תלמוד על שמות 34:36

MISHNAH: Some people bring First Fruits and make the declaration¹The thanksgiving declaration Deut. 26:5–10. It is forbidden to bring profane food into the Temple. If there is no obligation to bring First Fruits then there is a prohibition to bring. If there is an obligation, a dedication must sanctify the First Fruits as Temple offerings., some bring and do not make the declaration, and some do not bring. The following do not bring²The reason is explained in Mishnah 2.: He who plants in his own but provines³He bends a branch of a vine down into the earth and has it reappear elsewhere; cf. Kilaim 7:1, Note 1. into a private or a public plot; and so he who provines from a private or a public plot into his own. If someone plants in his own and provines into his own but a private or public road is in the middle he cannot bring; Rebbi Jehudah says he brings.

HALAKHAH: “Sancta are more stringent than heave,” etc. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, because eaters of heave are vigilant but eaters of sancta are not vigilant⁷Heave as a countryside food is eaten daily by Cohanim but sancta only at the time of their service in the Temple, usually two weeks in a year, or by laity on pilgrimage. The eaters of heave may be expected to follow an exact procedure at all times.. Rebbi Ḥanania said before Rebbi Mana, is that eminence? If it were a thing equal for both but impure for one and pure for the other, that would be eminence. He said to him, explain it if it is connected to sancta⁸If a Cohen happens to eat heave in the week in which he is eating sancta, he may not immerse vessels for heave together with those for sancta since they follow different rules and in this case it it obvious that for one and the same person the rules for sancta are more stringent.. Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if the impure was [heavy] a lb. one does not immerse it⁹The permission for eaters of heave to immerse a smaller vessel inside a larger one holds only if the smaller vessel weighs less than one Roman pound. Cf. Babli 21a.. Abba Shaul said, also for heave one immerses only a basked or a willow-basket¹⁰Greek γύργαθος.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, Abba Shaul and Rebbi Simeon said the same, as we have stated there¹¹Mishnah Miqwaot 8:5., “if one holds a human or vessels and immerses them, they are impure, but if he had rinsed his hands in water they are pure¹²If his hands block the access of the water in the miqweh to even the smallest part of the surface area, the immersion is ineffective. According to R. Simeon it is possible to hold something in the miqweh without obstructing the access of the water.. Rebbi Simeon said, he should hold them loosely so the water may come into them.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is reasonable that Rebbi Joḥanan would agree with Abba Shaul but Abba Shaul not with Rebbi Simeon¹³Abba Shaul holds that joint immersion is possible only if the outer vessel is permeable; hands are not permeable.. The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Practice follows Abba Shaul. It was stated thus: Practice follows his words. Rebbi Jonah said, the Mishnah is Rebbi Meïr’s, but the words of the Sages are that one acts thus even for sancta, since finger-holes are no interior; for vessels of sancta all is interior¹⁴Finger-holes while cavities cannot be used to store anything since they have no bottom; they are irrelevant by biblical standards. But it is agreed in the Mishnah that for vessels used for sancta, rabbinic impurity is treated as biblical..

HALAKHAH: “Sancta are more stringent than heave,” etc. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, because eaters of heave are vigilant but eaters of sancta are not vigilant⁷Heave as a countryside food is eaten daily by Cohanim but sancta only at the time of their service in the Temple, usually two weeks in a year, or by laity on pilgrimage. The eaters of heave may be expected to follow an exact procedure at all times.. Rebbi Ḥanania said before Rebbi Mana, is that eminence? If it were a thing equal for both but impure for one and pure for the other, that would be eminence. He said to him, explain it if it is connected to sancta⁸If a Cohen happens to eat heave in the week in which he is eating sancta, he may not immerse vessels for heave together with those for sancta since they follow different rules and in this case it it obvious that for one and the same person the rules for sancta are more stringent.. Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if the impure was [heavy] a lb. one does not immerse it⁹The permission for eaters of heave to immerse a smaller vessel inside a larger one holds only if the smaller vessel weighs less than one Roman pound. Cf. Babli 21a.. Abba Shaul said, also for heave one immerses only a basked or a willow-basket¹⁰Greek γύργαθος.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, Abba Shaul and Rebbi Simeon said the same, as we have stated there¹¹Mishnah Miqwaot 8:5., “if one holds a human or vessels and immerses them, they are impure, but if he had rinsed his hands in water they are pure¹²If his hands block the access of the water in the miqweh to even the smallest part of the surface area, the immersion is ineffective. According to R. Simeon it is possible to hold something in the miqweh without obstructing the access of the water.. Rebbi Simeon said, he should hold them loosely so the water may come into them.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is reasonable that Rebbi Joḥanan would agree with Abba Shaul but Abba Shaul not with Rebbi Simeon¹³Abba Shaul holds that joint immersion is possible only if the outer vessel is permeable; hands are not permeable.. The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Practice follows Abba Shaul. It was stated thus: Practice follows his words. Rebbi Jonah said, the Mishnah is Rebbi Meïr’s, but the words of the Sages are that one acts thus even for sancta, since finger-holes are no interior; for vessels of sancta all is interior¹⁴Finger-holes while cavities cannot be used to store anything since they have no bottom; they are irrelevant by biblical standards. But it is agreed in the Mishnah that for vessels used for sancta, rabbinic impurity is treated as biblical..

HALAKHAH: “Until when may one plough, etc.” It is written¹Shortened versions of this discussion are in the Babli, Roš Haššanah9b, Makkot 8b. In both places, the argument is attributed to the school of R. Aqiba. In Mekhilta deR.Simeon bar Ioḥai to 34:22, it is attributed to R. Jehudah. Practice noted in the next paragraph follows the school of R. Ismael as explained in Mishnah 5. (Ex. 23:12): “Six days you shall do your work but on the Seventh Day you shall rest.” And it is written (Ex. 34:21): “You shall rest from ploughing and harvesting.²The argument is somewhat elliptic. Ex. 23:12 reads: “Six days you shall do your work but on the Seventh Day you shall cease, so that your donkey and your ox may rest and the son of your bondsmaid and the stranger may recuperate.” Ex. 34:21: “Six days you shall work; on the Seventh day you shall rest, from ploughing and harvesting you shall rest.” It would seem more natural to quote the second verse in toto; this is the approach of the commentaries which emend the first quote away but such an approach is impossible since our text clearly quotes two different verses. The explanation is in the Mekhiltot(deR.Ismael,Massekhta dekhas pa, p. 331; deR.Simeon bar Ioḥai,Mishpaṭim, p. 217): It says in the Ten Commandments, that “six days you shall labor and do all your work.” Hence, one could think that the Sabbath has to be kept only if all work is permitted on weekdays. This would exclude the Sabbath days of the Sabbatical year since most agricultural work is forbidden in the Sabbatical. Hence, the verse Ex. 23:12 is necessary to include the Sabbath days of the Sabbatical years; this only makes sure that Ex. 34:21 is redundant as far as both Sabbath day and Sabbatical year are concerned.” Where do we hold? If one speaks about the Sabbath of Creation³The Sabbath day., was it not already said (Ex. 20:9): “Six days you shall labor and do all your work?” If one speaks about Sabbatical years, was it not already said (Lev. 25:3): “Six years you shall sow your field and six years you shall prune your vineyard?” If it cannot refer to the Sabbath of Creation nor to Sabbatical years, let it refer to the prohibition of the first two terms⁴The “two terms” are the two periods during which agricultural work has to cease before the onset of the Sabbatical year, one for orchards and one for fields.. “You shall rest from ploughing and harvesting,” from ploughing when harvesting is forbidden; what is this? This is ploughing in the year preceding the Sabbatical in preparation of the Sabbatical. And from harvesting when ploughing is forbidden, what is this? That is the harvest of Sabbatical growth after the Sabbatical.

⁷This paragraph and the next are from Šabbat 7:2 (9c, 1. 11 ff.), as will be seen in the commentary. The variant readings refer to that text. The introductory section is from Šabbat 7:1 (9a, 1. 20–24), the one variant in spelling there is noted by: א.
Mishnah Šabbat 7:2 states that on the Sabbath, 39 different activities are forbidden. This means that a person who violates the Sabbath unintentionally may be liable for up to 39 purification sacrifices. The question then appears whether in other cases multiple sacrifices also are necessary. Rav Zakkai stated before Rebbi Joḥanan: If somebody sacrificed, burned incense, and poured a libation in one forgetting⁸He committed idolatry but forgot that sacrificing, burning incense, and pouring libations are forbidden as idolatrous actions, or he was conscious that these acts are part of idolatry but forgot that idolatry was forbidden., he is guilty for each action separately⁹In the Babli, Šabbat 72a, Sanhedrin 62a, the positions of R. Joḥanan and R. Zakkai are switched.. Rebbi Joḥanan told him, Babylonian! You crossed three rivers with your hands¹⁰Tigris, Euphrates, and Jordan. and were broken. He is guilty only once! ¹¹The sentences in braces are unintelligible here; they refer to and are quoted from a discussion in Šabbat 7:1 (fol. 9a) which deals with the introductory sentence to the chapter of purification offerings, Lev. 4:2: “Speak to the Children of Israel, saying: If a person sins unintentionally against any commandments of the Eternal that are not to be broken, and did from any one, from those.” This implies that sometimes a purification offering is due for violating one prohibition, and sometimes one sacrifice is valid for a number of those. In general, the answer depends on what was unintentional. If a person does not know that today is Sabbath, for all he does wrong he owes one sacrifice. If he knows that it is Sabbath but forgot what is forbidden, he owes one sacrifice for each category of forbidden work. The problem is first whether this principle also applies to idolatry, the sacrifice for which is not described in Lev. 4 but in Num. 15:22–26, and second what is the status of the details enumerated in the Second Commandment, in particular why a detail, “do not prostrate yourself before them” is mentioned before the principle “do not serve them”.{Before he broke¹²The reference to “breaking” here is a continuation of R. Joḥanan’s criticism of Rav Zakkai (who in the Babli is Rebbi Zakkai): If the Second Commandment is considered a unit, there are no “those” to be applied to idolatry. If all activities mentioned are separate rules, how can one bring only one sacrifice? in his hand there is “one” but not “those”; after he broke in his hand there are “those” but not “one”.} Rebbi Abba bar Mamal asked before Rebbi Ze‘ira: Should he not be guilty for each action separately? As you say for the Sabbath: “Do not perform any work¹³Ex. 20:10.,” principle. “Do not light fire in any of your dwelling places,¹⁴Ex. 35:3.” a detail. Was not lighting fire subsumed under the principle, but it is mentioned separately from this principle! Since lighting fire is special in that it is the work of a single individual¹⁵A forbidden action on the Sabbath which is executed only by the common effort of several people is not prosecutable. and one would be guilty for it alone, so everything for which alone one is guilty¹⁶Needs a separate sacrifice. This is an application of the 9th hermeneutical principle of R. Ismael: Any detail which was subsumed under a principle but is mentioned separately in order to instruct, was not mentioned for itself but to explain the entire principle [Sifra Introduction 2; Pereq 1(1)]. In the text this is called “principle and detail”, which in the technical language of the Babli refers to the completely different rule No. 5 [Sifra Introduction (1,7)]. In Mekhilta dR. Ismael p. 347 the argument is attributed to R. Jonathan (who in the Babli, Šabbat 70a, appears as R. Nathan.)
Whether there is a connection between rules 5 and 9 is left open in the Babli, Baba qama 85a, decided in the negative in Menaḥot 55b. Menahem Cahana, in an exhaustive study of the problem (קווים לתולדות התפתחותה של מידת כלל ופרט בתקופת התנאים p. 173–216 in: Studies in Talmudic and Midrashic Literature in Memory of Tirzah Lifshitz) holds that the original Tannaïtic theory knew only of two principles, one which corresponded to the later (Babli, Sifra, Sifry) rules entitled “principle and detail”, “detail and principle”, “principle and detail and principle”; the other one referring to all rules which in Babylonian formulation start with “any detail which was subsumed under a principle”. His arguments support the thesis of the present commentary that Mekhilta, Sifra, Sifry (and Tosephta) in our hands are essentially Babylonian editions.. Also here¹⁷Regarding idolatry.: “Do not worship them,¹⁸Ex. 20:5.” a principle. “Do not prostrate yourself,¹⁸Ex. 20:5.” a detail. Was not prostrating itself included in the principle and why was it mentioned separately? To infer, to tell you that prostrating oneself is special in that it is the work of a single individual and one would be guilty for it alone, so everything for which alone one is guilty¹⁶Needs a separate sacrifice. This is an application of the 9th hermeneutical principle of R. Ismael: Any detail which was subsumed under a principle but is mentioned separately in order to instruct, was not mentioned for itself but to explain the entire principle [Sifra Introduction 2; Pereq 1(1)]. In the text this is called “principle and detail”, which in the technical language of the Babli refers to the completely different rule No. 5 [Sifra Introduction (1,7)]. In Mekhilta dR. Ismael p. 347 the argument is attributed to R. Jonathan (who in the Babli, Šabbat 70a, appears as R. Nathan.)
Whether there is a connection between rules 5 and 9 is left open in the Babli, Baba qama 85a, decided in the negative in Menaḥot 55b. Menahem Cahana, in an exhaustive study of the problem (קווים לתולדות התפתחותה של מידת כלל ופרט בתקופת התנאים p. 173–216 in: Studies in Talmudic and Midrashic Literature in Memory of Tirzah Lifshitz) holds that the original Tannaïtic theory knew only of two principles, one which corresponded to the later (Babli, Sifra, Sifry) rules entitled “principle and detail”, “detail and principle”, “principle and detail and principle”; the other one referring to all rules which in Babylonian formulation start with “any detail which was subsumed under a principle”. His arguments support the thesis of the present commentary that Mekhilta, Sifra, Sifry (and Tosephta) in our hands are essentially Babylonian editions.. He answered¹⁹R. Ze‘ira, answering R. Abba bar Mamal. The translation follows the text in Šabbat.: For the Sabbath, he mentioned the principle at one place and the details at another place. For idol worship, the principle is found close to the detail²⁰In the same sentence. If “prostrating” had been mentioned after “serving”, the 5th hermeneutical principle would imply that the two notions are identical in intent. As the verse stands, it cannot be interpreted as “principle and detail”.. He retorted: Is it not witten: “Do not prostrate yourself before another power”²¹Ex. 34:14.? He did not state the principle and the detail at the same spot! He said, since you do not infer anything from it close up, you cannot infer anything from afar²²Since 34:14 does not teach anything not contained in Ex. 20:5.. The colleagues say, it makes no difference; whether He gave the principle at one place and the detail at another, or gave principle and detail at the same place, it is a matter of principle and detail. For the Sabbath, He first gave the principle and then the detail. For idolatry, He gave the detail and only later the principle²³Therefore, the 9th principle does not apply to idolatry since the detail does not follow after the principle.. Rebbi Yose said, it makes no difference whether ²⁴Text from Šabbat.[He first gave the principle and then the detail or He gave the detail and only later the principle, or He gave principle, detail, and principle²⁵This really is the case for the Second Comandment.]; it is a matter of principle and detail. For the Sabbath, He gave a general prohibition of work, followed by details; for idolatry, He was indeterminate regarding its worship but detailed the worship of Heaven²⁶The prohibition refers to performing for idolatry any ceremony commanded for the worship of Heaven. The case of R. Zakkai really has no connection with the argument about the status of the mention of prostrating oneself in the Second Commandment..

Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: It happened that seven Elders assembled in the valley of Rimmon¹⁵In the South of Judea at a time when the main Jewish settlement was in the Galilee.. Who were they? Rebbi Meïr, and Rebbi Jehudah, and Rebbi Yose, and Rebbi Simeon, and Rebbi Neḥemiah, and Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob, and Rebbi Joḥanan the Alexandrian. They said, how many distinctions have sancta compared to heave¹⁶In all Mishnaiot together. The main difference seems to be whether back and finger-holes are one or two subjects.? Rebbi Meïr says, thirteen. Rebbi Yose says, twelve. Rebbi Meïr said, so I heard from Rebbi Aqiba, thirteen. Rebbi Joḥanan the Alexandrian said, I served Rebbi Aqiba standing more than you served sitting¹⁷He served standing as a member of his household whereas R. Meïr was a student in R. Aqiba’s classes. Therefore his contact was more intensive and extensive.. They said, Rebbi Joḥanan the Alexandrian is a true Alexandrian. They rose kissing, and if any of them had no kaftan, his colleague cut half of his kaftan and gave it to him. And why did they do this? Because all of them were explaining the following verse, each one in seven ways: I shall sing to my beloved, my beloved’s song for his vineyard¹⁸Is. 5:1.. They acclaimed the last one for the versions he found in it. They said, this was Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai. Why were they exerting themselves in this matter¹⁹Convening a meeting at a far-out place in order to proclaim an intercalary month.? They were explaining, saying, molten gods you shall not make for yourself. What is written next? The holiday of unleavened bread you shall observe²⁰Ex. 34:17–18.. They said, anybody able to intercalate a year and he does not intercalate is as if he worshipped strange gods. When they were leaving they said, come and let us record our act. A rock of marble was there. Each of them took a nail and fixed it in it; it descended and sank in as in dough. Until now it is called the rock of nails.

“The `omer<sup>1</sup>The offering of barley grain on the 16th of Nisan to permit consumption of grain from the new harvest; Lev. 23:9–14., and the Two Breads<sup>2</sup>The two leavened breads on Pentecost, Lev. 23:17.., and the shew-bread.” The Mishnah<sup>19</sup>The part of the Mishnah which states that the watchmen over grain for the `omer are paid from public funds. If it were possible to import the grain during a sabbatical year, the expense would be unnecessary and therefore forbidden. is Rebbi Ismael’s, since Rebbi Ismael said, the `omer is not brought from Syria<sup>20</sup>Syria in matters of religious law is the area which was part of David’s empire but not permanently settled by one of the Twelve Tribes. The rules of the Land do not apply biblically but the land is not ritually impure. Therefore grain for use in the Temple could be bought from there.. There, we have stated:<sup>21</sup>Mishnah Menaḥot8:1. The sacrifices referred to are offerings of flour and wine. “All private and public sacrifices come from the Land and from outside the Land, from new or old [grain], except for `omer and the Two Breads, which only come from new grain²²This is not obvious since the `omer permits the profane use of new grain also from outside the Land and the Two Breads permit the use of new wheat in the Tabernacle which according to the Mishnah includes wheat imported from Syria. While the Mishnah states that grain is acceptable from outside the Land, this refers to grain from outside the Land on both sides of the Jordan and Syria only if it remained impervious to the impurity of Gentile lands (i. e., if it was guarded from any contact with water or fluids whose status is like water in this respect.) and from the Land.” Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah, this is Rebbi Ismael’s, since Rebbi Ismael said, the `omer is not brought from Syria²³And certainly not from impure lands.. There, we have stated²⁴Mishnah Kelim1:6.: “There are ten levels of holiness. The Land of Israel is holier than other lands; and what is its holiness? That one brings from it the `omer, first fruits, and the Two Breads, which cannot be from other lands.” Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah, this is Rebbi Ismael’s, since Rebbi Ismael said, the `omer is not brought from Syria. There, we have stated²⁵Mishnah Ševi`it1:5.: “Rebbi Ismael says, since sowing is a voluntary act, also harvesting is a voluntary act. This excludes harvesting the `omer, which is a commandment²⁶This refers to Ex. 34:21: Six days you may work but on the Seventh Day you must rest, from ploughing and harvesting you must rest. According to R. Ismael while this forbids any optional harvesting on the Sabbath, it implies that harvesting required by a religious commandment must be performed on the Sabbath. (Cf. Ševi`it Chapter 1, Notes 43 and 2.)
ג adds here the one-sentence Halakhah Ševi`it1:5 (Note 44)..” Who is the Tanna of “the watchmen for aftergrowth in the sabbatical year take their wages from the disbursement from the lodge”? Rebbi Ismael²⁰Syria in matters of religious law is the area which was part of David’s empire but not permanently settled by one of the Twelve Tribes. The rules of the Land do not apply biblically but the land is not ritually impure. Therefore grain for use in the Temple could be bought from there.. Rebbi Yose said, it is everybody’s opinion. If one would not find in Syria,.one would bring from the aftergrowth in the Land of Israel²⁷While not needed every year, in a year of drought in Syria it might be obvious that one has to look for any available grain in the Land.. Could one sow from the start for the `omer<sup>28</sup>Since the verse Lev. 25:3 introducing the Sabbatical year combines sowing and harvesting, one could make the point that only voluntary sowing in a Sabbatical is forbidden, therefore obligatory sowing leading to obligatory harvesting is permitted.? Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada asked before Rebbi Mana, would he not take the fistful for leftovers than cannot be eaten<sup>29</sup>Only a fistful of the grain brought for the `omer(a tenth of an ephah, about 3.8 l) is burned on the altar, the leftover has to be consumed by the priests in the Sanctuary. But produce sown in a Sabbatical is forbidden; the leftover of the flour could not be consumed.? He said to him, it has a status like the five kinds which can be brought in impurity but may not be eaten in impurity³⁰The leftover has to be burned. The same would happen if all available grain and all available personnel were impure, Mishnah Pesaḥim7:4..

Women, slaves and minors⁵Boys under thirteen years of age. On the exemption of women, cf. Ẓiẓith §1. are exempt from [the commandment of] tefillin. A minor who knows how to take care of his tefillin is subject to the law of tefillin. It is related that Ṭabi, R. Gamaliel’s slave, used to put on tefillin; Michal, Saul’s daughter, used to put on tefillin; Jonah’s wife used to make the festival pilgrimages⁶[For Ṭabi, cf. j.‘Erub. X, I, 26a; for the two women, cf. ‘Erub. 96a (Sonc. ed., p. 665).] to Jerusalem.⁷Although the commandment applied only to males (cf. Ex. 34, 23).

¹⁶The same text appears in Peah 1:6 (Notes 104–109,פ) and Ḥagigah 1:8 (Note 189,ח). Rebbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman: Things have been said orally and things have been said in writing, and we do not know which ones are preferred. From what is written¹⁷Ex. 34:27.: by the mouth of these words I concluded a covenant with you and Israel, it follows that the oral traditions are preferred¹⁸This argument is somewhat specious since the full verse reads: The Eternal said to Moses, write down these words for yourself, because by the mouth of these words I concluded a covenant with you and Israel. In Babli Giṭtin 60b, R. Simeon ben Laqish explains the verse as part of the covenant and states that written verses may not be recited by heart and oral traditions not written down as declared here at the end of the previous paragraph.. Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Yudan bar Rebbi Simeon. One said that if you kept what is oral tradition and kept what is written I will conclude a covenant with you, otherwise I shall not conclude a covenant with you. The other one said, if you watched all that is oral tradition and kept all that is written you will receive your reward, otherwise you will not receive any reward. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said¹⁹The reference is to Deut. 9:10: The Eternal gave to me the two stone tablets, written by the Divine Finger, and on them like all the words that the Eternal spoke to you on the mountain on the day of assembly. The three underlined expressions are all unnecessary for the understanding of the sentence; these are interpreted as referring to the three divisions of oral law contained in the complete Torah. Babli 19b.: On them, and on them; words, the words all, like all;; Bible, Mishnah, Talmud, and Aggadah. Even what a competent student²⁰Arabic ות֗יק “strong, safe, secure, dependable, reliable”. The interpretations of the untrained and incompetent are worthless. will discover²¹Since a student may not rule, or teach, before his teacher, the root of the word להורות must be “to become pregnant,” in this case, with an idea. before his teacher was said to Moses on Sinai. What is the reason? There is something about which one would say, look, this is new! His colleague will answer, it already has been forever²²Eccl. 1:10..

He who has a preponderance of merit inherits paradise. He who has a preponderance of sins inherits hell. What if he is in equilibrium? Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, it does not say “He lifts sins” but rather He lifts sin¹¹Ex. 34:7, Michal 7:18.. The Holy One, praise to Him, removes one document from the sins and the merits tilt. Rebbi Eleazar said, kindness is Yours, o Master, because You repay everyone according to his deeds¹²Ps. 62:13., and if he has none, You give him from Yours. This is the opinion of Rebbi Eleazar, because Rebbi Eleazar said, and much kindness¹³Ex. 34:7., He turns towards kindness.

Rebbi Huna said in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: There is no forgetting before the Holy One, but for Israel He becomes forgetful. What is the reason? He forgives sin¹¹Ex. 34:7, Michal 7:18.; “He forgets²¹Identifying the Hebrew root נשׂא “to carry” with the Aramaci נשׂי “to forget.”” is written. And so David said, You forgot Your people, You covered up all their misdeeds, Selah²²Ps. 85:3.”.

“The sexless.” Everybody agrees that a sexless who was torn open and turned out to be a male³²By an accident or an operation his skin was torn and it turned out that he had penis and testicles. Then he is a male and liable for all obligations of a male. Since a male is required to appear in the Temple on a holiday, but not before, now that he knows that he is a male he is liable like everybody else. on the first day of a holiday is liable. Where do they disagree? On the remaining days. Ḥizqiah said, he shall be seen, he shall be seen³³Ex.23:17,34:23. In both places only Passover is mentioned as going on for 7 days; Pentecost and Tabernacles appear as single holidays. Since the obligation to appear is repeated, it follows that the seven day holiday has to be treated like a one-day holiday. A person not obligated on the one day cannot become obligated later., he who is liable on the first {day} is liable on the second; he who is not liable on the first {day} is not liable on the second. Rebbi Joḥanan said, all seven {days} are make-up for the first. Rebbi Ila said, Rebbi Joḥanan inferred this from the Second Pesaḥ. As Rebbi Joḥanan said there³⁴Babli 2a, 9a, Pesaḥim93a. Since the Second Pesaḥ is biblical institution for people not liable to bring the first of the 14th of Nisan, it proves that make-up days are also for people not liable for appearance on the first day of a holiday., the Second Pesaḥ is make-up for the first, so he says here, all seven {days} are make-up for the first. Rebbi Hoshaia said, all seven {days} are obligatory³⁵They are independent possibilities for fulfilling the obligation of appearance, including the six days following the one-day holiday of Pentecost.. What results between them? A proselyte who converted on one of the other days. In Ḥizqiah’s opinion he is not liable; in Rebbi Joḥanan’s and Rebbi Hoshaia’s opinions he is liable. Is it the same for the impure one³⁶A person impure on the first day, to become pure on a later day.? In Ḥizqiah’s opinion is he not liable; in Rebbi Joḥanan’s and Rebbi Hoshaia’s opinions is he liable? Rebbi Yose said, there he is suitable³⁷Therefore he certainly is not liable for Ḥisqia and R. Joḥanan; the question remains open for R. Hoshaia.; the tearing caused it. But here the impure person himself is not suitable³⁸Mishnah Shabbat19:3. The entire paragraph essentially is found in Šabbat19, Notes 99–109, Yebamot8:1..

How [is the law]? If a first-born son was born to him before he was converted, he is exempt;²³From his redemption (cf. Ex. 34, 20). MS.K. and H read: ‘If a son were born to him or his cow calved or his cow were slaughtered before he was converted, he is exempt’ from the priestly dues. but if after he was converted he is liable; in case of doubt he is exempt. If he had dough ready for baking and a field ready for reaping, until he is converted he is exempt²⁴From ḥallah and the tithe. but from the time he is converted he is liable. If there is doubt he is exempt.

There were seven patriarchs with whom a divine covenant was made, viz.: Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Aaron, Phinehas and David. In connection with Abraham it is written, In that day the Lord made a covenant with Abraham saying.³⁵Gen. 15, 18. In connection with Isaac it is written, But My covenant will I establish with Isaac.³⁶ibid. XVII, 21. In connection with Jacob it is written, Then will I remember My covenant with Jacob.³⁷Lev. 26, 42. In connection with Moses it is written, For after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel.³⁸Ex. 34, 27. In connection with Aaron it is written, It is an everlasting covenant of salt before the Lord.³⁹Num. 18, 19. In connection with Phinehas it is written, And it shall be unto him, and to his seed after him, the covenant of an everlasting priesthood.⁴⁰ibid. XXV, 13. In connection with David it is written, I have made a covenant with My chosen, I have sworn unto David My servant.⁴¹Ps. 89, 4. Perhaps this passage is quoted here to teach men to emulate their special characteristics. Abraham stands as the example of hospitality, Isaac of self-sacrifice, Jacob of scholarship (cf. Gen. 25, 27, where according to Rabbinic interpretation tents means schools), Moses of meekness, Aaron of peace-making, Phinehas of zeal on behalf of God, and David of singing His praise.

If he separated⁶⁵He designated an animal from his herd as his sacrifice for the coming pilgrimage. Since it does not say “he dedicated”, the designation is not a formal dedication. Nevertheless, Mishnah Qiddušin 1:7 states that a promise to Heaven is to be enforced like delivery to a person. his festival offering and died, do the heirs have to bring it? Rebbi Ila said, shall be seen, has to be seen⁶⁶Since the deceased is buried, the designation becomes void.. He who can come brings, he who cannot come does not bring. Rebbi Ze`ira said, following Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Jonathan who both said, you have to redeem any first born of your sons, even after death, and here, they shall not appear before My Presence empty-handed, even after death⁶⁷Ex. 34:20. There seems to be no reason why the redemption of the first-born is mentioned in the same verse as the prohibition to appear in the Temple empty-handed. It is explained that just as the redemption of the first born is an obligation not eliminated by the absence of a father, so the obligation of the sacrifice of appearance is not eliminated by the death of the votary.. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, there is a disagreement between Samuel and Rebbi Joḥanan, regarding what we have stated there⁶⁸Mishnah Qinnim2:5., “A woman⁶⁹After childbirth, which obligates here for a purification and an elevation sacrifice (Lev. 12:1–8.) who brought her purification sacrifice and died, the heirs have to bring her elevation sacrifice. Her elevation sacrifice and she died, the heirs shall not bring her purification sacrifice⁶⁹After childbirth, which obligates here for a purification and an elevation sacrifice (Lev. 12:1–8.).” Samuel said, if it was separated⁷⁰Since a purification sacrifice in all cases is a personal obligation, at the death of the person any purification sacrifice already dedicated as such can neither be sacrificed nor redeemed. If it is not yet dedicated it cannot be dedicated. Therefore it is technically impossible for the heirs to bring her purification sacrifice.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, even if it was not separated. Where do we hold? If they inherited real estate⁷¹By strict talmudic rules only real estate is subject to claims by creditors. The extension of liens to movables is Gaonic, not relevant here. The rule of Mishnah Qiddušin 1:7 creates a lien on the estate only if it contains real estate. Since the woman’s obligation was created at the moment of childbirth, there seems to be no reason why Samuel could limit the obligation., does Samuel say if it was separated? If they inherited movables⁷²In the absence of real estate, according to the rule explained in the preceding Note the obligation should be unenforceable even for R. Joḥanan., does Rebbi Joḥanan say, even if it was not separated? What is the difference between them? If they inherited real estate, in Samuel’s opinion one does neither claim it nor taking pledges for it⁷³The Temple authorities are required to insist on prompt liquidation of all dues to the Temple. The verse (Deut. 23:22) require prompt payment of all vows. By rabbinic interpretation this means before the passing of the next three festivals of pilgrimage. Since there is a time limit, the officers of the Temple are required to ask for the prompt fulfillment of the vow and are entitled to take pledges from the votary to enforce their demand. But since the heirs did not make any vow, the time limit cannot be applied to them and the powers of the Temple officials are limited; for Samuel they are eliminated but not for R. Joḥanan.; in Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion one even takes pledges. If they inherited movables, in Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion one claims it (and is) [but is not]⁷⁴There seems to be no justification for the corrector’s addition. According to Samuel, Qiddušin 1:7 declares that a promise to Heaven is the equivalent of a civil contract; if the contract would become unenforceable, so is the obligation to Heaven. According to R. Joḥanan the obligation can be enforced since the equivalent of the sacrifice was Heaven’s property and as such could not be part of the estate. taking pledges for it. In Samuel’s opinion one does not claim it.

HALAKHAH: From where years¹⁵⁸That the Pentateuch counts years from the Fall equinox.? One verse says¹⁵⁹Ex. 23:16., the festival of gathering at the end of the year, and another verse says¹⁶⁰Ex. 34.22., the festival of gathering at the turn of the year. Which month contains a festival, and a turning point, and the year starts from it? Which one is this? It is Tishre. If you would say Ṭevet, there is a turning point¹⁶¹The winter solstice. but neither festival nor gathering. If you would say Nisan, there is a turning point¹⁶²The spring equinox. and a festival, but no gathering. If you would say Tamuz, there is a turning¹⁶³The summer solstice. point and gathering but no festival. So which one is this? It is Tishre. The colleagues said before Rebbi Jonah: should it not be Tamuz? He told them, it is written, in the seventh month¹⁶⁴Num. 28:24., and your are saying so? They said to him, should it not be Tamuz¹⁶⁵Maybe the month of the fall equinox should be called “Tamuz”.? He said to them, from here on you are quarrelling with me about names of months? As Rebbi Ḥanina said, the names of the months ascended with them from Babylonia. Originally, in the month of Ethanim¹⁶⁶1K. 8:2., in which the Patriarchs were born, and the Patriarchs died, and the Mothers were remembered¹⁶⁷One cannot say that Sarah and Rebecca became pregnant in Tishre, this would contradict the statement that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were born in Tishre. So one has to say that in that month the Divine decree was passed that the mothers should become pregnant. The language is taken from Gen. 21:1. Babli Berakhot29a.. Originally, in the month of Bul¹⁶⁸1K. 6:37., where the leaves are falling, and the earth is made into lumps; where one mixes for domestic animals in the house¹⁶⁹Because in November there is little food to be found in the fields.. Originally, in the month of Ziw¹⁷⁰1K. 6:2, misquoted., which is the splendor of the world, when plants are recognized and trees recognized¹⁷¹In Nisan the growth on newly sown fields is recognizable and fruit trees are blossoming.. From then onwards¹⁷²After the Babylonian exile., it was in the month of Nisan of year twenty¹⁷³Neh. 2:1.; it was in the month of Kislew of year twenty¹⁷⁴Neh. 1:1.; in the tenth month, this is the month of Ṭevet¹⁷⁵Esth.2:16.. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, also the names of angels were in their hands from Babylonia. Originally, there flew to me one of the Seraphim¹⁷⁶Is. 6:6.; Seraphim standing over Him¹⁷⁷Is. 6:2.. From then on, but the man Gabriel¹⁷⁸Dan. 9:21.; but your lord Michael¹⁷⁹Dan. 10:21..

⁶⁵Babli Nedarim38a, Tanḥuma Eqev(9), Ex. rabba46(2). Rebbi Ḥama ben Rebbi Ḥanina said, Moses got rich from the refuse of the tablets. That is what is written⁶⁶Ex. 34:1., cut for yourself two stone tablets. Cut for yourself⁶⁶⁷, the refuse shall be yours. Rebbi Ḥanin said, The Holy One, praise to Him, created⁶⁸B: uncovered. a quarry of precious stones and pearls in his tent, and from this Moses got rich.

A sheet of a Torah scroll must contain not less than three columns and not more than eight. As regards the lines [in a scroll] a reason was given [for four different numbers]: corresponding to the journeys,²⁷The reading of H and GRA. V and M have ‘in the journeys’. forty-two; corresponding to the myriads of Israel, sixty; corresponding to the elders of Israel, seventy-two; and corresponding to the reproofs in Deuteronomy, [36a] ninety-eight; all depending on [the size of] the script.²⁸The larger the characters the fewer the number of lines in a column.
‘Corresponding to the journeys,’ as it is said, And Moses wrote their goings forth.²⁹Num. 33, 2. As the expression of writing (wrote) occurs in the same context as the journeys (goings forth), the number of lines in a written column may be the same as the number of the journeys. ‘Corresponding to the myriads of Israel,’ as it is said, Write thou these words … and with Israel;³⁰Ex. 34, 27. Write and Israel (numbering sixty myriads) occur in the same context. as Israel numbered sixty myriads so may the lines of the Torah be sixty [in a column]. ‘Corresponding to the elders, seventy-two,’ as it is said, Gather unto Me seventy men³¹Num. 11, 16. … there remained … in the camp … of them that were recorded.³²ibid. 26. The number of the elders is found in the same passage as the expression of writing (recorded, lit. ‘written’). ‘Corresponding to the reproofs, ninety-eight,’ as it is said, If thou wilt not observe to do all the words of this law that are written.³³Deut. 28, 58, the words of this law refers to the reproofs numbering 98 and occurs with written in the same passage.
In the case of ḳelaf parchments no limit was prescribed, and one may add [as many lines]³⁴N.Y. explains, ‘sheets’. as desired, provided only there are not less than three columns [to the sheet].³⁵i.e. the lines in a column, or according to N.Y. the sheets, should not be so many as to leave less than three columns for the last sheet of the scroll.

MISHNAH: Any useless¹²For the definition of “useless tree”, cf. Kilaim Chapter 6, Note 40. or fruit trees are considered as if they were fig trees³⁵A fig tree of the size of the tree in question.. If they would produce a fig cake in the weight of a talent of 60 Italic minas¹⁶Since an Italic denar weighed ¹/₉₆ of a Roman pound, or 3.59 g, 60 minas or 6000 denar are approximately 21.5 kg. Maimonides estimates this as 62.48 rotl. He declares (Terumot 4:10) a rotl to be a Roman pound (the common apothecary’s weight in the Middle Ages); in Roman measures, 60 minas are 62.5 Roman pounds. one ploughs the entire bet seah because of them. If less, one ploughs for them only as necessary³⁶Space for the harvester and his basket..
If one tree yields a “fig cake” but two do not, or two do and one does not, one only ploughs for them as necessary, unless there are three, and so from three to nine³⁹The tree must yield at least 20 minas in weight, its share in the 60 minas expected from three trees. The Halakhah will explain the meaning of “from three to nine”.. If there are ten or more than ten one ploughs the entire bet seah because of them, whether they produce or not, since it is said (Ex. 34:21): : “You shall rest from ploughing and harvesting.⁴⁰Without good reason, one may not plough.”
One does not have to mention ploughing and harvesting of the Sabbatical, but it refers to ploughing in the year preceding the Sabbatical in preparation of the Sabbatical, and harvesting of Sabbatical growth after the Sabbatical. Rebbi Ismael says, just as ploughing is voluntary so harvesting is voluntary; this excludes the harvest of the ‘omer⁴³This belongs to the discussion of the verse (Ex. 34:21): : “You shall rest from ploughing and harvesting,” as given in Halakhah 1, Notes 1–4. The only addition is the statement of R. Ismael, that the verse refers to the Sabbath day, on which all ploughing is forbidden; this has no definite date assigned to it. For him, while the verse is formulated as a prohibition, it implies the commandment to cut the sheaf of barley “on the day after the day of rest” following Passover (Lev. 23:15), even if that day should be a Sabbath (the 16th of Nissan for Pharisees, the 22nd of Nissan for the author of the book of Jubilees.) Cf. Mekhilta deR.Simeon bar Ioḥai to Ex. 34:22..

HALAKHAH: ⁶²The main occurrence of this paragraph is in Ḥallah 4:12, on the Mishnah: “Joseph the Cohen brought his First Fruits as olive oil and wine and these were not accepted in the Temple.” That Mishnah seems to contradict the Mishnah here; cf. Šiṭṭah Mequbeẓet,Ḥulin 120b, Note 11. Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: So says the Mishnah, “one does not bring First Fruits as drinks except for those made from olives and grapes,” even after it became property of the owners⁶³The priests serving in the Temple. Since First Fruits were designated as such while still growing, they were already dedicated when harvested and never were property of the farmer.. But did we not state: “If he pressed First Fruits as a drink, from where that he should bring them? The verse says (Ex. 23:19, 34:26), ‘bring!’⁶⁴Since the commandment is repeated, it means “bring in any shape or form.””. That is, if he harvested them from the start for this purpose. But here, if he did not harvest them from the start for this purpose⁶⁵In the interpretation of the Babli, the entire discussion is only about grapes. It is difficult to decide whether this is also the point of view of the Yerushalmi..

“One ploughs the entire bet seah because of them since it is said (Ex. 34:21): ‘You shall rest from ploughing and harvesting.’ ” That refers only to the first part, “one ploughs for them only as necessary because it is said ‘you shall rest from ploughing and harvesting.’ ”.

BARAITHA. Seven patriarchs were under [divine] covenant and they are: Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Aaron, Phinehas and David. Of Abraham it declares, In that day the Lord made a covenant with Abram.¹⁶⁴Gen. 15, 18. Of Isaac it declares, But My covenant will I establish with Isaac.¹⁶⁵ibid. XVII, 21. Of Jacob it declares, Then will I remember My covenant with Jacob.¹⁶⁶Lev. 26, 42. Of Moses it declares, For after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel.¹⁶⁷Ex. 34, 27. Of Aaron it declares, It is an everlasting covenant of salt before the Lord unto thee.¹⁶⁸Num. 18, 19. Of Phinehas it declares, And it shall be unto him, and to his seed after him, the covenant of an everlasting priesthood.¹⁶⁹ibid. XXV, 13. Of David it declares, I have made a covenant with My chosen.¹⁷⁰Ps. 89, 4.
GEMARA. It has been taught: Israel too were under [divine] covenant. Whence is this learnt? As it is stated, For after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel.¹⁷¹Ex. 34, 27. Shall we say that this refutes the view of R. ‘Aḳiba who said: The generation of the Wilderness¹⁷²Cf. Num. 14, 26ff. have no share in the World to Come?¹⁷³Cf. Sanh. 108a (Sonc. ed., p. 738). R. ‘Aḳiba could reply: On the contrary, it is a support of my view: here it is written, and with Israel, and it is written, Behold the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah; not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; forasmuch as they broke My covenant.¹⁷⁴Jer. 31, 30f, in A.J. XXXI, 31f. Because the generation of the Wilderness broke the covenant by their murmurings against God they lost their share in the World to Come, and only when God will renew the covenant with Israel and Judah will they again be entitled to a share. What, then, is the force of the repetition [and] with? It is to include the babes and sucklings [who came out of Egypt].¹⁷⁵With this new generation of Israel God will enter into the new covenant.
Come and hear: [It is written,] Thus saith the Lord, the God of Israel, I have made a covenant with your fathers¹⁷⁶Jer. 34, 13.—this is a refutation of R. ‘Aḳiba! He can reply: This is rather a support for me, for it is written, But your fathers hearkened not unto Me.¹⁷⁷ibid. 14. They therefore forfeited their share in the World to Come. Come and hear: [It is written,] Gather My saints together unto Me; those that have made a covenant with Me by sacrifice!¹⁷⁸Ps. 50, 5. This verse implies that the covenant was binding for all time. This is certainly a refutation [of R. ‘Aḳiba’s statement].

MISHNAH: Jews were sharecroppers for Gentiles in Syria⁶¹The parts of David’s kingdom not conquered by the 12 tribes under Joshua; cf. Peah 7, Note 119. R. Eliezer holds that the laws of the Holy Land extend to Syria but Rabban Gamliel holds that Syria is essentially outside the Land and only selected laws of the Land are extended to apply there.; Rebbi Eliezer obligates their produce for tithes and the Sabbatical but Rabban Gamliel exempts them. Rabban Gamliel says there are two ḥallot in Syria⁶²As explained in Mishnah 8. Biblical law restricts the duty of ḥallah to the Land (Num. 15:18–19). Rabbinic practice extends the obligation to the rest of the world but, since the soil outside the Land is intrinsically impure, any ḥallah outside the Land is impure and must be burned. Nevertheless, in order to remind people that the original duty is to give ḥallah to a Cohen, it was established that some dough should be given to a Cohen. This dough cannot be sanctified, otherwise it would be forbidden to the recipient. but Rebbi Eliezer says one ḥallah⁶³He denies that Syrian soil is impure.. They took the leniency of Rabban Gamliel and the leniency of Rebbi Eliezer but then returned to follow Rabban Gamliel in both cases.
Rabban Gamliel says: There are three domains for ḥallah⁸⁵In the biblical Land of Israel.. The Land of Israel⁸⁶The actual Land of Israel of the Second Commonwealth; cf. Mishnah Ševi‘it 6:1, Note 3, for the geographic details. up to Akhzib, one ḥallah. From Akhzib to the Euphrates or Amanus⁸⁷One has to add, with Mishnah Ševi‘it 6:1, “any place held by the immigrants from Egypt,” i. e., the regions North of Akhzib described as tribal territories in the book of Joshua., two ḥallot, one for the fire and one for the Cohen. The one for the fire has a measure⁸⁸The true ḥallah which cannot be eaten since the impurity of Gentile lands is extended rabbinically to any region not inhabited by Jews. The “measure” is that for ḥallah of the Land, Mishnah 2:7., the one for the Cohen has no measure⁸⁹A purely symbolic ḥallah to be eaten in impurity, as a remembrance of the rules to be restored in the times of the Messiah.. From Euphrates or Amanus inside⁹⁰The rest of Syria, domain of biblical promise; cf. Ševi‘it 6:1, Note 3., two ḥallot, one for the fire and one for the Cohen. The one for the fire has no measure⁹¹Both ḥallot are symbolical since that region was not under obligation of ḥallah even during the First Commonwealth., the one for the Cohen has a measure but a ṭevul yom may eat it⁹²He is forbidden true ḥallah.. Rebbi Yose says one does not need immersion⁹³This also shows that the symbolic ḥallah is no true heave, cf. Berakhot 1, Note 3..
But it⁹⁴The purely symbolic ḥallah mentioned last in Mishnah 8. By rabbinic ordinance, it is forbidden for people whose impurity originates in their own body. is forbidden to people suffering from genital flux⁹⁵Lev. 15:1–15, 25–30., and to women during menstruation⁹⁶Lev. 15:19–24. or after childbirth⁹⁷Lev. 12:1–8.. It may be eaten at one table with a layman and may be given to any Cohen⁹⁸Even a vulgar who cannot be expected to follow all rules of purity..
The following may be given to any Cohen¹²²Irrespective of his level of observance and knowledge of the Law. Some of the prescribed gifts are given to priests serving in the Temple; there, they are under supervision and instruction. The other gifts are purely profane; they cannot be impaired by the impurity of the Cohen.: ḥērem-dedications¹²³Num. 18:14. According to most sources, this special dedication is not for the upkeep of the Temple but for the Cohanim [Sifra Beḥuqotay Pereq12(9), Babli Sanhedrin 88a, Arakhin28a]. However, Babylonian practice follows the dissenting opinion (Arakhin29a)., firstlings¹²⁴Ex. 13:1, Num. 18:15., the redemption money for a [firstborn] son¹²⁵Ex. 13:1,13, Num. 3:47, 18:15., the redemption value of a firstling donkey¹²⁶Ex. 13:1,13., foreleg, jawbone, and first stomach¹²⁷Deut. 18:3., the first shearing¹²⁸Deut. 18:4., oil to burn¹²⁹Impure heave olive oil., Temple sacrifices, and First Fruits¹³⁰Deut. 26:1–11.. Rebbi Jehudah forbids First Fruits¹³¹Since they have to follow rules of heave, Mishnah Bikkurim 2:1.. Heave vetch¹³²This is animal fodder except in times of famine. Rebbi Aqiba permits but the Sages forbid.

BARAITHA. If you desire to learn, do not say of what you do not understand, ‘I understand it’. If you are asked a question about something in which you are not well versed do not be ashamed to say, ‘I do not know’. If you are taught something and you do not understand it, be not ashamed to say, ‘I do not understand it’.
GEMARA. Whence do we learn this? [From David], for it is written, I will also speak of Thy testimonies before kings, and will not be ashamed²⁴Ps. 119, 46.—that is, [to inquire] of Mephibosheth²⁵On Mephibosheth as David’s teacher, cf. Ber. 4a (Sonc. ed., p. 11). how to act, whether to declare it forbidden or permissible.
BARAITHA.²⁶Ned. 62a (Sonc. ed., p. 197). Do good deeds for the sake of their Maker.²⁷i.e. God Who desires them to be done. Or, ‘for the sake of doing them’; cf. Aboth I, 3 (Sonc. ed., pp. 2f.). Do not make them a crown wherewith to adorn yourself, or an axe wherewith to cut. Accustom yourself to take upon yourself the precepts of the Torah [even] at the cost of suffering.
GEMARA. [‘Do not make them a crown’, etc.,] lest you receive your share [of the World to Come] in this world; for he who glorifies himself with the crown of the Torah has no share in the World to Come.²⁸cf. Ned. loc. cit. (Sonc. ed., p. 196): ‘Whoever puts the crown of the Torah to [profane] use is uprooted from the world’. [‘Nor an axe wherewith to cut.’] Do not withhold corn²⁹Figuratively used of the Torah. The comparison is based on Prov. 11, 26. Cf. Sanh. 91b-92a (Sonc. ed., pp. 614f.). from others; for [53b] even the embryos [in their mothers’ wombs] curse him who withholds corn from others. Here³⁰In this Gemara. [only if he is asked to teach] without payment [is he under the curse], but there³¹In the passage quoted from Sanh. even if he is offered payment [and refuses to teach].
[‘Accustom yourself to take upon yourself the precepts’, etc.] It has been taught:³²Sanh. 111a (Sonc. ed., p. 762). Whoever maintains himself by words of Torah, the Torah does not become intimate with him. There³³In the passage from Sanh. it speaks of self-pleasure and here³⁴In this Gemara. Pursue the study of the Torah even at the cost of sleep. of sleep.
BARAITHA. Do not resent an insult to you. A good record and a blameless adolescence [inspire] security and truth.
GEMARA. [‘Do not resent an insult to you.’] How is this meant? [Do not boast,] ‘So-and-so did such-and-such to me and I have not retaliated’. What is meant by ‘a good record’? Do 1 ot [give cause] to be included in the number of the dissolute, lest people say, ‘How many dissolute persons there are here, including you among them!’ ‘And a blameless adolescence.’ But this has already been taught in the preceding chapter!³⁵In III, 12. There it speaks of his actual doing evil and here [of not giving cause for suspicion] against him. ‘[Inspire] security.’ Some say [that this means]: One should have a sense of security so that the Torah becomes rolled³⁶So that he studies Torah with a carefree mind. H reads nikleleth, ‘contained’. up in his heart. Others [explain]: Inspire confidence in those who ask of you. The latter interpretation conforms to the wording of the Baraitha, ‘and truth’, which implies: Do not falsify confidence [which is placed in you].
BARAITHA.³⁷Cf. Aboth III, 16 (Sonc. ed., III, 12, p. 35). Be submissive to a superior, patient under oppression, of cheerful appearance and keep away from sin.
GEMARA. ‘Be submissive to a superior’: that is, to the ruling power. ‘Patient under oppression’: that is, forced labour as happened with R. Eleazar b. Ḥarson.³⁸Cf. Yoma 35b (Sonc. ed., p. 164). When conscripted by the authorities for forced labour, R. Eleazar paid them a large sum of money for his release so that he could continue his study of the Torah. ‘Be of cheerful appearance’: can one [always] keep his appearance cheerful? [Yes]; for when R. Dimi came he said: The man who [by smiling] shows his teeth white [to his fellow] is better than he who gives him milk to drink.³⁹Cf. Keth. 111b (Sonc. ed., p. 723) where the saying is attributed to R. Joḥanan. What is to be derived from this statement? As illustrated by the experience of R. Beroḳa.⁴⁰Cf. Ta‘an. 22a (Sonc. ed., p. 110). Two men passed by R. Beroḳa when Elijah appeared and exclaimed that these men had a share in the World to Come. On inquiring of them what their occupation was, they told the Rabbi, ‘We are jesters, and when we see men depressed we cheer them up’. ‘Keep away from sin’: so that all can speak about you and you have no need to clear yourself of suspicion.
BARAITHA. Refrain from committing a light sin lest it lead you to one that is grievous. Be mindful of a small precept that it may lead you to one that is important.
GEMARA. It has been learnt:⁴¹Aboth IV, 2 (Sonc. ed., p. 44). Ben ‘Azzai said: Run to do a slight precept and flee from transgression. There [it speaks of fleeing from sin] of one’s free will; here [of fleeing] even when under compulsion. [The proof of this is that the Baraitha] teaches, ‘Refrain, etc.’⁴²The Heb. verb means ‘tremble, shake’ and in the niph‘al ‘move backward’; hence, fleeing under compulsion.
BARAITHA. If you desire to gain the love of your friend,⁴³This is the reading of H in agreement with DER I. busy yourself with his welfare. If you desire to keep away from sin consider where it eventually leads. Attach yourself lovingly to the precepts. Be proud and happy to speak diligently and sing of its details.⁴⁴So GRA, who reads פרטיה.
GEMARA. ‘If you desire to gain the love’, etc. As it is written, But thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.⁴⁵Lev. 19, 18. Because you love your neighbour as yourself he is like yourself. ‘If you desire to keep away from sin consider where it eventually leads.’ As it is written, The wise man, his eyes are in his head.⁴⁶Eccl. 2, 14. But the eyes of a fool are in the ends of the earth;⁴⁷Prov. 17, 24. he regards only what is before him and ignores the consequences. ‘Attach yourself lovingly to the precepts’, by respecting those who fulfil the precepts. ‘Be proud’, etc., by inquiring into the reason of a precept.
BARAITHA. If He has bestowed upon you a small bounty, let it be in your eyes as great and you need to give thanks that He cared⁴⁸Reading the root ספן instead of ספר. for you and bestowed bounty upon you.
GEMARA. ‘If He has bestowed’, etc. Whence do we learn this? For it is written, And thou shalt eat and be satisfied, and bless the Lord thy God for the good land which He hath given thee.⁴⁹Deut. 8, 10. And whence do we know that one is obliged [to bless God] although he has not eaten to satisfaction? For it is written, Give the people that they may eat,⁵⁰2 Kings 4, 43. and it is written, And they did eat, and left thereof, according to the word of the Lord,⁵¹ibid. 44. There were twenty loaves with which to feed 100 men, and therefore insufficient to satisfy them; yet they blessed God. The words according to the word of the Lord, on this interpretation, refer back to the passage in Deut., and bless the Lord thy God. [which means] blessing [God]. An objection was raised against this: [It is stated,] He restored the border of Israel … according to the word of the Lord, the God of Israel, which He spoke by the hand of His servant Jonah, the son of Amittai!⁵²ibid. XIV, 25. Here the phrase according to the word of the Lord occurs without reference to thanking God for food. There, too, it was a case of thanksgiving.⁵³For victory and regaining the former territories of Israel. Come and hear: [It is stated,] According to the word of the Lord, which He spoke to Elijah!⁵⁴ibid. X, 17, where again there is no reference to thanking God. There, too, say that [the word of the Lord] implies: Blessed be He Who has fulfilled His promise [to inflict punishment upon the house of Ahab]. Come and hear: [It is stated,] According unto the saying of the Lord, which He spoke by the hand of His servant Aḥijah the Shilonite!⁵⁵1 Kings 15, 29. And if you think it is as you said [that the phrase means thanking God, how will you explain this verse?] There^55a(55a) In the verses cited in the various objections. it is written by the hand of, here⁵⁶In the verses quoted as proof from 2 Kings 4, 43f. it is without any qualification.⁵⁷i.e. without the addition by the hand of, etc.
BARAITHA. If you have done much good let it be in your eyes as little. Say, ‘Not with what belongs to me have I done good’, but ‘with what has been granted to me’.
GEMARA. [We learn this] from David; for it is written, Who am I, O Lord God, and what is my house?⁵⁸2 Sam. 7, 18. and it states, And what can David say more unto Thee?⁵⁹ibid. 20. and it states, And this was yet a small thing in Thine eyes, O Lord God.⁶⁰ibid. 19. What [is the force of] the additional verses which are cited? Should you say: There because He said to him, And I will make thee a great name, like unto the name of the great ones that are in the earth,⁶¹ibid. 9. [David] exclaimed, Who am I?⁶²Although David was a pious man, he felt himself to be unworthy of God’s promise. This would be a support for the statement of the Baraitha. then come and hear: [What is the force of] And what can David say more unto Thee? Should you reply [that it means,] What else can I pray for? then come and hear: He said, And this was yet a small thing in Thine eyes, O Lord God, that is, it is a small thing for Thee but for me it is a very great thing. [It is stated,] But Thou hast spoken also of Thy servant’s house for a great while to come.⁶³ibid. 19. The word also is intended to add something: [David said,] ‘Not only didst Thou praise me, but also of my seed hast Thou declared, And thy house and thy kingdom shall be made sure for ever before thee.⁶⁴ibid. 16.
But Thou hast spoken also of Thy servant’s house for a great while to come: this⁶⁵Reading with H זה (this) for לא (not). means ‘in the days to come’.⁶⁶The Heb. for a great while to come is lit. ‘from afar’, here equated with the hereafter. As the word is interpreted here to refer to the hereafter, it follows that there is another meaning of the word without reference to the hereafter. Whence do we know this? [It is stated,] I will fetch my knowledge from afar⁶⁷Job 36, 3, where the phrase from afar cannot mean the hereafter but the distant past.— to what [does this refer]? To what has happened from the beginning. Raba said: Infer from this that one who knows when the Messiah will come is here speaking of his times:⁶⁸Cf. H’s note ad loc. Hence the verse from Job refers to the hereafter. and this is also how David used [the word]. And what Isaiah⁶⁹The Text reads ‘Jeremiah’ in error for ‘Isaiah’. said must be included in the reckoning of the years,⁷⁰In alluding to the Messianic era Isaiah speaks of it as coming within a year, according to the years of a hireling, and this makes the date of that era more definite. This would be contrary to the indefiniteness conveyed by the days to come. Hence the phrase within a year, etc., must not be taken literally but understood to denote ‘a time in the future’. as it is written, Within a year, according to the years of a hireling, and all the glory of Ḳedar shall fail; and the residue of the number of the archers, the mighty men of the children of Ḳedar, shall be diminished; for the Lord, the God of Israel, hath spoken it.⁷¹Isa. 21, 16f.
BARAITHA. If men have done you much evil let it be little in your eyes. Say, ‘Only a small part of the punishment due to me have I received; I have deserved more’.
GEMARA. Whence do we learn this? From Abraham⁷²Who acknowledged that God dealt with him with more consideration than he deserved. Cf. Gen. 18, 27, who am but dust and ashes. Another possible translation is: ‘The reward from the Maker is greater [than I merit]’. [who exclaimed,] ‘The reward is greater than the labourer [merits]’.
BARAITHA. If you have done a little evil let it be great in your eyes. Say, ‘Woe to me that I have sinned, that a stumbling-block should have chanced to me!’
GEMARA. Whence do we learn this? From the Gibeonites.⁷³Cf. Josh. 9. Raba objected, ‘Must we, then, learn this from the Gibeonites as otherwise we would not know it?’⁷⁴If it were not for the Gibeonites, would such an ethical teaching be unknown from Hebraic sources? R. Aḥa said to him, ‘And why should we not learn it from them? Were they not merged in Israel?’ It is written, And made as if they hath been ambassadors;⁷⁵Josh. 9, 4; the Heb. verb is wayyiẓṭayyaru. and it is also written, This is our bread we took hot for our provision,⁷⁶ibid. 12; the Heb. verb is hiẓṭayyadnu. [which means] they took provisions with them and said, ‘This is the food which we provided for ourselves in our country; behold,⁷⁷Reading הרי for V וקרי. it has become mouldy⁷⁸Heb. niẓṭayyar. because of the length of the journey’. When they had spoken to Israel and the latter knew [the true facts], what is the meaning of [the Gibeonites’ words to Joshua], And now, behold, we are in thy hand?⁷⁹ibid. 25. [Because it is written,] And Joshua made peace with them,⁸⁰ibid. 15. Since Joshua had already made peace with them, why should they have said this to him? and it is written, And the men took of their provision,⁸¹ibid. 14. The men are the Israelites, who believed the story told to them. the Holy One, blessed be He, said, ‘You gluttons, sons of gluttons, who love gluttony, your fathers also acted likewise [when they declared,] We remember the fish.⁸²Num. 11, 5. All food finds its way to the mouth, but My mouth⁸³lit. ‘His mouth’, i.e. God’s command. you do not remember, [as it is stated,] And asked not counsel at the mouth of the Lord,⁸⁴Josh. 9, 14. [Who warned you] in the words, Lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, and they go astray after their gods, and do sacrifice unto their gods, and they call thee and thou eat of their sacrifice.⁸⁵Ex. 34, 15.
Also Joshua was punished on this account. The Holy One, blessed be He, said, ‘Because [the Gibeonites] entreated you [saying], And now, behold, we are in thy hand; as it seemeth good and right unto thee to do unto us, do,⁸⁶Josh. 9, 25. I will bring forth a son from you who will implore Israel in the same manner,⁸⁷Reading sidra with H. [saying,] As for me, behold I am in your hand; do with me as is good and right in your eyes.⁸⁸Jer. 26, 14. The allusion is to Jeremiah’s plea to the princes and people on being arrested for prophesying the destruction of the Temple. Jeremiah was descended from Rahab.⁸⁹Cf. Meg. 14b (Sonc. ed., p. 86) where it is stated that Joshua married Rahab, and Jeremiah was one of their descendants.

Rebbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥmani: Things have been said orally and things have been said in writing, and we do not know which ones are preferred. From what is written (Ex. 34:27): “By the mouth of these words I concluded a covenant with you and Israel¹⁰⁴This argument is somewhat specious since the full verse reads: “The Eternal said to Moses, write down these words for yourself, because by the mouth of these words I concluded a covenant with you and Israel.” In Babli Giṭṭin 60b, R. Simeon ben Laqish explains the verse as part of the covenant and states that written verses may not be recited by heart and oral traditions not written down.;” it follows that the oral traditions are preferred¹⁰⁵A similar argument in the name of R. Joḥanan is reported in Babli Giṭṭin 60b..

“The people from Hyena Mountain brought their First Fruits before Pentecost but they did not accept from them.” ¹⁹¹The discussion is not about the quote from the Mishnah but about Joseph the Cohen who brought his First Fruits as wine and oil. There¹⁹²Terumot 11:3. The text of the discussion is also from there, Notes 62–65. The Mishnah states: “One does not bring First Fruits as drinks except for grapes and olives.” This text is implied in the discussion here., we have stated: “One does not bring First Fruits as drinks.” Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: So says the Mishnah, “one does not turn First Fruits into drinks” even after they became property of the owners. But did we not state: “If he pressed First Fruits as a drink in order to bring them, from where that he should bring them? The verse says (Ex. 23:19, 34:26), ‘bring!’ ”. That is, if he harvested them from the start for this purpose. But here, if he did not harvest them from the start for this purpose¹⁹³But fruits other than grapes and olives may not be made into juice under any circumstances..

When one is writing the Tetragrammaton he may not respond even if the king greets him.²¹All his attention must be concentrated on the sanctity of the divine name. If he was about to write two or three divine names successively,²²E.g. The Lord, the Lord, God in Ex. 34, 6. he may pause between them and respond. After dipping the reed-pen in ink, he may not start with the letters of a divine name²³Because a pen full of ink may cause a blot. but with the preceding letter.²⁴Which, if blotted, can be erased or wiped away. One who erases a single letter of a divine name transgresses a negative commandment. R. Simeon said:²⁵Citing the Scriptural basis of the regulation. On account of this it is stated, Ye shall destroy their name out of that place. Ye shall not do so unto the Lord your God.²⁶Deut. 12, 3f, i.e. the name of God must not be erased.

When one is writing the Tetragrammaton, one may not respond even if the king greets him;²⁰All one’s attention must be concentrated on the writing of the divine name. but if one was about to write two or three divine names successively²¹e.g. The Lord, the Lord, God (Ex. 34, 6) or Deut. 6, 4. one may pause between them and respond.

MISHNAH: The koy¹⁵⁴Since no cognate language has any animal name close to כוי, its identity cannot be determined. It might exist only for the sake of argument.
The Babli (Ḥulin 80b–81a) has a long discussion about the legal differences between the offspring of a he-goat which mated with a hind or a stag which mated with a she-goat. The Babli quotes a baraita which ascribes the opinion of R. Eleazar to anonymous authors, the opinion of the rabbis to R. Yose, and a third, anonymous, opinion that כוי is a wild goat. in some ways follows the rules for wild animals and in some those for domestic animals, in some the rules for both domestic and wild animals, and in some those for neither domestic nor wild animals.
How does it follow the rules of wild animals? Its blood must be covered like the blood of a wild animal¹⁴⁹Lev. 17:13. The blood of domestic kosher animals (cattle, sheep, and goats) may be used for industrial purposes but not that of wild animals or birds.; one does not slaughter it on a holiday¹⁵⁰While one may slaughter on a holiday for immediate consumption and may cover the blood of a wild animal or bird, one may not move earth on the holiday for a questionable case. but if it was slaughtered one does not cover its blood. Its fat can become impure in the impurity of a carcass like a wild animal¹⁵¹Since all fat of a wild animal can be eaten, it is not distinguished from its body and, unless the animal is correctly slaughtered, its entire body becomes impure as a carcass (Lev.11:39); cf. Mishnah Uqeẓin 3:9.; that impurity is one of doubt¹⁵²Since the koy might be a domestic animal. If a person who has become impure by touching fat from a koy carcass visits the Temple enclosure, he cannot be prosecuted but he will induce impurity by his touch. This rule and the one about covering the blood on a holiday are really rules distinct from those valid for domestic or wild animals.. One may not use it to redeem the first-born of a donkey¹⁵³Ex. 13:13 requires that the first-born of a female donkey be redeemed by a sheep or goat given to a Cohen..
How does it follow the rules of domestic animals? Its fat is forbidden like the fat of domestic animals¹⁵⁶Lev. 7:23, prohibition restricted to “cattle, sheep, and goats.”, but one is not punished for it by extirpation. It cannot be bought with tithe money to be eaten in Jerusalem¹⁵⁷Since tithe money should be used to buy well-being sacrifices (Ma‘aser Šeni 1:4) and a koy cannot be a sacrifice. and it is subject to the foreleg, the lower jaw, and the first stomach [to be given to a Cohen]¹⁵⁸Deut. 18:3, the part Cohen’s of profane slaughter of cattle or sheep or goats.. Rebbi Eleazar frees¹⁵⁹The person slaughtering does not have to give away the foreleg, jaw, and stomach. Since these gifts are profane, the Cohen can collect only if he can prove that the koy is subject to these rules. R. Eleazar quoted here is the Tanna R. Eleazar ben Shamua. since the claimant has to bring proof.
How does it differ from both a wild and a domestic animal? It is forbidden as kilaim with wild animals and domestic animals. If somebody writes his wild or domestic animals over to his son¹⁶⁴In a gift document., he did not include the koy¹⁶⁵Since it is neither a wild nor a domestic animal.. If somebody said, I am a nazir if that is neither a wild nor a domestic animal, he is a nazir¹⁶⁵Since it is neither a wild nor a domestic animal.. In all other ways it is like wild and domestic animals; it needs slaughtering by cutting its throat¹⁶⁶Lev. 11:39. like both, and as carcass it is impure like both.

Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: He who has no real estate is free from the appearance since it is said (Ex. 34:24): “Nobody will illegally desire your land¹³⁰“When you go up to appear before the Eternal, your God, three times in the year.”.” It happened that one person left his grain heap¹³¹Unprotected.; when he returned, he found lions surrounding it. It happened that one left a chicken coop; when he returned, he found torn cats before it. One man left his house open; when he came, he found a snake rolled up on its tail¹³²Greek κέρκος, ἡ “tail of an animal” (Explanation of De Rossi.). Rebbi Phineas told the following story: Two brothers in Askalon had Gentile neighbors. These said, if those Jews go up to Jerusalem, we will take all they have. When they went up, the Holy One, praise to Him, alotted to them two angels who came and went in their likeness. When they returned, they sent them¹³³In the entire story from here on, the singular is frequently used for the plural. This happens in several Yerushalmi passages. valuable presents. They said to them: where have you been? They said to them, in Jerusalem. They said to them: Whom did you leave in your house? They said, nobody. They said: Praised be the God of the Jews Who did not let us act and did not abandon them!

¹⁶⁹Babli 36b, Sifra Aḥare Parashah2(4–6), the entire paragraph. The starting sentence was added by the corrector, probably from one of the parallel sources.[It was stated: “How does he confess? “I acted criminally, I rebelled, I sinned;’ and it says¹⁷⁰Ex. 34:7., He forgives crime, rebellion, and sin; and it says¹⁷¹Lev. 16:21., and he shall confess over it all crimes of the Children of Israel, etc., the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, criminal acts are intentional crimes, offenses are rebellions¹⁷²Sins intentionally committed as rebellion against God., sins are inadvertent actions¹⁷³Ševuot 1:3 (Note 114), Babli Ševuot12b, Keritut 25b.. After he confesses about criminal acts he turns around and confesses about inadvertent acts? But he confesses as follows: Please Hashem, I sinned, I acted criminally, I rebelled before You, I and my house (etc..) [and the sons of Aaron. As is written in the Torah of Moses as follows, for on that day he shall, etc. They, answer him: “Praised be the glory of His Kingdom forever and ever”.]¹⁷⁴The text in parentheses is the scribe’s, the one in brackets the corrector’s, probably added from one of the parallel sources. And so we find that confessors do confess. David said¹⁷⁵Ps. 106:6. The vaw added to the last word is from the synagogue service of the Day., we and our fathers sinned, we acted criminally and we led to bad behavior. His son Solomon said¹⁷⁶IK. 8:47., [we sinned,] we acted criminally, behaved badly. Daniel said¹⁷⁷Dan.9:5., we sinned, we actedcriminally, we led to bad behavior, and we rebelled. Also he was confessing thus: I sinned, I acted criminally, I rebelled before You. What means this which Moses said, He forgives crime, rebellion, and sin; and it says, and he shall confess over it all crimes of the Children of Israel, etc.¹⁷⁸How can one explain the illogical order?? But since he confesses to criminal rebellious acts, it is as if they were inadvertent sins before Him.”

MISHNAH: If a man performs preliminary marriage using ‘orlah²¹¹The fruit of a tree in the first three years after planting whose usufruct is forbidden (Lev. 19:23–24; cf. Introduction to Tractate ‘Orlah.) The entire list consists of items forbidden for usufruct. Since marriage is to the man’s advantage, items forbidden for usufruct cannot be used as marriage gifts., or kilaim of a vineyard²¹²While mixtures of seeds are always forbidden (cf. Introduction to Tractate Kilaim), only foreign produce in a vineyard is forbidden for usufruct (Deut. 22:9)., or an ox sentenced to be stoned²¹³An animal which killed a human (Ex. 21:28,29)., or a calf whose neck was broken²¹⁴To atone for an unsolved murder (Deut. 21:1–9); cf. Tractate Soṭah, Chapter 9., or the birds of a sufferer from skin disease²¹⁵The two birds the recovered sufferer from skin disease needs for his purification (Lev. 14:1–7)., the hair of a nazir²¹⁶Which must be burned when his sacrifice is cooked, Num. 6:18., or the first-born of a she-ass²¹⁷This is forbidden for usufruct only before it was redeemed by a lamb, or whose neck broken. Ex. 13:11–13. The question of the biblical root of the prohibition of usufruct is raised in the Halakhah., or meat cooked in milk²¹⁸Ex. 23:19, 34:26, Deut. 14:21., or profane meat slaughtered in the Temple precinct²¹⁹Forbidden for usufruct by rabbinic interpretation., [the woman] is not preliminarily married. If he sells any of these items²²⁰While the sale is sinful, the coins received in payment are not forbidden. and uses their proceeds for preliminary marriage, she is preliminarily married.

Ben Azai preached: “A dead fly will permanently spoil perfumer’s oil.⁶⁵⁸Eccl. 10:1; the translation follows Ibn Ezra.” Does not one dead fly spoil perfumer’s oil? And this person⁶⁵⁹Who has exactly as many merits as he has demerits. The Babylonian sources, Babli 40b, Tosephta 1:14, base a formally similar agument on Eccl. 9:18; but the Babli does not make the difference between the Worlds that are the main thrust of this paragraph. by one sin spoiled all merits he had. Rebbi Aqiba preached: “⁶⁶⁰Is.. 5:14. So the abyss opened wide and its mouth swallowed the one without law.” It does not say “without laws”, but “without law”, him who has not a single merit that should help him on the scale of merit⁶⁶¹The image is always that the deeds of a person are weighed on scales in Heavenly court; the person is found innocent if the scale containing his merits tilts the balance in his favor. A different interpretation is in the Babli, Sanhedrin 111a.. That is, for the Future World. But in this world, even if 999 angels plead for his conviction and one angel pleads for his acquittal, the Holy One, praise to Him, lends His weight to the scale of merit. What is the reason? “If there is for him one angel out of a thousand, to tell a man his straightness. He will act with him in grace and say, let him be redeemed, not go down to destruction; I found weregilt⁶⁶²Job 33:23–24..” Rebbi Joḥanan said, if you find a saying of Rebbi Eliezer, son of Rebbi Yose the Galilean, bend your ear like this funnel and listen, since Rebbi Joḥanan reported that Rebbi Eliezer, the son of Rebbi Yose the Galilean, said: Even if 999 angles plead for his conviction and one angel pleads for his acquittal, the Holy One, praise to Him, lends His weight to the scale of merit. Not only this entire angel, but if 999 aspects of that angel plead for conviction and one aspect for acquittal, the Holy One, praise to Him, lends His weight to the scale of merit. What is the reason? It does not say, “if there is for him one angel of a thousand,” but “one out of a thousand”, one aspect out of a thousand aspects of that angel. What is written afterwards? “He will act with him in grace and say, let him be hurt, not go down to destruction; I found weregilt.” “Let him be hurt,” by suffering⁶⁶³R. Eliah Wilna points out that the Talmud reads פְּדָעֵהוּ as Aramaism, equivalent to Hebrew פְּצָעֵהוּ (cf. Onqelos and Pseudo-Jonathan to Ex. 21:25).. “I found weregilt,” he found means to redeem himself. That is, in this world. But in the Future World, if he has a majority of merits, he inherits paradise; a majority of sins, he inherits hell. If he was 50–50. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, “he carries his iniquity.⁶⁶⁴Ex. 34:7, Micah 7:18. R. Yose ben R. Ḥanina holds that the person with an equal number of merits and demerits is found guilty. But in Peah1:1, Sanhedrin 10:1, and the Babli, Roš Haššanah17a, R. Yose ben R. Ḥanina is credited with the opinion attributed here to R. Abbahu, who is not mentioned in the other sources. Everybody seems to agree that in the Heavenly Court, no more than one transgression will be forgiven.” Rebbi Abbahu said, it is written: “He carries.” What does the Holy One, praise to Him, do? He grabs one of his demerits, and the merits decide⁶⁶⁵R. Abbahu holds that the person with an equal number of merits and demerits is found not guilty.. ⁶⁶⁶Babli Roš Haššanah 17b. Rebbi Eleazar said: “You, Eternal, are acting in grace, for You will complete for everybody according to his deeds.⁶⁶⁷Ps. 62:13.” And if he has none, You will give him from Yours. That is Rebbi Eleazar’s opinion, for Rebbi Eleazar said, “You, Eternal, are acting in grace,” this teaches that He turns to the aspect of grace⁶⁶⁸He also holds that the person with an equal number of merits and demerits is found not guilty..

Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Zeˋira: Do not worship them²⁴⁷Ex. 20:5, Deut. 5:9 the Second Commandment., a principle. Do not prostrate yourself before them²⁴⁷Ex. 20:5, Deut. 5:9 the Second Commandment., a detail. For you shall not prostrate yourself before another god²⁶¹Ex. 34:14.; He again stated the principle. Principle, detail, and principle: is nothing covered but the detail²⁶²Since in the Ten Commandments prostrating is mentioned before worshipping, the order really should be detail, principle, principle. Also, in our text of the Introduction to Sifra, “principle, detail, principle has to be judged in light of the detail,” adding anything similar to detail. The passage supports the thesis of Menahem Cahana [קוים לתולדות התפתחותה ספר זיכרון ,של מידת כלל ופרט בתקופת התנאים לתרצה ליפשיץ, Jerusalem 2005, pp. 173–216] that only the list of hermeneutical rules is original but the detailed interpretation of the rules is Babylonian (following R. Aqiba), never accepted in the Yerushalmi. The latter does not differentiate between כְּלָל וּפְרָט,פְּרָט וּכְלָל,כְּלָל וּפְרָט וּכְלָל, and in all cases reduces the validity of the principle to the case of the detail. The question naturally deserves no answer since it is not כְּלָל וּפְרָט וּכְלָל but פְּרָט וּכְלָל וּכְלָל, which is not the subject of any hermeneutical rule.? Rebbi Abun bar Cahana asked before Rebbi Hila: Do not do such²⁶⁰Deut. 12:4. The paragraph deals with the destruction of places of pagan worship. It is interpreted to mean that anything similar to Temple worship, even if executed in an unacceptable way, is forbidden as pagan worship. Sifry Deut. 81 follows the Yerushalmi: “Anything which cannot be sacrificed in the Temple but somebody sacrificed it as foreign worship, if its kind might be sacrificed to God he is guilty; otherwise he cannot be prosecuted.”, a principle. One who sacrifices to gods shall be banned²⁶³Ex. 22:19., a detail. Only for the Eternal alone²⁶³Ex. 22:19., He again stated the principle. Principle, detail, and principle; is not everything included²⁶⁴This statement is not found elsewhere in talmudic texts. But in R. Aqiba’s system of additions (רֵבּוּי) and subtractions (מְעוּט), addition + subtraction + addition implies that almost everything corresponding to the broad description of the additions is included (Tosephta Ševu`ot 1:7, Babli Nazir35b).? Does it not add one who embraces and one who kisses²⁶⁸Ex. 32:8, speaking of the Golden Calf.? He told him, why is prostrating mentioned? Not to infer from it that it is an action? He who embraces and he who (prostrates himself)²⁶⁶It is clear that one has to read ומנשק “and kisses” instead of ומשתחוה “and prostrates himself”. Embracing and kissing are not acts of worship. do not exemplify actions.

Rebbi Zeïra said, but only if the person does not revert⁶⁷⁸Here begins the discussion of the quote at the end of the Mishnah. What is the reason? It does not say “The triple thread will never snap” but rather “The triple thread will not quickly snap.” If you work on it, it will split. Rebbi Ḥuna said in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: There is no forgetting before the Holy One, praise to Him, but for Israel He becomes forgetful. What is the reason? It is written⁶⁶⁴Ex. 34:7, Micah 7:18. R. Yose ben R. Ḥanina holds that the person with an equal number of merits and demerits is found guilty. But in Peah1:1, Sanhedrin 10:1, and the Babli, Roš Haššanah17a, R. Yose ben R. Ḥanina is credited with the opinion attributed here to R. Abbahu, who is not mentioned in the other sources. Everybody seems to agree that in the Heavenly Court, no more than one transgression will be forgiven. “He forgets⁶⁷⁹Replacing נשׂא “to lift, carry” by נשׁה “to forget”. sin.” And so David says⁶⁸⁰Ps. 85:3.: “You forgot Your people’s sin, You covered up all their misdeeds, Selah.”

And meat in milk. It was stated: At three places it is written do not cook a kid goat¹⁵²Meat cooked in milk, Ex. 23:19,34:26, Deut. 14:21., about eating, about usufruct, and about cooking¹⁶³Babli Ḥulin 115b, Qiddušin 57b; Mekhilta dR. Ismael Mišpaṭim 20 (opposed by Mekhilta dR. Simeon ben Ioḥai 23:19, Sifry Re`eh 104)..

He would also say: If you come to my house, I will come to your house. My legs will bring me to the place that my heart loves.
If you come to my house, I will come to your house. How so? These are the people who come for the morning and evening prayers at the synagogues and study houses. The Holy Blessed One blessed them in the World to Come. This is like what it says (Exodus 20:21), “In every place where I have My name mentioned [I will come to you and bless you].”
My legs will bring me to the place that my heart loves. How so? These are the people who leave their silver and gold and go up to the festival to encounter the face of the Divine Presence in the Temple. The Holy Blessed One will protect them in their encampments, as it says (Exodus 34:24), “No man will covet your land when you go up to appear before the face of the Eternal your God [on one of the three pilgrim festivals].”

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar would say: When the people of Israel are in foreign lands, they worship idolatry without meaning to. How so? A Samaritan makes a party for his son. He sends out an invitation to all the Jews in his city. Even though they eat and drink their own food, and bring their own attendants who stand and pour for them, it is still considered as if they ate from the sacrifices of the dead, as it says (Exodus 34:15), “They will call to you, and you will eat their sacrifices.”
Rabbi Eliezer HaModa’i would say: Anyone who violates the Sabbath, scorns the festivals, disregards circumcision, or attempts to reveal the flaws of the Torah, even though he may be learned in Torah and have done many good deeds, he has no share in the World to Come.
Rabbi Akiva would say: Anyone who marries a woman who is not proper for him transgresses five commandments: “Do not take vengeance” (Leviticus 19:18), “Do not bear a grudge” (ibid.), “Do not hate your brother in your heart” (Leviticus 19:17), “Love your fellow as yourself” (Leviticus 19:18), and “Let your brother live with you” (Leviticus 25:36). Because he will hate her he will want her to die, and this will cause fewer children to be born into the world.