upheld

And I looked, and there was none to help; and I wondered that there was none to uphold: therefore mine own arm brought salvation unto me; and my fury, it upheld me.

And recovered again the temple renowned all the world over, and freed the city, and upheld the laws which were going down, the Lord being gracious unto them with all favour:

And thus the affair being made manifest, Plato the bishop, having heard of the presence of the holy Apostle Matthew, met him with all the clergy; and having fallen to the ground, they kissed his feet. And Matthew raised them, and went with them into the church, and the child Jesus was also with him. And Matthew, having come to the gate of the church, stood upon a certain lofty and immoveable stone; and when the whole city ran together, especially the brethren who had believed, began to say: Men and women who appear in our sight, heretofore believing in the universe, but now knowing Him who has upheld and made the universe; until now worshipping the Satyr, and mocked by ten thousand false gods, but now through Jesus Christ acknowledging the one and only God, Lord, Judge; who have laid aside the immeasurable greatness of evil, and put on love, which is of like nature with affectionateness, towards men; once strangers to Christ, but now confessing Him Lord and God; formerly without form, but now transformed through Christ;— behold, the staff which you see in my hand, which Jesus, in whom you have believed and will believe, gave me; perceive now what comes to pass through me, and acknowledge the riches of the greatness which He will this day make for you. For, behold, I shall plant this rod in this place, and it shall be a sign to your generations, and it shall become a tree, great and lofty and flourishing, and its fruit beautiful to the view and good to the sight; and the fragrance of perfumes shall come forth from it, and there shall be a vine twining round it, full of clusters; and from the top of it honey coming down, and every flying creature shall find covert in its branches; and a fountain of water shall come forth from the root of it, having swimming and creeping things, giving drink to all the country round about.

And now two of the legions had completed their banks on the eighth day of the month Lous [Ab]. Whereupon Titus gave orders that the battering rams should be brought, and set over against the western edifice of the inner temple; for before these were brought, the firmest of all the other engines had battered the wall for six days together without ceasing, without making any impression upon it; but the vast largeness and strong connexion of the stones were superior to that engine, and to the other battering rams also. Other Romans did indeed undermine the foundations of the northern gate, and after a world of pains removed the outermost stones, yet was the gate still upheld by the inner stones, and stood still unhurt; till the workmen, despairing of all such attempts by engines and crows, brought their ladders to the cloisters. Now the Jews did not interrupt them in so doing; but when they were gotten up, they fell upon them, and fought with them; some of them they thrust down, and threw them backwards headlong; others of them they met and slew; they also beat many of those that went down the ladders again, and slew them with their swords before they could bring their shields to protect them; nay, some of the ladders they threw down from above when they were full of armed men; a great slaughter was made of the Jews also at the same time, while those that bare the ensigns fought hard for them, as deeming it a terrible thing, and what would tend to their great shame, if they permitted them to be stolen away. Yet did the Jews at length get possession of these engines, and destroyed those that had gone up the ladders, while the rest were so intimidated by what those suffered who were slain, that they retired; although none of the Romans died without having done good service before his death. Of the seditious, those that had fought bravely in the former battles did the like now, as besides them did Eleazar, the brother's son of Simon the tyrant. But when Titus perceived that his endeavors to spare a foreign temple turned to the damage of his soldiers, and then be killed, he gave order to set the gates on fire.

Within His skull exist daily thirteen thousand myriads of worlds, which draw their existence from Him, and by Him are upheld.

“The third world, which goeth forth from that arrangement, hath dominion over and descendeth and ascendeth in sixty-nine thousand authors of grief, who are upheld by it, like as metal (is upheld) by the tongs (of the smith).

“The third world, which goeth forth from that arrangement, hath dominion over and descendeth and ascendeth in sixty-nine thousand authors of grief, who are upheld by it, like as metal (is upheld) by the tongs (of the smith).

“And when I returned (hither), I found the Veil expanded, which all these Columns upheld; and three of the Companions (had ascended) above it.

Nine thousand myriads of worlds receive influence from and are upheld by that GVLGLThA, Golgeltha, Skull.

In the case of a betrothed young woman, her father and her betrothed husband annul her vows. If her father annulled [her vow] but not the husband, or if the husband annulled [it] but not the father, it is not annulled; and it goes without saying if one of them upheld [it].

If a man says to his wife, “All vows which you may vow from now until I return from such and such a place behold, they are upheld,” he has not said anything. [If he said: All vows which you may vow from now until I return from such and such a place], behold, they are annulled,”: Rabbi Eliezer says: they are annulled; The Sages say: they are not annulled. Said Rabbi Eliezer: if he can annul vows which have already had the force of a prohibition, surely he can annul those which have not had the force of prohibition! They said to him: behold, it is said, “Her husband may uphold it, and her husband may annul it” (Numbers 30:14), that which has entered the category of upholding, has entered the category of annulment; but that which has not entered the category of upholding, has not entered the category of annulment.

All are qualified to write a get, even a deaf-mute, an imbecile and a minor. A woman may write her own get and a man his own receipt [for the ketubah], since the document is upheld only by its signatures. All are qualified to bring a get except a deaf-mute, an imbecile, a minor, a blind person and a non-Jew.

Three statements were made by Rabbi Elazar ben Parta before the Sages, and they upheld his words. About [people in] a besieged town; And about [people on] a ship listing at sea; And a person who has been brought to court [in a capital case] that they are presumed to be alive. [However, concerning people] in a besieged town which has been captured; Or [people in] a ship which has been lost at sea; Or a person who has been led out to execution we put upon them all of the stringencies of their being alive and all of the stringencies of their being dead. The daughter of an Israelite who has married a priest or the daughter of a priest who has married an Israelite may not eat of the terumah.

If both [persons] denied [knowledge] together, they are both liable. If one after another, the first is liable, and the second exempt. If one denied, and the other admitted, the one who denied is liable. If there were two sets of witnesses, and the first denied, and then the second denied, they are both liable, because the testimony could be upheld by [either of] the two.

Rebbi Yudan in the name of Rebbi Isaac said it in four versions. Flesh and blood has a protector. When they tell him, your client was arrested, he will say: I will protect him. When they tell him, he is going before a court, he will say: I will protect him. When they tell him, he is taken to be hanged, where is he and where is his protector? But the Holy One, praise to Him, saved Moses from the sword of Pharao; that is what is written (Ex. 18:4): “He saved me from the sword of Pharao.” Rebbi Yannai said, it is written (Ex. 2:15): “Moses fled from before Pharao.” Is it possible for flesh and blood to flee from the government? But at the moment when Pharao arrested Moses, he sentenced him to have him beheaded. The sword slipped off the neck of Moses and broke. That is what is written (Songs 7:5): “Your neck is like the ivory tower,” that is Moses’s neck. Rebbi said, Rebbi Eviathar: Not only that, but He moved the sword from the neck of Moses on the neck of the executioner and killed him. That is what is written: “He saved me from the sword of Pharao.” He saved me, but killed the executioner. Rebbi Berekhiah quoted on this (Prov. 21:18) “The evil one is ransom for the just one.” Rebbi Abun quoted on this (Prov. 11:8): “The just will be extricated from distress, the evil one will take his place.” Bar Qappara stated: An angel came down and appeared to them in the shape of Moses. They arrested the angel and Moses fled. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said: when Moses fled from before Pharao, all his troops became dumb, deaf, or blind. He asked the dumb, where is Moses? But they could not speak. He asked the deaf, they could not hear. He asked the blind, they could not see. That is what the Holy One, praise to Him, said to Moses (Ex. 4:11): “Who gave man a mouth, or who makes dumb?” There it upheld you and here you do not want to uphold. That is what is written (Deut. 4:8): “Who is like the Eternal, our ĕlōhīm, always when we call on Him!”

From where that non-guaranteed property may be acquired with guaranteed property, by money, document, or possession? Rebbi Yose in the name of Ḥizqiah; Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Ḥanina Tortaya in the name of Ḥizqiah, it is written (2Chr. 21:3): “Their father gave them many gifts, silver and gold and delicacies, with fortified cities in Jehudah.” So far real estate and movables were at the same place. If real estate was at one place and movables elsewhere? Rebbi Abin bar Ḥiyya said, let us hear from the following: Rebbi Eliezer said to them, it happened that a man from Madon was in Jerusalem, rich in movables. He wanted to distribute them, to give them as gifts. They said to him, you cannot do that except if you acquire real estate. What did he do? He went and bought a rock near Jerusalem and said: The Northern part I give to X with a hundred amphoras of wine, the Southern part I give to Y with a hundred amphoras of oil. The matter came before the Sages and they upheld his words. Rebbi Ḥananiah said before Rebbi Mana: But was he not bedridden? For in general a person might give property rights only in writing, and here even orally. In general, a person might give only if real estate and movables are at the same place, but here the real estate even was at one place and the movables elsewhere. He said to him: But is there a difference for Rebbi Eliezer? The sick person for Rebbi Eliezer is like the healthy person for the rabbis.

Rebbi Isaac and Rebbi Immi were sitting and asking, did we not state: “If it had a wall around it at least one hand-breadth high, one may sow in it thirteen kinds: three at each of the three sides of the wall, and one in the middle.” Should we not state, ‘six in the middle?’ Explain it if the walls diminish six. If the walls diminish six, is it that about which we stated: “Rebbi Jehudah says, six kinds may be in the middle?” We upheld it, but we do not know whether the colleagues upheld it or Rebbi Immi did; it refers to the beginning. And if it refers to the beginning, it is that about which Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: Rebbi Jehudah says, 18.

Rebbi Isaac and Rebbi Immi were sitting and asking, did we not state: “If it had a wall around it at least one hand-breadth high, one may sow in it thirteen kinds: three at each of the three sides of the wall, and one in the middle.” Should we not state, ‘six in the middle?’ Explain it if the walls diminish six. If the walls diminish six, is it that about which we stated: “Rebbi Jehudah says, six kinds may be in the middle?” We upheld it, but we do not know whether the colleagues upheld it or Rebbi Immi did; it refers to the beginning. And if it refers to the beginning, it is that about which Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: Rebbi Jehudah says, 18.

Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥiyya, in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One disagrees with this Tanna. They say, does not a Mishnah disagree: “If he became deaf-mute or insane, he may never divorce.” Why can he not write and have others fulfill his written instructions? They upheld it, if he is illiterate. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal objected, does not a baraita disagree: “If he wrote himself, or he told the scribe to write and the witnesses to sign, even though the scribe wrote, the witnesses signed, they gave him [the document] and he in turn gave it to her, it is no divorce.” Rebbi Assi said, complete the sentence and there is no disgreement: “it is no divorce unless they hear his voice.” But even if he gave a sign with his head you say it is invalid, here also it is invalid. Rebbi Mana said, it is valid: hearing the voice has the same status as seeing him nod his head!

According to Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish who said, ṭevel becomes voided by plurality, it is intelligible. According to Rebbi Joḥanan who said, ṭevel does not become voided by plurality, he should wait until it is fully grown and tithe for everything. Or might we say that Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagree about ṭevel which has this status by a word of the Torah but for ṭevel which has this status by their word everybody agrees that ṭevel becomes voided by plurality. Rebbi Abba bar Cohen objected: Did we not state: “Similarly, olives for pressing which were mixed with picked olives, harvest grapes with grapes of gleanings”? Is that not ṭevel by their words? Rebbi Mana said, I upheld this: Oil from olives for pressing which was mixed with oil from picked olives.

“The agent”. Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: When he gathered in order to send by a third person; but if he gathered to bring them himself he cannot send them by a third person. He did not finish this; Rebbi Jonah finished this. Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Ammi, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Rebbi Hoshaiah: When he gathered in order to send by a third person; but if he gathered to bring them himself he cannot send them by a third person since all First Fruits which could become permitted by making the declaration become permitted only by making the declaration. Rebbi Mana said, even though Rebbi Yose did not say that, he said something similar: Rebbi Zeïra said to Rebbi Assi, do you remember that when the statement of Rebbi Hoshaiah was formulated, Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina said that a Mishnah disagrees: “If he designated his First Fruits and then sold his field he brings but does not make the declaration”! We upheld this if he had prior intention to sell. But did we not state: “If the tree dried up or was cut down”; that also if earlier it already was almost dry. Does making the declaration prevent? Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, where making the declaration is possible, making the declaration does not prevent. If he gathered to deliver them through a third person, would he be forbidden to deliver them through a third person because maybe he would change his mind to deliver them himself?

“He is not trustworthy” if he did not eat the years of legal claim from it. But if he ate the years of legal claim from it, he is trustworthy if [the second person’s] father did not die in possession. But if [the second person’s] father died in possession, he is [not] trustworthy. As the following: Reuben ate from a field claiming that it was his. Simeon brought witnesses that his father died in possession. One removes [the field] from Reuben and hands the title to Simeon. Reuben came back and brought witnesses that [Simeon’s] father did not die in possession. Rebbi Naḥman ben Jacob said, I took it from Reuben, I am returning it to Reuben. That is what the rabbis here think. The rabbis there say, from the time it was removed, by clear testimony it was removed. So the rabbis here say, from the time she married, by clear testimony she married. Rebbi Yose said, the rabbis there agree that if during the first proceedings two [witnesses] say that his father died in possession and two say, he did not die in possession, Reuben’s claim is upheld.

Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥiyya, in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One disagrees with this Tanna. They say, does not a Mishnah disagree: “If he became deaf-mute or insane, he may never divorce.” Why can he not write and have others execute his written instructions? They upheld it, if he was illiterate. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal objected, does not a baraita disagree: “If he wrote himself, or told the scribe to write and the witnesses to sign, even though the scribe wrote, the witnesses signed, they gave him [the bill] and he in turn gave it to her, it is no divorce.” Rebbi Assi said, complete the sentence and there is no disgreement: “it is no divorce unless they hear his voice.” But even if he gave a sign with his head you say it is invalid, (here also it is invalid). Rebbi Mana said, it is valid: hearing the voice has the same status as seeing him nod his head!

From where that non-guaranteed property may be acquired together with guaranteed property, by money, document, or by possession? Rebbi Yose in the name of Ḥizqiah; Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Ḥanina Tortaya in the name of Ḥizqiah, it is written (2Chr. 21:3): “Their father gave them many gifts, silver and gold and delicacies, with fortified cities in Jehudah.” So far real estate and movables were at the same place. If real estate was at one place and movables elsewhere? Rebbi Abin bar Ḥiyya said, let us hear from the following: Rebbi Eliezer said to them, it happened that a man from Meron was dwelling in Jerusalem, who was rich in movables. He wanted to distribute them, to give them as gifts. They said to him, you cannot do that except if you acquire real estate. What did he do? He went and bought a rock near Jerusalem and said: The Northern part I give to X with a hundred amphoras of wine, the Southern part I give to Y with a hundred amphoras of oil. The matter came before the Sages and they upheld his words. Rebbi Ḥananiah said before Rebbi Mana: But was he not bedridden? For in general a person might give property rights only in writing, and here even orally. In general, a person might give only if real estate and movables are at the same place; here, however, the real estate was at one place and the movables elsewhere. He said to him: But is there a difference for Rebbi Eliezer? Is not the sick person for Rebbi Eliezer like the sick person for the rabbis? He said to him: The sick person for Rebbi Eliezer is like the healthy person for the rabbis.

MISHNAH: Two tame bulls which injured one another; one pays half for the excess damage. If both are notorious, one pays in full for the excess damage. One tame and one notorious; the notorious over the tame pays in full for the excess damage; the tame over the notorious pays half for the excess damage. Similarly, two people who injured one another pay in full for the excess damage. A human and a notorious animal, or a notorious animal and a human, one pays in full for the excess damage. A human and a tame animal; the human over the tame pays in full for the excess damage; the tame over the human pays half for the excess damage. Rebbi Akiba says, also a tame animal which injured a human pays the excess damage in full. A bull worth a mina which gored a bull worth 200 and the cadaver is not worth anything; he takes the bull. A bull worth 200 which gored a bull worth 200 and the cadaver is not worth anything; Rebbi Meïr said, about this case it was said: “They shall sell the living bull and split the proceeds.” Rebbi Jehudah said to him, you upheld “they shall sell the living bull and split the proceeds,” but you did not uphold “and also the cadaver they shall split.” What is this? That is a bull worth 200 which gored a bull worth 200 and the cadaver is worth 50 zuz, in which case each owner takes half of the living bull and half from the cadaver.

MISHNAH: One who says, “my firstborn X shall not take a double portion,” [or] “my son Y shall not inherit together with his brothers,” did not say anything since he stipulated against what is written in the Torah. One who distributes his property orally, if he increased for one, or diminished for another, or made the firstborn equal to the others, his words are upheld; except if, however, he formulated it in terms of inheritance, he did not say anything. But if he wrote in terms of gift, whether at the start, or in the middle, or at the end, his words are upheld.

MISHNAH: One who says, “my firstborn X shall not take a double portion,” [or] “my son Y shall not inherit together with his brothers,” did not say anything since he stipulated against what is written in the Torah. One who distributes his property orally, if he increased for one, or diminished for another, or made the firstborn equal to the others, his words are upheld; except if, however, he formulated it in terms of inheritance, he did not say anything. But if he wrote in terms of gift, whether at the start, or in the middle, or at the end, his words are upheld.

“But if he wrote in terms of gift, whether at the start, or the middle, or the end, his words are upheld.” Rebbi Hoshaia said: “There shall be given to Mr. X the inheritance I want him to inherit.” “X should inherit the gift I want him to inherit.” “X shall inherit the inheritance which I gave to him.” “Write and give field X to person Y.” Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Simeon ben Yaqim brought a case before Rebbi Joḥanan He told them, if it is documentation, then write and deliver. If it is to transfer property, everybody agrees that nobody can transfer property after his death.

Rebbi Yose said: About those who write, “if she hates, if she is hated”. This is a stipulation about money; the rabbis upheld it.

HALAKHAH: So far if real estate and movables were at the same place. If real estate was at one place and movables elsewhere? Rebbi Abin bar Ḥiyya said, let us hear from the following: Rebbi Eliezer said to them, it happened that a man from Meron was dwelling in Jerusalem who was rich in movables. He wanted to distribute them, to give them as gifts. They said to him, you cannot do that except if you acquire real estate. What did he do? He went and bought a rock near Jerusalem and said: The Northern part I give to X with a hundred sheep and a hundred amphoras of wine, the Southern part I give to Y with a hundred amphoras of oil. The matter came before the Sages, who upheld his words. Rebbi Ḥananiah said before Rebbi Mana: But was he not bedridden? For in general a person might give property rights only in writing, and here even orally. In general, a person might give only if real estate and movables are at the same place; here, however, the real estate was at one place and the movables elsewhere. He said to him: But is there a difference for Rebbi Eliezer? Would the sick person for Rebbi Eliezer be like the healthy person for the rabbis? He said to him: The sick person for Rebbi Eliezer is like the healthy person for the rabbis.

MISHNAH: If both of them disavowed simultaneously, both of them are liable; one after the other, the first is liable but the second is not liable. If one reneged but one confessed, the one who disavowed is liable. If there were two groups of witnesses, if the first group disavowed and after this the second, both are liable since testimony could be upheld by either one of them.

MISHNAH: By the words of two witnesses or three witnesses shall a death sentence be imposed. If testimony is confirmed by two, why did the verse mention three? Only to compare three to two. Since three may prove that two are plotters, two also may prove that three are plotters. And from where even a hundred? The verse says “witnesses”. Rebbi Simeon says, since two are executed only if both are plotters, so three are executed only if all three are plotters. And from where even a hundred? The verse says “witnesses”. Rebbi Aqiba says, the third is only mentioned to punish him harshly and to identify his judgment with that of the others. If the verse in this way punished the accessory of criminals like criminals, so much more it will reward the accessory to one who keeps the commandments as one who keeps the commandments. Since the testimony of two [witnesses] is invalid if one of them is found to be a relative or a disqualified person, the same holds for three if one of them is found to be a relative or a disqualified person. From where even for a hundred? The verse says, witnesses. Rebbi Yose said, when has this been said? In criminal trials, but in civil trials the testimony should be upheld by the remaining [witnesses]. Rebbi says, both in criminal and in civil trials, if they warned them. But if they did not warn them, what should two brothers do who were eye-witnesses to a murder?

If a woman miscarried dry blood, Rebbi Eleazar says, she is impure; Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, she is pure. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: “Menstrual blood and flesh from a corpse make impure moist and dry.” He explains it that it was moist and then became dry. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Eleazar: “If a woman had a miscarriage in the form of a lump, a hair, dust, or red mosquitoes, it should be soaked in water; if it dissolves she is impure.” He explains it, because of a creature. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, even there you can object about dust. Is dust a creature? Rebbi Abba said, You even may mention dust. The dust from a pregnant woman exists as a creature. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: “It happened that a woman miscarried with a kind of red membranes. The case came before the Sages who sent and called the doctors who told them, she has an internal wound. Also it happened that a woman miscarried with a kind of red hairs. The case came before the Sages who sent and called the doctors who told them, she has an internal wart.” Only because of a wart and a wound. Therefore, if there is no wart or no wound, it does not apply. This disagrees with him and [his opinion] cannot be upheld.

Rather R. Aha b. Jacob said that R. Meir holds that any partition which is upheld by wind is not a valid partition. There are others who say that R. Aha b. Jacob said that R. Meir holds that any partition which is not made by the hands of man is no partition.

What [practical difference] is there between [the two versions]? The practical difference between them is where he set up a Sukkah wall with an inflated skin. According to the one who which says a partition which is upheld by wind is not a valid partition, [this one is invalid] since it is upheld by wind; According to the version which says ‘not made by the hands of man’ it is valid,

What [practical difference] is there between [the two versions]? The practical difference between them is where he set up a Sukkah wall with an inflated skin. According to the one who which says a partition which is upheld by wind is not a valid partition, [this one is invalid] since it is upheld by wind; According to the version which says ‘not made by the hands of man’ it is valid,

“And the ordinance of Esther upheld” (Esther 9:32): Only the ordinance of Esther and not the words of the fasts? R. Yohanan said: The words of the fasts and the ordinance of Esther upheld these matters of Purim.”

“And the ordinance of Esther upheld” (Esther 9:32): Only the ordinance of Esther and not the words of the fasts? R. Yohanan said: The words of the fasts and the ordinance of Esther upheld these matters of Purim.”

Reading the Meggilah, as it is written (Esther 9,27) "The Jews upheld and accepted", which means that they upheld above what was accepted below. Greeting with the name of G-d, as it is written (Ruth 2,4) "And behold, Boaz was coming from Beis Lechem and he said to the workers, 'May Hashem be with you'.". And it is also said (Judges 6,12) "May Hashem be with you, man of valor."

Reading the Meggilah, as it is written (Esther 9,27) "The Jews upheld and accepted", which means that they upheld above what was accepted below. Greeting with the name of G-d, as it is written (Ruth 2,4) "And behold, Boaz was coming from Beis Lechem and he said to the workers, 'May Hashem be with you'.". And it is also said (Judges 6,12) "May Hashem be with you, man of valor."