Egyptian-Hebrew stream·Babylonian Talmud·Chapter III

Source context

Theme

rabbinic legal and homiletical discourse in a late tractate of the Babylonian Talmud

Steiner

not engaged in the GA corpus

Cross-tradition

• Jewish Talmudic traditionTalmudic dialectic operates through layered argumentation (sugya), in which legal rulings (halakha) and narrative elaboration (aggadah) are interwoven as complementary modes of transmitting received wisdom.

Chapter III

WHO IS SUBJECT TO THE PUNISHMENT BY STRIPES.--THE DETAILS OF THE PROCEDURE REGARDING THE EXECUTION THEREOF.--WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES FREE THE CULPRIT THEREFROM.--THE RESPECTIVE DUTIES OF THE THREE JUDGES WHO MUST WITNESS THE EXECUTION.

MISHNA I.: To the following stripes apply: He who had intercourse with his own sister, with his sister of his father or his mother, or the sister of his wife, with the wife of his brother or his father's brother, or with a woman while menstruating. (To each of these crimes Korath--shortened life--applies, and according to this Mishna the human court has a right to punish them also with stripes.) The same is the case if a high-priest marries a widow; a common priest--a divorced or her who performed the ceremony of Halitzah; an Israelite--a bastard or a descendant of the Gibeonites; and the same is, if a daughter of an Israelite marries the just-mentioned persons. If a high-priest marries a widow who was previously divorced, he is to be beaten twice, because of two names ("widow" and "divorced"); if, however, a common priest marries a widow who has previously performed the ceremony of Halitzah, he is liable only for the violation of one negative. A high-priest who was unclean and partook of things belonging to the sanctuary or entered the sanctuary while unclean; and he who consumed illegal fat, blood, or meat left overnight from the sacrifice, or piggul, 1 or unclean meat, and also of such which was slaughtered and brought outside of the Temple; he who ate leaven on Passover, ate or labored on the Day of Atonement; who compounded oil similar to that of the Temple, or compounded the frankincense of the Temple, or anointed himself with the oil used in the Temple; who ate carcasses or animals preyed by beasts, or reptiles--to all of them stripes apply.

It applies also to him who partook of mixture, of first tithe

of which the heave-offering was not separated as yet, of second tithe and eatables belonging to the sanctuary which were not redeemed yet. How much has one to partake of the mixture to make him liable? According to R. Simeon, whatsoever; while to the rabbis, not less than the size of an olive. Said R. Simeon to the sages: Do you not admit that if one consumed an ant--minute as it is--he is culpable? And he was answered: Because it is a creature in itself. Rejoined he: One grain of wheat is also complete as to its creation.

GEMARA: The Mishna treats of those crimes to which Korath applies, but not of those under the category of capital punishment. Hence it is in accordance with R. Aqiba of the following Boraitha: Crimes under the category of Korath, as well as under that of capital punishment, are also punished with stripes if they were so warned. So R. Ismael. R. Aqiba, however, maintains: Only that of Korath; because if they repent after the punishment with stripes, the heavenly court forgives them; but if they are under capital punishment the human court cannot forgive them even though they repent. 1 What is the reason of Ismael's theory? [Deut. xxviii. 59]: "Then will the Lord render peculiar thy plagues," etc. What the peculiarity is, is not stated; however, from [ibid. xxv. 2]: "The judge shall cause him to lie down" (the expression of which has a similarity), we understand that the peculiarity is stripes; and in [ibid. xxviii. 58] it reads: "If thou wilt not observe," etc.; hence the violation of all negative commands is punished by stripes. But if so, let them apply also to the violation transgression of a positive commandment? It reads: "If thou wilt not observe." R. Aqiba's reason is: concerning stripes the expression is "according to the degree of his fault," which means for one fault, but not for two faults, to which capital punishment applies. 2

"Things belonging to the sanctuary," etc. It is correct, the transgression of entering the sanctuary of which the punishment as well as the warning is stated--viz.: the punishment [Numb. xix. 13]: "Hath defiled the tabernacle of the Lord; and that soul shall be cut off from Israel," and the warning [ibid. v. 3]:

[paragraph continues] "That they defile not their camp"; but concerning eating sanctity, we find the punishment [Lev. vii. 20]: "The flesh . . . his uncleanness upon him . . . shall be cut off." But where is the warning to it? According to Resh Lakish from [ibid. xii. 4]: "Any thing hallowed shall she not touch"; and R. Jehanan said: Bardelah taught: From an analogy of expression "his uncleanness" here, and the same expression is found in the above quotation [Numb. xix.]. As there the punishment and the warning are stated, the same also applies to this case.

There is a Boraitha in accordance with Resh Lakish: "Hallowed shall she not touch" is a warning to the consumer. You say consumer, but perhaps it means literally (touching); therefore it reads further on, "into the sanctuary shall she not come," etc. Hence hallowed is compared to the sanctuary. As to the transgression of the sanctuary Korath applies, so also the warning concerning the hallowed must speak of a similar punishment (i.e., consuming). But not of touching, to which Korath does not apply.

Rabba b. b. Hanna in the name of R. Jehanan said: To a negative command which is preceded by a positive one, stripes apply. There were people who questioned R. Johanan whether he said so, and he answered: Nay! Said Rabba: I swear that he said so, and it is also written and taught; "written" [Numb. v. 3]: "Shall ye send out . . . that they defile not their camps"; and "taught" in our Mishna: A defiled person who enters the sanctuary gets stripes. But why did R. Johanan retract his previous statement? Because the case of a seducer was difficult to him--namely, a seducer who had divorced his seduced wife, if he is a common Israelite, remarries her, but is not punished with stripes; if he, however, was a priest (who is forbidden to marry a divorced woman), he gets stripes and does not remarry. Now, as in this case, the negative command: "That he must not divorce her all his life" is succeeded by the positive command: "That he shall marry her," why, then, should not a common Israelite be punished with stripes for divorcing her? Said Rabha: The reason why he does not get stripes is that the positive "He shall remarry her" rests upon him all his life. (This is inferred from the words "all his days," which, if they were not explained that in case he has divorced her he shall remarry her, would he superfluous; with the explanation, however, the command, "He shall remarry her," is

attached to the negative "He shall not divorce her"; and there is a rule that to a negative command which is succeeded by a positive, no stripes apply.) And when Rabbin came from Palestine he said the same in the name of R. Johanan. Said Rabh Papa to Rabha: Why did R. Jehanan say above that he gets stripes? The negative in question is not similar to the negative of "muzzling" (which was said that it is placed there to teach that only to such which is not succeeded by a positive stripes apply)? Rejoined Rabh Papa: Should the negative become weaker because of the succeeding positive? Answered Rabha: According to your theory stripes should apply to each negative which is succeeded by a positive, which is not the case. Said Rabh Papa again: There it is different, as the positive usually comes to remove the negative (i.e., one shall not do so, but if he did, shall he do so and so). But Rabha's explanation holds good only according to him who holds that the culprit does not get stripes unless he abolishes the succeeding positive command. (Le., the seducer who has divorced his wife may always say: "I will remarry her." Hence the positive is not abolished, and therefore he is not liable. But according to him who holds that only then is he free from stripes when he fulfils the command (i.e., if he comes to the court, which commands him to marry her immediately, and if he does not listen he gets stripes). Hence, you cannot say that this positive rests upon all his life, and consequently it does not modify its preceding negative? Let us see: this objection applies only to Johanan's foregoing theory, and he said to the disciple who has repeated before the Boraitha concerning a positive which succeeds a negative: "Go and teach thus: Only when he has abolished the succeeding one, but not otherwise." R. Simeon b. Lakish, however, differs, and says: He is free from stripes only when he has fulfilled the succeeding one.

What is their point of difference? A doubtful warning--e.g., in the case in question, if he was warned that he shall not divorce her, it was still doubtful whether after divorcing he will not remarry her; hence such a warning is not considered certain. But, nevertheless, according to R. Johanan it suffices, so that he may be punished; but according to Resh Lakish he is not. And both differ in the explanation of R. Jehudah's theory in the following Boraitha: It reads [Ex. xii. 10]: "And ye shall not let anything of it remain until morning; and that which remaineth of it until morning ye shall burn." We see, then,

that the verse comes to place a positive after a negative for the purpose that if one did leave he shall not be punished, and has only to burn it. Such is the decree of R. Jehudah. R. Johanan explains R. Jehudah's words thus: The reason why he does not get stripes is the succeeding positive, but if it were not he would be punished, although the warning was doubtful, as he could thereafter burn it. Resh Lakish, however, explains it thus: The reason why he does not get stripes is the succeeding, but if it were not he would get stripes, as to a negative command that does not contain manual labor, stripes do apply. But let us see: Resh Lakish cannot deny that such a warning was a doubtful one, and R. Johanan cannot deny that such a negative does not concern manual labor; what, then, is the use of their explanation? Both agree that, if not for the succeeding, stripes would apply; notwithstanding that there were both a doubtful warning and a positive of no manual labor. Resh Lakish shares the opinion of R. Jehudah of another Boraitha (Chulin 82, b.), in which R. Jehudah admits that a doubtful warning is not considered; and R. Johanan holds with R. Jehudah of the following: R. Idi b. Abin in the name of R. Amram and R. Itz'hak, quoting R. Johanan, said: R. Jehudah in the name of R. Jose the Galilean declared that for the violation of all the negatives of the Torah, if there be manual labor implied, the transgressor is punished with stripes, but not if mental, except in the cases of an oath, exchanging, 1 and cursing his neighbor by the Holy name. But if so, then, R. Johudah contradicts himself? Resh Lakish may say that there are two Tanaim who said in the name of R. Jehudah differently, and R. Jehanan may say that in the latter Boraitha R. Jehudah declared the theory of his master, but his own opinion he declared in the former Boraitha.

There is a Mishna: He who took the mother-bird with her children gets, according to R. Jehudah, stripes, but is not obliged to send away the mother-bird; and according to the sages, he sends away, but is not punished with stripes; as the rule is: for a negative which is conjoined with a positive there is no liability. Said R. Johanan: There is only one more case similar to this. And to the question of R. Elazar, What is it? he rejoined: Go and find out! He did so and found the following: "If a seducer has divorced," etc., v. above, p. 37. But this can be correct only with him who holds that he is released from

stripes after the fulfilment of the positive only. But according to him who holds that stripes do not apply unless the positive is abolished, such can be done only with the former mother-bird by killing her, as then the positive he "shall send her away" is abolished. But how can such be found in the case of the divorce in question; and should you say that he killed her, then he deserves capital punishment; and there is a rule that stripes do not apply to him who is to be executed? Said R. Simi of 'Huznah: "E.g., he accepted betrothal money for her from some one else, hence she becomes the wife of another, and the positive "he shall remarry" is abolished. Said Rabh: Such cannot be considered; as in case she made him her messenger to accept the above, she may ignore the message; and, if he did it without asking her who gave him the right to such that it should be considered? Therefore said R. Simi of Nehardea: If, e.g., he has made a vow publicly that he must not derive any benefit from her (and such a vow cannot be absolved), hence the positive is abolished and he is liable. Are there indeed no more similar cases to those by R. Johanan stated? Is there not robbery to which it reads, "Thou shalt not steal," and the positive "He shall return it," and also concerning a pledge to which the negative is, "Thou shalt not come to pledge," and the positive is "Thou shalt return the pledge at sunset"? And these two cases also can be explained in both ways: Fulfilled the positives or not, abolished the positives or not? With these cases it is different, for he has to pay, and there is a rule: He who pays does not get stripes. But is there not "Peah," the negative of which "thou shalt not cut . . . the corners" and the positive "unto the poor . . . leave" [Lev. xxiii. 22], which also may be explained in both ways as said above? Therefore we must say that R. Jehanan by his statement, There is only one similar case, meant "Peah" and not a seducer; since concerning the latter the Law dictates that even if there were a vow on the mind of the public 1 it can be absolved when such absolution is necessary to a meritorious act; as it happened with a children-teacher who struck too much the children and R. A'ha excommunicated him, Rabbina, however, returned him, because he could not find as good a teacher.

"Carcasses preyed," etc. Said R. A'ha: He who neglects nature's duties when called, transgresses the negative "ye shall

not make your souls abominable" [Lev. XX. 25]. And R. Bibi b. Abayi said: He who drinks water from the horn of a barber transgresses the same.

"Partook of mixture, first tithe," etc. R. Bibi in the name of Resh Lakish said: They differ only in case he take a grain of it, but as regards flour all agree that the size of an olive is needed., R. Jeremei in the name of same authority, however, said: As they differ in respect of wheat so they do in that of flour too. An objection was raised from our Mishna. R. Simeon said to them: Do you not agree if he ate an ant, etc., and to the answer of the rabbis "because it is a creature" he rejoined, A wheat grain is also complete in its creation, hence we see that they only differ in respect of the grain, but not in that of flour? R. Simeon meant to say thus: According to my opinion it is the same with flour, but to your theory, admit that if he ate a grain of it he shall be culpable, because of its completeness. The rabbis, however, maintain: We cannot compare a grain to a living creature. There is a Boraitha in accordance with R. Jeremei: R. Simeon said concerning stripes: Size does not count; it counts only concerning sacrifices.

MISHNA II.: Stripes also apply to the following: To him who partook of the first fruit before the ceremony of reading 1 was performed; of the sacrifices under the category of the most holy outside of the curtains, and of those under the category of a minor grade or of second tithe outside of the surrounding wall; and also to him who breaks a bone in the Paschal Lamb if it was a clean one. However, if he left from a fit one, or broke a bone of an unfit one, stripes do not apply.

To him who takes a mother-bird with her children from her coop according to R. Jehudah stripes apply, but he is not obliged to send the mother away, and according to the sages he must send her away and stripes do not apply, according to the rule: If a positive succeeds a negative, no stripes apply.

GEMARA: Said Rabba b. b. Hana in the name of R. Johanan: Our Mishna is in accordance with R. Aqiba, whose name is omitted, as it is one of the many anonymous Mishnayoth which bear his opinion without mentioning his name. The sages, however, maintain that concerning first fruits, their placing on the Temple is the main thing, but the ceremony of reading

is no obstacle. But why not say that it is in accordance with R. Simeon, to whose opinion, also, most of the Mishnayoth were composed anonymously? This comes to teach that R. Aqiba is in this respect in accordance with R. Simeon. Which R. Simeon? Of the following Boraitha: It reads [Deut. xii. 17]: "And the heave-offering of thy hand," which means the first fruits; said R. Simeon: What does this come to teach us? If only that they must not be eaten outside the surrounding wall, it was not necessary at all, as this could be inferred from tithe, regarding which the law is more lenient, by drawing a fortiori conclusion: If one consumes tithe regarding which the law is lenient, outside of the wall, he gets stripes, so much the more when he consumes first fruits, concerning which case the law is more rigorous; therefore we must say that the verse means to include him who had consumed them before the ceremony of reading was performed. And "thy freewill-offering" [ibid., ibid.], means thanks and peace-offerings. R. Simeon, however, said: The verse does not mean them, as it was not necessary to teach that they must not consume outside of the wall, for the same reason that they could be inferred from the leniency in tithe by the same a fortiori reasoning. Therefore it means him who consumed of same sacrifices before their blood was sprinkled. And "first born" means literally. Said R. Simeon: If it meant so, it was not necessary either, as this could likewise be inferred by a fortiori reasoning from tithe; and if it means: who commanded them before blood-sprinkling, it was also not necessary, as it could be inferred from the above-mentioned sacrifices by a fortiori reasoning, as they are more lenient than the first born. Therefore we must say that it means to include him who consumes a first born even after its blood was sprinkled. "Thy herds or of thy flocks" means sin and transgression-offerings. R. Simeon, however, said: That if it meant them, it would not be necessary, as they could be inferred by a fortiori reasoning from tithe; thanks and peace-offerings, and first born, all of which are more lenient than that of sin and transgression. Therefore it means to include him who consumed from the latter even after sprinkling outside of the curtain. "Nor any of thy vows" means burnt-offerings. Said R. Simeon: It would not be necessary, as they could be inferred by a fortiori reasoning from all those cases mentioned above, and therefore it means to include him who consumes from a burnt-offering after sprinkling even inside the curtains, that he get stripes. Said Rabha:

[paragraph continues] Every mother should bear a son like R. Simeon; although his theory can be objected to. 1

It was taught: R. Gidel in the name of Rabh said: A stranger who had consumed sin- and transgression-offerings before their blood was sprinkled, is free from any punishment, because it reads [Ex. xxix. 33]: "And they shall eat those things wherewith the atonement was made to consecrate them, and to sanctify them; but a stranger shall not eat thereof, because they are holy." Now as the sprinkling of blood only atones, they can be considered holy only after the sprinkling w performed, but before this act they are not considered as yet holy; so that the negative "one shall not eat because they are holy" does not rest upon the consumer.

R. Elazar said in the name of Hosea: Concerning the first fruit, placing it in the Temple is the main thing, and not the ceremony of reading, as it is not considered the final act. In this case the following Tanaim differ [Deut. xxvi. 10]: "Thou shalt set it down before the Lord," i.e., lift it up (before the Lord in all four directions). But perhaps it means literally, to place it? This is already written in verse (9). So R. Jehudah. R. Eliezer b. Jacob, however, maintains: This means literally (hence, this is the main act which completes the ceremony prescribed to first fruit); lifting up, however, he infers from [ibid., ibid. 4]: "And the priest shall take the basket out of thy hand," i.e., that the priest shall lift it up towards all four directions. His reason is based on the analogy of expression "hand," which is also mentioned concerning peace-offering [Lev. vii. 30]: "His own hands shall bring it." And as there lifting up is needed by both the ripest and the owner of the offering, so also here the hands of both are needed. How so? The priest places his hand under those of the owner, and the two lift it up together.

Rabha b. Ada in the name of R. Itz'hak said: One is culpable for the first fruits immediately after they have seen the face of the Temple; and it is in accordance with the Tana of the following Boraitha: R. Eliezer said: Of the first fruit, a part of which was outside and a part inside, that of outside is considered common in all respects, while that of inside is considered holy in all respects. And R. Shesheth said: Only the placing is the main act of the ceremony and not the reading.

"Most holy," etc. But why the repetition? It has been already stated with regard to second tithe and things of the sanctuary which were not as yet redeemed? Said R. Jose b. Hanina: The second part of the Mishna treats of a case when both were pure--and the man and the second tithes which were consumed outside of the wall, and the first part speaks of the case when both were defiled, and that he consumed them within the city. And whence do we know that one is culpable because of defilement? From the following Boraitha: R. Simeon said [Deut. xxvi. 14]: "Neither have I removed thereof while unclean," 1 means neither when I was unclean and they were clean, nor vice versa. R. Eliezer said: Whence do we know that second tithe which became defiled may be redeemed even within Jerusalem! From [Deut. xiv. 24]: "Not able to carry it," which means also when it was not fit for eating, as the expression for carrying is "sheath" and in [Gen. xliii. 34], a similar expression is used for eatables. R. Bibbi in the name of R. Assi said: From the just-cited verse is to be also inferred that even one step outside the wall one may redeem the second tithe, if it is too heavy for him to carry it further. R. Hanina and R. Hosea, while sitting together propounded the following question: How is it if he was already within the gate of the wall in such a position that he was already inside but his load was outside--may he redeem it at that place or not? A certain old man then taught them in the name of R. Simeon b. Jo'hai: It reads [Deut. xiv. 24]: "Is too far from thee," means from the full extent of your capacity (and as he is already within the gate it can, not be considered far any longer, etc., and is not to be redeemed). R. Assi said in the name of R. Jehanan: The culpability for second tithe arises only after it has seen the face of the wall of Jerusalem, and the reason is [ibid. xii. 12]: "But before the Lord thy God must thou eat them," and (17): "Thou mayest not eat within thy gates"; hence, only at that time when the positive "before thy Lord must thou eat them "can be fulfilled, the negative: "Thou mayest not eat," etc., applies, but not otherwise.

MISHNA III.: He who makes a baldness in the hair of his head, or rounds it; he who destroys the corners of his beard, or makes incisions in his flesh for his dead, is liable. There is no difference whether he made one incision for five dead bodies or

five incisions for one dead body, as in either case he is liable for five negatives. For rounding his hair he is also liable for two (one for one corner on one side, and another for the other corner on the other side; and for his beard five, for there are five corners. 1 R. Eliezer, however, maintains that if he took off the whole beard at one time he is culpable only for one. The culpability arises only, then, when he took it off with a razor. R. Eliezer, however, maintains that the same is the case if he took it off with snuffers or a scraper (an instrument with which the hairs are removed singly).

GEMARA: The rabbis taught [Lev. xxi. 5]: "They shall not make any baldness," lest one say that if one made several baldnesses in his head he is culpable only for one, therefore it reads, "any baldness" (i.e., culpable for each one). And to what purpose is it written "upon their head"? Because [Deut. xiv. i], "Ye shall not cut yourselves, nor make any baldness between your eyes for the dead." Lest one say that be is culpable only when he did so between the eyes, therefore "their head" to include any place of the head. From here, however, we know that priests only are forbidden to do so, as they are subject to many commands which do not apply to a common Israelite; whence do we know that the same is the case with the latter? From the analogy of expression "baldness" in both verses; as in the first he is culpable for each baldness in the head as for that between the eyes, the same is the case with an Israelite. And as in [Deut. xiv.] it says plainly "for the dead," so also in [Lev.] it means for the dead only.

What should be the size of the bald spot which would make him culpable? The size of a bean according to R. Jehanan in the name of R. Eliezer b. R. Simeon. R. Huna, however, said: Such a size which could be discerned. R. Jehudah b. 'Habibah said: In this three Tanaim differ. According to one it is the size of a bean, according to the other it is a discernible size, and the third, however, maintains that he is culpable even for two hairs. Some, however, say: Instead of two hairs, it must be of the size of a lentil.

"He who rounds," etc. The rabbis taught [Lev. xix. 27]: "Ye shall not cut round the corners of your head" means the end of his head, i.e., who makes his temple as hairless as the

spot back of his cars to the nape of his neck. A disciple taught before R. Hisda: Both are culpable, he who rounds, and the rounded one. To which R. Hisda answered: Should he who eats dates from a sieve be culpable? Your Boraitha is in accordance with R. Jehudah, who holds that to a negative which does not contain manual labor, stripes apply (with whom the Halakha does not prevail). Rabha, however, says: It speaks that he himself has rounded his hair, which case all agree that he is culpable. And R. Ashi said: Even if he only assists the one who rounds his hair.

"And he who destroys the corners of his beard." The rabbis taught: "The corners of his beard," means the end of it; and what is meant by the end? The Shibboleth (sheaves).

"Incisions," etc. The rabbis taught [Lev. xix. 28]: "For the dead . . . any incision," lest one say that he made such because of the fall of his house or because the ship sank, therefore "for the dead," to teach that he is culpable only if he did so for a dead. And whence do we know that if he made five incisions for one dead he is culpable for each one? From "any incision" which makes him culpable for each of them. R. Jose said: Whence do we know that if he made one incision for five dead he is culpable for five? From the expression "l'Nefesh" 1 (soul) i.e., he is culpable for each soul. But does not the same passage exclude the case when he did so for "his house" or "ship," etc.?

R. Jose holds that "cut" in Deut. iv. and incision is one and the same, and there also reads "for the dead," hence this also may be inferred.

Samuel said: If one made an incision with an instrument he is culpable. An objection was raised from the following: Incision and cutting is one and the same (but incision means with the hand and cutting with an instrument), hence for an incision with an instrument he should not be culpable? Samuel holds in this respect with R. Jose that there is no difference at all.

A disciple taught before R. Jehanan: For dead he is culpable at all courts whether 'by hand or instrument, but if for an idol, by an instrument he is culpable, but not by hand; as it reads [I Kings,. xviii 28]: "And cut themselves after their custom with knives."

"Culpable only for one," because he holds that he transgressed only one negative command.

[paragraph continues] "With a razor." The rabbis taught [Lev. xxi. 5]:"The corner of their beard shall they not shave off," i.e., with a razor. But lest one say even with scissors he shall be culpable, therefore it reads [ibid. xix.], "thou shalt not destroy." But if so let him be culpable for destroying it even with snuffers or scrapers? therefore the expression "shave off," and destroying by shaving is brought about by a razor.

"R. Eliezer," etc. From whatever opinion he start: if he cares for the analogy of expression, then it is with a razor only; and if he does not, let him be culpable even if he did it with scissors? He cares for the analogy, but to his opinion snuffers and scrapers are equivalent to a razor.

MISHNA IV.: The culpability for etching-in [Lev. xix. 28] arises only when he has done both, wrote and etched-in with dye or any other indelible thing, but to one of them no culpability attaches. R. Simeon b. Jehudah in the name of R. Simeon said: He is not culpable unless he etched-in the holy name; as the above-cited verse reads, "and any etched-in writing shall you not fix on yourselves: I am the Lord."

GEMARA: Said R. Aha b. Rabha to R. Ashi: Does it mean unless he etch-in the words "I am the Lord"? And he answered, Nay! It is as Bar Kapara taught: "He is not culpable unless he writes the name of an idol, as the words "I am the Lord" mean I am the Lord, but not another one.

R. Malkhiya in the name of R. Ada b. Ahaba said: One is forbidden to put ashes upon his wound in the flesh, because it looks like a tattooing. [Said R. Papa: Throughout both Mishna and Boraitha, the name Malkhiya when mentioned is Malkhiyah, but in Halakhas it is Malkhiyoo]. R. Ashi, however, said: It does not matter, as the wound shows there is no tattooing.

MISHNA V.: A Nazarite who was drinking wine the whole day, is culpable only for one negative. If, however, he was warned, Do not drink, do not drink! he is culpable for each time he does not listen to. The same is the case if he had defiled himself by touching dead the whole day, he is culpable for one only; but if he was warned, You must not do so! etc., he is culpable for each one. The same is also the case with shaving himself. If he did so the whole day without warning he is culpable for one only, if with warning, for each time warned. A similar case this: If one was dressed with Kelaim, he is culpable for the whole day only once; but if he was told not to dress himself with it, and he undresses and redresses, he is liable for

each time. There is an instance that one may plough only one bed and shall be culpable for eight negatives--viz: If he ploughs with an ox and an ass both of which were from the sanctuary, if there was Kelaim in a vineyard, if that occurs in the Sabbatical year and on a legal holiday, and, finally, if he is a priest or a Nazarite in a legally unclean place. Hanania b. 'Hakhinai said: It can be added to that "who at the same time was dressed with Kelaim." And he was answered: This is not under the category of ploughing. Rejoined he: Does, then, a Nazarite belong to this category?

GEMARA: Said R. Bibi in the name of Rabh Assi: Not only when he undresses and redresses himself entirely, but even when he put his sleeve in and out. And R. Aha b. R. Aika has shown that he puts in the sleeve and puts it out. But R. Ashi maintains that it means the time during which he could put in and out.

"Ploughing one bed," etc. Said R. Yanai: At a meeting there was voted and resolved that he who protects Kelaim is liable to stripes. Said R. Jehanan to him: Is this not explained in our Mishna, which mentions that there was Kelaim in the vineyard? And if one were not culpable for protection what would have the ploughing to do with it? You must, then, say that while ploughing he protects it, and the Mishna makes him culpable. Rejoined R. Yanai: If I had not uncovered for you the broken clay pot, you would surely not have the pearl which was lying under it. Said Resh Lakish to R. Jehanan: Would not such a great man praise your statement? I would say that our Mishna is in accordance with R. Aqiba, who holds that one is liable even for keeping it. Said Ula to R. Na'hman: After it was decided that protecting is the same transgression as sowing, let him also be culpable for sowing on a legal holiday? And he answered: It was left out by the Tana of the Mishna. Rejoined he (Ula): It numbers eight, consequently nothing was left. Said Rabha: The different kinds of labor in one article are considered with respect to Sabbath only, but not to holidays. And Ula said: (I also think) so it is.

MISHNA VI.: The number of stripes is forty less one, as it reads [Deut. xxv. 2, 3]: "By a number, forty," i.e., near forty. R. Jehudah, however, said: Forty in full, and the fortieth is between his shoulders. The examination (by the physicians of the court) as to the number of stripes he can receive and remain alive, must be such that can be equally divided by three. If

the decision was that he is able to receive forty, but after receiving a part of them they saw he cannot stand any more, he is free. However, if the decision was, he can stand eighteen only, and after he was stricken they saw he is able to receive more, he is nevertheless free.

GEMARA: The reason of the statement of the Mishna is the expression "number," which is before the word "forty," and is to be interpreted "about" forty; for if it meant forty in full, it would state forty in number. Said Rabha: How foolish are those who arise before the Holy Scrolls, but do not do so before a great man. We see that in the Holy Scrolls it reads forty, and the rabbis came and reduced one.

"R. Jehudah said," etc. What is his reason? Said R. Itz'hak [Zech. xiii. 6]: "What are these wounds between thy hands," etc. The rabbis, however, maintain that this passage speaks of school-children.

"After he was stricken," etc. Is that so? Does not a Boraitha state that if the first decision of the physicians was that he can receive forty and thereafter they decided again that he can not, or the first decision was for eighteen, and the second states that he is able to receive forty, he is free. (Hence we see that even if he was not stricken but only examined, he is free.)

Said R. Shesheth: This presents no difficulty. Our Mishna speaks of the decision rendered on the very same day on which he ought to be beaten, and by acting accordingly it was found that they erred; hence in the first instance he is freed because he cannot stand, and in the second, because he was already disgraced and freed we do not care to disgrace him again. The Boraitha, however, speaks that the examination was several days before, and when the day of punishment came, the decision was changed because of his health.

MISHNA VII.: If one commits a sin to which two negatives apply, if the decision was rendered once for both negatives, he is punished once only, but if for one negative, he is punished again after he has recovered.

GEMARA: Is there not a Boraitha that one must not be appraised for two negatives? Said R. Shesheth: It presents no difficulty. Our Mishna speaks, if he was appraised for forty-one, i.e., for two negatives, and because it cannot be divided into three, their appraisement is annulled, and he receives only thirty-nine for both; and the Boraitha speaks of the case when be was appraised to receive forty-two for two negatives, and as

it can be divided into three, the three over the thirty-nine are counted for the second negative. Hence he is beaten once, and after recovery is to be appraised again and beaten accordingly.

MISHNA VIII.: How is the punishment with stripes to be performed? He ties his both hands to the pillar, and the messenger of the court takes hold of his clothes, without care whether they tear or disjoin, until he uncovers the breast. The stone on which the messenger is to stand is placed behind him, upon which he stands with a strap of calf leather compounded of two, which, folded again, constitutes four, with two small stripes attached to it.

The size of its handle was a span, and of the same size was the width of it, and the top of it reaches his belly. He strikes him one-third in front and two-thirds on the back. He is not beaten while standing nor sitting, but while bending; as it reads [Deut. xxv. 2]: "The judge shall cause him to lie down," and the striker strikes him with one hand with all his force. And the reader reads from [ibid. xxviii. 58-59]: "If thou wilt not. . . . Then will the Lord render peculiar thy plagues," etc., to the end of the verse. And if the striker has not finished yet, he begins [ibid. xxix. 8]: "Keep ye therefore," etc., and finishes with [Psalm lxxviii. 38]: "But he, being merciful, forgave the iniquity." And if the act was not finished as yet, he returns to the beginning. If it happens that he dies under the messenger's hand, the latter is free. If, however, he added one stripe which caused death, he is exiled. If while beaten he collapsed and became incontinent of urine or excrement, he is freed. R. Jehudah maintains: A male, when incontinent of feces; and a female, of urine.

GEMARA: What is the reason that he shall be freed if he collapsed, etc.? His having been already disgraced.

R. Shesheth said in the name of R. Eliezer b. Azaria: Whence do we know that the strap must be of calf leather? Because immediately after "forty stripes" it reads, "thou shalt muzzle the ox." (See appendix.)

"Two small stripes," etc. In a Boraitha it is written from ass leather, and it is as a certain Galilean preached in the presence of R. Hisda [Isaiah, i. 3]: "The ox knoweth his owner and the ass his master's crib: Israel doth not," etc. The Holy One, blessed be He, said: "He that knoweth the master's crib shall take revenge from him who does not want to know it."

"One-third in front," etc. Whence is this deduced? Said

be beaten before his face according to R. Kahana: From "to the degree of his fault," which means for one fault in the front and for two in the back.

"The striker strikes him with one hand," etc. The rabbis taught: The court appoints messengers who are weak in force but strong in wisdom. R. Jehudah, however, said: Even vice versa. Said Rabha: It seems to me that R. Jehudah is correct, because it reads "not more"; now if the messenger were weak in wisdom he must be warned, but if strong in wisdom, why warning? The rabbis, however, maintain the contrary, that warning is of consequence only to him who is learned to be careful. There is a Boraitha: When he lifts up, he does it with both hands, but strikes with one hand, so that the strokes shall become weaker.

"And the reader reads," etc. The rabbis taught: The chief of the judges reads; the second numbers, and the third says, strike! When the stripes are many he prolongs, and when less he shortens. But does not the Mishna state "he returns to the beginning of the passage"? It is better that the reading should be finished with the stripes; but if it was not, he returns. The rabbis taught: It reads [Deut. xxv. 3]: "Too many stripes"; but lest one say that one or two does not matter? Therefore is "not more"--not even one. But if so, to what purpose "too many stripes"? To teach that if it happen so, even the stripes which were given rightly are to be considered too many (in force).

"Collapsed," etc. The rabbis taught: A male as well as a female "in feces," but not "in urine." So R. Mair. R. Jehuda said: A male "in feces" and a female "in urine." The sages, however, maintain: There is no difference between male and female, and between feces and urine; at all events the beaten is to be freed. But is there not a Boraitha: R. Jehudah said: Male and female in feces? He meant to say that in such a case all agree, but concerning incontinence of urine there is a difference of opinion.

Samuel said: If after he has been tied, he succeeds to run away from the court, he is free. An objection was raised from the following: Collapsing frees one whether it happen at the first stroke or the second, but if the strap broke he is free only if it happened at the second, but not at the first. Now, why should this not be equivalent to running away, which frees even before the first strike? This is no objection, when he runs away

he could not be beaten (and as he was already disgraced, he is not taken to be disgraced again), but here he is still present.

The rabbis taught: If it was concluded by the examination that he will collapse in case he is beaten, he is to be freed; but if the conclusion is that he will collapse after having been beaten, it does not free him. Furthermore, if it happen that he collapse before he was taken to be beaten, it does not prevent after recovery; because it reads [Deut. xxv. 2, 3]: "And to be beaten . . . and . . . thus rendered vile," but not rendered vile before beaten.

MISHNA IX.: All who are liable to Korath, if beaten, are freed from it, as it reads [ibid., ibid. 3]: "Thy brother rendered vile," i.e., as soon as he was rendered vile, he is thy brother. So R. Hananye b. Gamaliel; the same also said: If one loses his soul for one sin, so much the more his soul should be saved because of one meritorious act! Said R. Simeon: This may be inferred from the very place which treats of Korath [Lev. xviii. 29]: "Even the souls that commit them shall be cut off," and [ibid., ibid. 5]: "Ordinances, which, if a man do, he shall live in them." As the whole portion is of negative commands, it is to be inferred that if one only abstains from committing a crime, he is rewarded as if he acted meritoriously. R. Simeon b. Rabbi said: It reads [Deut. xii. 23]: "Be firm so as not to eat the blood; for the blood is the life." Now, for rejecting blood which is disgusting to one, he is rewarded; from money and women, to which the nature of man is inclined, so much the more should he be rewarded if he separates himself; and not only he, but all his descendants to the end of the generations, may be rewarded. R. Hanania b. Akasiha said: The Holy One, blessed be He, wanted to make Israel blissful and therefore he multiplied to them his commands in the Torah, as it reads [Isaiah, xlii. 21]: "The Lord willed (to do this) for the sake of his righteousness: (therefore) he magnifieth the law, and maketh it honorable."

GEMARA: Said R. Jehanan: The colleagues of R. 'Hananye differ with him (as according to them stripes do not substitute Korath). Said R. Ada b. A'haba in the name of Rabh: The Halakha nevertheless prevails with R. Hananye. Said R, Joseph: Who, then, ascended to heaven, returned, saying that the Halakha prevails with him? Said Abayi to him: According to You, that which was said by R. Jehoshua b. Levi, "three things were done by the human court, and the heavenly court

agreed with it," is also to be questioned: who ascended to heaven and convinced himself that it was so? but such is inferred from the Scripture; well, the same is here, too. What are the three things in question? The following: The reading of the Book of Esther on Purim, greeting with the Holy Name, and placing the tithe belonging to the Levites in the treasury of the sanctuary. The first (Book of Esther) from [Esther, ix. 27]: "The Jews took it upon themselves as a duty and accepted," means, they took upon themselves in their human court, and it was accepted in the heavenly court. "Greeting" from [Ruth, ii. 4]: "And he said unto the reapers, the Lord be with you," and also [Judges, vi. 12]: "The Lord is with thee." To what purpose is the second quotation? Lest one say that Boas did it according to his own opinion and without the admission by heaven, therefore the other quotation which was said by an angel. And concerning tithe from [Malachi, iii. 10]: "Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be provision in my house, and prove me but herewith, saith the Lord of hosts, if I will not open for you the windows of heaven, and pour out for you a blessing, until it be more than enough."

R. Elazar said: At three places the Holy Spirit appeared: At the court of Shem, of the prophet Samuel, and in the court of King Solomon. At the court of Shem [Gen. xxxviii. 26]: "And Judah acknowledged them and said, She hath been more righteous than I." And whence did he know it? Perhaps as he was with her, so was some one else? Therefore a heavenly voice was heard: I have decided that so is it to be. In the court of Samuel [I Samuel, xii. 5]: "And he 1 answered, He is witness." He? they ought to be! Hence a heavenly voice was heard, I witness that so it is. And [I Kings, iii. 27]: "The king then answered and said, Give her the living child and do not slay it. she is its mother." And whence do we know it is so; perhaps she nevertheless deceived him? Hence the last words, "she is its mother," were said by a heavenly voice. Said Rabha: If it were inferred from the Scripture only, all of them could be objected to, but this is known by tradition.

R. Simlayi lectured: Six hundred and thirteen commands were said to Moses; three hundred and sixty-five of them negatives, corresponding to the number of days in a year counting according to sunrise; and two hundred and forty-eight positives,

corresponding to the members of a man's body. Said R. Hamnunah: Where is there an allusion thereto in the Scripture? [Deut. xxxiii. 4]: "The Torah which Moses commanded us." The letters of the word Torah number six hundred and eleven (Tav is 400; Vov, 6; Reish, 200, and Hei, 5), and the two first commandments, however, of the ten, we ourselves have heard from Heaven. However, David came and reduced their number to eleven [Psalm xv. 2-5]: "He that walketh uprightly" means Abraham, to whom such an expression was said in [Gen. xvii. 1]: "Worketh righteously" means Aba A'helqiah (see Tainith, p. 66-68). "Speaketh the truth" as, e.g., R. Saphra. "Uttereth no calumny," i.e., Jacob, our father. "That doth no evil to his neighbor," i.e., he who takes care not to compete with his neighbor's business. "No reproach on his fellow man" means him who approaches his relatives. "Despicable is despised" means the king, who carried his father's bones on a bed of ropes. "Honoreth those who fear the Lord" means King Jehoshofath, who used to arise from his throne on seeing a scholar, kissed him, and called him, my father, my master, etc. "That sweareth to his own injury, and changeth not," i.e., as R. Jehanan said: If one says I will fast until I will come home, it is to be considered. "Money for interest," i.e., him who does not accept usury even from an idolator. "Taketh no bribe" means, e.g., R. Ismael b. Jose, who does not accept even his own goods from his gardener for the purpose that he shall try his case. "He that doth these things shall not be moved to eternity." [When R. Gamaliel used to come to this passage, he used to weep, saying: Who performed all this shall not be moved, but one of them does not suffice (see Sanhedrin, p. 237).]

Isaiah, then came and reduced them (the 613 commands) to six [xxxiii. 15]: "He that (a) walketh in righteousness, (b) speaketh uprightly, (c) despiseth the gain of oppressions, (d) shaketh his hands against taking hold of bribes, (e) stoppeth his ears against hearing of blood, and (f) shutteth his eyes against looking on evil." (a) Means Abraham, of whom it reads [Gen. xviii. 19]: "For I know him, that he will command," etc. (b) Means him who does not anger his colleague in public. (c) Means R. Ishmael b. Elisha. (d) R. Ishmael b. Jose. (e) R. Eliezar b. Simeon, and (f) means as R. Hiya b. Aba said: Who does not look on women washing near the bank of the river. (See last gate, p. 137.)

Michah came and reduced them to three [vi. 8]: "He hath told thee, O man, what is good; and what the Lord doth re quire of thee: (nothing) but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with thy God." "To do justice" means judgment; "love kindness" bestowing of favors; and "walk humbly," providing for burial of the dead and marriage of poor maidens.

Isaiah (the second) again reduced them to two [lvi. 1]: "Thus hath said the Lord, Keep ye justice and do equity."

Amos then came and reduced them to one [v. 4]: "Seek ye for me, and ye shall live."

R. Na'hman b. Itz'hak opposed: Perhaps he means seek for me to perform everything that is written in the Law? Therefore Habakkuk was the one who reduced them to one [ii. 4]: "The righteous should live with his faith." Said R. Jose b. Hanina: Four decrees Moses has decreed upon Israel, and four prophets came and abolished them. Moses said [Deut. xxxiii. 28]: "And then dwelt Israel in safety, alone," etc. Amos abolished it [vii. 5]: "How should Jacob be able to endure," then immediately in (6) "The Lord bethought . . . this shall not be." Moses said [Deut. xxviii. 65]: "And among these nations shalt thou find no ease." Jeremiah abolished it, saying [xxxi. 2]: "He is going to give rest to Israel." 1 Moses said [Ex. xxxiv. 7]: "Visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children." Ezekiel abolished it by saying [xviii. 4]: "The soul which sinneth, that alone shall die." Moses said [Lev. xxvi. 38]: "And ye shall be lost among the nations." Isaiah abolished it by saying [xxvii. 13]: "The great cornet shall be blown," etc. Said Rabh, I am nevertheless afraid of the passage "ye shall be lost among the nations," and of the end of same, "the land of your enemies shall consume you." Marzutrah opposed, relating the following: It happened with Rabban Gamaliel, R. Elazar b. Azariah, R. Jehoshua, and R. Aqiba, who were on the road, and heard the noise of the city of Rome at Patlus, a distance of 120 miles, and they began to weep; but R. Aqiba smiled. And to the question, Why are you smiling, he returned the question, Why do you weep; rejoined they: Those idolators who bow themselves to images and smoke frankincense to the idols are resting in peace, the contrary is with us, that even our holy Temple is burned by fire,

and we should not weep? Rejoined he: For the same reason I am smiling. If such is done to them who act against His will so much the more will be done in the future to them who act in accordance with His will. It happened again that the same were going to Jerusalem, when they arrived to the Mount Zerphim, they tore their garments; and when they approached the Mount of the Temple and saw a fox running from the place where the Holy of Holies had been situated, they began to weep; but R. Aqiba smiled. To their question why he smiled, he answered: It reads [Isaiah, Viii. 2]: "Witnesses, Uriyah the priest, and Zecharyahu," etc. Why is Uriyah conjoined with Zecharyahu? Was not the former at the first Temple and the latter at the second? It was because the passage bases the prophecy of Zecharyahu upon the prophecy of Uriyah. Uriyah said [Micha iii. 12]: "Therefore for your sake shall Zion be ploughed up as a field," etc. Zechariah said [viii. 4]: "Again shall there sit old men and old women in the streets of Jerusalem," etc. Until the prophecy of Uriyah was not fulfilled I feared lest the prophecy of Zechariah will come to be realized but now since I see that Uriyah's prophecy is fulfilled I am sure that Zechariah's prophecy will also be fulfilled in the near future. Upon this version they said to him: Aqiba, thou hast condoled us, thou hast condoled us!

APPENDIX TO PAGE 50.

R. Shesheth said in the name of R. Eliezer b. Azariah: He who disgraces the festivals is regarded as if he worshipped idols, as it reads [Exod. xxxiv. 17]: "Thou shall not make unto thyself any molten gods," and immediately follows the verse "The feast," etc, The same said again in the name of the said authority: He who speaks evil of his neighbor, he who listens to such evil-speaking, finally he who bears false testimony deserves to be thrown to the dogs, as [ibid. xxii. 30] "to the dogs shall ye cast it," is immediately followed by [xxiii. 1] "Ye shall not spread (thisso) false report," which should be read also thassi, i.e., ye shall not excite one against the other.

Footnotes

35:1 I. e., meat of a sacrifice illegally slaughtered.

36:1 The text contains also what Itz'hak said, repeated from Kherithoth,--the proper place.

36:2 The text contains a long discussion about this subject, which is repeated in many places of the Talmud; here, however, this is very complicated and not important, and therefore omitted.

39:1 Lev. xxvii., 10.

40:1 This will be explained in Tract Gittin.

41:1 Deut. xxv, 15.

43:1 The text argues as to how the theory can be objected to by a very complicated process of reasoning, and from things entirely irrelevant to the subject, and therefore omitted.

44:1 Leeser's translation does not correspond.

45:1 For an illustration of the five corners, see Rashi, as we do not deem it necessary to illustrate them for the English reader.

46:1 The term "for dead" is "l'Nefesh," which means for a dead soul.

53:1 Leeser's translation does not correspond.

55:1 Leeser's translation does not correspond.

Chapter III

RULES AND REGULATIONS CONCERNING THE OATH-TRANSGRESSION CONSIDERED AS REFERRING TO BOTH PAST AND FUTURE.--THE DETERMINATION OF THE SIZE OR QUANTITY OF THE OBJECT REGARDING WHICH THE OATH IS MADE.--THE WORDING OF THE OATH.--IS OR IS NOT DRINKING INCLUDED IN EATING (TO WHICH THE OATH REFERS) AND vice versa.--DOES OR DOES NOT THE REPEATED STATING OF THE OATH ENTAIL A SEPARATE LIABILITY.--TO WHAT ACTS OR WORDS THE OATH RELATES.--OATHS MADE BY COMPULSION.--OATHS CONCERNING THE FULFILLING OR IGNORING OF A COMMANDMENT.

MISHNA I.: There are two kinds of oaths subdivided into four--viz.: I swear that I will eat or will not eat; that I did or did not eat. If upon making the oath, I will not eat, he does eat, and be it but a minimum, he is guilty; so R. Aqiba. Whereupon he was questioned: Where do we find a similar case that one be guilty for a minimum, so that this one be declared guilty? He replied: Where do we find that one must bring an offering for mere talk, as this one does talk and brings an offering?

GEMARA: The rabbis taught: "The expression Mib'ta of [Numb. xxxvii.] is considered an oath, and also the word Issor is considered such; and what prohibition attaches to this last form of an oath? If you decide that Issor is an oath, liability is attached to its transgression." Now, how is this to be understood? Does not the Boraitha state expressly that Issor is an oath? Said Abayi: It means to say thus: The expression Mib'ta is an oath, and if one says: This object is Issor to me as the first, and this third object be to me as the second, it is in such a case that, if it be decided that the making of an oath on a thing by comparing it to the first one is an oath, the second one is prohibited (e.g., if one says: I swear not to eat this meat, then pointing to a bread he says: This bread be for me equal to the said meat; and then again: This fish be equal to this bread. In

such a case if swearing by comparing one object to another is an oath, each thing is prohibited). 1

But whence do we know that the expression Mib'ta is an oath? From [Lev. v. 4]: "Or if any person swear, by pronouncing with his lips (Leb'ata); now, it reads [Numb. xxx. 3]: "Or he swear an oath to bind his soul with an Issor (obligation)," hence, Issor is obviously also an oath? Therefore said Abayi: That Mib'ta is an oath, is inferred from [ibid., ibid. 7]: "Or what she may have uttered (Mib'ta), wherewith she hath bound (Assro)"; from here we see that "she has bound," not sworn, and it is with Mib'ta that she has bound herself. Rabha, however, said: There is no necessity of Abayi's explanation, as swearing by comparing is not considered; and as to the above Boraitha, it may be simply explained, as follows: Mib'ta is an oath, Issor is also an oath; however, Issor is found used between vow and oath, and this is what the Boraitha says: If one expresses Issor as a vow, it is a vow, and if as an oath, it is an oath. And where is it found in such connection? [Ibid., ibid. 11]: "And if she had vowed in her husband's house, or had bound her soul by an obligation (Issor) with an oath." And the explanations of Abayi and Rabha are respectively in accordance with their theories elsewhere; as it was taught: If one swears by comparing, it is, according to Abayi, the same as swearing directly with the word oath, while according to Rabha it is not so.

An objection was raised from the following: What is Issor mentioned in the Torah? If one says, I take upon myself not to eat meat, not to drink wine just as on the day of the death of my father or of a certain man, e.g., Gedaliuhu b. Achikom, or as on the day when I have seen Jerusalem destroyed, it is an Issor; and Samuel adds: Provided he has previously vowed already not to consume these objects on those days. Now, according to this, Abayi's theory is correct, as we see here that one may make a vow by comparing, hence, he may also make an oath by comparing; but Rabha's theory remains open to objection? Nay; Rabha may say that the cited Boraitha should read thus: "What is an Issor of a vow mentioned in the Torah"? "If one says," etc.; and to this Samuel makes his addition, by reason of [ibid., ibid. 3]: "If a man vows a vow," which means:

[paragraph continues] He vows on a thing on which he has already vowed. Moreover, Gedaliuh's day is specifically mentioned in the Boraitha in order to teach that, notwithstanding that it is a general fast-day, one's vow is only then a vow if he has previously vowed especially for this day; and again, lest one say, this being a general fast-day a vow referring thereto is not considered at all, consequently such a vow is not even one by comparing, and hence should be wholly disregarded, it comes to teach us that it is not so.

R. Johanan, too, upholds Rabha's theory, as Rabin, on coming from Palestine, said in his name: If one says, Mib'ta, I will not eat, or Issor, I will not eat, it is considered an oath. However, when R. Dimi came from Palestine, he said in the name of the same authority: The oath for a future, e.g., I will or will not eat, is considered false, and the warning against it is in [Lev. xix. 12]: "And ye shall not swear by my name falsely." Furthermore, the oath for the past, e.g., I have or have not eaten, is considered vain, and the warning against it is in [Exod. xx. 73] "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain," and against a vow the warning is found in [Numb. xxx. 3]: "He shall not profane his word."

An objection was raised from the following: Vain (Shahve) and false (Shekker) are identical. Does not this mean that just as vain refers to a past, so does false, too, refer to the post? Why, vain and false are identical in respect of another point, but each of them has its signification as above; as there is a Boraitha: Zachor, ye shall remember (in the first ten commandments) and Shamar, ye shall observe the Sabbath (in the last ten commandments) were uttered by the Lord in one word, which transcends the power of the human mouth and ear. 1 But what does this Boraitha teach us thereby? The following: just as stripes are applied to a false, so they are also to a vain oath. But is not this self-evident, as both are negatives? Lest one say that it is as R. Papa- said to Abayi (further on), it comes to teach us that the Halakha prevails with Abayi.

When Rabin came, he said in the name of R. Jeremiah that R. Abuhu said in the name of R. Johanan that an oath for the past is a false one, and the warning against it is as cited above; and an oath for the future is merely a transgression of "He shall not profane his word," as above; and a vain oath is when one swears, e.g., that a man is a woman. Said R. Papa: R. Abuhu's

statement was not explicitly stated, but inferred from the following: It was taught, Aidi b. Abin said in the name of Amram that R. Itz'hak said in the name of R. Johanan that R. Jehudah, quoting R. Jose the Galilean said: Stripes apply to all negatives of the Torah implying manual labor, but not to those without manual labor; excepting, however, an oath, an exchange and a curse upon one's neighbor by the holy name, to which three, though not implying manual labor, stripes apply. And whence do we know that it is so concerning an oath? Said R. Johanan in the name of R. Simeon b. Jo'hai, it reads [Exod. xx. 7]: "For the Lord will not hold guiltless," etc., which means only the heavenly court, but the worldly court will make him guiltless by punishing him with stripes.

Said R. Papa to Abayi: But maybe it means that no one can make him guiltless? And he answered: It would be so if it were not predicated of the Lord; but as it is, it can but mean that not the Lord but the earthly court will. All this concerns a vain oath, but whence do we know that the same is the case with a false one? Said R. Johanan, his own opinion: In the cited verse "vain" is mentioned twice, and as the second is not needed for itself, apply it to a false oath. R. Abuhu, however, deliberated as to how should be the case? If one swears, I will not eat and did eat, then there is an act done, hence it is in the category of negatives with manual act; again, if he swears, I will eat but did not eat, it is a case to which stripes do not apply according to both R. Johanan and Resh Lakish? (above p. 25). Upon due deliberation, however, R. Abuhu decided that it means an oath referring to the past, e.g., I swear that I have eaten, and be did not eat, or vice versa; and though there is no manual labor here stripes apply, as Rabha said: The Torah has expressly extended the provision of the vain oath to the false one, to teach that just as a vain refers to the past, so also a false oath.

"And be it a minimum," etc. The schoolmen questioned: Does R. Aqiba hold with R. Simeon who declares one liable for a minimum with regard to all biblical transgressions? As we have learned in the following: Stripes apply even to a minimum, and the size of an olive is prescribed only concerning an offering. And why does R. Aqiba differ here, when he does not differ in any other places? Is it in order to let you know the power of his opponents, the rabbis, who say that if one swears not to eat even a minimum and did eat such, he is nevertheless

not liable! Or, in all other cases he agrees with the rabbis, while here he differs; because if one swore not to eat a minimum be would certainly be liable if he did eat, hence he is also liable if he swore generally, without mentioning the word minimum? Come and hear. R. Aqiba said: A Nazarite who has soaked his bread in wine and consumed it, is liable provided wine of the size of an olive entered the bread; now, should he bold with R. Simeon, why does he require the size of an olive? And also from the next Mishna, concerning reptiles which the Gemara explains in accordance with R. Aqiba, that a man may impose upon one's self the prohibition of even a minimum, it is inferred that he agrees with the rabbis in all cases.

"Where do we find," etc. But is there not a moth, which is but a minimum in size, and yet one is liable for consuming it? It is different with living creatures. Again, is not one liable in the case of the sanctuary? Here also there must be no less than the value of a Peruta. But does not he himself say that if one expresses a "minimum" he is liable? The expression raises it to the value of a creature. But is there not a case regarding earth, where no definite quantity is requisite? And should you say that it is, then solve the following question propounded by Rabha: If one swore that he will not eat, and thereafter ate earth, what quantity thereof makes him liable, by saying that the quantity of an olive is required! Nay; because earth is not eatable, you cannot very well assign to it a definite quantity. But is not such the case with vows? A vow is equivalent to the expressions "minimum" used in an oath.

"As this one does talk and brings an offering," etc. But is not such the case with the blasphemer who is liable for mere talk? Here a case is looked for where one imposes upon one's self a prohibition by talk, while the blasphemer sins with his talk. But is not the case of a Nazarite, who brings an offering for mere talk, analogous? Nay; the Nazarite brings the offering, that wine become allowed to him. But does one not impose a prohibition by saying: "This should be sanctified?" We look for a case where one imposes the prohibition only upon one's self, while in this case the prohibition is general. But does not one prohibit a thing to one's self by saying: "This is a vow for me?" (And if he uses the thing unintentionally he must bring an offering.) The Tana of the Mishna holds that to this case an offering does not apply. Said Rabha: They differ only regarding the case where he did not express the word "minimum,"

but if he did, the expression raises it to the value of a creature. He said again: They differ only when he said, "I will not eat," but if he said, I will not taste, all agree that he is liable. And Rabha says this lest one say that with the expression "taste" one intended to mean "eat." Said R. Papa: They differ only concerning vows, while as regards oaths all agree that liability attaches even to a minimum, because by saying "this is a vow for me" he does not mention eating.

MISHNA II.: (If one says): I swear that I will not eat, and thereafter eats and drinks, he is guilty but once. But if he says: I swear that I will neither eat nor drink and did both, he is guilty twice. If he says: I swear not to eat and then eats wheat bread, barley bread and rye bread, he is guilty but once; if he swears: I will not eat either wheat bread, barley bread or rye bread and then eats, he is guilty for each one severally. I swear that I will not drink, and thereafter drinks varied beverages, he is guilty but once; I swear I will drink neither wine, oil, nor honey, and then drinks, he is guilty for each severally. I swear not to eat, and then ate things not suitable to eat, and drank something not suitable as a drink, he is free. If he swore not to eat and thereafter ate carcasses or illegal cattle, reptiles and vermin, he is guilty. R. Simeon declares him free. If one said: I swear to abstain from deriving any benefit from my wife if I have eaten to-day, and he did eat carcasses, etc., his wife is prohibited to him for all benefit.

GEMARA: R. Hyya b. Abin said in the name of Samuel: If one swears not to eat and thereafter drank, he is guilty. If you wish, this is mere common sense, since ordinarily a man inviting the other one to have a bite, the two go in and eat and drink: or if you wish, it is found in the Scripture that the expression eat includes also drinking--viz.: in [Deut. xiv. 16]: "In cattle, sheep, wine . . . and thou shalt eat these." But perhaps it means there an aino garum (a dish in which wine is mixed)? The verse says further Shechor 1 (old wine), which means an intoxicating beverage. Neither can it here be spoken of a date of the City of Kehilla, which when eaten intoxicates and regarding which a Boraitha says that one who had eaten it and then entered the sanctuary is culpable, as the word shechor here is analogous with the same word used concerning a Nazarite where it surely means only wine for which he is culpable. Said

[paragraph continues] Rabha. This is implied also in our Mishna: If one swears not to eat, and then eats and drinks, he is culpable but once, which signifies that the drinking is included in the eating; for if this were not the case, to what purpose would the express teaching be? Would it be necessary, e.g., for the Tana to teach expressly that the oath regarding eating makes one culpable only for the eating and not for performed labor? Said Abayi to him: According to your doctrine that eating includes drinking, how is the second part of the Mishna "I will neither eat nor drink" to be understood? As eating includes drinking, why is he culpable twice? And he answered: Because of the expression; the addition "nor drink" shows clearly that his "I will neither eat" was not yet in his mind including drinking. Said R. Ashi: It seems to me, too, that the teaching of the Mishna implies drinking in eating, hence, "I swear not to eat and then ate things not eatable and drank things not suitable to drink," which implies that if the things he drank were suitable, he would be liable, hence we see that drinking is included in eating. However, this is hardly evidence, as the Mishna here may mean that he said in his oath both eat and drink.

"I will not eat either wheat bread . . . he is guilty for each." But perhaps he intends by mentioning expressly bread merely to exclude other things which to eat he shall be free? If such were the case, he would not repeat the word bread with each kind separately. But again, maybe he uses repeatedly the word bread in order to prevent the belief that he swears with regard to wheat bread not to eat, while with regard to the others not to chew? If this were his intention, he would say: I will not eat wheat bread, nor barley, nor rye, without repeating bread each time. But if he said so, his oath could be understood to concern a mixture of all these, but not each singly and severally? Then let him say: I will not eat bread of wheat, of barley, or of rye, without repeating bread. Hence, the repetition must have been intended to emphasize that he makes an oath for each severally.

"I will drink neither wine, oil . . . he is guilty," etc. Here again the question arises, maybe he intends to exclude other beverages, as here the above argumentation cannot be advanced, since the beverages are here specified. Said R. Papa: It speaks of a case where all these liquids were standing before him, so that he could by pointing to them swear not to drink them; why, then, are they specified? To indicate that he makes an

oath for each one. But if so, it could be said that he must not partake only of these before him, but of other wine, etc., he may? Let him then say: I will not drink of these before me nor of their kind in general. Hence, it must be said that the specification is intended to make the oath for each severally. R. Aha b. R. Aika said: The Mishna speaks of one invited by his neighbor to drink with him wine, oil and honey, to which he could answer: I will not drink with you (without repeating wine, oil and honey); hence, his repeating the liquids makes him liable for each one separately.

"I will not eat and then ate things not eatable," etc. Does not the Mishna contradict itself? It states that on eating an unsuitable thing he is free, and hereafter it declares him culpable for eating carcass? What are the reasons to account for these two parts respectively? This presents no difficulty. The first part speaks of the case when he says in general: I will not eat; while the second part speaks of the case when he expressly says: I will not eat anything. But even if this be so, why should the oath hold regarding reptiles, where an oath (not to eat such) lies on him already from the Mount Sinai? Rabh, Samuel and R. Johanan all three said: It speaks of the case when one includes in his oath the permissible with the forbidden--viz.: I will not eat legal and illegal things. Resh Lakish, however, says: A case like that of the Mishna cannot take place, unless he stated plainly not to eat even a half of the prescribed quantity; in which case according to the rabbis, who hold one liable only for the whole quantity, the oath concerns a half-quantity, and according to R. Aqiba, who says that liability attaches even to a minimum, the oath here concerns a half-quantity provided he has not plainly specified anything.

But why does not Resh Lakish agree with R. Johanan? He may say that R. Johanan's theory of inclusion can be applied only to prohibitions in themselves, such as, eating carcasses on the day of atonement, where the carcass is prohibited even if not on the day of atonement, nevertheless the rabbis make him liable also for the day of atonement, because as one is prohibited from eating legal food on that day, he is likewise prohibited from eating carcass, for the prohibition to eat includes legal as well as illegal food; however, where a prohibition is imposed by man upon one's self, no one can make him liable for inclusion. Said Rabha: The reason of him who holds that one is liable for an inclusion is that he compares it to an additional prohibition;

while the reason of him who holds that such is not the case is that an additional prohibition holds good when concerning one and the same piece, but not when concerning separate pieces; i.e., an inclusive prohibition is, e.g., a carcass on the day of atonement, where the day itself adds nothing to the prohibition of the carcass as such, but does add a prohibition upon the man (viz: that be must not eat it on that day); while if, e.g., illegal fat, which is prohibited to eat, but allowed for the altar, remains over night, it is prohibited also for the altar, hence, there is on it an additional prohibition (for its having remained over night), but this additional prohibition can be only on one and the same piece, but not on separate pieces.

Rabha said further that to him who holds the theory of inclusive prohibition, he who swears not to eat figs and hereafter swears not to eat figs and grapes, is liable for the figs twice; for the second oath resting upon the grapes, rests again upon the figs, too. But is not this self-evident? Lest one say that this theory applies only to prohibitions in themselves, and not to such made by man upon himself, he comes to teach us that there is no difference between the two cases. 1

MISHNA III.: It is immaterial whether the things sworn off concern himself or others; whether they are or are not of some essential nature. E.g., he says: I swear that I will or will not give something to this or that person; that I did or did not give him something; that I will or will not sleep; that I did or did not sleep; that I will or will not throw a stone into the sea; that I did or did not throw it. R. Ismael says: One is guilty only for an oath made with reference to the future, for it is written: To do evil or to do good. Said to him R. Aqiba: According to this view I know but about oaths concerning things that are intrinsically either evil or good, but whence do I learn about those regarding things that entail neither evil nor good doing? Retorted the former: From the addition in the Scripture; to this rejoined the latter: If the Scripture widens the notion in this respect, it does it likewise in the other (case).

GEMARA: The rabbis taught: In some respects vows are more rigorous than oaths, in others oaths are more rigorous than vows. Vows are more rigorous in that their liability attaches even to commandments, e.g.: If one says, I vow not to make a

sukkah, and hereafter he makes one, he is liable for transgressing the vow; which is not the case with an oath (as an oath rests upon him from the Mount Sinai). On the other hand, oaths are more rigorous than vows in that their liability attaches also to things not essential, which is not the case with vows.

"I will or will not give," etc. What does it mean, "I will give"? If charity to the poor, it is obligatory for him by oath on the Mount Sinai? Nay; it means a present to a rich man.

"I will or will not sleep," etc. But has not R. Johanan said that if one swears not to sleep for three days in succession, he gets stripes and is put to sleep immediately (because one cannot keep from sleeping for three days)? This is no difficulty, as in the case of the Mishna no number of days is specified.

"I will throw a stone," etc. It was taught: If one said, I swear that so and so has or has not thrown a stone into the sea, according to Rabh he is culpable, as he transgressed a negative; according to Samuel he is not, for such an oath can not be made with reference to the future. Shall we assume that the above differ in the same in which R. Aqiba and R. Ismael differ in our Mishna: R. Ismael said, one is liable only for the future, as it reads: To do evil or to do good; whereupon said R. Aqiba: If it were as you say, the liability would apply but to things that are intrinsically either evil or good; and he answered: From the addition in the Scripture: To every thing uttered with his lips; whereto R. Aqiba rejoined, etc. Whence it would appear that Rabh is in accordance with Aqiba, and Samuel in accordance with R. Ismael? Nay; according to R. Ismael, who frees one for the past even in a case where a future is possible, there can be no doubt that in the case illustrated above, one should be culpable; but where they do differ is concerning the interpretation of R. Aqiba's view. According to Rabh, R. Aqiba holds one liable for transgressing a negative immaterial whether such an oath can or can not apply to a future; while Samuel maintains that R. Aqiba's view applies only to a case where an oath for the future is possible, but not to other cases.

Said Abayi: Rabh admits that if one says, I swear that I know something to testify for you, and it is found hereafter that he knows nothing, there is no liability in this case because the negative, I swear that I do not know, etc., is not possible here (as this is not considered an utterance, but belongs to the category of testimony). But regarding the oath, I was or was not aware of testimony in your case, or, I have or have not testified,

[paragraph continues] Rabh and Samuel still differ. (Says the Gemara): According to Samuel's theory it is correct that the law has excluded the witness-oath from the category of uttered oaths, as there is a rule that where there is no future possible, no liability attaches to the past; but according to Rabh who disregards this rule, why were the witness-oaths excluded? Said the rabbis before Abayi: in order to make one liable twice (i.e., if one is fit to testify, knows the case, and nevertheless denied it before the court, he is liable twice, for the witness-oath and for an uttered oath). Said Abayi to them: It is impossible to make one liable twice, as it reads plainly [Lev. v. 4]: "That he hath incurred guilt by one 1 of these," which means, he can be punished once but not twice. But, then, to what other purpose have the witness-oaths been excluded, according to Abayi? To what we have learned in the following: Concerning all oaths it reads "escaped his memory," except the oath of a witness, to make him liable (to a sin-offering) for an intentional oath just as for an unintentional one. Said the rabbis to Abayi: Say, then, that for an intentional he is liable to one, and for an unintentional he should be liable to two, viz.: for a witness and an uttered oath? And he answered: Have I not said that the above-cited verse prevents it from making one liable to two? And as to an intentional, the liability of an uttered oath does not exist there.

Rabha, however, said: The reason why there can be no two liabilities is this: There is a rule that, if to something that was included in the general a new law be applied, only by the new one must guide one's self (i.e., the witness-oath as an oath is included in the general uttered oaths, and when the Scripture makes for it a new special law of liability, you cannot any more apply to it also the liability attached to the uttered oath). But how is it according to Abayi? Does be hold that there is such an oath at all? Has he not declared above that Rabh admits that if one swears: I know testimony for you, etc., there is no liability here, as such oath cannot be made in the negative, whence it would seem that such in the negative does not exist at all? He has retracted his above statement, or, if you wish, one of the above statements was not said by Abayi but by R. Papa.

"One is guilty only . . . with reference to the future." The rabbis taught, it reads [Lev. v. 4]: "To do evil, or to do good," whence we infer only those that are in themselves either good or evil; but whence do we know about oaths concerning other things? From [ibid., ibid.]: "Pronouncing with his lips," etc. But all this is concerning the future; whence do we know the same concerning the past? From [ibid., ibid.]: "In whatsoever it be"; so R. Aqiba. R. Ismael, however, says: "To do evil, or to do good" means only oaths for the future. Said to him R. Aqiba: If such be the case, we know only about oaths concerning things intrinsically good or evil, but whence do we know about those regarding other things? Retorted the former: From the addition in the Scripture ("whatsoever"), whereupon rejoined R. Aqiba: If the Scripture widens the notion in this respect, it does it likewise in all other respects. Now, is not R. Aqiba's statement perfectly correct? Said R. Johanan: R. Ismael, who was a disciple of R. Ne'hunia b. Hakana, who was in the habit of interpreting the Scripture by generals and particulars, proceeds in the same manner as his master; while R. Aqiba, who was the disciple of Na'hum of Gimzu, whose method of interpretation was extensions and limitations, follows his master's method. And this is as stated in the following Boraitha: "If any person swear" is an extension; "To do evil or good" is a limitation; "In whatsoever it be" is again an extension, and there is a rule that such an extension includes everything, while a limitation is excluding a commandment. This is in accordance with R. Aqiba; while R. Ismael, whose method is the generals and particulars, interprets the verse thus: "If any person," etc., is a general; "To do evil or good" is a particular; "In whatsoever" is again a general, and there is a rule that wherever there is a particular between two generals, the latter must be interpreted in the sense of the particular; now, as the particular here refers expressly to the future, so also everything relates to the future; the generals, however, affect in the same way all other things relating to the future, but not implying either good or evil, while the particular affects things relating to the past, that they be excluded. (Says the Gemara): And why not the reverse? Said R. Itz'hak: They must be similar to the particular (of to do evil, etc.), which is prohibited because of the above-cited [Numb. xxx.]: "He shall not profane his word," excluded the past to which the prohibition is "He shall not lie." R. Itz'hak b. Abin, however, said: This is inferred from the cited verse,

[paragraph continues] "If any person swear by pronouncing," which signifies that the oath was before the act, but not the past where the act was before the oath.

The rabbis taught: "If any person swear," etc., intends to exclude compulsion; "Escaped" to exclude intention; "From his memory" to signify that the oath escaped his memory but not the thing in question; hence, one is culpable only for forgetting the oath, but not for forgetting the object.

The master says: "To exclude compulsion," what could illustrate this? As it happened to R. Kahana and R. Assi after the lectures at Rabh's college had ceased; one would say, I swear that Rabh said so and so, and the other would say, I swear that Rabh said the contrary, and when they came to ask Rabh on the point, he certainly said as one of them; and to the question of the other, Have I sworn false, Rabh answered: You were compelled by your conscience and the verse "Escaped (from) his memory" means the oath but not the object.

This statement was ridiculed in the west. An oath and not the object is to be found, e.g., in: I swear not to eat wheat bread, and thereafter he thinks that he swore to eat, and accordingly eats it, hence, he forgot the oath but not the object; but where do you find a case where the object is forgotten and not the oath? As, e.g., in: I will not eat wheat bread, and thereafter ate it thinking it to be of barley, hence, he has the oath in mind and not the object; but as he forgot the object, is it not as if he forgot the oath? Therefore, decided R. Elazar that it makes no difference what one forgets. R. Joseph opposed: Is it indeed so, that the object cannot be forgotten without the oath? May it not happen that one swear not to eat wheat bread, and then stretch his hand to the basket where there was both barley and wheat bread with the intention to take that of barley, but takes that of wheat, and eats it up in the belief that it is of barley? In this case he had the oath clearly in mind, but he did not recognize the object. Said Abayi to him: But when he brings the offering, why does he bring it, for the bread he has eaten? Surely because of the oath (hence, they were right in the west). R. Joseph, however, insists on his statement for the reason that if he actually recognized that this is wheat bread, he would certainly abstain from it, hence, here is the ignorance of the object.

Rabha questioned R. Na'hman: How is it if he forgot both? And he answered: As soon as he became ignorant of the oath

he is culpable. Rejoined Rabha: Why not the contrary? Here is the ignorance of the object, and hence he should be free? Said R. Ashi: In such a case we have to examine the nature of the case; if he abstained from the object by recollecting the oath, then the ignorance of the oath is the main thing, and he is culpable; but if he abstained by recollecting the object, then the ignorance of the object is the main point, and he is free. Said Rabina to him: I do not see any difference here; if his abstention is caused by the recollection of the oath, is not here also the recollection of the object brought about? And the same may be asked vice versa,. hence, there can be no difference here.

Rabha questioned again R. Na'hman: How can an unintentional uttered oath take place for the past? If he (who swears) is while swearing aware that it is false, then it is intentional; and if he is not aware, then it is a case of compulsion. And he answered: Take the case where he is aware that such an oath is prohibited, but is not aware that the liability of a sin-offering is attached thereto. Is this in accordance with Munbaz, who holds that such an ignorance be considered, and not in accordance with the rabbis, his opponents? Nay; this may even accord with the latter, as they differ with him only in all other cases of the Torah, but not in this case, for it is a novelty, as we do not find anywhere in the Scripture that one should be liable to a sin-offering for a negative except in this case, in which, therefore, the rabbis, too, agree with Munbaz.

Rabina (the elder) questioned Rabha: Suppose one swear not to eat this bread, and then he is in danger if he does not eat it, how is it? In danger! then he is certainly allowed to eat it! Said Rabina: I mean to say that suppose he ate this bread while impelled by hunger and having forgotten his oath not to eat it. And Rabha answered: Concerning this we have learned elsewhere, a sin-offering applies only to such a case where he would abstain from eating if he recollected his oath, but not otherwise; while here, being, as he is, impelled by hunger, he would not abstain, it cannot be considered unintentional. 1

Samuel said: It is not sufficient that one make up his mind, he must pronounce it with his lips, as it reads "By pronouncing with his lips." 2

MISHNA IV.: If one swears to ignore some commandment and does not carry out his oath, he is free; if he swears to fulfill a commandment and fails to realize his oath, he is free. It appears on the first glance that he should rather be guilty, as R. Jehudah b. Battina argues thus: Since one is guilty for oaths regarding voluntary acts not provided for from the Mount Sinai, so much the more is it so in the case of oaths regarding commandments, to which he is sworn in from the Mount Sinai. Whereupon he was retorted: If you declare him guilty in voluntary acts where affirmation and negation are both alike indifferent, you can by means do the same in oaths concerning commandments where affirmation and negation are not equivalent; since one is free, if he swears to, but does not, violate a commandment.

GEMARA: The rabbis taught: Lest one say that one who swore to ignore a commandment and did not, should be culpable, it reads, "To do evil or good"; just as to do good unto one's self is a voluntary act, so also an evil act must be voluntary, and this excludes him who swore to ignore a commandment. Furthermore, lest one say that he who swore to fulfill a commandment and did not, should be culpable for the oath, we again compare the good to the evil act: just as latter is voluntary in this case, so must former be voluntary, and this excludes the case of an oath to fulfill a commandment. Again, lest one say that if one swore to do evil unto himself and did not, he should be free, we again compare evil to good; just as the latter means voluntary, so also the former, hence, it includes the case where one swore to do evil to himself, which he was at liberty to do, and he is culpable. Finally, lest one say that the same is the case if he swore to do evil to others and did not, we compare evil to good, which latter is voluntary, while in the case of strangers he is not at liberty to do evil, hence he is free. But whence do we know that he who swore to do good to others and did not, is culpable? From "or to do good." What is an evil doing to others? E.g., one says: I will strike so and so, and split his head.

(Says the Gemara): But whence is it known that the above-cited verse treats of a voluntary act, perhaps it has in view a meritorious act? This cannot be borne in mind, as the two, the evil and the good, must be compared with each other; and as doing good cannot be spoken of concerning the ignoring of a commandment, so also doing evil cannot treat of ignoring a commandment,

hence, this expression of doing evil would be in this respect good, as it does not apply to the ignoring of commandments; on the other hand, the good-doing is compared to the evil-doing: just as the former cannot treat of the fulfilling of a commandment, so also the latter cannot; hence, in this respect the good-doing would be evil (therefore, the expression in question cannot treat of meritorious acts). But in the light of these considerations, this expression cannot treat of voluntary acts, either, where good and evil means to do good and evil unto one's self respectively, hence, here, too, good would in some respects be evil (as, e.g., the oath not to eat a harmful thing) and vice versa? 1 Therefore we must say that, because it was needful to the Scripture to use the disjunction "or" in order to indicate doing good to others, it must treat of voluntary acts; since if it treated of commandments, the "or" would not be necessary, as it would be self-evident, for as the doing evil to others is included here, so much the more the doing good!  2

"R. Jehudah b. Bathira," etc. Is not the argument of the rabbis against R. Jehudah b. Bathira correct? He may say thus: Let us see; was it then necessary for the Scripture to add that if one swore to do good to others and did not, he is culpable; is this not self-evident, since one is not culpable for an oath to do evil to others, being as he is not free to do so, he is culpable when he is free to do so; and nevertheless the Scripture did add, hence, the same is the case with the oath to fulfill a commandment, where, although it is self-evident that he is culpable in this case because he is not culpable when he swore to ignore a commandment, yet the Scripture adds it. To all which the rabbis might say: These two cases are by no means analogous, as when one swears not to do good to so and so, he is culpable, while if one swears not to fulfill a commandment, and thereafter he does fulfill, he cannot be culpable.

MISHNA V.: If one swears, I will not eat this loaf of bread, I swear I will not eat it, I swear I will not eat it, and eats it nevertheless, he is guilty but once. This is an uttered oath for the intentional violation of which one is subject to stripes, and for whose unintentional violation to a poor or rich offering. Vain swearing, if wilfully done, is punished with stripes, but if committed unintentionally, is free from punishment.

GEMARA: To what purpose does the Mishna vary the language? It comes to teach us that only when making the oath in such expressions he is culpable but once; but if he said first: I will not eat it, and then, I will not eat this loaf, he would be culpable twice; as Rabha explains elsewhere that the expression "I will not eat this bread" makes one culpable when he ate of it the size of an olive; but if one says, "I will not eat it," he is not culpable unless he has consumed the whole of it; hence, if the Mishna stated first "I will not eat it," and then "I will not eat this loaf of bread" he would be culpable twice (as here were two distinct oaths: the former on the whole bread, the latter on the size of an olive; and the latter does not do away with the former, while the former if stated last would do away with the latter).

"I will not eat it, and eats it none the less," etc. For what purpose is this repetition, since one oath does not rest upon the other, as we have seen it to be the case with the second one, and it is surely so with the third one, too? It comes to teach us that, though there is no liability, yet the oath is not ignored, and that in case there will be place for it, it may rest; this illustration is as Rabha said: In case he asked a sage to nullify the first oath, the next comes to take its place.

Rabba said: If one says, I swear not to eat this bread in case I eat the other, and it happened that he ate the first 1 (1) erroneously and the second intentionally, he is free (2); if vice versa, he is culpable (3); furthermore, if he ate both unintentionally, he is free (4); if both intentionally, it depends on the following: if he had eaten the conditional one first and thereafter the one he prohibited to himself, he is liable (5), and if vice versa it is under the category of cases concerning which R. Johanan and Resh Lakish differ; according to him who holds that a doubtful

warning is considered, he is culpable (6), while according to the other, who holds that such is not considered, he is free (7). If, however, continues Rabha, he made the two breads dependent on each other--viz.: I will not eat the one if I eat the other. I will not eat the other if I eat this, and thereafter he consumed one intentionally (i.e., he has in mind the oath that he must not eat this in case he eats the other one, but he forgot that he swore the same with regard to the other bread) then he consumed the other one also intentionally (the same as before, but he forgot that he has already consumed the first one), he is free; if, however, he has consumed the first unintentionally (i.e., he forgot that the conditional oath is on this bread, though aware of the oath itself and therefore he consumes the second one in the same manner, he is culpable (8); but if he consumed both unintentionally (having forgotten all about the oath), he is free; both intentionally, he is, all agree, culpable for the second one; the first, however, falls into the foregoing category concerning which R. Johanan and Resh Lakish differ. Said R. Mari: there are vows by error and vows by compulsion; how so? If one says: I vow this object if I have eaten or drunk such and such, and then recollects that he did; in like manner if he vows for the future and on forgetting the vow eats or drinks, to such a vow no liability attaches; and there is a Boraitha that just as there are vows by error, there are also oaths by error.

Eipha taught the Tract Sheb'noth at Rabba's college, and Abimi, his brother, asked him: How is it if one swears twice, I have not eaten, I have not eaten, while he did eat? He answered: He is culpable but once; whereupon he said: You are mistaken, since the first oath was already a lie, and the second one is again a lie. He asked further: How is it if one swears not to eat nine and ten (articles), and thereafter he eats ten, without recollecting his oath in between? And he answered: He is culpable for each one severally. Said the other: You are again mistaken, for the oath for the ten does not rest at all, as ten presupposes nine and for the nine he has made a separate oath; but how is it if he swear not to eat ten, and then not to eat nine? Here he is culpable only once. The other rejoined: You are again mistaken, for as soon as he ate nine he broke one oath, and by eating the tenth he breaks the other oath. Said Abayi: In this last case, then, may be a case that Eipha is right --viz.: if one swear not to eat ten, and thereafter not to eat nine; then he ate nine and recollected his transgression, brought

a sin-offering and then consumed the tenth; the tenth is then considered but a half-quantity, and for such one is not liable.

MISHNA VI.: Which is false swearing? If one swears that something is different from what it is known by everybody to be, e.g., that a stone column is of gold, that a man is a woman, that a woman is a man; or if he swears to an impossibility--viz.: If I have not seen a camel flying in the air; If I did not see a serpent of the shape of an oil-press; so! . . . If one asks some witnesses: Come to testify for me, and they answer, We swear that we shall not bear you witness; or if someone swears to ignore a commandment, as, e.g., not to make a Sukka, not to take Lulab'be, or not to put on phylacteries; so it is a false swearing punishable with stripes if committed intentionally, and unpunishable if made by error. If he swears, to one and the same loaf of bread, I will not eat it, then, I will not eat it, the former is a vain oath, and the latter an uttered oath; so that by eating it he is liable for uttered swearing; by not eating it he is liable for a vain oath.

GEMARA: Said Ula: Provided it was acknowledged by three persons that this pillar was of stone.

"If he swore to an impossibility, "etc. Why does the Mishna use a negative and not a positive expression? Said Abayi: Read it in the positive, if you prefer. Rabha, however, said: It speaks thus: If he says, all the fruit in the world be forbidden to me, if I have not, 1 etc.

"I will eat, I will not eat," etc. Let us see: since he is liable for the uttered oath, shall he not be liable for the vain one? He has pronounced such and why shall he not be liable? Said R. Jeremiah: Read in the Mishna, he is liable for the uttered oath also.

MISHNA VII.: The provisions regarding uttered swearing apply to males, females; to kindred, non-kindred; to those legally fit to testify as well as to those unfit; to cases before as well as outside the court. The oath, however, must come forth from his own mouth, and its intentional violation is punished with stripes, and its unintentional with a poor and rich-offering. Vain swearing takes place by men as well as by women; by kindred and non-kindred; by those fit to testify and by those unfit; before and outside the court, and the oath must issue from one's own mouth; its intentional violation is attended with stripes,

while its unintentional is unpunishable. In both cases one is guilty if made to swear by others, thus: If he says, I ate nothing to-day, I put on no phylacteries, and another interposes: I adjure you, to which he answers: Amen, he is guilty.

GEMARA: Said Samuel: He who answers amen after an oath is considered as if he pronounced the oath with his lips, as it reads [Numb. V. 22]: "And the women say amen, amen." Said R. Papa in the name of Rabha: There are a Mishna and a Boraitha which seem to teach the same. The Mishna is the next following (viii.): The witness-oath . . . unless they deny before the court; such is R. Mair's view. Then the illustration in the Boraitha: If one said to the witnesses, Come and testify for me, and they answer: We swear that we know of no testimony for you, or, We do not know any testimony, whereto he says, I adjure you, and they answered: Amen, they are liable when they deny it, immaterial in the presence or absence of the court; so R. Mair. Hence, the Boraitha apparently contradicts the Mishna; however, as we said, the Mishna means that they did not answer amen, while in the Boraitha he did so, hence, the answer, amen, is equivalent to pronouncing with one's lips.

Said Rabina in the name of Rabha: From our own Mishna we may infer the same; as in the first part it requires that he must utter it himself, whence it is to be inferred that not through others, and in its last part it states that in both cases if sworn through another, he is liable; does the last part contradict the first? Nay; the last part means when they answered Amen, while the first part does not mean so. But if so, what comes Samuel to tell us? He comes to teach that the Mishna is particular in its statements concerning an uttered oath--viz.: if made by himself, he must pronounce it with his lips, and if by others, he must also utter with his lips Amen.

Footnotes

28:1 This illustration is taken from 'Hanannel, as Rashi's illustration here is too complicated.

29:1 The continuation of this will be translated in Tract Benedictions.

32:1 Shechor is old wine and Shiccor from the same stem means intoxicated.

35:1 The discussion following here, being but repeated from its proper place, is here omitted.

37:1 Here the word l'achath (to one) is taken by the text literally: one; while further on it is explained to mean 'to anyone'.

40:1 The explanation here is that of Hanannell's second version, Rashi not being clear on the point.

40:2 This statement is objected to by many, but the objections are overthrown; and as all this discussion is both complicated and unimportant, we omit it.

42:1 The commentaries on the point are in great perplexity.

42:2 The discussion here on the disjunction "or" is omitted, for it is already given in Sanhedrin.

43:1 (1) The first, i.e. the conditioned A, the second, i.e. the conditioning one B. (2) Because when he eats A he forgot all about B and the oath has not yet rested upon him, since R was not yet consumed by him; hence, he is free from both stripes and sin offering. (3) Because while eating A he was aware of his oath, and when consuming B he forgot the oath; hence he is liable to an offering for breaking an oath by forgetting. (4) Because he had forgotten the oath already when he ate A hence there was no oath at all resting upon him. (5) To stripes, since after having consumed A he was aware that B was forbidden to him, and the warning was a certain one. (6) Because if he was warned with regard to either A or B, he has broken his oath intentionally. (7) Even when warned while eating A, because the liability to stripes is originally attached only to B, hence the warning does not effect. (8) Because one of the breads was necessarily consumed intentionally.

45:1 The further development of this discussion will appear in its place in N'dairm.

Chapter III

MISHNA I.: All objects that defile within the tent are, according to R. Dohssa b. Horkinoss, clean when they were brought into the house after having been divided in smaller parts; but the sages declare them unclean. How so? If one touches or carries two pieces of a carcass each of the size of half an olive, or touches of a corpse the size of a half an olive (and his body covers such a size) and such a size shelters him, or he covers as much as two halves of an olive, or only of a half an olive but is roofed by such a size, R. Dohssa b. Horkinass declares him clean and the sages declare him unclean. But if he touches the size of half an olive while another thing covers both him and of a corpse the size of half an olive (or he covers such size and another thing covers him and such a size), he is clean (also according to the sages). R. Mair, however, said: Also herein the sages and R. Dohssa differ as above. (They declare) that all combine to render unclean except touching with carrying, and carrying with roofing. This is the rule: What bears one and the same name is index of uncleanness, two different names is one of cleanness. (All the Mishna is explained in third chapter of Tract Oholoth (Tents).

MISHNA II.: Food consisting of sundry parts does not, according to R. Dohssa b. Horkinass, combine (to the measure of an egg), while according to the sages it does so. R. Dohssa holds that it is allowed to exchange second tithe for uncoined money, while according to the sages it is not. Finally, he holds that it suffices to bathe one's hands to be allowed to touch the sin-cleansing water, while the sages say that (in this case) with the uncleanness of his hands the entire body is unclean.

MISHNA III.: The interior of a melon, as well as the peel strips of a colewort is as terumah allowed to laymen (non-priests), so R. Dohssa, while the sages do not allow it. He further holds that it is only then obligatory to separate the first-cut wool of five shorn sheep when each of them furnishes one and a half mana worth of wool, while in the opinion of the sages

even when the wool of the five sheep is however little. (Is further explained in Tract Chulin, Chapter XI.)

MISHNA IV.: According to R. Dohssa, all mats are getting unclean only when touched by a corpse, but according to the sages, also by (mere) pressure. He says further that all woven work remains clean except a girdle, but according to the sages all are subject to defilement, except, however, those of the wool-traders.

MISHNA V.: A sling whose handle is embroidered is subject to defilement. But if it is of leather R. Dohass declares it clean, and the sages, unclean. If its finger-hole has been severed from it, it is clean, but also is unclean if only its end is severed.

MISHNA VI.: The wife (of a priest) that was in captivity is, according to R. Dohssa, allowed to eat terumah, while the sages say: There is a difference between one captive and another. How so? If she says: I was in captivity, but am clean, she may eat, for the mouth that prohibits also allows, but if her captivity is attested by witnesses and she asserts thereupon to be clean, she is not allowed to eat. (Explained in Tract Kethuboth, Chapter II.)

MISHNA VII.: There are four doubtful cases where R. Jehoshua declares the thing unclean and the sages, clean--viz.: (a) while the unclean is standing the clean one is passing, or (b) vice versa; (c) when something unclean is in the private ground, while something clean in the public grounds, or (d) vice versa, in which cases it is doubtful whether or not one touched, roofed, or was moved by, the other. (Tract Taharoth, Chapter II.)

MISHNA VIII.: Three things are declared unclean by R. Zadok and clean by the sages--viz.: (a) The exchanger's nail; (b) the trunk of the bean-grinders, and (c) the screw of the stone sun-clock. (Kelim, Chapter XII.)

MISHNA IX: Four things are held unclean by R. Gamaliel and clean by the sages: (a) The cover of a metallic basket used in households; (b) the handle of a (bathing) scraper; (c) the unfinished metallic vessels, and (d) a board broken in two (equal) parts; in the last-named case, however, if the parts be unequal, the sages concur with R. Gamaliel in that the bigger part is unclean and the smaller, clean. (Ibid., ibid., Mishna VI.)

MISHNA X: In the decision of the following three R. Gamaliel is as rigorous as Beth Shamai: It is not allowed: (a) to keep warm on a holiday cooked food for Sabbath; (b) to put

together the parts of a chandelier on a holiday, and (c) to bake (on a holiday) big loaves of bread, but only small ones. He said: During all the time they were baking in my father's house only thin loaves, and he was answered: We can make no conclusion from your father's house, who have always been rigorous to themselves, but lenient to all others, allowing them to bake not only big loaves but even big cakes on coal.

MISHNA XI.: In the following three things, however, his decisions are lenient: It is allowed (a) to sweep (on holidays) between the bedsteads; (b) to put upon coals the fumigation, and (c) to roast a prepared kid on the first Easter evening, all which the sages forbid.

MISHNA XII.: Three things R. Elazar b. Azaria allows and the sages forbid: (a) His cow was allowed to walk out (on Sabbath) with the strap between her horns; (b) he allows to curry the cattle on holidays, and (c) to grind pepper in hand-mills adapted thereto. R. Jehudah maintains that point sub (b) is not allowable, as one could while currying make a sore, but allows to do it with a wooden comb, while the sages forbid both. (The last two Mishnas are explained in Tract Beitzah.)

Chapter III

RULES AND REGULATIONS CONCERNING THE DERIVING OF BENEFIT FROM PROFANED IDOLS AND IMAGES OF HEATHENS AND ISRAELITES.--CONCERNING UTENSILS ON WHICH ARE ENGRAVED THE SUN, THE MOON AND OTHER PLANETS.

MISHNA I.: All images are prohibited, for they are worshipped at least once a year, so says R. Mair. The sages, however, say: Only those that have in their hand a staff, a bird or a sphere. R. Simeon b. Gamaliel says: And that has something in its hand.

GEMARA: If it be true that these images are worshipped at least once during the year, why do the rabbis allow their use at all? Said R. Itz'hak b. Joseph in the name of R. Johanan: At the native place of R. Mair the heathens had the custom of worshipping each image once a year, in other places this was not the custom, and as R. Mair lays down his precept on the basis of the minority of cases (in order to exclude misconceptions), he accordingly prohibits the images; while the rabbis who do not follow this principle, allow to derive benefit from them. R. Jehudah, however, said in the name of Samuel: The Mishna here is concerned not with ordinary images, but with such as are wrought to honor kings. Rabba b. b. 'Hana said in the name of Johanan: R. Mair's prohibition concerns images erected in the gates of the place. It was taught, Rabba said: The rabbis allow only the use of city images, as these are but ornaments and not idols, but they prohibit the images of the villages which are worshipped idols.

"The sages say," etc. This prohibition is based upon the following reasons: The staff in the hand of the idol is an indication that it submits itself to the whole world. The bird in the hand of the idol indicates that, like the bird, it sacrifices itself for the world. Finally, the sphere is to indicate that it sacrifices itself for the whole globe. Later on the prohibition was extended also to idols with a sword in hand, a crown on the head, or a seal-ring on the finger. Formerly the belief was current

that the sword is no divine emblem, but that of a robber; but it was learned later that an image with a sword symbolizes him who has sacrificed himself for the whole world. As for the crown, it was regarded an insignificant wreath, but later experience showed it to represent a king's diadem. Finally, the seal-ring was always believed to be the token of a slave, but later experience taught that an image with such a ring represents him who resolved to die for the whole world.

MISHNA II.: If one finds fragments of images, he is allowed to use them. However, if he finds fragments in form of a hand or a foot, they are prohibited, for such are worshipped.

GEMARA: Samuel said: Even fragments of a worshipped idol are allowed. But does not the Mishna call for fragments of images? The Mishna appends the prohibition as regards even the hand or foot of an image, wherefor it uses the word image also before; but in fact implies the allowance of fragments of an idol, too. But why should these be prohibited, being, as they are, only fragments, and such are allowed by Samuel? Samuel explains this prohibition of the Mishna thus: If one finds a hand or a foot which he perceives is not broken off an idol, but has the form of objects specially prepared for worship, it is then prohibited, for the heathens erect a kind of altar for such objects, where they put them for worship.

It was taught: R. Johanan prohibits an idol that was broken by itself (i.e., without the coöperation of a human being), while R. Simeon b. Lakish allows it. The former advances the reason that the broken idol was not yet profaned by any one, while according to the latter, the breaking is sufficient profanation, for people would say: How could this idol save others when it cannot save itself? R. Johanan objected to Resh Lakish, it reads [I Sam. v. 4, 5]: "And the head of Dagon and both the palms of his hands were cut off upon the threshold. . . . Therefore do the priests of Dagon . . . not step on the threshold of Dagon," etc. (whence it is obvious that an idol, even when broken by itself, is still held sacred by the heathens!) Hereupon the other replied: This proves nought against my opinion; the heathen, in the cited case, said that the supreme god has abandoned the Dagon, dragged up to the threshold of the temple, and only then he was reconciled, wherefore they regard the threshold as sacred, but not more the Dagon. Then R. Johanan went on to object: The Mishna allows the using of fragments from images, whence it follows that fragments from images but

not from actual idols are allowed; and R. Simeon b. Lakish rejoined: Thus, you must needs infer that only broken images are allowed to the exclusion of whole images that are forbidden, since the Mishna here is not concerned with idols; and this is R. Mair's opinion, quoted without the mention of his name. This admitted, the following may be advanced against R. Johanan's view, remembering that we conclude from the words of R. Mair to those of the rabbis: R. Mair prohibits whole images, but allows fragments therefrom; hence we say: The rabbis prohibit whole idols, but fragments therefrom they, too, allow. Why, then, does R. Johanan forbid idol fragments? Simply because images do not have the same relations as idols and are not, therefore, comparable with them, for as to images it is wholly uncertain whether or not they were worshipped. Assuming, then, that they had been worshipped and we afterward found a broken image, are we not justified in further assuming that some one has broken it purposely, whereby it has been indeed profaned, and thus its use is allowed? On the other hand, regarding real idols, it is certain that they were worshipped; what is uncertain here is whether the found broken idol was of itself broken or by the coöperation of a human being. Now, it is well known that an uncertainty cannot negate a certainty; and it is on the basis of these considerations that broken images are allowed and broken idols are forbidden. R. Johanan was further arguing: It is taught that a heathen can profane the idol of his fellow heathen as well as his own, while an Israelite cannot profane the idol of a heathen. Why, then, should we not consider an idol profaned by an Israelite as one broken of itself? Said Abayi, The foregoing teaching is to be thus understood: Only then is the idol not profaned, when the Israelite by means of hammer exerted pressure upon its face. But have we not learned that such pressure, even if not attended with breaking, suffices to profane the idol? Well, this is to say that when the heathen does it, but not when an Israelite, who, in order to profane an idol, must break off a piece therefrom. Rabba, however, said: Properly speaking, the idol is profaned when the Israelite presses in its face; however, the rabbis feared, lest the Israelite should preserve such an idol before its face is pressed in by him, and then, upon becoming the possession of an Israelite, it cannot be any longer profaned. R. Johanan advanced yet another objection: It was taught: When a heathen uses the stones of Markuliss to pave therewith a street or a theatre, an

[paragraph continues] Israelite is allowed to tread upon such pavement; but he is prohibited therefrom if an Israelite paved with these stones. Why should not the stones be regarded like an idol that breaks of itself? This prohibition was promulgated for the same reason indicated above by Rabha. He made a further objection from the following: If a heathen breaks off a piece from an idol for his own use, the idol is thereby profaned and the Israelite is therefore allowed to use it as well as the severed piece. If, however, the heathen did it with a view to embellish the idol, it is not profaned thereby, and is consequently prohibited; the piece, however, is allowed. But if this be done by an Israelite, both idol and piece are forbidden; because this case is considered analogous to that of an idol broken of itself? This prohibition is likewise based upon the foregoing declaration of Rabha.

Then R. Simeon b. Lakish raised the following objection to R. Johanan's opinion: A bird's nest on the top of a tree belonging to the temple is prohibited to derive benefit therefrom, but if one has derived such, no sin-offering is obligatory. However, such a nest when on a tree of a grove is allowed to be pulled down by a pipe and to be made use of; now, as in all probability the birds use for their nests the wood of the tree they inhabit, these nests are allowed, whence it would follow that the use of a self-broken idol is likewise allowed? Nay, not at all: Here, in the case of the bird's nest that is allowed, such nests are spoken of for the building of which it is known with certainty the birds take the materials from other trees and not from the idol grove. R. Abuhu in the name of R. Johanan, however, said: In the Boraitha it is not the nests, but rather the young birds of the nests that are concerned. The young birds are allowed, provided their nest is pulled down by a pipe (since climbing upon the tree, if allowed, may lead also to the using of the forbidden tree itself). Said R. Jacob to R. Jeremiah b. To'hlipha: Let me explain to you the Halakha in question: The birds in the nests of trees belonging to the temple as well as groves, are allowed, for they fly around; but the eggs in these are forbidden, for they, remaining as they do in the place, derive use from the tree; hence, if I take the eggs, I likewise derive some use from the tree indirectly. Said R. Ashi: Young birds unable to fly are subject to the same rule with the eggs.

MISHNA III.: If one finds vessels with the image of the sun, moon, or of a dragon on them, he must throw them into the salt lake. R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said: Only when these

vessels are of a distinguished character they are forbidden, while insignificant vessels with such images on are allowed.

GEMARA: This Mishna would lead to the conclusion that the heathens worship only the sun, the moon, and the dragon. However, I am in a position to prove that they worship yet other objects. There is a Thosephtha: If one slaughter an animal in the name of the sea, the rivers, the desert, the sun, the moon, stars, planets, or the name of the archangel Michael, or even in that of the smallest gnat, it is considered an offering to the dead. Abayi solved this difficulty thus: The heathens, it is true, are worshipping many an object, but as regards images they worship only those of the objects mentioned in the Mishna; other images serve but to decorate houses and towns. R. Sheshith, who was gathering Mishnaioth for explaining them, taught thus: The images of all the planets are allowed, excepting those of the sun and the moon. All statues are allowed, excepting those of a human being. All pictures are allowed, excepting the image of a dragon.

The master said: The images of all the planets are allowed, etc. How is the case? If to make these images, this is expressly prohibited, as it reads [Exod. xx. 23]: "You shall not make beside me"--that is to say, not to make any representations of my servants in heaven. Hence, what is allowed by the master is not the making, but the finding of such images, which is in accord with the Mishna inasmuch as it prohibits only those of the sun and moon. But again, is not the finding of a statue of a person allowed in the Mishna by implication, while he forbids it? Must we not say, then, that it is the making that is concerned here and is in accord with R. Huna b. Jehoshua? Assuming then that the allowance concerns the making, we are confronted with another difficulty: The last statement prohibits the reproduction of a dragon, which is by law allowed; we should then of necessity have to teach that it is the finding that is allowed, which is in accordance with the Mishna, so that of the three statements in the Boraitha the first and third refer to the finding, while the middle one to the making? Thereupon said Abayi that it is so. Rabha, however, asserted that the three statements have all reference to the finding, and as for the statue of a person, he says, the Boraitha is in accordance with the following: R. Jehudah prohibits also found vessels with the image of a nurse or of a serapis on them. The nurse signifies Eva, who was nurse to the whole world; serapis signifies Joseph, who

was a prince and supplied the whole world with bread, thereby appeasing mankind. The human image and that of a nurse are however, prohibited only when having respectively a measure in the hand and a son in the arms whom she is nursing. The rabbis taught: How does the prohibited dragon image look? Said R. Simeon b. Elazar, it has scales between the joints. R. Assi confines these to the neck joints only. Said R. 'Hama b. Chanina: The Halakha prevails with R. Simeon b. Elazar. Rabbah b. b. 'Hama said in the name of R. Jehoshua b. Levi: I was walking with Eliezer Hakaphar the great, when he happened to find a ring with the image of a dragon on it. While standing still before the ring he noticed a heathen boy pass, and spoke not to him; later an adult heathen came passing by, and to him he said: profane this ring (break a piece off it), and as the heathen did not obey, he hit him till he profaned the ring. This incident taught him three things: (1) A heathen may profane his own idol as well as that of a stranger; (2) only he is capable of profaning an idol, who knows the nature of idol and idol worship, and (3) one may compel the heathen to profane an idol. R. Hanina, however, ridiculed this, saying: Was not R. Eliezer aware of the following Boraitha: When one saves something from a lion, a bear, a leopard, or from the hands of burglars, from a river, or picks up what the sea-waves thrust upon the shore, or while crossing a stream, or simply in the street, the theatre, or generally in a place where many people pass, all this, be it what it may, he can consider his own, for the owner having lost his property in this manner or in such a place, has surely abandoned the idea of finding it. In the light of this consideration it is obvious that the heathen owner of the ring, having lost it in the street, has renounced the hope to find it, and thereby profaned it as an idol; why, then, was it according to R. Eliezer necessary to profane it again? Abaye explained it thus: The owner of this ring has, it is true, given up the idea of getting it back as property, but continues to consider it an idol which, if found by a heathen, will be worshipped, and if by an Israelite, he will surely sell it to a heathen; hence the fact of being lost does not Profane the idol, and R. Eliezer was in the right.

"R. Simeon b. Gamaliel says," etc. Which objects are the distinguished and which the insignificant ones? Said Rabh: Vessels that are not made wet are of the former sort; Samuel, however, maintains that vessels used to eat in are of the insignificant,

while those used as ornaments are of the distinguished kind. Yea, it was taught, there is a Boraitha in accordance with Samuel: Distinguished are the vessels found on arm-bands, nose-bands and finger-rings, while of the insignificant sort are, kettles, pans, pitchers, bed-clothes, towels (and the images found thereon are allowed).

MISHNA IV.: R. Jose said: One may grind the images and scatter them to the wind, or sink them into the sea. Thereupon it was objected: They might turn into dung, and it reads [Deut. xii. 18]: "And there shall not cleave to thy hand aught of the devoted things."

GEMARA: There is a Boraitha: R. Jose met the objection by quoting [ibid. ix. 21]: "And your work of sin, which ye have made, the calf, I took and burnt it in fire, and stamped it, grinding it very small, until it was as fine as dust: and I cast the dust thereof into the brook that descendeth from the mount." The rabbis, however, rejoined: This does not corroborate your view. Moses cast the dust of the golden calf into the water not to destroy it thus, but in order that he might give this mixed water to the Israelites to drink, thus testing who of them worshipped the calf, in the same manner as the test of the bitter water was applied by the priest to detect whether a woman has committed adultery (conf. Numb. v. 18). This is clearly shown from the following [Exod. xxxii. 20]: ". . . be strewed it upon the water and made the children of Israel drink of it." Thereupon replied R. Jose, quoting as follows [II Chron. xv. 16]: ". . . he removed Ma'chah his mother from being queen, because she had made a scandalous image for the grove, and Assa cut down her scandalous image and had it ground up, and burnt it by the brook Kidron," which passage clearly shows that it is allowed to grind up the idol and scatter it to the wind. In the vale of Kidron, he was answered, there is no vegetation. But have we not learned that the blood of the sacrifices from both the inner and outer altar after uniting in the aqueduct was flowing into the vale of Kidron, where it was being sold as dung for the gardens; when one took some of this blood without paying therefor he was to bring a sin-offering; hence, there were gardens in the vale of Kidron? Yea, but there are there also great expanses void of all vegetation. R. Jose was then further arguing, it reads [II Kings, xviii. 4]: ". . . and stamped in pieces the copper serpent that Moses had made," etc. And it was retorted: This is no corroboration of your view, for it reads

[paragraph continues] [Numb. xxi. 9]: "And the Lord said unto Moses, Make (to) thyself a serpent"; here the word (to) 'thyself' indicates that Moses was to make the serpent of his own metal, whence it follows that when in later times the Israelites began to worship it, the serpent did not become an idol whose use is forbidden, for others' property, even when worshipped, cannot become an idol whose use is prohibited; accordingly, King Hiskia was not obliged to destroy the serpent in question, but had in some way or other to render it impossible to be the object of worship for the Israelites. Rejoined R. Jose, hence [II Sam. v. 21]: "And they left their idols there; but David and his men scattered them"; hence, scattering suffices (and that R. Jose interpreted the word Vaissuom = scattered them--correctly, may be shown yet from R. Joseph's interpretation of [Is. xli. 16]: "Scatter them so that the wind carry them off.") He was again answered: Nor does this quotation bear you out, for it reads [I Chron. xiv. 12]: "And they left their idols there, and David had them burn with fire." Now that the first-cited verse is from "Samuel, and this one from I Chronicles, the two cannot be understood literally; but the right inference is that word vaissuom means: he picked them up, i.e., he carried them off in order to make use of them. The apparent contradictions of the two quoted verses are explained by R. Huna thus: At first David ordained to burn the idols, since the Israelites could not possibly profane them; but before this order was executed, the heathen, Ithai the Gethite, had come and profaned the idols, whereupon their use became permitted, and therefore David had them carried away. Similarly we find [II Sam. xii. 30]: "And he took the Crown of Malkam from off his head; its weight was a talent of gold and had precious stones, and had it put upon the head of David"; now, how could he make use of the crown of an idol? It was again Ithai the Gethite who, according to R. Na'hman, had first profaned it. But look here, how could David's head carry a crown of a talent? R. Jehudah in the name of Rabh explains this figuratively to mean: The crown was worthy of adorning the head of David. However, R. Jose b. 'Hanina said that the crown was kept in the air by the force of a magnet, and David was sitting beneath it, so that it looked as if he had it on. But R. Elazar said: David actually had the crown on his head, but it was not of a talent weight, as it consisted only of precious stones, its worth amounted to that of a talent in gold.

It reads [Psalm, cxix. 56]: "This was accorded to me, because

[paragraph continues] I observed thy commands." What is the word "this" to emphasize here? David wants to point out this testimonial he obtained for the said observance. What testimonial? Said R. Jehoshua b. Levi: This is the crown which had the peculiarity to fit only (to) him who possessed the kingdom, and the fitting was on the spot where the Thephelin are carried. [II Kings, xi. 12]: "And he brought forth the King's son, and put the crown upon him, and (gave him) the testimony." The crown is the princely diadem, but what is the "testimony"? Said R. Jehudah in the name of Rabh: This crown was itself testimony in the same time, as it fitted only him to whom the kingdom belonged, i.e., to the house of David.

It reads [I Kings, i. 5]: "And Adoniyah, the son of Chaggith, exalted himself, saying, I shall be king, and he procured himself a chariot and horsemen and fifty men who ran before him." Said R. Jehudah in the name of Rabh: Adoniyah imagined that the crown will fit him, but this was not the case. What kind of distinctive marks had the mentioned forerunners? We were told that their spleens were cut out, and the flesh was removed from their footsoles in order that they might run with greater speed.

MISHNA V.: Peroklas, the son of a philosopher, asked once R. Gamaliel at Ako, who was then bathing in the bath of the goddess Aphrodite: Your law prescribes [Deut. xiii. 17]: "Let nothing of the devoted objects cleave to thy hands"; why, then, do you bathe in the bath of Aphrodite? And he answered: Such questions are not answered--at a bathing place. After he had left the bath he said: I am not come into her domain, but it is she that is come into mine; truly, people do not say: The bath is erected to adorn the Aphrodite, but the Aphrodite is to ornate the bath; moreover, you would not agree for any amount of money to appear before your idol when you are naked or urinating. The Aphrodite, however, stands on the channel, and everybody urinates in front of her. The law says their gods, i.e., to say such toward whom one behaves with dignity inspired by something divine; while whatever does not inspire such a behavior, is allowed.

GEMARA: Why did R. Gamaliel at all answer in the bath? Has not Rabba b. b. Hana said in the name of R. Johanan: Everywhere but in the bath and toilet it is allowed to speculate upon subjects of the Law? Is it, you think, because be answered him not in the holy tongue? Has not Abayi said that

indifferent matters may be spoken of in the holy tongue and be it in the bath or toilet room, while holy subjects must not be discussed in these places, not even in another tongue (than the holy one)? There is a Boraitha: R. Gamaliel gave, indeed, no answer, until he had left the bath, when he said: In a bathing place one is not to answer. R. 'Hama b. Joseph said in the name of R. Oshia: R. Gamaliel gave Peroklas an evasive answer; but I (Hama) say it was not evasive. The evasiveness of the answer apparently consisted in that he said, this (Aphrodite) stands on the channel, and everybody urinates in front of her; thereby R. Gamaliel wanted to prove that the Aphrodite is profaned and he may, therefore, use her, which is not the case; because Rabha said: The front site of the very idol Peor is used as a toilet-room, and yet it is not profaned thereby; consequently, the Aphrodite is not profaned either by the fact of urinating before her. None the less, I am about to prove that R. Gamaliel's answer was, after all, not evasive. The Peor and the Aphrodite are incomparable; the worship of the former consists in excrementing before it, while that of Aphrodite was not of this kind, wherefore she is actually profaned thereby. Abayi, however, said: The evasiveness lies in his saying, I am not come into her domain, but she is come into mine, whereby he surely meant that if he came into her domain, she would be prohibited, which is not the case, since we have learned that a garden or a bath-house belonging to an idol, is allowed when offered gratis, but not for pay. Thus R. Gamaliel was allowed to bathe there even if the place belonged to the Aphrodite, hence, the evasiveness of his answer; but I say this was not evasive because assuming that the bath belonged to the Aphrodite, R. Gamaliel could not go in there, for the heathens would have considered it a honor if so distinguished a personage had gone to their bath and be it gratis. R. Simi b. 'Hyye said: The evasiveness in the answer did not consist in what has been here recited, but in what R. Gamaliel said further: It stands on the channel and everybody, etc., whereby he intends to indicate that the Aphrodite is profaned, whereas we have learned that by spitting or urinating before the idol, or by dragging it in the dirt, one does not profane it; but I (Simi) say it was not evasive, as such act as described here one may have committed once when moved perhaps by anger, but then he might become reconciled; while there, in the case of the Aphrodite, this takes place daily and is therefore a real profanation. Rabba b. Ula

said: R. Oshia thought to have found the evasive point in what R. Gamaliel said: People do not say that the bath-house is erected to adorn the Aphrodite, but, etc., whence it would follow that if the reverse were the case, the visiting of the bath would be forbidden, whereas we have learned: When one says, this house or this goblet be devoted to the idol, he said nothing, for only such objects as are actually sacrificed to the idol, are forbidden. Hence, the bath in question would not be prohibited. And I, Rabba, say: R. Gamaliel's answer was after all not evasive, because admitting that the bath-house is not offered as a sacrifice to the idol, it is none the less put up as a decoration for it, and then it would indeed be prohibited.

MISHNA VI.: The mountains and hills worshipped by heathens are allowed to use, but not the things brought upon them, for it reads [Deut. Vii. 25]: "Thou shalt not covet the silver or gold that is on them, so that thou wouldst take it unto thyself." R. Jose the Galilean says, it reads [ibid. xii. 2]: "Their gods on the mountains," but not their mountains as gods; "their gods on the hills," but not their hills as gods. Why, then, is a grove prohibited? Because it is established by the hand of man, and whatever is made by human hand is forbidden. Hereupon said R. Aqiba: I should explain and interpret this statement thus: Wherever you find a high mountain, an elevated hill, a leafy tree, there is surely an idol there.

GEMARA: What is the point of difference between the opinion expressed by the first Tana of the Mishna and that of R. Jose? Said Rami b. 'Hama in the name of Resh Lakish: It concerns the covering of mountains, which the former prohibits by reason of its having been brought up on the mountain, while the latter allows it because, being, as it is, fastened to the mountain, it is to be treated as the mountain itself. R. Sheshith, however, said: Nay; R. Jose, too, prohibits it, and their point of difference is in the following: A tree worshipped after it has been planted and grown to be big, is, according to the first Tana of the Mishna, allowed by reason of its being worshipped after it has taken root on the mountain, while R. Jose prohibits it because it was planted by human hands. This view is shared also by R. Jose b. Jehudah, who says, it reads [Deut. xii. 2]: "Ye shall utterly destroy all the places whereon . . . (they) served their gods, upon the high mountains, and upon the hills, and under every green tree," whence it follows that the gods on the mountains, and not the mountains themselves, are forbidden;

similarly with the hills. Lest the inference be drawn that what is put under the tree is forbidden but not the tree itself, it reads in the next verse: "Their groves ye shall burn with fire," i.e., the tree is likewise prohibited. But why is it stated: "Under every green tree"? This is explained in the sense of R. Aqiba's statement in the Mishna. Now, how does the first Tana of the Mishna, who allows the tree, explain the verse, Their groves, etc.? He understands this to mean such groves that were originally planted for worship, and they are forbidden, but trees not purposely planted for worship are allowed even when worshipped later. On what does R. Jose b. Jehudah base this, his view, if not on the verse "Their groves," etc.? On the following [ibid. vii. 5]: "Their groves ye shall cut down," whence it is obvious that only what is cut down is forbidden, but not the roots, and this can be only with a tree worshipped after it has been planted. Now the question arises, how does the first Tana of the Mishna infer from this last verse? What R. Jehoshua b. Levi said: As the Israelites came into the promised land, they were ordained to cut down all the groves they might find before, and to burn the trees after the conquest of the land had been completed. Wherefore the one verse speaks of hewing down, and the other of burning, the groves. As R. Joseph reads [ibid. vii. 5]: "Ye shall tear down their altars," and there is here no call for carrying them off, hence they must be left where they are; "Ye shall break their pillars," and no mention is made of carrying them off. But how can R. Joseph say that these objects be left in their places, when it is obligatory to burn all things belonging to the idol? R. Huna said: Prosecute first and then burn. Whence is this order of events known to R. Joseph? From [ibid. xii. 2]: "Abedtbeabdun," the one meaning literally: to destroy, ye shall destroy, hence it is a reference to two successive events. As to the first Tana, he understands this redundancy as calculated to indicate that both idol and all its belongings, the subterranean included, be utterly annihilated. While R. Jose b. Jehudah infers this radical destruction from [ibid. xii. 3]: "And ye shall annihilate their names from the same place." The first Tana, however, explains this as to mean: A town or place bearing the name of an idol should be renamed. Here is a Boraitha to this effect. R. Eliezer says: The verse, Ye shall annihilate their name, etc., means that while annihilating an idol it is obligatory to search also under the ground for its belongings. Said R.

[paragraph continues] Aqiba to him: This obligation is inferred from the foregoing redundancy of "to destroy and you shall destroy," while the last-mentioned verse is to indicate that a town bearing the name of an idol must be renamed. As to the nature of the new name, it must not be indifferent, i.e., neither a honor nor a disgrace to the idol, for it reads [ibid. 7]: "Thou shalt utterly detest it and thou shalt utterly abhor it for it is accursed,". hence, the name must always be either a detest or abhorrence. E.g., if the name was originally Beth Galia, i.e., House of revelation change it to Beth Karia, i.e., House of concealing; Ein Kol, i.e., The all. seeing eye, change to Ein Kotz, i.e., the thorn-eye.

The schoolmen propounded the following doctrine in the presence of R. Sheshith: Mountains and hills worshipped by heathens are allowed, but the worshippers should be executed by sword. Worshipped shrubs and ferns are forbidden and their worshippers are to be executed. Said R. Sheshith: Your doctrine is in accordance with R. Jose b. Jehudah, who said: A tree even if not planted with the purpose of worshipping it, is forbidden if worshipped afterward; in like manner are worshipped ferns and shrubs prohibited, though not destined for worship when planted. But what prompts R. Sheshith to interpret the schoolmens' proposition regarding shrubs and ferns as meaning that these were not planted expressly for worship? Because as they are treated of together, he finds it more natural to say: just as mountains and hills have not been created for worship, in like manner have not the ferns and shrubs been sowed and planted for worship.

It was taught: If stones absolved fortuitously from a mountain rock that was worshipped, is their use allowed or not? Two opinions, one affirmative, the other negative, are held as regards this question, the contending parties being the sons of R. 'Hyye and R. Johanan. However, the affirmative side contends that the stones are treated as the mountain which, if worshipped, is allowed by reason of its not being made by man. The objection that the mountain is immovable while the stone is movable, may be met thus: Worshipped cattle, though movable, is, except for the temple, allowed, for it does not owe its origin to man, hence the same may apply to the stone in question? If you were to dispute the comparison, one of the terms compared being possessed of life while the other one not, it may be answered that the mountain is also a lifeless being, but is allowed; the conclusion returns, for a mountain is not like cattle and vice versa;

but their common point is that they are not made by man, hence the inference that all objects not made by man are allowed, and the stones here are of this category.

Asked Rami b. 'Hama: Is it allowed to use the stones of a worshipped mountain for an altar, or it is here a case analogous to that of a worshipped cattle which cannot be offered as sacrifice, though it is allowed to slaughter it and to eat the meat thereof? The two are hardly analogous: the cattle is itself sacrificed, while here the stones are first blasted off, and besides they are not sacrificed as such. Therefore the two cases cannot follow the same rules. Rabha decides the case by an a fortiori argument--viz: The law permits to make common use of a prostitute's remuneration, regardless of whether it is of a movable or immovable nature, but it is prohibited to use even the latter for God, as it reads [Deut. xxiii. 88]: "Thou shalt not bring unto the house of the Lord either the reward of a prostitute nor the exchange for a dog"; whence the conclusion: since the movable worshipped object is forbidden even for common use, the more so will an immovable worshipped object be forbidden for God. Said R. Huna b. R. Jehoshua to Rabha: Since the provision of the Law with reference to the immovable remuneration of the prostitute is not specific, the process of your a fortiori argument may rather be reversed, i.e., we may reason from the rigorous to the lenient thus: We know that worshipped movable objects are prohibited even to man, and yet the immovable is allowed for the temple, because it reads: "Their gods on the mountains" to exclude the mountains which are not regarded as gods and which are therefore allowed; consequently, since the prostitute's reward, which is not treated so rigorously as worshipped mountains, is even if movable allowed to man, the more should it be allowed, in its immovable form, for the case of the temple. This, my view, can by no means be objected to from the phrase into the house of the foregoing verse, which you might attempt to interpret thus: If one give to the prostitute as her reward a tree or a stone grave, these objects are not to be used for the amelioration of the temple; because the said phrase has a totally different meaning, as is shown from the following Boraitha: "Thou shalt not bring it into the house of thy Lord," whence it follows that it is allowed to purchase for the prostitute's reward a red cow, for such one is not brought into the Lord's house, but was burnt outside the city; so said R. Eliezar, while the sages held: The phrase into the house

teaches that it is prohibited to take the said reward in order to buy for it gold wherewith to decorate the walls of the temple. Rejoined Rabha: As in this case the reasoning may be pursued both from the rigorous to the lenient and from the lenient to the rigorous, we must take account of the established rule to reason from the rigorous to the lenient, and not vice versa. Said R. Papa to Rabha: Ye cannot prove the foregoing rule to be inconvertible, as we find a case where it was proposed to reason from the lenient to the rigorous: when the day of preparation to Passover happens to he on a Sabbath and there was one who, having become unclean through contact with a dead body, counts on this Sabbath the last day of his uncleanness, so that, in order to cleanse him, the water of ashes of the red cow must be sprinkled upon him, an act which is not otherwise allowed to perform on Sabbath, R. Eliezer allows the performance of this act in this case in order that the unclean one receive his cleansing, as it was his duty to eat from the Easter lamb. R. Aqiba, however, forbids it. Thus you see that while R. Eliezer reasons from the rigorous to the lenient (compelling thereby the unclean to eat from the Easter lamb), R. Aqiba reasons from the lenient to the rigorous (freeing thereby the unclean from this duty). Hereupon rejoined Rabha: This case is not apt to prove anything; the opinion of neither one is correct; it was R. Eliezer himself who once taught to R. Aqiba that sprinkling of the ashes on Sabbath is forbidden, but he then forgot all about it, so that his disciple, R. Aqiba, attempted to gently remind him in the above controversy; but as he did retract his view, R. Aqiba said to him: All your reasoning cannot convince me, for you told me yourself that the sprinkling on Sabbath is in this case forbidden.

MISHNA VII.: If a house situated close by a worship-house of an idol crumbles down, its owner is prohibited from rebuilding it, but he must recede four ells into his property and then build; but if the house and the said worship-place have the wall in common he should count in a half of the thickness of the wall. Stones, wood, and rubbish thereof are defiling as reptiles; for it reads [Deut. vii. 26:] "Thou shalt detest it." R. Aqiba said, it is defiling like a menstruant woman, for it reads [Isa. xxx. 22]: "Thou wilt cast them away like Dovoh (menstruation)," i.e., as a menstruant woman defiles by carrying, so an idol, too.

GEMARA: But if the wall recedes four ells the idol will

thereby become more spacious! Said R. 'Hanina of Sura: This space should be made a toilet-room, or a hedge of thorns be fenced between the idol and the vacant space.

MISHNA VIII.: There are three kinds of houses: (i) a house originally built for idol worship is prohibited; (2) if calcimined, repaired or somewhat renewed for idol-worship, then it -is necessary to take off it only the new additions; (3) a house into which an idol was placed but thereafter removed from it, is allowed.

GEMARA: Rabh said: A house that is worshipped is prohibited; whence it is manifest that he shared the opinion that a movable object rendered immovable (like a house that is made up of movable materials) and then worshipped, must be treated as if it were still movable, and is therefore forbidden. And when the Mishna limits the prohibition only to a house originally built for idol-worship, thus allowing by implication a house built without such express purpose, it is because it treats of a house which was immediately upon its completion destined for idol-worship, but has not yet been worshipped, and prohibits it none the less; while Rabh forbids it after it has been worshipped. But if such be the case, the Mishna would have four points to treat of instead of three! The answer is that a house originally destined for idol-worship and a house that was already worshipped are treated of alike, hence the Mishna regards but three laws.

MISHNA IX.: There are three kinds of stones: (1) a stone originally hewn for a statue is prohibited; (2) if calcimined and decorated, or otherwise somewhat renewed for idol-worship, then only the new additions must be taken away; (3) if one had placed an idol upon it but it was afterward removed, it is allowed.

GEMARA: R. Ami said: A calcimined and decorated stone is forbidden only when the lime penetrates it through its crevices. However, since the provisions of the houses precede those of the stones, and a calcimined house is forbidden it would appear natural to prohibit a stone, too, even when the lime has not penetrated it. But the fact is that the house is forbidden also because the lime penetrates its walls; otherwise it would not be forbidden. However, as the Mishna makes no mention of this circumstance, we could suppose thus: When a house once calcimined is afterward again calcimined and only thereafter used for idol-worship, the lime could not penetrate such

a house, and yet it is prohibited; hence, R. Ami's words must be understood as follows: The stone is allowed provided the lime that penetrated its crevices when calcimined has been afterward removed. And if not for this, R. Ami's statement, it would have been plausible to believe that such a stone, the lime having penetrated it, must be treated as one originally hewn for a statue and is therefore forbidden.

MISHNA X.: There are three kinds of groves: (1) a tree originally planted for idol-worship is prohibited; (2) if it was clipped and trimmed or somehow otherwise altered for the idol, only the alterations must be removed; (3) a tree under which an idol was put, but thereafter destroyed, is allowed.

GEMARA: Said the disciples of R. Janai: The clipped and trimmed tree spoken of in the Mishna is prohibited only when branches were engrafted thereon, but not when it was merely trimmed. Now that the Mishna makes no mention of this restriction, the foregoing statement must be thus understood: If branches are engrafted in such a tree but then removed, it is allowed; and if not for this statement one could entertain the opinion that a tree in this condition must be treated as one originally planted for idol-worship, and is therefore forbidden.

R. Samuel said: When a worshipped tree sends forth, after being worshipped, new twigs, they, too, are prohibited. R. Elazar objected thereto on the ground that the Mishna prohibits the tree only when clipped and trimmed or somehow otherwise altered, without mentioning aftergrowth. This apparent contradiction (between Samuel and the Mishna) is thus explained: The Mishna gives the opinion of the rabbis, who allow a tree not purposely planted, but afterward used, for worship; the Mishna accordingly allows all that grew on the tree after its being worshipped; while Samuel shares the opinion of R. Jose b. Jehuda, who forbids such a tree unconditionally, and therefore he prohibits its aftergrowth, too. This explanation R. Ashi opposed: Is it at all necessary to assume that Samuel differs with the rabbis? Maybe they, too, hold that the branches growing after the worshipping are forbidden? The point of difference in the respective opinions of the rabbis and R. Jose consists in that the former allow the roots of the worshipped tree on the basis of the verse, "Their groves ye shall cut down," hence, only this is forbidden that can be cut down, but not the roots; while R. Jose prohibits also the roots on the ground of "Their groves ye shall burn with fire"; hence, wholly destroy, root as

well as stem. And lest one say: The rabbis based their opinion upon the verse referred to by R. Jose, who himself made use of the rabbis' verse, whence it would follow that he, thus allowing the roots, too, differs with the rabbis only in respect of the aftergrowth, which he forbids, while they allow it, R. Ashi would meet this objection as follows: This cannot be proven, since R. Jose has never positively cited the verse "Their groves ye shall cut down," the imputation is therefore unfounded; hence, we may say that it is not his opinion. However, the above-quoted verses admit of an explanation in a reversed manner, notably: R. Jose prohibits the roots which the rabbis allow, but as for the branches, newly grown after the worship, the rabbis, too, prohibit them; hence, Samuel is of the same opinion with the rabbis. Also this argument was objected to thus: If such be the case, according to whom is the statement that prohibits the trimmed and clipped tree, thus allowing by implication the aftergrowth? It is not according to the rabbis prohibited, as they prohibit it even if the tree is not trimmed; nor is it in accordance with R. Jose, the author, as he prohibits not only the aftergrowth, but also the roots. (Said R. Ashi): The Mishna can indeed be explained in the sense of either party; for R. Jose forbids the roots of the tree only when they are not cut and trimmed; but as soon as the tree has been clipped and trimmed, it is manifest that the tree was the object of worship, not in its present shape, but only in that appearing after the trimming; this R. Jose forbids, but the roots in such case he, too, declares allowed. Now, in the sense of the rabbis, the Mishna says: "If it was clipped and trimmed," and it was thought that this statement runs contrary to the opinion of the rabbis, who prohibit aftergrowth. But the fact is that the Mishna uses this expression, lest the belief be entertained that the clipping and trimming cause also the roots to be forbidden; hence the expression of the Mishna: "Only the alterations must be removed, all the rest is allowed."

MISHNA XI.: What is a grove? A tree with an idol under it. R. Simeon said: Any tree that is worshipped. In Cidon there was once a tree that was worshipped, and a heap was found under it. R. Simeon said: Search this heap. The heap was searched and an image was found underneath; whereupon he decided: As they worship only the image, we may allow the tree.

GEMARA: The Mishna asks now what is an idol-grove;

have we not learned in the preceding Mishna that there are three sorts of idol-groves? This is true; however, in reference to the first two kinds, all agree, while with regard to the last kind, the other sages differ with R. Simeon, who upholds that it cannot be at all called an idol-grove. What, then, is the criterion whereby to distinguish a tree as an idol-grove? Said Rabh: When priests sitting under a tree abstain from eating its fruit, it must be an idol tree. Samuel said: A date tree is to be regarded an idol when priests who are picking its dates say: "These dates are for the house of Nezraphi"; because they prepare of these dates beer in which they indulge in the said house. Said Amemar: I have heard from the elders of Pumbeditha that the Halakha prevails with Samuel.

MISHNA XII.: It is not allowed to sit down in the shade of such a tree; if, however, one chanced to sit there, he is clean. Nor is it allowed to pass under it, and if one did pass he is unclean. If its branches inclined upon the public grounds and one passes under it, he is clean.

GEMARA: "If one chanced to sit down he is clean." Is not this self-evident, since he did not touch the tree? Said Rabba b. b. Hana in the name of R. Johanan: This is merely to state that sitting in the shade of the height of the tree does not defile. Shall we assume that he is allowed to sit down? Nay; it comes to teach us that even if he sat down under the tree itself, he is also clean.

"Nor is it allowed," etc. The reason of this uncleanness is this: It is positively to be assumed that under such a tree there are always remnants of idol sacrifices which are, according to R. Jehudah b. Bethira, capable of defiling him who is with them under the same shelter. As in the following Boraitha, R. Jehuda b. Bethira said: We know that idol sacrifices defile whatever is with them under the same shelter, from [Psalm, cvi. 28]: "And they joined themselves unto Ba'al Pe'or, and ate the sacrifices of the dead." Here the sacrifice to the idol is compared to that of the dead; hence, as latter is defiling, so is former.

"If its branches," etc. The schoolmen propounded the following question: How should this expression be understood, as meaning he already passed, or that all going is allowed? Said R. Iz'hak b. Elazar in the name of 'Hiskia: The latter is intended by the Mishna, while R. Johanan thinks the former meaning is the proper one. These two views may, however, be

reconciled thus: R. Iz'hak has in view the case where there is no other road, hence, necessity allows all going under the tree, while R. Johanan has in view the case where there was yet another one.

In the place where R. Sheshith lived there was such a tree, and whenever he had to pass by it he, being blind, said to his guide: Pass me by as quickly as possible. (Says the Gemara): If there was yet another road he was not allowed there, and if not, he had the right to pass by here. What was, then, the speeding by necessary? The answer is that there was but this only road, and R. Sheshith, who was a prominent scholar, wanted (on his own account) to pass it as quickly as he could.

MISHNA XIII.: Under such a tree is allowed to sow herbs in the winter, but not in summer. Lettuce is not allowed to sow in either winter or summer. R. Jose said: Even herbs must not be sowed in winter either, for their leaves, when falling down, would turn dung for the tree.

GEMARA: The statement of R. Jose makes it manifest that he is of the opinion that two causes of which one is allowed and the other one prohibited do, when working together, bring about a forbidden effect. (In the case before us there are two causes fostering the growth of the herbs: the dung and the soil; former is forbidden, latter allowed; hence, he prohibits the effect.) On the other hand, the rabbis who do not share this opinion allow the herbs. However, in another place (iv. Mishna of this chap.) we find these two contending parties interchange their respective views. It is true, the apparently contradictory tenets of R. Jose may be reconciled thus: He allows where the idols were ground down, as the effect here cannot even become dung, but in the present case the falling leaves surely turn into dung, hence his prohibition. But how should we explain the rabbis' contradiction? It may be explained as R. Mari b. R. Kahana said: "In proportion as the hide rises in price, one loses on the meat." In like manner it can be said here of the herbs: What the dung promotes, the shade of the tree hinders; hence, as there is no use of the leaves, the rabbis allow. Said R. Jehudah in the name of Samuel: The Halakha prevails with R. Jose.

Once a garden was ameliorated with the dung of an idol; R. Amram let interrogate R. Joseph as to how one should behave with regard to the fruit of this garden, and the answer was: R. Jehudah said in the name of Samuel, the Halakha prevails with R. Jose.

MISHNA XIV.: To derive any benefit of wood obtained from an idol-grove is prohibited. The stove heated therewith must be destroyed if new yet, but if old already, it must be cooled off. Bread baked therewith is prohibited for any benefit; if it was mingled with other bread, they are all forbidden. R. Eliezar says: The worth of its benefit should be cast into the salt lake. However, the rabbis responded: There is no redemption in case of idol-worship. The same is the case with a loom made of this wood and with the garment wrought therewith. If such a garment was mixed up with other garments and these again with others the benefit of them all is forbidden. R. Eliezar, however, said: Cast their worth into the salt lake, and he was answered: There is no redemption from idol-worship.

GEMARA: The Mishna must lay down both the cases of the benefit of wood, for bread-baking and for garment-making; for if the former case alone were stated, there would be reason to think that R. Eliezar allows the use of the bread only when its worth has been cast into the sea, for as soon as the bread is entered in the oven, the prohibited object, the wood, is, properly speaking, no more, having been consumed by the fire; while in the case of a garment made with the aid of such wood, his prohibition is absolute, since the wood is all the time in existence. On the other hand, if the Mishna treated only the garment-making, there might rise the belief that the garment is forbidden by reason of the perennial existence of its instrument, while bread, where the wood was consumed by the fire, the rabbis agree with him. Hence, the establishment of both the cases. Said R. 'Hisda: I was told by Abba b. R. 'Hisda that Siera said, the Halakha prevails with R. Eliezar. Said R. Ada b. Ahaba: R. Eliezar, notwithstanding this his doctrine, prohibits the use of the wine in all the barrels if one cask of forbidden wine was mingled among them. R. 'Hisda, however, asserts that this wine, too, is allowed by R. Eliezar, provided its worth has been cast into the sea. It once happened that a cask of forbidden wine was mixed among other casks of allowed wine; whereupon R. 'Hisda was interrogated as to how to behave in. this case, and his answer was to cast four zuz into the river and then we will allow the wine.

MISHNA XV.: How is the idol-worship of a tree profaned? If the heathen cuts down from it dry twigs or fresh branches, a staff or a rod., or even if he takes from it only a leaf, it is profaned.

If, however, all this be done in the interest of the tree, it remains forbidden; and if not in its interest, it is allowed.

GEMARA: The question as to how to behave toward the dry twigs and other pieces cut off the tree is discussed by R. Huna and R. Hyya b. Rabh. The one allows and the other forbids the use of these objects. This positive view is borne out also in the following Boraitha: When a heathen trims his idol, the question arises, does he do it in order to use the thus obtained wood, or in order to adorn the idol? If former be the case, both the wood cut down and the idol itself are allowed, while in the latter case the wood is allowed but not the idol. If, however, the trimming was done by an Israelite, all is forbidden, irrespective of the aim in view, because the idol of an Israelite can never be profaned. It was taught: If an idol broke down by itself, what is to be done? Rabh said: Each and every piece of it must be singly and severally profaned before its use is allowed, while Samuel maintains that an idol can be profaned only in its ordinary shape. But how is this to be understood; does not the contrary seem to be the case? Samuel means to say, then, that only an idol that is in its ordinary shape needs be profaned. The point of difference, however, here is concerning an idol not broken by itself but one that is made of small pieces, such that even a layman could put together or take apart. It is of such an idol that Rabh says it is not profaned when out of its joints, because even a layman can restore it, while according to Samuel it is not considered as an idol as soon as it loses its shape.

Chapter III

MISHNA I.: An anointed priest who has sinned and thereafter was removed from his office, and a ruler who has sinned and was removed from his dignity, the former brings a bullock and the latter a he-goat. However, if both have sinned after they were removed from their offices, the priest in question brings a bullock and the ex-ruler is considered as a common man.

GEMARA: To what purpose is it needed for the Mishna to state that when he has sinned before the removal from his office he is to bring a bullock, as the same is the case even if he did so after the removal? It was necessary because of the law that a ruler after the removal of his dignity is considered common.

Whence is this deduced? From what the rabbis taught [Lev. iv. 3]: "Shall he bring near for his sin," which signifies that he has to bring an offering for his previous sin. While concerning a ruler it reads [ibid. 22]: "If a ruler should sin," which signifies that if he has sinned while he is still a ruler, but not when he becomes common.

MISHNA II.: If they were appointed to their respective positions after they had sinned, they are treated as private persons. R. Simeon, however, says: If they become cognizant of their malfeasance before their appointment, they are liable; but if after, they are free. What is meant by ruler? A king, for it is stated [Lev. iv. 22]: "If a prince sins and performs one of the commandments of the Lord his God," etc.; hence, a prince who has above him no one but the Lord his God.

GEMARA: Whence is this deduced? From what the rabbis taught [ibid., ibid. 3]: "If the anointed priest do sin to bring guiltiness," which excludes the transgressions he had committed before he was anointed. This could be deduced by a fortiori argument, thus: A ruler who is liable to a sin-offering for an erroneous act is not liable for his acts before he became a ruler. The anointed who is liable for forgetting an erroneous act, so much the less should he be liable for his previous acts. And should you say that with a ruler it is different, as he is not liable

after his removal from office, to a sin-offering for his sin while he was still a ruler, which is not the case with the anointed? To this it reads in the above-cited verse "the anointed has sinned," which signifies only for that sin which he committed while he was already in his office. On the other hand, on a fortiori argument could be used to make a ruler liable for his sin before he ascended the throne, if not for the verse cited above concerning him.

The rabbis taught: "A ruler who will sin," lest one say that such is the heavenly decree that he shall sin, to this it reads, "If the anointed will sin," which means if it will happen so, and the same is with the ruler.

The rabbis taught: "A ruler should sin" to exclude him who was sick with leprosy, as it reads [II Kings, xv. 5]: "And the Lord afflicted the king with leprosy, and he was a leper unto the day of his death, and he dwelt in the free-house. 1 And Jotham the king's son," etc. What does it mean, free-house? Was he until that time a servant or a slave? Yea; as it happened with Raban Gamaliel and R. Yehoshua, who were on a boat; the former has prepared bread for food, and the latter prepared bread and fine flour for food. And when the bread of R. Gamaliel was consumed by him he relied upon the fine flour of Yehoshua. And to the question of the former: Were you aware that there will be a delay in the journey, that you took with you so much food, he answered: There is a star which appears once in seventy years that makes the captains of the ships err, and I thought perhaps it will appear now and make us err, I therefore prepared more food. Said Gamaliel: You possess so much wisdom and still you are compelled to go on a ship to make your living. And he rejoined: You are wondering about myself, how would you be surprised if you knew about two disciples of yours who are on the land--viz.: R. Elasar Chasma and Johanan b. Goodgada, who can imagine how many drops of water there are in the sea and nevertheless have no bread to eat and no garment for dress. R. Gamaliel then made up his mind to make them officers in the best places of the congregation, and when he returned home he sent for them, but they did not appear; be sent again for them, and when they came he said to them: Do you think that the appointment to such high offices which I am about to confer on you, will make you rulers? Nay;

slavery I give to you, as it reads [I Kings, xii. 7]: "If thou wilt this day be a servant unto this people," etc.

R. Na'hman b. R. 'Hisda lectured; it reads [Eccl. viii. 14]: "There is a vanity which is done upon the earth, that there are righteous men"; happy are the righteous whose fate is like that of the wicked in the world to come; and woe is to the wicked whose fate is in this world like that of the righteous in the world to come. Said Rabha: May not the righteous be rewarded in both this and the world to come? Therefore, said he, "Happy are the righteous whose fate is like the fate of the wicked in this world, and woe is to the wicked whose fate is like that of the righteous in this world."

R. Papa and R. Huna b. R. Jehoshua came to Rabha and the latter questioned them if they have learned thoroughly such and such tracts of the Talmud, to which they answered: "Yea." And to his question: Have you become a little rich so that you have time to study properly? They rejoined: Yea; as we bought little grounds. He then applied to them the above-cited verse.

Rabha b. b. 'Hana said, in the name of R. Johanan, it reads [Hos. xiv. 10]:"For righteous are the ways of the Lord; and the just shall walk in them; but the transgressors will stumble through them"; whereby Lot and his two daughters are meant. To the latter who intended to do a meritorious act, the verse "the just shall walk in them" is applied, and to him who intended to commit a crime, the last words of the same verse are applied. And whence do we know that he has intended to commit a crime? Was he not compelled to this action? It was taught in the name of R. Jose b. R. 'Huni: Why is the vav of the word bkumah [Gen. xix. 33] pointed? Because he (Lot) was not aware at the start, but when she got up he became aware of his act. But what could he do; there was no remedy to what has already passed? He ought to have drunk the second evening.

Rabba lectured [Prov. xviii. 19]: "A brother offended is harder than a strong town"; by this Lot is meant, who separated himself from Abraham. "And quarrels [among brothers] are like the bars of a castle"; it is Lot who made Israel to quarrel with the nation of Amon [Deut. xxiii. 4].

Rabha or R. Itz'hak lectured [Prov. xviii. 1]: "He that separateth himself [from God] seeketh his own desires: at every sound wisdom is he enraged"; by the first part of this verse

[paragraph continues] Lot is meant, who separated himself from Abraham; and by the second half the punishment of Amon and Moab is meant, of whom a Mishna states the prohibitions of mingling with them are forever lasting. Ula said: Tammar sinned, and kings and prophets were her issues. Zimri sinned and tens of thousands of Israel fell. (How great a difference!)

"What is meant by ruler," etc. The rabbis taught: It reads "A prince." Lest one say a prince of a tribe as, e.g., Na'hshan b. Aminodob, it reads: the above-cited verse [Lev. iv.] and [Deut. xvii. 19], concerning a king, it reads: "He shall fear the Lord his God"; now, as there no one but his God is his superior, so also here.

Rabbi questioned R. Hyye: I, who am a prince, am I liable to a he-goat? And he answered: There are your rivals in Babylon; Rabha objected to him from the following: Kings of Israel and the kings of the house of David have to bring their offerings separately? And he answered: They were not dependent each upon the other, while we are dependent on those in Babylon.

R. Safra taught the above as follows: Rabbi questioned Hyye: I, e.g., who am a prince, am I liable to a he-goat? And he answered: In Babylon there is a tribe (Shebet), etc. (See Sanhedrin).

MISHNA. III.: And who is the anointed priest? He who was consecrated to priesthood by the holy ointment and not merely by the many (8) raiments. However, between these two kinds of priests there exists no other difference except the bullock-sacrifice attending the violations of any of the commandments. Nor is there any difference between the priest in office and the retired priest except the bullock of the day of atonement and the tenth of the Eifah. Both are equal as regards the services on the day of atonement, the command to marry a virgin, the prohibition from marrying a widow, from defiling themselves to a dead relative, from wild-growing of the hair, from tearing their garments; finally both effect through their respective deaths the return of the homicide from exile.

GEMARA: The rabbis taught: In the oil for anointing which was made by Moses, they used to soak the roots, so R. Jehudah, etc. (Here it is repeated from Tract Kherithoth, 5 b. to 6 b., and as there is its proper place, we omit it here.)

The rabbis taught: The anointed, and lest one say it means the king, it adds "the priest." And lest one say, that also be who was sanctified by his dress only, therefore "the anointed."

[paragraph continues] But still one may say that it means the priest anointed for the war time, therefore and "the anointed priest," i.e., the distinguished one who has no one anointed over him.

"There is no difference between the anointed," etc. Our Mishna is not in accordance with R. Nair, as he holds that he who was sanctified by the eight dresses, has to bring a bullock for the transgression of all the negative commandments which are to be found in the Scripture; while the sages did not agree with him. But how can you say that our Mishna is in accordance with the rabbis? Does not the latter part state, "There is no difference between a priest who is still in his office and one retired, but concerning the bullock of the day of atonement and the tenth of Eipha," all which can be only in accordance with R. Nair, as we have learned in the following: If it happened to the high-priest a thing which makes him temporarily unfit for service, so that he was substituted by another priest, then the former returns to his office and his substitute remains with all the obligations of a high-priest, so R. Nair; R. Jose, however, maintains that the substitute is no more fit either as a high-priest or as a simple one. And he added: It happened to Joseph b. Ailim of Ceporas that something made him temporarily unfit, to serve as high-priest, and another one was substituted, and his brethren the priests did not allow his substitute to be either a high-priest or a common one: a high-priest because of animosity, and a common one because of the rule that one may be raised in sanctification but not lowered; hence, we see that the first part of the Mishna is in accordance with the rabbis, and the second with R. Mair. Said R. 'Hisda: So it is. But R. Jose said: It is in accordance with Rabbi, who edited the Mishna in question in accordance with different Tanaim. Rabha, however, said: It is in accordance with R. Simeon, who holds with R. Mair in one case, but differs with him in the other. (The difference of opinion of the above Tanaim is translated already in Tract Joma.)

The Mishna states: "Except the five things which are said in the portion regarding a high-priest." Whence is this deduced? From what the rabbis taught [Lev. xxi. 10]: "And the priest that is highest among his brethren," means the high. priest. "Upon whose head anointing oil hath been poured," means that who was appointed for the war. "And who hath been consecrated to put on the garments," means that who was sanctified by the garments only; and to all them it says,

[paragraph continues] "Shall not let the hair of his head grow long, and his garments shall he not rend. Neither shall he go in to any dead body," etc. And lest one says that they all may perform the holy service in the first day in which death occurs in his family, it reads, "For the crown of the anointing oil of his God is upon him," which means, upon him but not upon his appointed colleague, i.e., the appointed for the war, and as the latter was separated from the above, one might say that he is also commanded to take a virgin; therefore [ibid. 13]: "And he shall take a wife in her virgin state," he and not some other one. However, in the latter case Tanaim differ.

MISHNA IV.: The high-priest rends his garment from below; the common priest, from the top. The former, while in mourning, may offer sacrifices but not eat thereof; the latter, if in mourning, must do neither the one nor the other.

Said Rabh: From below means literally he shall tear from the bottom of the garment. Samuel, however, says: From the bottom of the seam, and on top means on the top of the seam. But both must be on the bottom of the collar.

MISHNA V.: What is more common precedes the less common; the more holy precedes the less sanctified. If the bullock of the anointed priest and that of the congregation are simultaneously ready as sacrifices, the former precedes the latter in all respects.

GEMARA: Whence is this deduced? Said Abaye [Numb. xxviii. 23]: "Besides the burnt-offering of the morning, which is for a continual burnt-offering, shall ye prepare these." Now, as it reads already the burnt-offering of the morning, why was it necessary to state which is for a continual offering? To teach that what is more common precedes the less. And whence do we know that what is more sanctified precedes the less one? From what was taught by the disciples of R. Ismael: "Thou shallst sanctify him," means to every sanctification he shall begin first, he shall make the benediction first, and he shall be the first to take the best share.

"The bullock of the anointed," etc. Whence is this deduced? From [Lev. iv. 21]: "And he shall burn him as he has burned the first bullock." To what purpose was the "first" necessary? To teach that he must make precede the bullock of the congregation in all respects.

The rabbis taught: If the bullock of the anointed priest and that of the congregation were standing, the former precedes the

latter in all respects, because as the anointed one atones and the congregation is atoned, it is but right that be who atones shall precede the atoned one in all respects. And so also it reads [ibid. xvi. 17]: "So shall he make an atonement for himself, and for his household, and for the whole congregation of Israel.

MISHNA VI.: The man has the preference over the woman in respect of preservation of life and of returning a loss. The woman has the preference in respect of dressing and of being ransomed from captivity. If two persons of different sex are menaced with being (sexually) disgraced, the man must be protected first.

GEMARA: The rabbis taught: if it happened that he, his master and his father were in captivity (and he was able to redeem one of them), he himself has the preference over the latter, and his master has the preference over his father. His mother, however, has the preference over all. A sage has the preference over a king of Israel, as if a sage dies we have no equal to him, but if a king dies all Israel are fit for the throne. A king has the preference over a high priest, as [I Kings i. 33]: "Take with you the servants of your lord," etc. A high priest has the preference to a prophet, as [ibid. 34]: "And let Zadek the priest with Nathan the prophet," hence the priest precedes the prophet. The priest anointed with the anointed oil precedes him who was sanctified by his garments. The latter precedes the one appointed for the war, and he precedes him who was removed from office on being blemished, and he precedes segan (vice high priest), and he precedes the Amarkhal. (What does Amarkhal mean? said R. 'Hisda: the head officer of the temple.) The last one precedes the treasurer, and he precedes the head of the watching officer. He (the head) precedes the head of the family priest, and the latter precedes a common priest.

MISHNA VII.: The following precede one another in order of arrangement: the priest, Levite (simple), Israelite, bastard, nathin, proselyte, a freed slave; provided, however, they are equally qualified in learning; but if, e.g., the bastard be a learned man in the Law, while the high priest is an ignorant, the preference is on the part of the former.

GEMARA: "Equally qualified," etc. Whence is this deduced? Said R. A'ha b. R. 'Hanina, from [Prov. iii. 15], "She is more precious than pearls"; ( 1 pninim), which means from the high priest who enters the sanctum sanctissimum.

There is a Boraitha: R. Simeon b. Ia'hai said that it is but right that a free slave have the preference over a proselyte, as the former was brought up with us in sanctity, which is not the case with the latter; however, as a slave has been placed in the category of the "cursed" [Genes. ix. 25], a proselyte has the preference.

The disciples of R. Elazar b. Zadok questioned their master: Why is one more anxious to marry a female proselyte than a freed female slave? and he answered as a reason the slave's being in the category of the "cursed," and also because the proselyte is supposed to have kept herself in chastity, which, as a rule, is not the case with the slave.

They further questioned: Why does the dog know his master, and the cat does not? and his answer was: It is certain that he who eats from what is left by a mouse is apt to have a poor memory, so much the more so the cat that himself consumes the mouse. They questioned again: Why do all these animals (i.e. dogs, cats, and the like) reign over the mice? and he answered: Because the mice are instinctively mischievous, since, says Rabha, they tear even garments; and R. Papa says: They gnaw through even the handle of a pick-ax.

The rabbis taught the following five objects are conducive to one's forgetting his studies: The eating up of the remnants of the mice's or cat's food, of the heart of a cow, the frequent consuming of olives, the drinking of the water left from one's own washing, and, finally, the bathing of one's feet one kept on the other. According to others add yet this: the putting of one's clothes under one's head while sleeping,

The following five are apt to strengthen one's memory: Bread baked on coals, and particularly the consuming of the coals themselves, soft eggs without salt, the frequent drinking of olive oil, of wine flavored with spices, of water left after its use for a dough. According to others add yet this: to dip the finger in salt and consume the latter. According to others add this: the consuming of wheat bread and particularly of the wheat itself.

This Boraitha furnishes a support to R. Johanan who was wont of saying that as an olive causes one to forget one's studies acquired during a period of 70 years, so the oil thereof calls back to one's memory the studies of such a period.

Concerning the consuming of salt on one's finger, according to Resh Lakish this must be done with one finger; while Tanaim differ: according to R. Jehudah it is with one finger and

not two, according to R. Jose two and not three fingers, and the negative sign of it is Kuritzah, i.e. taking a fistful of the meal-offering (done always with three fingers).

The following ten objects are cumbrous to one's studies: passing under the rope of a camel and particularly under the camel itself; passing between two camels, between two women, the passing of a woman between two men, passing through the obnoxious odor of a carcass, passing under a bridge where nature was not running for 40 days, the eating of half-baked bread, of meat taken out with the (spoon with which the scumming is done), drinking from a well streaming through a cemetery, looking on the face of a corpse. According to others add yet, reading the inscriptions on a tombstone.

The rabbis taught: when the prince enters, all the people present in college rise to their feet, without again taking their seats until he tells them to do so. When the chief justice enters. the people occupying two rows of seats facing the entrance rise and remain standing until he takes his seat. If the sage enters, the occupants of one row rise and remain standing until he takes his place. The children as well as the disciples of the sages, if their help in the studies is needful, are allowed to pass over the heads of the people (seated on the floor), but not when their help is not wanted. The children of such scholars who superintend the congregation, if they comprehend the subjects treated of, may enter, sit down with their faces to their fathers and backs to the people; but if not, they have to sit in the opposite order. R. Elicar b. R. Zadok said that also at a banquet these children may be invited for the sake of their parents. If one of them has to go out for physiological requirements he may return, Said Rabha, this is so only when their fathers are still alive and also present.

Said R. Johanan: This Mishna was taught in the time of R. Simeon b. Gamaliel, when he was the prince, R. Nathan the president, and R. Mair the sage of the college. When R. Simeon would enter, the people rose; likewise when either R. Mair or R. Nathan entered the people would rise; said then the prince: If so, there is no difference between me and the others, whereas I should like that a difference be made; and he accordingly enacted the rules laid down in the Mishna. However, this was carried out in the absence of R. Mair and R. Nathan, so that on the morrow when they came and saw the people behind the 2 rows remaining in their seats, they asked the reason thereof, in

answer to which they were told of the prince's enactment. There. upon said R. Mair to R. Nathan: I am the sage and you are the president, let us enact something in our behalf; let us ask R. Simeon to teach us Tract Uktzin (stalks of fruit), and as we are aware that he is not versed therein, we will say unto him [Psal. cvi. 2] "Who can utter the mighty acts of the Lord?" he "who can publish all his praise!" Thereupon we will depose him and you will take his place and I yours. R. Jacob b. Oarshi (Rabbi's master) overheard this plan and was embarrassed as to how he could prevent R. Simeon's reputation from being marred; he then hid himself in back of R. Simeon's attic and began to study aloud Uktzin over again and again, until R. Simeon has noticed it and the idea struck him that something must have happened in the college, to which Jacob would like to draw his attention; he accordingly was quick enough to take up the study of Uktzin, and, indeed, succeeded in acquiring close familiarity with this Tract. On the morrow he was asked in the college, according to the premeditated plan, to lecture on Uktzin which he did, and after he was through he said to them: If my attention had not been called to this Tract, I should have been put to public shame by your plan. On his command, then, R. Mair and R. Nathan were removed from the college. They, however, were circulating in writing, questions and objections and throwing them in to the college; to those that could not be resolved in college, they would themselves write the answers and send them again to college. Said R. Jose to the college: The whole Torah is outside and we should remain inside the college? This pressure urged R. Simeon to allow the relegated to return under the penalty, however, that the Halakhas be not proclaimed in their names. Therefore R. Mair's Halakhas were henceforth classed with the anonymous teachers, and R. Nathan's were given as "according to some." It once happened that both had dreams commanding them to reconcile R. Simeon; whereupon R. Nathan did so, while R. Mair said that he does not yield to dreams as they are nonsense. When R. Nathan came to reconcile him, R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said: Because thy father's (official) belt helped the to be president of the court, must we make thee Nasi (prince)?

Rabbi taught to R. Simeon his son: The anonymous teachers say so and so; interrupted him his son; who are they whose water we imbibe and whose names we do not mention? And he answered: They were the men who conspired to destroy your glory and that of your father's house, rejoined he; [Eccl. ix, 6.]

[paragraph continues] "Also their love, and their hatred, and their envy are now already lost," answered the Rabbi paraphrasing. (Psal. ix.): The enemy is lost, but his ruinous deeds are still existing; said R. Simeon: this would be right if the deeds of the rabbis in question remained effective, but they whom you have in view had only an intention, and one that has never been realized. Thereupon Rabbi taught to him again; so and so was said in the name of R. Mair. Said Rabha: Rabbi, though modest in nature, yet refrained from saying I it was said by R. Mair,' but taught it was said in the name of R. Mair.

Said R. Johanan: R. Simeon C. Gamaliel and the rabbis differed with regard to the following: according to one the erudite scholar, while according to the other, the dialectician, has the preference. A message concerning this point was sent to the west, and the answer thereto was: the erudite has the preference, since every one is in need of the owner of the stored-up wheat. R. Joseph was the erudite, and Rabha was the dialectician, and though the answer of the west was in favor of the former, he did not accept the position of head of the college for 22 years, until Rabha who accepted this position died. During all this time R. Joseph did not invite to his house even a barber, but was himself going wherever he needed.

Abaye and Rabha, R. Zero and Rabha C. Mathma were sitting together at the time when the presidency of the college was vacant, and they have decided that he who will recite a point that will meet no objection be elected to this office. The sayings of them all were objected, excepting that of Abaye which was not; thereupon Rabha noticing that Abaye was raising his head, said to him: Wa'hmeni, begin your lecture (you are the head of the college).

The schoolmen questioned regarding R. Zera who was a genius and in the habit of raising objections, and Rabha C. Mathma who was slow, careful and considerate in drawing conclusions, which of the two types has the preference. This question remained undecided.

END OF TRACT HORIOTH AND OF THE VOL. XVIII., AND ALSO OF THE WHOLE SECTION JURISPRUDENCE.

Footnotes

20:1 Leeser's translation does not correspond.

25:1 Pninim is homonymous with Pnim, which means inside.

JSON: /api/sources/talmud/vol-9-07-chapter-iii.json