{
  "meta": {
    "schema_version": "1.1",
    "endpoint": "/api/sources/mishnah/07-chapter-iv.json"
  },
  "work": {
    "slug": "mishnah",
    "name": "Mishnah"
  },
  "parents": [],
  "chapter": {
    "num": 5,
    "slug": "07-chapter-iv",
    "title": "Berakhot — Chapter IV",
    "of": 30,
    "words": 21768,
    "text": "## Chapter IV\n\n\n\n#### CHAPTER IV.\n\n§ 1. The morning prayer [may be said] until noon. R. Jehudah saith, \"until the fourth hour.\" The ‏מנחה‎ prayer until the evening. R. Jehudah saith, \"until [the expiration] of half the time [appointed for] the ‏מנחה‎ sacrifice. The evening prayer [is not limited] to any fixed time, and the ‏מוסף‎ [additional prayer] [may be said] all day. R. Jehudah saith, \"until the seventh hour [only].\"\n\n§ 2. R. Nehooniah ben Hakanah used to pronounce a short prayer when he entered the Beth Hamedrash [College], and again\n\n\nwhen he left it. They [the sages] asked him, \"What occasion [authority] is there for this prayer?\" He answered them, \"When I enter, I pray that no cause of offence may arise through me; and when I quit, I return thanks for my vocation [as a teacher of the law].\"\n\n§ 3. Rabbon Gamaliel saith, \"Man must daily say the eighteen benedictions.\" R. Joshua saith, \"a compendium of the eighteen [benedictions].\" R. Akivah saith, \"If the ‏תפלה‎ is fluent in a man's mouth, he says the eighteen [benedictions]; if not, he only says a compendium of the eighteen [benedictions].\"\n\n§ 4. R. Eleazar saith, \"If a man turns his prayers into a fixed charge [or burthen] they cease to be humble supplications.\" R. Joshua saith, \"If a man travels in dangerous places, let him say this short prayer, 'Save, O Lord, thy people, the remnant of Israel; at every stage of their journeying, 1 let their wants be present before thee. Blessed art thou, O Lord, who hearest prayers.'\"\n\n§ 5. If a man rides on an ass, he must dismount: if he cannot dismount, he turns his face towards the Sanctum Sanctorum; and if he cannot turn his face, he is to direct his mind to that most holy place.\n\n§ 6. If he is seated in a ship, or in a cart, or in a waggon [on a raft], he directs his mind to the Sanctum Sanctorum.\n\n§ 7. R. Eleazar saith, the ‏מוסף‎ [additional prayer], is only to be read in a public congregation. But the sages say, \"Whether there be [a congregation] or not, [this prayer must be read].\" R. Jehudah said, in the name [on the authority] of R. Eleazar, \"In all places where there is a public congregation, single individuals are exempt from praying ‏מוסף‎.\"\n\n#### Footnotes\n\n6:1 The expression in the original, ‏בכל פרשת העבור‎, is very obscure, and has been variously rendered. According to some, it means \"at every cross-road.\" According to others, \"even when they [Israel] turn away and transgress.\" The translation we have adopted seems most in accordance with the context.\n\n## Chapter IV\n\n\n\n#### CHAPTER IV.\n\n§ 1. A *bald plot* of vineyard must, according to Beth Shammai, \"measure twenty-four square amoth;\" and, according to Beth Hillel, \"sixteen square amoth of any other kind of seed is to be sown therein.\" The *exterior space* of the vineyard [independent of the plot in question], must, according to Beth Shammai, \"measure sixteen;\" and, according to Beth Hillel, \"twelve square amoth.\" What is [understood] by [the expression], a *bald plot* of vineyard? Such\n\n\npart of the vineyard as is bare of vines. If it be less than sixteen square amoth, no other kind of seed may be sown therein; but if it measure that superficies, a sufficient vacancy is allowed for the cultivation of the vines growing near it, and the rest [of the ground] may be sown on.\n\n§ 2. What is [meant by the expression], the *exterior space* of the vineyard? The space between the vineyard, [the ground on which the vines are set], and the fence [hedge which surrounds it]. If that space be less than twelve square amoth, no other seed is to be sown therein; but if it measure that superficies, a vacant space must be allowed for the cultivation of the vines growing near it, and the rest [of the ground] may be sown on.\n\n§ 3. R. Jehudah saith, \"This [last-mentioned space] is only the *fence* of the vineyard. What then does actually constitute the exterior space [in question]? The angle between two vineyards. What is understood by the expression, a fence? A hedge ten hands high, or a trench [ditch], ten hands deep and four wide.\"\n\n§ 4. A partition [wall] of canes is considered a fence, provided the space between each cane be less than three hands wide, so that a young kid cannot pass through the opening. If there be a breach in the fence to the extent of ten amoth, it is considered as a gate [entrance]. Should a greater portion of the fence be broken down [than ten hands wide], it is unlawful to sow or plant towards [in] the breach. If there are several breaches in the fence, should the portion still standing [erect] be greater than that broken down, it is permitted; but should the portion broken down be greater than that standing [erect], it is prohibited [to plant or sow in or towards the breaches].\n\n§ 5. If a man set five vines in a single row, that, according to Beth Shammai, \"forms a vineyard;\" whereas, according to Beth Hillel, \"a vineyard is not formed by less than two rows.\" [Consequently], if a man sow [any kind of seed] within the four amoth [next adjoining the vines], Beth Shammai hold, \"that he has consecrated [rendered the produce unlawful], if there be one row of vines;\" whereas Beth. Hillel hold \"that he has not consecrated [rendered the produce unlawful] unless there be two rows of vines.\" 3\n\n§ 6. If two vines be set so as to face two vines, and the fifth to form a tail, [point or angle], (thus,\n), they constitute a vineyard.\n\n\n[paragraph continues] Two vines facing two vines, and one vine between three, (thus,\n), or two facing two, and one in the middle, (thus,\n), do not constitute a vineyard, as that can only be formed by two facing two, and the fifth [vine] standing out [as a tail or angle].\n\n§ 7. If a man have planted one row of vines on his own ground, and there be another row on the adjoining field of his neighbour, should there be [between the two rows] a private footpath or a public thoroughfare, or a fence less than ten hands high, the two rows must be [considered as] joined, [forming one vineyard]; but if the fence be higher than ten hands, the two rows are not to be [considered as] joined. R. Jehudah saith, \"If the vines be trained above the fence they must be [considered as] joined [forming one vineyard].\n\n§ 8. If a man plant two rows of vines, [two in each row], he must not sow any seed in the clear vacant space between them, unless that be eight amoth wide. If he has planted three [such] rows, he must not sow any seed in the clear vacant space between them, unless that be sixteen amoth wide. R. Eleazar ben Jacob said, on the authority of Hananiah ben Hakinai, \"Even though the central row should have been destroyed, man must not sow any seed in the clear [vacant space] between the remaining [two] rows, unless it be sixteen amoth wide; although, had but two rows been planted at first, the vacant interval need only have been eight amoth wide.\"\n\n§ 9. If a man have planted his vineyard at intervals of sixteen amoth, he is at liberty to sow any kind of seed in it. R. Jehudah said, \"It happened at Zalmon, that a man had set his vineyard at intervals of sixteen amoth. One year he trained the branches of every two rows in one direction, and sowed in the opposite direction; and the next year he trained the branches in another direction, and sowed on the ground that had lain fallow: The matter was brought before the sages, and they sanctioned [his manner of proceeding].\" R. Meir and R. Simeon say, \"He who sets his vineyard at intervals of eight amoth, is also at liberty to sow in it.\"\n\n#### Footnotes\n\n21:3 This difference of opinion arises from the circumstance, that single vines require no greater allowance of ground than a square of six hands, whereas, in a vineyard, each vine requires an allowance of four square amoth.\n\n## Chapter IV\n\n\n\n#### CHAPTER IV.\n\n§ 1. Wherein may hot vessels [saucepans] be deposited [to retain\n\n\nthe heat]? And wherein may they not [be] deposit[ed]? They must not [be] deposit[ed] in olive- kernels, in dung, in salt, in lime, or in sand (whether wet or dry), nor yet in straw, nor in grape-husks, nor in woolflocks, nor in herbs, while these are wet; but it is permitted to deposit in them should they be dry. It is permitted to deposit [the vessels or saucepans] under garments or under fruits [any kind of grain, &c.], under pigeon-feathers, or shavings, or under fine flaxen tow; R. Jehudah prohibits fine, but permits coarse [flaxen tow].\n\n§ 2. They may [be] deposit[ed, wrapped] in skins, and removed [taken out of them again: likewise] in shorn-wool, but must not be removed [taken out] therefrom. How then is man to do? He takes off the lid [of the vessel or saucepan] and the wool falls off. R. Eleazar ben Azariah saith, \"He inclines the vessel to one side, and takes out [what he requires], lest [were he to remove it] he cannot put it back again.\" 1 But the sages hold [that it is permitted to] take [the vessel] out, and [to] put [it] back again. If man has not covered up [his vessel or pot] while yet day [before the Sabbath comes in], he must not cover it after dusk; if he have covered it, and it is become uncovered, he is permitted to cover it again. He may fill a pitcher, and place it under a pillow or bolster [to take the chill off.]\n\n#### Footnotes\n\n43:1 As the tow or wool falling together, would fill up the cavity made by the saucepan; and it is unlawful to make another.\n\n## Chapter IV\n\n\n\n#### CHAPTER IV.\n\n§ 1. If foes, or an evil spirit [a fit of insanity], have caused a man to go out [beyond the Sabbath-limit], he must not [when recovering his own free agency] move further than four amoth; if they [the foes or the fit] have carried him back, it is as if he had not gone out [beyond the limit]. If they have carried him into another town, or put him into a pen [prison] or fold [for cattle], he may, according to Rabbon Gamaliel, and R. Eleazar ben Azariah, \"go about throughout its whole [extent];\" but R. Joshua and R. Akivah maintain, \"that he must not move further than four amoth.\" It once happened\n\n\nthat they [these four sages] came together from Parendisim, 1 and their vessel kept the sea [on the Sabbath]: Rabbon Gamaliel and R. Eleazar ben Azariah walked about throughout the whole [extent of the vessel]; but R. Joshua and R. Akivah did not move beyond four amoth, as they wished [to take] the rigid [observance] upon themselves.\n\n§ 2. Once [on the Sabbath-eve] they [the sages, being on board a vessel] did not enter the haven [landing-place] till after dark; they inquired of Rabbon Gamaliel, \"What are we [to do as] to descending [from the vessel]?\" He answered them, \"It is permitted; for I observed that we had already entered [within] the limits [of the Sabbath distance] before dusk.\"\n\n§ 3. He who is authorised to go out [beyond the legal distance] on business of importance to public or private welfare [or safety], and is told \"the thing is already done,\" has [the liberty to go] 2000 amoth in any direction. If he still was within the Techoom [the lawful Sabbath distance], it is as if he had not gone forth at all; for all those who go forth to save are . [permitted to] return to their abodes [on the day of rest].\n\n§ 4. If a man sits down by the road-side [towards dusk on the Sabbath-eve], and then gets up and sees that he is near a town, as it had not been his intention to enter the town, he must not enter. 2 Such is the dictum of R. Meir; but R. Jehudah saith he may enter. 3 R. Jehudah said, \"It once happened that R. Tarphon entered [a town], although [it had] not [been] his intention [so to do].\"\n\n§ 5. He who falls asleep on the road [the eve of the day of rest], and knows not that it is become dark [night has set in] has [when he awakes], the right of going 2000 amoth in any direction. Such is the dictum of R. Eleazar ben Nourie; but the sages hold, that he has [only the right to move] four amoth. R. Eleazar saith, \"and he is in [forms] the centre 4 [of these four amoth].\" R. Jehudah saith, \"He can go [four] amoth in whichever direction he pleases;\" but R. Jehudah admitted, \"that if he [such a person] has\n\n\nmade his choice, he cannot [afterwards] go back therefrom [recall or alter it].\"\n\n§ 6: If there be two [persons so situated], and part of the four amoth [permitted] to each are within the limits of the other, 5 they may meet and take their meal together, in the middle [of their joint space]; provided always, that neither of them exceed his own limits by going into those of his neighbour. If there are three persons [so situated], and [part of the four amoth belonging to] the middle one is swallowed by [forms part of the limits belonging to] the others, [each of the two outside ones], 6 he is at liberty to meet each of them, and each of them may meet him; but the two outside ones are not permitted to meet each other. R. Simeon saith, \"What is this like? Three courts opening into each other, and also open towards the public reshuth; if the two outer ones have joined in crab with the middle one, they are at liberty [to carry and convey from the middle court] to each of the outer ones, and from them into it; but the two outer ones must not [carry and convey] from one to the other.\"\n\n§ 7. If a man be on the road, and is overtaken by the dusk [on the eve of the day of rest], should he distinguish [single out] a tree or hedge, and say, \"Under it [I will take] my Sabbath rest,\" it is [in law] as if he had said nothing; 7 [but should he say], \"At its basis [I will take] my Sabbath rest,\" he may go from the spot on which he stands to the base [of the tree or hedge], 2000 amoth, and from the base unto his domicile 2000 amoth [more]; thus it is found that, after dark, he may go 4000 amoth.\n\n§ 8. If he cannot distinguish [single out a tree or a hedge], or should he not be conversant with the halachah [decisions of the oral law], if he says, \"[I will take] my Sabbath-rest on the spot [where I stand],\" the spot [which he occupies] obtains for him 2000 amoth in any direction; in a circle, according to the dictum of R. Haninah ben Antigonus: but the sages hold [that he has 2000 amoth] square, so that he gains the angles.\n\n§ 9. This [rule above laid down] is the explication of their [the sages’] saying, \"The poor prepares his erub with his foot.\" R. Meir saith, \"This rule [then] we apply only to the poor;\" but R. Jehudah replied, \"To the poor and to the rich [alike], inasmuch as the erub with bread was only decreed, to make the observance more easy for\n\n\nthe wealthy, so that he should not be forced to go out on his own feet to prepare the erub.\n\n§ 10. If a man [on the eve of the day of rest] has been dispatched by his townsmen, to combine by erub a town [or village in the vicinity], and has been induced to go back by a neighbour [before he has completed his errand], he is permitted to go [to the place in question]; but all his townsmen are forbidden [to go thither]. Such is the dictum of R. Jehudah; but R. Meir saith, \"Whosoever can prepare the erub, but does not prepare it, is [like at once driving] an ass [and leading] a camel.\"\n\n§ 11. Whoever is gone beyond the techoom, even [the distance of] a single amah, must not go back [the whole techoom]. R. Eleazar saith, \"[If he has gone] two amoth [beyond the techoom] he may go back, but if three amoth, he must not go back.\" 8 R. Simeon saith, \"Even [should he go] fifteen amoth [beyond the techoom] he may go back, as the land-surveyors [who fix the limits] are not very exact in their measurement, as they take into consideration those who might err.\" 9\n\n#### Footnotes\n\n79:1 This is supposed to be Brundusium, the usual place of embarkation for those who proceeded from Rome to Greece and the East.\n\n79:2 That is, he must not proceed further than the legal distance of 2000 amoth into the town; so that he has not the same privilege as others who may traverse its whole extent.\n\n79:3 And is entitled to partake of the privilege.\n\n79:4 So that he has only two amoth to move in.\n\n80:5 Supposing they are six amoth asunder.\n\n80:6 Supposing the two outside ones are ten amoth asunder.\n\n80:7 So that he must not move further than four amoth.\n\n81:8 R. Eleazar is of opinion, that the man has four amoth beyond the techoom, of which four amoth he forms the centre, so that he may move two amoth.\n\n81:9 According to Rashi, those who measured the ground did not measure from the end of the line, but from the end of their hand; so that the portion of the line they held in their hand was not included in the measurement, which was thus lessened by fifteen amoth. Others aver, that the legal distance was purposely shortened by fifteen amoth.\n\n## Chapter IV\n\n\n\n#### CHAPTER IV.\n\n§ 1. In places where it is customary to work till noon on the day before Passover. work may be done; but not in places where it is not customary to work thereon. If a person should go from a place where the said custom prevails, to another place where it does not, or the reverse, he will be subject to the rigour of the custom, either of the place he came from, or of that he went to. 1 And it is always proper not to act differently from the established customs of a place, on account of the disputes to which such conduct may lead.\n\n§ 2. Even so, when a person brings fruits of the sabbatical year, from a place where the same are no longer growing in the fields, to another place where they are yet growing, or the reverse, he is bound to remove them: R. Jehudah says, they might say to such a person, \"Go thou also, and fetch for thyself similar fruit from the field.\" 2\n\n§ 3. In places where it is usual to sell small cattle [sheep, goats, &c.] to non-Israelites, it is lawful to do so, but not in places where it is not customary. Large cattle may not be sold to them at\n\n\nall, 3 neither calves nor foals of asses, either sound or broken [legged]; R. Jehudah permits the sale of the latter, and Ben Beterah that of the horse.\n\n§ 4. In places where it is usual to eat roasted meat on the night of the Passover, it may be eaten, but not in places where this custom does not exist. In places where it is usual to burn a light on the night of the day of atonement, it may be done; but not in places where this custom does not exist. The synagogues and schools [for the study of the law] may, however, be lighted; as also dark alleys, and near sick people.\n\n§ 5. In places where it is usual to work on the 9th of Ab, work may be done; but not where it is not customary. The learned [in the Holy Law] however, must every where abstain from work thereon; Rabbon Simeon, son of Gamaliel, says, \"Every one ought, in this respect, to consider himself as a learned man;\" the sages say, \"It was customary, in the land of Judah, to work till noon on the day preceding the Passover; but in Palestine they did not work at all [on that day];\" and with respect to the evening which precedes it, Beth Shammai prohibit to work thereon, 4 but Beth Hillel allow it till [the morrow's] sunrise.\n\n§ 6. R. Meir says, \"Every occupation which had been commenced prior to the 14th, may he finished on that day; but no new work may be commenced, although it can be finished thereon. The sages are of opinion that the three following handicrafts may exercise their calling on the day before the Passover, namely, tailors, barbers, and laundresses; Rabbi José, son of Jehudah, says, also the strap-makers. 5\n\n§ 7. Fowls may, on the 14th, be placed in hatching-coops; a brooding-hen which had run away [from her eggs], may be replaced on them [during the middle-days], and if the hen have died another may be put on the eggs to replace her. It is lawful to remove on the 14th, the stable-dung from between the feet of cattle; but it may only be removed to one side [not entirely removed], during the middle-days. It is also permitted to carry on the 14th, to and from\n\n\nthe houses of handicraftsmen, vessels and other articles, although they are not wanted for use during the festival.\n\n§ 8. The inhabitants of Jericho used to do six things; three of which were prohibited to them, and three were not. The following are those riot prohibited: they used to graft palm-trees the whole day of the 14th, they used to read the \"Shemang\" with hasty involution, 6 and they used to cut down and make heaps of the new corn before the \"omer\" was offered,—these were not prohibited to them; but the following were: namely, they used to allow themselves the use of plants growing on or near consecrated trees, 7 and also to eat on the Sabbath fruit which had dropt off the trees, 8 and they suffered herbs to stand in the field as peah; 9 all which the sages prohibited to them.\n\n§ 9. The following six things were done by King Hezekiah; three of which were approved of, and three were disapproved:—he caused the bones of his father 10 to be transported on a litter or hurdle of cords [or ropes], 11 and this was approved of; he caused the brazen-serpent to be broken to pieces, 12 and this also was approved of; he secreted the book of medicine, 13 and it was approved. The following\n\n\nare the three things of which they disapproved:—he cut off [the gold] from the gates of the Temple, and sent it to the king of Assyria; 14 he stopped up the water-course of Gihon; 15 and made the month of Nissan intercalary: 16 all of which were disapproved of.\n\n#### Footnotes\n\n104:1 That is, he may not work at all. This prohibition, however, is limited to one whose intention is to return to his place; but if he came to settle permanently, he is considered, in this respect, the same as the persons of the place he intends to live in, and may work or not on the 14th, according as it may happen to be customary in that place.\n\n104:2 This Mishna cannot be understood without reference to chap. IX. § 5, of Treatise Shevingith.\n\n105:3 The reason is, lest the heathens may put the animals to work on the Sabbath. This restriction has been subsequently abolished, as appears from Shulchan Aruch, vol. II. chap. 151, § 4.\n\n105:4 This refers alone to the Galileans, and others who were accustomed not to work at all on the 14th of Nissan.\n\n105:5 Namely, those who make leathern straps for sandals, and mend them.\n\n106:6 The solutions given in the Talmud and by commentators of this strange expression of the original ‏וכורכין את שמע‎ are various: according to some, the fault of the inhabitants of Jericho, consisted in not dwelling sufficiently on the last syllable of the word ‏אחד‎, before commencing the reading of ‏ואהבת‎ and the following verses. According to others, they made this necessary pause, but did not say the verse ‏ברוך שם כבוד מלכותו לעולם ועד‎, before commencing ‏ואהבת‎,to, thus wrapping or involving the verses together, which are prescribed to be read with a pause between the first verse of the Shemang and the subsequent ones.\n\n106:7 The original expression ‏גמזיות‎, has also given cause to much interpretation: some understand by it the parasitical plants growing on a tree, and which derive their nourishment and growth from the tree itself (*e.g.* the mistletoe on the apple-trees or oaks). Others read here ‏גוזיות‎, and explain it, that they pruned the consecrated trees, and used the wood.\n\n106:8 Fruit which has dropt off a tree on the Sabbath may not be used thereon.\n\n106:9 In order that the poor may not be led into the error of eating it untithed ‏טבל‎, thinking it to be peah. (See Treatise ‏שביעית‎.)\n\n106:10 The wicked Ahaz.\n\n106:11 As a mark of dishonour and expiation; also to shew the people his abhorrence of his father's wicked career. (See 2 Chron. xxviii. 27.)\n\n106:12 As mentioned 2 Kings xviii. 4: \"And broke to pieces the brazen-serpent that Moses had made, because the children of Israel burned incense to it.\"\n\n106:13 Because, according to some commentators, the Israelites trusted to it in case of illness, and did not pray for help to God. Maimonides rejects this interpretation, and says, \"How could they thus attribute to Hezekiah a motive p. 107 that even the lowest capacity would be ashamed of, and impute folly to the sages of his time who approved of it. The same might be said to a hungry man about to take food to allay his craving; were any to say, 'He ought to trust to God, who can aid him without this:' we would say to such, 'Fools that ye are! Even as we thank God when we eat, that he caused us to find what will allay our natural want, and eat it thankfully: thus also we ought to thank him that he gave us wisdom to find out a cure for our bodily ailments, and use it accordingly.' It is, indeed, a waste of time to argue against so obvious an absurdity, if it were not that the above opinion had been publicly taught. The reason, however, why King Hezekiah secreted this book of medicine was, because it was therein pretended to cure diseases by means of astrological spells, talismans, and other vain and superstitious means, which might lead the people to ignorance and idolatry.\"\n\n107:14 See 2 Kings xviii.\n\n107:15 15 See 2 Chron. xxxii. 30.\n\n107:16 2 Chron. xxx. 2.\n\n## Chapter IV\n\n\n\n\n#### CHAPTER IV.\n\n§ 1. The loolab and willow [to surround the altar, was sometimes used] on six [days], and [sometimes] on seven [days of the festival]. The hallel and the joyous repasts, [eating of peace-offerings, took place on] eight [days]. The [dwelling in the] succah, and the pouring out water, [lasted] seven [days], and the pipes [were played on sometimes] five, and [sometimes] six [days].\n\n§ 2. [In which case was] the loolab [used] seven [days?] how? When the first holy day of the festival fell on a Sabbath, the loolab [was used on] seven [days]; but, [when the first day of the festival fell on] any other day [of the week] the loolab [is only used] six [days]. 1\n\n§ 3. [In which case was] the willow [used on] seven [days?] How? When the seventh day of the willow happened to fall on a Sabbath, [the willow was used] seven [days]; but, when the seventh day fell on any other day [of the week], the willow was only used six [days].\n\n§ 4. How was the command to take the loolab [fulfilled] when the first holy day of the festival fell on a Sabbath? [It was the custom that] every man brought his loolab to the Temple mount, where it was received by inspectors, who deposited it in a gallery. The elders placed theirs in a [separate] chamber; and the people were taught to say, \"Whosoever gets hold of my loolab; be it his [I bestow it on him] as a gift.\" On the [next] morning the people came early; the inspectors threw all the loolabs down before them; every man seized on one, and it often happened that they hurt each other [in the scramble]. When the Beth Din 2 saw that people were thus exposed to danger, they decreed that every man was to use his loolab in his own house.\n\n§ 5. How was the command to take the willow [fulfilled]? There was a place below Jerusalem called to ‏מוצא‎: 3 thither the people descended, and gathered drooping willow branches: these they brought and placed at the side of the altar, the tips inclining over it. While this was doing, a blast, a long note, and again a blast were blown.\n\n\n[paragraph continues] Every day they made one circuit round the altar, and recited [the verse], \"‏אנא ה׳ הצליהח נא‎, ‏אנא ה׳ הושיעה נא‎.\" R. Jehudah said the words, ‏אני והו הושיצה נא‎ [were also said]. On the particular day for using the willows [the seventh of the festival] they made seven circuits round the altar. When they withdrew, what did they say? \"Beauty is thine, O altar! Beauty is thine, O altar!\" R. Eleazar said, [they also said] \"To God and to thee, O altar! To God and to thee, O altar!\" 4\n\n§ 6. As they did on the week-days, so they did likewise on the Sabbath; excepting only that they gathered the willow branches on the Sabbath-eve, and put them into golden casks [filled with water], that they might not fade. R. Joshua ben Beroka saith, \"They fetched branches of palms, and threshed [beat] them to pieces at the sides of the altar.\" [According to another version, \"on the altar.\"] Thence the day was called \"the branch threshing-day.\"\n\n§ 7. Directly afterwards the children threw down their loolabs, and eat their citrons.\n\n§ 8. How [was it that] the hallel and joyous repasts [took place on] eight [days]? Because it is deduced that man is bound to recite the hallel, and to enjoy the repasts [of his peace-offerings] in honour of the last day of the festival, even as on the preceding days thereof. How [is it that] the succah [is dwelt in] seven [days]? When a man has taken his last meal therein, he is not directly to pull down his succah; but, after noon, he moves the furniture back [into the house], in honour of the last day of the festival.\n\n§ 9. How was the pouring out of the water? A golden pitcher, that held three lugs was filled with water from the [brook] Siloah. When they came [with it] to the water-gate, they blew a blast, a long note, and again a blast. The priest then ascended the stair [of the altar], and turned to the left; two silver basins stood there. R. Jehudah saith, \"they were of gypsum [stucco], but had a dark appearance from the wine.\" Each was perforated with a small hole, like a nostril [at the bottom]. The one [for the wine] somewhat wider, the other [for the water] narrower, that both might get empty at once. The one, to the west, [was used] for the water; the other, to the east, for the wine: but if the water was poured into the wine basin, or the wine into the water basin, it was legal. R. Jehudah\n\n\nsaith, \"They poured out one lug on each of the eight days. To him who poured out the water the people called, 'Raise thy hand;' for once it happened that one [priest charged with this duty] poured the water over his feet, 5 and all the people pelted him to death with their citrons.\"\n\n§ 10. As they did on the week-days so they did likewise on the Sabbath, except that they fetched the water from Siloah on the Sabbath-eve, in a golden cask that had not been consecrated, and placed it in a chamber; if it was upset, or uncovered, they filled again from the laver. For it was not lawful to bring on the altar, water or wine which had been uncovered.\n\n#### Footnotes\n\n138:1 It was not permitted to use the loolab on the intervening Sabbath.\n\n138:2 The Sanhedrin, supreme tribunal of justice and of ritual observance.\n\n138:3 Supposed to mean free [or exempt] place. As it was exempt from taxation, it was called Colonin.\n\n139:4 Our thanks are due to God, and to the altar on which atonement has been made for us.\n\n140:5 He was a Sadducee, and as such, rejected the authority of tradition.\n\n## Chapter IV\n\n\n\n#### CHAPTER IV.\n\n§ 1. In transporting jars of wine from one place to another, on the festival, care must be taken not to remove them in a basket or case, 1 but they must be removed on the shoulder, and carried in front of the person; 2 and if any one should thereon carry any straw, he must not carry it in a basket over his shoulder, but must carry it in his hand. It is lawful to commence taking, on the festival, of a heap of straw [to burn], but not of the pieces of wood lying in the yard behind the house.\n\n§ 2. Wood may not be taken from a shed, but the pieces adjoining it [i.e. loosely placed against it] may be used; it is lawful also to\n\n\nfetch it from a wood-stack in a field, and from a wood-store, and even to gather the dispersed pieces of wood therein. What constitutes a store? R. Jehudah says, \"When it is near the city, and is enclosed.\" Rabbi José says, \"When it is entered by a door that can be locked, even if it should be situated at the extreme end of the ‏תחום‎, or Sabbatical limit.\"\n\n§ 3. It is not permitted to cut wood from new beams, nor from an old beam which happened to break on the festival, neither may wood [allowed to be used] be cleft on the festival with an axe, saw, or billhook, but with a chopping-knife only; when there is a hole in the brick-walls of a place used to store fruit in, 3 it will be lawful to remove the fruit from that open part: but Rabbi Meir says, \"It is even lawful to remove the bricks to get at the fruit, and to remove it.\"\n\n§ 4. It is not permitted to make a cavity in a lump of potter's clay for the purpose of using it as a lamp, because a utensil is thereby formed; neither may charcoal be made on the festival, nor the wick of a lamp be cut in two. R. Jehudah says, \"When the ends have been placed in two lamps, it is allowed to separate them by burning the middle part.\"\n\n§ 5. It is not permitted to break pieces of earthenware 4 on the festival, or to cut paper to be placed over salted fish while it is broiled; 5 neither may the fallen mortar be removed on that day from the oven, but it is lawful to press it close. Two barrels may not be brought near each other to be used as a trivet to place a pot on them over the fire, neither may a piece of wood be used for the purpose of supporting a pot or a door; 6 nor may cattle be driven on the festival with a stick: but R. Eleazar, son of Simeon, permits it.\n\n§ 6. Rabbi Eleazar says, \"A person may take a splinter from the wood lying near him, to clean his teeth with, and gather in the yard small pieces of wood and burn them, because whatever is in the yard may be considered as ‏מוכן‎ prepared for the festival.\" But the sages\n\n\nallow those pieces only to be picked up which lay near to a person, and for the purpose of burning them only.\n\n§ 7. Fire may not be produced on the festival from wood, 7 stones, 8 dust, or earth, 9 or from water; 10 neither is it lawful to heat tiles to broil food thereon. Rabbi Eleazar also said, \"A person may place himself on the eve of the Sabbath, in a seventh or Sabbatical year, 11 in the places where figs or raisins are kept, and say, From these will I eat to-morrow.\" But the sages say he must point out the exact spot, and say, \"I will take from here till there.\"\n\n#### Footnotes\n\n151:1 Many at a time as on working days.\n\n151:2 That is, a few at a time, and in a manner different from the usual mode.\n\n152:3 The Mishna treats here of a store, or enclosed place, whose walls consist of loose bricks, without mortar or lime.\n\n152:4 Used anciently to place under fish, &c. that it might not be burned, and adhere to the metal pan in which they were cooked.\n\n152:5 According to some commentators, it refers to an ancient practice of wrapping the salt fish to be broiled in papers steeped in oil, or according to others, in water, to prevent the burning of the fish.\n\n152:6 The permission to use wood on the festival being given only for the purpose of preparing food, i.e. as fuel, it may not be used for any other purpose.\n\n153:7 By friction and rubbing two pieces against each other, as is done by the American savage.\n\n153:8 By striking hard stones with steel, &c.\n\n153:9 There are some soils covering subterraneous fires, or containing so much sulphur and inflammable substance, that they will spontaneously ignite, particularly on being stirred with a spade, &c.\n\n153:10 This is explained by Bartenora, and other commentators of the Mishna, as being effected by means of the sun's rays on a crystal vessel filled with water, probably a burning lens, but the means by which the water was ignited is not mentioned, nor is it probable that the water itself was ignited at all; perhaps it was used as a lens to collect the rays of the sun. Maimonides (chap. IV. of Treatise Yom Tob, in Yad Hachazaka, vol. 1) seems to be doubtful on this subject, and explains it as referring to the volatile parts of naphtha floating on water, which, by agitation in the sun's rays, will enflame and light tinder, &c.; but it is by no means intelligible what the Mishna here *really* means.\n\n153:11 In which there is no tithe to be separated.\n\n## Chapter IV\n\n\n\n\n#### CHAPTER IV.\n\n§ 1. When the feast of new year happened on the Sabbath, they used to sound in the sanctuary, but not out of it. After the destruction of the temple, Rabban Jochanan, son of Zaccai, ordained that they should sound in every place in which there is a tribunal of justice [‏בית דין‎]. R. Eleazar says, \"He only issued this ordinance in respect to Jamnia,\" but they [the other sages] said unto him, \"It was the same for Jamnia as for any other place in which there is a permanent tribunal of justice.\"\n\n§ 2. And in this respect also, was Jerusalem privileged above Jamnia, 1 viz. that every city from whence Jerusalem could be seen and the sounding heard, which was near enough, and to which it was allowed to go on the Sabbath, might sound; but in Jamnia it was only permitted to sound before the tribunal of justice.\n\n§ 3. Formerly the loolab [palm-branch, &c] was taken seven days in the sanctuary, and only one day out of it. After the destruction of the temple, Rabban Jochanan, son of Zaccai ordained, \"that the loolab should everywhere be taken for seven days, in commemoration of the sanctuary,\" also, \"that the whole day of the waving [of the 'Omer' 2] it should be prohibited [to eat of the new corn].\"\n\n§ 4. Formerly evidence as to the appearance of the new moon was received the whole [of the thirtieth] day; but as it once happened that the witnesses delayed coming, which interrupted the Song of the Levites 3 [at the evening sacrifice], it was ordained that witnesses should be admitted till the time of Minchah only, and if any came after that time, that and the following day were kept as holy. After the destruction of the temple, Rabbon Jochanan, son of Zaccai ordained, \"that evidence as to the appearance of the moon should be\n\n\nreceived all day.\" R. Joshua, son of Korcha says, \"This too did Rabban Jochanan, son of Zaccai ordain, viz. that wherever the chief of the tribunal might be, the witnesses need only go to the place of meeting [of the Sanhedrin 4].\"\n\n§ 5. The order of the blessings to be said on the feast of new year is as follows: the blessings ‏אבות וגבורות וקדשת השם‎, 5 are said, with which are connected the ‏מלכיות‎ [or series of texts relative to the supreme rule of the Almighty] without sounding the shophar; then, concerning the holiness of the day, 6 after which the shophar is sounded; then follow the ‏זכרונות‎ [or texts relative to the kind remembrance of the Almighty to his creatures], after which the shophar is again sounded. Next follow the ‏שופרות‎ [or texts in which the sounding of the shophar is mentioned], and the shophar is sounded [the third time], he then says, ‏עבודה‎, ‏הודאה‎ and ‏ברכת כהנים‎. 7 Such is the opinion of R. Jochanan ben Nourrie: but R. Akivah objected, saying to him, \"If the shophar is not to be sounded after the reading of the ‏מלכיות‎, why are they to be mentioned?\" But the proper order is the following:—‏אבות וגבורות וקדשת השם‎ are said, with which the ‏מלכיות‎ are to be combined; after which, the shophar is to be sounded, then the ‏זכרונות‎ are to be read, and the shophar sounded; next ‏שופרות‎, and the shophar is again sounded; after which ‏עבודה‎, ‏הודאה‎ and ‏ברכת בהנים‎ 7 are said.\n\n§ 6. Not less than ten texts of the Holy Scripture relative to ‏מלכיות‎ must be said, ten relating to ‏זכרונות‎, and ten to ‏שופרות‎. R. Jochanan ben Nourrie says, \"The obligation [of reading these texts] will be duly fulfilled if three only of each [class] have been said, but no texts relating to either [class] containing predictions of punishment are to be used. The texts from the law are to be read first, and the concluding texts are to be from the prophets.\" But R. Jose says, \"It is sufficient if the concluding verse be one from the law.\"\n\n§ 7. The second of those who, on the feast of the new year, officiate at the reading desk [‏תיבה‎] as ministers of the congregation, 8 shall\n\n\ncause another person to sound the shophar, and on days when the Hallel is read, the first minister 9 must read the Hallel.\n\n§ 8. It is not permitted for the purpose of sounding the shophar on the feast of new year, to go beyond the ‏תחום‎ [Sabbatical limits] to remove a heap of stones, 10 mount a tree, ride on any animal, or swim over the waters [to get a shophar], nor may he cut it [thereon] with any thing that may not be used on account of transgression against the Sabbatical rest [‏שבות‎], nor on account of a direct negative commandment of the law; but a person may, if he choose, pour water or wine into the shophar. 11 Children may not be prevented to sound, but, on the contrary, it is lawful to be occupied in teaching them to sound; but he who thus teaches, as also other persons who listen to these sounds, cannot thereby become released from their obligation.\n\n§ 9. The order of sounding the shophar is:—three sounds are blown thrice, 12 the time of duration of the sound of six tekeah's, is equal to that of three terooah's, and that of each tekeah as three sighs or moans. If a person has sounded the first tekeah, and prolonged the sound of the second, so as to be equal to two, it will only reckon as one sound. If a person, after having said all the blessings, 13 has at that moment only obtained a shophar, he shall sound three times tekeah, terooah, and tekeah; even as the minister of the congregation is bound [to say the amidah for himself 14], so is every individual bound to do so. But Rabbon Gamaliel says, \"The minister of the congregation releases the public from their obligation.\"\n\n#### Footnotes\n\n164:1 Here is evidently a hiatus in the text of the Mishna, which the commentators have thus supplied from the context; \"They used to sound in the whole city of Jerusalem till the sixth hour [i.e. as long as the Sanhedrin sat in the temple to teach], but in Jamnia, before the tribunal only, and not in the town. And in this respect also,\" &c.\n\n164:2 See Leviticus xxii. 11–15.\n\n164:3 For being doubtful whether the witnesses might yet come, and the day be sanctified as Rosh Hodesh, when the festive song of the feast of new moon was to be sung, or that which was used on weekdays, in case of the non-appearance of the witnesses; and, therefore, it appears that they did not sing at all on that occasion.\n\n165:4 Who might pronounce the word \"Mekoodash,\" although the chief Beth Din was absent.\n\n165:5 The three first blessings of the Amidah and Moosaph Abboth is from the beginning till ‏מגן אברהם‎, Guebooroth commences ‏אתה גבור‎, and Kedushat Ashem is from thence till ‏האל הקדוש‎.\n\n165:6 Namely, that commencing ‏אתה בחרתנו‎.\n\n165:7 The three last blessings of the Amidah or Moosaph ‏רצה‎, ‏מודים‎ and ‏שים שלום‎.\n\n165:8 The minister who reads the ‏מוסף‎ is thus called, in reference to the one who read ‏שחרית‎, and had thus preceded him. It was the custom in the time of the p. 166 Mishna, that two ministers were employed each Sabbath, or festival, one to read ‏שחרית‎ and the other ‏מוסף‎; the latter is not allowed here to sound the shophar, that it may not interrupt the reading, even as a minister who is a Cohen, is not allowed [for the same reason] to go to the ‏דוכן‎ to say the blessing of the priests when officiating as minister. Compare Treatise Berachoth, chap. V. § 4.\n\n166:9 That is, he who has read ‏שחרית‎, the first prayers.\n\n166:10 Under which a shophar is buried.\n\n166:11 in order to clear or improve its tone.\n\n166:12 Namely, Tekeah, Terooah, and Tekeah.\n\n166:13 Of the Moosaph.\n\n166:14 And is not released from his obligation by this ‏חזרה‎, or repetition, which he reads to the congregation.\n\n## Chapter IV\n\n\n\n#### CHAPTER IV.\n\n§ 1. At three periods of the year, the priests shall raise their hands [to bless the people], in each prayer, [and] four times [in one of them], in the morning, additional, afternoon, and closing [or concluding] prayers. [The three mentioned periods are] on the fast-days, on the fast of the standing men, 1 and on the day of atonement. 2\n\n§ 2. These are ‏מעמדות‎, standing men [and this is the cause of their institution]. It is written (Numb. xxviii. 2), \"Command the children of Israel, and say unto them, My offering, viz. my bread,\" &c. How can an offering be brought for a person without his standing near it [at the time of its being sacrificed]? 3 Therefore did the elder prophets institute twenty-four \"mishmaroth\" [or divisions of orders]; each mishmarah had always a \"mahamad\" [or section of standing men], composed of cohanim [priests], Levites, and Israelites, stationed at Jerusalem. 4 When it came to the turn of each mishmarah to go up [from their cities to the Temple], the priests and Levites went up to Jerusalem, and the Israelites who belonged to that mishmarah, 5 assembled in [the synagogues of] their cities to read the history of the creation [viz. the 1st chapter of Genesis].\n\n§ 3. The standing men used to fast four times in the week, viz. from Monday till Thursday [inclusive], but they did not fast on Friday, on account of the honour due to the Sabbath, nor on Sunday,\n\n\nthat they might not [suddenly] pass over from repose and pleasure to weariness and fasting, which might endanger their lives. On Sunday they read [the sections] ‏בראשית‎ and ‏יהי רקיע‎ (Gen. i. 1, &c. and *v*. 6, &c.); on Monday ‏יהי רקיע‎ (*v*. 6, &c.) and ‏יקוו המים‎ (*v*. 9, &c.); on Tuesday ‏יקוו המים‎ (*v*. 9, &c.) and ‏יהי מאורות‎ (*v*. 14); on Wednesday ‏יהי מאורות‎ (*v*. 14) and ‏ישרצו המים‎ (*v*. 20); on Thursday ‏ישרצו המים‎ (*v*. 20) and ‏תוצא הארץ‎ (*v*. 24); on Friday ‏תוצא הארץ‎ (*v*. 24) and ‏ויכלו‎ (ii. 1–4). A long section was read by two persons, and a short one by one only; that is to say, in the morning and additional prayers, but at the afternoon prayers they entered [the synagogue] and read the mentioned sections by heart, even as the \"Shemang\" is read. On Friday [afternoon] they did not go [to the synagogue] at all, in honour of the Sabbath.\n\n§ 4. On those days on which \"Hallel\" is sung, the standing men used not to attend during the morning prayer [in Jerusalem]. When there was an additional offering ‏קרבן מוסף‎, they did not assemble at the time of the closing prayer. When a wood-offering 6 was brought, they did not assemble during the afternoon prayer. Thus saith R. Akivah; but Ben Azzai said to him, \"Rabbi Joshua taught as follows: When there was an additional offering, the standing men did not assemble during the afternoon prayers; when a wood-offering was brought, they did not assemble at the time of the closing prayer.\" Then R. Akivah changed [his opinion] and taught like Ben Azzai.\n\n§ 5. The times [of the delivery] of wood [for the altar] by priests and people, were on nine appointed days; on the 1st of Nissan, the family Arah ben Jehudah [delivered]; 7 on the 20th of Tamuz, the family of David ben Jehudah; on the 5th of Ab, the family of Parhos ben Jehudah; on the 7th, the family of Jonadab ben Rechab; on the 10th, the family of Sinha ben Benjamin; on the 15th, the family of Zatoo ben Jehudah, and with them priests and Levites, and all those who did not know from what tribe [they were descended], also the family of Gonebé Eli, and that of Kosehai Kesignot; and on the 20th, the family Pachat Moab ben Jehudah; on the 20th of Elul, the family Adeen ben Jehudah; on the 1st of Tebet, the family Parhos, for the second time. There was no meeting of the standing\n\n\nmen on the 1st of Tebet; because \"Hallel\" was sung, and an additional sacrifice and wood-offering were brought [on that day].\n\n§ 6. Five [calamitous] events happened to our ancestors on the 17th of Tamuz, and five on the 9th of Ab. On the 17th of Tamuz, the tables of the Holy Law were broken; 8 on that day the continual sacrifice ceased, 9 and the city of Jerusalem was stormed; on it Opostamos burned the Holy Law, and placed an idol in the Temple; on the 9th of Ab, it was decreed that our ancestors should not enter the Holy Land; 10 on the same day the first and second Temples were destroyed 11 the city of Bethar was taken, 12 and the site of [Jerusalem] was ploughed [like a field 13]. From the 1st of Ab a person is bound to lessen his participation in joyous occasions [till after the fast on the 9th].\n\n§ 7. During the week in which the 9th of Ab happens, it is prohibited to a person to shave himself, or to wash [his clothes 14], but on Thursday it is allowed in honour of the Sabbath. 15 On the day before the 9th of Ab, a person may not partake of two [different kinds] of cookeries [or dishes], eat meat, or drink wine thereon. Rabbon Simeon ben Gamaliel says \"[It is sufficient to] alter [from one's customary mode of living].\" R. Jehudah considers it obligatory to turn over the bed places, 16 but the sages do not agree in this.\n\n§ 8. Rabbon Simeon hen Gamaliel says, \"Never were more joyous festivals in Israel than the 15th of Ab and the day of atonement, for on them the maidens of Jerusalem used to go out dressed in white garments—borrowed ones, in order not to cause shame to\n\n\nthose who had them not of their own;—these clothes were also to be previously immersed, 17 and thus they went out and danced in the vineyards, saying, Young men, look and observe well whom you are about to choose [as a spouse]; regard not beauty [alone], but rather look to a virtuous family, for 'Gracefulness is deceitful, and beauty is a vain thing, but the woman that feareth the Lord, she is worthy of praise' (Prov. xxxi. 3); and it is also said (v. 31), 'Give her of the fruit of her hands, and let her own works praise her in the gates.' And thus is it said [in allusion to this custom], 'Go out, maidens of Jerusalem, and look on King Solomon, and on the crown wherewith his mother has encircled [his head] on the day of his espousals, and on the day of the gladness of his heart' (Cant. iii. 11); 'the day of his espousals,' alludes to the day of the gift of the law, and 'the day of the gladness of his heart,' was that when the building of the Temple was completed.\" 18 May it soon be rebuilt in our days. Amen!\n\n#### Footnotes\n\n176:1 See our seventh note, p. 172, and the following section of this Mishna.\n\n176:2 The wording and collocation of sentences in this section of the Mishna is so obscure as to appear contradictory and unintelligible, without much interpolation and alteration of the collocation of the sentences. The following appears to be its true sense:—\"At three periods of the year, which are the fast-days, the fasts of the standing men, and on the day of atonement, the priests shall raise their hands thrice in each prayer, viz. in the morning, afternoon, and closing prayer, and in one of these [viz. the day of atonement, on which the ‏מוסף‎, or additional prayer is said] *four* times.\"\n\n176:3 To pray that the sacrifice may be favourably accepted.\n\n176:4 To officiate in the temple, each in their proper station and appointed service.\n\n176:5 Namely, the remainder, to whom, owing to the distance of the towns in which they lived, from Jerusalem, it was inconvenient to leave their places to go to Jerusalem.\n\n177:6 See the next section.\n\n177:7 The families here mentioned had the privilege of furnishing wood for the altar of burnt-offerings, having, at the rebuilding of the Temple after the Babylonian captivity, spontaneously supplied the altar with wood of their own. Compare Nehemiah vi.\n\n178:8 See Exod. xxiv. and xxxii. from whence it appears that Moses must have descended after his forty days’ stay on the mountain on the 17th of Tamuz, because that is the exact number of days from the 7th of Sivan.\n\n178:9 For want of cattle, the city being then closely besieged.\n\n178:10 See Numbers xiv. 27, &c.\n\n178:11 The first Temple by Nebuchadnezzar, and the second [also on the 9th of Ab] by Titus.\n\n178:12 By the Emperor Adrian, when many thousands of Jews [580,000] were massacred.\n\n178:13 As predicted (Jeremiah xxvi. 18), this took place about the same time as the preceding, when T. Rufus, governor of Judea, under Adrian, ploughed up the site of the Temple [and the city of Jerusalem]. See Jost's History of the Israelites, vol. iii. book x. chap. 10, p. 240.\n\n178:14 Till after the fast.\n\n178:15 This is when the 9th of Ab happened on a Friday, which cannot now happen in our present calendar.\n\n178:16 It was customary among the ancient Israelites to turn over the couches on which they sate in the day and slept on at night, on an occasion, and as a sign, of mourning.\n\n179:17 For fear of pollution of ‏נדה‎, being borrowed clothes.\n\n179:18 Moses brought down the second tables, and the Temple was dedicated by Solomon on the day of atonement.\n\n## Chapter IV\n\n\n\n#### CHAPTER IV.\n\n§ 1. The Meguillah may be read either sitting or standing, by one person only, or by two persons at the same time, they alike fulfil their obligation. In places where it is usual to say a blessing [after reading it], it is obligatory to say it, but not where it is not customary. Three men are called [to read in the Holy Law] on Mondays and Thursdays; and in the afternoon of the Sabbath, neither more nor less than that number may be called, nor shall any section from the Prophets then be read. 1 He who commences the reading of the Holy Law, shall say the [first] blessing before reading it, and he who concludes the reading, shall say the last blessing to be said after reading it. 2\n\n§ 2. On the feast of new moon, on the middle-days of the festivals, four men are to be called; this number may neither be added to, nor diminished, nor shall any section in the Prophets then be read. The first of these [men] shall say the [first] blessing before reading, and the last, who concludes the reading, shall say the last blessing after reading. This is the rule: on all days when an additional offering is prescribed, and which are not festivals, four men are to be called; five on festivals; six on the day of atonement; and seven on the Sabbath; this number may not be diminished, but it may be increased, and a section from the Prophets must be read on those days. The first of those who then read in the Holy Law, shall say the blessing before reading, and he who concludes the reading, shall say the last blessing after reading.\n\n§ 3. When ten men are not present in the synagogue, the Shemang may not be repeated, 3 nor may any one then go before the\n\n\nreading-desk [to act as minister], nor may priests raise [then] their hands [to say the priest's blessing], nor may they [then] read in the law, nor read a section from the Prophets; and when there are not ten persons present at a burial, the customary sittings, and stoppages with the corpse 4 may not take place, nor may the blessing for mourners be said, nor the forms used as condolence to mourners, 5 nor the seven blessings said on the celebration of a marriage, neither may the persons who join to say the grace after meals mention the Divine name. 6 And on an occasion of redeeming land that has been consecrated, it is necessary that at least nine Israelites and a Cohen [priest] shall be present, and the same also at the valuation of a man. 7\n\n§ 4. Not less than three verses of the Holy Law may be read in the synagogue to each person [called to read]. One verse only of the law may at one time be read to the *meturgeman*, or interpreter, 8 but it is lawful to read three consecutive verses to him from the Prophets, 9 but if each verse should form a separate section, one verse only may be read to the *meturgeman* at a time. Passages may be\n\n\nskipped over [‏מדלגין‎] in the reading of the Prophets, but not in that of the Holy Law. What time may be suffered to elapse to skip from one passage to another? While the *meturgeman* does not conclude his interpretation. 10\n\n§ 5. Whoever is accustomed to say in the public [synagogue] the section from the Prophets, in [the] public [synagogue] shall also there publicly recite the Shemang, 11 and act as minister before the tebah [reading-desk], and [if a cohen] shall say the blessing of the priests; if a minor, his father, or teacher, shall act for him.\n\n§ 6. A minor may read in the law [in the synagogue], and act as *meturgeman*, but may not publicly recite the Shemang, nor act as minister at the tebah, nor [if a priest] say [by himself] the blessing of priests. A ‏פוחח‎ [that is, one whose clothes are torn, so that his arms and legs appear, or, as others explain it, one whose legs and arms are quite bare,] may repeat the Shemang, and act as *meturgeman*, but he may not read in the Holy Law, nor act as minister before the tebah, nor [if a priest] say the blessing of priests; a blind person may repeat the Shemang, 12 and act as *meturgeman;* but R. Jehudah says, \"One who never beheld the light [that is, was born blind], may not repeat the Shemang.\"\n\n§ 7. A priest whose hands are deformed, may not raise them [to bless the people]. R. Jehudah also prohibits it to a priest whose hands are stained with woad or with madder roots, because the people stare at him. A person who should say, \"I will not minister at the tebah in coloured clothes,\" may not be permitted to do so in white ones; if he refuses to minister with sandals to his feet, he may not be permitted to minister barefooted. 13 A person who makes the tephilin round, 14 endangers himself, 15 and has not properly observed the commandment; a person who places them [low down] on his forehead, or on the palm of his hand, acts in a heretical manner: if he cover them with gold, he imitates the opponents of tradition.\n\n§ 8. A person who, in his prayers to the Almighty, says, \"The\n\n\ngood shall [alone] bless thee,\" acts in a heretical manner; 16 if he says, \"Even to birds’ nests were thy mercies extended,\" or, \"For thy goodness be thy name remembered,\" or one who says twice, \"Modim\" [in the Amidah], he shall be silenced [by authority]. Also, whoever explains the text (Lev. xviii. 21), ‏ומזרעך לא תתן להעביר למולך‎) to mean, \"Thou shalt not give thy seed to an Aramite [heathen] woman,\" 17 and those who explain figuratively the section in the law relating to the prohibition of carnal intercourse between relatives (Lev. xviii), shall be silenced, and publicly reprimanded. The occurrence of Reuben with Billah is to be read without being interpreted; that of Tamar [and Amnon] is to be read and interpreted. The [first part of the] occurrence with the golden calf is to be read and interpreted; but the second part [commencing Exod. xxxiv. 21] is to be read, without being interpreted. The blessing of the priests, and the occurrence of David and Amnon, are neither to be read nor interpreted; the description of the Divine chariot (Ezek. i.), is not to be read as an Aphtorah [section from the Prophets], but R. Jehudah permits it; R. Eleazar says, neither (Ezek. xvi.), \"Cause Jerusalem to know her abomination,\" &c.\n\n#### Footnotes\n\n188:1 In order not to detain the people too long in the synagogues.\n\n188:2 And those who are called between, shall not say any blessing; this has, however, been altered subsequently, on account of people who might have entered the synagogue in the interval, and who had not heard the first blessing.\n\n188:3 The original expression ‏אין פורסין את שמע‎, has given rise to various interpretations. According to Rashi and Bartenora, it is derived from ‏פרס‎, splitting or division: i.e. the Mishna here contemplates the case of ten persons having entered a synagogue after the congregation had already said the Shemang, when one of them says Kadish and ‏ברכו‎, and only one of the two blessings ordered to be read before the Shemang (see Treatise Berachoth), thus splitting or cutting off one of these two blessings.\n\n189:4 It was the custom, in the time of the Talmud, to set down the corpse seven times on its way to the grave, when the mourners sat down, and when either a funeral oration [‏הספד‎] was pronounced, or compliments of condolence were made; between each of these seven pauses, they used to say to them, \"Rise ye good people, rise,\" or, \"Sit down good people, sit down.\" (Rashi, Bartenora, and Rishbam, in chap. V. of Baba Kammah).\n\n189:5 On returning from the grave, the persons present, excepting the mourners, used to place themselves in rows, through which the mourners passed, to whom they addressed some words of condolence; these rows might not consist of less than ten persons.\n\n189:6 That is, to say ‏נברך אלהינו‎; this last word is added when ten men are present. See Treatise Berachoth, chap. IX. § 7.\n\n189:7 That is, in case a person had said, \"I vow the value of my person to the sanctuary,\" he must pay to it the amount he would bring if he were sold as a slave.\n\n189:8 It was customary ever since the time of Ezra, that at the public readings of the law, each verse was translated by a person called the *meturgeman*, or interpreter, who translated each verse as it was read in Hebrew into the vernacular [which then was Chaldee], in order that the people should understand what was read. The Mishna here directs that only one verse should be read to the *meturgeman* at a time, in order not to confuse him, and cause him to make errors, as he was bound to translate the Hebrew text *extempore*. (See more about this custom in Maimonides, chap. XII. of Hilchoth Tephilah, vol. I. page 78, of the Amsterdam edition.)\n\n189:9 This is Only if the *meturgeman* desires it.\n\n190:10 This is rendered according to the commentary of Maimonides; but this passage is variously explained.\n\n190:11 See Note 3, page 188.\n\n190:12 It is prohibited to look at the priests whilst saying the blessing ‏ברכת כהנים‎.\n\n190:13 Because it is supposed that these persons are hypocrites or heretics.\n\n190:14 That is, that for the head.\n\n190:15 By accidental contact with any hard substance.\n\n191:16 Because the faith of Israel is, that the prayers of both good and bad should be jointly offered to God, even as it is prescribed in the composition of the incense offered to God, to blend the ill-smelling galbanum with the other odoriferous aromatics.\n\n191:17 So as to procreate children for idolatrous worship.\n\n## Introduction\n\n\n\n\n####### OR, THE MIDDLE DAYS OF FESTIVALS.\n\n#### Introduction.\n\nThis Treatise contains regulations for the better observance of the minor or middle days of the Passover and Tabernacles, pointing out which kinds of work may be performed on these middle days, and which are prohibited thereon. It also establishes certain rules for mourners.\n\n## Chapter IV\n\n\n\n#### CHAPTER IV.\n\n§ 1. When a person received *Chalitzah* from his sister-in-law, and it was subsequently ascertained that she was then pregnant: 1 if she was delivered of a child she had borne the full period of gestation, he may marry her relations, and she his, nor is she thereby excluded from marrying a priest; but if the child is prematurely born, then he may not marry her relations, nor she his, and she is excluded from marrying a priest.\n\n§ 2. When a person had married his sister-in-law [by *Yeboom*], and she proved to have then been pregnant, the marriage must be dissolved, if she be delivered of a child at the full period of gestation, and both must bring a sin-offering; but if the child is prematurely born, the marriage need not be dissolved; if it be doubtful whether the child was born from the first husband in the ninth month, or from the second, in the seventh month, the marriage must be dissolved, but the child is legitimate, and both must bring the doubtful trespass-offering.\n\n§ 3. In the case of property accruing to a woman, whilst waiting to be married by *Yeboom*, the schools of Shammai and Hillel agree, that she is entitled to sell it or give it away. How are they to act in case of the death of such a woman, 2 with the amount of her dowry to which she is entitled by her *Ketubah*, and the private property she brings in with her [on her marriage], and takes back again [in case of divorce]? Beth Shammai decide, that it must be divided between her husband's, and her father's heirs. But Beth Hillel\n\n\nteach, that her private property remains in its existing power, 3 her marriage portion in that of the heirs of her husband, and the property she brings and takes back with her, in that of her father's heirs.\n\n§ 4. As soon as a brother-in-law has married a woman by *Yeboom* [and consummated the marriage], she must be considered as his wife in every respect, except that the portion allowed her in her marriage contract is to be charged on her late husband's property.\n\n§ 5. The duty of *Yeboom* is obligatory in the first place on the eldest brother; should he refuse, all the other brothers must be applied to; if they also refuse, they must apply again to the eldest, and say unto him, \"The obligation is incumbent on you, [therefore] either receive *Chalitzah* from your sister-in-law, or marry her by *Yeboom*.\"\n\n§ 6. If he delays, under the pretext of waiting till a young brother grows up, or till an older brother returns from beyond the seas, 4 or until a deaf or foolish brother is cured, his excuse is not to be noticed, but they shall say to him, \"The obligation is incumbent on you: either receive *Chalitzah* from your sister-in-law, or marry her by *Yeboom*.\"\n\n§ 7. A person who received *Chalitzah* from his sister-in-law, remains in respect to the inheritance [of his deceased brother's property] upon an equal footing with his other brothers; but if their father is yet alive, he inherits it; but he that married his sister-in-law by *Yeboom* acquires thereby all his brother's property. R. Jehudah saith, \"In either case, should the father still be alive, the property devolves on him.\" When a person has received *Chalitzah* from his sister-in-law, he may not marry her relations, nor she his. 5 He may not marry her mother, nor her grandmother [whether her mother's or her father's mother], her daughter, or grand-daughter, whether of son or of daughter, or her sister, whilst she is alive. His brothers may marry her, but she may not marry his father, nor his grandfather, whether his father's or mother's father, his son, his son's son, his brother, or his brother's son. It is lawful, however, to marry the\n\n\nrelations of the rival of the woman from whom a person has received *Chalitzah*, but not the rivals of the relation of the woman from whom he received *Chalitzah*. 6\n\n§ 8. If the brother of one who had *Chalitzah* performed to him by his sister-in-law, marries her sister and dies, she is bound to perform *Chalitzah*, but may not be married to her brother-in-law by *Yeboom*, but when a person had divorced his wife, and his brother marries her sister and dies, she is released both from *Chalitzah* and from *Yeboom*.\n\n§ 9. In case the sister of a woman in expectation of being married by *Yeboom* to her brother-in-law, should meanwhile have been betrothed to another brother, it is taught in the name of R. Jehudah ben Beterah that they shall admonish him to delay his marriage until the elder brother proceeds to an act [i.e. that of *Yeboom* or of *Chalitzah*]. As soon as he [the elder brother] has received *Chalitzah* from, or married his sister-in-law by *Yeboom*, the other brother may marry his betrothed also, in case the widow should have died; but if the brother-in-law died, 7 he must divorce his betrothed and receive *Chalitzah* from his sister-in-law. 8\n\n§ 10. Women who have become subject to *Yeboom*, may not proceed to it or to the ceremony of *Chalitzah* until after three months have elapsed [since the death of their husbands], other women also shall not be betrothed nor married [again] till after three months, whether they were virgins 9 or not, whether divorced or widowed,\n\n\nmarried or only betrothed. R. Jehudah says, \"Women who had already been married may be betrothed immediately, and the betrothed ones married, except the betrothed in Judah, for there the intercourse of the bridegroom with his betrothed is less restrained.\" R. José says, \"All women may be immediately betrothed, except a widow, on account of the mourning [she is bound to observe for her deceased husband].\"\n\n§ 11. When four [of a number of] brethren die, who had been married to four women, the eldest [survivor] may marry all four by *Yeboom*, if he wishes it. If a person left two wives at his decease, the marriage by *Yeboom* or *Chalitzah* by one, releases her rival. If one is qualified to be married to a priest, and the other is not; if the brother-in-law receives *Chalitzah*, he must receive it of her who may not be married to a priest; but if he prefers to marry by *Yeboom*, he can take her who is qualified [to be married to a priest].\n\n§ 12. When a person takes back his divorced wife, or one who had married the woman from whom he received *Chalitzah*, or her relation, 10 the marriage must be dissolved, and the issue from such a marriage are bastards, according to R. Akivah; but the sages say they are not bastards: they agree, however, that the child of one who had married a relation of the woman from whom he received *Chalitzah* is a bastard.\n\n§ 13. *      *      *      *\n       *      *      *      *\n\n#### Footnotes\n\n209:1 Was left pregnant by the first husband, and performed *Chalitzah* within three months of her husband's decease.\n\n209:2 After her brother-in-law had promised her marriage, but did not consummate it. Who are her legal heirs?\n\n210:3 It must be shared among those who have an existing right to it, namely,—her heirs; because the property is derived from her; and also his heirs, as the risk of the property is on them. But the school of Hillel has left it undecided, whether all the heirs are to share alike. (See further, Treatise Ketuboth, chap. III. § 6.)\n\n210:4 A distant country, or out of Palestine. See Gitten, chap. I.\n\n210:5 As if she were actually his wife.\n\n211:6 The reason of this seems to he founded rather on an apprehension that the real facts of the case might be misconceived, or rather misrepresented, than on any real legal prohibition. To explain this rather intricate case, Rashi, Bartenora, and other commentators of the Mishna, have illustrated it by the following example:—Suppose A to be a man who received *Chalitzah* from his sister-in-law B, whose sister C, married to a man not related to the sisters before marriage, has a rival named D; then A may not marry D in the event of her husband's death; because, as both sisters, B and C, appeared before the public tribunal when the *Chalitzah* was performed by B, every one might not be aware of that fact, and may suppose it to have been performed by C, so that if A marries her rival D, who is *the rival of the relation* of her of whom he received *Chalitzah*, people might say he married her rival [which is prohibited], for they suppose that C and D were the wives of the deceased brother of A, because [as they think] A received the *Chalitzah* from C; but this misapprehension cannot take place in case of marrying a sister of the rival, because the women who perform the ceremony of *Chalitzah* before the public tribunal are not in the habit of bringing their rivals with them.\n\n211:7 Namely, the eldest, on whom the duty of *Yeboom* is incumbent.\n\n211:8 This is limited to the case of his being the only surviving brother.\n\n211:9 When she had been only betrothed, and he who betrothed her had died or divorced her.\n\n212:10 Which, even as the preceding, is unlawful.\n\n## Chapter IV\n\n\n\n#### CHAPTER IV.\n\n§ 1. [Of] a damsel who has been seduced, the [compensation for] disgrace and deterioration, and the fine belong to her father, and likewise [the compensation] for [bodily] pain [of her] who has been ravished. If the cause was brought before the tribunal previous to her father's death, [the damages] belong to her father. Should the father die, they belong to her brethren; but if the cause could not be brought before the tribunal previous to the father's decease, they [the damages] belong to herself. According to another version, R. Simeon saith, \"If the money could not be received [the payment enforced] previous to the father's decease, they [the damages] belong to herself.\" If the cause was brought before the tribunal previous to her becoming fully nubile, they [the damages] belong to her father. If the father dies, they belong to her brethren; but if the cause could not be brought before the tribunal till after she was fully nubile, they [the damages] belong to herself. R. Simeon saith, \"If the money could not be received [the payment enforced] previous to the father's death, [according to another version, to her becoming fully nubile], they [the damages] belong to herself. The produce of her labor [her earnings], and what she finds, even though she has not received [the wages of her labor previous to] her father's death, belong to her brethren.\"\n\n§ 2. Should a man betroth his non-nubile daughter [to one who] divorces her, and [the father again] betrothes her, and she becomes\n\n\na widow, her Ketubah from both husbands belongs to him [the father]. Should he marry her [to one who] divorces her, and [the father again causes her to] marry, and she becomes a widow, her Ketubah from both husbands belongs to herself. R. Jehudah saith, \"The first Ketubah belongs to the father:\" but they [the sages] replied, \"That from [and after] the time she got married, her father has no claim on her.\"\n\n§ 3. Should the daughter of a female proselyte who had been converted along with her [mother], commit fornication [after being betrothed as a ‏נערה‎ damsel] her [punishment] is strangulation, but she is not [to be brought out to] the door of her father's house, 1 nor has she [a right to] the 100 selah [in case she has been unjustly slandered]. 2 If she was conceived while [her mother yet was] in unholiness [previous to conversion], but was born in holiness [after conversion] her [punishment] is lapidation, but she is not [to be brought out to] the door of her father's house, nor has she [a right to] the 100 selah. But if [both] her being conceived and her birth were in holiness [took place after her mother's conversion], she is like a daughter of Israel in every respect. Whether she has a father but no father's house, or a father's house but no father, 3 her [punishment] is lapidation: [for] the door of her father's house is not spoken of otherwise than as a [conditional] command. 4\n\n§ 4. The father is entitled to the Kidushin 5 of his daughter [she being non-nubile], whether they be by money, marriage contract, or connection. He is [moreover] entitled to what she finds, to her earnings, and to annul her vows. He [also] receives her Get 6 for her, but does not enjoy the usufruct [of her maternal property] during her life. The husband has the advantage over him, inasmuch as he does enjoy the usufruct [of her property] during her lifetime. But then he is bound to her maintenance, to her ransom [in case of her being led into captivity], and to her interment. R. Jehudah saith, \"Even the poorest man in Israel should not have less than two mourning pipes [instruments], and one mourning woman [at the funeral of his wife].\"\n\n\n§ 5. She [a female] is always [invariably] under the authority of her father until she is placed under the authority of her husband [by marriage]; [according to another version: until she is placed under the ‏חפה‎ nuptial canopy]. 7 Has the father surrendered her to the emissaries of the husband, she is under the authority of the husband. Has the father gone with the husband's emissaries, or have the father's emissaries gone with the husband's emissaries, she is [yet] under the father's authority. Have the father's emissaries surrendered her to the husband's emissaries, she is under the authority of her husband.\n\n§ 6. The father is not obligated to maintain his daughter; for this exposition [of the following clause in the Ketubah] was propounded by R. Eleazar ben Azariah before the sages in the ‏ברם‎, 8 in Jabneh: \"The sons to inherit, and the daughters to be maintained,\" even as the sons do not inherit till after the father's decease, so the daughters likewise have no [claim] to be maintained until after the father's decease.\" 9\n\n§ 7. Though he [the husband] has not signed a Ketubah for her, [the bride, nevertheless] a virgin receives 200 dinar, and a widow a maneh, as that is a fixed stipulation [enacted] by the Bethdin. 10 If he has signed over to her a field worth 100 zooz only, instead of the 200 zooz [legally her due], and has not [in the Ketubah] added the words, \"All my other possessions are subject to and liable for thy Ketubah,\" the obligation is [nevertheless] in force as that is a fixed stipulation [enacted] by the Bethdin. 11\n\n\n§ 8. Though he may not have inserted in her Ketubah, \"If thou art made a captive I will ransom thee, and receive thee [back] as my wife;\" or, if she be the wife of a priest, \"and will bring thee back into thine own land [home],\" 12 the obligation is nevertheless in force, as that is a fixed stipulation [standing condition enacted] by the Bethdin.\n\n§ 9. If she is made captive, he is bound to ransom her. Should he propose, \"Here is her Get, and [the amount of her] Ketubah, let her ransom herself [at her own expense],\" it is not allowed him [so to do]. If she is hurt, he is bound to have her cured: but should he propose, \"Here is her Get, and [the amount of her] Ketubah, let her get herself healed [at her own expense],\" he is allowed [so to do].\n\n§ 10. Though he may not have inserted [on her Ketubah], \"The male children thou mayest have by me shall inherit the amount of thy Ketubah over and above their equal shares with their brethren,\" the obligation is [nevertheless] in force, as that is a fixed stipulation [standing rule enacted] by the Bethdin.\n\n§ 11. [Though he may not have inserted on her Ketubah], \"The female children thou mayest have by me shall abide in my house, and be maintained out of my property, until they are espoused by men,\" the obligation is nevertheless] in force, as that is a fixed stipulation [enacted] by the Bethdin.\n\n§ 12. [Though he may not have inserted on her Ketubah], \"Thou shalt abide in my house, and be maintained out of my property, as long as thou continuest a widow,\" the obligation is [nevertheless] in force, as it is a fixed stipulation enacted by the Bethdin. As above [in the manner and form above set forth], the men of Jerusalem wrote [in their Ketuboth]: the men of Galilee wrote like them: but the men of Judea wrote \"[Thou shalt abide in my house, and be maintained out of my property] until the heirs prefer to give thee [the amount of] thy Ketubah.\" Therefore, should the heirs prefer it, they give her [the amount of] her Ketubah, and dismiss her. 13\n\n#### Footnotes\n\n250:1 Deut. xxii. 21.\n\n250:2 Deut. xxii. 19.\n\n250:3 Should the father, though still alive, possess no house, or should he be dead, in either case the sentence of death is to be executed.\n\n250:4 The observances which according to law (Deut. xxii. 21) ought to take place at her execution, are not indispensable, and if they cannot be enforced, the punishment is nevertheless inflicted.\n\n250:5 Vide Treatise Kidushin, chap. I. § 1.\n\n250:6 Vide Treatise Gittin, chap. I. § 1.\n\n251:7 Commentators are divided in opinion as to what is here understood by the word Chupah. According to the Rambam, it denotes a bower of roses and myrtles, into which the bridegroom conducts his bride [after she has been surrendered to him by her father], and where they are left alone. According to Rabbenu Nissim, however, it is not necessary that they should be left alone, but the wife becomes subject to the husband's authority as soon as she enters his abode, to be there married to him.\n\n251:8 The lecture room at Jamnia ‏יבנה‎, was in the form of an amphitheatre, with rows of seats raised above each other, so that the disciples sat in clusters like vines in a vineyard; hence the name, ‏כרם‎ vineyard.\n\n251:9 The father is not bound to maintain either sons or daughters after they have completed the sixth year, unless he is possessed of food sufficient for the consumption of one day, but while he is, he must share it with his offspring.\n\n251:10 And as such tacitly understood and in force.\n\n251:11 That the whole of his real property—even such parts thereof as he may subsequently alienate—remain liable for the Ketubah, and are mortgaged for the payment thereof.\n\n252:12 A priest must not continue to cohabit with his wife after she has been a captive among heathen, for she is considered to be ‏חללה‎, profaned. (Vide Levit. xxi. 7.)\n\n252:13 The formula of the men of Judea has not been adopted: the widow has, consequently, the right to abide in his house, and to be maintained out of his property until she marries again, or chooses, judicially, to obtain her Ketubah.\n\n## Chapter IV\n\n\n\n#### CHAPTER IV.\n\n§ 1. When a person sends a Get to his wife, and afterwards meets his messenger, or that he sends another agent after the first, who tells the latter [in the sender's name], \"The Get I gave you is now annulled,\" the Get is void; should the husband meet his wife before the arrival of his agent, or that he sends her another messenger [before the arrival of the first], who tells her [in her husband's name], \"The Get I sent thee is now annulled,\" it is void; but when the Get has once reached the wife's hands, it is no longer in the power of the husband to revoke it.\n\n§ 2. Formerly a husband had a right to select a Beth Din in another place, 1 and to declare before them, that he revoked the Get he had sent; but Rabbon Gamaliel the elder ordained, \"That this should no longer be permitted, on account of the maintenance of social order.\" 2 Formerly a husband was allowed to change his or her name, and that of the place in which he and she dwelt; 3 but Rabbon Gamaliel the elder ordained, \"That, for the upholding of social order, 4 it would be henceforth required to add to the names of the husband and wife [the words], 'And every other name he [or she] may have.'\"\n\n§ 3. Formerly a widow was not paid from the orphans’ estate until she had sworn [that she had not even received her Ketubah from the estate]. When they abstained from administering that oath, 5 Rabbon Gamaliel the elder ordained, \"That she should solemnly vow [to that effect] in the presence of the orphans, and may then receive her\n\n\n[paragraph continues] Ketubah.\" [The above, as also] that witnesses must sign the Get, was ordered on account of the maintenance of social order; and the same motive induced Hillel to ordain the ‏פרוזבול‎ or contract of pre-monition. 6\n\n§ 4. When a person had ransomed a captive slave, if he ransomed him as a slave, he becomes again a slave; 7 but if as a freeman, 8 he cannot afterwards subject him to slavery; but Rabbon Simeon ben Gamaliel saith, \"He remains a slave in either case.\" When a slave was given by his master as a security for the repayment of a debt, and then he manumits him, the slave is not bound in any way [to the second master] according to strict justice; but, for the upholding of social order, the [second] master shall be compelled to manumit the slave, and the latter shall sign a contract of debt for the value he would bring [were he to be sold in the slave market]; R. Simeon ben Gamaliel saith, \"The slave need not sign any contract; but the [first] master who manumitted him [must pay his value to the second].\"\n\n§ 5. One who is partly a slave and partly free, shall work one day for his master and another day for himself. Such is the dictum of Beth Hillel; Beth Shammai said unto them, \"Your institution is good for the master but not for the slave; because, being partly free he cannot marry a bondwoman, nor a free woman on account of his being partly a slave; remain unmarried he may not, since the world was created that man should thereon be fruitful and multiply, as it is said (Isaiah xlv. 19), 'He created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited;' therefore, for the sake of upholding social order, the master is to be compelled to manumit such a slave, completely, and the latter shall sign a bond for half of his value.\" Then did Beth Hillel adopt the opinion of Beth Shammai.\n\n§ 6. When a person sold his slave to a non-Israelite, or to be carried to a foreign country, 9 the slave must be manumitted. 10 No more money must be paid for the redemption of slaves than what they are really worth, for the sake of the maintenance of social\n\n\norder; 11 nor are, for the same reason, captive Israelite slaves to be assisted to escape. But Rabbon Simeon ben Gamaliel saith, \"It is for the sake of their fellow-captives.\" 12 No more than the value must be paid for holy writings, *Tephillin* and *Mezuzzot*, when bought of a non-Israelite, 13 for the maintenance of social order.\n\n§ 7. A person who divorced his wife on account of an evil report, 14 may not take her back; also when he divorced her on account of a vow. R. Jehudah saith, \"When the vow was known to many people, the husband may not take her back, but he may, when it is not generally known.\" R. Meir saith, \"He may not take her back, if the vow was of a nature to require the investigation of a person learned in the Holy Law [to annul it], 15 but he may when such investigation is unnecessary.\" 16 R. Eleazar saith, \"The prohibition in the first mentioned case was made on account of the second case.\" R. José ben Jehudah saith, \"It happened once at Zidon that a person said to his wife, '*Konam*, 17 if I do not divorce thee,' and did divorce her.\" The sages allowed him to take her back, [for they issued the above-mentioned prohibition, only] for the maintenance of social order.\n\n§ 8. When a person divorces his wife because she is an ‏אילנית‎ [i.e. one who is unfit to bear children], he may not take her back, according to R. Jehudah but the sages allow it. If she married another husband, had children by him, and then claims her Ketubah [of the first husband], the latter may reply to her claim, \"It were better for you to be silent than to speak.\" 18\n\n§ 9. When a person sells himself and his children as slaves to non-Israelites, he is not to be ransomed, but his children are to be ransomed after his death. When a person sold his field to a non-Israelite, and an Israelite purchases it from the latter, the purchaser\n\n\nmust bring the offering of the first fruit, for the preservation of social order. 19\n\n#### Footnotes\n\n287:1 That is, in any place from which the wife and messenger are absent.\n\n287:2 For it may happen that the messenger, not knowing of the revocation of the Get, brings it to the wife, who thereupon remarries, not being aware that it had been revoked before it was delivered to her.\n\n287:3 That is, when there were two names for the same person or town, by one of which it was known in the Holy Land, and by the other abroad; it is not necessary to write both names, but only that used in the place in which the Get was written.\n\n287:4 Because her children, in a second marriage, would be prejudiced, as it might be said that their mother was never lawfully divorced from her first husband, the names in the Get being different from those by which the parties are known in that town, and therefore they might, without any real cause, be called the bastard children of an adultress.\n\n287:5 It often gave cause to many false oaths being sworn by widows.\n\n288:6 See Treatise Shebiith, chap. X. § 3.\n\n288:7 To the person who ransomed him; this treats of a heathen who had been slave to an Israelite, was made captive, and ransomed by another Israelite.\n\n288:8 That is, if he was bought with the intention of giving him his liberty.\n\n288:9 That is, out of Palestine.\n\n288:10 The tribunal compels the Israelite master to repurchase the slave he had sold, and give him his liberty, as that sale was illegal.\n\n289:11 In order not to encourage incursions from foreign enemies for the purpose of making slaves, in the expectation of receiving large sums for their ransom.\n\n289:12 Remaining behind in slavery, that they may not be worse treated.\n\n289:13 Not to encourage him to steal them.\n\n289:14 Of having been guilty of adultery.\n\n289:15 Viz. a vow which cannot be annulled by the husband.\n\n289:16 When the husband can annul it. (See Treatise Nedarim.)\n\n289:17 A legal expression of taking a vow. (See Treatise Nedarim, chap. I. § 2.)\n\n289:18 For, having children with the second husband, it becomes evident, that the reason for which the Get was given was ill-founded, and the first husband may say, \"Had I known I would have to pay your Ketubah, I would not have divorced you.\" Her Get becomes thus void, and she an adultress.\n\n290:19 To discourage the sale of land in Palestine to non-Israelites.\n\n## Chapter IV\n\n\n\n#### CHAPTER IV.\n\n§ 1. Ten kinds of families went up from Babylon [to Palestine, with Ezra, at the building of the second temple], viz. 1, priests; 2, Levites; 3, Israelites; 4, profaned; 5, proselytes; 6, freedmen; 7, bastards; 8, Netinim; 9, of unknown lineage; and 10, foundlings.\n\n\n[paragraph continues] The three first mentioned may intermarry. Levites, Israelites, profaned proselytes, and manumitted slaves may intermarry among themselves; and the last mentioned six may also intermarry among themselves.\n\n§ 2. Of unknown lineage are all those whose mother is known, but not their father. A foundling [‏אסופי‎] is one who was picked up in the streets, and knows neither father nor mother. Abba Saul used to call one of unknown lineage [‏שתוקי‎] \"a ‏בדוקי‎,\" i.e. one subject to examination. 1\n\n§ 3. All that are prohibited to enter the congregation [of the Lord] may intermarry; but R. Jehudah prohibits it. R. Jehudah says, \"Those whose prohibition is certain, may intermarry; but not those whose prohibition is certain, with those whose prohibition is doubtful, or the doubtful with the certainly prohibited, or the doubtfully prohibited, among each other. Doubtfully prohibited are those of uncertain lineage, foundlings, and Samaritans.\" 2\n\n§ 4. A priest, who intends to marry a priest's daughter, must previously make inquiry 3 in respect to four mothers [i.e. the mother and grandmothers of his intended wife], which four [are in fact] eight, 4 viz. 1, the bride's mother; 2, her maternal grandmother; 3, the mother of her mother's father; 4, the mother of the last mentioned; 5, her father's mother; 6, the mother of the latter; 7, the mother of the paternal grandfather; and 8, the mother of the last mentioned. And when he intends marrying a Levite's or an Israelite's daughter, he must make inquiries for yet another degree.\n\n§ 5. These inquiries are not necessary in respect to a priest who had ministered at the altar, or to a Levite who had officiated at the ‏דוכן‎, or choir in the temple, or of an Israelite who had been a member of the Sanhedrin, and of all those whose ancestors were known to have held high public offices, or had been appointed wardens or overseers of the poor; all these are qualified to marry in priest's families without any previous examination. R. José says, \"Also\n\n\nthose whose name is to be found signed as a witness in the ancient archives of the tribunal of Zepporis.\" 5 R. Hanina ben Antigonus saith, \"Also he whose name is inscribed among the royal army.\" 6\n\n§ 6. The female descendants of a desecrated priest are for ever disqualified to be married to the priesthood. An Israelite married to a profaned woman, their daughter is qualified to marry a priest; but the daughter of a desecrated priest married to an Israelitess, is disqualified to marry a priest. R. Jehudah saith, \"The daughter of a male proselyte is even as the daughter of a desecrated priest [disqualified to be married to a priest].\"\n\n§ 7. R. Eleazar ben Jacob saith, \"The daughter of an Israelite who had married a female proselyte, is qualified to be married to the priesthood; and the daughter of a male proselyte who had married an Israelite woman is also qualified; but not the daughter of a male proselyte married to a female proselyte. This applies to proselytes and to manumitted slaves, even to the tenth generation, and is in force till the mothers of these are Israelites.\" R. José is of opinion, \"That even the daughter of a proselyte who had married a female proselyte, is qualified to be married to the priesthood.\"\n\n§ 8. A father who says, \"This son of mine is a bastard,\" is not to be believed: even should both parents admit that the child in the womb of the female is a bastard, they are not to be believed; but, according to R. Jehudah, their assertion is to receive credence.\n\n§ 9. When a man empowered a deputy to conclude for him the betrothing of his daughter, and did subsequently betroth her himself to another man, if his betrothment was first, it is valid, but if the betrothing through the deputy had preceded that by the father, that of the deputy is alone valid; and when it cannot be ascertained which betrothing was prior, both husbands must give her Get, or, if they\n\n\nshould thus agree, one may give her Get, and the other may marry her; and, in like manner, when a woman empowers a deputy to conclude a betrothing for her, and she betrothed herself subsequently [to another man], if her betrothing was the first, hers is valid, but if that by the deputy was prior to hers, then that alone is valid; and when it cannot be ascertained which betrothment was the first, both husbands must give her Get, or, if they thus agree, one may give her Get, and the other may marry her.\n\n§ 10. When a husband and wife departed to a distant country beyond sea, and he returns with her, and with children, and says, \"This is the same wife that went away with me, and these are her and my children,\" he need not bring any further proof as to the legitimacy of either wife or children; if he says, \"My wife died [abroad], and these are her children,\" he must prove the legitimacy of the children, but is not required to prove that of the wife.\n\n§ 11. Should he say, \"I married a woman abroad, this is she, and these are her children,\" he must prove the legitimacy of the wife, but need not prove that of the children. Should he say, \"The wife I married [abroad] is dead, and these are her [and my] children,\" he must produce proof of the legitimate descent of both wife and children.\n\n§ 12. A man ought not to be in a secluded place alone with two women, but one woman may be alone with two men; R. Simeon saith, \"A man may be alone with two women, if his wife is with him, and may sleep with them at the same inn, 7 because his wife guards him;\" a man may, however, be alone with his mother or daughter, and even sleep together, but when they are full grown they may only sleep together when both are dressed.\n\n§ 13. An unmarried man should not keep school, 8 nor should a woman do so; 9 R. Eleazar saith, \"Also, he whose wife is not with him.\"\n\n§ 14. R. Jehudah says, \"An unmarried man should not tend [or pasture] cattle, nor should two unmarried men sleep together under the same coverlet;\" but the sages permit both. 10 All men whose\n\n\nbusiness leads them to be much in the company of females, should avoid being alone with them; nor should any one have his son apprenticed to a trade which is to be exercised exclusively among females; R. Meir saith, \"A person should always endeavour to have his son taught a light and respectable business, and pray [for success] to Him to whom belongeth all riches and property; since there is no trade among whom there are no poor as well as rich, and neither riches nor poverty are derived from a trade alone, 11 but all depends upon personal merit and moral worth;\" R. Simeon ben Eleazar saith, \"Didst thou ever see any animal or bird exercise any trade or handicraft? and yet they are maintained without trouble or care; they were created to serve me; would it not follow, that I, who was created for the sole purpose of worshipping my Creator, should also find my maintenance without trouble, if it were not that, through my evil conduct, I have forfeited my maintenance?\" Abba Goryom, from Zadyan, said [in the name of Abba Guryah], \"A person should not bring up his children to be ass or camel drivers, barbers, mariners, shepherds, or shopkeepers, for these are not honest trades.\" 12 R. Jehudah says [in the name of Abba Guryah], \"Most of the ass drivers are wicked persons, but the greater part of the camel drivers are generally honest; most mariners are pious; the best of physicians is destined for hell, 13 and the best butcher is a suitable companion for Amalek.\" 14 R. Nahorai saith, \"I leave every business, and have my son only taught the Holy Law, for its rewards are partly enjoyed here, but the principal reward is reserved, to those who occupy themselves therein, in the future world. It is not thus with other [worldly] trades, for when a man engaged in them becomes\n\n\nill, or old, or suffers from other woes, and cannot longer work at them, he must perish of hunger. Not so the law, for it preserves a man from evil in his youth, and in hoary age it holds out to him the best hopes and expectations [of a glorious futurity]. In respect to his period of youth, it is said, 15 'But they that trust in the Lord shall have renewed strength;' and regarding the period of old age, it is said, 16 'They shall still bloom in old age, they shall be full of sap and verdant;' and thus it is said concerning the patriarch Abraham, 17 'Abraham was old, and God had blessed Abraham in all things.' We find also that Abraham our father observed the whole law, even before it was given, for thus it is said, 18 'Because that Abraham obeyed my voice and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.'\"\n\n#### Footnotes\n\n317:1 His mother was examined whether his father belonged to one of the three first mentioned classes.\n\n317:2 Samaritans are now considered as non-Israelites in every respect.\n\n317:3 Whether any of these had been married to unqualified persons, otherwise the sons born in such marriage would be disqualified priests.\n\n317:4 Viz. four on the mother's, and four on the father's side. This inquiry is only then necessary when the reputation of the bride's family is impugned; and even in that case the assertion of the females themselves, though unsupported by extraneous evidence, is held to be sufficient.\n\n318:5 Because that tribunal was known to make strict inquiries into the character of witnesses. This passage [in the original ‏בערכי הישנה של צפורי‎] has been variously explained. Some understand the word ‏חישנה‎ to be the name of a place near Zippori, and ‏ערכי‎ public registrars of genealogical lists. But the denoting ‏ה‎ prefixed to the word ‏ישנה‎, as also the word ‏של‎, which shews it to be in regimen, afford, in our opinion, sufficient proof that our rendering is the more probable one. It appears to have been also thus understood by Maimonides. (See his Commentary, *ad loc.*)\n\n318:6 Original ‏באסטרטיא‎, from the Greek \"Strateia,\" or host. It is unlikely, however, that all the soldiers should be of good family; it is, therefore, supposed to apply here only to the royal body guards, which were selected from the best families.\n\n319:7 Or rather a caravansary, where all sleep together in the same room.\n\n319:8 The reason is stated to be, that, as the mothers of the scholars frequently come to visit them, it may not give occasion for calumny and scandal, either regarding him or them.\n\n319:9 Not to lose her reputation by the visits of the fathers of her scholars.\n\n319:10 The Halacha, or decision, is against R. Jehudah, because Israelites are not to be suspected of the commission of so horrid a crime as ——.\n\n320:11 Because they generally only enable men to gain a bare livelihood, or, as it is sometimes said, \"To live to work, and to work to live.\"\n\n320:12 Those who follow the five first-mentioned trades [which are mean ones] are suspected of pilfering the property of others in the fields, roads, and other unfrequented places, where their business leads them; also not to keep faithfully their agreement with their employers.\n\n320:13 Because they are supposed not to be piously inclined, and, in the cure of diseases, to trust too much to their skill; according to others, because they do not sufficiently sympathise with the pains of their fellow-creatures, and will neglect a poor patient, and prove the cause of his death, in order to attend to their own interest in waiting on a rich patient, &c. It is almost needless to say, that all the above are not laws, but merely the expressions of private opinions.\n\n320:14 Because it is supposed that his habits of shedding the blood of animals renders him cruel towards men, like that blood-thirsty nation the Amalekites.\n\n321:15 Isaiah lx. 31.\n\n321:16 Ps. xcii. 9.\n\n321:17 Gen. xxiv. 1.\n\n321:18 Gen. xxvi. 5.\n\n## Chapter IV\n\n\n\n#### CHAPTER IV.\n\n§ 1. When an animal labours under difficult parturition, and the fœtus put forth its fore-leg, and withdrew it again within the womb, this fœtus may be eaten [by killing the dam]; but if it once protruded its head, though it withdrew it again, it is to be considered as born. Any part of an animal fœtus which had been cut off may be lawfully eaten, but if aught of the spleen or kidneys of an animal had been cut off, it is prohibited to eat these pieces. The rule is, \"Whatever belongs to the body of the animal itself, it is prohibited to eat, when cut off while the animal was yet alive, but what does not belong to its own body, it is lawful to eat.\"\n\n§ 2. When an animal labours under difficult parturition with its firstborn young, the fœtus may be cut from the womb piecemeal, 1 and the pieces cast to the dogs; 2 but if the greater part of the body had protruded, it must be buried, and the dam is not further subject to the law of firstborn. 3\n\n§ 3. When the fœtus of an animal lies dead within its womb, and the shepherd [or herd] put his hand inside and touched it, he is clean, whether the animal was of a clean or of an unclean species; but R. José, the Galilean, holds that he is clean when the animal was of a clean, and defiled when the animal was of an impure species.\n\n\n[paragraph continues] A human fœtus which died within the womb, and was touched by the midwife placing her hand inside, the midwife is unclean for seven days, but the woman [the mother of the fœtus] is clean, till after the fœtus comes from her.\n\n§ 4. When an animal labours under difficult parturition, and the fœtus protruded its fore-leg, and it was cut off, and: then the darn was slaughtered, the flesh of the young animal is clean. If the dam had been slaughtered first, and then the protruding limb of the fœtus was cut of, the flesh of the fœtus is to be considered [unclean], like that which had touched the body of an animal that had died of itself [Nebelah]. Such is the dictum of R. Meir; but the sages hold, \"That it must be considered as if a properly slaughtered animal, but which, owing to some internal blemish, had become Terefá, [had touched it]. For even as we find that a properly slaughtered animal which became Terefá., becomes clean [i.e. is not considered as Nebelah] by the said slaughtering, thus also ought the slaughtering of the dam to render the protruding limb of the fœtus clean.\" But R. Meir replied to them, \"Not so, for when the slaughtering causes an animal to be considered as clean, it is in so far only as is applicable to the body of the animal itself: but can it render clean the limb of the fœtus, which does not form part of the body of the dam? Whence is it deduced, that the slaughtering renders an animal found to be Terefá clean? [It ought rather to be supposed, that since] it is prohibited to eat of an unclean animal, which is also the case with \"one found to be Terefá: that, therefore, even as an unclean animal does not become clean by ‏שחיטה‎ [or proper slaughtering according to law], thus also the act of ‏שחיטה‎ ought not to render an animal clean, which was ascertained to be Terefá: yet this is not the case, because, what is affirmed in respect to the unclean animal, which at no time was a fit object for ‏שחיטה‎, cannot be predicated of the clean animal [which though Terefá], *had* a period when it was fit for ‏שחיטה‎. Consequently you cannot hence deduce the proof you have brought. Why does an animal, which is Terefá from the womb, become clean by ‏שחיטה‎? It is because you cannot apply that which is affirmed in respect to unclean animals, to which ‏שחיטה‎ is inapplicable, to clean animals, to which ‏שחיטה‎ does apply. Thus also, an animal horn alive at the end of eight months, does not become clean by the act of ‏שחיטה‎, because that act is not lawfully applicable to similar animals, under similar circumstances.\" 4\n\n\n§ 5. When a person slaughters an animal, and found within it a live or dead fœtus eight months old, or a dead fœtus of nine months, he may tear it up, 5 and let the blood run off. If a live fœtus of nine months is found, it must be slaughtered, and the penalty of the law would be incurred, if its dam was slaughtered on the same day with it. 6 Such is the dictum of R. Meir; but the sages say, \"The act of ‏שחיטה‎ to the dam, renders also the fœtus lawful.\" According to R. Simeon Sazuree \"[The slaughtering of the dam is so efficient, that] even if such an animal should have grown to the age of eight years, and ploughs in the fields, it does not require ‏שחיטה‎ for itself.\" If an animal had been torn up [i.e. been killed without proper ‏שחיטה‎], and a live fœtus nine months old found therein, it will be necessary to slaughter the fœtus by itself, because the dam had not been [properly] slaughtered.\n\n§ 6. An animal whose legs were cut off below the knee is Cashér, but not when they were cut off above the knee, also when the junction of the sinews 7 is interrupted. 8 When the bone of the lower part of the leg is broken: if the fractured part is covered by the flesh in the larger proportion [of its thickness and circumference], the animal becomes lawful for use by being properly slaughtered, but not when the fractured part was not so covered.\n\n§ 7. When an animal was killed, and a placenta [i.e. the secundines or afterbirth] found therein, this latter may be eaten, 9 if a person should not loath to eat it; but it does not contract pollution as a thing edible, or as a Nebelah. [If the dam had died of itself] but when it is considered edible by any person, it becomes liable to contract pollution as an edible, but not the pollution of Nebelah. When a placenta had partly protruded from the womb, it becomes unlawful to be eaten. It is the sign [or proof] of a child in woman, and of a young in an animal. 10 A placenta that had been cast prematurely by an animal which is with young for the first time, may be\n\n\ncast to the dogs, 11 and in the case of consecrated sacrifices it must be buried; 12 but it is not lawful to bury it in a cross road, or hang it up in a tree, 13 because these are heathen practices.\n\n#### Footnotes\n\n335:1 To save the life of the dam.\n\n335:2 Because it is considered unborn. For a firstborn, being consecrated, may not be cast to the dogs when it dies, but it must be buried.\n\n335:3 That is, any young one she may have hereafter is not to be considered as a firstborn \"that openeth the womb.\" (See Exod. xiii. 1.)\n\n336:4 That is, ‏שחיטה‎ does not apply to an animal fœtus of eight months.\n\n337:5 That is, it does not require ‏שחיטה‎.\n\n337:6 See Lev. xxii. 28.\n\n337:7 Hebrew ‏צומת הגידין‎, meaning the place where the three sinews or muscles, the large one and the two smaller ones at each side thereof, are joined, which is a little above the ancle. There are sixteen such sinews in the leg of fowl.\n\n337:8 By being cut asunder.\n\n337:9 That is, it is not considered as eating a part of a yet living animal, ‏אבר מן החי‎, which is prohibited.\n\n337:10 The rule on which all the regulations of this Mishna turn is, that there is never a placenta without a fœtus.\n\n338:11 See Note 2, p. 333 of this Treatise.\n\n338:12 For the reason stated Note 10, page 335; and any young animal born from one which was consecrated for sacrifice, becomes also consecrated.\n\n338:13 These were the superstitious practices of the heathens, who fancied that by those means they could prevent abortions among their cattle.\n\n## Chapter IV\n\n\n\n#### CHAPTER IV.\n\n§ 1. On that day 1 they divided and decided, 2 \"That a trough used to wash the feet [and capable of] containing from two lug to nine kab—which has been split [near the bottom 3], may become unclean from pressure,\" 4 although R. Akivah contended that [such] a trough always remains like what it is named. 5\n\n§ 2. On the same day they decided, \"That all sacrifices which have been brought under an improper designation, 6 are valid, but do not absolve the owners from their obligation, 7 except the paschal sacrifice, and the sin-offering; the paschal sacrifice in due season, and the sin-offering at all times.\" R. Eleazar saith, \"The trespass-offering likewise: the paschal sacrifice in its due season, and the sin or trespass-offering at all times.\" R. Simeon ben Azai said, \"I have it as a tradition from the mouths of seventy-two elders, on the day they inducted R. Eleazar ben Azariah into the president's seat, that all sacrifices [which may be eaten] that have been brought under an improper designation, are valid, but do not absolve the owners of their obligation, except the paschal sacrifice and the sin-offering.\"\n\n\n[paragraph continues] Ben Azai only added the burnt-offering, but the sages did not coincide with him.\n\n§ 3. On the same day they argued: [The land of] Ammon and [of] Moab, how are they [affected] by the Sabbatical year [of agrarian rest]? R. Tarphon decided, \"[That Israelites residing in those countries must pay] tithes for the poor;\" but R. Eleazar bell Azariah decided, \"[They must pay] second tithes.\" 8 R. Ishmael then said, \"Eleazar ben Azariah, it behoves thee to prove thy assertion, for thou enactest a more rigid observance; and whosoever enacts a more rigid observance, with him rests the onus of making good his decision.\" R. Eleazar ben Azariah replied, \"Ishmael, my brother, I have not deviated from the regular order [series] of the years, 9 but my brother Tarphon has deviated therefrom, therefore, the onus probandi rests on him.\" R. Tarphon [then] replied, \"Egypt is out of the land [of Israel; abroad], and Ammon and Moab are out of the land [of Israel; abroad]: even as Egypt [pays] tithe for the poor in the Sabbatical year, so Ammon and Moab [must likewise pay] tithe for the poor during the Sabbatical year.\" R. Eleazar ben Azariah replied, \"Babylon is out of the land [of Israel; abroad], and Ammon and Moab are out of the land [of Israel]: even as Babylon [pays] second tithe during the Sabbatical year, so Ammon and Moab [must likewise pay] second tithe during the Sabbatical year.\" R. Tarphon [further] replied, \"Egypt being near [adjoining to the land of Israel], is subjected to tithe for the poor, in order that the poor in Israel may be thereby supported during the Sabbatical year; so likewise Ammon and Moab, which are near [adjoining the land of Israel], must also be subjected to tithe for the poor, in order that the poor in Israel may be thereby supported during the Sabbatical year.\" To this R. Eleazar ben Azariah replied, \"Thou seekest to increase the money [contributed for the poor], but in truth thou losest souls; wouldst thou be the cause that heaven should send down neither dew nor rain, as it is said, 'Shall a man defraud God? Yet ye have defrauded me. But ye say, In what have we defrauded thee? In\n\n\ntithes and heave-offerings.'\" 10 R. Joshua then said, \"Behold, I will answer for my brother Tarphon, although not according to his mode of argumentation. [The regulation concerning] Egypt is newly established; [whereas that concerning] Babylon is established of old; the subject before us [also relates to a regulation to be] newly established. Let, therefore, [one] new regulation be subjected to conclusions drawn from [another] new regulation; but let not a new regulation be subjected to conclusions drawn from an old established regulation. [Moreover, the regulation concerning] Egypt is established by the elders [of the great Sanhedrin; whereas the regulation concerning] Babylon is established by the prophets [their predecessors]; the subject before us [also relates to a regulation to be] established by elders. Let, therefore, [one] regulation established by elders be subjected to conclusions drawn from [another] regulation established by elders, but let not a regulation by elders be subjected to conclusions drawn from a regulation by prophets.\" They [the sages] then divided, and [the majority] decided, \"That Ammon and Moab must pay tithe for the poor during the Sabbatical year.\" When R. José ben Dormiskith came to R. Eleazar [ben Hyrcanos], at Lydda, he [R. Eleazar] inquired of him, \"What had ye new in the Beth Medrash [College] to-day?\" He [R. José] replied, \"They divided and decided, that Ammon and Moab must pay tithe for the poor in the Sabbatical year.\" [On hearing this], R. Eleazar wept, and exclaimed, \"The secrets of the Lord are for those who fear him, and his covenant to be made known to them; 11 go forth and tell them, Ye need be under no apprehension on account of the decision you have adopted, for I have it as a tradition from the mouth of Rabbon Jochanan ben Zachai, who heard it from his teacher, who heard it from his teacher, even up to the decision of Moses from Sinai, that Ammon and Moab pay tithes to the poor during the Sabbatical year.'\"\n\n§ 4. On that day came Judah, an Ammonitish proselyte, and stood before them in the Medrash. He said to them [the sages], \"How\n\n\nam I [situated with respect] to coming into the congregation [of Israel]?\" 12 Rabbon Gamaliel answered him, \"Thou art prohibited.\" R. Joshua answered him, \"Thou art permitted.\" Rabbon Gamaliel then said, \"The Scripture saith, 'An Ammonite and a Moabite shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord, even to their tenth generation,' and so forth.\" 13 To this R. Joshua replied, \"Are then the Ammonites or Moabites still in their own land? Sennacherib, king of Assyria, did already long ago march up and intermix the nations, as it is said, 'I have removed the bounds of the nations, have plundered their treasures, and laid low the might of the inhabitants.'\" 14 \"[But],\" said Rabbon Gamaliel to him, \"the Scriptures declare, 'And afterwards I will bring again the captivity of the children of Ammon,' 15 and [therefore] they are already returned.\" [To this] R. Joshua replied, \"The Scriptures [also] declare, 'I will bring again the captivity of my people Israel' [and Judah], 16 but [nevertheless] they are not yet returned;\" upon which they [the sages] permitted him [the Ammonitish proselyte] to come into the congregation.\n\n§ 5. The Targum [Chaldee passages] in Ezra and Daniel makes the hands unclean. Targum written in Hebrew characters, and Hebrew written in Targum [Syriac] characters or in Hebrew characters, do not make the hands unclean. In no case do [sacred Scriptures] make [the hands] unclean, unless the writing be Assyrian [square] characters on parchment with ink.\n\n§ 6. The Sadducees said, \"We blame [object to] you Pharisees, because you say, 'Sacred Scriptures make the hands unclean, but the books Hameram 17 do not make the hands unclean.'\" Rabbon Jochanan ben Zachai replied [ironically], \"And have we nothing else to object to the Pharisees but this? They also assert that the bones of an ass are clean, but the bones of Jochanan the high priest are unclean.\" They [the Sadducees] replied, \"According to their love [the estimation in which the bones are held] is their uncleanness,\n\n\nso that no one may turn the bones of his father and mother into spoons.\" He answered them, \"In like manner [are] the sacred Scriptures; according to their love [the high estimation in which they are held] is their uncleanness; whereas the books Hameram, which are not beloved [held in no esteem], do not make the hands unclean.\"\n\n§ 7. The Sadducees said, \"We blame [object to] you Pharisees, that ye declare the stream [which flows when water is poured from a clean vessel into an unclean one] to be clean.\" 18 The Pharisees replied [with much better right], \"We [may] blame [object to] you Sadducees, that ye declare a streamlet of water which flows from a burial ground to be clean.\" 19 The Sadducees [further] said, \"We blame [object to] you Pharisees, because ye say, 'If mine ox or mine ass cause any damage, I am bound [to make compensation], but should my bondman or bondwoman cause any damage, I am absolved [from making compensation];' if I am bound for mine ox and mine ass, respecting which there are no duties enjoined on me, [does it not follow that] for my bondman or bondwoman, respecting whom there are duties enjoined on me, it is just that I should [also] be bound [to compensate] for the damage he [or she] occasions?\" [But] they [the Pharisees] replied, \"Not the same rule which applies to mine ox or mine ass, that are not possessed of reason, can apply to my bondman or bondwoman, who are possessed of reason; for, should I offend them, they may [maliciously] set fire to the growing corn of another person, in order that I might be bound to pay for it.\"\n\n§ 8. A Galilean Sadducee said, \"I blame [object to] you Pharisees, that you insert the name of the sovereign in the same document [letter of divorce] with Moses.\" 20 The Pharisees replied [with much better reason], \"We [might] blame [object to] thee, Galilean Sadducee, that ye inscribe the [name of the] sovereign with the Holy Name on the same page: and not only that, but ye inscribe the sovereign first, as it is said, 'And Pharaoh said,\n\n\n[paragraph continues] Who is the Lord that I should hearken to his voice to let Israel go?'\" 21 [But when he was punished, he exclaimed, \"The Lord is righteous.\"] 22\n\n#### Footnotes\n\n363:1 The day on which R. Eleazar ben Azariah was appointed president of the school at Jabneh (Jamniah).\n\n363:2 The ayes and the noes divided, and the majority decided.\n\n363:3 So that it cannot contain water sufficient to wash one foot at a time, and is, therefore, no longer a bathing trough.\n\n363:4 Should an unclean person sit thereon.\n\n363:5 Though unfit for use, it still is a trough, and as such, not liable to become unclean from pressure. (Vide Treatise Kelim, chap. 1. § 2.)\n\n363:6 If bound to bring a sacrifice of one kind, he designates it as a different kind. (Vide Treatise Sebachim, chap. I. §§ 2, 3.)\n\n363:7 He is still bound to bring his sacrifice.\n\n364:8 The tithe for the poor was Cholin [common food], and might be eaten in any place, whereas the second tithe was consecrated, and could only be eaten in Jerusalem. (Vide Deut. xiv. 22, and Treatise Maasar Sheni.)\n\n364:9 It was an established rule that the year in which the tithe was paid to the poor, should be succeeded by a year in which the second tithe was consumed in Jerusalem; and as the sixth year was fixed for payment of tithe to the poor, the seventh year, in all countries not subject to the agrarian rest, entailed the obligation of second tithe.\n\n365:10 Malachi iii. 8:—R. Eleazar ben Azariah assumes that the tithe spoken of by the prophet cannot be tithe for the poor, which is Cholin, or profane; but that it must be second tithe, because that is consecrated like the heave, in connexion with which it is mentioned.\n\n365:11 Ps. xxv. 14.—Some explain, that R. Eleazar wept for joy, because they had adopted the right decision; others will have it that he wept for grief, because they had forgotten and put to the vote an ‏הלכה למשה מסיגי‎\n\n366:12 To marry an Israelitish woman.\n\n366:13 Deut. xxiii. 3.\n\n366:14 Isa. x. 13.—The \"removal of bounds\" is expressive of the custom to transplant conquered nations from their own country to some other land.\n\n366:15 Jer. xlix. 6.\n\n366:16 Amos ix. 14.\n\n366:17 ‏ספרי המירם‎ According to Bartenora, from ‏המיר‎, to change, or substitute falsehood in lieu of truth—books written against revealed religion. Others consider it to mean the writings of Homer, the Greek poet.\n\n367:18 Vide Treatise Maksheerin, chap. V. § 9.\n\n367:19 If a streamlet of water which flows from so unclean a place as a cemetery, is by the Sadducees allowed to be clean, surely the water which flows out of a clean vessel is, with much more reason, to be considered as clean.\n\n367:20 In dating the document, the year of the sovereign's reign is inserted, and the whole closes with the formula, \"According to the Law of Moses and of Israel.\" This mention of the sovereign, and the year of his reign, the Sadducee considers as an insult to Moses.\n\n368:21 Exod. v. 2.—The name of the heathen sovereign cannot be considered as an insult to Moses, since, in the passage quoted, the name of Pharaoh is coupled with that of the Lord, and even precedes it.\n\n368:22 Exod. ix. 27.—This sentence forms no part of the Pharisee's reply, and has no connexion with what precedes, but is only introduced that the Treatise may not conclude with Pharaoh's blasphemy.\n\n## LXII. Treatise Ookezin (synopsis)\n\n\n\n####### STALKS.\n\n[Treats of legumes and fruits which contract uncleanness.]\n\nWhich closes Seder Taharoth.\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\nFINIS.\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n_________________________________\nWertheimer & Co., Printers, Circus Place, Finsbury Circus.",
    "project_translation": false,
    "license": null,
    "methodology_url": null
  }
}