unnecessary

Be not curious in unnecessary matters: for more things are shewed unto thee than men understand.

As to the laws themselves, more words are unnecessary, for they are visible in their own nature, and appear to teach not impiety, but the truest piety in the world. They do not make men hate one another, but encourage people to communicate what they have to one another freely; they are enemies to injustice, they take care of righteousness, they banish idleness and expensive living, and instruct men to be content with what they have, and to be laborious in their calling; they forbid men to make war from a desire of getting more, but make men courageous in defending the laws; they are inexorable in punishing malefactors; they admit no sophistry of words, but are always established by actions themselves, which actions we ever propose as surer demonstrations than what is contained in writing only: on which account I am so bold as to say that we are become the teachers of other men, in the greatest number of things, and those of the most excellent nature only; for what is more excellent than inviolable piety? what is more just than submission to laws? and what is more advantageous than mutual love and concord? and this so far that we are to be neither divided by calamities, nor to become injurious and seditious in prosperity; but to contemn death when we are in war, and in peace to apply ourselves to our mechanical occupations, or to our tillage of the ground; while we in all things and all ways are satisfied that God is the inspector and governor of our actions. If these precepts had either been written at first, or more exactly kept by any others before us, we should have owed them thanks as disciples owe to their masters; but if it be visible that we have made use of them more than any other men, and if we have demonstrated that the original invention of them is our own, let the Apions, and the Molons, with all the rest of those that delight in lies and reproaches, stand confuted; but let this and the foregoing book be dedicated to thee, Epaphroditus, who art so great a lover of truth, and by thy means to those that have been in like manner desirous to be acquainted with the affairs of our nation.

But the nature of the incarnation will render unnecessary any inquiry into the soul of Christ. For as He truly possessed flesh, so also He truly possessed a soul. It is difficult indeed both to feel and to state how that which is called in Scripture the soul of God is to be understood; for we acknowledge that nature to be simple, and without any intermixture or addition. In whatever way, however, it is to be understood, it seems, meanwhile, to be named the soul of God; whereas regarding Christ there is no doubt. And therefore there seems to me no absurdity in either understanding or asserting some such thing regarding the holy angels and the other heavenly powers, since that definition of soul appears applicable also to them. For who can rationally deny that they are “sensible and moveable?” But if that definition appear to be correct, according to which a soul is said to be a substance rationally “sensible and moveable,” the same definition would seem also to apply to angels. For what else is in them than rational feeling and motion? Now those beings who are comprehended under the same definition have undoubtedly the same substance. Paul indeed intimates that there is a kind of animal-man who, he says, cannot receive the things of the Spirit of God, but declares that the doctrine of the Holy Spirit seems to him foolish, and that he cannot understand what is to be spiritually discerned. In another passage he says it is sown an animal body, and arises a spiritual body, pointing out that in the resurrection of the just there will be nothing of an animal nature. And therefore we inquire whether there happen to be any substance which, in respect of its being anima, is imperfect. But whether it be imperfect because it falls away from perfection, or because it was so created by God, will form the subject of inquiry when each individual topic shall begin to be discussed in order. For if the animal man receive not the things of the Spirit of God, and because he is animal, is unable to admit the understanding of a better, i.e. of a divine nature, it is for this reason perhaps that Paul, wishing to teach us more plainly what that is by means of which we are able to comprehend those things which are of the Spirit, i.e. spiritual things, conjoins and associates with the Holy Spirit an understanding rather than a soul. For this, I think, he indicates when he says, “I will pray with the spirit, I will pray with the understanding also; I will sing with the spirit, I will sing with the understanding also.” And he does not say that “I will pray with the soul,” but with the spirit and the understanding. Nor does he say, “I will sing with the soul,” but with the spirit and the understanding.

But this is the objection which they generally raise: they say, “If the world had its beginning in time, what was God doing before the world began? For it is at once impious and absurd to say that the nature of God is inactive and immoveable, or to suppose that goodness at one time did not do good, and omnipotence at one time did not exercise its power.” Such is the objection which they are accustomed to make to our statement that this world had its beginning at a certain time, and that, agreeably to our belief in Scripture, we can calculate the years of its past duration. To these propositions I consider that none of the heretics can easily return an answer that will be in conformity with the nature of their opinions. But we can give a logical answer in accordance with the standard of religion, when we say that not then for the first time did God begin to work when He made this visible world; but as, after its destruction, there will be another world, so also we believe that others existed before the present came into being. And both of these positions will be confirmed by the authority of holy Scripture. For that there will be another world after this, is taught by Isaiah, who says, “There will be a new heavens, and a new earth, which I shall make to abide in my sight, saith the Lord;” and that before this world others also existed is shown by Ecclesiastes, in the words: “What is that which hath been? Even that which shall be. And what is that which has been created? Even this which is to be created: and there is nothing altogether new under the sun. Who shall speak and declare, Lo, this is new? It hath already been in the ages which have been before us.” By these testimonies it is established both that there were ages before our own, and that there will be others after it. It is not, however, to be supposed that several worlds existed at once, but that, after the end of this present world, others will take their beginning; respecting which it is unnecessary to repeat each particular statement, seeing we have already done so in the preceding pages.

And now, if we institute a similar examination with regard to the Gospels, how shall it appear otherwise than absurd to take the injunction literally, “Salute no man by the way?” And yet there are simple individuals, who think that our Saviour gave this command to His apostles! How, also, can it appear possible for such an order as this to be observed, especially in those countries where there is a rigorous winter, attended by frost and ice, viz. that one should possess “neither two coats, nor shoes?” And this, that when one is smitten on the right cheek, he is ordered to present the left also, since every one who strikes with the right hand smites the left cheek? This precept also in the Gospels must be accounted among impossibilities, viz. that if the right eye “offend” thee, it is to be plucked out; for even if we were to suppose that bodily eyes were spoken of, how shall it appear appropriate, that when both eyes have the property of sight, the responsibility of the “offence” should be transferred to one eye, and that the right one? Or who shall be considered free of a crime of the greatest enormity, that lays hands upon himself? But perhaps the epistles of the Apostle Paul will appear to be beyond this. For what is his meaning, when he says, “Is any man called, being circumcised? Let him not become uncircumcised.” This expression indeed, in the first place, does not on careful consideration seem to be spoken with reference to the subject of which he was treating at the time, for this discourse consisted of injunctions relating to marriage and to chastity; and these words, therefore, will have the appearance of an unnecessary addition to such a subject. In the second place, however, what objection would there be, if, for the sake of avoiding that unseemliness which is caused by circumcision, a man were able to become uncircumcised? And, in the third place, that is altogether impossible. The object of all these statements on our part, is to show that it was the design of the Holy Spirit, who deigned to bestow upon us the sacred Scriptures, to show that we were not to be edified by the letter alone, or by everything in it,—a thing which we see to be frequently impossible and inconsistent; for in that way not only absurdities, but impossibilities, would be the result; but that we are to understand that certain occurrences were interwoven in this “visible” history, which, when considered and understood in their inner meaning, give forth a law which is advantageous to men and worthy of God.

I must express my surprise that Celsus should class the Odrysians, and Samothracians, and Eleusinians, and Hyperboreans among the most ancient and learned nations, and should not deem the Jews worthy of a place among such, either for their learning or their antiquity, although there are many treatises in circulation among the Egyptians, and Phœnicians, and Greeks, which testify to their existence as an ancient people, but which I have considered it unnecessary to quote. For any one who chooses may read what Flavius Josephus has recorded in his two books, On the Antiquity of the Jews, where he brings together a great collection of writers, who bear witness to the antiquity of the Jewish people; and there exists the Discourse to the Greeks of Tatian the younger, in which with very great learning he enumerates those historians who have treated of the antiquity of the Jewish nation and of Moses. It seems, then, to be not from a love of truth, but from a spirit of hatred, that Celsus makes these statements, his object being to asperse the origin of Christianity, which is connected with Judaism. Nay, he styles the Galactophagi of Homer, and the Druids of the Gauls, and the Getæ, most learned and ancient tribes, on account of the resemblance between their traditions and those of the Jews, although I know not whether any of their histories survive; but the Hebrews alone, as far as in him lies, he deprives of the honour both of antiquity and learning. And again, when making a list of ancient and learned men who have conferred benefits upon their contemporaries [by their deeds], and upon posterity by their writings, he excluded Moses from the number; while of Linus, to whom Celsus assigns a foremost place in his list, there exist neither laws nor discourses which produced a change for the better among any tribes; whereas a whole nation, dispersed throughout the entire world, obey the laws of Moses. Consider, then, whether it is not from open malevolence that he has expelled Moses from his catalogue of learned men, while asserting that Linus, and Musæus, and Orpheus, and Pherecydes, and the Persian Zoroaster, and Pythagoras, discussed these topics, and that their opinions were deposited in books, and have thus been preserved down to the present time. And it is intentionally also that he has omitted to take notice of the myth, embellished chiefly by Orpheus, in which the gods are described as affected by human weaknesses and passions.

Although the Jew, then, may offer no defence for himself in the instances of Ezekiel and Isaiah, when we compare the opening of the heavens to Jesus, and the voice that was heard by Him, to the similar cases which we find recorded in Ezekiel and Isaiah, or any other of the prophets, we nevertheless, so far as we can, shall support our position, maintaining that, as it is a matter of belief that in a dream impressions have been brought before the minds of many, some relating to divine things, and others to future events of this life, and this either with clearness or in an enigmatic manner,—a fact which is manifest to all who accept the doctrine of providence; so how is it absurd to say that the mind which could receive impressions in a dream should be impressed also in a waking vision, for the benefit either of him on whom the impressions are made, or of those who are to hear the account of them from him? And as in a dream we fancy that we hear, and that the organs of hearing are actually impressed, and that we see with our eyes—although neither the bodily organs of sight nor hearing are affected, but it is the mind alone which has these sensations—so there is no absurdity in believing that similar things occurred to the prophets, when it is recorded that they witnessed occurrences of a rather wonderful kind, as when they either heard the words of the Lord or beheld the heavens opened. For I do not suppose that the visible heaven was actually opened, and its physical structure divided, in order that Ezekiel might be able to record such an occurrence. Should not, therefore, the same be believed of the Saviour by every intelligent hearer of the Gospels?—although such an occurrence may be a stumbling-block to the simple, who in their simplicity would set the whole world in movement, and split in sunder the compact and mighty body of the whole heavens. But he who examines such matters more profoundly will say, that there being, as the Scripture calls it, a kind of general divine perception which the blessed man alone knows how to discover, according to the saying of Solomon, “Thou shalt find the knowledge of God;” and as there are various forms of this perceptive power, such as a faculty of vision which can naturally see things that are better than bodies, among which are ranked the cherubim and seraphim; and a faculty of hearing which can perceive voices which have not their being in the air; and a sense of taste which can make use of living bread that has come down from heaven, and that giveth life unto the world; and so also a sense of smelling, which scents such things as leads Paul to say that he is a sweet savour of Christ unto God; and a sense of touch, by which John says that he “handled with his hands of the Word of life;”—the blessed prophets having discovered this divine perception, and seeing and hearing in this divine manner, and tasting likewise, and smelling, so to speak, with no sensible organs of perception, and laying hold on the Logos by faith, so that a healing effluence from it comes upon them, saw in this manner what they record as having seen, and heard what they say they heard, and were affected in a similar manner to what they describe when eating the roll of a book that was given them. And so also Isaac smelled the savour of his son’s divine garments, and added to the spiritual blessing these words: “See, the savour of my son is as the savour of a full field which the Lord blessed.” And similarly to this, and more as a matter to be understood by the mind than to be perceived by the senses, Jesus touched the leper, to cleanse him, as I think, in a two-fold sense,—freeing him not only, as the multitude heard, from the visible leprosy by visible contact, but also from that other leprosy, by His truly divine touch. It is in this way, accordingly, that John testifies when he says, “I beheld the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon Him. And I knew Him not; but He that sent me to baptize with water, the same said to me, Upon whom you will see the Spirit descending, and abiding on Him, the same is He that baptizeth with the Holy Ghost. And I saw, and bear witness, that this is the Son of God.” Now it was to Jesus that the heavens were opened; and on that occasion no one except John is recorded to have seen them opened. But with respect to this opening of the heavens, the Saviour, foretelling to His disciples that it would happen, and that they would see it, says, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye shall see the heavens opened, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man.” And so Paul was carried away into the third heaven, having previously seen it opened, since he was a disciple of Jesus. It does not, however, belong to our present object to explain why Paul says, “Whether in the body, I know not; or whether out of the body, I know not: God knoweth.” But I shall add to my argument even those very points which Celsus imagines, viz. that Jesus Himself related the account of the opening of the heavens, and the descent of the Holy Spirit upon Him at the Jordan in the form of a dove, although the Scripture does not assert that He said that He saw it. For this great man did not perceive that it was not in keeping with Him who commanded His disciples on the occasion of the vision on the mount, “Tell what ye have seen to no man, until the Son of man be risen from the dead,” to have related to His disciples what was seen and heard by John at the Jordan. For it may be observed as a trait of the character of Jesus, that He on all occasions avoided unnecessary talk about Himself; and on that account said, “If I speak of myself, my witness is not true.” And since He avoided unnecessary talk about Himself, and preferred to show by acts rather than words that He was the Christ, the Jews for that reason said to Him, “If thou art the Christ, tell us plainly.” And as it is a Jew who, in the work of Celsus, uses the language to Jesus regarding the appearance of the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove, “This is your own testimony, unsupported save by one of those who were sharers of your punishment, whom you adduce,” it is necessary for us to show him that such a statement is not appropriately placed in the mouth of a Jew. For the Jews do not connect John with Jesus, nor the punishment of John with that of Christ. And by this instance, this man who boasts of universal knowledge is convicted of not knowing what words he ought to ascribe to a Jew engaged in a disputation with Jesus.

Although the Jew, then, may offer no defence for himself in the instances of Ezekiel and Isaiah, when we compare the opening of the heavens to Jesus, and the voice that was heard by Him, to the similar cases which we find recorded in Ezekiel and Isaiah, or any other of the prophets, we nevertheless, so far as we can, shall support our position, maintaining that, as it is a matter of belief that in a dream impressions have been brought before the minds of many, some relating to divine things, and others to future events of this life, and this either with clearness or in an enigmatic manner,—a fact which is manifest to all who accept the doctrine of providence; so how is it absurd to say that the mind which could receive impressions in a dream should be impressed also in a waking vision, for the benefit either of him on whom the impressions are made, or of those who are to hear the account of them from him? And as in a dream we fancy that we hear, and that the organs of hearing are actually impressed, and that we see with our eyes—although neither the bodily organs of sight nor hearing are affected, but it is the mind alone which has these sensations—so there is no absurdity in believing that similar things occurred to the prophets, when it is recorded that they witnessed occurrences of a rather wonderful kind, as when they either heard the words of the Lord or beheld the heavens opened. For I do not suppose that the visible heaven was actually opened, and its physical structure divided, in order that Ezekiel might be able to record such an occurrence. Should not, therefore, the same be believed of the Saviour by every intelligent hearer of the Gospels?—although such an occurrence may be a stumbling-block to the simple, who in their simplicity would set the whole world in movement, and split in sunder the compact and mighty body of the whole heavens. But he who examines such matters more profoundly will say, that there being, as the Scripture calls it, a kind of general divine perception which the blessed man alone knows how to discover, according to the saying of Solomon, “Thou shalt find the knowledge of God;” and as there are various forms of this perceptive power, such as a faculty of vision which can naturally see things that are better than bodies, among which are ranked the cherubim and seraphim; and a faculty of hearing which can perceive voices which have not their being in the air; and a sense of taste which can make use of living bread that has come down from heaven, and that giveth life unto the world; and so also a sense of smelling, which scents such things as leads Paul to say that he is a sweet savour of Christ unto God; and a sense of touch, by which John says that he “handled with his hands of the Word of life;”—the blessed prophets having discovered this divine perception, and seeing and hearing in this divine manner, and tasting likewise, and smelling, so to speak, with no sensible organs of perception, and laying hold on the Logos by faith, so that a healing effluence from it comes upon them, saw in this manner what they record as having seen, and heard what they say they heard, and were affected in a similar manner to what they describe when eating the roll of a book that was given them. And so also Isaac smelled the savour of his son’s divine garments, and added to the spiritual blessing these words: “See, the savour of my son is as the savour of a full field which the Lord blessed.” And similarly to this, and more as a matter to be understood by the mind than to be perceived by the senses, Jesus touched the leper, to cleanse him, as I think, in a two-fold sense,—freeing him not only, as the multitude heard, from the visible leprosy by visible contact, but also from that other leprosy, by His truly divine touch. It is in this way, accordingly, that John testifies when he says, “I beheld the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon Him. And I knew Him not; but He that sent me to baptize with water, the same said to me, Upon whom you will see the Spirit descending, and abiding on Him, the same is He that baptizeth with the Holy Ghost. And I saw, and bear witness, that this is the Son of God.” Now it was to Jesus that the heavens were opened; and on that occasion no one except John is recorded to have seen them opened. But with respect to this opening of the heavens, the Saviour, foretelling to His disciples that it would happen, and that they would see it, says, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye shall see the heavens opened, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man.” And so Paul was carried away into the third heaven, having previously seen it opened, since he was a disciple of Jesus. It does not, however, belong to our present object to explain why Paul says, “Whether in the body, I know not; or whether out of the body, I know not: God knoweth.” But I shall add to my argument even those very points which Celsus imagines, viz. that Jesus Himself related the account of the opening of the heavens, and the descent of the Holy Spirit upon Him at the Jordan in the form of a dove, although the Scripture does not assert that He said that He saw it. For this great man did not perceive that it was not in keeping with Him who commanded His disciples on the occasion of the vision on the mount, “Tell what ye have seen to no man, until the Son of man be risen from the dead,” to have related to His disciples what was seen and heard by John at the Jordan. For it may be observed as a trait of the character of Jesus, that He on all occasions avoided unnecessary talk about Himself; and on that account said, “If I speak of myself, my witness is not true.” And since He avoided unnecessary talk about Himself, and preferred to show by acts rather than words that He was the Christ, the Jews for that reason said to Him, “If thou art the Christ, tell us plainly.” And as it is a Jew who, in the work of Celsus, uses the language to Jesus regarding the appearance of the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove, “This is your own testimony, unsupported save by one of those who were sharers of your punishment, whom you adduce,” it is necessary for us to show him that such a statement is not appropriately placed in the mouth of a Jew. For the Jews do not connect John with Jesus, nor the punishment of John with that of Christ. And by this instance, this man who boasts of universal knowledge is convicted of not knowing what words he ought to ascribe to a Jew engaged in a disputation with Jesus.

We have already shown that Jesus can be regarded neither as an arrogant man, nor a sorcerer; and therefore it is unnecessary to repeat our former arguments, lest, in replying to the tautologies of Celsus, we ourselves should be guilty of needless repetition. And now, in finding fault with our Lord’s genealogy, there are certain points which occasion some difficulty even to Christians, and which, owing to the discrepancy between the genealogies, are advanced by some as arguments against their correctness, but which Celsus has not even mentioned. For Celsus, who is truly a braggart, and who professes to be acquainted with all matters relating to Christianity, does not know how to raise doubts in a skilful manner against the credibility of Scripture. But he asserts that the “framers of the genealogies, from a feeling of pride, made Jesus to be descended from the first man, and from the kings of the Jews.” And he thinks that he makes a notable charge when he adds, that “the carpenter’s wife could not have been ignorant of the fact, had she been of such illustrious descent.” But what has this to do with the question? Granted that she was not ignorant of her descent, how does that affect the result? Suppose that she were ignorant, how could her ignorance prove that she was not descended from the first man, or could not derive her origin from the Jewish kings? Does Celsus imagine that the poor must always be descended from ancestors who are poor, or that kings are always born of kings? But it appears folly to waste time upon such an argument as this, seeing it is well known that, even in our own days, some who are poorer than Mary are descended from ancestors of wealth and distinction, and that rulers of nations and kings have sprung from persons of no reputation.

Others, then, may concede to Celsus that God does not undergo a change, but leads the spectators to imagine that He does; whereas we who are persuaded that the advent of Jesus among men was no mere appearance, but a real manifestation, are not affected by this charge of Celsus. We nevertheless will attempt a reply, because you assert, Celsus, do you not, that it is sometimes allowable to employ deceit and falsehood by way, as it were, of medicine? Where, then, is the absurdity, if such a saving result were to be accomplished, that some such events should have taken place? For certain words, when savouring of falsehood, produce upon such characters a corrective effect (like the similar declarations of physicians to their patients), rather than when spoken in the spirit of truth. This, however, must be our defence against other opponents. For there is no absurdity in Him who healed sick friends, healing the dear human race by means of such remedies as He would not employ preferentially, but only according to circumstances. The human race, moreover, when in a state of mental alienation, had to be cured by methods which the Word saw would aid in bringing back those so afflicted to a sound state of mind. But Celsus says also, that “one acts thus towards enemies when taking measures to escape danger. But God does not fear any one, so as to escape danger by leading into error those who conspire against him.” Now it is altogether unnecessary and absurd to answer a charge which is advanced by no one against our Saviour. And we have already replied, when answering other charges, to the statement that “no one who is either in a state of sickness or mental alienation is a friend of God.” For the answer is, that such arrangements have been made, not for the sake of those who, being already friends, afterwards fell sick or became afflicted with mental disease, but in order that those who were still enemies through sickness of the soul, and alienation of the natural reason, might become the friends of God. For it is distinctly stated that Jesus endured all things on behalf of sinners, that He might free them from sin, and convert them to righteousness.

He continues to say, that “neither have visible things been given to man [by God], but each individual thing comes into existence and perishes for the sake of the safety of the whole, passing agreeably to the change, which I have already mentioned, from one thing to another.” It is unnecessary, however, to linger over the refutation of these statements, which have been already refuted to the best of my ability. And the following, too, has been answered, viz. that “there will neither be more nor less good and evil among mortals.” This point also has been referred to, viz. that “God does not need to amend His work afresh.” But it is not as a man who has imperfectly designed some piece of workmanship, and executed it unskilfully, that God administers correction to the world, in purifying it by a flood or by a conflagration, but in order to prevent the tide of evil from rising to a greater height; and, moreover, I am of opinion that it is at periods which are precisely determined beforehand that He sweeps wickedness away, so as to contribute to the good of the whole world. If, however, he should assert that, after the disappearance of evil, it again comes into existence, such questions will have to be examined in a special treatise. It is, then, always in order to repair what has become faulty that God desires to amend His work afresh. For although, in the creation of the world, all things had been arranged by Him in the most beautiful and stable manner, He nevertheless needed to exercise some healing power upon those who were labouring under the disease of wickedness, and upon a whole world, which was polluted as it were thereby. But nothing has been neglected by God, or will be neglected by Him; for He does at each particular juncture what it becomes Him to do in a perverted and changed world. And as a husbandman performs different acts of husbandry upon the soil and its productions, according to the varying seasons of the year, so God administers entire ages of time, as if they were, so to speak, so many individual years, performing during each one of them what is requisite with a reasonable regard to the care of the world; and this, as it is truly understood by God alone, so also is it accomplished by Him.

We have now, then, to refute that statement of his which runs as follows: “O Jews and Christians, no God or son of a God either came or will come down [to earth]. But if you mean that certain angels did so, then what do you call them? Are they gods, or some other race of beings? Some other race of beings [doubtless], and in all probability demons.” Now as Celsus here is guilty of repeating himself (for in the preceding pages such assertions have been frequently advanced by him), it is unnecessary to discuss the matter at greater length, seeing what we have already said upon this point may suffice. We shall mention, however, a few considerations out of a greater number, such as we deem in harmony with our former arguments, but which have not altogether the same bearing as they, and by which we shall show that in asserting generally that no God, or son of God, ever descended [among men], he overturns not only the opinions entertained by the majority of mankind regarding the manifestation of Deity, but also what was formerly admitted by himself. For if the general statement, that “no God or son of God has come down or will come down,” be truly maintained by Celsus, it is manifest that we have here overthrown the belief in the existence of gods upon the earth who had descended from heaven either to predict the future to mankind or to heal them by means of divine responses; and neither the Pythian Apollo, nor Esculapius, nor any other among those supposed to have done so, would be a god descended from heaven. He might, indeed, either be a god who had obtained as his lot [the obligation] to dwell on earth for ever, and be thus a fugitive, as it were, from the abode of the gods, or he might be one who had no power to share in the society of the gods in heaven; or else Apollo, and Esculapius, and those others who are believed to perform acts on earth, would not be gods, but only certain demons, much inferior to those wise men among mankind, who on account of their virtue ascend to the vault of heaven.

But since he has ridiculed at great length the doctrine of the resurrection of the flesh, which has been preached in the churches, and which is more clearly understood by the more intelligent believer; and as it is unnecessary again to quote his words, which have been already adduced, let us, with regard to the problem (as in an apologetic work directed against an alien from the faith, and for the sake of those who are still “children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive”), state and establish to the best of our ability a few points expressly intended for our readers. Neither we, then, nor the Holy Scriptures, assert that with the same bodies, without a change to a higher condition, “shall those who were long dead arise from the earth and live again;” for in so speaking, Celsus makes a false charge against us. For we may listen to many passages of Scripture treating of the resurrection in a manner worthy of God, although it may suffice for the present to quote the language of Paul from the First Epistle to the Corinthians, where he says: “But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come? Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die. And that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other grain; but God giveth it a body as it hath pleased Him, and to every seed his own body.” Now, observe how in these words he says that there is sown, “not that body that shall be;” but that of the body which is sown and cast naked into the earth (God giving to each seed its own body), there takes place as it were a resurrection: from the seed that was cast into the ground there arising a stalk, e.g. among such plants as the following, viz. the mustard plant, or of a larger tree, as in the olive, or one of the fruit-trees.

Now the reason why circumcision is practised among the Jews is not the same as that which explains its existence among the Egyptians and Colchians, and therefore it is not to be considered the same circumcision. And as he who sacrifices does not sacrifice to the same god, although he appears to perform the rite of sacrifice in a similar manner, and he who offers up prayer does not pray to the same divinity, although he asks the same things in his supplication; so, in the same way, if one performs the rite of circumcision, it by no means follows that it is not a different act from the circumcision performed upon another. For the purpose, and the law, and the wish of him who performs the rite, place the act in a different category. But that the whole subject may be still better understood, we have to remark that the term for “righteousness” is the same among all the Greeks; but righteousness is shown to be one thing according to the view of Epicurus; and another according to the Stoics, who deny the threefold division of the soul; and a different thing again according to the followers of Plato, who hold that righteousness is the proper business of the parts of the soul. And so also the “courage” of Epicurus is one thing, who would undergo some labours in order to escape from a greater number; and a different thing that of the philosopher of the Porch, who would choose all virtue for its own sake; and a different thing still that of Plato, who maintains that virtue itself is the act of the irascible part of the soul, and who assigns to it a place about the breast. And so circumcision will be a different thing according to the varying opinions of those who undergo it. But on such a subject it is unnecessary to speak on this occasion in a treatise like the present; for whoever desires to see what led us to the subject, can read what we have said upon it in the Epistle of Paul to the Romans.

And to regard these myths in a figurative sense, and consider Minerva as representing prudence, let any one show what were the actual facts of her history, upon which this allegory is based. For, supposing honour was given to Minerva as having been a woman of ancient times, by those who instituted mysteries and ceremonies for their followers, and who wished her name to be celebrated as that of a goddess, much more are we forbidden to pay divine honours to Minerva, if we are not permitted to worship so glorious an object as the sun, although we may celebrate its glory. Celsus, indeed, says that “we seem to do the greater honour to the great God when we sing hymns in honour of the sun and Minerva;” but we know it to be the opposite of that. For we sing hymns to the Most High alone, and His Only-begotten, who is the Word and God; and we praise God and His Only-begotten, as do also the sun, the moon, the stars, and all the host of heaven. For these all form a divine chorus, and unite with the just among men in celebrating the praises of the Most High God and His Only-begotten. We have already said that we must not swear by a human king, or by what is called “the fortune of the king.” It is therefore unnecessary for us again to refute these statements: “If you are commanded to swear by a human king, there is nothing wrong in that. For to him has been given whatever there is upon earth; and whatever you receive in this life, you receive from him.” We deny, however, that all things which are on the earth have been given to the king, or that whatever we receive in this life we receive from him. For whatever we receive rightly and honourably we receive from God, and by His providence, as ripe fruits, and “corn which strengtheneth man’s heart, and the pleasant vine, and wine which rejoiceth the heart of man.” And moreover, the fruit of the olive-tree, to make his face to shine, we have from the providence of God.

If one of the trees was capable of bearing a cake of dried figs [weighing sixty manehs], and the other two unable; or, if two could do so, but one cannot, then they may plow them only for their own needs. [This is the rule if the number of trees is] from three to nine, but if there were ten trees or more, whether they produce [the requisite amount of fruit or not] the whole bet seah may be plowed on their account. As it says: “In plowing and in harvesting, you shall rest” (Ex 34:21). It was unnecessary to state plowing and harvesting in the seventh year, rather [what it means is] the plowing of the year preceding which encroaches on the sabbatical year, and the harvest of the seventh year which extends into the year after. Rabbi Ishmael says: just as plowing is an optional act, so harvesting [referred to in the verse] is optional, thus excluding the harvesting of the omer [which is obligatory].

[The crossbeam] of an alley [whose entrance] is more than twenty cubits high should be lowered. Rabbi Judah says: this is unnecessary. And [any entrance] that is wider than ten cubits should be reduced [in width]. But if it has the shape of a doorway there is no need to reduce it even though it is wider than ten cubits.

They asked the elders in Rome, “If [your God] has no desire for idolatry, why does he not abolish it?” They replied, “If it was something unnecessary to the world that was worshipped, he would abolish it; but people worship the sun, moon, stars and planets; should he destroy his universe on account of fools!” They said [to the elders], “If so, he should destroy what is unnecessary for the world and leave what is necessary for the world!” They replied, “[If he did that], we should merely be strengthening the hands of the worshippers of these, because they would say, “know that these are deities, for behold they have not been abolished!”

They asked the elders in Rome, “If [your God] has no desire for idolatry, why does he not abolish it?” They replied, “If it was something unnecessary to the world that was worshipped, he would abolish it; but people worship the sun, moon, stars and planets; should he destroy his universe on account of fools!” They said [to the elders], “If so, he should destroy what is unnecessary for the world and leave what is necessary for the world!” They replied, “[If he did that], we should merely be strengthening the hands of the worshippers of these, because they would say, “know that these are deities, for behold they have not been abolished!”

It was stated: One has to prolong “is One”. Rav Naḥman bar Jacob said: But only at the daleth. Symmachos bar Joseph said: Anyone who prolongs “is One” has his days and years prolonged in wellbeing. Rebbi Jeremiah was prolonging very much. Rebbi Zeïra said to him: So much is unnecessary, only so long that you should think of Him as King of Heaven and Earth and the four directions of the world.

May one raze a bet rova‘ and sow in it five different kinds of grain? If about a six-by-six, for whose infringement one is whipped by Biblical decree, you say it is permitted, then so much more here where you are not whipped by Biblical decree. May one raze at the corners of a six-by-six to make a continously narrowing patch? If in a case where working space does meet working space, you say that it is permitted, then so much more in this case where working space does not meet working space. That was unnecessary. May one raze at the corners of a bet rova‘ to make a continously narrowing patch? If about a six-by-six, for whose infringement one is whipped by Biblical decree, you say it is permitted, then so much more here where you are not whipped by Biblical decree.

It was stated: “Concerning a Gentile’s ḥallah in the Land and a Gentile’s heave outside the Land, one informs him that it is unnecessary, he might eat it, and it may be given to any Cohen, be he Fellow or vulgar.”

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

Rebbi Yasa and Rebbi Immi. One had a toothache and his colleague instructed him; the other one had an earache and his colleague instructed him. We do not know who said what. Since Rebbi Yasa asked Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa’s doctor, how feels Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa’s tooth, and since Rebbi Yasa never said an unnecessary word, it was he who instructed about the tooth.

MISHNAH: If a public road interrupts them he should divert it around it, but the Sages say that this is unnecessary. One makes planks both for a public cistern, a public well, and a private well, but for a private cistern one makes a partition of ten hand-breadths, the words of Rebbi Aqiba. Rebbi Jehudah ben Bava said, one makes planks only for a public well; for everything else one makes a belt ten hand-breadths high.

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

HALAKHAH: The Mishnah if it became impure after rolling. But if it became impure before rolling, he should make them into pieces of single qab. If it was kneaded on the holiday. But if it was kneaded before the holiday, it is as it was stated: “if one kneads dough on a holiday, he separates its ḥallah on the holiday. If he kneaded it before the holiday but forgot to take its ḥallah, it is forbidden to move it; it is unnecessary to say, to take ḥallah from it.” If he mixed water and flour? He only mentioned “kneaded”, so not when he mixed? Rebbi Samuel, brother of Rebbi Berekhiah, said: explain it if the dough was impure where he takes ḥallah only at the end. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, it should have been the rule that for pure dough one should take ḥallah only at the end. They instituted that one should take it at the start, lest the dough become impure. The Mishnah is about the holiday of Passover; therefore on Pentecost and Tabernacles it is permitted. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun, Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of Rebbi Aḥa, even on Pentecost and Tabernacles it is prohibited, because of no work shall be done on them.

HALAKHAH: From where the cleaning of the interior altar? Rebbi Pedat in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: He shall throw it next to the altar, to the East, on the place of ashes. It is unnecessary. If to designate [the place], it already is written, next to the altar. If to teach you that it should be put to the East of the ramp, it already is written, to the East. Also he explained, next to the altar, next to the altar. Since in one case it is to the East of the ramp, so in the other case it is to the East of the ramp. From where that it is forbidden for usufruct? Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: to a pure place, that its place shall be pure. Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rebbi Eleazar did not say so but, from where that the cleaning of the exterior altar is forbidden for usufruct? The verse says, to the place of ashes, that it be its place forever. From where the cleaning of the interior altar? He shall sprinkle on it, he shall burn incense. Since sprinkling is on its body, also burning incense on its body. From where that the interior altar is forbidden for usufruct? An argument de minore ad majus. If from the exterior altar it is forbidden, so much more from the interior.

But does the verse not speak of cattle? Where does the verse imply that it is written about the daily morning sacrifice? Simeon bar Abba, Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: It is written here arranging, and it is written there, the Cohen shall arrange them. Since concerning the arrangement mentioned there, the verse speaks about the daily morning sacrifice, so also concerning the arrangement mentioned here, the verse speaks about the daily morning sacrifice. Ulla bar Ismael in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, this is unnecessary. From the meaning of they shall arrange, do we not understand that they are two? And you explain, they shall arrange, two; the sons of Aaron, two; the priests, two; and it was stated so: Nothing precedes the daily sacrifice but incense.

It was stated: If he slaughtered outside he is liable, if he took the fistful inside he is not liable. If he collected coals and burned the incense when the blood was spilled, he has to bring another bull and enter with its blood. If the blood was spilled before he burned the incense, it is an invalid collection of coals and he has to start again collecting coals. If there was a doubt whether the blood was spilled before he burned the incense or after he burned the incense, you cannot bring another bull and enter with its blood since I am saying that the blood was spilled before he burned the incense and the collection of coals was invalid, and he has to start again collecting coals. You cannot do this since I am saying that the blood was spilled after he burned the incense and the collection of coals was valid, and he is liable because of unnecessary entry. The service has to stop. You find to say, the services of that day are annulled.

It was stated: Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, balsamum is only the sap of the (qtab) [qtaf] tree. For what comes Carshina lye? In it one polished the cloves. For what does (Qanrisin) [caper] wine come? In it one (polishes) [soaks] cloves that it should be strong. Would not be urine good for this? Only one does not introduce bad smell into the Temple courtyard because of decorum. And when he was pulverizing he was saying: be well pulverized, be well pulverized, for voice is good for compounding. If he left out one of its ingredients or added honey he invalidated it. If he failed to add salt or added smoke producing herb he became liable for death. Rebbi Zeˋura said, and he sins because of unnecessary entry.

Everybody agrees that if he brought them inside one by one, he atoned, but he transgresses because of unnecessary entry. About which one does he transgress? The colleagues say, about the last one. Rebbi Yose said to him, one tells him to enter and you are saying so? But it is about the first one. There, we have stated: “If he prostrated himself, or tarried that he could have prostrated himself, or left on a lengthy path, he is liable.” About which one is he liable? The colleagues say, about the first one. Rebbi Yose said to him, one tells him to leave and you are saying so? But it is about the last one.

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked, what could He have said instead of will not be deprived? “Shall not eat”? All eating in the Torah is by the volume of an olive, but here by the volume of a date. Rav Hoshaia said, “watch yourself, lest, not be deprived,” would be three warnings. Rebbi Ḥuna said, watch yourself regarding the saying which I said to you, watch yourself in matters of skin disease to be very careful and act, etc. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: Punishment could [not] have been said about work since it is unnecessary. I could have inferred it from deprivation. [Since for deprivation] which is minor one is liable to extirpation, for work which is major it should be logical that one should be liable for extirpation. Therefore punishment was spelled out for work only to imply a warning preceding it. Since the punishment indicated for work is preceded by a warning, also the punishment indicated for deprivation is preceded by a warning. Rebbi Zeˋira said, this implies that one may infer about an “equal cut” even if it is free only on one side. Rebbi Yudan said, Is that not Rebbi Aqiba’s? And Rebbi Aqiba said, one infers about an “equal cut” even if it is not free.

It is difficult for the House of Hillel, could he not have the right to separate heave? Think of it, if he made a stipulation! One because of the other. And why was ḥallah stated? Because of ḥallah which was separated on the holiday. As it was stated: “if one kneads dough on a holiday, he separates its ḥallah on the holiday. If he kneaded it before the holiday but forgot to take its ḥallah, it is forbidden to move it; it is unnecessary to say, to take ḥallah from it.” If he mixed water and flour? He only mentioned “kneaded”, so not when he mixed? Rebbi Samuel, brother of Rebbi Berekhiah, said: explain it if the dough was impure where he takes ḥallah only at the end. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, it should have been the rule that for pure dough one should take ḥallah only at the end. They instituted that one should take it at the start, lest the dough become impure. The Mishnah is about the holiday of Passover; therefore on Pentecost and Tabernacles it is permitted. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun, Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of Rebbi Aḥa, even on Pentecost and Tabernacles it is prohibited, because of no work shall be done on them.

In any case mentioned in the Torah for whom a Cohen defiles himself an Israel mourns. They added to these his maternal brother and sister and his married sister; he mourns and is in deep mourning but would not defile himself. For his preliminarily wedded wife he neither mourns nor is a deep mourner nor defiles himself. It was stated: About any one would mourn one joins in the mourning. Rav’s sister died. He commanded to his son Ḥiyya, when you will visit us, take off your shoes. The sons of Rebbi Ḥanina the brother of Rebbi Mana, died. They came and asked Rebbi Yose, does one have to overturn the bed? He told them, it is unnecessary. Does one have to sleep on an overturned bed? He told them, it is unnecessary. What about reading the Shema` and praying? He told them, let us understand from the following: If he was occupied for corpse digging a grave and the time for reading the Shema` and praying arrived, he moves to a place of purity, puts on his tefillin, reads the Shema` and prays.

In any case mentioned in the Torah for whom a Cohen defiles himself an Israel mourns. They added to these his maternal brother and sister and his married sister; he mourns and is in deep mourning but would not defile himself. For his preliminarily wedded wife he neither mourns nor is a deep mourner nor defiles himself. It was stated: About any one would mourn one joins in the mourning. Rav’s sister died. He commanded to his son Ḥiyya, when you will visit us, take off your shoes. The sons of Rebbi Ḥanina the brother of Rebbi Mana, died. They came and asked Rebbi Yose, does one have to overturn the bed? He told them, it is unnecessary. Does one have to sleep on an overturned bed? He told them, it is unnecessary. What about reading the Shema` and praying? He told them, let us understand from the following: If he was occupied for corpse digging a grave and the time for reading the Shema` and praying arrived, he moves to a place of purity, puts on his tefillin, reads the Shema` and prays.

If his father-in-law or his mother-in-law or one of his wife’s relatives died, he cannot force her neither to put on kohl, nor make-up but behaves with her just as she behaves. And so he, if her father-in-law or her mother-in-law or one of her husband’s relatives died, puts on neither kohl nor make-up but behaves with him just as he behaves. Samuel said, they said this only about his father-in-law or his mother-in-law. Rebbi Abba bar Cohen said before Rebbi Yose: Rebbi Judah bar Pazi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If he dwells with him. Rebbi Yose met Rebbi Judah bar Pazi. He asked him, did you hear this from your father? He said to him, my father did not say so. In fact, the brother of Bar Nehemiah’s wife died. They came and asked him, does one have to overturn the bed? He told them, it is unnecessary. What about reading the Shema` and praying? He told them, let us understand from the following: If he was occupied digging a grave for a corpse and the time for reading the Shema` and praying arrived, he moves to a place of purity, puts on his tefillin, reads the Shema` and prays.

HALAKHAH: “The father is not obligated to support his daughter,” etc. It is meritorious to feed one’s daughters, unnecessary to say this of sons. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa said, it is meritorious to feed one’s daughters. Some Tannaim state, the sons are most important. Some Tannaim state, the daughters are most important. He who says the sons are most important, for the study of Torah. He who says the daughters are most important, that they should not go outside for bad behavior.

Hillel the Elder had eighty pairs of students. The greatest among them was Jonathan ben Uzziel, the least important Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai. Once he fell sick and all came to visit him. Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai waited in the courtyard. He said to them, where is the least important among you who is a head in wisdom and a head for generations? Unnecessary to speak of the greatest among you! They said, he is in the courtyard. He said to them, let him enter. When he entered, he said to them “to let my lovers inherit substance; their treasuries I shall fill.”

A case came before Rebbi Joshua ben Levi. He said to him, it is unnecessary. The opinion of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi seems inverted. There, Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, there is a difference because they are not conversant with the fine points of bills of divorce, but here, he says so? The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: What you said was in earlier times when no Fellows were found outside the Land, but now that there are Fellows found outside the Land, they are competent. But did we not state, “and one who brings there”? And even if you say that no Fellows are found outside the Land, are we not found in the Land of Israel? In order not to make a distinction in the bills of divorce from outside the Land. But then one who brings from overseas should not have to say: “It was written before me and signed before me.” Not to make a distinction in the bills of divorce in the Land of Israel. What about it? One is restrictive in a simple case because of the complicated one and one is not permissive in the complicated because of the easy one. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Simeon bar Abba: This of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, if it was done. But from the start even Rebbi Joshua ben Levi agrees.

“ ‘Give this mina to X,’ then he died. If the heirs want to hinder [the delivery] they are powerless. It is unnecessary to say that it is so if he said, acquire for him, if he said, accept by my orders.” Rebbi Abba barMamal said, this baraita refers to a sick person. If he is sick, does he not have to say: acquire for him, accept for him? Rebbi Mana said, I confirmed this by what Rebbi Abba bar Rav Huna said in the name of Rav: They treated verbal instructions by a sick person as if they were written and delivered. But only if he died from that sickness, not if he recovered, he did not have to say: acquire for him, accept for him.

There, we have stated: “If somebody writes his property over to his sons, he has to write: From today and after death. Rebbi Yose says, this is unnecessary.” What is Rebbi Yose’s reason? The date of the document is its proof. The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: This is no condition. Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It applies neither to bills of divorce nor to gifts. Rebbi Ila said, for a gift; since he said “from today”, the gift is irrevocable. Why did he write “after death”? To reserve the yield to himself. But in bills of divorce, since he wrote “from today” in the bill, it would be a separation. Why did he write “after death”? To reserve her body to himself. Rebbi Bibon bar Cahana said before Rebbi Ilai, not to reserve her earnings for himself? He answered, we do not find a woman married to one man and her earnings belonging to another. Rebbi Ze‘ira praised him for this and called him “son of the Torah.”

MISHNAH: One who hires workers and tells them to start early and work late, at a place where it is not customary to start early or work late cannot force them to do so. At a place where it is customary to feed them, he has to feed them; to supply a snack, he has to supply it, always following local custom. It happened that Rebbi Joḥanan ben Matthew said to his son, go and hire workers for us. He awarded them food, but when he returned to his father, the latter told him, even if you serve them Solomon’s meal in his time you did not fulfill your pledge since they are descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. But before they start work go and tell them: On condition that your only claim be for bread and legumes. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, that was unnecessary; one always follows local custom.

MISHNAH: One who writes his properties over to his sons must write: “from today and after my death,” the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Yose said, it is unnecessary. If one writes his properties over to his son for the time after his death, the father cannot sell them because they are written over to the son; the son cannot sell because they are in the father’s possession. If the father sold, they are sold until he dies. If the son sold, the buyer has no claim until the father dies. The father harvests and feeds anybody he pleases; what becomes part of his estate belongs to the heirs.

Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: “Grabbing” is mentioned for the unpaid keeper and “grabbing” is mentioned for the paid keeper, but “grabbing” mentioned for the unpaid keeper is not comparable to “grabbing” mentioned for the paid keeper. “Grabbing” mentioned for the unpaid keeper does not make him liable unless he move it. “Grabbing” mentioned for the paid keeper, he is liable from the moment he puts his staff and his bag on it. Rebbi Yose ben Nehorai heard this and said, I am not accepting this, but in any case he is not liable unless he move it. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: But did not Rebbi Hoshaia state it in this way? If “grabbing” had not been mentioned for the unpaid keeper as unnecessary, I would have inferred from the recipient of a fee. Since the recipient of a fee, with whom the Torah was strict, does not become liable unless he move it, it is only logical that an unpaid keeper, with whom the Torah was lenient, not be liable unless he move it. For which purpose was “grabbing” mentioned for the unpaid keeper since it was unnecessary? To be strict with the recipient of a fee; from the moment he puts his staff or his bag on it he is liable. Rebbi Yose said, if you say so, you infer about the premise to restrict it. For one could say to him, since the recipient of a fee, with whom the Torah was strict, does not become liable unless he move it, the unpaid keeper, with whom the Torah was lenient, should not be liable even if he move it. But it must be the following: “Grabbing” should not have been mentioned for the paid keeper as unnecessary, for I would have inferred from the unpaid keeper. Since the unpaid keeper, with whom the Torah was lenient, is not liable unless he move it, the recipient of a fee, with whom the Torah was strict, becomes liable when he moves it. For which purpose was “grabbing” mentioned for the recipient of a fee since it was unnecessary? To be strict; from the moment he puts his staff or his bag on it he is liable.

Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: “Grabbing” is mentioned for the unpaid keeper and “grabbing” is mentioned for the paid keeper, but “grabbing” mentioned for the unpaid keeper is not comparable to “grabbing” mentioned for the paid keeper. “Grabbing” mentioned for the unpaid keeper does not make him liable unless he move it. “Grabbing” mentioned for the paid keeper, he is liable from the moment he puts his staff and his bag on it. Rebbi Yose ben Nehorai heard this and said, I am not accepting this, but in any case he is not liable unless he move it. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: But did not Rebbi Hoshaia state it in this way? If “grabbing” had not been mentioned for the unpaid keeper as unnecessary, I would have inferred from the recipient of a fee. Since the recipient of a fee, with whom the Torah was strict, does not become liable unless he move it, it is only logical that an unpaid keeper, with whom the Torah was lenient, not be liable unless he move it. For which purpose was “grabbing” mentioned for the unpaid keeper since it was unnecessary? To be strict with the recipient of a fee; from the moment he puts his staff or his bag on it he is liable. Rebbi Yose said, if you say so, you infer about the premise to restrict it. For one could say to him, since the recipient of a fee, with whom the Torah was strict, does not become liable unless he move it, the unpaid keeper, with whom the Torah was lenient, should not be liable even if he move it. But it must be the following: “Grabbing” should not have been mentioned for the paid keeper as unnecessary, for I would have inferred from the unpaid keeper. Since the unpaid keeper, with whom the Torah was lenient, is not liable unless he move it, the recipient of a fee, with whom the Torah was strict, becomes liable when he moves it. For which purpose was “grabbing” mentioned for the recipient of a fee since it was unnecessary? To be strict; from the moment he puts his staff or his bag on it he is liable.

Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: “Grabbing” is mentioned for the unpaid keeper and “grabbing” is mentioned for the paid keeper, but “grabbing” mentioned for the unpaid keeper is not comparable to “grabbing” mentioned for the paid keeper. “Grabbing” mentioned for the unpaid keeper does not make him liable unless he move it. “Grabbing” mentioned for the paid keeper, he is liable from the moment he puts his staff and his bag on it. Rebbi Yose ben Nehorai heard this and said, I am not accepting this, but in any case he is not liable unless he move it. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: But did not Rebbi Hoshaia state it in this way? If “grabbing” had not been mentioned for the unpaid keeper as unnecessary, I would have inferred from the recipient of a fee. Since the recipient of a fee, with whom the Torah was strict, does not become liable unless he move it, it is only logical that an unpaid keeper, with whom the Torah was lenient, not be liable unless he move it. For which purpose was “grabbing” mentioned for the unpaid keeper since it was unnecessary? To be strict with the recipient of a fee; from the moment he puts his staff or his bag on it he is liable. Rebbi Yose said, if you say so, you infer about the premise to restrict it. For one could say to him, since the recipient of a fee, with whom the Torah was strict, does not become liable unless he move it, the unpaid keeper, with whom the Torah was lenient, should not be liable even if he move it. But it must be the following: “Grabbing” should not have been mentioned for the paid keeper as unnecessary, for I would have inferred from the unpaid keeper. Since the unpaid keeper, with whom the Torah was lenient, is not liable unless he move it, the recipient of a fee, with whom the Torah was strict, becomes liable when he moves it. For which purpose was “grabbing” mentioned for the recipient of a fee since it was unnecessary? To be strict; from the moment he puts his staff or his bag on it he is liable.

Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: “Grabbing” is mentioned for the unpaid keeper and “grabbing” is mentioned for the paid keeper, but “grabbing” mentioned for the unpaid keeper is not comparable to “grabbing” mentioned for the paid keeper. “Grabbing” mentioned for the unpaid keeper does not make him liable unless he move it. “Grabbing” mentioned for the paid keeper, he is liable from the moment he puts his staff and his bag on it. Rebbi Yose ben Nehorai heard this and said, I am not accepting this, but in any case he is not liable unless he move it. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: But did not Rebbi Hoshaia state it in this way? If “grabbing” had not been mentioned for the unpaid keeper as unnecessary, I would have inferred from the recipient of a fee. Since the recipient of a fee, with whom the Torah was strict, does not become liable unless he move it, it is only logical that an unpaid keeper, with whom the Torah was lenient, not be liable unless he move it. For which purpose was “grabbing” mentioned for the unpaid keeper since it was unnecessary? To be strict with the recipient of a fee; from the moment he puts his staff or his bag on it he is liable. Rebbi Yose said, if you say so, you infer about the premise to restrict it. For one could say to him, since the recipient of a fee, with whom the Torah was strict, does not become liable unless he move it, the unpaid keeper, with whom the Torah was lenient, should not be liable even if he move it. But it must be the following: “Grabbing” should not have been mentioned for the paid keeper as unnecessary, for I would have inferred from the unpaid keeper. Since the unpaid keeper, with whom the Torah was lenient, is not liable unless he move it, the recipient of a fee, with whom the Torah was strict, becomes liable when he moves it. For which purpose was “grabbing” mentioned for the recipient of a fee since it was unnecessary? To be strict; from the moment he puts his staff or his bag on it he is liable.

He should not send him amphoras sold to the grocer because that is like claiming an unnecessary claim. One should not invite another knowing that he will not accept. He should not offer many gifts of closeness knowing that he does not want [them]. What is “of closeness”? He trusts another corner. And in Jerusalem he was switching his ‘ikhla from right to left.

Nay, he must be thinking of the end of the first watch, the beginning of the last watch, and the middle of the central watch. Or if thou wilt, I can say that in every case he is thinking of the end of the watches ; and shouldest thou urge that a sign of the end of the last watch is unnecessary,

[The object was] to refute him who declared that it is unnecessary to utter a benediction over the study of the Mishnah ; hence we are informed that likewise for the Mishnah it is necessary to utter a benediction.

'Ulla said : [He must bow] until he sees a ring [of flesh formed] opposite his heart. R. Hannina said : If he lowered his head, more than that is unnecessary. Raba said : That is so, if it gives him pain [to bow low] and he appears like one making obeisance.

Surely it is required [to teach as follows :] First, that the All-merciful declares [the owner] must redeem it and then eat it ; and second, only those things which require "a song of praise" require redemption, but if they do not require "a song of praise," redemption is unnecessary ! This is according to the statement of R. Samuel b. Nahmani in the name of R. Jonathan who said : [not translated] Whence is it that we say "a song of praise" only over wine ? As it is said, "And the vine said unto them, Should I leave my wine which cheereth God and man?" (Judges ix. 13). If it cheereth man, how does it cheer God ? Hence it is to be inferred that we have "a song of praise" only over wine.

Abbai said to him : But according to the Tanna of the school of R. Ishmael who declared, "He must crumble [the meal-offerings] until they return to the condition of flour [before eating thereof]," it would then be unnecessary to pronounce the benediction "...Who bringest forth bread from the earth." And if thou sayest that is so, lo there is a teaching : If he gathered together from all of them about the size of an olive and ate them, should it be leaven he incurs the penalty of excision, and if unleaven, a man can therewith comply with the requirements of the law during Passover!

It has been reported : If pieces of bread and whole loaves were set before them, Rab Huna declares that the benediction is to be pronounced over the pieces and it is not necessary over the loave. R. Johanan declared : [To say the benediction over] the whole loaf is the best way to perform the religious duty ; but should there be a piece of wheaten-bread and a loaf of barley-bread, all agree that the benediction should be pronounced over the former and is unnecessary over the latter.

Rab declared: [If one broke the bread and pronounced the benediction, and before eating handed a piece to another saying,] "Take it, the benediction has been made; take it, the benediction has been made ! " it is unnecessary for him to pronounce it again [before partaking of the bread]. [But if before eating he says,] "Bring salt, bring the relish," he must repeat the benediction. R. Johanan declared that even if he said, "Bring salt, bring the relish," he likewise need not repeat the benediction. [Should he, however, say,] "Mix food for the oxen ! Mix food for the oxen !" the benediction must be repeated. Rab Sheshet declared that even if he said "Mix food for the oxen," he also need not repeat the benediction. For Rab Judah said in the name of Rab: A man must not eat his meal before giving food to his cattle ; as it is said, "And I will give grass in thy fields for thy cattle" and then "thou shalt eat and be satisfied" (Deut. xi. 15).

If so, I will quote the continuation : R. Judah says : He pronounces the benediction over the olive, because it belongs to the seven species ! Does not R. Judah agree with the Mishnaic teaching : In the case of a food which is the principal thing and together with it is something accessory, the benediction is to be uttered over the former and there is no necessity for a benediction over the latter? Shouldest thou declare that here also R. Judah is not in agreement, lo there is a teaching : R. Judah says : If the olive is only there on account of the radish, he pronounces the benediction over the radish and it is unnecessary over the olive !

We certainly deal here with the case where the radish is the principal item ; and where R. Judah and the Rabbis differ is in another matter. The text is defective and should read thus : [There were before him] If radishes and olives were before him, he says the benediction over the former and it is unnecessary over the latter. Of what does it speak here? When the radish is the principal item ; but should that not be so, all agree that he says the benediction over one and then over the other. Where there are two species, the benediction for which is the same, he says the benediction over any one he pleases R. Judah says : He utters it over the olive, because it is one of the seven species.

They asked Ben Zoma : Why is it said, "Articles of food brought in connection with the meal, in the course of the meal, require a benediction neither before nor after"? He replied : Because [the benediction over] the bread makes it unnecessary. If so, let the bread make [a benediction] unnecessary also for the wine ! It is different with wine,

They asked Ben Zoma : Why is it said, "Articles of food brought in connection with the meal, in the course of the meal, require a benediction neither before nor after"? He replied : Because [the benediction over] the bread makes it unnecessary. If so, let the bread make [a benediction] unnecessary also for the wine ! It is different with wine,

The question was asked : How is it if wine is brought in the course of the meal — does it make the benediction over the wine after the meal unnecessary? Shouldest thou wish to quote our Mishnah : If a man said the benediction over wine before the meal, he is exempt from saying it over the wine after the meal — this is because both of them are for drinking ; but here, since one is for steeping and the other for drinking, it is not so ; or perhaps that makes no difference ?

The question was asked : Are Bet Shammai in disagreement with the first clause of this teaching, or is it perhaps with the second clause? They are in disagreement with the first clause; for the first Tanna declares : If he said it over the bread, he is exempt from saying it over the dainty, so how much more [is it unnecessary for him to say a benediction] over a cooked dish ; then Bet Shammai come to declare that not only does [the benediction over] the bread not exempt that over the dainty, but it does not even exempt that over a cooked dish ! Or is it perhaps with the second clause that Bet Shammai disagree? For it teaches : [Having said the benediction] over the dainty, he is not exempt from saying it over the bread ; it is [the benediction over] the bread from which he is not exempt, but he is exempt from that over the cooked dish ; and then Bet Shammai come to say : He is not even exempt from that over the cooked dish!

MISHNAH If they set before him salted food first and with it bread, he says the benediction over the salted food and this makes it unnecessary over the bread, because the bread is something accessory to it. This is the general rule : In the case of a food which is the principal thing and together with it is something accessory, the benediction is to be uttered over the former and there is no necessity for a benediction over the latter.

R. Isaac said : [This reasoning] is unnecessary. Behold it states, "And He will bless thy bread and water" (Exod. xxiii. 25)— read not "And He will bless" [uberak] but "And bless thou" [ubarak]. When is it called "bread" ? Before one eats it.

R. Nathan said : [This reasoning] is unnecessary. Behold it states, "As soon as ye are come into the city, ye shall straightway find him, before he go up to the high place to eat ; for the people will not eat until he come, because he doth bless the sacrifice ; and afterwards they eat that are bidden" (I Sam. ix. 13).

I have here only the benediction for meals ; whence is the benediction over Torah derived? R. Ishmael said : By a fortiori reasoning — for temporal life one says a benediction ; how much more so for the life of the world to come! R. Hiyya b. Nahmani, the disciple of R. Ishmael, says in the name of R. Ishmael : [This reasoning] is unnecessary ; for it states, "For the good land which He hath given thee" (Deut. viii. 10) and elsewhere it is stated, "And I will give thee the tables of stone, and the law and the commandments," etc. (Exod. xxiv, 12).

R. Judah b. Batyra said : [This reasoning] is unnecessary ; for it states, "Good" (Deut. viii. 7) and "the good" (ibid. 5:10) — "good" i.e. Torah, as it is said "For I give you good doctrine" (Prov. iv. 2); "the good" i.e. the rebuilding of Jerusalem, as it is said "That goodly hill-country and Lebanon" (Deut. iii. 25).

Raba said : The Halakah is in agreement with R. 'Akiba. Rabina and Rab Hamma b. Buzi visited the house of the Exilarch. [When about to say Grace] Rab Hamma stood up and looked about to see whether there were a hundred people present. Rabina said to him : It is unnecessary ; thus said Raba : The Halakah is in agreement with R. 'Akiba.

[He who beholds] a place from which idolatry has been uprooted. Our Rabbis have taught : (Who sees a statue of Hermes says, "Blessed... Who hast shown long-suffering to those who transgress Thy will"), [If he sees] a place from which idolatry has been uprooted, he should say, "Blessed... Who hast uprooted idolatry from our land ; and as it has been uprooted from this place, so may it be uprooted from all places of Israel. And do Thou turn the heart of those who serve idols to serve Thee." But if this is outside the Land [of Israel], it is unnecessary to say "And do Thou turn the heart of those who serve idols to serve Thee," because most of them are gentiles. R. Simeon b. Eleazar said : The benediction should also be uttered outside the Land, because they will in the future become converted ; as it is said, "For then will I turn to the peoples a pure language" (Zeph. iii. 9).

Come and hear : If the wine is changed [for a better kind during the meal] there is no necessity to utter another benediction; but if he changed his place [and other wine is brought to him] he should utter a further benediction ; and Rab Joseph b. Abba said in the name of R. Johanan : Although it has been stated that if the wine is changed another benediction is unnecessary, still he says, "Blessed... Who art good and dispensest good" ! Here also there are the other members of the company who drink with him.

R. Johanan can reply to thee : It is obvious that according to R. Judah, if a man made a purchase and then a fresh purchase, he also must say a benediction [for the latter]; but the point of variance [between R. Judah and R. Meir] is where the man already possessed the article and made a fresh purchase, to show the extreme view taken by R. Meir; for even if he made a purchase, already possessing a similar article, there is no necessity for a benediction, how much more unnecessary is it if he purchased and then made a fresh purchase.

But it is not so ! For lo, Rab Judah said in the name of Rab : A man should always accustom himself [to perform his natural functions] morning and evening so that it will be unnecessary for him to go far [and find a secluded spot]. And further, Raba used to go as far as a Mil by day ; but at night he would say to his attendant, "Prepare for me a place in the street of the town." Similarly used R. Zera to say to his attendant, "See whether there is anybody behind the Seminary, as I wish to relieve myself"! Read not [in the Baraita] "in the same place," but read "in the same manner that he relieves himself by day."

It was stated above : "Rab Judah said in the name of Rab : A man should always accustom himself [to perform his natural functions] morning and evening, so that it will be unnecessary for him to go far [and find a secluded spot]."

R. Jose b. Judah says : [This reasoning] is unnecessary ; for it is stated, "For none might enter within the king's gate clothed with sackcloth" (Esther iv. 2) — and is there not here an a fortiori deduction : If it is thus with sackcloth which is not a disgusting thing in the presence of human beings, must not expectoration, which is disgusting in the presence of the supreme King of kings, be all the more prohibited !

GEMARA. We have learned elsewhere : [The crossbeam] of an alley [whose entrance] is more than twenty cubits high should be lowered. Rabbi Judah says: this is unnecessary.

What is the reason of him who says that the rule of lavud applies in the middle? — Because it has been taught: If a beam protrudes from one wall but does not touch the opposite wall, and similarly in the case of two beams, one protruding from one wall and one from the other and not touching each other, if [the space between them is] less than three [handbreadths] it is unnecessary to provide another beam; if it is three [handbreadths] it is necessary to provide another beam. And [what does] the other [answer to this]?

1) Has it not in fact been taught: if a beam was protruding from one wall, but was not touching the opposite wall, and similarly if two beams, one protruding from one wall and one from the other, were not touching each other, and [the space between them is] less than three [handbreadths] it is unnecessary to supply another beam, but if it was three [handbreadths] it is necessary to supply another beam.

if the space was less than four [handbreadths] it is unnecessary to bring another beam, if not, it is necessary to bring another beam.