The Babylonian Talmud (abridged)

REGULATIONS CONCERNING THE HOLOCAUST, AND THE APPOINTED TIME FOR THE PEACE-OFFERING.

MISHNA: All are bound in the case of a holocaust except a deaf man, a fool, a minor, and one of doubtful sex (ατμητος) and one of double sex (androginos), and women and bondsmen, the lame, the blind, the sick, the old, and he who is not able to go upon his feet. What is a minor? Every one who is unable to ride on his father's shoulders, and to go up from Jerusalem to the mountain of the Temple. So is the decree of the School of Shammai. But the School of Hillel say: Every one who is unable to take hold of his father's hand, and to go up from Jerusalem to the mountain of the Temple, as it is said [Ex. xxiii. 14], "Three times," etc. The School of Shammai say: The holocaust involves two silver coins (one-third of a gold dinar), and the feast-offering one meah (one-sixth of a dinar). But the School of Hillel say the contrary.

GEMARA: What is meant to be added by the word "all"? It means to add a man who is half a slave (he was a slave to two men, and one gave him liberty). But according to Rabhina, who says that such a man is absolved from holocaust, what did the Mishna mean to add? One who was lame on the first day, but on the second day he became well. This would be correct according to him who says that on every day of the succeeding six days the obligation of the holocaust exists, but according to those who say that all the six days are only a completion of the first day, and as he was not obliged the first day, although he was fit for it later, he is free from it. What did the Mishna mean to add by the expression "all"? Therefore we must say that it is as stated above (one who is a half-slave), and Rabhina's statement is in accordance with the later Mishna, which states as follows: For the sake of the world, it was ordained that the master of the slave shall be compelled to set him free for the purpose that he should be able to marry a free man, and the slave shall give him a note for it for the half of his value. And the School of Hillel retracted their decision and decided as the School of Shammai; consequently if he is yet half a slave, he is obliged, because he will be free, and the Mishna adds by "all" such a case.

"A deaf man, a fool, and a minor," etc. The Mishna mentions the deaf man together with fool, to teach us that as the fool has no intelligence, so also the deaf man is absolved when he has no intelligence, i.e., when he is both deaf and dumb; but if he speaks but cannot hear, or vice versa, he is obliged. But did we not learn in a Boraitha: Both when he can bear but not speak, or speak and not hear, in either case he is free? Said Rabhina: The Boraitha is not completed, and must read thus: All are obliged in case of a holocaust, and to enjoy the festival, except a deaf man who hears but speaks not, or vice versa, then he is free from holocaust, but not from rejoicing. But he who neither hears nor speaks is free from rejoicing also, because he is exempt from all commandments contained in the Law. And so we also learned in a Boraitha plainly.

But why is a man who hears but speaks not, or vice versa, exempt from holocaust? Because about holocaust he deduces from an analogy of expression as follows: It is written [Deut. xxxi. 12]: "Assemble the people together, the men and the women, and the children," and [ibid. 2]: "When all Israel came to appear before the Lord thy God." But whence do we deduce that he who hears not but speaks, etc., is exempt from pilgrimage? Because it is written [ibid. 12]: "That they may hear, etc., that they may learn." And a Boraitha taught: "May hear" to exclude one who can talk but cannot hear, and "may learn" to exclude those who can hear but cannot speak. Is that so, that he who cannot speak cannot learn? We know there were two dumb men in the neighborhood of Rabbi, who were sons of the daughter of R. Johanan b. Gudguda (and others say, sons of his sister), who, when Rabbi entered the house of learning, went in also, shook their heads, and muttered with their lips; and Rabbi prayed mercy for them and they were healed; and it was found that they were well versed on Halakha, and on the whole six sections of the Mishna? Said Mar Zutra: Read in the Bible: They may teach (not "learn"), and who cannot speak cannot teach. Said R. Ashi. Assuredly, it must be so, because if learning is meant it could be deduced from the words, "and they may hear," and he who cannot hear cannot learn.

R. Tan'hum said: He who is deaf in one ear is free from holocaust, because in the verse stated above [ibid. 2] it is written: "In their ears" (in the plural). R. Tan'hum said again: He who is lame in one foot, is also exempt, because it is written: "Three times" [Regalim (times), which means also feet (plural)].

Rabha lectured: "It is written (Song of Songs, vii. 2): "How beautiful are thy steps in sandals, O prince's daughter." This refers to the pilgrims on the festivals (see Succah, chap. iv.). R. Kahana said: R. Nathan b. Minyumi lectured in the name of R. Tan'hum: It is written [Gen. xxxvii. 24]: "And the pit was empty, there was no water in it." If it was empty, is it not self-evident that there was no water in it? Infer from this that it was empty from water, but not from snakes and scorpions.

The rabbis taught: It happened that R. Johanan b. Broka and R. Elazar b. Hasma went to visit R. Jehoshua in the city of Pekiin, and he asked them: What news is to-day in the house of learning? They answered him. We are your disciples, and we drink only your waters. He rejoined: Nevertheless, it cannot be there should not be something new in the college; tell me whose Sabbath was it for lecturing? And they said: R. Elazar b. Azariah's. And on what verse did he lecture? (asked he again). On the portion of the Assembly. And what did R. Elazar preach? He lectured thus: It is written [Deut. xxxi. 12]: "Assemble the people together, the men and the women and the children." It is right, the men came to learn, the women came to hear; for what purpose were the children brought? Only that those who brought them should be rewarded. And he rejoined: You have had a good pearl in your hand and you wanted to deprive me of it.

He also lectured on the verse Deut. xxvi. 17. (See Berachoth.) The same lectured again: It is written [Eccl. xii. 2]: "The words of the wise are like goads, and like nails planted are the words of the men of the assemblies which are given by one shepherd." As the goad keeps the animal which ploughs (to make it straight) furrows, so as to produce sustenance for the world, so also the words of the Law (keep those who study them) away from the ways of death for the ways of life. But if you would say, that as the goad is movable so also the words of Law. Therefore it is written: "Nails." But if you will say, as the nail (makes a hole in the wall and) diminishes (and does not add to it), so also the words of the Law diminish and do not add. Therefore it is written: "Planted"; as a plant is fruitful and multiplies, so also the words of the Law. "The men of assemblies," which means the scholars who sit in assembly, studying the Law and discussing-these make clean, the others make unclean, these prohibit and those allow, these make valid, those make invalid. But if one may say: If it is so, how can I learn the Torah? Therefore it is written: "Given by one shepherd." One God gave them, and one Master (Moses) said it from the mount of the Lord of all creatures, blessed be He, As it is written [Ex. xx. i]: "And God spoke all these words." And therefore you must make your ears as an επιχυσις; (a kind of strainer which receives but lets not out), and gain an understanding heart to comprehend the reason why these make unclean, those clean, etc. Then R. Jehoshua rejoined: I tell you, it is not an orphan generation in the midst of which R. Elazar b. Azariah lives. Why did they not tell him at once the news in the house of learning? Because of the occurrence stated in the following Boraitha:

It happened once that R. Jose, the son of a Damascene woman, went to visit R. Eliezer in the city of Luda, and R. Elazar asked him: What news was there in the house of learning to-day? And he answered: It was voted, and the decision was that in the lands of Amman and Moab the tithe to the poor is to be given on the Sabbatical year (this is explained in Tract Maasroth), and he told him: Jose, stretch out your hand, and take out your eyes. And he did so. Then R. Elazar wept and said: It is written [Ps. xxv. 14]: "The sacred counsel of the Lord is for those that fear him, and his covenant to make it known to them." And he said to R. Jose: Go and tell them, you should not doubt about your conclusion to-day, because I have a tradition from R. Johanan b. Zakkai, who heard it from his master, and his master from his master, etc., up to Moses on Sinai, that the land of Amman and Moab may give the tithe to the poor on the Sabbatical year. [The reason is because those who went out of Egypt subjugated many fortified cities, but those who went out from Babylon did not, and the first sanctification had sanctified the land only for that time, but not for the future. And those who went out from Babylon left these lands for the poor; they should be supported on them on the Sabbatical year. In another Boraitha it was taught: After R. Elazar became calm he prayed that it should be the will of God that Jose's eyes be cured, and they were cured.]

The rabbis taught: What is called a fool? He who goes out alone in the night, and who sleeps in a cemetery, and who tears the clothes he wears. It was taught: R. Huna said: It is only when he does all these things together. How is the case? If because he is a fool, then any of these is sufficient, and if he does it not through folly, what is the proof of all these? It is meant he does it through folly; but when he does all these things, he is like an ox goring another ox, a camel, and an ass, after which he is considered vicious as to all creatures, so he is considered a fool in all respects. Said R. Papa: If R. Huna had heard the following Boraitha, which states, Who is a fool? When he destroys all things that are given to him, he would have retracted his decree.

"One of doubtful sex," etc. The rabbis taught: It could be written [Deut. xvi. 16]: "The males," which would exclude only the women, but it is written "Thy males," which means to exclude also those of doubtful as of double sex. But why is needed a verse to exclude the women? Is not this a commandment which is dependent upon the time? and it is known that of all commandments which are dependent upon the time the women are exempt. This verse is needed, for at the first glance one might say that it shall be drawn from an analogy of expression, "the assembly"; as to the assembly women are also bound, so would be the case here, therefore, it comes to teach us. The master said: "All thy males to include the minors. But did not we learn in our Mishna, Except a deaf man, a fool, and a minor?" Said Abayi: It presents no difficulty: There is the case of a minor who has not arrived at the age of education yet, and here is the case when he has arrived at such age. When a minor who has arrived at such age, his duty is only rabbinical. Why then is needed a verse? Yea, it is only rabbinical, and the verse is only a support. But to what else does the verse apply? To that of the following Boraitha: Anonymous teachers said: Those whose work imparts to them a bad odor which accompanies them wherever they go, are exempt from the holocaust, because it is written, "All thy males," i.e., all that can go together with others, but not such as cannot be in others' company.

"Women and bondsmen." This is correct as to women, as it was said above, but whence do we deduce about bondsmen? Said R. Huna: Because it is written there [ibid. ibid.]: "Before the Lord thy God," which means one who has only one Lord, but not such as has another lord. Let us see: To what purpose is needed a separate verse? It is known that all the commandments which are obligatory to a woman are so also to a bondsman and all the commandments from which a woman is exempt a bondsman is also exempt, and this is inferred from an analogy of expressions [Deut. xxiv. 1]: "Write her," and [Lev. xix. 20] "Her freedom given her," hence a woman and bondsman are equal in duties. Said Rabhina: The verse is needed for one who is half a slave and half free, and it seems to be so because the Mishna taught: Women and bondsmen who were not freed. To what purpose is stated "not freed"? If it is meant that they were not freed at all, "bondsmen" alone is enough. We must say, therefore, that the Mishna meant those who were not wholly free. And what can that be? One who is half a slave and half free.

"The lame, blind, sick," etc. The rabbis taught: It is written "Regalim" to exclude the lame, sick, blind, and old men who cannot go with their feet. What is meant to be added by "who cannot go with their feet"? Said Rabha: Such delicate persons as cannot walk without shoes (and in the Temple it was not permitted to go in shoes), as it is written [Is. i. 12]: "When you come to appear in my presence, who had required this at your hand to tread down my courts?"

We have learned in a Boraitha: If one is uncircumcised, or unclean, he is exempt from the holocaust. It is right of one unclean, because it is written [Dent. xii. 5, 6]: "And thither shalt thou come, and ye shall bring thither." From this we infer, that he who can come in ought to bring, but he who cannot, should not; (and he who is unclean cannot come into the Temple).

But of an uncircumcised, wherefrom is it deduced? This is in accordance with R. Aqiba, who makes an uncircumcised equal to an unclean one, as we have learned in the following Boraitha: R. Aqiba said: It is written [Lev. xxii- 4]: "Any man whatsoever of the seed of Aaron." "Any man"--it could be written "a man." Why "any man," to include that "the uncircumcised shall be equal to the unclean ones"?

The rabbis taught: R. Johanan b. Dahabai said in the name of R. Jehudah: A man blind in one eye is exempt from the holocaust, because it is written [Deut. xvi. 16]: "Shall appear," as if one comes to see, it is with both eyes; so if he appears, he must be with both eyes. R. Huna, when he came to the verse above cited, used to weep and say: That a slave whose master exhorts him to come to see him should be debarred from seeing him, as it is written [Is. i. 12]: "When you come to appear in my presence, who had required this at your hands to tread my courts?" Also when he came to the following verse [Deut. xxvii. 7]: "And thou shalt slay peace-offerings, and eat there." A slave who is invited to eat from his master's table, shall be debarred from seeing him, as it is written [Is. i. i]: "Or what serveth me the multitude of your sacrifices?" R. Elazar, when he came to this verse [Gen. xlv. 3]: "And his brothers could not answer him, because they were terrified at his presence," he wept and said: If one is thus terrified when a human being has recognized his guilt, how much the more will it be before the Holy One, blessed be He.

Also when he came to the verse [1 Sam. xxviii. 15]: "And Samuel said to Saul: Why hast thou disquieted me, to bring me up?" If Samuel, the upright, was afraid of the judgment, so much the more must we be afraid of it. How shall this be understood? It is written [ibid. 12]: "And the woman said unto Saul: Divine beings have I seen ascending (Olim) out of the earth." Olim is plural. (Who were they?) It was Samuel and Moses, because Samuel was afraid. Perhaps he was asked to the judgment, and he had gone to Moses and asked him to testify, that he (Samuel) had done all that was written in his Law. R. Ammi, when he came to the following verse, used to cry [Lam. iii. 29]: "That he put his mouth in the dust, perhaps there still is hope." He said: After so much had been done nevertheless it is said "perhaps." Also when he came to the following verse [Zeph. ii. 3]: "Seek righteousness, seek meekness, perhaps ye will been protected," he said: After so much will have been done, still it will be "perhaps." R. Asi, when he came to the following passage, used to cry [Amos v. 15]: "Hate the evil and love the good, and establish justice firmly in the gate: perhaps the Lord, the God of hosts." He said: After so much will have been done, it will still be "perhaps."

R. Joseph, when he came to the verse [Prov. xiii. 23]: "But there are many who are taken away without justice," cried. R. Johanan, when he came to the following passage [Job ii. 3]: "And thou hast incited him against me to destroy him without cause," he cried. He said: If a slave persuades his master, and the master is persuaded, what cure can there be? Also, when he came to the following passage [ibid. xv. 15]: "In his holy one he putteth no trust," he cried and said: If he puts no trust in his holy one, whom will he believe? Once when on the road he saw a man pick figs from a tree. He left the ripe ones and picked the unripe ones. R. Johanan asked him: Are not the ripe ones better? He answered: These which are unripe I need for the route, because the ripe ones will be spoilt, but not these. Then said R. Johanan: This is as what is written: He putteth no trust in his holy ones (i.e., they are gathered in before they are tempted to sin).

R. Johanan, when he came to the following verse [Mal. iii. 5] he wept: "And I will come near unto you to hold judgment, and I will be a swift witness against the sorcerers, and against the adulterers, and against those that swear falsely, and against those that withhold the wages of the hired laborer, fear me not, saith the Lord of hosts."

R. Johanan b. Zakkai said: Woe is to us, the verse makes equal for us light sins as well as grave sins." (Rashi explains it that the light sin is that of those who withhold the wages of the hired laborer, who is here equal to sorcerers, etc.) R. Hanina bar Papa said: When a man commits a sin and soon repents of it, he is forgiven immediately, because it is written [ibid.]: "And fear me not, saith the Lord of hosts." When he fears and asks for forgiveness, he is pardoned. R. Johanan, when he came to the verse [Eccl. xii. 14]: "For every deed will God bring into the judgment, concerning everything that had been hidden," he cried. He said: If there is a slave whose master reckons his unintentional sins as his intentional sins, what cure can there be? What is meant by "everything that hath been hidden"? Said Rabh: When one kills a louse in another man's presence, and makes himself disagreeable thereby to him. And Samuel says: Even if he spits in the presence of his neighbor, and makes himself disagreeable.

What is meant [ibid.], "Whether it be good, or whether it be bad"? The disciples of R. Janai said: That applies to a man who gives charity to a poor man publicly. As R. Janai saw a man give a Zuz to a poor man publicly, he said to him: It would be better if you gave him not at all than as you did now, and put him to shame. The disciples of R. Shila said: It means a man who gives charity to a woman secretly, which brings on him suspicion.

It is written [Deut. xxxi. 21]: "And it shall come to pass when many evils and troubles." What is meant by "evils and troubles"? Said Rabh: Evils that trouble one another; for instance, a man who was bitten by a bee and by a scorpion--for the bee's sting warm water is needed, and for a scorpion's bite cold water is needed, hence the use of either will harm the other wound. Samuel said: What is written before, "whether good or bad," means one who (whether he is in good or bad circumstances) gives money to the poor only when the latter is in extreme poverty. Said Rabha: This is what people say: A Zuz for pleasure is not to be obtained, but a Zuz for trouble must be found (at any time).

It is written [Deut. xxxi. 17]: "And my anger shall be kindled against them on that day, and I will forsake them, and I will hide my face from them, and they shall be given to be devoured." Said R. Bardala bar Tebiumi in the name of Rabh: A man from whom God hides not his face is not an Israelite, and he who is not given to be devoured is not an Israelite, either. Said the rabbis to Rabha: It seems to us that you are neither included in the "hiding of the face" nor in the "devouring." And he rejoined: Can you know how much I must spend secretly on the government? Nevertheless the rabbis looked at him with an evil eye, and finally they came from the government and robbed him of everything. Said he: This is what R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said: Whatever the sages looked at with their eyes, either death or poverty followed.

It is written [ibid.]: "And I will hide my face from them." Said Rabha: The Holy One, blessed be He, said: "Although I have hidden my face from them, nevertheless I will talk to them in the dream." R. Joseph said: Still His hand is inclined to us, as it is written [Is. li. 16]: "With the shadow of my hand have I covered thee."

R. Joshua b. Hanania was before the Emperor (Cæsar). A Min who stood by showed him with his hand a people from whom God had turned away His face. R. Joshua b. Hanania showed him with his hand that "His hand is still over us." Asked the Emperor of R. Joshua: Do you know what the Min has shown you with his hand? He replied: Yes, he showed me a people from whom God had turned away His face. He asked him: What have you shown him with your hand? He answered: I showed him that God's hand is still inclined over us. The Emperor then asked the Min: What have you shown to R. Joshua b. Hanania? He said the same. And he asked him: What did he show you? He replied: I do not know. Then the Emperor said: A man that does not know what is shown to him by a sign, should he dare to raise his hand in the presence of an emperor? He ordered, and the Min was killed.

When R. Joshua b. Hanania was dying, the rabbis asked him: What will become of us with the Minim? He rejoined: It is written [Jer. xlix. 7]: "Is counsel vanished from the sons, is their wisdom become corrupt?" And this must be interpreted: When the children of God love their adviser the wisdom of their adversaries becomes corrupt. [And if you wish, we can infer it from the following passage (Gen. xxxiii. 12): 11 Let us depart and move farther, and I will travel near thee," which means we will be always equal to those against us.]

R. Ula, when ascending the steps of the house of Rabba bar Shila, heard a child read the following passage [Amos iv. 13]: "He that formeth the mountains, and createth the wind and declareth unto man what is his thought." And he said: If there is a slave whose master can declare him what his secret thought is, what cure can there be? What is meant by "He declareth"? Said Rabh: Even a superfluous conversation between a man and his own wife is mentioned to him at the time of his death.

It is written [Jer. xiii. 17]: "My eye shall weep sorely and run down with tears, because the flock of the Lord is driven away captive." Said R. Elazar: What signify the three tears? One over the first, one over the second Temple, and one over the exile of Israel from their land.

The rabbis taught: For the following three things the Holy One, blessed be He, weeps every day: For him who has the power to study the Law every day and does not; for him whose circumstances do not allow him to study, but who nevertheless does, and for a chief of the congregation who is haughty toward his congregation. Rabbi held the book of Lamentations and read. When he came to the verse [Lam. ii. 2]: "He had cast down from heaven unto the earth," the book dropped out of his hand. He said: It fell from the highest attic to the lowest pit.

Rabbi and R. Hyya were on the road. When they came to a city they said: If here is a scholar we will go to pay him a visit. They were told: There is here a young scholar, but he is blind. Said R. Hyya to Rabbi: You, as a Nasi, stay here, not to degrade your dignity, and I will go to sec him. Rabbi did not listen, but perforce accompanied him. The blind man said to them when they were departing: You have come to see a countenance that can be seen, but cannot see; therefore ye should deserve to see that countenance which sees all, but which no one sees. Said Rabbi (to R. Hyya): If I had listened to you, and refrained to accompany you, I could not have received this blessing. They then asked the blind man: From whom have you heard this beautiful saying? (That to visit a scholar is so great a merit.) He replied: I heard it at the lecture of R. Jacob of the village of Hitaya, who used to visit his master every day. When he became old, his master said to him: Do not take this trouble now, for you are too aged to walk every day. He answered: Is this slight in your estimation what is written about scholars [Ps. xlix. 10]: "Should he still live forever, and not see the pit, for he must see that wise men die"? Now, if he who sees the wise die lives forever, much more so he who comes to see them when alive.

R. Idi, the father of R. Jacob bar Idi, had the custom to be three months on the road, and one day in college. The students of the college called him "the single-day student." So he became discouraged, and said in application to himself the verse [Job xii. 4]: "I am as one laughed at by his friends." Said R.

Johanan to him "I pray thee, do not cause the rabbis to be punished (by Heaven for their wrong to him), and he himself went and lectured thus: It is written [Is. lviii. 2]: "Yet me do they ever seek day by day, and to know my ways do they always desire," and said: Do they seek only by day, and not in the night? This comes to teach us that he who studies the Law even one day in the year, the verse makes him equal to one who studied the whole year.

"Every one unable to ride on his father's shoulders," etc. R. Zera was opposed to this teaching, and asked: "And who brought him as far as Jerusalem?" Abayi answered: As his mother is bound to rejoice, she brought him, and there if he can go up to the Temple mountain with his father, he is no longer a minor. To defend the teaching of the School of Hillel, Rabbi replied thus: It is written in 1 Sam. i. 22: Hannah said: "So soon as the child shall be weaned, I will bring him." Why did she let him wait till he would be weaned, since the father could have carried him? Said Abayi to him: According to your question, why did Hannah herself fail to go, since she was bound to rejoice? It must be said, that because of the too delicate condition of the child (which his mother noticed in him) she did not want to go.

"Beth Shammai say two silver coins," etc. The rabbis taught: Beth Shammai say two silver coins for holocaust, because the sacrifice is a burnt-offering and must be more valuable, but for the feast-offering, which is only a peace-offering, one meah suffices. And we find also in case of Pentecost, about which the Law commands the burnt-offering should cost more than the peace-offering. And the Beth Hillel say: For the holocaust only one silver coin is sufficient. But the feast-offering had existed before the Law was given to Moses, as it is written [Ex. xxiv. 5]: "And they offered burnt-offerings and peace-offerings." (Although in the Bible it is written after the Law was given, this occurred before.) And we also find when the princes of Israel offered sacrifices, the cost of the peace-offerings was greater than the burnt-offerings.

Abayi said: Beth Shammai (R. Elazar and R. Ishmael) all hold that the sacrifice the Israelites offered in the desert was a holocaust-offering, and the Beth Hillel (R. Aqiba and R. Jose the Galilean) all hold that it was the daily offering, but not that of holocaust. We have learned in Tract Peah, Chap. I., the following things have no biblical prescribed quantity: Peah (the corner); the first-fruit [Deut. xxvi.], and the holocaust-offering, and the conferring of kindness and the studying of the Law. R. Johanan taught to say: They have no prescribed maximum, but they have a prescribed minimum, until R. Oshia the Great came and taught: The holocaust has no prescribed quantity, even a minimum. But the sages said: The holocaust-offering should not be of less worth than a silver coin, and the feast-offering not less than two.

The expression in the above-cited Mishna for the holocaust is "the seeing" (Haraion). Now the question arises what is meant by "the seeing"? R. Johanan said: He can come to the court as many times as he likes to see it; the sacrifice, however, is only once in each festival. Resh Lakish, however, said: Every time he comes to visit the court he must offer a sacrifice. And they differ only during the whole year, not in the festivals. According to R. Johanan he may visit it without a sacrifice, but according to Resh Lakish he must bring a sacrifice, but both agree, in the festivals, he must come with a sacrifice, and one is sufficient for all days of the feast. And Resh Lakish agrees also that when one comes to visit in the middle of the year without a sacrifice, he may nevertheless enter the court and the Temple, but they differ when he came in the middle of the year and brought a sacrifice with him. According to R. Johanan it must not be accepted from him as an offering of the holocaust, because it is not prescribed how many times he should visit, but is prescribed that only one sacrifice in each festival. And according to Resh Lakish it may be accepted, because there is no prescribed quantity for sacrifices also, and he can sacrifice as much as he likes.

We have learned in a Boraitha: It is written [Prov. xxv. 17]: "Make thy foot scarce to the house of thy friend." From this we may infer: Thou shalt forbear to bring too many sin-offerings. Whence do we deduce this? Perhaps it means too many burnt-offerings or peace-offerings? It cannot be, for it is written [Ps. lxvi. 13]: "I will enter thy house with burnt-offerings; I will pay unto thee my vows (peace-offerings)." Now we see that burnt-offerings and peace-offerings he can offer when he likes. What, then, does the verse mean? Sin-offerings.

MISHNA: Burnt-offerings on the intermediate days come from ordinary things, but the peace-offerings from second-tithe. On the first day of Passover the School of Shammai say that they come from ordinary things, but the School of Hillel say that they come from the second-tithe. Israelites generally fulfil their duty with vows and voluntary offerings, and with cattle-tithe, and the priests by the eating of sin-offering and of the trespass-offering, and by the first-born, and by the breast which hath been waved, and the shoulder which hath been lifted up, but not by eating of birds or of meal-offerings.

GEMARA: According to this Mishna, burnt-offerings are only to be sacrificed on the intermediate days, but not on the festival itself, and this would not be according to the School of Hillel concerning the Mishna in the next chapter? The Mishna is not completed, but must read thus: Burnt, vow, and voluntary offerings can be brought only on the intermediate days, not on the festival itself. The holocaust-offering, however, may be brought even on the festival. And when it is brought it must be only from ordinary things, but the peace-offerings of enjoying may be brought also from the second-tithe; the feast-offering, however, on the first day of Passover, the School of Shammai say, from ordinary. things, and the School of Hillel say, from second-tithe. And so it was taught plainly in a Boraitha. Why is the feast-offering on the first day of the Passover different? Said R. Ashi: The Mishna comes to teach us only the feast-offering of the fifteenth of Nisan may be brought on the festival, but not of the fourteenth (which is brought together with the Paschal lamb). [From this we see that R. Ashi holds that the feast-offering of the fourteenth is not biblical.]

The Mishna says. The School of Hillel say: It may be brought from the second-tithe. Why? Is this not a duty-offering, and all that is a duty-offering must come from ordinary things? Said Ula: They meant to say, when he added the money of the second-tithe to the ordinary money. Hezkyah, however, said: An animal from second-tithe can be added to an ordinary animal, but with money it cannot be done so. R. Johanan, however, said: That, on the contrary, money to money can be added, but an animal to an animal cannot be added.

We have learned in one Boraitha in accordance with Hezkyah, another in accordance with R. Johanan.

"Israelites fulfil their duty," etc. The rabbis taught: It is written [Deut. xvi. 14]: "Thou shalt rejoice on thy feast," that is to add, all the moneys you have for rejoicing you can add to the money for this rejoicing. (It is said in, another place that there is no rejoicing without meat, and as he has money for the second-tithe as for other rejoicing, he can use it to eat the meat of the peace-offerings.) From this the sages infer that the Israelites can fulfil their duty with vow and voluntary offerings and with cattle-tithe; and the priest with sin and trespass-offerings, with the firstlings, and wave (breast) and heave (shoulder), lest one say, also with birds or meal-offerings. It is therefore written: "Thou shalt rejoice thy feast," and from this we may infer that all the things of which a feast-offering may be brought can be used for enjoying, excluding the above, of which a feast-offering cannot be brought. And R. Ashi said: From the expression only "Thou shalt rejoice" it can be inferred, because meal and fowls are not used for rejoicing.

MISHNA: He who has many to eat with him and few possessions brings more peace-offerings and fewer burnt-offerings. He who has more possessions than persons to eat with him brings more burnt-offerings and fewer peace-offerings. If one has little of both, to this case applies the saying about the meah of silver and the two pieces of silver. If he have enough of both, to this case applies the words: "Every man shall give as he is able, according to the blessing of the Lord thy God, which he hath given you" [Deut. xvi. 17].

GEMARA.. More peace-offerings? Where should he take them? Said R. Hisda: He should add money, and shall bring a large bull. Ula said in the name of Resh Lakish: If one have separated ten animals for his feast-offerings, if he have offered five on the first festival, he may offer the other five on the second day of the festival. R. Johanan, however, said: As soon as he stopped offering, he shall not do it more. Said R. Abba: They do not differ, however. R. Johanan says he must do so, when he stopped, without any condition, but Resh Lakish meant the case when he said, when he stopped, that he would offer more. So It was taught also, that R. Shaman bar Abba said in the name of R. Johanan: The case where he cannot continue his offerings is only when he has no time to continue this day, and did not do so, but when he had time he may continue on the morrow.

MISHNA: If one has not offered the feast-offering on the first day of the festival, he may do it on any of the seven intermediate days, and even on the last day of the festival; but if the feast is over and he has not done it, he is not responsible for this. Of such a person is said [Eccl. i. 15]: "That what is crooked cannot be made straight, and what is defective cannot be numbered." R. Simeon b. Manassea, however, said: Who is this that is crooked that cannot be made straight? That is he who forms an illegitimate connection and begets therefrom a bastard child. If you should say: Nay, it has to do with theft and plunder, then he could make restitution of it and be made straight? R. Simeon b. Jo'hai said: Nothing is called crooked that was not straight at the beginning and has become crooked. And what is this? A scholar that separates himself from the Law.

GEMARA: Whence do we deduce this? Said R. Johanan in the name of R. Ishmael: It is written of the seven days of Passover: "Assembly," and it is also written of the eighth day of the Feast of Tabernacles: "Assembly." As the eighth day of the Feast of Tabernacles is a completion, so also is the seventh day of Passover, and this expression is "empty" (seemingly superfluous), because if it would not be superfluous it could be objected to that the seventh day of Passover is not separated in anything from the former days, but the eighth day of the Feast of Tabernacles is separated from the former days in the offerings and in many things (as is stated in Succah). And in reality this expression "assembly" is superfluous: for let us see: What is meant by "assembly to the Lord thy God"? They shall assemble not to do any labor, and this is already written above [Deut. xvi. 8]: "You shall not do any labor." Why "assembly" again? Infer from this to make it "empty" for the analogy stated above. But the Tana of the Boraitha infers this from the following passage: It is written [Lev. xxiii. 41]: "Ye shall celebrate it as a feast unto the Lord seven days in the year." Might we assume he shall celebrate the holidays all the seven-days? Therefore it is written "it"--it but not all the seven days. And for what purpose then is it written "seven days"? You must say, they are only for a completion. But whence do you know that if he has not offered the feast-offering on the first day, he may do so on all the succeeding six days of the festivals? Therefore it is written [ibid.]: "In the seventh month shall ye celebrate." If the seventh month, one might assume that he shall celebrate the whole month? Therefore it is written "it" (on the festival), but ye cannot do so outside of the festival.

"If the feast is over," etc. Said Ben Hei Hei to Hillel: If it is so, why is it written, "Cannot be numbered"? It should be written, "Fulfilled"? We must therefore say that this verse means, that if a man was numbered among his colleagues for a religious duty, and he did not want to be numbered--of him is said the verse. So also we have learned plainly in a Boraitha (Berachoth). Ben Hei Hei again asked Hillel: It is written [Mal. iii. 18] "And ye shall return and see the difference between the righteous and the wicked, between him that serveth God and him that has not served him." What is the difference between the righteous and the servant of God, or the wicked and him who serves not God? Is it not the same? And he answered: Both he who serves God and serves not are really upright men, but when one repeats his chapter of the Law one hundred times he is not equal to him who does it one hundred and one times. Said Ben Hei Hei again: Can the man be called upright who serves not God, because he did not repeat the one hundredth and first time? And he said: Yea, go and learn from the marketplace, where asses are hired: when one hires an ass for ten parsa, he pays one Zuz, but if for eleven, he must pay two.

Elijah said to Ben Hei Hei, according to others to R. Elazar: It is written [Is. xlviii. 10]: "Behold, I have refined thee, though not into silver: I have approved thee in the crucible of affliction." Infer from this when the Holy One, blessed be He, looked for merits given to Israel, he found only poverty. Said Samuel, and according to others R. Joseph: This is what people say: Poverty becomes Israel as a red leather trapping a white horse.

"R. Simeon b. Menassea," etc. If born, yea, but if not, nay? Did we not learn in a Boraitha: Simeon b. Manassea said: If one has stolen something, he can return it and repair his sin; if one has robbed, he can return, and make all good, but he who has had a connection with his neighbor's wife, and disqualified her for his neighbor, this man is destroyed from the world, and is lost? R. Simeon b. Jo'hai said: We do not say, one shall examine a camel, or one shall examine a pig (because they are unfit, and there is nothing to examine). But what is to be examined? A sheep (which is fit for an offering). Perhaps it has received a blemish which makes it unfit--that is, a scholar who has departed from the Law. R. Jehudah b. Lakish said: Of a scholar who separated himself from the Law the verse [Prov. xxvii. 8] said: "As a bird that wandereth away from her nest so is a man that wandereth away from his place." Of him is also written [Jer. ii. 5]: "What fault did your fathers find in me, that they went away from me?" (Now we see, however, that he who has a connection with his neighbor's wife, although he has no bastard born, is also destroyed from the world? It presents no difficulty: If he forced her, she may continue with her husband and he may repent and make it good, but if a bastard was born, she cannot live with her husband, and he is lost; but if he did it with her will, even when there is no bastard, he is lost). And if you wish I will say: In both cases it is when he used force. If he had a connection with the wife of a priest (who cannot live with her husband in any case), he is lost even when no bastard was born; and when it is stated that he is lost only when a bastard is born, the wife of a common man is meant.

It is written [Zech. viii. 10]: "And for him that went out or came in there was no peace." Said Rabh: That means, if a man goes out from the study of the Mishna to read the verses of the Bible, this man can have no more peace (because nothing can be decided from the verses without the commentary of the Mishna). Samuel, however, said: Even the man who separates himself from the Talmud to learn the Mishna (because nothing can be decided from the Mishna without the explanation of the Talmud). R. Johanan said: Even he who separates himself from the Palestinian Talmud, and goes to the Babylonian Talmud (because nothing is to be decided from the Babylonian Talmud, as it is said in Sanhedrin: "In dark places that he set me to dwell," etc. [Lam. iii. 6], which means, the Babylonian Talmud); and so explains Rashi; but Tosphath says, it can be explained vice versa, i.e., one who goes from the Babylonian Talmud before understanding it thoroughly to the Palestinian Talmud, who will surely not understand it.

MISHNA: The laws about the dissolving of vows hang in the air, and have no basis (in the Bible). The Halakhath concerning Sabbath, feast-offerings, and trespasses are as mountains suspended by a hair, because the verses of the Bible concerning this are very few, and the Halakhath are very many. The jurisprudence, the Temple services, and the purification, and uncleanness, and the cases of illegal unions, have a basis in the Bible, and they are the essential parts of the Law.

GEMARA: We have learned in a Boraitha: R. Elazar, however, said: They have a basis in the Bible, as it is written: [Lev. xxvii. 2]: "If a man make a particular vow," and [Num. vi. 2] it is written again: "Pronounce an especial vow." Why twice? It is to signify--one is to make the vow, the other is to dissolve it. R. Joshua said also: They have a basis, as it is written: [Ps. xcv. 11]: "So that I swore in my wrath." From this we infer, what I have sworn in my wrath, which later I recalled (and from this we infer, who swears, or vows when he is excited, or so, may later ask to have it dissolved). R. Itz'hak said: There is a basis from the following [Ex. xxxv. 5]: "Whosoever is of a willing heart." From this we may infer, he can make a vow with a willing heart, but otherwise he can ask for its being dissolved. Hananiah the son of R. Jehoshuah's brother said: Their basis is the following verse [Ps. cxix. 106]: "I have sworn and I will perform it, to observe thy righteous ordinances," and when he says, "I will perform it," he may sometimes not do it, although he has sworn, because he will ask it to be dissolved. Said R. Jehudah in the name of Samuel: If I would be there I would say to them: The following verse would be better than yours, viz. [Num. xxx. 3]: "He shall not profane his word." He shall not profane, but others can make him profane it. Said Rabha: To all said above I can object, but what Samuel said could not be objected to.

"The Halakhath concerning Sabbath." Are not written many verses about Sabbath? Why do they say, they are as mountains suspended by a hair? It is prohibited only to labor with an intention, but what is and what is not labor with an intention is not written at all; but the Talmud concludes that it is such that was done in the Tabernacle, because the commandment of Sabbath immediately precedes the building of the Tabernacle [Ex. xxv.].

"The offering of peace." Why, it is written? (It is said above, "Ye shall celebrate"? Yea, it is written, "Ye shall celebrate it," but where is it written an offering shall, be brought?) This may be inferred from an analogy of expressions. It is written [Ex. v. 1]: "That they may hold a feast unto me in the wilderness," and it is written [Amos v. 25]: "Have ye offered unto me sacrifices and meat-offerings in the wilderness?" Hence as there is plainly stated "offerings," so also "hold a feast" means to bring offerings. Why, then, is it said, they are as mountains hanging by a hair? Because between the words of the law of the Pentateuch and the words of the Prophets we do not draw any analogies.

"Trespass." Is that not written? Said Rabha: It means as a case of the following Boraitha: If the owner has remembered, but his messenger did not remember, the messenger has trespassed. Now, what has the poor messenger done to trespass? That is, these laws are as mountains hanging by a hair.

"In the Bible are very few," etc. We have learned in a Boraitha: That about plagues, tents for a dead body, the verses are few, and the Halakhath are many. Is that so? Of plagues there are very many verses? Said R. Papa: The Boraitha meant to say thus: About plagues there are many verses, but few Halakhath; but about tents there are few verses, but many Halakhath. And what is the difference? That is, if one is doubtful in a Halakha concerning plagues, he should look up the Bible, but if he is doubtful concerning tents, he must look up the Mishnas.

"Jurisprudence." (The Mishna says, it has only a basis. Is it only that?) Is it not written all about it? It is meant a case as in the following Boraitha: Rabbi said: What is written [Ex. xxi. 23]: "Life for life" means money. But whence do we deduce this? Perhaps it means life in the reality? Therefore here it is written: "Thou shalt give," and in the preceding verse it is written: "He shall give by the decision of thee judges." As there it is to pay money only, so it is here.

"The Temple services." Is this not written? It means to say about the bringing of the blood to the altar, as we have learned in a Boraitha. The passage [Lev. iv.] "shall bring" means "receiving" the blood, as it is a service that must be done by the priest with the observation of all the regulations of the Law.

"Clean and unclean." Is this not written? The Mishna means, the prescribed quantity for a legal bath, which is not, written at all. But about unclean things, is it not written? It means to say, the size of a lentil from a reptile defiles, which is not written.

"Illegal unions." Is it not written about this plainly? It was necessary to meet the case of the daughter of a woman whom he has forced, which is not written about in the Bible and that is only drawn from an analogy of expression.

"And they are the essentials of the Law." Are only these the essential parts? and the former not? Say, they are also.

REGULATIONS CONCERNING PUBLIC LECTURES WHICH ARE AND WHICH ARE NOT ALLOWED.

MISHNA: One should not discuss illegal unions unless there were three besides him, nor the creation unless there were two besides him, nor the divine chariot with one individual, unless he was a wise man and had much knowledge of his own. Every one who tries to know the following four things, it were better for him if he had never come into the world, viz.: What is above and what is beneath, what was before creation, and what will be after all will be destroyed. And every one who does not revere the glory of his Creator, it were better for him he had not come into the world.

GEMARA: In the first part it is said: "The divine chariot with an individual" (because he may deviate from the tradition and add out of his own mind, and there will be nobody to remind him), and afterwards it is said: "Unless he is a wise man and will understand by himself?" (from this we infer, that no tradition is necessary). The Mishna meant to say thus: One must not lecture about illegal unions even to three, nor about the creation even to two, and not about the divine chariot even to one, unless the lecturer was a wise man and will understand himself to answer, if they will question him about something. Why so? Said R. Ashi: One must not lecture about illegal unions not mentioned in the Bible (e.g., his daughter of a forced woman, or the mother of his father-in-law, which is drawn only from an analogy of expression?) And why not to three? This is common sense. If there are only two, the Master speaks to one, and the other listens to him. But if there are three, one listens, and the other two discuss it between them, and can err and come to a wrong conclusion to permit an unlawful thing. If it is so, why only about unlawful unions, the case should be the same with the whole Law? In case of unlawful unions it is different, because the Master says: Robbing and vice a man desires. If so, why only in case of illegal unions, let him not lecture about robbery also to three? Robbery one desires when the thing to be robbed is in his presence, but this is desired in the party's absence also.

"And not about creation to two." Whence do we deduce this? As stated in the following Boraitha: It is written [Deut. iv. 32]: "For do but ask of former days" (this is in the singular). From this we may infer, that one may ask, not two. Lest one assume that a man can ask, What was before the creation? therefore it is written [ibid.]: "Since the day that God created man from the earth"; but lest one assume, a man must not ask even what was done in the six days of creation? therefore it is written [ibid.]: "Which were before thee" [i.e., the six days before]; lest one ask, What is above and what is beneath, what was before creation and what will be after it? therefore it is written [ibid.]: "From one end of the heavens unto the other end of the heavens," "but not what is beyond." [If we infer this from what is written: "From one end of the heavens unto the other end," why is needed the verse further: "Since the day that God created man upon the earth"? This is according to R. Elazar, who said that Adam was tall from the earth up to heaven, and after he had transgressed, the Holy One, blessed be He, laid His hand upon him, and made him lower, as it is written (Ps. cxxxix. 5): "Behind and before hast thou hedged me in, and thou placest upon me thy hand."]

R. Jehudah in the name of Rabh said: Ten things were created on the first day, and they are: heaven and earth; chaos and desolation; light and darkness; wind and waters; the measures of the day and those of the night--heaven and earth, for it is written [Gen. i. 1]: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth"; chaos and desolation, for it is written [ibid. i. 2]: "And the earth was without form and void (chaos)"; light and darkness--darkness, for it is written [ibid., ibid.]: "And darkness was upon the face of the deep"; light, for it is written [ibid. i. 3]: "And God said, Let there be light"; wind and water, for it is written [ibid. i. 2]: "And the spirit (wind) of God was waving over the face of the waters"; the measures of the day and those of the night, for it is written [ibid. i. 5]: "And it was evening; and it was morning, the first day."

We have learned in a Boraitha: Chaos is a green line compassing all the world, and from it darkness springs, as it is written [Ps. xviii. 12]: "He made darkness his hiding place, round about him." Desolation--this means the stones covered with mud, which are sunk in the deep, from which waters come forth, as it is written [Is. xxxiv. 11]: "And he shall stretch out over it the line of destination and the weights of desolation."

Was light created on the first day? Is it not written [Gen. i. 17]: "And God set them in the expansion of the heaven," and also [ibid. i. 19]: "And it was evening and it was morning the fourth day"? This is as R. Elazar said: The light which the Holy One created on the first day, Adam saw by its means from one end of the world to the other. When the Holy One considered the generation of the flood and the generation of the dispersion, and that their works were vain, He took it from them and concealed it for the upright in the world to come. In this, however, the following Tanaim differ, as we have learned in a Boraitha: The light which the Holy One, blessed be He, created on the first day, Adam observed and saw by its means from one end of the world' to the other. So said R. Jacob. But the sages said. These are the luminaries which were created on the first day, but were not hung up until the fourth day.

R. Zutra bar Tobiah in the name of Rabh said: By ten things the world was created: by wisdom and by understanding; by knowledge and by strength; by rebuke and by might; by righteousness and by judgment; by mercy and by compassion. R. Jehudah in the name of Rabh said: At the time that the Holy One, blessed be He, created the world it went spreading on like two clews of shoot and warp, until the Holy One, blessed be He, rebuked it and brought it to a standstill, as it is written [Job xxvi. 11]: "The pillars of heaven tremble greatly, and are astounded at his rebuke." And this is what Resh Lakish also said: What is meant by [Gen. xvii. 1]: "I am the Almighty God"? (‏שדי‎) It means: I am He Who (‏ש‎) said to the world, "Enough" (‏די‎) Resh Lakish said again: At the time the Holy One, blessed be He, created the sea, it went spreading on, until the Holy One, blessed be He, rebuked it and made it dry, for it is written [Nah. i. 4]: "He rebuketh the sea and maketh it dry; and all the rivers he dried up."

The rabbis taught: The School of Shammai say: The heavens were created in the beginning, and afterwards the earth was created, for it is written [Gen. i. 1]: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." But the School of Hillel say: The earth was created in the beginning, and afterwards the heavens, for it is written [Gen. ii. 4]: "On the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven." Said the School of Hillel to the School of Shammai: According to your words, a man builds an upper story, and afterwards builds a house; and the heavens are the upper story, as it is written [Amos ix. 6]: "That buildeth in the heavens his steps, and hath founded his vault over the earth." Said the School of Shammai to the School of Hillel: According to you, a man makes a footstool, and afterwards makes a throne, as it is written [Is. lxvi. i]: "Thus saith the Lord, The heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool." The sages say: Both were created together, as it is written [ibid. xlviii. 13]: "My hand also hath laid the foundation of the earth, and my right hand hath spanned out the heavens. I call unto them, they stand forward together."

What is meant by "heavens"? Said R. Jose bar Hanina: It means, the place where there is water. In a Boraitha it is explained as equivalent to fire and water, thus teaching that the Holy One, blessed be He, brought them and mingled them one with the other, and made from them the firmament. R. Ishmael questioned R. Aqiba when they were on the road: Thou art one who hast served for twenty-two years Na'hum, the man of "Gimzu," the man who expounded the meaning of all the particles "eth" (the) which are in the Law. What was his exposition of "Eth-ha-shamayim v'eth haaretz"? R. Aqiba answered: If the words had been simply: First created God heaven and earth, I should have said, "Heaven" is another name of God. But as it is now, all know that heaven and earth are to be taken in the literal meaning. And why do I find the expression "v'eth haaretz"? To show that heaven preceded the earth.

There is a Boraitha of R. Jose which says: Woe to the creatures which see and know not what they see, which stand and know not upon what they stand. Upon what does the earth stand? Upon the pillars. The pillars stand upon the waters; the waters upon the mountains; the mountains upon the wind; the wind upon the storm; the storm is suspended upon the strength of the Holy One, blessed be He, as it is written [Deut. Xxxiii. 27]: "And here beneath, the everlasting arms." The sages say: It stands upon twelve pillars, as it is written [Deut. xxiii. 8]: "He set the bounds of the tribes according to the number of the sons of Israel." According to others, seven pillars, as it is written [Prov. ix. i]: "She had hewn out her seven pillars." R. Elazar b. Shamua said: Upon one pillar, and its name is Zaddik (The Righteous), as it is written [Prov. x. 25]: "But the righteous is an everlasting foundation." R. Jehudah said: There are two firmaments, as it is written [Deut. x. 14]: "Behold, to the Lord thy God belong the heavens and the heavens of the heavens." Resh Lakish said, they are seven, viz.: Vilon, Rakia, Shchakim, Zbul, Maon, Makhon, Araboth. Vilon serves no purpose whatever save this, that it enters in the morning, and goes forth in the evening, and renews every day the work of creation. Rakia is that in which are set sun and moon, stars and constellations. Shchakim is that in which the millstones stand and grind manna for the righteous.

Zbul is that in which is the heavenly Jerusalem and the Temple, and the altar is built there, and Michael the great prince stands and offers upon it an offering. Maon is that in which are companies of ministering angels, who utter His song in the night and are silent in the day for the sake of the glory of Israel. Resh Lakish said: Every one who studied in the Law in this world, which is like the night, the Holy One, blessed be He, stretches over him the thread of grace for the future world, which is like the day, as it is written: "By the day the Lord gives his merciful command, and by night his song is with me." Makhon is that in which are the treasures of hail, and the high dwelling-place of harmful dews and the high dwelling-place of the round drops, and the chamber of the whirlwind and of the storm, and the retreat of noisome vapor; and their doors are made of fire. Araboth is that in which are righteousness and judgment and grace, the treasures of life and the treasures of peace and the treasures of blessing, and the souls of the righteous and the spirits and souls which are about to be created, and the dew with which the Holy One, blessed be He, is about to quicken mortals. There also are celestials and seraphs and holy beings and ministering angels and the throne of glory, and the King, the Living God, high and lifted up, sitting over them among the clouds, and darkness and cloud and thick darkness surround Him. How is there darkness in the presence of the Lord? Is it not written [Dan. ii. 22]: "He is that revealeth what is deep and secret: he knoweth what is in the darkness, and the light dwelleth with him"? This presents no difficulty. The one refers to that which is within, the other to that which is without. R. A'ha bar Jacob said: There is again a firmament above the heads of the living creatures, for it is written [Ezek. i. 22]: "And the likeness of a vault was over the head of the living creatures, shining like the glitter of the purest crystal." So far thou hast permission to speak. Thenceforward thou hast not permission to speak. For thus it is written in the book of Ben Sira: Seek not out the things that are too hard for thee, and into the things that are hidden from thee inquire thou not. In what is permitted to thee instruct thyself thou must not discuss secret things.

We have learned in a Boraitha: Rabban Johanan b. Zakkai said: What answer did the heavenly voice make to that wicked man at the time when he said [Is. xiv. 14], "I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be equal to the Most High"? The heavenly voice said to him: Thou wicked man, son of a wicked man, grandson of Nimrod the Wicked, who led all the world to rebel against Him in his kingdom, how many are the years of a man? Seventy years, as it is said [Ps. xc. 10]: "The days of our years in this life are seventy years, and if by uncommon vigor they be eighty..." And is not from the earth to the firmament a journey of five hundred years, and so too the interspace of the firmaments? Above there are the holy living creatures. The feet of the living creatures are of corresponding measure to all the things mentioned above, the ankles of the living creatures are of corresponding measure, the legs of the living creatures are of corresponding measure, the knees of the living creatures are of corresponding measure, the thighs of the living creatures are of corresponding measure, the bodies of the living creatures are of corresponding measure, the necks of the living creatures are of corresponding measure, the heads of the living creatures are of corresponding measure, the horns of the living creatures are of corresponding measure. Above them is the throne of glory. The feet of the throne of glory are of corresponding measure. The throne of glory is of corresponding measure. The King, the Living and Eternal God, high and lifted up, sitteth upon them. And thou didst say: "I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be equal to the Most High"? Yet thou, shalt be brought down to bell, to the uttermost parts of the pit.

"Nor the divine chariot with one." R. Hyya taught: But you may impart to him the quintessence of the chapters. Said R. Zera: Even that may only be imparted to a chief of the Beth Din, and only then when his heart yearns for knowledge.

R. Ami said: The secrets of the Law may be imparted only to the one who has the five prescribed things, viz. [Is. iii, 3]: "The captain of fifty, and the honorable man, and the counsellor, and the skilful artificer, and the eloquent orator." R. Johanan said to R. Elazar: Come, I will fully instruct thee in the subject of the divine chariot. He said to him: I am not old enough. When he was old enough, R. Johanan's soul had passed away. R. Asi said to him: Come, I will fully instruct thee in the subject of the divine chariot. He said to him: If I had been worthy, I should have received full instruction from R. Johanan, thy teacher. R. Joseph was giving full instruction in the subject of the divine chariot. The sages of Pumbeditha were teaching the subject of creation. They said to him: Would the master instruct us fully in the subject of the divine chariot? He answered them: Instruct me in the subject of creation. After they had instructed him, they said to him: Would the master instruct us in the subject of the divine chariot? He answered: In reference to this we have learned in a Boraitha: It is written [Song of Songs iv. 11]: "Honey and milk are under thy tongue." That means, let words sweeter than honey and milk be under thy tongue. R. Abuhu infers the same thing from the following passage [Prov. xxvii. 26]: "The sheep are for thy clothing." That means, things that are the secrets of the world shall be under thy clothes. They said to him: We have worked in them as far as the words [Ezek. ii. 1]: "And he said unto me, Son of man." And he said to them: But this is the real subject of the divine chariot.

The rabbis taught: It happened once that a certain child, who was reading in his teacher's house in the Book of Ezekiel, was pondering over 'Hashmal, and there came out fire from 'Hashmal and burnt him, and they sought in consequence to conceal the Book of Ezekiel. Said Hananiah b. Hezkyah to them: If he was wise, are then all wise?

It is written [Ezek. i. 4]: "And I saw, and behold, a storm wind came out of the north, a great cloud, and a flaming fire, and a brightness was on it round about; and out of the midst of it was like the glitter of amber, out of the midst of the fire." Whither did it go?, Said R. Jehudah in the name of Rabh: It went forth to subdue the whole world under the wicked Nebuchadnezzar. And this was done that the nations might not say: The Holy One, blessed be He, delivered His children into the hands of a low nation. The Holy One, blessed be He, said: What forced Me to minister to worshippers of carved images? The iniquities of Israel, they forced me. It is written [ibid. i. 15]: "And I looked on the living creatures, and behold, there was one wheel upon the earth close by the living creatures." Said R. Elazar: It means a certain angel who stands upon the earth, and his head reaches to the level of the living creatures. In a Tosephtha we are taught that his name is Sandalphon, who is higher than his fellows by the space of a journey of five hundred years, and he stands behind the divine chariot and binds crowns for his Creator. This is not so, as it is written [Ezek. iii. 12]: "Blessed be the glory of the Lord from his place." From this we may infer that His place is impossible to know? He utters one of the holy names of the Lord over the wreath, and thereupon he goes and rests by His head. Rabha said: All which Ezekiel saw Isaiah saw, but Ezekiel was like a villager who saw the king for the first time (and therefore he said all that he has seen); Isaiah, however, was like a townsman who has often seen the king (and therefore he said little).

Resh Lakish said: What is the meaning of the passage [Ex. xv. 1]: "I will sing unto the Lord, for he hath triumphed gloriously"? It means a song to Him who takes His place proudly above the high, as the Master said: The king among living creatures is a lion; the king among domestic beasts is an ox; the king among birds is an eagle, but man takes his place proudly above them, and the Holy One, blessed be He, takes His place proudly above them all, and above the whole world in its entirety. We have learned in a Boraitha: Rabbi said in the name of Abba Jose b. Dosai: It is written [Dan. vii. 10]: "Thousand times thousands ministered unto him." This is the number of one troop, but all his troops cannot be numbered. R. Jeremiah bar Abba, however, said: This passage refers to the fiery stream, as it is written [ibid., ibid.]: "A stream of fire issued and came forth from before him; thousand times thousands ministered unto him; and myriad times myriads stood before him." Whence does it come forth? From the perspiration of the living creatures. And upon what is it poured? Said R. Zutra bar Tobiah in the name of Rabh: Upon the heads of the wicked men in Gehenna, as it is written [Jer. xxiii. 19]: "Behold, the storm wind of the Lord is gone forth in fury; yea, a whirling storm upon the head of the wicked shall it fall grievously." R. A'ha bar Jacob said: Upon those who were held back, as it is writ. ten [Job xxii. 16]: "Who were shrivelled up before their time, whose foundation was flooded away like a river?" There is a Boraitha to the effect that R. Simeon the Pious said: There are nine hundred and seventy-four generations which were held back from being created. The Holy One, blessed be He, scattered them through all the successive generations, and these are the impudent (‏עזי פגים‎) who are in a generation. R. Na'hman bar Itz'hak, however, said: On the contrary, this passage refers to those who are wrinkled for blessing, as it is written: As for these scholars who have become wrinkled over the words of the Law in this world, the Holy One, blessed be He, discloses to them the secrets of the world to come, as it is written [Job xxii. 16]: "Whose foundation was flooded away like a river."

Samuel said to Hyya bar Rabh: Thou son of a scholar, come and I will tell thee something of those noble words which thy father used to say: Every several day ministering angels are created from the fiery stream, and they utter a song and perish, as it. is written [Lam. iii. 23]: "They are new every morning; great is thy faithfulness."

When R. Dimi came he said: Eighteen curses did Isaiah pronounce upon Israel, and he was not satisfied, until he had spoken against them this passage [Is. iii. 5]: "The boy shall demean himself proudly against the ancient, and the base against the honorable."

What are the eighteen curses? The following [Is. iii. 1-4]: For, behold, the Lord, the Eternal of hosts, doth remove from Jerusalem and from Judah stay and staff, every stay of bread, and every stay of water. The hero and the men of war," etc., etc. "Stay"--these are the learned in the Law. "Staff"--these are the learned in the Mishna; e.g., R. Jehudah b. Tema and his fellows. [R. Papa and the rabbis differ in respect to this: One says, there were six hundred sections of Mishna, and another says, there were seven hundred sections.] "Every stay of bread"--these are the learned in Talmud, as it is written [Prov. ix. 5): "Come, eat of my bread, and drink of the wine which I have mingled." "And every stay of water"--these are the learned in Agada, who draw a man's heart like water by means of Agada." "The hero"--this is the man versed, in oral tradition. "And the man of war"--this is he who knows how to handle matters in the battle of the Law. "The judge"--this is a magistrate who gives decisions faithfully, "And the prophet"--this is in its literal meaning. "The prudent"--this is a king, as it is written [Prov. xvi. 10] "There should be a wise sentence on the lips of the king." "And the ancient"--this is he who is worthy to sit as a teacher presiding over an academy. "The captain of fifty"--this is in accordance with R. Abuhu, who saith: From this we may infer, that an interpreter who is less than fifty years old is not appointed over the congregation.

"And the honorable man"--this is he for whose merits his generation is forgiven; by Heaven (e.g., R. Hanina b. Dosa); in this world (e.g., R. Abuhu in the house of Cæsar). "And the counsellor"--one who knows how to intercalate years and to fix months. "And the skilful"--this is the disciple who, by his keenness, sharpens the minds of his teachers. "Artificer"--at the time he is unfolding the words of the Law all are made like deaf men. "And the eloquent"--this is he who, having knowledge of one thing, can derive therefrom knowledge of another thing. "Orator"--this is he to whom it is fitting to impart the words of the Law, which is given in a whisper (e.g., the subject of the divine chariot. See page 21). "And I will set up boys as their princes"--that is, as R. Elazar said: These are men who are deprived of good works. "And children shall rule over them"--as R. A'ha bar Jacob said: These are foxes and sons of foxes. And he was not satisfied until he had said to them: "The boy shall demean himself proudly against the ancient," etc. [ibid., ibid.]--these are the men who are deprived of good works. They shall demean themselves proudly against the one who is filled with good works as a pomegranate. "And the base against the honorable"--i.e., that one to whom heavy sins are like light ones will demean himself proudly against the one to whom light sins are like heavy ones.

R. Kattina said: Even at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem there did not cease from them faithful men. Is that so? Did we not learn: Rabha said: Jerusalem was not laid waste till there ceased from it faithful men, as it is written [Jer. v. 1]: "Roam about through the streets of Jerusalem, and see now, and notice, and search in its broad places, if ye can find one man, if there be one who executeth justice, that searcheth for truth: and I will pardon it"? This presents no difficulty. The former means, faithful in the study of the Law, and the latter means, honesty in common business.

The rabbis taught: It happened with Rabban Johanan b. Zakkai that he was riding upon his ass and was travelling on the road, and R. Elazar b. Arakh was behind him, as driver. Said the latter to him: Rabbi, teach me a chapter on the subject of the divine chariot. And he answered him: Have I not taught you: Nor the chariot with one individual, unless he was a wise man and had much knowledge of his own? Then he said to him: Rabbi, allow me to say before thee one thing which thou hast taught me. He allowed him. Immediately R. Johanan b. Zakkai dismounted from the ass, and wrapped himself up and seated himself upon the stone under the olive tree. R. Elazar asked him: Rabbi, wherefore didst thou dismount from the ass? He answered him: Is it right that thou shouldest investigate the subject of the divine chariot, and the Shekhina is with us and ministering angels accompany us, and that I should ride. upon the ass? Then R. Elazar b. Arakh entered upon the subject of the divine chariot and lectured: And there descended fire from heaven and encircled all the terebinth trees of the field, which uttered a song. [What was the song which they uttered? [Ps. cxlviii. 7, 9, 14]: "Praise the Lord from the earth, ye sea monsters, and all deeps... fruitful trees and all cedars... Hallelujah."] An angel answered from the fire: This is the real subject of the divine chariot. R. Johanan arose and kissed him upon his head, and said: Blessed be the Lord God of Israel who hath given to our father Abraham. a son who is able to understand and lecture on this subject. There is one who lectures well, but doth not perform well. There is one who performeth well, but does not expound well. Thou dost expound well and dost perform well. Blessed art thou, Abraham our father, from whose loins bath come forth Elazar b. Arakh.

And when these things were told to R. Joshua, he and R. Jose the priest were travelling on the road. They said: Let us also expound on the same subject. R. Joshua opened his mouth and lectured: And it was the day of the summer solstice. The heavens were wrapped in clouds, and there appeared the form of a bow in the cloud, and the angels were assembling and coming to hearken, as the men assemble and come to look at the festivities of bridegroom and bride. R. Jose the priest went forward and related the whole occurrence to Rabban Johanan b. Zakkai, who said: Blessed are ye, and blessed is she that bare you. Blessed are mine eyes, that they have thus seen. And also in my dream I and ye were resting upon Mount Sinai, and a heavenly voice was heard, which said: Come up hither, come up hither. Large banqueting chambers are prepared and fair coverlets are spread for you, you and your disciples and your disciples' disciples, as fitted to attain to the third degree of blessedness.

Is it so? Have we not learned in a Boraitha: R. Jose in the name of R. Jehudah said: There were three consecutive expositions. R. Joshua explained things before R. Johanan b. Zakkai; R. Aqiba explained things before R. Joshua; Hananiah b. Hachinai explained before R. Aqiba. Hence we see that R. Elazar b. Arakh was not mentioned. (This presents no difficulty:) He who teaches and before whom others teach is mentioned, while he who teaches and before whom others do not teach is not mentioned. But was not Hananiah b. Hachinai one who taught and before whom others did not teach? And still he was mentioned? Yea, for he taught at least in the presence of one who taught others.

The rabbis taught: Four men went up into the heavenly garden, and they were: Ben Azzai and Ben Zoma, A'her and R. Aqiba. Ben Azzai gazed and died; to him the scriptural passage may be applied [Ps. cxvi. 15]: "Grievous in the eyes of the Lord is the death of his pious ones." Ben Zoma gazed and went mad; to him the scriptural passage may be applied [Prov. xxv. 16] Hast thou found honey? eat so much as is sufficient for thee, lest thou consume too much of it, and have to vomit it forth." A'her cut the plants. R. Aqiba departed in peace. A'her cut the plants; it is to him that the scriptural passage may be applied [Eccl. v. 6]: "Suffer not thy mouth to cause thy body to sin." There came out a heavenly voice and said [Jer. iii. 14]: "Return, O backsliding children" (except A'her). When he learned it he said: Inasmuch as that man is excluded from yonder world, let him go and enjoy himself in this world. A'her went forth into evil courses. A'her asked this question of R. Meir, after he had gone forth into evil courses: What is the meaning of the passage [Eccl. vii. 14]: "Also this hath God made in equal measure with the other"? He answered him: Everything which the Holy One, blessed be He, created, He created with its counterpart. He created mountains; He created hills: He created seas; He created rivers. He said to him: R. Aqiba thy teacher did not say so, but he explained it as meaning that He created righteous; He created sinners. He created the Garden of Eden; He created Gehenna. To every individual belongs two shares, one in the Garden of Eden and one in Gehenna. If one is meritorious and righteous, he receives his own portion and also the portion of his neighbor in the Garden of Eden. If he has incurred guilt, he receives his own portion and also the portion of his neighbor in Gehenna. [R. Mesharshia said: What is the Scripture proof? As regards the righteous it is written [Is. lxi. 7]: "Therefore in their hand shall they possess a twofold (portion)"; as regards the wicked it is said [Jer. xvii. 18]: "And strike them with a double breach."]

A'her asked again of R. Meir: What is the meaning of the passage [Job xxviii. 17]: "She cannot be estimated after gold and glass; and not in exchange for her (can) vessels of refined gold (be taken)"? He answered him: These are the words of the Law, which are difficult to buy, as vessels of gold and of pure gold, and are easily lost, as vessels of glass. He said to him: R. Aqiba thy teacher did not say so, but he explained it as meaning that as vessels of gold and vessels of glass, although they are broken, may be mended, so a disciple of the sages, although he have sinned, may be mended. He said to him: Return thyself also. He answered him I have already heard from behind the curtain [Jer. iii. 14]: "Return, O backsliding children" (except A'her).

Also, what happened to Ben Zoma with R. Jehoshua b. Hananiah, as it seems to us the version of the Palestinian Talmud is correct. See note above.} The rabbis taught: It happened that A'her was riding upon his horse on the Sabbath, and R. Meir was walking behind him to learn the Law from his mouth. He said to him: Meir, turn thee backwards, for I have already measured by means of my horse's hoofs up to this point the legal limit of the Sabbath. He answered him: Return thyself also. He said to him: And have I not already answered thee what I have heard from behind the curtain? He forced him to enter a place of lecturing. He said to a child: Repeat for me thy verse. He said to him [Is. xlviii. 22]: "There is no peace, saith the Lord, unto the wicked." He brought him to another synagogue, until he had brought him into thirteen synagogues. They all repeated to him the same way. In the last one he said to him: Repeat for me thy verse. He said to him [Ps. i. 16]: "But unto the wicked God saith: What hast thou to do to relate my statutes, and why bearest thou my covenant upon thy mouth?" That child was a stammerer. It sounded as if he had said: "And to Elisha said God," etc. And he said: If there had been a knife in my hand I would have cut him in pieces.

When A'her died it was said: Let him not be brought into judgment (because he has studied the Law), but let him not be admitted to the world to come (because he sinned). R. Meir said: It would have been better if he would have been brought to judgment and punished, and then admitted to the world to come. I wish I would die, in order that smoke should go up from his grave (i.e., that he should be brought to judgment). When R. Meir died it was so: smoke went up from the grave of A'her. Said R. Johanan: A mighty deed it was to consign his teacher to the flames. There was one among us, and we should not find a way to save him? If I take him by the hand, who will snatch him away from me? Would that I might die and extinguish the smoke from his grave. And it was so. When R. Johanan died the smoke ceased from the grave of A'her. The public mourner then uttered this expression over him: Even the keeper of the door of Gehenna stood not his ground before thee, O our teacher!

The daughter of A'her came to Rabbi and asked him for food. He said to her: Whose daughter art thou? She answered: I am the daughter of A'her. And he said to her: Is there still of his seed in the world? Is it not written [Job xviii. 19]: "He will have neither son nor grandson among his people, nor any that escapeth in the places of his sojourning"? She said to him: Remember his studiousness, and not his deeds. Immediately there came down fire, and consumed the seat of Rabbi. Rabbi wept and said: And if those who disgrace themselves through it, are honored thus, how much more those who obtain praise through their use of it.

How did R. Meir study the Law from the mouth of A'her? Have we not learned (see Tract Moed Katan) that if it is not certain that the rabbi is equal to an angel, no instruction must be received from him? Said Resh Lakish: R. Meir interpreted the following passage thus [Prov. xxii. 17]: "Incline thine ear, and hear the words of the wise, and apply thy heart unto my knowledge." It is not written, "Unto their knowledge," but "unto My knowledge." R. Hanina said the following passage [Ps. xlv. 11]: "Hearken, O daughter, and look and incline thy ear, and forget thy own people, and thy father's houses," etc. But do not these passages contradict each other? Nay, the one is the case of an adult, the other of a young person (who cannot distinguish between good and evil).

When R. Dimi came he said: They say in the West: R. Meir, while eating the date, he threw away the stone (i.e., he picked out the good and threw away the bad teachings).

Rabha expounded the meaning of the passage [Song of Songs vi. 11]: "Into the nut-garden was I gone down, to look about among the plants of the valley," etc. Why are scholars likened to a nut? It means to say that, as a nut, although soiled, what is within it is clean: so also, although a scholar has sinned, his study of the law is not rejected.

Rabba bar Shila met Elijah and said to him: What is the Holy One, blessed be He, doing? He answered him: He had uttered doctrine in the name of all other rabbis, but in the name of R. Meir He had not uttered. He said to him: Why? Because he learned doctrine from the mouth of A'her. He said to him again: Why? R. Meir found a pomegranate. He ate its inside and cast away its husk. He answered him: He is at this moment saying: Meir my son is speaking and says: At the time that men were afflicted, the Shekhina used the following language: My head and my arm are heavy on me (i.e., I am sorry that the men I have created have to die for their sins). If the Holy One, blessed be he, is thus grieved when the blood of wicked men is poured out, how much more when the blood of the righteous man is poured out.

Samuel found R. Jehudah when the latter was swinging upon the bolt of a door and weeping. He said to him: Is it a small thing that is written concerning the rabbis [Is. xxxiii. 18]: "Where is he who wrote down? where is he that weighed? where is he that counted the towers"? "Where is he that counted?" for they counted all the letters that are in the Books of the Law. "Where is he that weighed?" for they weighed the light and the heavy things which are in the Law. "Where is he that counted the towers?" for they taught three hundred doctrines concerning the tower which flies in the air. And R. Ami said: Three hundred questions were treated by Doeg and Ahithophel concerning the tower which flies in the air. And we learned, however, in a Mishna (Tract Sanhedrin, chap. xi. 1): Three kings and four private persons have no position in the world to come, and we--what will there be for us? He said to him: Oh, clever one, there was uncleanness in their hearts.

It was said about A'her: Greek melody ceased not from his mouth, as it was said of him (A'her), that at the time when he stood up to go out of the college many books of the Minim used to fall from his lap.

Nimus of Gardi asked R. Meir: Does all wool which goes down to the dyeing-vat come up with the right color? He answered him: All which was clean on its mother's (sheep's) back does so come up; all which was not clean on its mother's back does not so come up.

It is said above: R. Aqiba went into the heavenly garden in peace and came down from it in peace. And it is to him that the scriptural passage may be applied [Song of Songs i. 4]: "Oh, draw me! after thee will we run." Nevertheless R. Aqiba was also in danger of being thrust away by the angels, but the Holy One, blessed be He, said to them: Leave this elder, for he is worthy to avail himself of My glory.

What kept R. Aqiba from being misled, as was A'her? The passage [1 Kings xix. 11, 12]: "But not in the wind was the Lord; and after the wind was an earthquake, but not in the earthquake was the Lord; and after the earthquake was a fire, but not in the fire was the Lord; and after the fire was the sound of a soft whisper. And, behold, the Lord passed by" (i.e., from the whisper he understood that there was the Shekhina).

The rabbis taught: Six things are said with regard to demons, three in which they are like the angels: they have wings, they float from one end of the world to the other, and they know what is about to be; and three in which they are like men: they eat and drink, they are fruitful and multiply, and they are mortal.

Six things are said with regard to men, three in which they are like angels: they have knowledge like the angels, they go with stature erect, and they speak in the holy language; and three like the beasts: they eat and drink like beasts, and they are fruitful and multiply, and they relieve nature.

"Every one who does not respect the glory," etc. What is meant by this? Said R. Joseph: This is the man who commits a transgression secretly. This is in accordance with R. Itz'hak, who said: Every one who committeth a transgression secretly is as though he jarred the feet of the Shekhina, as it is written [Is. lxvi. i]: "Thus hath said the Lord, The heaven is my throne and the earth is my foot-stool." But this is not so, for R. Alea the Elder said (in Tract Moed Katan), that in such a case he may go to a place where he is not known? (as it will be explained in Moed Katan). This presents no difficulty. The former is the case of a man who has found a means of checking his evil nature; the other, of one who is not able to do so.

R. Jehudah in the name of R. Na'hmani, the interpreter of Resh Lakish, lectured: Every one who gazes upon three things, his eyes grow weak, viz.: upon the bow, and the prince, and the priests. Upon the bow, for it is written [Ezek. i. 28]: "Like the appearance of the bow that is in the cloud on the day of rain... this was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the Lord." Upon the prince, for it is written [Num. xxvii. 20]: "And thou shalt put some of thy greatness upon him." He that gazeth upon the priests--this has to do with the time that the Temple was in existence, when they stood upon their platform and blessed Israel in the ineffable name.

The same lectured again in the name of the same authority: It is written [Mic. vii. 5]: "Trust ye not in a friend, put ye not confidence in a confidant." It means, if the evil imagination say to thee, Do thou sin and the Lord will forgive, be not persuaded, as it is written: "Trust ye not in an evil one"; and "an evil one" is nothing but the evil imagination, as it is written [Gen. viii. 21]: "The imagination of a man's heart is evil"; and there is no "guide" but the Lord, as it is written [Jer. iii. 4]: "My father, the guide of my youth art thou." Perhaps one might say, Who witnesseth against me? The stones of a man's house and the timbers of his house, these witness against him, as it is written [Hab. ii. 11]: "For the stone will cry out of the wall, and the beam out of the wood (work) will answer it." The sages say: The soul of a man witnesseth against him, as it is written [Mic. vii. 5]: "From her that lieth in thy bosom guard the doors of thy mouth." What is this that lieth in a man's bosom? Say, it is the soul. R. Zerika said: The two angels which lead him, these witness against him, as it is written [Ps. xci. 11]: "For his angels will he give charge concerning thee, to guard thee on all thy ways." Others say: The limbs of one's body testify against him, as it is written [Is. xliii. 12]: "And ye are my witness, saith the Lord, and I am God."

MISHNA: Jose b. Joezer says that one must not lay on his hand (on a sacrifice on a biblical festival), but Joseph b. Johanan says that one may. Joshua b. P'ra'hia says that one must not lay it, but Mathai the Arbelite says that one may. Jebudah b. Tabbai says that one must not, but Simeon b. Sheta'h says he should. Sh'maia says he must, but Abtalian says he must not. Hillel and Mena'hem. did not differ. Mena'hem went out (left the Sanhedrin); Shammai entered it. Shammai says one must not; Hillel says one may. The first of the several pairs were princes, the second to them were chiefs of the court.

GEMARA: The rabbis taught: In the three former pairs, which say that a man is not to lay, and in the two latter pairs, which say that a man is to lay, the first were princes and the second chiefs of the court. So said R. Meir. But the sages say: Jehudah b. Tabbai was a chief of the court and Simeon b. Sheta'h was a prince.

"Mena'hem went out," etc. Whither did he go out? Said Rabha: He went out from the service of the king. We have learned in a Boraitha: Mena'hem went out from the service of the king, and there went out with him eighty pairs of disciples clothed in Syrian robes. Said R. Shaman bar Abba in the name of R. Johanan: Let a rabbinical decree concerning the Sabbath not be a light thing in thine eyes, for the laying on of the hand is only a rabbinical prohibition, and the greatest men of the different generations were divided upon this matter. Is this not self-evident? He comes to teach us that even a rabbinical prohibition which is seemingly contrary to a positive command of the Bible must also not be light in thine eyes. But this is also self-evident from the teachings of our Mishna? This is needed to object to those who say that they differ not as to the rabbinical prohibition, but as to the laying on of the hand itself, because they maintain that the laying on of the hand is necessary only in case of a voluntary peace-offering, but not in that of an obligatory peace-offering.

Said Rami bar Hama: Infer from this that the laying on of the hands must be with all one's strength, because if we would imagine that all the strength is not necessary, what labor is it or what is he doing to the animal that the rabbis prohibited it on the festival?

An objection was raised: We have learned elsewhere It is written [Lev. i. 2-4]: "Speak unto the children of Israel... and he shall lay his hand." He--the males, but not the females of Israel. R. Jose and R. Simeon, however, said that the females of Israel, if they wish, they may lay on their hands (although it is not obligatory for them); and R. Jose added to this: My father Elazar told me that it happened once that we had a calf of peace-offering, and we brought it to the department of the women, and the latter laid their hands on it. It was not because the laying on of the hands belongs to women, but so as to gratify them. Now, if you think that the laying on of the hand must be with all one's strength, would it be right, in order to gratify the women, to allow them to do labor with the holy things? Infer, therefore, from this that it is not necessary to use all the strength. Nay, maybe it is necessary, but in that case it was told to the women to lay on their hands lightly. If so, why does R. Jose say: Not because the laying on of the hands belongs to women, etc. Let him say, because it was not considered laying on at all? Said R. Ami: he meant both, firstly, because it was not considered laying on the hands at all; and, secondly, in order to gratify the women.

MISHNA: The House of Shammai say: A peace-offering may be brought without laying the hands on them, but not burnt-offerings. But the House of Hillel say: Both peace-offerings and burnt-offerings may be brought, and also lay the hands on them.

In the case of Pentecost, which falls upon the eve of a Sabbath, the House of Shammai say: The day for sacrificing is after the Sabbath. But the House of Hillel say: There is no day for sacrificing after the Sabbath. Both, however, admit that if it fall upon a Sabbath the day for sacrificing is the day after the Sabbath. And on that day (which is called the day of sacrificing) a high-priest is not to clothe himself in his costly garments, unless in case of a mourning or of a fast. The prohibition was in order not to confirm the words of those who say, Pentecost is after the Sabbath (only).

GEMARA: (The Gemara begins with the saying of R. Elazar in the name of R. Oshiyah, that the Pentecost-offering is transferable to all the six succeeding days, and repeats here all the statement contained in Tract Rosh Hashana, p. 6, lines 15-29.)

"In the case of Pentecost which falls on the eve of a Sabbath," etc. Does that not mean that there is no day at all for sacrificing? Nay, it means that a substituted day is necessary for this. But what does it come to teach us--that it shall be sacrificed on the very day of the festival? Was this not discussed already in the beginning of our Mishna? It is needed. For if the statement would be in the latter paragraph only, one might say that the School of Shammai hold so because it can be done on the morrow, but if it fall on the eve of a Sabbath, when it cannot be done on the morrow, they agree with the School of Hillel; and if the statement would be in the first paragraph only, one might say that the School of Hillel allow it to be sacrificed on the very day of the festival because it cannot be done on the morrow, but when the Pentecost falls on the Sabbath day, they agree with the House of Shammai; therefore both statements are needed. (An objection was raised:) Come and hear: 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 day of Pentecost, he cannot afterwards keep the feast. Did this not include also the day of Pentecost, that it has no compensation? (i.e., if not sacrificed on the very festival, it cannot be done soon any other day). Nay, it means the last day of compensation.

The disciples of R. Eliezer b. Jacob taught It is written [Lev. xxiii. 21, 22]: "And ye shall proclaim." "And when ye reap." What is the feast in which thou makest proclamation and reapest? Thou must say, it is the Feast of Pentecost. Now, let us see. When is it? If I am to say on the holiday itself, how is reaping lawful on a holiday? We must then say, it means the completion days. Resh Lakish, however, said: It is inferred from the following passage [Ex. xxiii. 16]: "And the feast of the harvest." What is the feast on which thou feastest and reapest? Thou must say, it is the Pentecost. When is it? If I am to say, on the holiday itself, how is reaping lawful on a holiday? We must then say, it means the completion days. Said R. Johanan: According to thee, the Feast of Ingathering. What is the feast in which there is an ingathering? Thou must then say, it is the Feast of Tabernacles. When is it? Shall I say, on the holiday itself? How is work lawful on a holiday? And if you will say, that it means on one of the middle days? But even then is work allowed on those days? Therefore we must say, that it means the feast that falls during the time of the gathering in. Say, also, this is the case here.

We see from this that both are of the opinion that on the middle days the doing of work is forbidden. Whence do we deduce this? From the following Boraitha: It is written [Lev. xxiii. 8]: "No servile work shall ye do." That means, that on the middle days the doing of work is forbidden. So said R. Jose the Galilean. R. Aqiba says: It was not necessary, because it is written [ibid. 4]: "These are the feasts of the Lord," etc. With reference to what is the Scripture speaking? If to the first day, it has been already called a Sabbath day; if to the seventh day, it has also been already called a Sabbath day. We must therefore say, it refers to the middle days, to teach that doing of work is forbidden thereon.

There is another Boraitha: It is written [Deut. xvi. 8]: "Six days shalt thou eat unleavened bread, and on the seventh day shall be a solemn assembly to the Lord thy God: thou shalt do no work." As on the seventh day work is prohibited, so also on the six days. But one might say, as on the seventh day no work at all is to be done, so also on the six days; therefore it is written [ibid.]: "And on the seventh day shall be a solemn assembly... thou shalt not work," thus indicating that on the seventh day no work at all shall be done, but on the six days there is not a prohibition from all work. Consequently, the Scripture has communicated only to the sages that they can decree on which days work is and on which work is not allowed, and what labor may and what labor may not be done, etc.

"But it is allowed in case of a mourning or of a fast after the Sabbath." But have we not learned in a Boraitha: It happened that Alexis died in Luda, and all Israel assembled to mourn him, and R. Tarphon had not allowed them because it was the festival? Now, if it was the festival itself, how did they come to assemble at all? We must therefore say, it was on the day of sacrificing, and hence we see even on those days it is not allowed to mourn? The Mishna refers to a case when the Pentecost falls on a Sabbath. And the case of Alexis was when it fell on the first day of the week.

MISHNA: One may wash his hands for common food and for second-tithes and for heave-offerings, but for hallowed things they must be bathed legally. For the sin-offering, if one's hands be defiled, his whole body is defiled.

If he have dipped for common food, he has credit as clean for common food, but is forbidden tithe; if for tithe, he has credit for tithe, but not for heave-offering; if for heave-offering, he has credit for heave-offering, but not sacred things; if for sacred things, he has credit for sacred things, but not sin-offering. If for a weightier thing (more rigorous), he is free for a lighter thing (lenient). If he have dipped without any intention for cleanness, it is as though he had not dipped.

The garments of a common person are defiled by pressure (i.e., are looked upon as affected by uncleanness arising from pressure) for Pharisees; the garments of Pharisees are defiled by pressure for those that eat heave-offering; the garments of those that eat heave-offering are defiled by pressure for those that partake of sacred things; the garments of those that partake of sacred things are defiled by pressure for those that partake of sin-offering. Jose b. Joezer was the most pious among the priests, and yet his apron was defiled by pressure for those that partake of sacred things. Johanan b. Gudgodah was one who ate his ordinary food all his days with observance of the laws of purification which belong to sacred things, and yet his apron was defiled by pressure for those that partake of sin-offering.

GEMARA: Is, then, for common food and tithes, washing of hands needed? (Have we not learned elsewhere that it is not needed?) This presents no difficulty: The one has to do with bread, the other with fruit. For R. Na'hman said: Every one who washes his hands for fruit is overscrupulous and affected.

"He that dips for common food and has credit for common food," etc. According to whom is our Mishna? Shall we say it is according to the rabbis, for they make a distinction between common food and tithes? According to whom, then, would be the latter part of the Mishna: The garments of a common person are defiled by pressure for Pharisees; the garments of Pharisees are defiled by pressure for those that eat heave-offering? which is certainly in accordance with R. Meir, who says, common food and tithes are exactly the same? Then this conclusion would be that the former part is according to the rabbis, and the latter part according to R. Meir? Yea, it is so. R. A'ha bar Ada, however, teaches in the latter part five orders, and establishes it all according to the rabbis.

REGULATIONS REGARDING IN WHAT CASES SACRED THINGS ARE MORE RIGOROUS THAN HEAVE-OFFERINGS, AND VICE VERSA.

MISHNA: More rigorous rules hold in sacred things than in a heave-offering, for we may dip vessels in the midst of vessels for a heave-offering, but not for sacred things. The outside and the inside and the place for laying hold are reckoned as distinct in the heave-offering, but not in the sacred things. One who takes up that which has been made unclean by pressure, may offer the heave-offering, but not the sacred things. The garments of those that eat the heave-offering are unclean through pressure in regard to sacred things. The manner of the heave-offering is not as the manner of the sacred things. For in the case of sacred things, one loosens a knot and wipes and dips and afterwards ties up again, but in the case of a heave-offering he ties up and afterwards dips.

Vessels finished in purity need dipping for sacred things, but not for a heave-offering. The vessel includes what is within it for sacred things, but not for heave-offering.

The unclean in the fourth degree in the case for sacred things is disqualified, but in the third degree in the case of heave-offering.

Though one of his hands be unclean in the case of heave offering, its fellow is clean; in the case of sacred things, how ever, both are dipped, for the hand makes its fellow unclean in the case of hallowed things, but not in the case of heave-offering. One may eat dry food with ordinary (not ceremonially clean) hands in the case of heave-offering, but not in the case of sacred things.

A mourner, before the burial of the dead (who has not defiled himself yet on the dead), and one who lacks atonement, need dipping in a legal bath for sacred things, but not for heave-offering.

GEMARA: "In sacred things." Why are sacred things more rigorous? Said R. Aila: Because the weight of the inside vessel intervenes. Shall we assume, that as the reason for the statement in the latter part of the Mishna is because of intervention, the first part has another reason? (For if both have one and the same reason, why state both? One would suffice.) Nay, both the earlier and the later cases are because of intervention, and still it was necessary that they should be separately mentioned, for if he had taught us the first only, one should say, this is the reason for the rigorousness of sacred things, viz.: because of the vessel's weight, which actually exists. But in the latter case, where the vessel's weight is not an element, one should say, in regard to sacred things, that it is not considered an intervention; and if he had taught us the latter only, one should say, the reason why it is not allowed for sacred things is because a knot in water is drawn tighter, while in the former case the water makes the vessel to swim, and so the intervention is not considered. Thus it was necessary that they should be separately mentioned. R. Aila is in accordance with his theory elsewhere, who said in the name of R. Hanina bar Papa: Ten degrees of superior excellence are taught here. The first five refer alike to sacred things, and to ordinary things which are treated with the observance of the law of purification. belonging to sacred things; the latter refer to sacred things only. Why so? Because the former five could constitute a biblical defilement (when he dips one vessel in another vessel, and an intervention would be discovered). The rabbis have ordained that they apply to both. The later one, however, in which there can be no biblical defilement, the rabbis did not care to ordain.

Rabha, however, said: Since the later portion of the Mishna is on account of intervention, the former is not on that account, but because it is a precautionary measure, in order that needles and pipes should not be dipped in a vessel, the mouth of which is not of the size of the pipe of a wine-skin bottle. (This will be explained in Mikwooth, VI., P And Rabha holds in this case, as R. Na'hman said elsewhere in the name of Rabba bar Abuhu, viz.: Eleven features of superior excellence are taught here. The first six refer alike to sacred things and to ordinary things which are treated with the observance of the laws of purification belonging to sacred things. The latter ones refer to sacred things only. What real difference is there between Rabba and R. Aila? It is this: In the case of a basket and a wine-strainer which are filled with vessels and dipped. According to the one who says, the prohibition is because of intervention, there is an intervention; but according to the one who says, that it is a precautionary measure, lest haply needles and pipes should be dipped in a vessel, the mouth of which is not of the size of the pipe of a wine-skin bottle, there is no such thing in a basket and a wine-strainer.

"The outsides and the insides," etc. What is meant by this? As we have learned in a Mishna [Kelim, XXV., 6]: In the case of a vessel the outside of which is defiled by beverages, its outside is defiled, but its inside, its rim, and its short handles, and its long handles are clean; but if its inside is defiled, it is all defiled.

"And the place for laying hold," etc. What is meant by Beth Hazibtah? Said R. Jehudah in the name of Samuel: The part by which he reaches it, as it is written [Ruth ii. 14]: "And he reached her parched corn" (Vaitzboth). R. Asi in the name of R. Johanan said: It means that part of the dish of which fastidious persons lay hold.

"One that takes up that which has been made unclean," etc. Why not sacred things? Because of the following occurrence: R. Jehudah in the name of R. Samuel said: It happened to a certain man, who was carrying a cask of wine from one place to another, and the thong of his sandal came off, and he took it up and placed it on the mouth of the cask, and it fell into the inside of the cask, and it was made unclean. And thereupon it was ordained: One that taketh up that which has been made unclean by pressure may offer the heave-offering, but not the sacred things. If so, why not also the heave-offering? This is in accordance with R. Hananiah b. Aqabia, who said: This restriction was made only as regards Jordan or a ship, and in accordance with the matter that occurred. What was that? It was that which R. Jehudah said in the name of Rabh: It happened with a man who was carrying the sprinkling water and the ashes of the red cow over Jordan in a ship, and a piece of a dead body as large as an olive was found fixed in the bottom of the ship; thereupon it was ordained that such a thing should not happen again.

"Vessels finished in purity," etc. Finished by whom? If a learned man has finished them, why should they be dipped? If a learned man has finished them, how is it that the Mishna calls them "finished in purity"? Said Rabba bar Shila in the name of R. Mothnah quoting Samuel: The case is, that a learned man has finished, yet because of a drop of spittle of a common man which may have fallen upon it, it is treated as unclean. "May have fallen upon it" when? Should we assume, before it is completed, then it is not yet a vessel; if after, then he takes good care of it? The case may be, before it is completed, yet perhaps at the moment it was made, it was still liquid (and it may be defiled).

"The vessel includes what is within," etc. Whence do we know that? Said R. Hanin: It is written [Num. vii. 14, etc]: "One spoon of ten shekels of gold, full of incense." The Scripture makes everything that is in the spoon one. R. Kahana objected: We have learned, that R. Aqiba added to the teaching, which immediately follows, the flour and the incense, and the frankincense and the coals, for if the person, in the course of purification, touch the extremity of it, he disqualifies the whole. Now, this addition of R. Aqiba is certainly rabbinical, as the first part of the Mishna states (Edeoth, viii., 1): R. Simeon b. Bathyra bore testimony with reference to the ashes of the red cow, that if an unclean person touch the extremity of them, he makes all of them unclean; and immediately he says, that R. Aqiba added this? (And R. Hanin says, it is rabbinical.) Said Resh Lakish in the name of Bar Kapara: The addition was only necessary for the rest of the meat-offering, For, biblically, what stands in need of a vessel, the vessel includes it; what does not stand in need of a vessel, the vessel does not include it; but the rabbis went further and ordained that, although a thing does not necessarily belong to a vessel, the vessel, nevertheless, includes it.

"The unclean in the fourth degree," etc. We have learned in a Boraitha: R. Jose said: Whence do we deduce the case of the unclean in the fourth degree, that in the matter of sacred things he is disqualified? By an a fortiori argument. For he who has entered on the last stage of his atonement, while he is free as regards heave-offering, he is disqualified as regards sacred things, so much the more when one is unclean in the third degree who defiles heave-offering that he should become disqualified as regards sacred things if unclean in the fourth degree. We have learned, however, that he who is unclean in the third degree is disqualified as regards sacred things, biblically, and that he who is in the fourth degree--by an a fortiori argument, namely: It is written [Lev. vii. 9]: "And the flesh that toucheth any unclean thing shall not be eaten." Are we not here treating of the touching of a thing of secondary uncleanness? And nevertheless the Scripture says, it shall not be eaten? That which is unclean in the fourth degree is proved to be disqualified by the a fortiori argument stated above.

"And though one of his hands be unclean." R. Shezbi said: It is only in the case of contact, but not otherwise. Abayi objected: We have learned: A wiped hand renders its fellow unclean so far as to make unclean for sacred things, but not for heave-offering. Such is the dictum of Rabbi. R. Jose b. R. Jehudah says: This is the case so far as to disqualify, but not to render unclean. It is correct if the Mishna treats of a case where it did not come in contact, and therefore the importance of "wiped" hand? But if the case is only when there is contact, but not otherwise, where is the importance of "wiped" hand? It was taught also that Resh Lakish said the Mishna refers only to his own hand, but not to the hand of his companion (R. Johanan, however, says both his own hand and his companion I s hand), with the same hand he may only disqualify, but not render unclean. Whence did he learn this? From the fact that it has been taught in the latter portion of the Mishna. For the hand makes its fellow unclean in the case of sacred things, but not in the case of heave-offering. Why the repetition? Was it not taught in the preceding clauses of the same Mishna? We must therefore say, it comes to teach us that the hand of the companion is included. And Resh Lakish himself retracted his decision, as R. Jonah said in the name of R. Ami that Resh Lakish said, whether it be his own hand, or the hand of his companion, with that same hand he may disqualify, but not render unclean.

"We may eat dry food", etc. We have learned in a Boraitha: R. Hanina b. Antigonus said: Does such a question as to whether a thing be dry or wet exist as regards sacred things? Does not love for the sacred things make men cautious in regard to defilement? The Mishna treats of a case, that a man's companion put a piece of the sacred things into his mouth, or he put it into his own mouth with a spindle or with a skewer, or attempted to eat along with these an onion or garlic taken from unconsecrated things. As to sacred things the rabbis ordained so, but as to heave-offering they did not.

"The mourner and he who lacks atonement." Why so? Because they were under restriction, the sages ordained that they shall dip.

MISHNA: More rigorous rules, on the other hand, hold in a heave-offering, for in Judea people are believed with regard to, purity of wine and oil all the days of the year, but at the time of the vintage and the oil-pressing, with regard to heave-offering also.

When the vintage and the oil-pressing are over, and a cask of wine for heave-offering was brought, it must not be received, but it may be left for the next vintage. But if he say to him, I have separated and put into the midst of it a fourth part of something consecrated for sacred things, he is believed. In the case of jugs of wine and jugs of oil which are mixed, men are believed with regard to them at the time of vintage and oil-pressing and for seventy days before the vintage.

GEMARA: In Judea, yes; but in Galilea, no? Why so? Said Resh Lakish: Because there is a strip of the Gentiles making a separation between them. But let him bring it in a box, a chest, or in a balloon? This is in accordance with Rabbi, who said: A tent projected is not a real tent. But let one bring it in an earthenware vessel tied round with a line of thread? Said R. Eliezer: We have learned in a Boraitha: Sacred things are not preserved from uncleanness by a line of thread.

"But at the time of vintage," etc. There is a contradiction from the following Boraitha: He who finishes his olives shall leave aside one box and place it before the eyes of the priest (in order that he shall examine it as to whether they are not ripe yet, and the priest shall place them in cleanness when they become ripe. Hence we see that even at that time they were not believed?) Said R. Nahman: This presents no difficulty. The one is the case of those early in season, the other of those late in season. Said R. Ada bar Ahba to him: For instance, things like those belonging to the house of thy father. R. Joseph, however, said, the Mishna (in Taaroth) refers to Galilea.

"When the vintage and the oil-pressing are over," etc. The schoolmen questioned of R. Shesheth: Suppose that it is over, and yet he receives it, what about the law that he shall leave it for the next vintage? He answered them: This we have already learned in the following Mishna (Dmai, VI., i): A learned man and a common person who are their father's joint heirs. The common person may say to him: Take thou the wheat that is in such a place, and I will take the wheat that is in such a place; take thou the wine that is in such a place, and I will take the wine that is in such a place. But he may not say to him: Take thou the liquid and I will take the dry; take thou the wheat and I will take the barley. And in regard to this we have learned: That same learned man burns the liquid and leaves the dry. Why? Let him leave it for the next vintage? It may be one of the things that have no vintage. But let him leave it for one of the feasts? It may be one of the things which will not keep till the feast.

"But if he say, I have separated for sacred things, he is believed." We have learned in a Mishna (Choloth, XVIII., 4): Both the School of Shammai and the School of Hillel agree that we are to investigate a field in which a person is buried for those who are to bring the paschal lamb, but not for those who desire to eat heave-offering. What is the meaning of investigate? Said R. Jehudah in the name of Samuel: A man blows upon the unclean land as he walks along. And R. Hyya bar Abha in the name of Ula said: An unclean place of this sort that is trodden is clean for those who bring their paschal lambs; as it is a case of Kareth, they did not insist upon their decisions, but for those who desired to eat heave-offering, they did insist on their decisions, as it is a case of death penalty (by Heaven).

"In the case of vessels of wine," etc. There is a Boraitha: They are not believed, either about the cans or about the heave-offering. Cans belonging to what? If they belong to sacred things, then if he is believed about the sacred things, he is believed also about their cans? If the cans belonging to heave-offerings are meant, then it is self-evident. About heave-offering he is not believed--shall he be believed about cans that belong to it? It is a case of sacred cans which are empty, and it is during the remaining days of the year. And the same is the case of those full of heave-offering, and at the time of the vintage they are believed. (And although no precautionary measure was ordained as to their heave-offering, in order not to cause any loss to the priests, still they were not believed as to the cans, and the priests receive from them the heave-offering with the cans, but place the heave-offering in other cans of their own.)

"For seventy days before the vintage." Abayi said: Infer from this that the law is, that the farmer shall go up to dip the casks seventy days before the time of the presses.

MISHNA: From Modiim and inwards men are believed with regard to earthenware vessels; from Modiim and outwards they are not believed. How so? The potter who is selling the pots goes inwards from Modiim. That is the potter, and those are the pots, and those are the buyers. He is believed. If he goes out he is not believed.

GEMARA: We have learned in a Boraitha: The place of Modiim itself is sometimes considered within and sometimes without. How so? When the potter goes out, and the merchant goes in, it is considered within. Both go in, or both go out, it is considered without. Said Abayi: We have learned the same in our Mishna, viz.: The potter who sells the pots and goes inwards from Modiim. What about Modiim itself? Is it not believed? Then how is the latter part: When he goes out he is not believed? From this we may infer that Modiim. itself is believed. Hence the case is as stated in the Boraitha. Infer therefrom.

MISHNA: The tax collectors who have gone into the midst of a house, and so too the thieves that have restored the vessels, are believed when they say: We have not touched. And in Jerusalem they are believed as regards sacred things, and at the time of a feast as regards heave-offering also.

GEMARA. There is a contradiction from the following Boraitha: In the case of the tax collectors who have gone into the midst of the house, the whole house is unclean? There is no difficulty. The one is when there is a Gentile with them; the other is when there is not a Gentile with them. For there is another Mishna: If there is a Gentile with them, they are believed when they say, We did not enter; but they are not believed when they say, We entered, but we did not touch. And if there is a Gentile with them, what of it? R. Johanan and R. Elazar: One says that they fear that the Gentile should not punish them, and the other says that they fear that the stranger should not give them away to the government. What is the difference between them? A Gentile who is not of importance.

"And so too the thieves," etc. There is a contradiction from the following Boraitha: In the case of the thieves who have gone into the midst of the house, only the place where the thieves' feet trod is unclean. Said R. Pinhas in the name of Rabh: They are to be believed only in the case they have repented. It seems that our Mishna intended the same thing, for the statement is: Who have restored the vessels. Infer from this.

"And in Jerusalem they are believed," etc. We have learned in a Boraitha: They are believed as regards large earthen vessels for sacrifice. And the reason is, because they do not make ovens in Jerusalem.

"And at the time of the feast," etc. Whence is this deduced? Said R. Joshua b. Levi: Because it is written [Judg. xx. 11]: "So all the men of Israel were gathered against the city, associated together as one man." The Scripture makes them all equal.

MISHNA: One that opens his cask, and one that commences his dough at the time of a festival, R. Jehudah says: He shall finish it, but the sages say he shall not.

GEMARA: R. Ami and R. Itz'hak of Naph'ha sat at the portico of the latter. One began and said: According to the sages, may he keep it for another festival? He answered: Every one's hand has been handling it, and dost thou say, he shall keep it for another festival? He said to him: But hitherto as well, has not every one's hand been handling it? He rejoined: What comparison is that? Hitherto the uncleanness of a common person in a festival, the Law makes him clean, but now it is a case of uncleanness.

MISHNA: As soon as the festival is over, they make them pass on to the cleansing of the court. But if the festival is over on a Friday, they do not make them pass on, on account of the honor of the Sabbath. R. Jehudah said: Also not on Thursday, for the priests are not at leisure.

GEMARA: And the Boraitha adds: That the priests are not at leisure because of the removing of the fat.

MISHNA: How is that made out, that they make them pass on to the cleaning of the court? They dip the vessels which were in the Temple, and say to them: Be ye clean that ye touch not the table. All the vessels that were in the Temple had second and third sets, so that if the first became unclean they might bring the second instead of them. All the vessels which were in the Temple were subject to dipping, except the altar of gold and the altar of bronze, because they were like the floor. Such is the dictum of R. Eliezer. But the sages say, because they were overlaid.

GEMARA: We have learned in a Boraitha: Be ye clean lest ye touch the table or the candelabrum. Why did our Mishna not mention the candelabrum? Because the table is called in the Scripture perpetual; the candelabrum is not perpetual. Resh Lakish said: It is written [Lev. xxiv. 6]: "Upon the pure table." From this it may be inferred that it may be defiled. Why? Is it not a vessel of wood made to rest, and as such is not subject to defilement? Infer from this that the table was raised up and exhibited the shewbread on it to the pilgrims, and they were told: See how beloved you are before the Lord, that the shewbreads are as warm now as they were when placed on the table. For R. Joshua b. Levi said: A great miracle was wrought in the shewbread. As its placing was miraculous so was its end, for it is written [1 Sam. xxi. 7]: "So as to put down hot bread on the day when it was taken away." It is written [Ezek. xli. 22]: "The latter was of wood, three cubits high, and its length was two cubits, and its corners and its top-piece and its walls were of wood, and he spoke unto me: This is the table that is before the Lord." He began with "altar" and he ended with "table." R. Johanan and Resh Lakish both say: At the time that the Temple was set up an altar made atonement for a man; now a man's table makes atonement for him.

"All the vessels that were in the Temple had second and third sets," etc. The altar of bronze, because it is written [Ex. xx. 21]: "An altar of earth shalt thou make unto me." The altar of gold, because it is written [Num. iii. 31]: "The candlestick and the altars." The altars are placed in comparison one with the other.

"Because they are overlaid." On the contrary, since they are overlaid they may become unclean. Said the rabbis to R. Eliezer: Why do you think them capable of defilement, because they are covered over? Their covering is of no avail in respect of them.

R. Abuhu in the name of R. Eliezer said: As to the scholars, the flame of Gehenna has no power over them. For this is shown by an a fortiori argument drawn from the salamander. As only the creature of fire, and still he that anoints himself with its blood, flame has no power over him, how much more then that the flames have no power over the scholars, whose whole body is fire, as it is written [Jer. xxiii. 29]: "Is not thus my word like fire? saith the Lord." Resh Lakish said the flame of Gehenna has no power over the transgressors of Israel, as is shown by an a fortiori argument from the altar of gold. For the altar of gold, upon which is only about the thickness of a denarius of gold, it lasted so many years and was not affected by fire; how much less can flame have power over the transgressors of Israel, who are full of the commandments as a pomegranate is full of seeds, as it is written [Song of Songs iv. 3]: "Like the half of a pomegranate is the upper part of thy cheek," etc. Read not "the upper part of thy cheek," but "the vain fellows that are in thee."