḥiyya the Mede, Rebbi Jona, Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rebbi Abba bar Zuṭra, Rebbi Ḥanina in the name of Rebbi: One treats glands of the throat on the Sabbath. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One treats an infected eye on the Sabbath. There, they say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Tops of hands and feet are a danger. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Red color is dangerous. Rebbi Abin said, one removes the sting of a scorpion on the Sabbath. Rav said, wine for exterior treatment of the eye is permitted, inside the eye it is forbidden. Samuel said, tasteless spittle is forbidden for the eye on the Sabbath From this you infer for lichen. The rabbis of Caesarea said, ranula is dangerous. Rebbi Ḥizqiah from Acco in the name of the rabbis of Caesarea: spider sickness is dangerous. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: gangrene is dangerous. Rebbi Jeremiah said, one can put sour dough on it on Passover. A boil is permitted. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah says this: “A small needle to remove a thorn.” Otherwise, what is the difference between a thorn and a boil? Darkening of the eye, they asked Rebbi Jeremiah. He told them, is not Rebbi Abba available for you? They asked Rebbi Abba who permitted. He told them, also I am permitting it.

HALAKHAH: “And he says if today is holiday my words should be void but he gives a name to his tithes but does not eat from it. On the second [day] he gives a name to his tithes and eats from it.” Rav’s argument seems inverted. There he treats it as one sanctity but here he treats it as two sanctities. There it is one long sanctity but here one is holy, the other profane. The rabbis’ argument seems inverted. There they treat it as two sanctities, but here they make it one sanctity. There a holiday next to a Sabbath is like weekday next to Sabbath but here both are equal. The Sages agree with Rebbi Jehudah about the two days of the New Year which are an institution of the early prophets

HALAKHAH: “And he says if today is holiday my words should be void but he gives a name to his tithes but does not eat from it. On the second [day] he gives a name to his tithes and eats from it.” Rav’s argument seems inverted. There he treats it as one sanctity but here he treats it as two sanctities. There it is one long sanctity but here one is holy, the other profane. The rabbis’ argument seems inverted. There they treat it as two sanctities, but here they make it one sanctity. There a holiday next to a Sabbath is like weekday next to Sabbath but here both are equal. The Sages agree with Rebbi Jehudah about the two days of the New Year which are an institution of the early prophets

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. “In a courtyard where one dweller forgot to make an eruv,” etc. “But theirs are permitted for them and him.” Because he ceded his rights. May this be repeated cyclically? The students of Rav in the name of Rav: it may be repeated cyclically. Samuel said, it may not be repeated cyclically. The Mishnah disagrees with Samuel: “theirs are permitted for them and him.” Because he ceded his rights. But did we not state: “If they ceded their rights to him, he is permitted but they are forbidden”? He explains it that the Mishnah treats different cases.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥinena in the name of Cahana: Practice does not follow Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Abba bar Pappai asked: How did Rebbi Meïr treat the wall, as hollowed out or as pierced? If you say as hollowed out, even higher than ten [hand-breadths] it should be permitted. If you say as pierced, even below ten [hand-breadths] it should be prohibited. “ The door of garden plots which have a gatekeeper’s lodge, from the inside he opens and locks from the inside; from the outside he opens and locks from the outside; from both sides he opens and locks from both sides; from neither side he takes the key, opens and locks, and returns it to its place. When has this been said? If the lock is higher than ten hand-breadths. But if the lock is lower than ten hand-breadths he takes the key from the threshold, opens and locks, and returns it to its place, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages are saying, even if the lock is higher than ten hand-breadths he brings the key on Friday, opens, enters, and moves it inside the house, locks, and puts it into a hole above the lintel. If the hole was four hand-breadths wide it is forbidden, for one does not use one domain from another domain through a third domain.” This implies that Rebbi Jehudah treats it as hollowed out. One understands that from the inside it needs a gatekeeper’s lodge. Why does it need a gatekeper’s lodge from the outside? Does it not turn out that two domains use one domain?

Rebbi Ḥinena said, everything they made dependent on usage. There were acacia trees in Migdal Sevaya. They came and asked Rebbi Ḥanania, the colleague of the rabbis, may one use them for work? He told them, since your ancestors used to treat them as forbidden, do not change the usage of your deceased ancestors. Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Abbin. In any case which is permitted but in error he treats it as forbidden, if he asks they will permit him. But in any case where he knows that it is permitted but he has the usage to treat it as forbidden, if he asks they will not permit him.

HALAKHAH: What is the rule about soft sinews? Rebbi Joḥanan said, one subscribes to them; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, one does not subscribe to them. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira: The argument of Rebbi Joḥanan is inverted; the argument of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is inverted. As they disagreed about what is stated there: “The following have their hides treated like their flesh: Human skin, and the hides of domesticated pigs, Rebbi Yose says also of wild pigs. [The soft skin of camel’s hump, the soft skin of a calf’s head, the skin near the hooves, the skin of genitals, the skin of an embryo, the skin under the fat tail, and the skin of anaqa, koah, leta’ah, and homet lizards. Rebbi Jehudah says, a lizard is like a mole. In all cases, if one tanned them, or started to use them as working material, they are pure, except for human skin. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri says, the “eight crawling animals” have hides.”] Rebbi Joḥanan said, this was only said as prohibition and regarding impurity, but for flogging it is hide. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, Rebbi stated a complete Mishnah, for prohibition, for flogging, for impurity. The reasoning of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish seems inverted. There, he treats it as flesh, but here, he does not treat it as meat. Rebbi Judah bar Pazi said, there is a difference, since there one refers to skin which in the end will become hard. This emphasizes that the reasoning of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish seems inverted! Since there, where in the end it will harden, he treats it as flesh, here where in the end it will not harden, not so much more? Rebbi Abun said, the reason of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is: they shall eat the meat in that night, not sinews.

HALAKHAH: What is the rule about soft sinews? Rebbi Joḥanan said, one subscribes to them; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, one does not subscribe to them. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira: The argument of Rebbi Joḥanan is inverted; the argument of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is inverted. As they disagreed about what is stated there: “The following have their hides treated like their flesh: Human skin, and the hides of domesticated pigs, Rebbi Yose says also of wild pigs. [The soft skin of camel’s hump, the soft skin of a calf’s head, the skin near the hooves, the skin of genitals, the skin of an embryo, the skin under the fat tail, and the skin of anaqa, koah, leta’ah, and homet lizards. Rebbi Jehudah says, a lizard is like a mole. In all cases, if one tanned them, or started to use them as working material, they are pure, except for human skin. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri says, the “eight crawling animals” have hides.”] Rebbi Joḥanan said, this was only said as prohibition and regarding impurity, but for flogging it is hide. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, Rebbi stated a complete Mishnah, for prohibition, for flogging, for impurity. The reasoning of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish seems inverted. There, he treats it as flesh, but here, he does not treat it as meat. Rebbi Judah bar Pazi said, there is a difference, since there one refers to skin which in the end will become hard. This emphasizes that the reasoning of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish seems inverted! Since there, where in the end it will harden, he treats it as flesh, here where in the end it will not harden, not so much more? Rebbi Abun said, the reason of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is: they shall eat the meat in that night, not sinews.

Rebbi Ḥinena said, everything they made dependent on usage. There were acacia trees in Migdal Ṣevaya. They came and asked Rebbi Ḥanania, the colleague of the rabbis, may one use them for work? He told them, since your ancestors used to treat them as forbidden, do not change the usage of your deceased ancestors. Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Abun. In any case which is permitted but in error he treats it as forbidden, if he asks they will permit him. But in any case where he knows that it is permitted but he has the usage to treat it as forbidden, if he asks they will not permit him.

HALAKHAH: “The people of a town who sold the town plaza,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, this is Rebbi Menaḥem ben Rebbi Yose’s, for Rebbi Menaḥem ben Rebbi Yose said, the town plaza has holiness since one brings a Torah scroll and reads from it in public. But following the Rabbis one treats it like a distance of four cubits.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Mana said it anonymously, Rebbi Abun in the name of Samuel. They disagree anonymously. Where are we holding? If they are widely spaced everybody agrees that it is forbidden. If they are tightly planted everybody agrees that it is permitted. But we deal with the case that they are planted ten to a bet seah. Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob treats it as widely spaced, the rabbis treat it as tightly planted. So the rabbis said, if widely spaced it is forbidden to irrigate; may one continue? Let us learn the opinion of the rabbis from that of Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob. Just as Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob says, it is forbidden to irrigate but permitted to continue, so the rabbis say that it is forbidden to irrigate but permitted to continue. Did we not think that according to everybody if they are widely spaced it is forbidden; but is white dust not as if widely spaced? But here it is the Sabbatical, there the holiday. What is the difference between Sabbatical and holiday? In the Sabbatical when work is permitted they permitted both activities requiring effort and activities not requiring effort. On a holiday when work is forbidden they only permitted to avoid loss and only activities not requiring effort. Some want to understand it from the following: In the Sabbatical which is extended they permitted, on a holiday which is short they forbade. Then these last seven days should be compared to the seven days of a holiday and be forbidden. It was found stated: “One may sprinkle with water on white dust during the Sabbatical year but not during the holiday, <the words of Rebbi Simeon. Rebbi Eliezer Ben Jacob forbids.>”

Who permits? Did we not state, if one of the excommunicators died one may not permit him? Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, this you are saying in the absence of a Patriarch. But if there is a Patriarch, the Patriarch permits. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: It happened that one of the excommunicators died and they did not permit him. Did not Rebbi Joshua ben Levi say, this you are saying in the absence of a Patriarch, but if there is a Patriarch, the Patriarch permits? What Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said is confirmed if he did not reform. Rebbi Jacob bat Abbay in the name of Rav Sheshet: At Usha they voted not to excommunicate an ordained rabbi. This parallels what Rebbi Samuel said in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: One does not strip an ordained rabbi who is guilty of something of his title but tells him, respect yourself and sit in your house. Rebbi Jacob bat Abbay in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: One treats an ordained rabbi who forgot his learning by an act of God with the holiness of the Ark. Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Tanḥum, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Excommunication by an ordained rabbi who excommunicated for his personal benefit is no excommunication.

Rebbi Yose insists on interpreting the contract text. Rebbi Yose explained: In a place where one treats the ketubah as a loan, she collects the entire amount. Where one doubles, she collects only half the amount. Rebbi Eleazar [the caper grower] said, nobody is permitted to buy domesticated or wild animals or birds unless he has food prepared for them. Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥa insists on interpreting the contract text, since Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥa said, a person lending money to another person should not take pledges from him for more than the value of the loan since he writes for him: “It will be paid by the property that came to my hand that I shall acquire corresponding to this [sum].”

HALAKHAH: Rav Ḥisda said, they had great difficulty; elsewhere you say that one goes to the Torah, and here you say, one brings the Torah to him? But because they are important personalities, the Torah is honored by them. Does one not bring the Torah to the Head of the Diaspora over there? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, since the seed of David is immersed there one treats him in the ancestral way.

HALAKHAH: “If she did appear in court before she became an adult,” etc. Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai stated: “The man who had lain with her shall give 50 silver pieces to the girl’s father;” this teaches that the father acquires only by handing over. Rebbi Simeon says, the matter depends on the collection, but the rabbis say, the matter depends on the court procedure. Rebbi Simeon treats it as court decrees but the rabbis treat it as a loan. In the opinion of Rebbi Simeon, he forecloses from the best land; in the opinion of the rabbis he forecloses from average land. In the opinion of Rebbi Simeon, the Sabbatical year does not cancel the debt; in the opinion of the rabbis the Sabbatical year cancels the debt. In the opinion of Rebbi Simeon the firstborn takes a double portion; in the opinion of the rabbis the firstborn does not take a double portion.

Rebbi Yose insists on interpreting the contract text. Rebbi Yose explained: In a place where one treats the ketubah as a loan, she collects the entire amount. Where one doubles, she collects only half the amount. Rebbi Eleazar the caper grower insists on interpreting the contract text. Rebbi Eleazar the caper grower explained: nobody is permitted to buy domesticated or wild animals or birds unless he has food prepared for them. Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥa insists on interpreting the contract text. Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥa explained: a person lending money to another person should not take pledges except in court; he should not enter [the debtor’s] house to take the pledge, for he writes to him: “It will be paid by the property that came to my hand that I shall acquire corresponding to this [sum].”

“This is the rule Rebbi Simeon declared in the name of Rebbi Joshua: For everything that may become permitted through some action, such as ṭevel, Second Tithe, donations to the Temple, and “new grain”, the Sages did not fix any limits, but a kind with its own is forbidden in the minutest amount, a kind with a different kind if it can be tasted. But for everything that cannot become permitted through any action, such as heave, ḥallah, orlah, and kilaim in a vineyard, the Sages did fix as limit both a kind with itself or with a different kind if it can be tasted.” How do you treat vows? As referring to something that can become permitted or to something that cannot become permitted? It seems reasonable that we treat them as referring to things that can become permitted, as we have stated there “for the Elder uproots the vow from the start.” They said, he only uproots for the future. Certainly a Mishnah treats it as referring to something that cannot become permitted, as we have stated there: “The growth from heave is heave; the growth from their growth is profane. But the growths from ṭevel, First Tithe, aftergrowth of the Sabbatical, heaves from outside the Land, dema‘, and First Fruits are profane as are growths from their growths. Growths from dedicated [seeds] and Second Tithe become profane; one redeems them corresponding to the time of sowing.” We have stated on this: When has this been said? Anything whose seeds disappear. But in produce whose seeds do not disappear, the growth from their growth is forbidden. There is a restriction on growth, as Rebbi Zeïra said in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: An onion of kilaim in a vineyard, taken out of the ground and replanted, stays forbidden even if it grows enormously because growth of something forbidden cannot neutralize the prohibition. But another Mishnah treats it as something that can become permitted, as we have stated there: “For if somebody vowed not to have a certain thing and it became mixed with something else, if it can be tasted it is forbidden.” This explains that it was mixed with another kind, following the rules of something that can become permitted.

“This is the rule Rebbi Simeon declared in the name of Rebbi Joshua: For everything that may become permitted through some action, such as ṭevel, Second Tithe, donations to the Temple, and “new grain”, the Sages did not fix any limits, but a kind with its own is forbidden in the minutest amount, a kind with a different kind if it can be tasted. But for everything that cannot become permitted through any action, such as heave, ḥallah, orlah, and kilaim in a vineyard, the Sages did fix as limit both a kind with itself or with a different kind if it can be tasted.” How do you treat vows? As referring to something that can become permitted or to something that cannot become permitted? It seems reasonable that we treat them as referring to things that can become permitted, as we have stated there “for the Elder uproots the vow from the start.” They said, he only uproots for the future. Certainly a Mishnah treats it as referring to something that cannot become permitted, as we have stated there: “The growth from heave is heave; the growth from their growth is profane. But the growths from ṭevel, First Tithe, aftergrowth of the Sabbatical, heaves from outside the Land, dema‘, and First Fruits are profane as are growths from their growths. Growths from dedicated [seeds] and Second Tithe become profane; one redeems them corresponding to the time of sowing.” We have stated on this: When has this been said? Anything whose seeds disappear. But in produce whose seeds do not disappear, the growth from their growth is forbidden. There is a restriction on growth, as Rebbi Zeïra said in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: An onion of kilaim in a vineyard, taken out of the ground and replanted, stays forbidden even if it grows enormously because growth of something forbidden cannot neutralize the prohibition. But another Mishnah treats it as something that can become permitted, as we have stated there: “For if somebody vowed not to have a certain thing and it became mixed with something else, if it can be tasted it is forbidden.” This explains that it was mixed with another kind, following the rules of something that can become permitted.

If she was preliminarily married with agreement but definitively married without agreement, may she eat heave? Rav said, she does eat; but Samuel said, she may not eat. Rebbi Mana said, Rav’s reason is that if she was preliminarily married with agreement, the permanence of the status quo implies the assumption that he definitively married her with agreement. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rav’s reason is that by the earlier Mishnah, a preliminarily married daughter of an Israel may eat heave. What is the difference between them? Her earnings. According to Rebbi Mana, for Rav her earnings belong to her husband; according to Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun, for Rav her earnings belong to her father. If she should die, who inherits from her? According to Rebbi Mana, for Rav her husband inherits; according to Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun, for Rav her father inherits if she dies. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun stated, for Rav her husband inherits if she dies. If she was preliminarily married without agreement and definitively married without agreement, may she eat heave? Samuel said, she does eat. Come and see: If she was preliminarily married with agreement and definitively married without agreement, Samuel says that she may not eat; here he says she may eat? Samuel treats her as an orphan.

Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: One estimates neither for the thief nor for the robber nor for the borrower but only for damages, and I am saying that even for the borrower one does not estimate, and Abba agrees with me. Who is Abba? Rebbi or Rabba bar Abuha. Rav Ḥisda said, this treats the main event as an accessory. There came Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: One estimates neither for the thief nor for the robber nor for the borrower but only for damages, and watchmen fall under the rules of damages.

Rebbi Yasa said, I heard something from Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac in this matter, but I do not remember what it was. Rebbi Ze‘ira told him, maybe it was the following: At the start the discussion refers to the tame animal. It added weregilt for the notorious. Then it added damages for both of them. I could think that as it added damages, it added the payment for the slave; the verse says “but the owner of the bull is free;” free from paying for a slave. Rebbi La said, everywhere you are more restrictive for a slave than anything else since even if he is scabbed one pays thirty tetradrachmas; I would have said also (for his father and his mother) the same; the verse says “but the owner of the bull is free;” free from paying for fetuses. Everywhere you are more restrictive for a notorious than for a tame one, would you be more restrictive here for a tame one than for a notorious? But it must be so: Men who act unintentionally are liable; bulls who act unintentionally are not liable. Does this mean that if they acted intentionally, they were liable? The verse says, “but the owner of the bull is free;” free from paying for a slave. Another Tanna stated: “But the owner of the bull is free;” free from paying for a slave. But is it not written: “If people quarrel”, people but not bulls. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, so is the baraita: Men who act unintentionally are liable; bulls who act unintentionally are not liable. Does this mean that if they acted intentionally, they were liable? The verse says, “but the owner of the bull is free;” free from paying for a slave. But is it not written: “When they quarrel,” “when they brawl”. Is not quarrel the same as brawl? Since there the act was intentional, so here the act was intentional; or since here the act was unintentional, so here the act was unintentional. What about this? As Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, at the start it treats the tame animal, etc.

He is guilty only it he ate it rare. If he ate it raw, he is a dog. If he ate it cooked, he is a human. If he ate cartilage, what is the rule? What is the rule about soft sinews? Rebbi Joḥanan said, one subscribes to them; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, one does not subscribe to them. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagreed about what is stated there: “The following have their hides treated like their flesh.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, this was only said as prohibition and regarding impurity, but not for flogging. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, Rebbi stated a complete Mishnah, not only for prohibition and regarding impurity. The reasoning of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish seems inverted. There, he treats it as flesh, but here, he does not treat it as meat. Rebbi Judah bar Pazi said, there is a difference, since there one refers to skin which in the end will become hard. This emphasizes that the reasoning of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish seems inverted! Since there, where in the end it will harden, he treats it as flesh, here where in the end it will not harden, not so much more? Rebbi Abbahu said, the reason of Rebbi Judah bar Pazi is: they shall eat the meat in that night, not sinews.

He is guilty only it he ate it rare. If he ate it raw, he is a dog. If he ate it cooked, he is a human. If he ate cartilage, what is the rule? What is the rule about soft sinews? Rebbi Joḥanan said, one subscribes to them; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, one does not subscribe to them. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagreed about what is stated there: “The following have their hides treated like their flesh.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, this was only said as prohibition and regarding impurity, but not for flogging. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, Rebbi stated a complete Mishnah, not only for prohibition and regarding impurity. The reasoning of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish seems inverted. There, he treats it as flesh, but here, he does not treat it as meat. Rebbi Judah bar Pazi said, there is a difference, since there one refers to skin which in the end will become hard. This emphasizes that the reasoning of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish seems inverted! Since there, where in the end it will harden, he treats it as flesh, here where in the end it will not harden, not so much more? Rebbi Abbahu said, the reason of Rebbi Judah bar Pazi is: they shall eat the meat in that night, not sinews.

How does Rebbi Yose uphold this verse, bring your sacrifices in the morning, etc? The verse speaks about Jeroboam’s kingdom. When Jeroboam became king over Israel he started seducing Israel and said to them come, let us worship pagan worship. Pagan worship is lenient. This is what is written, let us go against Jehudah, cut it down, break it up, and appoint a king in it, the man from Ṭabeal. Rebbi Abba said, we checked all of Scripture but did not find a place named Ṭabeal. But it treats its worshippers well. The Torah said, selected him from all of the tribes of Israel to be a priest for Me. Pagan worship says, he made priests from the fringes of the people. Rebbi La said, from the thorns of the people, the rubbish of the people. The Torah said, the fat of My sacrifice shall not remain until the morning; but pagan worship said, bring your sacrifices in the morning. The Torah said, it should be eaten on the day of its slaughter and the next day; but pagan worship said, on the third day your tithes. The Torah said, do not sacrifice the blood of My sacrifice on leavened matter; but pagan worship said, and burn your thanksgiving offer of leavened matter. The Torah said, if you are vowing a vow to the Eternal, your God, do not tarry to fulfill it, but pagan worship said, pledge gifts, publicize them. Rebbi Yudan, Rebbi Mattaniah’s father, said, the verse only serves to mention the shame of Israel. The day of our king, the princes are sick from wine’s heat, he draws the mockers by his hand. On the day when Jeroboam became king over Israel, all of Israel came to him late in the evening and told him, come and worship pagan worship. He told them, it is late in the evening; I am drunk and not drunk. Everybody is drinking; but if you wish, go and come in the morning. That is what is written, for their heart is like an oven while they are lying in ambush; all night long their baker is sleeping. All night long their baker did not sleep. In the morning he is burning like fire of a conflagration. In the morning they came to him. He told them, I do understand what you want but I am afraid of your Synhedrion lest they kill me. They told him, we shall kill them; this is what is written, that all are glowing like an oven and eat their judges. Rebbi Levi said, they killed them, as is written, if a corpse is found. Rebbi La said, they deposed them; The day of our king, the princes are profaned from wine’s heat; the day when princes were profaned. From wine’s heat, they were addicted to wine. He draws the mockers by his hand: When he saw a serious person he placed two scoffers next to him who asked him, which generation was preferred over all generations? He told them, the generation of the Exodus. But did they not practice pagan worship? He answered them, because they were beloved they were not punished. But they told him, be quiet for the king wants to do the same. Not only that, but they made one and this one made two. He put the one up at Bethel; the other he gave to Dan.

The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Zavda: Anything inside of the lips one heals on the Sabbath. Rebbi Ze‘ira objected, did we not state: “A person having a tooth ache should not suck vinegar with them”? Is this not inside from the lips? Rebbi Ze‘ira did not say so, but Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Zavda: Anything inside a body cavity one heals on the Sabbath. Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rebbi Abba bar Zuṭra, Rebbi Ḥanina in the name of Rebbi: One treats the bone of the skull on the Sabbath. Rebbi Ḥiyya the Mede, Rebbi Jona, Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rebbi Abba bar Zuṭra, Rebbi Ḥanina in the name of Rebbi: One treats glands of the throat on the Sabbath. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One treats an infected eye on the Sabbath. There, they say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Tops of hands and feet are a danger. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Red color is dangerous. Rebbi Abin said, one removes the sting of a scorpion on the Sabbath. Rav said, wine for exterior treatment of the eye is permitted, inside the eye it is forbidden. Samuel said, tasteless spit is forbidden for the eye on the Sabbath From this you infer for lichen. The rabbis of Caesarea said, ranula is dangerous. Rebbi Ḥizqiah (said) [from Acco] in the name of the rabbis of Caesarea: spider sickness is dangerous. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: gangrene is dangerous. Rebbi Jeremiah said, one can put sour dough on it on Passover. A boil is permitted. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah says this: “A small needle to remove a thorn.” Otherwise, what is the difference between a thorn and a boil? Darkening of the eye, they asked Rebbi Jeremiah. He told them, is not Rebbi Abba available for you? They asked Rebbi Abba who permitted it to them. He told them, also I am permitting it.

The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Zavda: Anything inside of the lips one heals on the Sabbath. Rebbi Ze‘ira objected, did we not state: “A person having a tooth ache should not suck vinegar with them”? Is this not inside from the lips? Rebbi Ze‘ira did not say so, but Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Zavda: Anything inside a body cavity one heals on the Sabbath. Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rebbi Abba bar Zuṭra, Rebbi Ḥanina in the name of Rebbi: One treats the bone of the skull on the Sabbath. Rebbi Ḥiyya the Mede, Rebbi Jona, Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rebbi Abba bar Zuṭra, Rebbi Ḥanina in the name of Rebbi: One treats glands of the throat on the Sabbath. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One treats an infected eye on the Sabbath. There, they say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Tops of hands and feet are a danger. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Red color is dangerous. Rebbi Abin said, one removes the sting of a scorpion on the Sabbath. Rav said, wine for exterior treatment of the eye is permitted, inside the eye it is forbidden. Samuel said, tasteless spit is forbidden for the eye on the Sabbath From this you infer for lichen. The rabbis of Caesarea said, ranula is dangerous. Rebbi Ḥizqiah (said) [from Acco] in the name of the rabbis of Caesarea: spider sickness is dangerous. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: gangrene is dangerous. Rebbi Jeremiah said, one can put sour dough on it on Passover. A boil is permitted. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah says this: “A small needle to remove a thorn.” Otherwise, what is the difference between a thorn and a boil? Darkening of the eye, they asked Rebbi Jeremiah. He told them, is not Rebbi Abba available for you? They asked Rebbi Abba who permitted it to them. He told them, also I am permitting it.

The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Zavda: Anything inside of the lips one heals on the Sabbath. Rebbi Ze‘ira objected, did we not state: “A person having a tooth ache should not suck vinegar with them”? Is this not inside from the lips? Rebbi Ze‘ira did not say so, but Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Zavda: Anything inside a body cavity one heals on the Sabbath. Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rebbi Abba bar Zuṭra, Rebbi Ḥanina in the name of Rebbi: One treats the bone of the skull on the Sabbath. Rebbi Ḥiyya the Mede, Rebbi Jona, Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rebbi Abba bar Zuṭra, Rebbi Ḥanina in the name of Rebbi: One treats glands of the throat on the Sabbath. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One treats an infected eye on the Sabbath. There, they say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Tops of hands and feet are a danger. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Red color is dangerous. Rebbi Abin said, one removes the sting of a scorpion on the Sabbath. Rav said, wine for exterior treatment of the eye is permitted, inside the eye it is forbidden. Samuel said, tasteless spit is forbidden for the eye on the Sabbath From this you infer for lichen. The rabbis of Caesarea said, ranula is dangerous. Rebbi Ḥizqiah (said) [from Acco] in the name of the rabbis of Caesarea: spider sickness is dangerous. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: gangrene is dangerous. Rebbi Jeremiah said, one can put sour dough on it on Passover. A boil is permitted. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah says this: “A small needle to remove a thorn.” Otherwise, what is the difference between a thorn and a boil? Darkening of the eye, they asked Rebbi Jeremiah. He told them, is not Rebbi Abba available for you? They asked Rebbi Abba who permitted it to them. He told them, also I am permitting it.

HALAKHAH: “There are three houses,” etc. Rav and Rebbi Joḥanan both are saying, the Mishnah treats their entry into the Land. The opinion of Rav, who said that one who worships a house makes it forbidden, is the reason that he explains it by their entry into the Land. Following the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan, who said that if somebody dedicates a house one does not commit larceny with it, could he not have explained it by somebody who was worshipping the house? {The effect of] one who worships a house can be voided. At their entry into the Land it could not be voided. What could he do? He removes its clapboards and it is permitted.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Eliezer said this only because of his extirpation. Rebbi Hoshaia asked: If so, then even for a fixed [sacrifice]? Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Hoshaia is of the opinion that he is uprooted from the entire paragraph; but Rebbi Eliezer treats him like a rich commoner. Rebbi Mana said, if Rebbi Eliezer treats him like a rich commoner, then also for hearing a sound, or expression of the lips, as it was stated: Rebbi (Eleazar) [Eliezer] and the Sages did not differ about hearing a sound, or expression of the lips, that he does not bring a male goat but a she-goat. About what did they differ? About impurity of the Sanctuary and its sancta, where Rebbi Eliezer says since he is subject to extirpation why should he not bring a male goat instead of a she-goat? They objected: Is there not the Anointed in the case of idolatry where he does not bring a male goat but a she-goat.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Eliezer said this only because of his extirpation. Rebbi Hoshaia asked: If so, then even for a fixed [sacrifice]? Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Hoshaia is of the opinion that he is uprooted from the entire paragraph; but Rebbi Eliezer treats him like a rich commoner. Rebbi Mana said, if Rebbi Eliezer treats him like a rich commoner, then also for hearing a sound, or expression of the lips, as it was stated: Rebbi (Eleazar) [Eliezer] and the Sages did not differ about hearing a sound, or expression of the lips, that he does not bring a male goat but a she-goat. About what did they differ? About impurity of the Sanctuary and its sancta, where Rebbi Eliezer says since he is subject to extirpation why should he not bring a male goat instead of a she-goat? They objected: Is there not the Anointed in the case of idolatry where he does not bring a male goat but a she-goat.

The Tanna commenced with the evening and then treats of the morning; but while on the subject of the morning, he explains matters connected with the morning, and afterwards explains matters connected with the evening.

Rab Nahman b. Isaac said : R. Judah treats the Grace before and after meals like the Halakot of Derek Eres;

“Bore”: But she only brought him [Moses] up? This tells us that if anyone brings up an orphan boy or girl in his house, the verse treats him as if he had bore him.