xxiii

(Now, indeed, Macroprosopus is not so closely known by us as to address us in the first person; but he is called in the third person, HVA, Hoa, he.) Like as it is said, Ps. c. 3: “He hath made us, and not we ourselves.” And again in Job xxiii. 13: “And He existeth in the unity, and who can turn Him aside?”

This is that which is written, Gen. xxiii. 16: “Four hundred shekels of silver, current money with the merchant.”

Now, also, in the book of the teaching of Rav Hamenuna the Elder it is said: “And Hadar reigned in his stead.” The word HDR, Hadar, is properly to be expounded according unto that which is said, Lev. xxiii. 40: “The fruit of trees which are HDR, Hadar, goodly.”

"My son, if thy heart be wise, my heart will be glad, even mine" (Prov. xxiii. 15), and "My son, be wise, and make mine heart glad, that I may answer him that taunteth me" (ibid, xxvii. 11).

R. Isaac also said : Whoever reads the Shema' upon his bed, the evil spirits flee from him ; as it is said, "And the sons of Reshef fly upwards ['uf] " (Job v. 7). 'Uf means nothing else than Torah ; as it is said, "Wilt thou set [hata'if] thine eyes upon it? It is gone" (Prov. xxiii. 5). And Reshef means nothing else than "evil spirits"; as it is said, "The wasting of hunger, and the devouring of the fiery bolt [Reshef] and bitter destruction" (Deut. xxxii. 24).

R. Johanan said to him : It is quite right with Torah and benevolent acts ; for it is written, "By mercy and truth iniquity is expiated" (Prov. xvi. 6) "mercy" means benevolent acts, as it is said, "He that followeth after righteousness and mercy findeth life, prosperity and honour" (ibid. xxi. 21), and "truth" means Torah, as it is said, "Buy the truth, and sell it not" (ibid, xxiii. 23); but how know we that this is true of one who buries his children?

That is the meaning of what Balaam said to Balak, "How shall I curse, whom God hath not cursed ? And how shall I execrate, whom the Lord hath not execrated?" (Num. xxiii. 8). This teaches that during all those days He did not execrate.

Whence do we learn this ? From Moses our teacher; as it is said, "Let Me alone, that I may destroy them, and blot out their name from under heaven ; and I will make of thee a nation mightier and greater than they" (Deut. ix. 14). Although Moses supplicated God against this decree and averted it, nevertheless He fulfilled [the blessing contained therein] in his seed ; as it is said, "The sons of Moses : Gershom and Eliezer" (I Chron. xxiii. 15), and then "And the sons of Eliezer were : Rehabiah the chief. And Eliezer had no other sons ; but the sons of Rehabiah were very [lema'alah] many" (ibid. v. 17).

"Let not thy heart envy sinners, but be in the fear of the Lord all the day" (Prov. xxiii. 17).

Rab Bebai b. Abbai thought to complete the Parashot of the whole year on the eve of the Day of Atonement; but Hiyya b. Rab of Difti taught him : It is written, "Ye shall afflict your souls, in the ninth day of the month at even" (Lev, xxiii. 32). Do we fast on the ninth ?

On what ground [did they wish to include it] ? Was it because it is written therein, "God Who brought them forth out of Egypt" (Num. xxiii. 22) ? Then let one say the Parashah of usury or of weights which likewise contains a reference to the exodus from Egypt !

GEMARA There is a teaching : Ben Zoma said to the Sages : Will the exodus from Egypt be mentioned in the days of the Messiah ? Has it not long ago been declared, "Therefore behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that they shall no more say. As the Lord liveth, that brought up the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt ; but, as the Lord liveth, that brought up and that led the seed of the house of Israel out of the north country, and from all the countries whither I had driven them" (Jer. xxiii. 7f.)?

It is here at any rate taught that [the mourner, although he is not in the same room as the body,] is exempt from reading the Shema', from Tefillah, Tefillin, and all the commandments mentioned in the Torah ! Rab Pappa replied : [The Baraita] is to be interpreted as referring to one who turns his face from the body and eats. Rab Ashe said : Since the duty of burying rests upon him, it is to be regarded as though the body was lying before him; as it is said, "And Abraham rose up from before his dead" (Gen. xxiii. 3) and it is said "That I may bury my dead from before me" (ibid. v. 4), i.e. so long as the duty of burial rested upon him, it was as though the body was actually before him.

He asked him, "Do they know all that ; for lo, it is written, 'The dead know not anything' (Eccles. ix. 5)?" He answered, "If thou hast read [this verse], thou hast not read it a second time ; if a second time, then not a third time ; and if a third time, its meaning has not been explained to thee. 'For the living know that they shall die' (ibid.) — this refers to the righteous who are called living even in their death ; as it is said, 'And Benaiah the son of Jehoiada, the son of a living man of Kabzeel, who had done mighty deeds, he smote the two altar-hearths of Moab ; he went down also and slew a lion in the midst of a pit in time of snow' (II Sam. xxiii. 20).

"Who acts arrogantly towards the Most High" ; where is this to be found? There is a Mishnaic teaching : Simeon b. Shetah sent to Honi Hamme'aggel : "Thou art deserving of excommunication, and wert thou not Honi, I would pronounce the ban against thee ; but what can I do seeing that thou art petulant with the Omnipresent, and nevertheless He fulfils thy desires as a father gratifies a petulant child ; and concerning thee the Scriptures state, 'Let thy father and thy mother be glad, and let her that bore thee rejoice ' (Prov. xxiii. 25)." Is there no other instance [of arrogance towards God]?

R. Judah prohibits a man to marry one outraged or seduced by his father. Rab Giddel asked in the name of Rab : What is R. Judah 's reason? Because it is written, "A man shall not take his father's wife and shall not uncover his father's skirt" (Deut. xxiii. 1) — i.e. the skirt which his father had seen shall he not uncover. But how do we know that this refers to one outraged by his father ?

There is a teaching : R. Judah b. Batyra used to say : The words of Torah do not contract defilement. It happened that a disciple was speaking indistinctly over against R. Judah b. Batyra. He said to him : My son, open thy mouth and let thy words issue forth clearly, because words of Torah cannot contract defilement; as it is said, "Is not My word like a fire? saith the Lord" (Jer. xxiii 29) — as fire does not contract defilement, so also words of Torah do not contract defilement.

And Raba? He can tell thee : In this latter circumstance the criterion is a fixed place ; for it is written, "He shall dwell alone ; without the camp shall his dwelling be" (Lev. xiii. 46). But here the All-merciful declared, "Therefore shall the camp be holy" (Deut. xxiii. 15), and behold that is not so.

R. Jonathan who asked : It is written "Thou shalt have a place also without the camp, whither thou shalt go forth abroad" (Deut. xxiii. 13) and it continues, "And thou shalt have a paddle among thy weapons ; and it shall be when thou sittest down abroad, thou shalt dig therewith, and shalt turn back and cover that which cometh from thee" (ibid. 5:14) —

Raba said : If there be excrement in a transparent vessel, it is permitted to read the Shema' thereby ; if nakedness be in a transparent vessel, it is forbidden to read the Shema' thereby. "If there be excrement in a transparent vessel, it is permitted to read the Shema' thereby" ; because with excrement the criterion is whether it is covered : and behold it is covered. "If nakedness be in a transparent vessel, it is forbidden to read the Shema' thereby" ; because the All-merciful declared, "That He see no unseemly thing in thee" (Deut. xxiii. 15), and behold it is visible.

Rab Judah said : It is forbidden to read the Shema' in the presence of a naked gentile. Why is a gentile specified ? Even by a naked Israelite it is likewise [forbidden] ! [That it is forbidden with an Israelite is obvious] ; but it was necessary to specify the case of a gentile. For thou mightest have said : Since it is written with reference to the gentiles, "Whose flesh is as the flesh of asses" (Ezek. xxiii. 20), argue that [in this matter the naked gentile is to be considered] only like an ass ; therefore he informs us that to them also [when exposed] is "nakedness" attributed ; for it is written, "And they saw not their father's nakedness" (Gen. ix. 23).

Rabban Gamaliel replied to him, "Thou art forbidden to enter the Community." R. Joshua said to him, "Thou art permitted to enter the Community." Rabban Gamaliel asked R. Joshua, "But has it not been said, 'An Ammonite or a Moabite shall not enter into the assembly of the Lord '?" (Deut. xxiii. 4). R. Joshua answered him, "Do, then, the Ammonites and Moabites still inherit their lands? Did not Sennacherib, king of Assyria, long ago come up and confuse all the nationalities ? As it is said, 'I have removed the bounds of the peoples, and have robbed their treasures, and have brought down as one mighty the inhabitants' (Is. 10:13) ; and whoever issues [from a mixed body] issues from the majority."

For over bread one says : "... Who bringest forth bread from the earth." Our Rabbis have taught : What does he say ? "...Who bringest forth [hammosi'] bread from the earth." R. Nehemiah stated : It is "...Who brought forth [mosi'] bread from the earth." Raba said : Nobody disagrees about mosi that it has the meaning "brought forth" ; as it is said, "God Who brought them forth [mosiam] out of Egypt" (Num. xxiii. 22). In what do they differ? In the word hammosi'. The Rabbis hold that hammosi' means "Who brought forth," for it is written "Who brought thee forth [hammosi'] water out of the rock of flint" (Deut. viii. 15) ; and R. Nehemiah holds it means "Who bringeth forth," as it is said, "Who bringeth you out [hammosi'] from under the burden of the Egyptians" (Exod. vi. 7).

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.

"And behold, Boaz came from Bethlehem, and said unto the reapers, The Lord be with you ; and they answered him. The Lord bless thee" (Ruth ii. 4); and it is said, "The Lord is with thee, thou mighty man of valour" (Judges vi. 12); and it is said, "And despise not thy mother when she is old" (Prov. xxiii. 22); and it is said, "It is time for the Lord to work ; they have made void Thy law" (Ps. cxix. 126). R. Nathan says : [This means,] They have made void Thy law, because it is time for the Lord to work. GEMARA Whence have we this?

Three verses in which "turn" occurs — "Thou didst turn for me my mourning into dancing ; Thou didst loose my sackcloth and gird me with gladness" (Ps. xxx. 12); "Then shall the virgin rejoice in the dance, and the young men and the old together; for I will turn their mourning into joy, and will comfort them, and make them rejoice from their sorrow" (Jer. xxxi. 12); "Nevertheless the Lord thy God would not hearken unto Balaam; but the Lord thy God turned the curse into a blessing unto thee" (Deut. xxiii. 6).

Rab Joseph said : Who dreams of a goat, the year will be blessed for him; of goats, years will be blessed for him ; as it is said, "And there will be goat's milk enough for thy food" (Prov. xxvii. 27). Who dreams of the myrtle, his business undertakings will prosper ; and if he has no business undertakings, an inheritance will fall to his lot from some other place. 'Ulla said (another version : It was taught in a Baraita) : This only applies when he sees [the myrtle] on its stem. Who dreams of a citron, will be honoured before his Maker; as it is said, "The fruit of goodly trees, branches of palm-trees" (Lev. xxiii. 40). Who dreams of a palm-branch has but one heart for his Father in Heaven.

When he went out, the man said to him, "Does the All-merciful perform a miracle for such liars!" He replied, "Thou evil-doer ! Are not they called 'asses'? For it is written, 'Whose flesh is as the flesh of asses' (Ezek. xxiii. 20)." [R. Shela] perceived that the man was going to tell them that he called them asses. He said [to himself], "That man is a pursuer, and the Torah has stated, If one seeks to kill thee, do thou kill him first" ; so he smote him with the staff and killed him.

Shouldest thou argue that Boaz mentioned [the Divine Name in his salutation] of his own accord, come and hear: "The Lord is with thee, thou mighty man of valour" (Judges vi. 12). Shouldest thou argue that it was an angel that spake to Gideon, come and hear : "Despise not thy mother when she is old" (Prov. xxiii. 22).

R. Jose began [to speak] in honour of the hospitality and expounded : "Thou shalt not abhor an Edomite, for he is thy brother; thou shalt not abhor an Egyptian, because thou wast a stranger in his land" (Deut. xxiii. 8). Can we not use here an a fortiori argument? If the Egyptians are not to be abhorred, who only befriended the Israelites for their own needs — as it is said, "And if thou knowest any able men among them, then make them rulers over my cattle" (Gen. xlvii. 6) — how much more so, one who entertains a disciple of the wise in his house, giving him to eat and drink, and allowing him to enjoy his possessions!

I. (1) All are bound in the case of a holocaust except a deaf man, a fool, and a child, and one of doubtful sex, and one of double sex, and women, and slaves who are not manumitted, the lame man, and the blind man, and the sick man, and the old man, and him who is not able to go up on his feet. What is the definition of a child? Every one who is not able to ride upon his father's shoulders, and to go up from Jerusalem to the mountain of the House. These are the words of the house of Shammai. But the house of Hillel say, Every one who is not able to take hold of his father's hand, and to go up from Jerusalem to the mountain of the House, as it is said, "three footgoing times" (Ex. xxiii. 14).

What is the expression all to include? It is to include him who is half a slave and half free. But according to Rabena, who says, He who is half a slave and half free is exempt from the holocaust, what is the expression all to include? It is to include him who is lame on the first day and well on the second day. This agrees with him who says, All of them are transferable from one day to another; but according to him who says, All of them are transferable as from the first day only, what is the expression all to include? It is to include the blind in one eye. But this is not in accordance with the following Baraitha. For Jochanan ben Dahăbai, saying it in the name of Rabbi Jehudah, taught, He who is blind in one eye is exempt from the holocaust, as it is said, "He shall be seen," or "He shall see" (Ex. xxiii. 17, Deut. xvi. 16). As he went to see, so he went to be seen; as to see with both his eyes, so to be seen with both His eyes.

And one of doubtful sex and one of double sex etc. Our Rabbis have taught, The use of the word, "male," is to exclude the women; "thy males" to exclude the one of doubtful and the one of double sex; "all thy males" to include the children (Ex. xxiii. 17, Deut. xvi. 16). The Mishnah teacher said, Male is to exclude the women. But why do I need a verse as above, to teach me this? Inasmuch as it is a case of a positive precept in which the time determines. And from all positive precepts in which the time determines, women are exempt. Nay, but it is needed. You might have thought, We learn of a twofold appearing before the Lord from the section, "Assemble." As in the one case women are bound, so in the other case women are bound. We learn it from this.

The Mishnah teacher said, The expression "all thy males" is to include the children. But there is a canonical Mishnah, Except a deaf man, a fool and a child (Chag. 2a, i. 1). Abai said, There is no difficulty. The one case has to do with a child who has reached the age for initiation in the law, the other with a child who has not reached the age for initiation. A child who has reached the age for initiation—this is Rabbinical only. Even so, and the expression is a mere supporting peg. But why does the expression come? To correspond with what the others said. For we have a Baraitha, Others say, the cordwainer and the smelter in bronze and the tanner are exempt from the holocaust, because it is said "all thy males" (Ex. xxiii. 17, Deut. xvi. 16), i.e., he who is able to go up with all thy males. They are exempt, who are not fit to go up with all thy males.

Women and slaves who are not manumitted etc. This is all right as regards women, as we have said, but slaves—how do we get them here? R. Hunna says, The scripture says "before the LORD God" (Ex. xxiii. 17, Deut. xvi. 16). This expression can only apply to him who has but one Lord. He is excluded who has another lord. But why do I need a verse for it? Surely by every precept by which a woman is bound a slave is bound, and by every precept by which a woman is not bound a slave is not bound. The teacher learns it from the case of a woman through the double occurrence of the words "unto her." Rabena said, It is only needed for one who is half a slave and half free. This is precisely too what the teaching of the Mishnah is, women and slaves who are not manumitted. What is the meaning of the addition, who are not manumitted? If I should say that it means, who are not manumitted at all, then the words ought to be simply, slaves, but do you not think that it means, those who are not completely manumitted? and who are such? He who is half a slave and half free. Learn from this the meaning.

the corner of a field, and the first-fruits and the appearing before the Lord, and the conferring of kindnesses and the teaching contained in the Law. R. Jochanan said, We were of opinion that the appearing before the Lord had no superior limit but had an inferior limit, until R. Oshaia, in the name of a great teacher, came and taught that appearing before the Lord has no limit either superior or inferior. But wise men say, that the holocaust involves a meah of silver, but the Chagigah two pieces of silver. What does the appearing mean? R. Jochanan said, The presenting of oneself in the Court, but Resh Lakish said, The presenting of oneself with an offering. All the world is agreed that on the first day it means, the presenting of oneself with an offering, but men differ as regards the remainder of the days of the Feast. Every time that a man comes and brings an offering, all the world agrees that we are to receive it from him, but men differ in the case of one who comes and does not bring; for R. Jochanan considers that the presenting of oneself in the Court is sufficient, because it is not necessary, every time that he comes, to bring an offering; but Resh Lakish says, The presenting oneself with an offering is the meaning, for it is necessary, every time that he comes, to bring an offering. Resh Lakish put this difficulty to R. Jochanan, "None shall appear before me empty" (Exod. xxiii. 15). He said to him, Yes, but only on the first day of the Feast. He put this further difficulty to him. The passage "None shall appear before me empty" refers to coming with sacrifices. If thou sayest, With sacrifices? perhaps not, but with birds and meal-offerings; then here is an argument against thee. The Chagigah is assigned to a private person, but the appearing is assigned to the Most High. As the Chagigah, which is assigned to a private person, involves sacrifices, so must the appearing, which is assigned to the Most High, involve sacrifices. And what are these sacrifices? They are burnt-offerings. If thou sayest, Burnt-offerings? perhaps not, but peace-offerings; then here is an argument against thee. The Chagigah is assigned to a private person, and the appearing is assigned to the Most High. As the Chagigah, which is assigned to a private person, is suited to him, so must the appearing, which is assigned to the Most High, be suited to Him. And so it is fitting that thy table should not be full and the table of thy Master empty. He said to him, Yes, but only on the first day of the Feast. R. Jose, in the name of R. Jehudah, put this difficulty to him, saying, Three times in the year Israel was commanded to go up to a Feast, viz., at the Feast of the Passover, and at the Feast of Weeks, and at the Feast of Tabernacles, and they must not appear by halves, inasmuch as it is said, "all thy males" (Exod. xxiii. 17; Deut. xvi. 16), and they must not appear empty, inasmuch as it is said, "none shall appear before me empty" (Exod. xxiii. 15). He said to him, Yes, but only on the first day of the Feast.

the corner of a field, and the first-fruits and the appearing before the Lord, and the conferring of kindnesses and the teaching contained in the Law. R. Jochanan said, We were of opinion that the appearing before the Lord had no superior limit but had an inferior limit, until R. Oshaia, in the name of a great teacher, came and taught that appearing before the Lord has no limit either superior or inferior. But wise men say, that the holocaust involves a meah of silver, but the Chagigah two pieces of silver. What does the appearing mean? R. Jochanan said, The presenting of oneself in the Court, but Resh Lakish said, The presenting of oneself with an offering. All the world is agreed that on the first day it means, the presenting of oneself with an offering, but men differ as regards the remainder of the days of the Feast. Every time that a man comes and brings an offering, all the world agrees that we are to receive it from him, but men differ in the case of one who comes and does not bring; for R. Jochanan considers that the presenting of oneself in the Court is sufficient, because it is not necessary, every time that he comes, to bring an offering; but Resh Lakish says, The presenting oneself with an offering is the meaning, for it is necessary, every time that he comes, to bring an offering. Resh Lakish put this difficulty to R. Jochanan, "None shall appear before me empty" (Exod. xxiii. 15). He said to him, Yes, but only on the first day of the Feast. He put this further difficulty to him. The passage "None shall appear before me empty" refers to coming with sacrifices. If thou sayest, With sacrifices? perhaps not, but with birds and meal-offerings; then here is an argument against thee. The Chagigah is assigned to a private person, but the appearing is assigned to the Most High. As the Chagigah, which is assigned to a private person, involves sacrifices, so must the appearing, which is assigned to the Most High, involve sacrifices. And what are these sacrifices? They are burnt-offerings. If thou sayest, Burnt-offerings? perhaps not, but peace-offerings; then here is an argument against thee. The Chagigah is assigned to a private person, and the appearing is assigned to the Most High. As the Chagigah, which is assigned to a private person, is suited to him, so must the appearing, which is assigned to the Most High, be suited to Him. And so it is fitting that thy table should not be full and the table of thy Master empty. He said to him, Yes, but only on the first day of the Feast. R. Jose, in the name of R. Jehudah, put this difficulty to him, saying, Three times in the year Israel was commanded to go up to a Feast, viz., at the Feast of the Passover, and at the Feast of Weeks, and at the Feast of Tabernacles, and they must not appear by halves, inasmuch as it is said, "all thy males" (Exod. xxiii. 17; Deut. xvi. 16), and they must not appear empty, inasmuch as it is said, "none shall appear before me empty" (Exod. xxiii. 15). He said to him, Yes, but only on the first day of the Feast.

the corner of a field, and the first-fruits and the appearing before the Lord, and the conferring of kindnesses and the teaching contained in the Law. R. Jochanan said, We were of opinion that the appearing before the Lord had no superior limit but had an inferior limit, until R. Oshaia, in the name of a great teacher, came and taught that appearing before the Lord has no limit either superior or inferior. But wise men say, that the holocaust involves a meah of silver, but the Chagigah two pieces of silver. What does the appearing mean? R. Jochanan said, The presenting of oneself in the Court, but Resh Lakish said, The presenting of oneself with an offering. All the world is agreed that on the first day it means, the presenting of oneself with an offering, but men differ as regards the remainder of the days of the Feast. Every time that a man comes and brings an offering, all the world agrees that we are to receive it from him, but men differ in the case of one who comes and does not bring; for R. Jochanan considers that the presenting of oneself in the Court is sufficient, because it is not necessary, every time that he comes, to bring an offering; but Resh Lakish says, The presenting oneself with an offering is the meaning, for it is necessary, every time that he comes, to bring an offering. Resh Lakish put this difficulty to R. Jochanan, "None shall appear before me empty" (Exod. xxiii. 15). He said to him, Yes, but only on the first day of the Feast. He put this further difficulty to him. The passage "None shall appear before me empty" refers to coming with sacrifices. If thou sayest, With sacrifices? perhaps not, but with birds and meal-offerings; then here is an argument against thee. The Chagigah is assigned to a private person, but the appearing is assigned to the Most High. As the Chagigah, which is assigned to a private person, involves sacrifices, so must the appearing, which is assigned to the Most High, involve sacrifices. And what are these sacrifices? They are burnt-offerings. If thou sayest, Burnt-offerings? perhaps not, but peace-offerings; then here is an argument against thee. The Chagigah is assigned to a private person, and the appearing is assigned to the Most High. As the Chagigah, which is assigned to a private person, is suited to him, so must the appearing, which is assigned to the Most High, be suited to Him. And so it is fitting that thy table should not be full and the table of thy Master empty. He said to him, Yes, but only on the first day of the Feast. R. Jose, in the name of R. Jehudah, put this difficulty to him, saying, Three times in the year Israel was commanded to go up to a Feast, viz., at the Feast of the Passover, and at the Feast of Weeks, and at the Feast of Tabernacles, and they must not appear by halves, inasmuch as it is said, "all thy males" (Exod. xxiii. 17; Deut. xvi. 16), and they must not appear empty, inasmuch as it is said, "none shall appear before me empty" (Exod. xxiii. 15). He said to him, Yes, but only on the first day of the Feast.

R. Jochanan put this difficulty to Resh Lakish; "he shall be seen," "He shall see" (Exod. xxiii. 17; Deut. xvi. 16). As I am seen freely, so shall ye see me freely. But every one who comes and does not bring an offering, all the world agrees that he goes up and allows himself to be seen and goes away. But they differ in the case of one who comes and brings an offering. R. Jochanan says, The simple presenting of oneself in the Court is the real presenting of oneself, and so has no limit of times prescribed, while on the contrary the presenting of oneself for an offering has a limit of times prescribed. But Resh Lakish said, The presenting of oneself with an offering is alone the real presenting of oneself, for if it be the case of an offering also, there is no limit. He put this difficulty to him, "Let thy foot be seldom in thy neighbour's house" (Prov. xxv. 17). But here it has to do with sin-offerings and trespass-offerings. So is the opinion of R. Levi. For R. Levi adduces the passage, "Let thy foot be seldom in thy neighbour's house," and the passage, "I will come into thy house with burnt-offerings" (Ps. lxvi. 12). There is no difficulty. In the one case it has to do with sin-offerings and trespass-offerings, in the other with burnt-offerings and peace-offerings. There is a Baraitha also to this effect, viz., "Let thy foot be seldom in thy neighbour's house:" the passage speaks of sin-offerings and trespass-offerings; if thou sayest, Of sin-offerings and trespass-offerings? perhaps not, but of burnt-offerings and peace-offerings, as he says, "I will come into thy house with burnt-offerings, I will pay thee my vows" (Ps. lxvi. 12), for see, they actually speak there of burnt-offerings and peace-offerings; Nay, but look thou how I explain, "Let thy foot be seldom in thy neighbour's house," viz., that the passage is speaking of sin-offerings and trespass-offerings.

Abai said to him, Of course. For otherwise the question would arise, Which of them wilt thou cause to be sinners, and which of them wilt thou cause to be obedient? But wherefore then does the passage come? It is to correspond to the saying of others. For there is a Baraitha, viz., Others say, The cordwainer, and the smelter in bronze and the tanner, are exempt from the holocaust, for it is said, "all thy males" (Exod. xxiii. 17, Deut. xvi. 16), i.e., he who can go up with all thy males. These are excluded, for they cannot go up with all thy males.

Whence do you gather this? R. Jochanan said in the name of R. Ishmael, The same word, Restraint, is used of the seventh day of Passover, and of the eighth day of the Feast of Tabernacles. What is true of the former as regards postponement of payments, the same is true of the latter. The word is used in an unrestricted way. For if it were not used in an unrestricted way, the force of the argument drawn from it might have been broken by saying, Whereas the seventh day of Passover is not separated from those that precede it, you may say that the eighth day of the Feast of Tabernacles is separated from those that precede it. Assuredly, it is used in a wholly unrestricted sense. What does restraint really mean? That one is restrained from acts of work. But we have the passage, "Thou shalt do no work" (Deut. xvi. 8). Why then has the Merciful One written me Restraint? But learn from it that it was to give the unrestricted sense of the word. And a Baraitha brings out the same thing thus. For there is a Baraitha, "And ye shall keep it a feast unto the Lord seven days" (Lev. xxiii. 41). One might have thought from this passage that one was to go on sacrificing all seven days. No, for the teaching says "it." Thou art to sacrifice "it," and thou art not to sacrifice all seven days. If so, why have we seven stated as the number of the days of the Feast? For postponements of payments; and whence do you gather that if a man has not observed the Feast on the first high holiday of the Feast, he is to go and sacrifice during any part of its extent, even including the last high holiday? Because the teaching says, "Ye shall keep it in the seventh month" (Lev. xxiii. 41). If it had merely said, In the seventh month, one might have thought that one was to go and sacrifice the whole month. No; for the teaching says "it." Thou art to sacrifice "it" and thou art not to sacrifice further.

Whence do you gather this? R. Jochanan said in the name of R. Ishmael, The same word, Restraint, is used of the seventh day of Passover, and of the eighth day of the Feast of Tabernacles. What is true of the former as regards postponement of payments, the same is true of the latter. The word is used in an unrestricted way. For if it were not used in an unrestricted way, the force of the argument drawn from it might have been broken by saying, Whereas the seventh day of Passover is not separated from those that precede it, you may say that the eighth day of the Feast of Tabernacles is separated from those that precede it. Assuredly, it is used in a wholly unrestricted sense. What does restraint really mean? That one is restrained from acts of work. But we have the passage, "Thou shalt do no work" (Deut. xvi. 8). Why then has the Merciful One written me Restraint? But learn from it that it was to give the unrestricted sense of the word. And a Baraitha brings out the same thing thus. For there is a Baraitha, "And ye shall keep it a feast unto the Lord seven days" (Lev. xxiii. 41). One might have thought from this passage that one was to go on sacrificing all seven days. No, for the teaching says "it." Thou art to sacrifice "it," and thou art not to sacrifice all seven days. If so, why have we seven stated as the number of the days of the Feast? For postponements of payments; and whence do you gather that if a man has not observed the Feast on the first high holiday of the Feast, he is to go and sacrifice during any part of its extent, even including the last high holiday? Because the teaching says, "Ye shall keep it in the seventh month" (Lev. xxiii. 41). If it had merely said, In the seventh month, one might have thought that one was to go and sacrifice the whole month. No; for the teaching says "it." Thou art to sacrifice "it" and thou art not to sacrifice further.

Chagigoth. But there is much in Holy Writ concerning them. Nay, but it was necessary, so as to agree with what R. Papa said to Abai, viz., Whence is it that the passage, "and ye shall keep it a feast to the Lord" (Exod. xii. 14, Lev. xxiii. 41) involves sacrifice? Perhaps the Merciful One meant merely, Celebrate a Feast without sacrifice. But that sacrifices are meant we learn from this passage, "That they may hold a feast unto me in the wilderness" (Exod. v. 1). But, it may be replied, here also it only means, Hold a Feast. But if thou sayest, Here also it only means, Hold a Feast, yet there is the passage, "And Moses said, Thou must also give into our hands sacrifices and burnt-offerings" (Exod. x. 25). But the objector may say, Perhaps here the Merciful One meant merely, Eat and drink and keep the Feast before Me. Thou art not to think so, for it is written, "neither shall the fat of my feast remain all night until the morning" (Exod. xxiii. 18). And if thou dost imagine that this is a mere Feast, Does fat belong to a mere Feast? But perhaps you will object, the Merciful One meant only this, viz., that the fat which comes at the time of a Feast shall not remain. But that such is not the meaning we learn from this consideration, viz., The fat which comes at the time of a Feast shall not remain. Shall then all that which comes all the rest of the year remain? "All night unto the morning" (Lev. vi. 2, E.V. 9) is what is written. Perhaps, if the argument were drawn from that passage only, I might have said, The Merciful One wrote the one as an affirmative, and the other as a negative commandment (Lev. vi. 2. Exod. xxiii. 18). But, it is replied, the Scripture has other negative commandments to the same effect, e.g., "Neither shall any of the flesh, which thou sacrificest the first day at even, remain all night until the morning" (Deut. xvi. 4). But perhaps it was to impose upon him two negative commandments and one positive. But there comes in two passages the word "wilderness," "wilderness." It is written in the one, "That they may hold a feast unto me in the wilderness" (Exod. v. 1), and it is written in the other, "Did ye bring unto me sacrifices and offerings in the wilderness?" (Amos v. 25) As in the latter there are sacrifices mentioned, so in the former there are sacrifices meant. And what is the meaning of the expression, as mountains suspended by a hair? Nay, but we do not learn the words of the Law from the words of tradition.

Chagigoth. But there is much in Holy Writ concerning them. Nay, but it was necessary, so as to agree with what R. Papa said to Abai, viz., Whence is it that the passage, "and ye shall keep it a feast to the Lord" (Exod. xii. 14, Lev. xxiii. 41) involves sacrifice? Perhaps the Merciful One meant merely, Celebrate a Feast without sacrifice. But that sacrifices are meant we learn from this passage, "That they may hold a feast unto me in the wilderness" (Exod. v. 1). But, it may be replied, here also it only means, Hold a Feast. But if thou sayest, Here also it only means, Hold a Feast, yet there is the passage, "And Moses said, Thou must also give into our hands sacrifices and burnt-offerings" (Exod. x. 25). But the objector may say, Perhaps here the Merciful One meant merely, Eat and drink and keep the Feast before Me. Thou art not to think so, for it is written, "neither shall the fat of my feast remain all night until the morning" (Exod. xxiii. 18). And if thou dost imagine that this is a mere Feast, Does fat belong to a mere Feast? But perhaps you will object, the Merciful One meant only this, viz., that the fat which comes at the time of a Feast shall not remain. But that such is not the meaning we learn from this consideration, viz., The fat which comes at the time of a Feast shall not remain. Shall then all that which comes all the rest of the year remain? "All night unto the morning" (Lev. vi. 2, E.V. 9) is what is written. Perhaps, if the argument were drawn from that passage only, I might have said, The Merciful One wrote the one as an affirmative, and the other as a negative commandment (Lev. vi. 2. Exod. xxiii. 18). But, it is replied, the Scripture has other negative commandments to the same effect, e.g., "Neither shall any of the flesh, which thou sacrificest the first day at even, remain all night until the morning" (Deut. xvi. 4). But perhaps it was to impose upon him two negative commandments and one positive. But there comes in two passages the word "wilderness," "wilderness." It is written in the one, "That they may hold a feast unto me in the wilderness" (Exod. v. 1), and it is written in the other, "Did ye bring unto me sacrifices and offerings in the wilderness?" (Amos v. 25) As in the latter there are sacrifices mentioned, so in the former there are sacrifices meant. And what is the meaning of the expression, as mountains suspended by a hair? Nay, but we do not learn the words of the Law from the words of tradition.

Chagigoth. But there is much in Holy Writ concerning them. Nay, but it was necessary, so as to agree with what R. Papa said to Abai, viz., Whence is it that the passage, "and ye shall keep it a feast to the Lord" (Exod. xii. 14, Lev. xxiii. 41) involves sacrifice? Perhaps the Merciful One meant merely, Celebrate a Feast without sacrifice. But that sacrifices are meant we learn from this passage, "That they may hold a feast unto me in the wilderness" (Exod. v. 1). But, it may be replied, here also it only means, Hold a Feast. But if thou sayest, Here also it only means, Hold a Feast, yet there is the passage, "And Moses said, Thou must also give into our hands sacrifices and burnt-offerings" (Exod. x. 25). But the objector may say, Perhaps here the Merciful One meant merely, Eat and drink and keep the Feast before Me. Thou art not to think so, for it is written, "neither shall the fat of my feast remain all night until the morning" (Exod. xxiii. 18). And if thou dost imagine that this is a mere Feast, Does fat belong to a mere Feast? But perhaps you will object, the Merciful One meant only this, viz., that the fat which comes at the time of a Feast shall not remain. But that such is not the meaning we learn from this consideration, viz., The fat which comes at the time of a Feast shall not remain. Shall then all that which comes all the rest of the year remain? "All night unto the morning" (Lev. vi. 2, E.V. 9) is what is written. Perhaps, if the argument were drawn from that passage only, I might have said, The Merciful One wrote the one as an affirmative, and the other as a negative commandment (Lev. vi. 2. Exod. xxiii. 18). But, it is replied, the Scripture has other negative commandments to the same effect, e.g., "Neither shall any of the flesh, which thou sacrificest the first day at even, remain all night until the morning" (Deut. xvi. 4). But perhaps it was to impose upon him two negative commandments and one positive. But there comes in two passages the word "wilderness," "wilderness." It is written in the one, "That they may hold a feast unto me in the wilderness" (Exod. v. 1), and it is written in the other, "Did ye bring unto me sacrifices and offerings in the wilderness?" (Amos v. 25) As in the latter there are sacrifices mentioned, so in the former there are sacrifices meant. And what is the meaning of the expression, as mountains suspended by a hair? Nay, but we do not learn the words of the Law from the words of tradition.

There is a passage which says, "each one had six wings" (Is. vi. 2), and there is a passage which says, "And every one had four faces, and every one of them had four wings" (Ezek. i. 6). There is no difficulty. The one case was at the time when the Holy House was standing, the other at the time when the Holy House was not standing. As if it were possible to say which two of the wings of the living creatures were taken away. Which of them were taken away? R. Chănaneel said, that Rab said, Those with which they utter their song. It is written thus, "And with twain he did fly. And one cried to another and said," (Is. vi. 2, 3) and it is written, "Wilt thou set thine eyes upon it? But it is gone" (Prov. xxiii. 5). But our Rabbis say, Those with which they cover their feet, as it is said, "And their feet were as a straight foot" (Ezek. i. 7). And if none had been taken away, how would he have known? Perhaps it was uncovered, and he saw it. But if thou sayest, Not so, then I may argue thus: "And as for the likeness of their faces, they had the face of a man," and I may argue that in this case also they were taken away. But when you reply that in this case it was uncovered and he saw it, then I rejoin that in this case also it was uncovered and he saw it. But no, for in this case, even granting that the face is customarily uncovered before one's teacher, the legs are not customarily uncovered before one's teacher.

There is a certain passage which says, "Thousand thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him" (Dan. vii. 10), and there is a certain passage which says, "Is there any number of his armies?" (Job xxv. 3) There is no difficulty. The one was at the time when the Holy House was standing, and the other was at the time when the Holy House was not standing. As though it were possible to say that the family of the Most High was diminished. There is a Baraitha, Rabbi says in the name of Abba Jose ben Dosai, "Thousand thousands ministered unto him," this is the number of one troop, but of His troops there is no number. And R. Jeremiah bar Abba said, Thousand thousands ministered unto him at the fiery stream, as it is said, "A fiery stream issued and came forth from before him: thousand thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him" (Dan. vii. 10). Whence does it come forth? From the perspiration of the living creatures. And upon what is it poured? R. Zot'ra bar Tobiah said that Rab said, Upon the heads of wicked men in Gehenna, as it is said, "Behold the tempest of the LORD, even his fury, is gone forth, yea, a whirling tempest; it shall burst upon the head of the wicked" (Jer. xxiii. 19). And R. Acha bar Jacob said, Upon those who were held back, as it is said, "Who were held back before their time, whose foundation was poured out as a stream" (Job xxii. 16). There is a Baraitha to the effect that R. Simeon the Holy said, These are nine hundred and seventy-four generations, which were held back from being created

But it may be objected, He who has not kept the Feast for the seven days of the Passover, and the eight days of the Feast of Tabernacles, and the first high holiday of Pentecost, he cannot afterwards keep the Feast. Do you not think, then, that the high holiday of Pentecost is not the day of sacrificing? But, if so, do we gather from it that there is but one day of sacrificing? I should rather say, days of sacrificing. But it may be objected, Rabba bar Samuel taught, The Torah says, Number the days and sanctify the month, Number the days and sanctify the Pentecost. As the first day of the month is established by counting, so the Pentecost is established by counting. Do you not think that he has settled the matter from the analogy of the first day of the month? As the first day of the month is one day, so the Pentecost must be one day. Rabba said, Nay, consider that thou mayest be in error. Perhaps in the case of the Pentecost men number days and do not number weeks. But yet Abai said, There is a command to number days, for it is written, "Ye shall number fifty days" (Lev. xxiii. 16), and there is a command to number weeks, for it is written, "Seven weeks shalt thou number unto thee" (Deut. xvi. 9), and again the expression Feast of Weeks is found.

A member of the house of R. Eliezer ben Jacob taught thus, Holy Writ says, "And ye shall make proclamation," "and when ye reap" (Lev. xxiii. 21, 22). What is this Feast in which thou makest proclamation and reapest? Thou must reply, This is the Feast of Pentecost. When is it? If I am to say, On the high holiday, how is reaping lawful on a high holiday? But dost thou not think that it means as well on the subsequent days? And although this has been said already by R. El'azar quoting R. Oshaia, nevertheless what R. Eliezer ben Jacob said was necessary. If I had only the words of R. El'azar quoting R. Oshaia, I should say, As on the subsequent days of the Feast of Unleavened Bread the doing of work is prohibited, so on the subsequent days of the Feast of Pentecost also the doing of work is prohibited.

And Resh Lakish said, "And the feast of the harvest" (Exod. xxiii. 16),—what is this Feast on which thou feastest and reapest? Thou must reply, This is the Pentecost. When is it? If I am to say, On the high holiday, how is reaping lawful on a high holiday? But dost thou not think that it means as well on the subsequent days? R. Jochanan said, But regard it thus. The Feast of Ingathering—what is this Feast in which there is an ingathering? Thou must say, This is the Feast of Tabernacles. When is it? If I am to say, On the high holiday, how is work lawful on a high holiday? But if I am to say, On one of the ordinary middle holidays, how is work lawful on one of the ordinary middle holidays? But it means the Feast which comes at the season of ingathering; and so in this case also the Feast which comes at the season of harvest. Consequently both are of opinion that on the ordinary middle holidays the doing of work is forbidden. Whence do we obtain these statements? Because our Rabbis have taught, "The feast of unleavened bread shalt thou keep seven days" (Exod. xxiii. 15). This teaches us that on the middle holidays it is forbidden to do work. These are the words of R. Jeshaiah. R. Jonathan says, The above proof is not necessary. I can prove it by an argument a fortiori. For if on the first and seventh days of the Feast which have not got a holiday before them and after them, the doing of work is prohibited, then on ordinary middle holidays, which have a holiday before them and after them, is it not just that the doing of work should be prohibited? But, it is replied, Let the six days of Creation bear witness against this interpretation, which have a holiday before them and after them, and yet the doing of work is permitted. Nay, it is rejoined, how are the six days of Creation a parallel case? For they have no additional sacrifice as the middle holidays have. Thou mayest say in reply, In the case of an ordinary middle holiday, as it has an additional sacrifice, let the first day of the month bear testimony, for on it there is an additional sacrifice, yet the doing of work is permitted. Nay, it is rejoined, how is the first day of the month a parallel case? For it is not called a holy convocation. Thou mayest say in conclusion, In the case of an ordinary middle holiday which is called a holy convocation, seeing that it is called a holy convocation, it is only just that the doing of work should be prohibited. There is another Baraitha, "Ye shall do no servile work" (Lev. xxiii. 8), that is to say, that on an ordinary middle holiday the doing of work is forbidden. The following are the words of R. Jose the Galilaean. R. Akiba says, It was not necessary, for lo, He says, "These are the set feasts of the Lord, etc." (Lev. xxiii. 4) With reference to what is the Scripture speaking? If to the first day, Behold, it has been already called a sabbath-day; if to the seventh day, Behold, it has been already called a sabbath-day; behold, the Scripture can be speaking only of an ordinary middle holiday, to teach thee that the doing of work is forbidden thereon.

And Resh Lakish said, "And the feast of the harvest" (Exod. xxiii. 16),—what is this Feast on which thou feastest and reapest? Thou must reply, This is the Pentecost. When is it? If I am to say, On the high holiday, how is reaping lawful on a high holiday? But dost thou not think that it means as well on the subsequent days? R. Jochanan said, But regard it thus. The Feast of Ingathering—what is this Feast in which there is an ingathering? Thou must say, This is the Feast of Tabernacles. When is it? If I am to say, On the high holiday, how is work lawful on a high holiday? But if I am to say, On one of the ordinary middle holidays, how is work lawful on one of the ordinary middle holidays? But it means the Feast which comes at the season of ingathering; and so in this case also the Feast which comes at the season of harvest. Consequently both are of opinion that on the ordinary middle holidays the doing of work is forbidden. Whence do we obtain these statements? Because our Rabbis have taught, "The feast of unleavened bread shalt thou keep seven days" (Exod. xxiii. 15). This teaches us that on the middle holidays it is forbidden to do work. These are the words of R. Jeshaiah. R. Jonathan says, The above proof is not necessary. I can prove it by an argument a fortiori. For if on the first and seventh days of the Feast which have not got a holiday before them and after them, the doing of work is prohibited, then on ordinary middle holidays, which have a holiday before them and after them, is it not just that the doing of work should be prohibited? But, it is replied, Let the six days of Creation bear witness against this interpretation, which have a holiday before them and after them, and yet the doing of work is permitted. Nay, it is rejoined, how are the six days of Creation a parallel case? For they have no additional sacrifice as the middle holidays have. Thou mayest say in reply, In the case of an ordinary middle holiday, as it has an additional sacrifice, let the first day of the month bear testimony, for on it there is an additional sacrifice, yet the doing of work is permitted. Nay, it is rejoined, how is the first day of the month a parallel case? For it is not called a holy convocation. Thou mayest say in conclusion, In the case of an ordinary middle holiday which is called a holy convocation, seeing that it is called a holy convocation, it is only just that the doing of work should be prohibited. There is another Baraitha, "Ye shall do no servile work" (Lev. xxiii. 8), that is to say, that on an ordinary middle holiday the doing of work is forbidden. The following are the words of R. Jose the Galilaean. R. Akiba says, It was not necessary, for lo, He says, "These are the set feasts of the Lord, etc." (Lev. xxiii. 4) With reference to what is the Scripture speaking? If to the first day, Behold, it has been already called a sabbath-day; if to the seventh day, Behold, it has been already called a sabbath-day; behold, the Scripture can be speaking only of an ordinary middle holiday, to teach thee that the doing of work is forbidden thereon.

And Resh Lakish said, "And the feast of the harvest" (Exod. xxiii. 16),—what is this Feast on which thou feastest and reapest? Thou must reply, This is the Pentecost. When is it? If I am to say, On the high holiday, how is reaping lawful on a high holiday? But dost thou not think that it means as well on the subsequent days? R. Jochanan said, But regard it thus. The Feast of Ingathering—what is this Feast in which there is an ingathering? Thou must say, This is the Feast of Tabernacles. When is it? If I am to say, On the high holiday, how is work lawful on a high holiday? But if I am to say, On one of the ordinary middle holidays, how is work lawful on one of the ordinary middle holidays? But it means the Feast which comes at the season of ingathering; and so in this case also the Feast which comes at the season of harvest. Consequently both are of opinion that on the ordinary middle holidays the doing of work is forbidden. Whence do we obtain these statements? Because our Rabbis have taught, "The feast of unleavened bread shalt thou keep seven days" (Exod. xxiii. 15). This teaches us that on the middle holidays it is forbidden to do work. These are the words of R. Jeshaiah. R. Jonathan says, The above proof is not necessary. I can prove it by an argument a fortiori. For if on the first and seventh days of the Feast which have not got a holiday before them and after them, the doing of work is prohibited, then on ordinary middle holidays, which have a holiday before them and after them, is it not just that the doing of work should be prohibited? But, it is replied, Let the six days of Creation bear witness against this interpretation, which have a holiday before them and after them, and yet the doing of work is permitted. Nay, it is rejoined, how are the six days of Creation a parallel case? For they have no additional sacrifice as the middle holidays have. Thou mayest say in reply, In the case of an ordinary middle holiday, as it has an additional sacrifice, let the first day of the month bear testimony, for on it there is an additional sacrifice, yet the doing of work is permitted. Nay, it is rejoined, how is the first day of the month a parallel case? For it is not called a holy convocation. Thou mayest say in conclusion, In the case of an ordinary middle holiday which is called a holy convocation, seeing that it is called a holy convocation, it is only just that the doing of work should be prohibited. There is another Baraitha, "Ye shall do no servile work" (Lev. xxiii. 8), that is to say, that on an ordinary middle holiday the doing of work is forbidden. The following are the words of R. Jose the Galilaean. R. Akiba says, It was not necessary, for lo, He says, "These are the set feasts of the Lord, etc." (Lev. xxiii. 4) With reference to what is the Scripture speaking? If to the first day, Behold, it has been already called a sabbath-day; if to the seventh day, Behold, it has been already called a sabbath-day; behold, the Scripture can be speaking only of an ordinary middle holiday, to teach thee that the doing of work is forbidden thereon.

And Resh Lakish said, "And the feast of the harvest" (Exod. xxiii. 16),—what is this Feast on which thou feastest and reapest? Thou must reply, This is the Pentecost. When is it? If I am to say, On the high holiday, how is reaping lawful on a high holiday? But dost thou not think that it means as well on the subsequent days? R. Jochanan said, But regard it thus. The Feast of Ingathering—what is this Feast in which there is an ingathering? Thou must say, This is the Feast of Tabernacles. When is it? If I am to say, On the high holiday, how is work lawful on a high holiday? But if I am to say, On one of the ordinary middle holidays, how is work lawful on one of the ordinary middle holidays? But it means the Feast which comes at the season of ingathering; and so in this case also the Feast which comes at the season of harvest. Consequently both are of opinion that on the ordinary middle holidays the doing of work is forbidden. Whence do we obtain these statements? Because our Rabbis have taught, "The feast of unleavened bread shalt thou keep seven days" (Exod. xxiii. 15). This teaches us that on the middle holidays it is forbidden to do work. These are the words of R. Jeshaiah. R. Jonathan says, The above proof is not necessary. I can prove it by an argument a fortiori. For if on the first and seventh days of the Feast which have not got a holiday before them and after them, the doing of work is prohibited, then on ordinary middle holidays, which have a holiday before them and after them, is it not just that the doing of work should be prohibited? But, it is replied, Let the six days of Creation bear witness against this interpretation, which have a holiday before them and after them, and yet the doing of work is permitted. Nay, it is rejoined, how are the six days of Creation a parallel case? For they have no additional sacrifice as the middle holidays have. Thou mayest say in reply, In the case of an ordinary middle holiday, as it has an additional sacrifice, let the first day of the month bear testimony, for on it there is an additional sacrifice, yet the doing of work is permitted. Nay, it is rejoined, how is the first day of the month a parallel case? For it is not called a holy convocation. Thou mayest say in conclusion, In the case of an ordinary middle holiday which is called a holy convocation, seeing that it is called a holy convocation, it is only just that the doing of work should be prohibited. There is another Baraitha, "Ye shall do no servile work" (Lev. xxiii. 8), that is to say, that on an ordinary middle holiday the doing of work is forbidden. The following are the words of R. Jose the Galilaean. R. Akiba says, It was not necessary, for lo, He says, "These are the set feasts of the Lord, etc." (Lev. xxiii. 4) With reference to what is the Scripture speaking? If to the first day, Behold, it has been already called a sabbath-day; if to the seventh day, Behold, it has been already called a sabbath-day; behold, the Scripture can be speaking only of an ordinary middle holiday, to teach thee that the doing of work is forbidden thereon.

R. Abohu said that R. Eliezer said, As to the disciples of the wise, the flame of Gehenna has no power over them. For this is shewn by an a fortiori argument drawn from the salamander. And what is the salamander? It is a creature of fire. He that anoints himself with its blood, flame has no power over him. How much more the disciples of the wise, whose whole body is fire, as it is written, "Is not my word like as fire, saith the LORD?" (Jer. xxiii. 29) Resh Lakish said, The flame of Gehenna has no power over the transgressors of Israel. How much less over the altar of gold! As in the case of the altar of gold, upon which is only about the thickness of a denarius of gold, for ever so many years the flame has had no power over it, how much less can it have power over the transgressors of Israel, who are full of the commandments as a pomegranate is full of seeds, as it is written, "Thy temples are like a piece of a pomegranate" (Cant. iv. 3). Read not, "thy temples" but, the vain fellows that are in thee.