Egyptian-Hebrew stream·Babylonian Talmud·Chapter V.

Source context

Theme

halakhic deliberation and rabbinic legal reasoning within Talmudic tractate discourse

Soul-faculty

Intellectual Soul

Steiner

not engaged in the GA corpus

Cross-tradition

• Aristotelian dialecticTalmudic legal reasoning employs a structural parallel to Aristotelian dialectic: opposing positions (shakla ve-tarya) are weighed through formal disputation to arrive at binding conclusions, reflecting cross-tradition congruence in method rather than metaphysical content.
• Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh)The rabbinic mode of case-based halakhic analysis exhibits cross-tradition congruence with Islamic fiqh, where analogical reasoning (qiyas) and scholarly consensus (ijma) similarly ground normative rulings in transmitted textual authority.

Chapter V.

MISHNA A. By ten sayings the world was created; and why so? Could it not have been created by one saying? But it was that vengeance might be taken on the wicked, who destroy the world that was created by ten sayings; and to give a goodly reward to the righteous, who maintain the world that was created by ten sayings. *

Tosephtha--Aboth of R. Nathan*.

"By ten sayings the world was created." For what purpose is this stated? To teach that if one carries out a precept, or observes one Sabbath, or preserves a soul, it is considered as if he had preserved the entire world, which was created with ten sayings. But he who transgresses once, or violates one Sabbath, or destroys one soul, is considered like unto one who has destroyed the entire world, which was created with ten sayings. And so we find with Cain, who killed his brother Abel, as it is written [Gen. iv. 10]: "The voice of thy brother's blood (in plural)." He shed only the blood of one person--why is the plural used? Infer from this that the blood of the decedent's children, grandchildren, and all the descendants which were destined to be descended from him, were all crying before the Holy One, blessed be He.

R. Nehemiah said: "Whence is it deduced that a single person is equal to the whole creation? It is written [ibid. v. 1]: 'This is the book of the generations of Adam.' And before that it is written [ibid. ii. 4]: 'These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created.' We see that with reference to the creation of man almost the same wording is used as with reference to the creation of heaven and earth, which goes to show that one is as much as the other. Likewise may be inferred from this, that the Holy One, blessed be He, showed him (Adam) all the generation which were to spring from him, as if they were standing and playing before him." There

are others who say that the righteous only were shown to him, as it is written [Is. iv. 3]: "Every one that is written down into life in Jerusalem.

R. Joshua b. Kar'hah said: "It is written [Ps. cxxxix. 16]: 'My undeveloped substance did thy eyes see, and in thy book,' etc. Infer from this that the Holy One, blessed be He, showed unto Adam all succeeding generations, together with their preachers, directors, leaders, prophets, heroes, criminals, and their pious. In this or that generation, such and such a king will reign; in another, a certain sage will exist, etc."

R. Eliezer the son of R. Jose the Galilean said: "Nine hundred and seventy-four generations before the creation of the world, the Torah was already written and reposing in the lap of the Lord, and sung praises together with the angels, as it is written [Ps. viii. 8, 9]: 'Then was I near him as a nursling; and I was day by day (his) delight, playing before him at all times; playing in the world, his earth.' They have compared this to one who desired to engrave many subjects on a piece of wood, and as it was not of sufficient size, he was in despair. What could he do? Let him engrave upon the earth, where he has enough space. So also did the Holy One, blessed be He, whose great name shall be praised for ever and evermore, when He in His wisdom and understanding created the entire world. He created the heavens and the earth in the upper and lower regions, and created in man all that he created in his world: the world contains forests, so also does man, viz., his hair; the world contains evil beasts, so does man, viz., lice; there are thorns in the world, so also are they in man--his ears; there is odor, so also in man--his nose; light--man's sight; evil-smelling liquids, so also in man--the excretion of the nose; salty water, so also in man--tears; rivers, so also in man--his urine; castles, so also in man--his lips; gates, so also in man--his teeth; sweet water, so also in man--his saliva; stars, so also in man--his cheeks; towers, so also in man--his neck; cathedrals, so also in man--his arms; nails, so also in man--his fingers; a king, so also in man--his head; advisers, so also in man--his kidneys; millstones, so also in man--his stomach; regulations, so also in man--his spleen; manure, so also in man--his belly; pits, so also in man--his navel; spring-water, so also in man--his blood; trees, so also in man--his bones; hills, so also in man--his ashes; a mortar and pestle, so also in man--his knees; horses, so also in man--his legs; hills and valleys, so also in man--when

standing he is like a hill and when lying he is like a valley Hence all that which the Holy One, blessed be He, created in His world, He also created in man."

MISHNA B. Ten generations were there from Adam to Noah, to show how great was His long-suffering; for all the generations were provoking him, till He brought the deluge upon them. *

Tosephtha--Aboth of R. Nathan*.

1"Ten generations were there from Adam to Noah." For what purpose was this stated? To teach that all these generations persisted in provoking the Lord, nevertheless He did not bring the flood on the world, for the sake of the upright and pious. There are others who say: As long as Methuselah lived, the flood descended not upon the world; and it was even suspended for seven days after his demise; as it is written [Gen. vii. 10]: "And it came to pass, after the seven days." What seven days? The period of mourning for the upright, who prevented the retribution.

Another explanation is: The above passage teaches that the Holy One, blessed be He, granted them an additional respite, after the original one hundred and twenty years, of seven days, in which time to repent.

Still another explanation is, that the Lord changed the order of the world for seven days, causing the sun to rise in the west and to set in the east, so that perchance they would notice it, become frightened, and repent; however, it had no effect.

Still another explanation is, that the Lord spread His table before them during seven days, and gave them an inkling of what there was in the world to come, so they might reflect and say: Woe to us, for all this good which is lost to us, and for the destruction of our offspring, as it is written [ibid. vi. 12]: And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt.

R. Elazar b. Parta said: "It is written [ibid., ibid. 3]: 'My spirit shall not always strive for the sake of man.' It means that the Lord said: 'I will not judge them until I will double their rewards,' as it is written [Job, xxi. 13]: 'They wear out

their days in happiness; and in a moment they go down to the nether world.'

R. Jose the Galilean said: "It is written: 'My spirit shall not always strive.' It means that the Lord said: 'I will not equal the evil thoughts to the good thoughts so long as their fate has not yet been sealed.' After that, however, both are equal in transgression."

He used to say: "The evil spirit is removed from the upright and the good spirit predominates, as it is written [Ps. cix. 22]: 'And my heart is deeply wounded within me.' From the wicked, however, the good thoughts are removed and evil thoughts are given them instead, as it is written [ibid. xxxvi. 2]: 'Saith vice itself to the wicked, So I feel it within my heart, that he should have no dread of God before his eyes.' To people of mediocrity both are given: the one who is nearer to the good thoughts is ruled by them, and one who is nearer to the evil thoughts is ruled by them, as it is written [ibid. cix. 31]: 'For he ever standeth at the right hand of the needy, to save him from those that judge his soul.'"

R. Simeon b. Elazar said It is written [Gen. vi. 3]: 'My spirit shall not strive,' etc. This means the Lord said: 'I will not judge them before I have rewarded the upright.' This is only as to this world; but as to the world to come, it is written [ibid. cxlvi. 46]: 'When his spirit goeth forth, he returneth to his (native) earth.'"

R. Aqiba said, of the same verse: "The Lord said: 'They have not reflected that they are flesh and blood.' On the contrary, they were haughty, and said unto God: 'Depart from us'" [Job, xxi. 14].

R. Meir said, of the same verse: "This means that the Holy One, blessed be He, said: 'This generation said: God does not judge, there is no judge in the world; God has left it.'"

Rabbi said, of the same verse: "This means that the Holy One, blessed be He, said: 'They have not instituted a Sanhedrin on earth, therefore will I institute for them a Sanhedrin on high.'"

MISHNA C. Ten generations were there from Noah to Abraham, to show how great was His long-suffering; for all the generations were provoking Him till Abraham our father came, and received the reward of them all.

*

Tosephtha-Aboth of R. Nathan*.

1"Ten generations," etc. For what purpose was it necessary to state this? To teach that all these generations have provoked Him, and there was not one who walked in the way of the Holy One, blessed be He, till Abraham our father, as it is written [Gen. xxvi. 5]: "Because that Abraham obeyed my voice . . . and my laws." Are there then two Laws? Infer from this that the Lord provided Abraham with two reins, which, like two sages, made him understand, advised him and taught him all night, as it is written [Ps. xvi. 7]: "I will bless the Lord, who hath given me counsel: also in the night season my reins admonish me." And not only that, but Abraham our father was wont to practise charity first and justice afterward, as it is written [Gen. xviii. 19]: "For I know him, that he will command," etc. When two disputants came before him, and, one of them complained that the other owed him a manah, Abraham was wont to deposit a manah of his own with one of them, and then said: Make your complaints. When he found that one really owed the other, he said to the one with whom he deposited the manah: "Give it to thy neighbor"; and if neither owed the other, he said: "Divide it between yourselves, and depart in peace." However, David the king practised justice first and charity after, as it is written [II Samuel, viii. 15]: "And David did what was just and right unto all his people." When two disputants came to him, and one of them claimed that the other owed him a manah, he told them to make their complaints, and after finding one of them liable, he used to give the other the manah; otherwise, he said: "Divide your claims, and depart in peace."

MISHNA D. With ten temptations was Abraham our, father tempted, and he withstood them all, to show how great was the love of Abraham our father. *

Tosephtha--Aboth of R. Nathan*.

"With ten temptations," etc. They are as follows: two at "get thee out of thy country"; two with his two sons; two

with his two wives; one with the kings; one at "the pieces"; one at Ur of the Chaldees; and one at the circumcision. Wherefore so many? For the reason that when Abraham our father will claim his reward, the angels shall say: More than us, even more than all of us, is he worthy to receive his rewards, as it is written [Eccl. ix. 7]: "Go, eat with joy thy bread, and drink with a merry heart thy wine."

In comparison to these ten temptations, the Holy One, blessed be He, performed ten miracles for his descendants in Egypt, and also brought ten plagues (on the Egyptians); and performed ten miracles for the Israelites at the sea, and brought ten plagues on the Egyptians at the sea. The Egyptians roared at them with their voices, so also did the Lord roar at them at the sea, as it is written [Job, xxxvii. 5]: "God thundereth with his marvellous voice." The Egyptians came to the sea with bows and arrows, so also did the Lord appear, as it is written [Habakkuk, iii. 9]: "Laid quite bare is thy bow"; also [Ps. xviii. 15]: "And he sent out his arrows, and scattered them." The Egyptians came to the sea armed with swords, so also did the Lord, as it is written [ibid.]: "And he shot forth lightnings, and discomfited them"--lightning means sword, as it is written [Ezek. xxi. 14, 15]: "The sword, the sword is sharpened, and also polished: in order to make a thorough slaughter it is sharpened, in order that it may glitter 1 is it polished." 1 The Egyptians came armed with spears, so also did the Lord, as it is written [Habakkuk, iii. 11]: "At the shining of the flaming glitter of thy spear." The Egyptians were proud of their shield and buckler; so was the Lord, as it is written [Ps. xxxv. 2]: "Take hold of shield and buckler, and rise up for my help." The Egyptians came with sling-stones, but the Lord with hailstones, as it is written [Ps. xviii. 13]: "From the brightness before him his thick clouds passed away (with) hail-stones and coals of fire."

When our fathers stood by the sea, Moses said to them: "Arise and pass through it!" and they rejoined: "We will not pass, till we see the sea become chips, chips." 2 Whereupon Moses struck the sea with his staff, and it was converted into chips, as it is written [Habakkuk, iii. 14]: "Thou didst strike through with his own spears the chiefs of his villages." Again

Moses said to them: "Arise and pass through it," and they rejoined: "We will not pass till the sea becomes a valley." Moses struck the sea again, and it became a valley, as it is written [Ps. lviii. 13]: "He divided the sea, and caused them to pass through"; also [Is. lxiii. 14]: "As a beast goeth down into the valley." Moses again urged them to pass through the sea, and they answered: "We will not, till it becomes separated into parts"; as it is written [Ps. cxxxvi. 13]: "To him who divided the Red Sea into parts." When urged again, they said: "We will not pass till the bottom becomes loamy." Whereupon Moses struck the sea with his staff, and the bottom became loamy, as it is written [Habakkuk, iii. 15]: "But (thou) didst pass along over the sea with thy horses, over the piled-up billows 1 of great waters." Again they refused to pass through, until the bottom of the sea should become a desert; and Moses caused it to be so, as it is written [Ps. cvi. 9]: "And he led them through the depths, as through the wilderness." They refused again until the sea became converted into small particles, and Moses caused it to be so, as it is written [ibid. lxxiv. 13]: "It was thou that didst divide by thy strength the sea." They again refused until it should become rocky, and Moses caused it to be so, as it is written [ibid.]: "Thou brokest in pieces the heads of the crocodiles on the water," and that can be broken on rocks only. They again refused until the sea should become dry land, and Moses made it so, as it is written [ibid. lxvi. 6]: "He changed the sea into dry land"; also [Ex. xv. 19]: "But the children of Israel went on dry ground through the midst of the sea." They refused again until the waters became as walls, and Moses made them so, as it is written [Ex. xiv. 22]: "And the waters were a wall unto them, on their right hand, and on their left." They still refused till there should be bottles, and Moses complied again, as it is written [ibid. xv. 8]: "The flood stood upright as a wall." 2 And the infants were drinking oil and honey out of these bottles, as it is written [Deut. xxxii. 13]: "And he made him to suck honey out of the rock," etc. There are others who say: "Living water issued out of the sea, when they were between the walls, and they drank of it, as the sea water is salty; for it is stated "the flood," and that means sweet water, as it is written [Songs, iv. 15]: "A well of living waters,

and flowing down from Lebanon." The clouds of glory were above their heads, to protect them from the sun.

R. Eliezer said: "The deep was arched over their heads, while passing through the sea, to save them from pain." The former and the latter both say: The upper and the lower waters overthrew the Egyptians, as it is written [Ex. xiv. 27]: "And the Lord overthrew the Egyptians in the midst of the sea."

MISHNA F. With ten temptations did our ancestors tempt God in the wilderness, as it is written [Numb. xxv. 22]: "And have tempted me these ten times, and have not hearkened to my voice." *

Tosephtha--Aboth of R. Nathan*.

1"By means of ten trials the Holy One, blessed be He, tested our forefathers," and they were found wanting in all of them. They are as follows: In the wilderness, in the plain, opposite Suph, between Paran and Thophel and Laban and Chazeroth and Di-zahab. "In the wilderness" they made the golden calf, as it is written [Ex. xxxii. 8]: "They have made themselves a molten calf." "In the plain" they quarrelled with Moses on account of water, as it is written [ibid. xvii. 3]: "And the people thirsted there for water." "Opposite Suph"--their rebellion at the Red Sea. There are others who say: This has reference to Michah's graven image. "Between Paran"--where the incident of the spies occurred [Numb. xiii. 3]: "And Moses sent them out from the wilderness of Paran." "And Thophel" refers to the nonsense (slander) 2 they talked of the manna. "And Laban"--this is the dissension of Korah. "And Chazeroth"--near which place the incident of the quails occurred. All these are seven, and somewhere else it is written [Deut. ix. 22]: "And at Thah'erah, and at Massah, and at Kibroth-hat-thavah." (Making altogether ten.) What does Di-zahab refer to? Aaron said to them: "Ye have enough of the sin of the gold which ye brought for the calf."

R. Eliezer b. Jacob said: "This sin with which the Israelites were afflicted, is enough for that time till the resurrection of the dead."

Ten names of praise are applied to the Holy One, blessed be He: "Adonai," "Jah," "Eloim," "Eloah," "Eloechu," "Eloechem," "El," "Eheh-ascher-Eheh," "Shadai," "Zebaoth." Said R. Jose: "I do not agree as to the name "Zebaoth," for it is written [Deut. xx. 9]: "That they shall appoint captains for the armies," the Hebrew term for "army" being "Zebaoth." (These being proper names of God, we have not translated them.)

Ten ignominious names are applied to the idols. They are as follows: Abominations, idols, molten images, graven images, false gods, groves, sun-images, Atzabim, Aven, images.

Two signs (the inverted letter Nun) are placed in the Torah at a small section, viz.: "And it came to pass, when the ark set forward," etc. [Numb. x. 35, 36]. Said Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel: "It would have been advisable to remove this section and put it in another place. Something like this we find elsewhere [Judges, xviii. 20]: 'And Jonathan, the son of Gershom, the son of Menasseh,' was he the son of Menasseh, and not the son of Moses? But because his deeds were not like those of his father Moses, therefore he is traced to Menasseh."

Likewise we find [Zech. iv. 14]: "These are the two sons of the clear oil, that stand by the Lord of the whole earth." This refers to Aaron and the Messiah, and we do not know who is more beloved; but, as it is written [Ps. cx. 4]: "The Lord hath sworn, and will not repent of it, thou shalt be a priest for ever." It is to be inferred from this that the latter is more beloved.

It is said [Ps. lxxx. 14]: "The boar out of the forest doth gnaw at it." Is it not written out of the river? 1 The difference in the two words implies this: As long as Israel act contrary to the will of the Omnipotent, the idolaters are likened to them as a boar out of the forest, which kills the people, damages the cattle, and is an affliction to mankind. However, when the Israelites act according to the will of the Omnipotent, the idolaters are likened unto them, as the boar out of the river (hippopotamus), which does not kill people, nor injures any creatures. Many words of the Torah are dotted. They are as follows: "May the Lord judge between me and thee" [Gen. xvi. 5].

[paragraph continues] The second Yod is dotted in the word "ubenecha," which hints that she (Sarah) applied it to Hagar. Others say she meant those who caused quarrelling between her and him. "And they said unto him, Where is Sarah thy wife?" [ibid. xviii. 9]. The Aleph, Yod, and Vav are dotted to imply that, although they knew where she was, still they inquired after her. "And he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose" [ibid. xix. 33]. The second Vav is dotted, to imply that he perceived only when the younger arose. "And Esau ran to meet him, and embraced him, and fell on his neck and kissed him" [ibid. xxxiii. 4]. All the letters of the word "vayishokehu" are dotted, to signify that he was not sincere. R. Simeon b. Elazar said: "It implies, on the contrary, that this kissing was sincere, but all his other acts were insincere." "And his brothers went to feed his father's flocks in Shechem" [ibid. xxxvii. 12]. There are dots on the word "eth," to imply that they did not go to feed the flocks, but to eat, drink, and commit follies. "All that were numbered of the Levites, whom Moses numbered with Aaron" [Numb. iii. 39]. The entire word is dotted, to imply that Aaron was not included in the number. "Or be on a distant journey" [ibid. ix. 10]. The Heh in the word "rechokah" is dotted, to imply that it does not really mean a distant journey, only that he was prohibited from passing the threshold of the outer court (of the Temple). "And we have laid waste (all) up to Naphach, which reacheth unto Medeba" [ibid. xxi. 30]. The Resh in the word "asher" is dotted, to imply that only the idolaters laid waste the countries. Concerning the first day of Tabernacles, it is written [ibid. xxix. 15]: "And a tenth part each." The Vav of the word "eissoron" is dotted, to imply that there should be only one-tenth part. And, lastly: "The secret things belong unto the Lord out God; but those things which are publicly known belong to us and to our children for ever" [Deut. xxix. 30]. The entire two first words and the Ayin of the third are dotted, to imply that Ezra said: If Elijah will come and question me why I have written thus, will answer: 'I have already dotted them.' However, if he will say: 'Thou hast written well,' I will erase the dots."

In the Torah there is written eleven times the word ‏היא‎ (which means "she"), when it ought to be ‏הוא‎ (he). (See Massorah.)

Ten times did the Shekhina descend upon the earth. Once in the Garden of Eden, as it is written [Gen. iii. 8]: "And they

heard the voice of the Lord God walking in the garden." Once in the generation of the (builders of) the tower, as it is written [ibid. xi. 5]: "And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower." Once in Sodom, as it is written [ibid. xviii. 21]: "And I will go down now, and see if they have done according to the cry against them." Once in Egypt, as it is written [Ex. iii. 8]: "And I am come down to deliver it out of the hand of the Egyptians." Once at the sea, as it is written [Ps. xviii. 10]: "And he bent the heavens, and came down." Once at Sinai, as it is written [Ex. xix. 20]: "And the Lord came down upon Mount Sinai." Once at the Temple, as it is written [Ezek. xliv. 2]: "This gate shall remain locked, it shall not be opened . . . because the Lord, the God of Israel, hath entered in by it." Once at the pillar of cloud, as it is written [Numb. xi. 25]: "And the Lord came down in a cloud." And once when it will come down in the days of Gog and Magog, as it is written [Zech. xiv. 4]: "And his feet will stand on that day upon the Mount of Olives."

Ten degrees the Shekhina removed itself from one place to another: From the cover to the cherub, as it is written [II Samuel, xxii. ii]: "And he rode upon a cherub, and flew along"; from the cherub to the threshold, as it is written [Ezek. ix. 3]: "And the glory of the God of Israel ascended up from the cherub whereupon it had been, to the threshold of the house"; from the threshold to the two cherubim, as it is written [ibid. x. 18]: "And the glory of the Lord went forth from off the threshold of the house, and halted over the cherubim"; from the cherubim to the roof, as it is written [Prov. xxi. 9]: "It is better to dwell in a corner of a roof"; from the roof to the wall of the outer court, as it is written [Amos, vii. 7]: "And, behold, the Lord was standing upon a wall (made) by a plumbline"; from the wall of the outer court to the altar, as it is written [ibid. ix. 1]: "I saw the Lord standing upon the altar"; from the altar to the city, as it is written [Micah, vi. 9]: "The voice of the Lord calleth unto the city"; from the city to the mount, as it is written [Ezek. xi. 23]: "And the glory of the Lord ascended from the midst of the city, and halted upon the mount," etc.; from the mount to the desert, as it is written [Prov. xxi. 19]: "It is better to dwell in a desert land"; and once when it ascended on high, as it is written [Hosea, v. 15]: "I will go (hence, and) return to my place."

A prophet is called by ten different names. They are as

follows: Ambassador, faithful, servant, messenger, seer, watchman, man of scrutiny, dreamer, prophet, man of God.

There are ten names for the Holy Spirit, namely: Proverb, metaphor, riddle, word, saying, calling, commandment, prophecy, sacred speech, and vision.

Joy has ten different expressions: Gladness, joy, rejoicing, joyfulness, pleasure, relish, satisfaction, complacency, delight, cheer.

Ten are called "living": The Holy One, blessed be He, as it is written [Jer. x. 10]: "But the Lord God is the truth: he is the living God"; the Torah, as it is written [Prov. iii. 18]: "A tree of life is she to those that lay hold on her: and every one that firmly graspeth her will be made happy"; Israel, as it is written [Deut. iv. 41: "But ye that cleave unto the Lord your God are alive, every one of you, this day"; good deeds, as it is written [Prov. xi. 30]: "The fruit of the righteous is of the tree of life"; the Garden of Eden, as it is written [Ps. cxvi. 9]: "I will walk before the Lord in the lands of life"; the tree, as it is written [Gen. ii. 9]: "And the tree of life in the midst of the garden"; Palestine, as it is written [Ezek. xxvi. 20]: "But I will bestow glory in the land of life"; charitable deeds, as it is written [Prov. Xii. 28]: "On the path of righteousness there is life"; the wise, as it is written [ibid. xiii. 14]: "The instruction of the wise is a source of life"; light, as it is written [Job, xxxiii. 30]: "In the light of life."

MISHNA E. Ten miracles were wrought for our fathers in Egypt, and ten by the sea.

MISHNA G. Ten miracles were wrought in the Sanctuary: No woman miscarried from the scent of the holy meat, and the holy meat never stank; and a fly was not seen in the slaughter-house; and an uncleanness befell not the high-priest on the Day of Atonement; and a defect was not found in the sheep, nor in the two loaves, nor in the shew-bread; and rains did not extinguish the fire of the fuel heaped upon the altar, and wind prevailed not against the pillar of smoke; they stood serried, and bowed down at ease; and serpent and scorpion harmed not in Jerusalem, and a man never said to his fellow, "The place is too strait for me to lodge in Jerusalem,"

MISHNA H. Ten things were created at twilight of the eve of Sabbath: the mouth of the earth and the mouth of the well, and the mouth of the ass, and the bow, and the manna, and the rod, and the Shomir worm, and the character and the writing, and the tables. And some say the evil spirits also; and the sepulchre of Moses, and the ram of Abraham our father; and some say the first tongs with which subsequently other tongs were made. *

Tosephtha--Aboth of R. Nathan*.

1Ten miracles were performed for our forefathers in Jerusalem: The holy meat was never spoiled; no woman miscarried from the scent of the holy meat; no one was ever injured; no accident ever happened to any one; no one ever stumbled; no conflagration ever occurred; no rain was ever there; no man ever said: "I could find no oven wherein to roast the paschal lamb"; no man ever said. "I could find no bed wherein to sleep"; no man ever said to another: "I could find no quarters in which to pass the night."

Jerusalem never was defiled by leprosy, nor condemned as a misled city; no ledges, galleries, or channels could be built on the public streets, because they would form a tent for uncleanness; a corpse could not be left there over night, nor human bones be carried through the streets, and no stranger was permitted to settle within its walls. No graves could be maintained there except those of the house of David and the prophetess Huldah, which existed since the days of the early prophets. It was said that there was a grotto which caused the uncleanness to run into the brook Kidron. No plants must be planted there, and no gardens or parks might be laid out there, except gardens of roses, which existed there since the days of the early prophets. No geese nor hens might be bred there, much less swine; no dung might remain there, because of defilement. A stubborn and rebellious son is not judged there, such is the decree of R. Nathan, for it is written [Deut. xxi. 19]: "Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place but as they are not his city and place, he cannot be judged. Houses cannot

be sold there together with the ground on which they stand. No house can remain as a permanent possession after a twelve-month. No rent may be taken for houses, but it may be for beds and mattresses. Said R. Jehudah: "It is not allowed to take rent even for that." What did they do with the skins of the holocaust? They were given to the lodging-house keepers. R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said: "The innkeepers were in the inside and the lodging-house keepers on the outside. The innkeepers used to buy sheep, having nice wool, for four to five selahs, and sell them to the Jerusalemites, and made big profits on them."

One verse says: "In one of thy tribes" [Deut. xii. 14]; and another says: "Out of all your tribes" [ibid., ibid. 5]. The first relates to the tribes of Judah and Benjamin, and the second to Jerusalem, which belongs to all Israel. What belonged to Judah? The Temple Mount, the chambers, and the outer courts; and to Benjamin belonged the Temple, the porch, and the Holy of Holies, and a triangle extended into the part of Judah in which the altar was built. Benjamin was favored, and became the host of the Mightiness, as it is written [ibid. xxxiii. 12]: "And between his shoulders will he dwell."

Said R. Jehudah: At the time when it became known that the Temple would be built on the boundaries of Judah and Benjamin, they had improved and separated the suburb of Jericho. And who ate its products all these years? The children of the Kenite, the father-in-law of Moses, as it is written [Numb. x. 32]: "It shall be, that the same goodness which the Lord may do unto us will we do unto thee." However, when the Temple was built, they vacated. And whence do we know that they were sustained by charity? They said: "When the Lord will reveal His Shekhina, He will reward Jethro and his children, as it is written [ibid., ibid. 29]: For the Lord hath spoken (to bring) good upon Israel." Said R. Simeon: They were prominent men and were proprietors of houses, fields, and vineyards. However, because of the work of the Lord they left everything and went away, as it is written [I Chron. iv. 23]: "There were the potters, and those that dwelt in plantations," etc. They dwelt with the king in his work. And where did they then go? To Jabez, to study the Torah, and thus have become a people of the Omnipotent. Jabez was a very good and righteous man: he was a truthful man and pious, and occupied himself with the study of the Law; therefore the pious went to a pious.

"Ten miracles were wrought, etc.; *and an uncleanness befell *

*

not the high-priest on the Day of Atonement*"--except R. Ishmael b. Kimchith, who went out to converse with a certain dignitary, and some saliva dropped out of his mouth on his garments; and his brother entered and officiated as high-priest in his stead, and their mother had the satisfaction of seeing her two sons as high-priests on the same day.

The sages saw her, and said to her: "What piety hast thou practised?" And she rejoined: "The ceilings of my house never saw my hair."

"No woman miscarried." It never happened that there was anything left of the holy meat; and when they ate too much of it, they drank the waters of Shiloach, which assisted digestion.

"And a defect was not found," etc. Broken earthen vessels were sunk in the ground.

"And wind prevailed not," etc. And when the pillar of smoke went up from the sacrificial altar, the smoke went up straight as a staff until it reached the clouds; but the pillar of the incense went up from the golden altar in the direction of the Holy of Holies.

"They stood serried and bowed down," etc. When the Israelites came up to kneel before their Father in Heaven, it was so that they were compact and no one could put his finger between them, but when kneeling every one had ample space. The greatest wonder of all was, that even when a hundred people entered at once there was no need for the inspectors of the synagogue to proclaim: "Make room for your brother!" (Some think that) the greatest wonder of all was, that when all stood up in prayer they were compact and no one could put his finger between them, but when they bowed there was a space of a man's height between them.

Said Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel: Jerusalem is destined that all the nations and kingdoms should be gathered together in it, as it is written [Jer. iii. 17]: "And all the nations shall be gathered unto it, to the name of the Lord"; and further: "Let the waters be gathered together" [Gen. i. 9]. As "the gathering together" there means that all the waters of creation shall be in one place, so also "the gathering together" here means that all the nations and kingdoms shall be assembled in it.

*

Tosephtha--Aboth of R. Nathan*.

1"The men of Sodom"--have no share in the world to come, and they are not judged, as it is written [Gen. xiii. 13]: "But the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners before the Lord exceedingly." "Wicked"--one with another; "sinners"--in consanguinity; "before the Lord"--inasmuch as they desecrated the name of God; "exceedingly"--they did all that intentionally. And it is written [Ps. i. 5]: "Therefore shall the wicked not be able to stand in the judgment, nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous." The first part of the passage relates to the generation of the flood, and the second to the men of Sodom. R. Nehemiah said: "Even in the congregation of the wicked they are not included, as it is written [ibid. civ. 35]: 'May the sinners cease from off the earth, and the wicked be no more.'"

Small children of the wicked have no share in the world to come, and are not judged, as it is written [Mal. iii. 19]: "For, behold, the day is coming which shall burn as an oven . . . who will not leave them root or bough." Such is the dictum of R. Eliezer. R. Joshua, however, said: They are included, and the words, "who will not leave them root or bough," refer to their own bodies, as it is written [Dan. iv. ii]: "He called with might, and thus he said: Hew down the tree and lop off its branches, strip off its leaves and scatter its fruit"; and further [ibid. 12]: "Nevertheless leave the body of its roots in the earth, but (bound) with fetters of iron and copper." As in both passages roots are mentioned, and as the roots mentioned there refer to the trunk of the tree, so the roots here refer to the body of man. If so, what do the words, "who will not leave them root or bough," imply? That no reward shall be found on which they could depend.

Others say: "They are included, and to them refers what is written [Is. xliv. 5]: "This one will say, I belong to the Lord; and the other will call himself by the name of Jacob; and the other will inscribe himself with his hand unto the Lord, and surname himself by the name of Israel." "This one will say, I belong to the Lord," refers to the perfectly righteous; "and the other will call himself by the name of Jacob" refers to the small children of the wicked; "and the other will inscribe himself

with his hand unto the Lord" refers to the wicked who left off their wickedness, turned back, and repented; and, "and surname himself by the name of Jacob" refers to proselytes.

Korah and his company have no share in the world to come, and are not judged, as it is written [Numb. xvi. 33]: "And the earth closed over them, and they disappeared from the midst of the congregation." Such is the decision of R. Eliezer. R. Joshua, however, said: "They are included, and the words, 'The Lord killeth, and maketh alive: he bringeth down to the grave, and bringeth up' [I Samuel, ii. 6], have reference to them, because here is mentioned the grave, as it is written [Numb. xvi. 33]: 'And they went down, they and all they that appertained to them, alive into the pit.' 1 Also there it is mentioned. in both cases the bringing up from the grave is included." Said R. Eliezer to him: "If so, how are we to understand, 'And the earth closed over them and they disappeared from the midst of the congregation'?" He answered: "We are to understand that they disappeared from the midst of the congregation, but not from the world to come."

The generation of the desert have no share in the world to come, and are not judged, as it is written [ibid. xiv. 35]: "In this wilderness shall they be spent, and therein shall they die"; and further [Ps. xcv. ii]: "So that I sware in my wrath that they should not enter into my rest." Such is the dictum of R. Eliezer. R. Joshua, however, said: "They are included, and the words, 'Gather together unto me my pious servants, who make a covenant with me by sacrifice' [Ps. l. 5], have reference to them." Said R. Eliezer to him: "If so, how dost thou explain the words, 'so that I sware in my wrath'?" He answered that this had reference to the spies, and all equally wicked of that generation. "But," continued R. Joshua, "I am anxious to know how thou dost apply the words: 'Gather together.'" "I apply them," said the other, "to Moses, Aaron, the pious of the generation, and the tribe of Levi." R. Jose the Galilean said: "They are not included, for it is written [Numb. xiv. 35]: 'In this wilderness shall they be spent, and therein shall they die'; and further [Deut. xxi. 4]: 'And they shall break there the neck of the heifer in the valley.' As the word 'there' mentioned here means that it shall die and not be moved from its place, so also the 'there' mentioned in that

passage means that they shall die and not be moved from their places." An objection was raised, namely: Is in that passage the word "there" mentioned in connection with the wicked only, and not with the upright? Is it not said [Gen. xlix. 31]: "There they buried Abraham and Sarah his wife"; and further [ibid. 5]: "In my grave, which I have dug for me in the land of Canaan, there shalt thou bury me"; and also [Numb. xx. 1]: "And Miriam died there and was buried there"; and further [ibid. xxxiii. 38]: "And Aaron the priest went up . . . and died there"; and further [Deut. xxxiv. 5]: "And Moses the servant of the Lord died there in the land of Moab, according to the order of the Lord"? Said Rabban Gamaliel: It is written [Deut. xi. 21]: "In order that your days may be multiplied, and the days of your children in the land which the Lord sware unto your fathers to give unto them." It refers to the resurrection, when the parents and the children both will enjoy the same longevity. R. Jose the Galilean sides with R. Eliezer, and R. Gamaliel sides with R. Joshua.

The ten tribes have no share in the world to come, and are not judged, as it is written [Deut. xxix. 27]: "And the Lord plucked them out of their land . . . and he cast them into another land, as it is this day." Said R. Simeon b. Jacob: "As the day in which they have rebelled will never return, even so will they not return." R. Aqiba, however, said: "As the day is first dark and then lightens up, so also their darkness will be followed by light."

The following seven have no share in the world to come: A scribe, a teacher of little children, even the best of physicians, the city judge, the store-keeper, the beadle, and the butcher.

There are three kings and four commoners who have no share in the world to come. The three kings are: Jeroboam, Achab, and Menasseh; the, four commoners are: Balaam, Doeg, Achitophel, and Gechazi. Said R. Jehudah: Menasseh has already repented, as it is written [II Chron. xxxiii. 13]: "And he prayed unto him, and he permitted himself to be entreated by him . . . and brought him back to Jerusalem, unto his kingdom." They argued against him thus: "Had the verse stated merely, 'and brought him back to Jerusalem,' we would then agree with thee, but since it is added, 'unto his kingdom,' it can be said that He returned him to His kingdom, but not to a life in the world to come."

Said R. Meir: "Absalom has no share in the world to come."

[paragraph continues] Said R. Simeon b. Elazar: "Achaz, Achaziah, and all the kings of Israel who were wicked have no share in the world to come." Said R. Johnan b. Nuri: "Also one who pronounces the Name as it is written has no share in the world to come."

He used to say: "One who scans the Song of Songs (like a secular poem), and one who cannot speak above whispering or has turned yellow in consequence of a wound or recites (in ridicule) the passage, 'I will put none of those diseases upon them,' etc. [Gen. xv. 26], has no share in the world to come." And the sages say: Every disciple who has studied, and then abandons his studies, has no share in the world to come, as it is written [Numb. xv. 31]: "Because the word of the Lord hath he despised"; and further [Jer. ii. 5]: "What fault did your fathers find in me, that they went away far from me?"

R. Meir said: "Whoever does not visit the college which is in his city has no share in the world to come"; and R. Aqiba said: "Also those who do not serve the sages."

MISHNA I. Seven things mark the clod, 1 and seven there are for the sage. The wise man does not speak before those who surpass him in wisdom and years; he does not interrupt another in his speech, he is not hasty in answering; he does not ask questions rashly; asks with propriety and to the point; speaks first upon the matter first in order, and last upon last; when he does not understand the matter under discussion, he confesses, "I do not understand it"; and admits it when he has been convinced. The opposite of these things mark the clod. *

Tosephtha--Aboth of R. Nathan*.

2There are seven creations of as many grades of importance. The sky is very important; but more important are the stars, because they light up the world. Of a higher grade than the stars are the trees, because they produce fruit, and the stars do not. More significant than the trees are the pernicious winds, because they move hither and thither, and the trees do not. Greater than the pernicious winds is the beast, for the beast is

active and eats, which the former cannot do. Of a higher kind of development is man; for man is intellectual, and the beast is not. More excellent than man are the ministering angels; for they are able to traverse from one end of the world to another, which man cannot do.

Man possesses six qualifications three of which belong also to the beast, and three to the angels: Man eats and drinks, multiplies, and excretes just like a beast; but he is endowed with intellect, walks erect, and speaks in the holy language, just as the angels do.

The evil spirits (Shedim; Deut. xxxii. 17) possess six qualifications three of which belong to man, and three to the angels; namely, they eat and drink, multiply, and die as men do; but they have wings, a knowledge of the future, and traverse from one end of the world to another, just as the angels do. 1 There are others who say: They also can assume any shape and form they like, and see but are not seen.

The rabbis taught: 2 There are seven sorts of hypocrites (who try to show themselves as if they were of the true Pharisees), and they are: Shichmi; Niqpi; Qoosai; Medukhia; "What more is my duty, and I will do it?"; Pharisee of love; and Pharisee of fear. *

Shichmi--i.e., who acts like Shechem (Gen. xxxiv.), (who allowed himself to be circumcised, not to please God but for his own benefit). Niqpi--i.e., one who walks tiptoe (so that he strikes his feet against stones or other obstacles in the way), in order to show his meekness and thereby attract attention. Qoosai--i.e., one who shows himself as walking with his eyes shut in order not to look upon women, and strikes his head against a wall and bleeds. Such is the interpretation of R. Nahman b. Itz'hak. Medukhia--i.e., who so bends his body while walking that he resembles a pestle. Such is the interpretation of Rabba b. Shila. "What more is my duty," etc. Why is this hypocrisy? It means that he is boasting of having done every possible good thing, and challenges that he shall be told what more there is to be done and he will do it. "Pharisee of love*," etc. Abayi and Rabha both said to the scholar who repeated

this: "Do not place love and fear with the hypocrites, as R. Jehudah said in the name of Rabh: 'Always shall one occupy himself with Torah and merits even not for the sake of Heaven, for once he makes it his custom to do so he will finally come to do it for the sake of Heaven.'"

Said R. Nahman b. Itz'hak: "That which is hidden (in one's heart) is only so from human beings, but not from Heaven; and even visible hypocrisy can only be punished by the Upper Court." Said Janai the king to his wife: "Do not fear of the Pharisees, neither of those who claim to be their opponents; but do fear of the colored ones (who put on false colors), who in reality act like Zimri (Numb. xxv.), and demand the reward of Phinehas."

There are seven things which, if used moderately, are wholesome to the body, and if in excess, are the reverse: Wine, work, sleep, wealth, travel, warm water, and the letting of blood.

With seven things God created the world. They are as follows: Wisdom, understanding, knowledge, strength, might, kindness, and mercy. And as He has created the world with seven things, so also has He created seven ancestors--three fathers and four mothers.

Seven attributes are serving before the Throne of Grace, viz.: Faithful, Righteous, Justice, Kind, Merciful, Truth, Peace, as it is written [Hosea, ii. 21, 22]: "And I will betroth thee unto me for ever: yea, I will betroth thee in righteousness, and in justice, and in loving-kindness, and in mercy. And I will betroth thee unto me in faithfulness; and thou shalt know the Lord"; and further [Ps. lxxxv. 11]: "Kindness and truth are encountered together; righteousness and peace kiss each other." And what signifies, "and thou shalt know the Lord"? Any one who is possessed of these attributes has a knowledge of the wisdom of the Omnipotent.

There are seven dwelling-places: The high, the low, the atmosphere, and the four winds. Said R. Meir: There are seven heavens: Curtain, firmament, welkin, dwelling-house, habitation, settled place, nebulæ. Accordingly the earth has seven names: Land, earth, realm, dry land, globe, and nether world. Why is it so named? Because it is seasoned with every thing. Others say, because it destroys all.

"A wise man does not speak before those who surpass him in wisdom and years." This refers to Moses, as it is written [Ex. iv. 30]: "And Aaron spoke all the words which the Lord had

spoken unto Moses, and he did the signs before the eyes of the people." Now, then, who of the two was competent to speak? Naturally, Moses; for he had the message direct from God, and Aaron only heard it from Moses. But Moses considered that it was not seemly to speak in the presence of his elder brother; he therefore conferred upon Aaron the honor of being speaker.

"Does not interrupt," etc.--refers to Aaron, as it is written [Lev. x. 19]: "And Aaron spoke unto Moses: Behold, this day have they offered their sin-offering, and their burnt-offering," etc. He was silent till Moses ceased speaking, and did not even say to Moses to be brief in his utterances. There are others who say that Aaron took him aside and said: "My brother Moses, tithes, which are less important than any other offering, a mourner (before the burial of the dead) is prohibited from eating them; a sin-offering, which is of great importance, so much the more should it be forbidden to him." And Moses at once admitted that he was right, as it is written [ibid. 20]: "And when Moses heard this, it was pleasing in his eyes," and in the eyes of the Mightiness.

"And he was angry with Elazar and Ithamar the sons of Aaron" [ibid. 16]. Learn from this that when one teaches his disciples he usually keeps his eyes on the great one, and when he is angry, he turns his anger to the one who is least: for he was angry even with Aaron.

Aaron was older than Moses, and the Lord is greater than Aaron, and why did He not speak to Aaron? Because his other sons did not prevent Nadab and Abihu from committing a sin.

We find with Abraham our father, when he was praying for the men of Sodom, the Holy One, blessed be He, said: "If I find in Sodom fifty righteous within the city, then will I spare the whole place for their sake" [Gen. xviii. 26]. The One who said: "There shall be the world," very well knew that there were not in Sodom even four or five righteous, only He waited till Abraham finished, and then answered him, as it is written [ibid. 33]: "And the Lord went away when he had finished speaking with Abraham; and Abraham returned unto his place."

"He is not hasty in answering"--refers to Elihu the son of Barachel the Buzite, as it is written [Job, xxxii. 7]: "I had said, Days shall speak." Infer from this that they were sitting silently before Job. When he rose, they also arose; when he sat down, they did likewise; when he ate or drank, they did as he did, until Job asked their permission to speak, as it is writ

ten [ibid. iii. 1-3]: "And after this time job opened his mouth, and cursed his day. . . . Let that day whereon I was born perish, and the night when it was said, There hath been a male child conceived." The night when my mother came to my father and told him that she was pregnant shall perish. And whence do we know that they did not all speak at once? As it is written [ibid. 2]: "And Job commenced, and said"; and, "Then answered Eliphaz the Themanite, and said" [ibid. iv. 1]; and, "Then answered Bildad the Shuchite, and said" [ibid. viii. 1]; and, "Then answered Zophar the Naamathite, and said" [ibid. xi. 1]; and, "And Elihu the son of Barachel the Buzite commenced, and said" [ibid. xxxii. 6]. Scripture has enumerated them one by one for the purpose of informing all who come into the world that the wise does not speak before one who is greater than he.

"And does not interrupt another in his speech; asks with propriety"--refers to Jehudah, as it is written [Gen. xliii. 9]: "I will be surety for him."

"Asks unwarranted"--refers to Reuben, as it is written [ibid. xlii. 37]: "And Reuben said unto his father, thus: Two of my sons shalt thou slay."

"Speaks first upon the matter which is first in order,"--etc. refers to Jacob. Others say to Rebecca, and still others say to the men of Haran.

"And says: 'I have not heard it,' when he actually did not hear"--refers to Moses, as it is written [Numb. ix. 7, 8]: "And these men said unto him . . . and Moses said unto them, Wait ye, and I will hear what the Lord," etc.

"Admits the truth"--also refers to Moses, as it is written [Lev. x. 20]: "And when Moses heard this, it was pleasing in his eyes." Also the Holy One, blessed be He, confessed to the truth, as it is written [Numb. xxvii. 7]: "The daughters of Zelophchad speak rightly."

MISHNA J. Seven kinds of punishments come on account of seven cardinal transgressions. When some men tithe, and some do not tithe, dearth comes from drought; some of them are hungry, and some of them are satiated. When they have not tithed at all, a dearth comes from tumult and from drought. And when they have not separated the first dough, a deadly dearth comes.

MISHNA K. Pestilence comes unto the world for the capital crimes mentioned in the Torah, which are not to be brought before the tribunal, 1 and for the seventh-year fruits.

MISHNA L. The sword comes upon the world for suppression or perversion of judgment, and also for false interpretation of the Law.

MISHNA M. Noisome beasts come into the world for vain swearing, and for profanation of the Name. Captivity comes upon the world for idolatry, for incest and for shedding of blood, and for not observing the Sabbatical year.

MISHNA N. At four seasons the pestilence waxes: in the fourth year, in the Sabbatical year; at the ending of the latter, and at the ending of the Feast in every year--in the fourth, on account of the poor's tithe in the third; in the seventh, on account of the poor's tithe in the sixth; and at the ending of the seventh, on account of the fruit of the Sabbatical year; and at the ending of the feast in every year, on account of the largesses of the poor. *

Tosephtha--Aboth of R. Nathan*.

2"Seven kinds of chastisements," etc. Said R. Jose: Because of the sin of the first dough, there is no blessing in the fruit, and the people are delivered into the hands of their enemies, as it is written [Lev. xxvi. 16]: "And ye shall sow in vain your seed; for your enemies shall eat it." For the sin of offerings and tithes the heavens withheld the rain and dew, as it is written [Job, xxiv. 19]: "Drought and heat speedily consume the snow waters," etc.

A plague comes to the world because of the sin of gleanings, forgotten sheaves, the corners and the tithes for the poor.

It happened that a woman who was the neighbor of a landowner sent her two children to glean in his field, but he did not

let them. In their absence their mother wished that they return home, thinking they might bring something to eat; and they, too, wished to return home, thinking that their mother might have something to give them to eat. Coming home empty-handed and finding nothing at home to eat, the disappointment and the sorrow all around were so great that all three died in one day. Said the Lord: Ye took away their lives, I also will take away your lives, as it is written [Prov. xxii. 22, 23]: "Rob not the poor, because he is poor, neither crush the afflicted in the gate; for the Lord will plead their cause, and despoil the life of those that despoil them."

"The sword comes upon the world," etc. When R. Simeon b. Gamaliel and R. Ishmael b. Elisha the high-priest were seized and condemned to die, and the former was wondering and saying: "Woe to us, that we are to be slain as intentional violators of the Sabbath, idolaters, uncoverers of consanguinity, or blood-shedders." Said the latter to him: "Dost thou desire that I shall say something before thee?" And he answered: "Say!" Whereupon he said: "Mayhap when thou wert dining poor people came to thy door, but were forbidden to enter by the doorkeeper?" And R. Simeon answered: "By heaven, this was not done. On the contrary, watchmen were placed at my door: when they saw the poor approaching, they brought them to my table and were given food and drink, and they blessed heaven." "Perhaps when thou wert sitting at the Temple mount and lecturing, and all the multitudes of Israel were sitting before thee, thou hadst become haughty for a moment?" "No, my brother Ishmael, I have never done that; but man should be prepared for affliction (without any reason whatever)."

They then beseeched the executioner in the following manner: One said: "I am a priest, the son of a high-priest. Kill me first, and spare me the pain of seeing my colleague die." And the other said: "I am a prince, the son of a prince. Kill me first, and spare me the pain of seeing my colleague die." And he advised them to cast lots. They did so, and it fell on Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel. Whereupon the executioner took the sword and cut off his head. R. Ishmael held it to his bosom, and wept and cried: "The holy mouth, the truthful mouth, a mouth whence issued precious stones, diamonds, and pearls, who has hidden thee in the dust, and who has filled thy tongue with dust and ashes? Thou art meant in the prophetic exclamation

[paragraph continues] [Zech. xiii. 7]: 'Awake, O sword, against my shepherd, and against the man whom I have associated with me.'" Scarcely had he finished when also his head was struck off. To them Scripture refers when it is said [Ex. xxii. 23]: "My wrath shall wax hot, and I will slay you with the sword; and your wives shall be widows, and your children fatherless." As the men are slain, is it not self-evident that the women become widows? (Why, then, does Scripture say: "And your wives shall be widows"?) To convey the idea that they were and were not widows; i.e., there was no evidence that the men were killed, as it happened in Bythar, where not a soul escaped to give evidence of any man's death, and consequently the women could not marry again. "And the children shall become fatherless" means that they could not inherit the property of their father, for the same reason.

"Captivity comes upon the world," etc. Because of idolatry, as it is written [Lev. xxvi. 30]: "And I will destroy your high places and [ibid. 33]: "And you will I scatter among the nations and further [Deut. iv. 25]: "When thou begettest children," etc.; and [ibid. 27]: "And the Lord will scatter you among the nations"; and [ibid. 28]: "And ye will serve their gods, the work of man's hands." The Holy One, blessed be He, said: "As you are desirous of being idolatrous, I will exile you to a place where idolatry prevails."

For not observing the Sabbatical year. Whence do we know this? It is written [Lev. xxvi. 34]: "Then shall the land satisfy its Sabbaths," etc. Said the Holy One, blessed be He: "Because ye do not observe the Sabbatical year, the land itself will observe it; and the number of months that ye fail to observe it, the land itself will observe it." For that reason it is written [ibid.]: "Then shall the land satisfy its Sabbaths, all the days of its desolation." *

Tosephtha--Aboth of R. Nathan*.

1Five are not to be forgiven: The one who sins relying that he will repent, and repents and sins again (and thus he sins too much and repents too much); the one who sins relying upon the forgiveness of the day of atonement; and the one who instigates others to sin; and the one who is guilty of profaning the Holy

[paragraph continues] Name. And were it not for the sins of mankind, the keys to the mysteries would have been intrusted to man, and he would know by what means earth and heaven were created and also what there is above. R. Aqiba used to say: "Everything is foreseen and unconcealed, and everything is according to one's understanding." He also used to say that everything was given as a pledge, and a net is spread out for all living, etc. The repentance of the wicked delays the execution of their judgment; their verdict, however, remains sealed until they make restitution. The quietness of the wicked (without having remorse) ends badly. Superiority buries its claimers.

A man arrives into this world naked and leaves it in the same state, and it is desirable that the leaving should be as (sinless) as the coming. For profaning the Holy Name there is no repentance pending, and the Day of Atonement does not forgive. Repentance forgives till the day of death, and that day wipes out (all sin). The wicked are paid (in this world) and the upright are given credit (that is to say, the wicked that have studied the Law without performing what is written therein and otherwise have done nothing good, and those upright that have studied the Law with a good intention and have done no evil--these and those are given a small portion of what they earned), and the greater part is counted to them for the future.

R. Elazar b. Zadoq says: The upright in this world can be compared with a tree whose trunk grows on a clean spot, while one of its branches extends over an unclean spot, of which people say: Cut off the branch, and the whole tree will be on a clean spot. The wicked ones can be compared with a tree standing on an unclean spot and extending its branches to a clean spot, in which case, if the branches would be cut off, the whole tree would stand on an unclean spot.

Six different names were applied to the lion: Arjah, Cphir, Lobhi, Laish, Sha'hal, Sha'haz. Six names were applied to the serpent; viz., Na'hash, Soroph, Tanin, Ziphoni, Epheh, Achshubh. Six names were applied to Solomon; namely, Solomon, Jedidiah, Koeleth, Ben Iokoh, Ogur, L'muel.

MISHNA O. Four kinds of views are held by men concerning property. He who says: "What belongs to me shall continue to be mine, and thou shalt keep thine own," holds the common view. Some consider this the view of

the men of Sodom. 1 "Mine shall be thine, and thine shall be mine," thus say the ignorant. "Mine shall be thine, and thou shalt also keep thine own," thus says the magnanimous. "Thine shall be mine, and mine shall continue to be mine," are the words of the godless.

MISHNA P. There are four kinds of dispositions among men. Some are easily enraged, but as quickly soothed--there the fault is neutralized by the merit. Some are slow to anger, but are calmed only with difficulty--there the merit is counterbalanced by the fault. One is slow to anger and easily pacified--he is of a gentle disposition. Another is easily irritated and hard to soothe--he is a wicked man.

MISHNA Q. There are four kinds of pupils: one understands readily but forgets soon--there the advantage is swallowed by the failing; another grasps but slowly, and seldom forgets--there the failing is outweighed by the talent; a third understands readily and is slow to forget--his is a good portion; a fourth understands slowly and forgets quickly--his is a poor endowment.

MISHNA R. There are four kinds of charity-givers: He who gives but does not care that others should give--his eye is evil towards others (i.e., the charity-giver shall not have the pleasure of doing charity and the poor shall be deprived of it); he who makes others give, but does not give himself, does not make the best use of his own; he who gives, and makes others give, is pious; but he who neither gives nor suffers others to give is a cruel man.

MISHNA S. There are four kinds of visitors of the house of learning: he that goes and does not practise (i.e., he accepts the lessons without any examination or study of them), the reward of going only remains with him; he that practises (i.e., he who studies at home) and does not go, the reward of practice remains with him; he

that does both is pious; he that enrols among the college visitors, but neither goes nor practises, is wicked.

MISHNA T. There are four kinds of the disciples of the wise: sponge, funnel, strainer, and sieve; sponge--sucking up all things; funnel--allowing all that is received in the one end to flow out at the other; strainer--letting the wine run through and retaining the dregs; sieve--blowing off the bran and keeping the flour.

MISHNA U. Love, inspired by ulterior motives, dies out when those motives disappear; but love without such motives never fades.

MISHNA V. What love is that which is inspired by ulterior motives? E.g. the love of Amnon and Thamar. And what love is without such motives? E.g., the love of David and Jonathan.

MISHNA W. Whatsoever gainsaying is for the sake of Heaven will have good results, and that which is not for the sake of Heaven will not have the desired result.

MISHNA X. What gainsaying is that which is for the sake of Heaven? E.g., the gainsaying of Hillel and Shammai. And that which is not for the sake of Heaven? E.g., the gainsaying of Korah and his followers.

MISHNA Y. Whosoever causes many to be righteous, sin prevails not over him; and whosoever causes many to sin, they grant him not the faculty to repent.

MISHNA Z. Moses, who was righteous and caused many to become righteous, the righteousness of the many was therefore laid upon him, as it is written [Deut. xxxiii. 21]: "He executed the justice of the Lord, and his judgment with Israel."

Jeroboam, who on the contrary sinned and caused many to sin, the sin of the many, therefore, was laid upon him, as it is written [I Kings xiv. 16]: "For the sake of the sins of Jeroboam, who did sin, and who induced Israel to sin."

MISHNA AA. In whomsoever are the following three things, he is a disciple of Abraham, and in whomsoever are the contrary three things, he is a disciple of Balaam.

MISHNA BB. He who possesses a good eye, a modest spirit, and a humble mind is to be counted the disciple of Abraham our father; an evil eye, a haughty spirit, and a bombastic mind is to be counted the disciple of Balaam. And what difference is there between the disciples of Abraham and those of Balaam? The disciples of Balaam go down to Gehenna, as it is written [Ps. lv. 24]: "But thou, O God, thou wilt bring them down into the pit of destruction: let not the men of blood and deceit live out half their days; but I will indeed trust in thee." But the disciples of Abraham derive benefit in this world and inherit the world to come, as it is written [Prov. viii. 21]: "That I may cause those that love me to inherit a lasting possession; and their treasures will I fill."

MISHNA CC. Jehudah b. Tema was in the habit of saying: "Be courageous as the panther, light-winged as the eagle, swift as the deer, and strong as the lion, to execute the will of thy Heavenly Father."

MISHNA DD. He used to say: "Gehenna will be the place for the bold of face, and the Garden of Eden will be that for the shamefaced."

MISHNA EE. He used to say: "One five years old should study Scripture; ten years--Mishna; thirteen years--should practise the commandments; fifteen years old--should study Gemara; eighteen years old--the bridal; at twenty--pursuits; at thirty--strength; at forty--discernment; at fifty--counsel; at sixty--age; at seventy--hoariness; at eighty--power; at ninety--decrepitude; at one hundred--it is as though he were dead and gone and had ceased from the world."

MISHNA FF. Ben Bag-Bag said: "Turn it, and turn it again (the Torah), for everything can be found therein. Study it, get old and gray with it, and never depart from it; for there is no better gauge of a moral life than--the Torah."

MISHNA GG. Ben He-He said: "The reward is commensurate with the affliction."

Footnotes

106:1 Chapter XXXII. of the original.

108:1 Chapter XXXIII. of the original.

109:1 The Hebrew term for both "glitter" and "lightning" is ‏ברק‎.

109:2 The text reads "nekabim," and the verse quoted begins with "nakab-tha" hence the supposition.

110:1 ‏חמר‎ means both "loam" and "billows."

110:2 ‏נד‎ is 'wall," ‏נאד‎ is "bottle," The Talmud plays on the similarity of the two words.

111:1 Chapter XXXIV. of the original.

111:2 ‏תפל‎ in Hebrew means also "nonsense."

112:1 ‏יאר‎ in Hebrew means a "river" and ‏יער‎ means a "forest"; in the verse quoted the latter word is used, but the Massorah says that the middle letter is suspended above the line, and the Talmud maintains that this shows that originally the first-mentioned word was used, but subsequently the middle letter was changed and the change indicated by the suspension.

116:1 Chapter XXXV. of the original.

119:1 Chapter XXXVI. of the original.

120:1 The Hebrew term for both "grave" and "pit" is sheol, hence the analogy.

122:1 According to Maimonides.

122:2 Chapter XXXVII. of the original.

123:1 See Section Moed, Vol. VI., Hagiga, 37. The repetition here is because of this addition.

123:2 Here is a statement which is repeated in Tract Sota, 22b, under the heading: "The rabbis taught." As there it is more comprehensible, we prefer to give it here in that form.

127:1 According to Rashi, it means when the Jewish tribunal ceased its existence during the last years of the Second Temple; and according to other commentaries it means Kareth and heavenly death, with which the earthly tribunals had nothing to do.

127:2 Chapter XXXVIII. of the original.

129:1 Chapter XXXIX. of the original.

131:1 i.e., "I do not wish to derive benefit from others, and no one shall derive benefit from me." This was the method of the Sodomites.

Chapter V.

NEVER shall a man enter the house of his neighbor without permission, and this conduct may be learned,

from the Holy One, blessed be He, who stood at the gate of the garden, and called to Adam [Gen. iii. 9]: "And the Lord God called unto the man, and said unto him, Where art thou?" It happened with the four elders Rabban Gamaliel, R. Jehoshua, R. Elazar b. Azariah, and R. Aqiba, who went to the interior cities of Rome, in one of which there lived a friend of theirs, a philosopher--R. Jehoshua asked Rabban Gamaliel if he would like to go and see their friend the philosopher, and he answered he would not. On the next morning, however, he asked him again, and he said he would. They then went, and R. Jehoshua knocked at the door of the philosopher, and at once the philosopher concluded that this must be the manner of a wise man. When he knocked again, the philosopher arose and washed his face, hands, and feet. When he knocked the third time, the philosopher opened the door, and saw that the sages of Israel were coming from both sides of the street; namely, Rabban Gamaliel being in. the centre, R. Jehoshua and R. Elazar b. Azariah to his right, and R. Aqiba to his left, and the philosopher was somewhat puzzled as to the manner of saluting them. He said within himself: "Whom of the sages shall I greet first? If I should greet R. Gamaliel first, I might thereby offend the other sages; and if I should address my greeting to all of them (without naming the head of them), I will offend R. Gamaliel." He therefore concluded to address them thus: "Peace to you, sages of Israel, and to R. Gamaliel first."

Always consider strangers as burglars, and at the same time honor them as if each of them were R. Gamaliel himself. It happened to R. Jehoshua that a man called at his house, and he gave him to eat and drink, and took him up to the roof to sleep there, and then removed the step-ladder leading to the roof. The man was a thief, and arose by night, and took things of value that Rabbi Jehoshua had on the roof and packed them up in his garment, and in the attempt to descend and carry off

the booty he fell down and almost broke his neck. When R. Jehoshua came in the morning and found him in that condition, he said to him: "You ignoramus, is this the way people like you do?" He answered: "Rabbi, I did not suspect that persons of your station would remove the ladder." And he rejoined: "Did you not notice yesterday that I was cautious about you?" From that time on R. Jehoshua proclaimed that always should strangers be considered as burglars, and still one should honor them as he would R. Gamaliel.

Chapter V.

A SCHOLAR must not eat standingly, nor lick his fingers, nor yawn in presence of others. Talk little, laugh little, sleep little, indulge little in pleasure, say little "yea" and little "nay." One has always to know with whom he is sitting, near whom he is standing, with whom he is eating, with whom he is conversing, for whom he signs contracts and notes of debt. By four things the scholar is recognized: his pocket, his goblet, his anger, and his dress; and, some say, even his talk. The beauty of the Law is wisdom; the beauty of wisdom is modesty; the beauty of modesty is the fear of Heaven; the beauty of the fear of Heaven is noble performance; the beauty

of noble performance is secrecy (i.e., not publicly, for the purpose of being praised). One shall not be awake, etc. (see above).

Chapter V.

RULES CONCERNING A GORING OX; EXCAVATIONS ON PUBLIC AND PRIVATE PREMISES; EXCAVATIONS MADE BY PARTNERS, ETC.

MISHNA I.: Should an ox gore a cow and the new-born calf be found dead at her side, and it be not known whether she gave birth to it before the goring or by reason of the goring, the owner of the ox pays half the damage for the cow and one-fourth for the calf. So also should a cow gore an ox and her new-born calf be found alive at her side, and it be not known whether she gave birth before the goring or by reason of the goring, the owner of the cow pays half the damage from the body of the cow and one-fourth from that of the calf.

GEMARA: Said R. Jehudah in the name of Samuel: This is the dictum of Summachus, who holds that money about which there is a doubt as to whom it rightly belongs, must be divided. But the sages said: There is a principal rule--the burden of proof is upon the plaintiff. [For what purpose is the statement that there is a principal rule? It was necessary that, even when the plaintiff claimed positively while the defendant only said that he was doubtful about it (in which case one might say that there need be no proof at all), this rule apply.] The same we have also learned in the following Boraitha (the exact statement of the Mishna with the addition): This is the dictum of Summachus, but the sages say that the burden of proof is upon the plaintiff.

Said R. Samuel b. Na'hmani: Whence is this rule deduced? From [Ex. xxiv. 14]: "Whoever may have any cause to be decided, let him come unto them." That means, he shall produce proof before them. R. Ashi opposed: Why is a verse necessary? Is it not common-sense that one who feels pain goes to a physician? We must therefore say that this verse applies to the saying of R. Na'hman in the name of Rabba b. Abbuhu: Whence is it deduced that in case of a claim and counterclaim the claim must first be passed upon and judgment awarded and executed, and then the counterclaim must be proved (as at this

stage the former defendant is now the plaintiff)? From the above-quoted passage, which means that the plaintiff who has the cause to be decided shall be heard first. The sages of Nahardea, however, said that in some cases it might happen that the counterclaim must be passed upon first, and that is in case the judgment, if awarded against the defendant, would have to be collected from the latter's real estate; for if the judgment were allowed to be collected before the counterclaim was proved, the estate would sell much cheaper than if he should prove his counterclaim and sell his estate at a proper price.

"So also should a cow gore an ox," etc. Half and a quarter of the damage! Why three-quarters--he has to pay only half? Said Rabha: The Mishna meant to say thus, If the cow is there, one-half of the damage is collected from the body of the cow; but if she cannot be found, one-quarter is collected from the body of the calf, and the reason is because it is doubtful whether the calf was with its mother at the time of the goring or not; but if we should be certain that it was, half would be collected from the body of the calf.

This decision of Rabha is in accordance with his theory elsewhere as to a cow that has done damage--the same may be collected from its offspring, because the latter is considered a part of her own body. A hen that has done damage--the latter cannot be collected from her eggs, for the reason that they are completely separated from the hen and it does not care any more for them.

Rabha said again (in the first instance, when the ox gored the cow): The cow and her offspring are not separately appraised, but both of them together (i.e., the value of the cow before giving birth and that after she gave birth, and not the value of the cow separately and that of the calf separately); for otherwise it would work too much harm to the defendant. The same is the case if one cut off the hand of his neighbor's slave or if one damage his neighbor's field (that is, in each of those cases the value prior to doing the damage and that after doing the damage is ascertained, and thus the damage is appraised, and not by appraising separately the damaged part and the main body). Said R. A'ha the son of Rabha to R. Ashi: If in reality the law is so, what do we care for the defendant? let him suffer. Why, then, did Rabha protect him? Because the defendant might say: "I caused injury to a gravid cow, and therefore the appraisement must also be made of such a cow."

it is certain, if the cow belonged to one person and the calf to another, that for the reduction of the fatness it must be paid to the owner of the cow; but for the depreciation on account of the reduction in fulness, to whom is this to be paid? (I.e., if while the cow was gravid the owner of the cow sold the calf to be born to another person, and through the injury the cow miscarried, and by reason thereof the cow became reduced both in fatness and in fulness (figure), both of which are elements making up the value of a cow; now, for the reduction in fatness the owner of the cow must be paid, for the calf has not contributed to it; but for the depreciation on account of the decrease in the fulness, shall the owner of the calf be paid? for the calf gave her that fulness, or both the cow and the calf contributed to it, and the value of this damage must be divided.) R. Papa says it is paid to the owner of the cow only. R. A'ha the son of R. Iki says that it must be divided, and so the Halakha prevails.

MISHNA II.: A potter that placed his pottery in the court of another without his permission, and the court-owner's cattle broke them, there is no liability. If the cattle were injured thereby, the potter is liable. If, however, he placed them there with permission, the court-owner is liable. The same is the case with one who placed his fruit in another's courtyard and it was consumed by an animal of the court-owner. Should one lead his ox into the court of another without permission and it be gored by the ox of the court-owner, or be bitten by his dog, there is no liability. If, however, the ox in question gored the court-owner's ox, or it fell into the well and spoiled the water, he is liable. If the court-owner's father or son was in the well (at the time, and was killed), he must pay atonement money. If, however, he led it there with permission, the court-owner is liable. Rabbi, however, says that in all these cases the court-owner is not liable unless he expressly undertook to take care of the ox.

GEMARA: Is the reason for the statement in the first part of the Mishna only because he placed them without permission, but if with permission the potter would not be liable for injuries to the animals of the court-owner, and we do not say that it is implied that the potter has assumed the care of the animals, and this can be only in accordance with Rabbi, who holds that wherever it is not expressly assumed there is no implied assumption to take care? Now, the latter part, which states: "If he placed them there with permission the court-owner is liable,'' is

certainly in accordance with the rabbis, who hold that there is an implied assumption even when nothing was expressly mentioned; and in the last part Rabbi declared that in all cases he is not liable unless the court-owner expressly assumed the care; hence the first and last parts will be in accordance with Rabbi, and the middle part in accordance with the rabbis? Said R. Zera: Separate the clauses, and say that the one who taught this part did not teach the other. Rabha, however, says: The whole Mishna can be explained to be in accordance with the rabbis, and that the case was that he entered with permission and the court-owner assured the safety of the pottery (and the potter assumed nothing), in which case he is responsible if even the wind should break them.

"If he placed his fruit," etc. Said Rabh: The case is only if she slipped on account of them; but if she consumed them (and by reason thereof died) there is no liability, for she was not compelled to eat them.

Come and hear: "One who led his ox into another's courtyard, and it consumed wheat which caused it diarrhœa and it died, there is no liability. If, however, he led it in with permission, the court-owner is liable." Why not argue here the same way, and say that it was not compelled to eat? Said Rabh: "You wish to contradict a case with permission by a case without permission? In the former event he assured the safety of the ox, and therefore he is liable if even the ox should choke himself."

The schoolmen propounded the following question: "When he assured the safety of the ox, did it only extend to himself (i.e., to protect the ox against the injury by his own animals), or also to all cattle?" Come and hear: "R. Jehudah b. Simeon taught in Section Damages, of the school of Qarna: If one placed his fruit in the courtyard of another without permission and an ox came from some other place and consumed it, he is free; if, however, with permission, he is liable. Who is liable and who is free--is it not the court-owner?" (Hence we see that he must guard him also against injury by others?) Nay, it may be said that it has reference to the owner of the ox. If so, what difference is there whether it was with or without permission? There is: If with permission, it is to be considered the premises of the plaintiff, in which case the tooth is liable (for as soon as the court-owner allowed him to enter he thereby assigned him room in his court); but without permission,

it cannot be considered that he consumed it "in another man's field," which is required in the case of the tooth, and therefore there can be no liability.

Come and hear: "If one lead his ox into a courtyard without permission and an ox come from another place and gore it, he is free; if, however, with permission, he is liable." Who is free and who is liable--is it not the court-owner? Nay, it is the owner of the ox. If so, what difference is there whether with or without permission? The Boraitha is in accordance with R. Tarphon, who says that there is an extra rule as to the horn if on the premises of the plaintiff, in which case he pays the whole. Now, if with permission, it is considered the premises of the plaintiff (for the reason stated above) and he pays the whole damage; but if without permission, it is equal to the case of the horn on public ground, in which case only half is paid.

It happened that a woman entered a house to bake, and the house-owner's goat having consumed the dough, became feverish and died. Rabha then made the woman pay for the goat. Shall we assume that he differs with Rabh, who said that it was not compelled to consume it? What comparison is this? There it was without permission, and therefore the safety was not assured; but here it was with permission, and therefore the safety of the goat was assured by the woman (for the reason stated further on, that in baking by a woman modesty is required, as she has to bare her arms and the owner of the house cannot stay in the room; it is therefore considered that he has assigned the whole room to the woman, and therefore she is responsible for the damage done to the house-owner). And why is this different from the following case: If a woman enter another's premises to grind her wheat without permission and the house-owner's animal consume the wheat, there is no liability. If, however, the animal was injured thereby, the woman is liable. The reason then is because it was without permission, but if with permission she would be free? There is a difference: In case of grinding wheat, where no modesty is required and the owner could be present, the care of the animal devolves upon him; but in case of baking modesty is required (as stated above).

"If one lead his ox into a courtyard," etc. Rabha said: One who leads his ox into a courtyard without permission, and the ox digs an excavation in the courtyard, the owner of the ox is liable for the damage caused to the court, and the court-owner

is liable for the damages caused by the excavation (if he renounced ownership), although the Master said elsewhere, on the strength of the passage [Ex. xxi. 33]: "If a man dig a pit," a man, and not an ox; for here in this case he had to fill up the pit (before renouncing ownership), and by not so doing it is considered as if he dug it.

Rabha said again: "One who leads his ox into a court without the permission of its owner, and it injures the owner, or the latter is injured through it, he is liable. If, however, it lie down (and by doing so breaks vessels, or while being in such a position the court-owner stumbles over it and is injured), there is none." Does, then, the lying down relieve him from liability? Said R. Papa: Rabha means, not that the ox itself lay down, but that it lay down (voided) excrement and thereby soiled the vessels of the court-owner, in which case the excrement is considered a pit; and we do not find that there is a liability for damage to vessels by a pit. This would be correct according to Samuel, who holds that any obstacle is considered a pit; but as to Rabh, who holds that it is not considered a pit, unless ownership is renounced, what can be said? Generally from dung ownership is renounced.

Rabha said again: If one enter a court without permission and injure the court-owner, or the latter be injured through him (by jostling against him), he is liable; if the court-owner injure him, he is free. Said R. Papa: "This was said only in case the court-owner has not noticed him; but if he has, he is liable." What is the reason? Because he can say to him: "You have the right only to drive him out, but not to injure him." And each follows his own theory, for Rabha, and according to others R. Papa, said: If both of them were there with permission (e.g., on a public highway), or both of them without permission, if one injure the other (by striking with the hand, although unintentionally), both are liable (for as to damages there is no difference whether with or without intention); but if one was injured through the other (as by jostling), they are free. The reason, then, is because both of them were either with or without permission; but if one was with and the other one without permission, the one who was with permission is free and the other is liable. *

"If he fall into the pit and spoil the water," etc. Said Rabha: This was taught only when it was spoiled through the body (e.g.*, when the body was soiled); but if it was so because

of the (putrefied) smell, he is free. And the reason is, because the carcass is only the germon (origin) of the smell, and for germon there is no liability.

"If his father, his son," etc. Why so? Is he not a non-vicious one? Said Ula: It is in accordance with R. Jose the Galilean, who holds, with R. Tarphon, that the horn on the premises of the plaintiff pays the whole damage, so also here he pays the whole sum of atonement money, and for that reason he teaches, "if his father," etc., to indicate that it was the premises of the plaintiff.

"If he lead him in with permission," etc. It was taught: "Rabh said: The Halakha prevails according to the first Tana, while Samuel holds that the Halakha prevails according to Rabbi."

The rabbis taught: "If he said: 'Lead in your ox and take care of him,' if he did damage, he is liable; if he was injured, there is no liability. If he, however, said: 'Lead in your ox and I will take care of him,' the reverse is the case." Is there not a difficulty in the explanation of the Boraitha? First it states, if he told him to lead in the ox and to take care of him he is liable if he did damage, etc.--then the reason is because he told him expressly to take care of him; but if nothing was said as to care, the reverse would be the case, for the reason that, when nothing is mentioned, the court-owner impliedly assumes the care. How, then, should the last part: "If he, however, told him: 'Lead in your ox and I will take care of him,' etc., be explained? Is it not to infer that the reason was because he expressly said that he would take care of him, but if nothing was said as to care, the owner of the ox is liable and the court-owner is free, for the reason that under such circumstances the court-owner does not assume the care, which is according to Rabbi, who holds that the court-owner is not liable unless he expressly assumes the care, and so the first part would be according to the rabbis and the last part according to Rabbi? Said Rabha: The whole Mishna can be explained to be in accordance with the rabbis, thus: Because it states in the first part "and you take care of him," it states also in the last part, "and I will take care of him." R. Papa said: The whole Mishna may be explained in accordance with Rabbi, but that he holds with R. Tarphon, who says that the horn on the premises of the plaintiff pays the whole, and therefore if he tell him, "You take care," the court-owner has not assigned him any room, and thus

it is to be considered as the horn on the premises of the plaintiff, which pays the whole; but if he keep silent, it is considered that he has assigned him room in the court, and thereby the court becomes a partnership, and under such circumstances only half is paid.

MISHNA III.: If an ox intend to gore another ox, and injure a woman and cause her to miscarry, the owner of the ox is free from paying for the child. If, however, a man intend to hurt another man, and hurt a woman and cause her to miscarry, he must pay for the child. How is this payment made? The woman is appraised as to the difference in her value (as a slave) before and after she gave birth. Said R. Simeon b. Gamaliel: If so, then her value increases after giving birth. We must therefore say that the worth of the infant is appraised and its value is paid to her husband if she has one, or to his heirs if she has no husband. If she was a manumitted slave or a proselyte, there is no liability.

GEMARA: The reason is only because it intended to gore another ox, but if it originally intended to gore the woman he is liable for the infant. Shall we assume that this is a contradiction to R. Ada bar A'hba, who said elsewhere that even in such a case there is no liability? Nay, R. Ada b. A'hba may answer that, even according to our Mishna, there is no liability even if it intended to gore the woman. But why does the Mishna say that it intended to gore another ox? Because in the last part it states a case where a man intended to injure another one, in which it is essential, for so states the Scripture; therefore the same expression was used.

"How is this payment to be made," etc. The value of the infant? It ought to read "the increased valuation caused by the infant"? (for so does the Mishna state, that the woman is "appraised," etc.). It really means: "How does he pay the value of the infant and the increased valuation caused by the infant? The woman is appraised," etc.

"Said R. Simeon b. Gamaliel," etc. What does he mean? Said Rabha: He means thus: Is, then, the value of a woman during pregnancy higher than after she gives birth-is not the reverse the fact? We must therefore say "that the worth of the infant," etc., and so also we have learned in a Boraitha elsewhere. Rabha, however, says: He means thus: Does, then, the increase in value of the woman belong wholly to the husband, and she has no share in the increase of value caused even

by her infant? The infant is appraised and its value paid to the husband, and the money for the increase in valuation is divided between the husband and the wife. We have so also learned plainly in a Boraitha, with the addition that each item must be separately appraised: the pain, the damage; the value of the infant, however, must be paid to the husband only, but the increase in valuation caused by it must be divided. If so, then the two statements of R. Simeon b. Gamaliel contradict each other? This presents no difficulty. The one case is that of a first-birth, and the other is not.

And the rabbis, who hold that the increase in valuation also belongs to the husband, what is their reason? As we have learned in the following Boraitha: From the Scripture, which reads [Ex. xxi. 22]: "And her children depart from her," do I not know that she was with child? Why does it state, "a woman with child"? To tell thee that the increase in value caused by pregnancy belongs to the husband. R. Simeon b. Gamaliel, however, applies the passage quoted to the following Boraitha: R. Eliezer b. Jacob said: He is not liable unless he struck her over the womb. And R. Papa explained the above statement of R. Eliezer b. Jacob, that he does not mean the womb only, but any part of the body except the arm or foot.

"If she was a bondwoman," etc., "or a proselyte woman," etc. Said Rabba: This is to be explained that he wounded her before her husband died, in which case the deceased acquired title to the money to be paid, and upon his death the same is inherited by the defendant, in whose possession the money still is (and so is the law as regards the property of a proselyte who died without leaving heirs); but if he wounded her after the death of her husband, the money is to be paid to her. Said R. Hisda: "Who is the author of this statement? Are, then, children as packages of money, that their ownership may pass from one to another? Where there is a husband alive the Scripture made an exception, in that the money to be paid should belong to him; but where there is none, no payment at all is to be made." Regarding this statement the Tanaim of the following Boraitha differ: "An Israelite's daughter that was married to a proselyte and she has conceived by him, and some one wounded her, if during the lifetime of the proselyte, the value of the infant goes to him; if after his decease, one Boraitha states that the defendant must pay to the mother and another Boraitha states that he is free."

According to Rabba's theory there is no doubt that the Tanaim differ, but according to R. Hisda's theory, in accordance with whom will be the Boraitha which states that he must pay? It is in accordance with Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel, who said that the mother gets one-half of the money to be paid even when her husband is alive, and the whole if he is dead.

R. Iba the elder propounded the following question to R. Na'hman: One who took possession of the documents of a proselyte (which he held against the lands of an Israelite), what is the law? Shall we assume, of one who receives mortgages on estates, that his main intention is to take possession of the lands, and whereas of the latter the proselyte has as yet not taken possession, the one who took possession of the documents has acquired no title, because these documents are not considered property, or is it considered that the proselyte's intention was also as to the documents (and so they are his property)? He said to him: Answer me, my Master, could the intention of the proselyte be to wrap up a bottle in them? He answered: Yea, it may have been also for that very purpose.

Rabba said: "If an Israelite's pledge is in the hands of a proselyte and the latter dies, and another Israelite comes and takes possession of it, he may be deprived of the possession (by the owner of the pledged article). Why so? Because as soon as the proselyte died the lien on the pledge became null and void. If, however, a proselyte's pledge is held by an Israelite and the proselyte dies, and another Israelite takes possession of it, the pledgee has his lien on the pledge to the extent of his debt and the other one acquires title as to the balance. Why should not the pledgee's premises (on which the pledge is located) acquire the title for its owner? Did not R. Jose b. Hanima say that one's premises acquire title for their owner even without his knowledge? It may be explained that he was not there, and therefore when the owner is there, and he wishes he himself could acquire title, his premises can also do so for him; but where there is no owner to acquire title himself, his premises cannot do so for him. And so the Halakha prevails.

MISHNA IV.: One who digs a pit on private ground and opens it into public ground, or vice versa, or on private ground and opens it into the private ground of another person, is liable.

GEMARA: The rabbis taught: One who digs a pit on private premises and opens it into public premises is liable; and this is the kind of a pit that was meant by the Scripture. Such

is the dictum of R. Ishmael. R. Aqiba says: The pit mentioned in the Scripture is where one renounced ownership to his premises (on which there was a pit), but did not renounce it to the pit. Said Rabba: As to a pit on public ground, all agree that there is a liability, but as to one on one's own premises, R. Aqiba holds that even in such a case there is a liability, for it is written [Ex. xxi. 34]: "The owner of the pit"; that means that the Scripture meant a pit that has an owner, while R. Ishmael holds that it means the one to whom the cause of the injury previously belonged. But what does R. Aqiba mean by his saying, "That is the pit meant by the Scripture"? Thus: Why should this case be free from payment? Is this not the very case with which the Scripture began as regards payment? 1 R. Joseph, however, says, that as to a pit on private premises all agree that there is a liability, for the reason stated by R. Aqiba; they only differ as to a pit on public ground. R. Ishmael holds that one is also liable in such a case, thus: It is written [ibid., ibid. 33]: "And if a man open a pit, or if a man dig a pit"; now, if for the opening one is liable, so much the more is he for the digging? We must therefore say that the liability came to him because of the digging and opening only (i.e., that neither the premises nor the pit is his, as being on public ground). R. Aqiba, however, may explain it thus: Both statements are necessary, for if the Scripture should state only as to the opening, one might say that only in case of opening it is sufficient to cover it, but in case of digging it is not, unless he stuff it up; and if the Scripture should state only the digging one might say that only in such a case it must be covered, for he has done some substantial act; but in case of opening only there is no need even to cover it, for no substantial act was done. Hence the necessity of both verses. And what does R. Ishmael mean by his statement, "This is the pit," etc.? He means that this is the pit with which the passage began as to damages.

There is an objection from the following: One who digs a pit on public ground and opens it into private ground is free, although it is not permitted to do so, for the reason that no excavation must be made under public ground. One who digs

a round, oval, or obtuse-angle-shaped pit on private ground and opens it into public ground is liable. And one who digs pits on private premises adjoining public ground, as, for instance, those who dig pits to lay foundations for buildings, is free. R. Jose b. Jehudah, however, makes him liable, unless he put up a partition ten spans high, or unless the pit was at least four spans distant from the pathway for man and beast. Now the first Tana holds him free, because it was for laying foundations; but otherwise he would also hold him liable? (Hence there is a liability for a pit on one's own premises?) According to whose theory is the statement of the first Tana? It would be correct according to Rabba, for it could be explained that the first part is according to R. Ishmael and the last part according to R. Aqiba; but according to R. Joseph, the last part is in accordance with all and the first part in accordance with none? R. Joseph may say that the whole Boraitha is in accordance with all, but the first part treats of a case where he renounced ownership neither to the premises nor to the pit (and although he must not do so, nevertheless there is no liability). Said R. Ashi: Now that we arrive at the conclusion that according to R. Joseph's theory the Boraitha is in accordance with all, the same may be explained also according to Rabba's theory that the whole Boraitha is in accordance with R. Ishmael; but the reason why, according to your inference, there would be a liability, if it is not for laying a foundation, is because he extended the excavation under the public ground (and therefore, if not for laying foundations, it should be considered digging on public ground).

The rabbis taught: One who digs and opens a well and delivers it over to the community is free (if any accident happened). Otherwise he is liable. And so also was the custom of Nehunia the pit-digger, to dig and open wells and deliver them over to the community. And when the rabbis heard of it, they said: "He is acting in accordance with the Halakha."

The rabbis taught: It happened to the daughter of the very same Nehunia, that she fell into a large well. They came and informed R. Hanina b. Dosa of it. During the first hour he said to them: "Go in peace"; and so also during the second. At the third (when there was fear that she might have died), he said that she was out already and saved. When the girl was asked who saved her, she said that a ram passed by led by an old man (the ram of Isaac led by Abraham), who saved

her. When R. Hanina b. Dosa was asked whether he knew of her safety by prophecy, he said: I am no prophet, nor am I the son of a prophet, but I thought to myself, "Can it be that the children of that upright man (Nehunia, who was digging wells to enable the pilgrims to drink water from them) shall die by the very thing he was taking so much pains to prepare for the welfare of Israel?" Said R. A'ha: Notwithstanding this, his son died of thirst. The reason is, that the Holy One, blessed be He, is particular with the upright around Him, even on a hairbreadth, as it is written [Ps. l. 3]: "And round him there rageth a mighty storm" 1 (and there must have been some sin committed by Nehunia for which he was punished). R. Nehunia says: From the following passage [ibid. lxix. 8]: "God is greatly terrific in the secret council of the holy ones, and fear-inspiring overall that are about him." R. Hanina said: One who says that the Holy One, blessed be He, is liberal (to forgive every one his sins), his life may be disposed of liberally (for he encourages people to sin), as it is written [Deut. xxxiii. 4]: "He is the Rock, his work is perfect; for all his ways are just." R. Hana, and according to others R. Samuel b. Na'hmani, says: It is written [Ex. xxxiv. 6], "Long-suffering" in the plural, and not in the singular, to signify that He is long-suffering towards the upright and also towards the wicked.

The rabbis taught: One shall not remove stones from his own premises to public ground. It happened once that one did so, and a pious one passing by at the time and seeing him do that said to him: "Thou ignoramus, why dost thou remove stones from premises not belonging to thee to thy own premises?" He laughed at him. Some time later he was compelled to sell his lands, and while walking on the public highway in front of his former lands he stumbled over the stones he once piled up. He then exclaimed: "I see now that the pious one was right in his saying!"

MISHNA V.: One who digs a pit on public ground and an ox or an ass falls into it (and is killed), he is liable. It matters not as to the shape of the pit, whether round, oval, or a cavern, rectangular or acute-angular, in all cases he is liable. If this is so, then why is it written "pit" [‏בור‎]? To infer from this that as a round pit in order to be sufficient to cause death must

be no less than ten spans deep, so also all other forms must be at least ten spans deep. If they were of less depth, however, there is no liability for death; but for injuries there is.

GEMARA: Rabh said: The pit for which the Scripture made one liable is because of the vapors (therein contained), but not because of the shock (the animal receives). From this may be inferred that Rabh holds that the vapors kill the ox for which the digger of the pit is liable; if the ox should be killed not by the vapors, but by the shock received at the bottom of the pit, there should be no liability, because the ground is considered ownerless. Samuel, however, holds because of the vapors, and so much the more because of the shock; and if one might say that the Scripture meant only as to the shock and not as to the vapors, and therefore if it should be proved that the death was caused by the vapors and not by the shock there should be no liability, it would be incorrect, for the Scripture is testifying that the digger of a pit is liable, and even if the pit were filled with wool sponges, On what point do they differ (for according to both, if the ox was killed he must be paid for)? The difference is in case he formed a hill (ten spans high) on public ground (from which the ox fell down and was killed): according to Rabh he is not liable, while according to Samuel he is. What is the reason of Rabh's opinion? The passage states [Ex. xxi. 33], "Fall into it," which signifies that there must be the usual way of falling (into an excavation, and face downward), but according to Samuel "fall" means in any manner.

There is an objection from our Mishna: If so, then for what purpose is written "pit," etc.? Now, it would be correct according to Samuel, for the "so also," etc., would include also a hill on public ground; but according to Rabh, what does this include? It includes rectangular and acute-angular pits. But are these not expressly stated therein? They are first stated, and then it is explained whence they are deduced; and it was necessary to enumerate all the forms of a pit, to teach that in each of them there are sufficient vapors to kill, if they are ten spans deep. It happened that an ox fell into a lake from which the neighboring lands used to be irrigated, and its owner slaughtered it. R. Na'hman nevertheless declared him trepha (illegal, because, according to his theory, the limbs of the ox were broken by the fall). The same, however, declared that if the owner would spend only one kabh of flour in going around and asking the law in his case, he would learn that if the animal

under such circumstances should be alive twenty-four hours after the fall it could be held fit for eating, and he would not lose his ox, which is worth many kabhim of flour. From this we see that R. Na'hman holds that an animal may be killed from shock in a pit less than ten spans deep.

Rabha objected to R. Na'hman from our Mishna: "If they were less than ten spans deep and an ox or an ass fell into them and was killed, there is no liability." Is not the reason because there is no shock? Nay, because there are no vapors. If so, then why is it stated further: "If he be injured, he is liable." Why so--there are no vapors? He answered: "There are no vapors sufficient to kill, but sufficient to injure."

He again objected from the following Boraitha: It is written [Deut. xxii. 8]: "If any one were to fall from there"--this signifies that it means only from there, but not thereinto. How so? If the level of the public highway were ten spans higher than the roof of the house, so that some one might fall from the highway to the roof, there is no liability (because there was no obligation to make a battlement); if, however, the highway were ten spans lower than the roof, there is a liability (for a battlement has to be made). Now then, if shock in an excavation less than ten spans deep also kills, why state ten? He answered: "This case is different, for it states 'house,' and less than ten cannot be called a 'house.'"

MISHNA VI.: When a pit belongs to two partners, and one of them passes by and does not cover it, and so also does the second, the latter only is liable.

GEMARA: Let us see. How can there be a pit of two partners on public ground? This case could be if we should say that the Halakha prevails in accordance with R. Aqiba, who holds one liable for a pit even if it be on his own premises, and partnership in the pit would be possible if both partners dig a pit on their premises and subsequently renounce their ownership to the premises but not to the pit; but if the Halakha prevails according to him who says that if one dig a pit on his own premises there is no liability, how is it possible on the one hand that there should be liability for the same pit on public ground, and on the other hand how can there be a partnership pit on the public ground? Shall we assume that both of them together hired an agent to dig the pit for them? Is there not a rule that there can be no agent to commit a transgression, for the agent ought not to commit any transgression if even he was hired to

do so? Consequently the partners could not be responsible for the acts of the agent. If we assume that the partnership consisted in that each of them dug five spans deep, then there can be no partnership, for the act of the first one can be taken into account according to Rabbi's theory only as to injuries; but even according to him as to death, and according to the rabbis' theory as to both injuries and death, it cannot be counted. How, then, can there be a partnership in a pit? Said R. Johanan: It is possible if both of them together removed a lump of earth from it which completed it to make it ten spans deep.

Where are the theories of Rabbi and his colleagues, mentioned above, stated? In the following Boraitha: "If one dig a pit nine spans deep and another one complete it to make it ten deep, the latter one is liable. Rabbi, however, says: The latter one only is liable in case of death, and both are liable in case of injuries."

What is the reason of the rabbis' theory? It is written [ibid., ibid. 33]: "And if a man dig a pit," which signifies that it must be by one only. Rabbi, however, explains this passage to mean that it must be dug by a man and not by an ox.

The rabbis taught: "If one dig a pit ten spans deep and another one complete it to make it twenty, and still another one make it thirty deep, all of them are liable." There is a contradiction from what we have learned in the following: "If one dig a pit ten spans deep and another one plaster and lime it (and thereby makes it narrow and increases its vapors), the last one is liable." Shall we not assume that the one case (where all are liable) is according to Rabbi and the other is according to his colleagues?

Said R. Zbid: "Both may be explained to be according to Rabbi only, thus: The case where all are liable is correct, as stated, and the case where only the last one is liable is where there were originally in it not sufficient vapors even to injure, and the other one by his acts produced so much vapors as to be sufficient both to injure and kill."

Rabha said: "If one place a stone at the edge of a pit which is less than ten spans deep and thereby complete its walls to measure ten spans, whether he is responsible or not would raise the same difference of opinion as between Rabbi and his colleagues stated above." Is this not self-evident? One might say that if one dig one span more in the bottom, and by doing so he increase the vapors to be sufficient to kill, he is liable,

because the vapors produced by him killed the animal; but if he raise the walls at the top (by placing the stone), by which he did not increase the vapors, as they were there already, one might say that he was not liable, because the animal was not killed by the vapors produced by him--he comes to teach us that there is no difference.

Rabba bar bar Hana in the name of Samuel bar Martha said: A pit eight spans deep, two of which are filled with water, there is a liability. Why so? Each span of water equals two of dry ground. The schoolmen propounded a question: If the pit was nine spans deep and only one span of them was filled with water, what is the law--shall we say that as there is only a little water there are no vapors in it, or shall we say that as it is nine spans deep the vapors of the water complete it to make it ten? Again, if the pit was seven spans deep, three of which were filled with water, what is the law--shall we say that as there is much water in it there are vapors, or because it is not sufficiently deep there are none? This remains unanswered.

R. Shizbi questioned Rabba: "If one dig a pit ten spans deep and another widen it (toward one direction only), what is the law?" He answered: "Then he diminished the vapors!" The former rejoined: "But he increased the possibility of being injured?" Rabba made no answer. Said R. Ashi: "A case of this kind must be examined. If he fell in through the side which was widened, then he surely increased the possibility of falling in, and he is responsible; if, however, he fell in through the other side, then he diminished the vapors, and he is not."

It was taught: "A pit the depth of which is of the same dimensions as its width, Rabba and R. Joseph, both in the name of Rabba bar bar Hana quoting R. Mani, differ as to the decision of those quoted: One holds that there are always vapors (sufficient to kill) therein unless the width exceeds its depth, and one holds that there are no vapors therein unless the depth exceeds its width."

"If one passed by and did not cover it." From what time on is he free? (That we say that the other one was charged with covering it, for the case undoubtedly is that the first one not only passed by but also used the pit; because if not so, then the first one ought to be liable as well, as it was negligence also on his part not to cover it.) As to this the following Tanaim differs: "One is drawing water from a well and another comes telling him to let him draw water, as soon as he lets him do so,

the liability of the first ceases. R. Eliezer b. Jacob, however, says that the liability ceases from the moment he delivered him the cover of the well. On what point do they differ? R. Eliezer b. Jacob holds that the theory of choice 1 applies to such a case, and each drew water from his own part (and therefore the second is not considered to have borrowed from the first his share, so as to be charged with the care of the whole, and for that reason both are liable in case of damages; but if he accepted the cover, he thereby became charged with the care of the whole), and the rabbis hold that the theory of choice does not apply to such a case. R. Elazar said: One who sells his well, title passes with the delivery of the cover. How was the case? If he sold it for money, let the title pass by the payment of the money; if by occupancy, let the title pass by this act? The case was by occupancy, which requires that he should expressly tell him, "go and occupy and acquire title"; and if he delivered the cover to him, it is considered as if he told him so.

R. Jehoshua b. Levi said: One who sells his house, the title passes with the delivery of the keys (as it is the same as the delivery of the cover of the pit).

Resh Lakish in the name of, R. Janai said: "One who sells a flock of cattle, title passes with the delivery of the Mashkhukhith (the drawing-rope). How was the case? If he drew them (removed them from one place to another), let title pass by this act? If by delivery, let title pass by doing this? The case was that he drew them, which requires that the vendor shall tell the vendee expressly, "Draw them and acquire title," and as soon as he delivered the Mashkhukhith it is considered as if he told the vendee expressly, "Draw, and acquire title to them." What is meant by Mashkhukhith? It means the bell. R. Jacob said: "It means the forerunning goat kept at the head of the flock as leader, as a certain Galilean lectured in the presence of R. Hisda: When the shepherd gets angry at his flock, he blinds the leading-goat at the head of the flock (so that the leader falls and with him all the flock)."

MISHNA VII.: If the first one covered it, but when the second one passed by he found it uncovered and did not cover it, the latter is liable. If the owner of a pit properly cover it, and still an ox or an ass fall into it and is killed, there is no liability. If however, he do not properly cover it, he is liable.

[paragraph continues] If an ox fall forward, face downward, into a pit by reason of the noise caused by the digging, there is a liability; if, however, it fall backward, there is none. If an ox or an ass with its housings fall into it and the housings be damaged, there is a liability for the animal but not for the housings. If there fall therein an ox, deaf, raging, or young, there is a liability (explained further on). If a boy or a girl, a male or a female slave, fall in, there is none.

GEMARA: Until what time is the first one free? Said Rabh: Until he again knows of his own knowledge that the pit is uncovered. Samuel, however, says: Until he is informed, even if he has not seen it himself. R. Johanan says: Time must be allowed him until he could be informed and could hire workmen to cut wood and cover it.

"If he cover it properly," etc. If he covered it properly, how could the animal fall in? Said R. Itz'hak bar bar Hana: The case was, that the cover became rotten from the inside (and could not be noticed).

The schoolmen propounded the following question: "If he covered it sufficiently to withstand oxen but not camels, and camels came along and made the cover shaky and then oxen fell therein, what is the law? Let us see. How was the case? If camels are usual there, then certainly the act is wilful; if they are not, then it is only an accident? The question is only where camels come there at times. Shall we say that, because camels do come there, it is considered wilful, for he should have had it in mind, or do we say that because at that time they were not there it might be considered an accident?" According to others the schoolmen did not question as to such a case; for there is no doubt that, as long as they came at times, he should have had it in mind, but what they did question was this: If he covered it sufficiently to withstand oxen but not camels, and the latter are usual there and the cover became rotten from within, what is the law? Do we say that because it is considered wilful as to camels it is so also as to allowing it to rot, or that the theory of because does not apply here? Come and hear: "An ox that was deaf, raging, young, or blind, or an ox that walked in the night-time, he is liable; if, however, the ox was sound and it was in the day-time, he is free." Now, why should it be so? Why not say because it is considered wilful as to an unsound ox it is also considered so as to a sound one? Infer from this that the theory of because does not apply to such cases,

"If it fell in forward," etc. Said Rabh: By "forward" is meant that it fell on his face, and by "backward" that it struck the back of its head against the bottom of the pit. And both of them have reference to the pit. [And this is in accordance with his theory that the Scripture made one liable in case of a pit only because of the vapors, but not because of the shock.] Samuel, however, says: "In case of a pit there is no difference whether it fall forward or backward, but he is liable." [For he follows his theory as to the vapors, and so much the more because of the shock.] But how is the case possible that when it fall backward from the sound of the digging he shall be free? As, for instance, when it stumbles over the pit and falls backward and strikes outside of the pit. Samuel objected to Rabh from the following Boraitha: "As regards a pit, whether it fall backward or forward, he is liable?" This objection remains.

R. Hisda said: Rabh admits in case of a pit on one's own premises that he is liable, because the owner of the ox may say, "You are liable either way; for whether he died from the vapors or from the shock, it was yours." Rabha, however, says: The case in the above Boraitha, which states that he is liable if even the ox fall backward, was that he turned over; that is, he first fell face downward, but before. he reached the ground he turned over and fell on his back, and therefore it is the vapors that he inhaled while falling face downward that kill him. R. Joseph says: The Boraitha in question does not mean to say that the owner of the pit is liable, but, on the contrary, that the owner of the ox is liable, and it treats of a case where the ox did damage to a well, namely, by (entering a courtyard without permission, the owner of which renounced ownership neither to the courtyard nor to the well, and) falling into the well, spoiling the water therein contained; in which case he is liable, no matter which way it fell. R. Hanina taught in support of Rabh: It is written: "And fall"--that means that the falling should be in the usual manner, face downward. From this it was said that if he fell face forward into a pit from the sound of the digging there is a liability; if backward from the same cause, there is none.

The Master said: "If he fall face downward from the sound of the digging, there is a liability." Why so? Was this not caused by the one who was doing the digging? (In this case it is assumed that the owner has hired another person to do the digging, and the latter is only the germon (medium), and there

is no liability for being the germon?) Said R. Simi b. Ashi: It is in accordance with R. Nathan, who said that the damage must be paid by the owner of the place where it was done, for the reason that the digger cannot be liable, because he is only the germon of the damage, as we have learned in the following Boraitha: "An ox that pushed another ox into a pit, the owner of the ox, and not the owner of the pit, is liable. R. Nathan, however, said that each one of them pays half (for both have their share in it)." But have we not learned in another Boraitha: "R. Nathan said: The pit-owner pays three-fourths and the owner of the ox one-fourth"? This presents no difficulty: One case treats of a vicious and the other of a non-vicious ox. But what does he hold in case of a non-vicious ox? If he holds that each one has done the whole damage, let each one pay half? And if, on the other hand, he holds that each one has done half the damage (and therefore the owner of the ox pays as for a non-vicious one one-fourth, which is half of the damage he did), only three-fourths are paid and one-fourth is suffered by the plaintiff? Said Rabha: R. Nathan was a judge, and he dived into the very depth of the Halakha. He holds that each has done only half the damage; but as to the objection raised that the owner of the ox should pay only one-fourth, it may be said that the owner of the killed ox may say to the owner of the pit: "I found my ox in your pit and you killed him; therefore, whatever I can realize from the owner of the ox who pushed mine in I will, and the balance you will have to pay."

Rabha said: "One who places a stone on the edge of the opening of a pit and an ox stumbles over the stone and falls into the pit," as to this question the difference of the rabbis and R. Nathan comes in (according to the rabbis the one who placed the stone is liable, for he caused the fall, and he cannot be considered as the germon, for the placing of a stone in itself is considered the same as a pit; and according to R. Nathan both are liable, for both contributed). Is this not self-evident? Lest one say: In that case the pit-owner may say to the owner of the ox, "Were it not for my pit your ox would have (instead of pushing him in) killed him"; but here, in this case, the one who placed the stone may say to the pit-owner, "Were it not for your pit, what harm would my stone have done him? Had he stumbled over, he would have gotten up at once?" It therefore teaches that he may, however, say to him, "Were it not for your stone, he would not have fallen into the pit."

Rabha said: An ox and a man who together push some other into a pit (so that the ox, the man, and the pit have all contributed), as regards damages all are liable; as regards the four things and the value of the infant (if it should be the case), the man is liable and the others are free; as to payment of atonement money and the thirty shekels for a slave, the ox is liable and the others are free; as regards damage to vessels and an ox that became desecrated and was redeemed, the man and the owner of the ox are liable, and the owner of the pit is free. Why is the owner of the pit free in this latter case of a redeemed ox? Because it is written [Ex. xxi. 36]: "And the dead shall belong to him," which means in a case where the dead can belong to him, excepting this case (for although it was redeemed the carcass cannot be sold but must be buried).

"If an ox fall in," etc. Our Mishna is not in accordance with R. Jehudah of the following Boraitha: "R. Jehudah makes one liable for damages to vessels caused by a pit." What is the reason for the rabbis' theory? It is written [ibid.]: "And an ox or an ass fall therein," which signifies an ox but not a man, an ass but not vessels. R. Jehudah, however, holds that the "or" means to add also vessels. Now, according to R. Jehudah, who admits that the word "ox" means to exclude man, what does the word "ass" mean to exclude? Therefore said Rabha: The necessity of stating "ass" as regards a pit according to R. Jehudah, and "lamb" as regards a lost thing according to all, is really difficult to explain.

"If an ox, deaf," etc. What does this mean? Shall we assume that the ox belongs to a deaf person, etc., but if he belongs to a sound person there is no liability? How is that possible? Said R. Johanan: It means that the ox was deaf, etc. But if he was sound, there is no liability? Said Rabha: "Yea, an ox that is deaf, etc., but if he was sound there is no liability, because a sound ox is capable of taking care of himself. The following Boraitha is plainly in support of the above: If there fall therein a deaf, raging, young, or blind ox, or an ox walking in the night-time, there is a liability. If it was a sound one, however, and in the day-time, there is no liability.

MISHNA VIII.: There is no difference between an ox and another animal as regards falling into a pit; to have been kept distant from Mount Sinai [Ex. xiii.] as to payment of double, to restitution of lost property; as regards unloading; muzzling, kilayim [of species], and as regards Sabbath. Neither is there

any difference between the above-mentioned and a beast or bird. If so, why does the Scripture mention "ox or ass"? Because the verse speaks of what is usual.

GEMARA: Concerning falling into a pit, it reads [Ex. xxi. 34]: "In money unto the owner thereof," which signifies any animal that has an owner. Concerning Mount Sinai, it reads [ibid. xix. 13]: "Whether it be animal 1 or man, it shall not live," which includes also beasts; and the word "whether" includes also birds. Concerning payment of double, it reads [ibid. xxii. 8]: "For all manner of trespass," which signifies that every manner of trespass (wilfulness and even as regards inanimate subjects). Concerning restitution of a lost thing, it reads [Deut. xxii. 3]: "Every lost thing of thy brother's." Concerning unloading, we deduce it from the analogy of expression of "ass" used here, and in regard to Sabbath [Deut. v. 14] (as concerning the latter, other animals are also included, so also here). Concerning muzzling [Deut. xxv. 4], we deduce it from the analogy of the term "ox" used here, and concerning Sabbath [ibid.]. Concerning kilayim, if it relates to that of ploughing, we deduce it from the analogy of the term "ox" in the manner just stated; if it relates to that of coupling of animals, it is deduced from the analogy of the word "any of thy cattle" used here, and concerning Sabbath. And whence do we know that it is so as to Sabbath itself? From the following Boraitha: R. Jose says in the name of R. Ishmael: At the first commandments it is written [Ex. xx. 10]: "Thy man-servant, nor thy maid-servant, nor thy cattle"; and at the second commandments it is written [Deut. v. 14]: "Nor thy ox, nor thy ass, nor any of thy cattle." Why were they expressly stated? Are, then, the ox and the ass not included in it cattle"? To tell thee that, as the terms "ox" and "ass" mentioned here include beasts and birds, to put them on the same footing, so also, wherever these two terms are mentioned, they include beasts and birds. But perhaps the statement in the first commandments should be taken as general and that of the last commandments as particular, and as there is a rule that the general includes nothing but the particular, this means to say that only ox and ass are meant, and nothing else? Nay, it states, at the last commandments, also "all 2 of thy cattle," and the word

[paragraph continues] "all" adds all other beasts. Is it really so, that wherever "all" is written it adds something? Is not the same word used at tithing, and still it is construed to be a case of general and particular? (See Erubim, p. 64.) We may say that "all" is sometimes also a general, but in this particular instance it must be explained only as to add; for it would have been sufficient to state only "and cattle," as it does in the first commandments, and still it states, "and all cattle," to infer that it plainly means to add.

Now, having come to the conclusion that this "all" means to add, why was it necessary to state "cattle" in the first and "ox" and "ass" in the last commandments? It can be explained that these particular expressions were mentioned for the purpose of deducing muzzling, unloading, and kilayim by the analogy of expression stated above. If also (that as regards kilayim it is deduced from Sabbath), let even a man be prohibited from drawing a wagon together with an animal, as he is also prohibited as regards Sabbath? Why, then, have we learned in the following Mishna: "A man is permitted with all of them to plough and draw"? Said R. Papa: One of the inhabitants of Papanai knew the reason for that, and that was R. A'ha bar Jacob, who explained it thus: It is written [ibid. 14]: "In order that thy man-servant and thy maid-servant may rest as well as thou"--that means that they are compared to them only as regards rest, but not as regards any other thing.

R. Hanina b. Egil asked R. Hyya b. Aba: Why in the first commandments is it not written "that it may be well with thee," and in the second commandments it is so written [Deut. v. 16]? He rejoined: "Instead of asking me for the reason, you had better ask me whether it is so written at all; for I did not notice it. You had better go to R. Tan'hum b. Hanilai, who used to frequent R. Joshua b. Levi, who was well versed in Agadah." He went there and got the answer from R. Tan'hum. From R. Joshua b. Levi I heard nothing about it, but so told me Samuel b. Na'hum the brother of R. Aha b. Hanina's mother [according to others, the father of the same]: The reason is because the first commandments (contained on the tables) were destined to be broken. And if so, what of it? Said R. Ashi: If this had been written thereon and subsequently (the tables) had been broken, Heaven save! "good" would have ceased from Israel.

R. Jehushua said: One who sees the letter "Teth" in his

dream, it is a good omen for him. Why so? Because the first time this letter is used in the Scripture is in the word "Tobh" (good) in the verse [Gen. i. 4]: "And God saw the light, that it was good (tobh)."

"And so also a beast," etc. Said Resh Lakish: In this Mishna Rabh teaches us that a cock and a peacock and a pheasant are considered kilayim with each other. Is this not self-evident? Said R. Habiba: Because they are usually raised together, one might say that they are one species. Hence this statement.

Samuel said: The ordinary goose and the wild goose are considered kilayim. Rabha b. R. Hanan opposed. Why so? If because the one has a long beak and the other a short one, then let a Persian and an Arabian camel also be kilayim, because the one has a thick and the other a thin neck? Therefore said Abayi: The reason is because the one has his testicles on the outside, while the other has them inside. R. Papa said: The one hatches one egg at a time, while the other hatches many at a time.

Footnotes

116:1 Rashi explains that of the pit mentioned as regards payment it is plainly written, "the owner of the pit shall pay"; of a pit, however, on public ground the Scripture begins with, "If one open a pit"--and the Mishna treats of one that dug a pit. Hence R. Aqiba's statement.

118:1 The Hebrew term is "Nisarah," and the Talmud explains it to mean a "hair," from the Hebrew word "saar" (a hair).

123:1 See Erubin, pages 80-82.

128:1 Leeser translates "beast."

128:2 The Talmud translates the Hebrew term literally, "all," while Leeser translates it "any."

JSON: /api/sources/talmud/vol-5-08-chapter-v.json