Talmud su Esodo 20:78

BARAITHA.¹The Baraithoth in chaps. I and II are repeated from tractate Kallah, correspondence with which is indicated in the notes. The commentary on that tractate is not reproduced here and should be referred to.
K (Kallah) 1. A bride is forbidden to her husband without the [marriage] benediction in the same manner as a niddah who has not immersed; just as a niddah who has not immersed is forbidden to her husband, so likewise is a bride forbidden to her husband without the [marriage] benediction.
GEMARA. Raba said: Of which benediction do [the Sages] speak? The benediction [consisting of] seven [blessings] and not the benediction of betrothal. Which is the benediction of betrothal? R. Judah said in the name of Rab:²Cf. Keth. 7b (Sonc. ed., p. 30); P.B., p. 298. ‘[Blessed art Thou, O Lord our God, King of the universe,] Who hast sanctified us by Thy commandments, and hast commanded us concerning forbidden relations and hast forbidden us unto the betrothed and hast allowed us unto the wedded by the rite of the [marriage] canopy and sanctification. Blessed art Thou, O Lord, Who sanctified Israel by the rite of the canopy and sanctification’.
In what order are the [seven] blessings recited? R. Levi said: ‘Who created the fruit of the vine’, and ‘Who hast created all things to Thy glory’. ‘Blessed art Thou the Creator of man.’ ‘Blessed art Thou Who hast made man in Thine image, after Thy likeness, and hast prepared unto him, out of his very self, a fabric for ever. Blessed art Thou, Creator of man.’ ‘May [Zion] who was barren be exceeding glad and exult, when her children are gathered within her in joy. Blessed art Thou Who makest Zion joyful through her children.’ ‘O make these loved companions greatly to rejoice, even as of old Thou didst gladden Thy creature in the Garden of Eden. Blessed art Thou Who makest bridegroom and bride to rejoice.’ ‘Blessed art Thou Who hast created joy and gladness, bridegroom and bride, mirth, pleasure, exultation, love, brotherhood, peace and fellowship. Soon may there be heard in the cities of Judah, and in the streets of Jerusalem, the voice of joy and gladness, the voice of the bridegroom and the voice of the bride, the jubilant voice of bridegrooms from their canopies, and of youths from their feasts of song. Blessed art Thou Who makest the bridegroom to rejoice with the bride.’
An objection was raised: [It is stated,] Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.³Ex. 20, 7; Deut. 5, 11. To what does this refer? For instance, to one who recites a benediction unnecessarily; but here he recites the benediction, ‘Who created the fruit of the vine’! So how may he do it? He tastes of [the wine].⁴The act of tasting the wine makes the benediction necessary. But the master has said: If he tasted it, he disqualifies it!⁵Another benediction cannot be made over that cup until more wine is added; cf. Ber. 52a (Sonc. ed., p. 314). He pours [some wine] from the cup into his hand and drinks it. This is possible when wine is available, but what if no wine is available? Over what may he recite the benediction? Over beer. May [one recite it] over [the juice of] the date-berry?⁶V has a word which is unknown; it may be a corruption of kufra, ‘the date-berry’. [If there is no wine] it must be over water or bread.
The question was asked: If one recited all the [seven] benedictions out of their proper sequence, or if he omitted one of them, what is the law? Come and hear: Benedictions do not invalidate one another.⁷If the order is changed; cf. Ber. 11b (Sonc. ed., p. 66). Levi was present at a wedding feast and recited six⁸In Keth. 8a (Sonc. ed., p. 33) the number is given as ‘five’. [benedictions]; deduce from this that although one is omitted we are not concerned. Perhaps there the case was different because [Levi held the view that] there was one formation.⁹That the creation of men and women is alluded to in the third benediction, and the second is unnecessary as a separate benediction for the creation of man.

HALAKHAH: “The priest anointed for war,” etc. Why⁴Why must he speak in Hebrew only? the priest anointed for war? Because it is written “he shall speak⁵Deut. 20:2.”? But about the reading of the Šema‘ it is written: “You shall speak about them,” and it may be recited in any language. But because it is written there “saying⁶Deut. 20:3.”. But for the declaration of tithes it is written “saying⁷Deut. 26:13.” and it may be recited in any language! Rebbi Ḥaggai said, it says here “to come close⁵Deut. 20:2.” and it says there, “the Levitic Cohanim shall come close⁸Deut. 21:5.;” since “coming close” there implies [recitation in] the holy language⁹Mishnah 7:2., so also “coming close” here implies [recitation in] the holy language¹⁰This is an example of an argument outside the hermeneutic rules, used quite frequently in the Babli but very sparingly in the Yerushalmi. It is not an “equal cut” since there is no transfer of meaning involved; it is what is known as הֶקֵּשׁ “tying together”. Both in the case of the priest chosen for war and the calf selected to atone for an unsolved murder case, it should be quite clear that the people involved cannot be heard unless they are reasonably close. In both cases, the note that they have to come near is somewhat redundant. Therefore, one may conclude that the additional expression was used to indicate similar circumstances, which by rabbinic authority is declared to concern the language to be used.. That follows Rebbi Aqiba who says, these are expressions of additions¹¹This refers to the ceremony for the unsolved murder case, where R. Jehudah in 7:2 states that common use of the roots אמר, ענה implies use of the holy language. That argument is acceptable only following R. Aqiba, not following R. Ismael. For the latter, the argument of R. Ḥaggai does not prove anything.. Following Rebbi Ismael who says, these are double expressions? Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, it says here “to come close” and it says there, “Moses shall come close to the mist¹²Ex. 20:21; the word order is incorrect in the quote.”, since “coming close” there implies [recitation in] the holy language¹³Since Moses was deputized by the people to speak to God Who obviously spoke to them and him in Hebrew. This reference to the holy language is acceptable to R. Ismael., so also “coming close” here implies [recitation in] the holy language.

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..

Is there no difference, whether according to his²⁵As follows from the sequel, the question is about interpreting R. Aqiba’s position, where there is a dispute between Rebbi (referred to as “he”) and the majority of the rabbis of his generation. opinion or that of the rabbis, only if it came to rest from a public domain into a private domain? In Rebbi’s opinion, even if it did not come to rest²⁶Since the airspace over a private domain belongs to that domain up to an indeterminate height, Rebbi considers the entry of an object into this airspace as valid delivery; the rabbis read the statement that “a person’s courtyard acquires for him” to refer only to the soil, not to the airspace over it. The disagreement essentially refers to matters of civil law; its applicability to the laws of the Sabbath is questioned later in the paragraph. (Šabbat 1 Note 107, Babli 4a, 5a, Giṭṭin 79a).
In the Babli (4b) it is stated that one who threw from a public domain to another over a private domain is not liable for the Sages but twice liable for Rebbi. Since the Yerushalmi does not quote this statement, it cannot be presupposed here.; in the rabbis’ opinion, only if it came to rest. For Rebbi Abba bar Ḥuna said in the name of Rav: Rebbi declared liable only for a private domain which was roofed²⁷Babli 4a/5b. An object is delivered into a courtyard only if it comes to rest on the ground. But delivery to a house is effected the moment the object is in the house since even the air in the house is considered soil. For this rule, “house” is any covered place even if it has no walls.. The word of Rebbi Joḥanan implies, even if it was not roofed, ²⁸From here on the text is copied from Giṭṭin 8:3 (ט, Notes 54–57). The topic of divorce at the end is referred to as “here”. for Rebbi Immi said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Only if it descended to within the partitions²⁹This refers to the last sentence in Mishnah Giṭṭin 8:3. If the husband throws the bill of divorce from his roof to her courtyard, it is possible to say that the bill was delivered the moment it cleared the roof only if the walls of the wife’s courtyard are higher than the husband’s roof. Otherwise it would be legally delivered only if the bill fell below the level of the courtyard walls. (The same argument is quoted in Samuel’s name in the Babli, Giṭṭin 79a.). Rebbi Immi asked before Rebbi Joḥanan: Does the Mishnah follow Rebbi, since Rebbi considers partitions as solidly filled up²⁷Babli 4a/5b. An object is delivered into a courtyard only if it comes to rest on the ground. But delivery to a house is effected the moment the object is in the house since even the air in the house is considered soil. For this rule, “house” is any covered place even if it has no walls.? He said to him, it is everybody’s opinion³⁰The Babli agrees, Giṭṭin 79a, that the delivery of bills of divorce is governed by the rules of property rights, not those of the Sabbath.. Could one not object that Rebbi said, if it is roofed? And you say, it is not roofed?³¹For the rules of the Sabbath. What is the difference between bills of divorce and the Sabbath? Rebbi Ila said, about the Sabbath it is written: You shall not do any work³²Ex. 20:10.; it may make itself automatically³⁴Deut. 24:1.. But here he shall deliver into her hand³⁴Deut. 24:1., into her domain.

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 Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: When they forbade it, they were inspired by Scripture¹⁰It is not claimed that the rules of the Sabbatical year in the Second Commonwealth are biblical, only that they are inspired by the interpretation of biblical verses., and when they permitted it, they were inspired by Scripture. When they forbade it, they were inspired by Scripture, (Lev. 25:3): “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. When they permitted it, they were inspired by Scripture, (Ex. 20:9): “Six days you shall labor and do all your work,” just as on the eve of the Sabbath of Creation³The Sabbath day. one may do work until sundown, also before the start of the Sabbatical year one may work until sundown¹¹Sundown of the eve of New Year’s Day.
The Babli (Mo‘ed qaṭan 3b–4a) has another interpretation, based on R. Ismael’s opinion in Mishnah 1:5. It cannot accept the interpretation here since in the theory of the Babli one is obliged by biblical decree to start Sabbath and holidays some time before sundown (Yoma 82b, Roš Haššanah 9a)..

⁴⁴This paragraph is from Šabbat Chapter 1, Notes 118 ff. While here the problem is that a roof less than 10 hand-breadths from the ground does not have the status of a cover, for the rules of the Sabbath public domain reaches only from the ground to a height of 10 hand-breadths, while private domain extends to an indefinite height. The parallel discussion in the Babli is Sukkah5a. Since the entire discussion is Amoraic, one must conclude that for earlier times the limitation of the public domain to 10 hand-breadths from the ground and the minimal height required for a sukkah was tradition not subject to verification from biblical sources. From where that higher than ten [hand-breadths] is a different domain? Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: There I shall make My Appearance to you, and I shall speak to you from above the cover⁴⁵Ex. 25:6.. And it is written, you have seen that from Heaven I spoke to you⁴⁶Ex. 20:22.. Since speech mentioned there is from another domain, also speech mentioned here is from another domain. But is the Ark not nine hand-breadths⁴⁷1.5 cubits (Ex. 25:10).? In the House of Rebbi Yannai they said, the cover was one hand-breadth⁴⁸In the Babli 5b, this is questioned but in the end accepted. The biblical data do not fit the assertion. The cover was square of surface area 3.75(cubit)² (Ex. 25:17). The hand-breadth and the cubit are not well defined.. If we take a small hand-breadth of 8.5 cm, cubit 51 cm, then a cover 2 cubits long, 1.5 cubits wide, and one hand-breadth height would have a volume of 108(hand-breadths)³ = 66 (dm)³. Since the cover was of pure gold, of specific weight about 19, the total weight would have been 1260 kg. But the total weight of gold contributed for the Tabernacle (Ex. 38:24) was 29.25 talents or, on a basis of 12.5 g for the sheqel, about 1097 kg, not to speak of the fact that a weight of 1.26 tons would have crushed the wooden ark. All these data were well within the knowledge of antiquity. One has to conclude that they imagined the cover to be hollow.. Rebbi Ze`ira asked, from where that the cover was one hand-breadth? Rebbi Ḥananiah bar Samuel stated, for all the vessels in the Sanctuary the Torah gave the measure of length and width, and gave the measure of its height. Except for the cover where the Torah gave the measure of length and width, but did not give the measure of its height. Therefore we shall learn it from the smallest vessel in the Sanctuary, you shall make for it a frame of one hand-breadth all around⁴⁹This cryptic statement is explained in the Babli (in the name of Rav Aḥa bar Jacob’s teacher Rav Huna) as referring to Lev. 16:2 where Aaron is warned not to appear before the face of the cover except on the day of Atonement. This implies that the cover was not simply a sheet lying over the Ark but had a face, a vertical dimension which is not negligible.. Since there it was one hand-breadth, so also here one hand-breadth. But maybe it refers only to: make a golden wreath as its frame all around⁵⁰It is impossible to say that in general a new domain starts at 10 hand-breadths since it is commonly accepted that a private domain remains private to an indeterminate height. The Ark was standing in the private domain of the Sanctuary; a reference to it seems to be irrelevant.? Since there it is a minimal size, so here also a minimal size. What about it? Rav Aḥa bar Jacob said, face. There is no face less than a hand-breadth⁵¹In the desert, the Ark was travelling in front of the people (Num. 10:33) while the Sanctuary was carried in the middle (v. 17). At the resting place, the Ark automatically assumed a West-East direction so that the Sanctuary could be placed around it and the tribes camped correctly in the four directions of the compass (Num.2). The Ark had functions outside the Sanctuary; the reference is legitimate..

⁴⁸To this and the following paragraph there exists an almost parallel text in Sanhedrin 6:9 (ן), an enlarged version in the Babli Yebamot 78b–79a and Num.rabba 8(4), and a shortened version in Midrash Samuel 28[5].[“The dedicated ones”]⁴⁹Reading of G; in L: “It was stated”. The following text deals with the identity of “the dedicated ones”, their exclusion from the Jewish marriage community, and proof that they were among the returnees from Babylon.. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, because of: “At that moment Joshua dedicated them as hewers of wood and drawers of water for the congregation.⁵⁰Jos. 9:27.” One understands “for the congregation.” But “for the Eternal’s altar”⁵¹This is also mentioned in Jos. 9:27, but the service in the Tabernacle is reserved for priests and Levites. The statement is interpreted to mean that their status will only be determined when the Eternal’s altar is given its permanent place.? But Joshua kept them in limbo. He said, I shall not include nor exclude them. But he who sometime in the future will build the Temple, if he wants to include them he may include, exclude them he may exclude. David came and excluded them as it is said⁵²2S. 21:2.: “But the Gibeonites are not part of the Children of Israel.” Why did he exclude them? Because “⁵³2S. 21:1. there was a famine in David’s time, three years year after year.” David said, for four sins⁵⁴In ן “three” and this also seems to be the reading underlying the Babli’s version and Pirqe R.Eliezer Chapter 17. The number is 4 in Ta‘anit 3:3 (66c 1. 29). the rains are locked away. For the sins of foreign worship, incest and adultery, murder, and the sins of those who publicly promise money for welfare but do not pay. From where for the sin of foreign worship? “⁵⁵Deut. 11:16–17. Beware, lest you be seduced” etc. What is written afterwards? “The Eternal’s rage will be inflamed against you and he locks the sky, etc.” From where for the sins of the incestuous and adulterers? “⁵⁶Jer. 3:2–3. While the prophet obviously speaks of Baal worship, all his imagery is that of sexual transgressions. Quoted in the name of R. Jehudah in Sifra Qedošim Pereq7(4). You distorted the Land by your immorality and your evil deeds.” What is the punishment? “Rainshowers were withheld, there was no late rain,” etc. From where because of the murderers? “⁵⁷Num. 35:33. Because blood will distort the Land.” From where for the sins of those who publicly promise money for welfare but do not pay? “⁵⁸Prov. 25:14. In the name of different Amoraim in the Babli, Ta‘anit8b, Midrash Prov. 25(14). Clouds and wind but no rain means the man who prides himself by lying gifts.” David checked his entire generation and did not find one of these. He turned to ask the urim and tummim. That is what is written: “⁵³2S. 21:1. David asked before the Eternal” by urim and tummim.⁵⁹In MT, there is a lacuna in 2S. 21:1 between “David asked before the Eternal,” and “The Eternal said, because of Saul and the House of blood guilt.” It is explained that he asked by applying the urim and tummim oracle. In the Babli and the sources dependent on it, R. Eleazar explains that “asking before the Eternal” means applying the urim and tummim oracle since in Num. 27:21 it says, “before Eleazar the priest he shall stand and ask the urim and tummim.” Rebbi Eleazar said, “Ask the Eternal, all the meek of the Land, who execute His Law.⁶⁰Zeph. 2:3. The homily is slightly more explicit in the Babli, where it is credited to R. Simeon ben Laqish. It addresses a seeming inconsistency in 2S. 21:1 where God’s answer is that the famine is a punishment for two crimes, the first “about Saul” and the second “about the House of blood guilt because he killed the Gibeonites.” The verse of the prophet is read to mean that even at the moment a person is judged for his misdeeds his “works”, his good deeds, are mentioned in the Heavenly court. But here the sin “about Saul” was not Saul’s but David’s and the entire people’s since they let him be buried in Transjordan and did not bring him to his proper burial in his ancestral land until prodded by the absence of rain (2S. 21:14, where the coming of rain is described as a direct consequence of the proper burials given to Saul and Jonathan.)” What means “Whose Law is Work”? He enforces His Law and this is His Action⁶¹While the Babli certainly reads with the Masoretes פָּעָלוּ, it might be that the Yerushalmi reads פָּעֳלוֹ.. “⁵³2S. 21:1. The Eternal said, because of Saul and the House of blood guilt.” “Because of Saul,” whom you did not grant the last favor, “and because of the House of blood guilt, for he had killed the Gibeonites.” David sent and called them, what is between you and the house of Saul? They told him, because he killed seven of our men, two hewers of wood, two drawers of water, a religious leader, a scribe, and a beadle. He asked them, what do you want now? They said to him: “⁶²2S. 21:6. May there be given to us seven men of his sons and we shall hang them before the Eternal on the hill of Saul, the elected of the Eternal.” He said to them, what use is it for you that they be killed? Take silver and gold for yourselves! But they answered, ⁶³2S. 21:4.“there is no money for us from Saul and his house.” He said, maybe they are afraid⁶⁴In ן: They are afraid one in front of the other (to accept blood money).; he separated them and spoke to each one separately, trying to mollify him by himself, and asked him: What use is it for you that they be killed? Take gold and silver! But he said, “there is no money for us from Saul and his house.” It is written “for me”⁶⁵In 2S. 21:4, the Ketib is “for me” but the Qere “for us”. The homily explains both readings; both are correct.. At this moment, David said that the Holy One gave three good gifts to Israel: They are merciful, decent, and charitable⁶⁶In addition to the sources mentioned in Note 48, the following is also in Midrash Psalms 1,17.. From where that they are merciful? “He gave you mercy⁶⁷Deut. 13:18..” From where that they are decent? “That His fear should be on your faces.⁶⁸Ex. 20:20.” This is a sign, for a decent person does not sin. About anybody indecent it is clear that his ancestors did not stand on Mount Sinai. From where that they are charitable? “The Eternal, your God, kept for you covenant and charity.⁶⁹Deut. 7:12.” But these, nothing of this in found in them. Immediately he went to exclude them as it is said: “But the Gibeonites are not of the Children of Israel.⁵²2S. 21:2.” And Ezra also excluded them, as it is said: “And the dedicated ones dwelt in the Ophel.⁷⁰Neh. 3:26, 11:21. The emphasis is on their dwelling separately.” Also in the future the Holy One, praise to Him, will exclude them as it is written: “One crossing the city they cause to be lost.⁷¹This quote (as well as the version of G) is clearly corrupt; it telescopes a quote and its interpretation into one sentence. The correct text is in ן:
וְהָעוֹבֵד הָעִיר יַעַבְדוּהוּ מִכֹּל שִׁבְטֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל.
יַאֲבִידוּהוּ מִכֹּל שִׁבְטֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל.
(Ez. 48:19) “The city worker will cultivate it, from all the tribes of Israel.” (Interpretation) ‘He will cause him to be lost from all the tribes of Israel.’
Ezechiel, in his description of the future Israel, gives Jerusalem a strip of land from the Meditteranean to the Dead Sea, which will be cultivated by the Temple workers to provide food for the city. The verse is taken out of context and, in Galilean dialect, ע and א are identified, changing “cultivate” into “getting lost”. The city worker is the dedicated one.”

“Nor with oil to be burned⁷Olive oil given as heave to a Cohen which became impure and therefore cannot be consumed. The Cohen may use it as fuel. But since it is holy, it is subject to the (rabbinic) rule that sancta may not be burned on a day on which defective sacrifices may not be burned, i. e., Sabbath or holiday..” Rav Ḥisda said, this implies that it is forbidden to start a fire on a pyre of sancta so it should continuously burn on the Sabbath⁴⁷Since impure heave, which belongs to the class of disabled sancta, may not be burned on the Sabbath. Babli 23b, Menaḥot 46b.. But have we not stated⁴⁸Mishnah 1:15 (Notes 22,23).: “One starts a fire at the fire place in the heating chamber, but outside the Temple only if the fire has started burning on most of the logs.” Rebbi Yose said, it is written about the Sabbath, do not do any work⁴⁹Ex. 20:10. Here starts a new Genizah leaf, Ginzberg p. 71 (G).; it is done automatically. But here the Torah said that one does not burn sancta on a holiday, not to speak of the Sabbath. What did you see that you said so? ⁵⁰Ex. 12:10. The mention of two “mornings” implies that different times are implied. Babli 24b, 133a, Pesaḥim 83b, Temurah 4b. Mekhilta dR. Ismael Bo 6, end, dR. Simeon benYoḥai Bo p. 14.You shall not leave any leftovers until the morning; what is left over from it until morning you shall burn in fire. After two mornings, one the morning of the 15^th and the other the morning of the 16^th. And it is written, what is left of the well-being sacrifice should be burned on the third day⁵¹Lev. 7:17. The sacrifice may be eaten for two days and the intervening night..

He who cohabits with a maidservant is liable to the penalty for transgressing fourteen negative commands and also to the penalty of kareth at the hand of Heaven, viz.: Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind;⁶⁸Lev. 19, 19. The list given here is according to the text of GRA. Cf. Sanh. 82a (Sonc. ed., pp. 543f.). Thou shalt not sow thy field with two kinds of seed;⁶⁹ibid. Neither shall there come upon thee a garment of two kinds of stuff mingled together;⁷⁰ibid. Thou shalt not sow thy vineyard with two kinds of seed;⁷¹Deut. 22, 9. Thou shalt not plough [with an ox and an ass together];⁷²ibid. 10. Thou shalt not wear a mingled stuff;⁷³ibid. 11. All these laws forbid ‘mixtures’. Thou shalt not commit adultery;⁷⁴Ex. 20, 13. Thou shalt not covet;⁷⁵ibid. 14. And thou shalt not lie with any beast;⁷⁶Lev. 18, 23. Neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God;⁷⁷ibid. 21. also one on account of [laws concerning] a non-Jewish maidservant, a harlot, a niddah and a heathen woman. And one punishment of kareth, as it is stated, May the Lord cut off to the man that doeth this him that calleth and him that answereth out of the tents of Jacob, and him that offereth an offering unto the Lord of hosts.⁷⁸Mal. 2, 12. If he was a lay-Israelite and profaned his seed with a maidservant or a heathen woman, he will have no ‘awakening’⁷⁹i.e. instruction. ‘Awakening’ and ‘responding’ correspond in the Heb. to him that calleth and him that answereth in Mal. 2, 12. among the Sages and no ‘responding’ among the disciples. If he was a kohen, he will not have a son that offereth an offering unto the Lord of hosts.

Rebbi Ḥinena said before Rebbi Mana: Even if Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish thought the entire Mishnaiot were Rebbi Meïr’s, does the verse agree with Rebbi Meïr? Is it not written (Lev. 22:14): “If a person ate consecrated food in error”? But Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish must hold that the fifth is a sacrifice. But even if he holds that the fifth is a sacrifice, can the principal be a sacrifice? Rebbi Yudan bar Shalom said, the Mishnah declares that the principal is a fine, as we have stated: “He does not pay in heave but in totally profane food which is turned into heave.” If he had to pay from what he ate, it would be fine. And it was stated: “If he ate impure heave, he has to pay in pure profane food, but if he paid in impure profane, he discharged his obligation.” Does he not owe him the price of wood? That shows that the principal is a fine and since the principal is a fine, the fifth also is a fine. But Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish follows his own opinion. Just as Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, there, everybody was under the obligation of (Ex. 20:16) “Do not become a false witness against your neighbor”, but this one was treated separately, (Deut. 19:19) “do to him what he intended to do to his brother”, to pay money; also here, everybody was under the obligation of (Lev. 22:10) “no outsider shall eat holy [food],” but this one was treated separately, (Lev. 22:14) “if somebody should eat holy [food] in error,” to pay money.

Abba Hilfai said in the name of his father Abba Ḥagra: Do not be rash in making vows that you may not trespass in the matter of oaths,⁸⁴Which are more stringent; cf. Ned. 20a (Sonc. ed., p. 56), Demai II, 3 (Sonc. ed., p. 58). and do not be the guest of a kohen who is an ‘am ha-’areẓ lest he give you consecrated food⁸⁵e.g. terumah. According to this reading the exhortation is to a non-kohen. R.N. (cf. Ned. loc. cit.) reads ‘unclean consecrated food’, which was forbidden even to a kohen, in which case the exhortation is addressed to a kohen. to eat. Do not converse much with women because every conversation with a woman is only about unchastity.⁸⁶This statement is not meant to be derogatory of women, who were held in high esteem, but was conditioned by the prevailing laxity in morals which characterized many of the ancient peoples. Cf. Herford, Talmud and Apocrypha, pp. 163ff. [See also Büchler, Types of Jewish-Palestinian Piety, p. 66, n. 2.] The saying is based on Aboth I, 5 (Sonc. ed., p. 4). R. Aḥi of the School⁸⁷V and H read ‘son of’. of R. Josiah said: He who gazes at a woman eventually comes to sin, and he who looks upon a woman’s heel will beget degenerate children,⁸⁸‘And he who looks’, etc., is the reading of GRA. V and H have: ‘And the Sages said: It is decreed against one who looks’, etc. and he who has no shamefacedness⁸⁹i.e. whoever is impudent. is easily led to sin; as it is stated, The show of their countenance doth witness against them [and they declare their sin as Sodom, they hide it not].⁹⁰Isa. 3, 9. But he who is shamefaced⁹¹i.e. is not callous, but feels humiliated when he does wrong. will not easily sin, as it is stated, [And Moses said unto the people, fear not; for God is come to prove you] that His fear may be before your face that ye sin not.⁹²Ex. 20, 17. Face is understood as shamefacedness. Cf. Yeb. 79a (Sonc. ed., p. 535) where a sense of shame is said to be one of the characteristics of the Jew.
R. Measha,⁹³[This is the correct form of the name; cf. Bacher, Ag. d. pal. Amoräer, III, p. 614. Midrash Rabbah, Leviticus, XXIII, 13, Sonc. ed., p. 303, reads ‘Menashyah’.] grandson of R. Joshua b. Levi, said: One who looks at a naked part of the body and does not feed his eyes on it⁹⁴i.e. his gaze is not for the purpose of lustful pleasure. will merit to receive the Divine Presence; as it is stated, And [he that] shutteth his eyes from looking upon evil,⁹⁵Isa. 33, 15. and immediately after it is written, He shall dwell on high,⁹⁶ibid. 16. and it is written, Thine eyes shall see the king in his beauty.⁹⁷ibid. 17. King is here understood of God.

¹¹⁸A copy of this paragraph, closer to the original, is in Sukkah 1:1 (ס) 51d l. 56. The parallel discussion in the Babli is Sukkah 5a. Since the entire discussion is Amoraic, one must conclude that for earlier times the limitation of the public domain to 10 hand-breadths from the ground was tradition not subject to verification from biblical sources. From where that higher than ten [hand-breadths] is a different domain? Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: There I shall make My Appearance to you, and I shall speak to you from above the cover (which is on the Ark of the Covenant)from between the two Cherubim¹¹⁹Ex. 25:6. The words in parentheses are not in the verse and not in ס; they are added to indicate that the argument is about the Ark.. And it is written, you have seen that from Heaven I spoke to you¹²⁰Ex. 20:22.. Since speech mentioned there is from another domain, also speech mentioned here is from another domain. But is the Ark not nine hand-breadths¹²¹1.5 cubits (Ex. 25:10).? In the House of Rebbi Yannai they said, the cover was one hand-breadth¹²²In the Babli, Sukkah 5b, this is questioned but in the end accepted. The biblical data do not fit the assertion. The cover was square of surface area 3.75(cubit)² (Ex. 25:17). The hand-breadth and the cubit are not well defined. If we take a small hand-breadth of 9 cm, cubit 54 cm, then a cover of one hand-breadth height would have a volume of 98.415 (dm)³. Since the cover was of pure gold, of specific weight about 19, the total weight would have been 1870 kg. But the total weight of gold contributed for the Tabernacle (Ex. 38:24) was 29.25 talents or, on a basis of 12.5 g for the sheqel, about 1097 kg, not to speak of the fact that a weight of almost 1.9 tons would have crushed the wooden ark. All these data were well within the knowledge of antiquity. One has to conclude that they imagined the cover to be hollow.. Rebbi Zeˋira asked, from where that the cover was one hand-breadth? Rebbi Ḥananiah bar Samuel stated, for all the vessels in the Sanctuary the Torah gave the measure of length and width, and gave the measure of its height. Except for the cover where the Torah gave the measure of length and width, but did not give the measure of its height. Therefore we shall learn it from the smallest vessel in the Sanctuary, you shall make for it a frame of one hand-breadth all around¹²²In the Babli, Sukkah 5b, this is questioned but in the end accepted. The biblical data do not fit the assertion. The cover was square of surface area 3.75(cubit)² (Ex. 25:17). The hand-breadth and the cubit are not well defined. If we take a small hand-breadth of 9 cm, cubit 54 cm, then a cover of one hand-breadth height would have a volume of 98.415 (dm)³. Since the cover was of pure gold, of specific weight about 19, the total weight would have been 1870 kg. But the total weight of gold contributed for the Tabernacle (Ex. 38:24) was 29.25 talents or, on a basis of 12.5 g for the sheqel, about 1097 kg, not to speak of the fact that a weight of almost 1.9 tons would have crushed the wooden ark. All these data were well within the knowledge of antiquity. One has to conclude that they imagined the cover to be hollow.. Since there it was one hand-breadth, so also here one hand-breadth. But maybe it is only make a golden wreath as its frame all around¹²²In the Babli, Sukkah 5b, this is questioned but in the end accepted. The biblical data do not fit the assertion. The cover was square of surface area 3.75(cubit)² (Ex. 25:17). The hand-breadth and the cubit are not well defined. If we take a small hand-breadth of 9 cm, cubit 54 cm, then a cover of one hand-breadth height would have a volume of 98.415 (dm)³. Since the cover was of pure gold, of specific weight about 19, the total weight would have been 1870 kg. But the total weight of gold contributed for the Tabernacle (Ex. 38:24) was 29.25 talents or, on a basis of 12.5 g for the sheqel, about 1097 kg, not to speak of the fact that a weight of almost 1.9 tons would have crushed the wooden ark. All these data were well within the knowledge of antiquity. One has to conclude that they imagined the cover to be hollow.? Since there it is a minimal size, so here also a minimal size. What about it? Rav Aḥa bar Jacob said, face. There is no face less than a hand-breadth¹²³This cryptic statement is explained in the Babli (in the name of Rav Aḥa bar Jacob’s teacher Rav Huna) as referring to Lev. 16:2 where Aaron is warned not to appear before the face of the cover except on the day of Atonement. This implies that the cover was not simply a sheet lying over the ark but had a face, a vertical dimension which is not negligible..

It¹¹⁴The exact parallel is in Sifra Qedoshim 2–7; an almost identical quote is in Babli Qidddushin 30b. is said (Lev. 19:3): “Everybody must fear his mother and his father,” and it is said (Deut. 6:13): “You must fear the Eternal, your God, and serve Him.” This brackets the fear of father and mother with the fear of Heaven. It is said (Ex. 20:12): “Honor your father and your mother,” and it is said (Prov. 3:9): “Honor the Eternal with your property.” This brackets the honor of father and mother with the honor of the Omnipresent. Is is said (Ex. 21:17): “He who curses his father or his mother shall be put to death,” and it is said (Lev. 24:19): “Everybody who curses his God must bear his sin.” This brackets cursing father and mother with cursing the Omnipresent. It is impossible to speak about hitting relative to the Deity¹¹⁵It is written (Ex. 21:15): “He who hits his father or mother must be put to death.” This law cannot have a parallel in relation to the Deity.. All this is logical since all three of them are partners in his creation¹¹⁶Since father and mother contribute the animal part of his being and God gives soul, spirit, and life (Babli Niddah 31a)..

Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Cahana: It is written (Prov.5:6): “She¹²⁹The strange woman, symbolizing non-Jewish attitudes. The rewards of good deeds have been removed to the World to Come. does not smooth the way of life, her tracks deviate and you will not notice it.” The Holy One, praise to Him, moved the rewards of those who fulfill the commandments (to the future world) so that they should act in faith. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Isaac: It is written (Prov. 4:23): “Observe carefully all which must be kept, for from it comes life,” observe carefully all you were told in the Torah, for you do not know from which of them will life come to you. Rebbi Abba bar Cahana said, the verse equals the easiest commandment with the most difficult one. The easiest commandment is sending away the mother¹³⁰If one happens to find a bird’s nest, one may take the eggs or the chicks but not the mother (Deut. 22:6–7).. The most difficult one is honoring father and mother. For both of them it is written: “Your days will be lengthened.” Rebbi Abun said, if for something that is repayment of debt¹³¹Honoring father and mother for raising the child. it is written (Deut. 5:16): “That you shall be well and that your days shall be lengthened,” so much more something that involves monetary loss and personal danger¹³²Sending away the mother is a potential loss; climbing a ladder to get the eggs or the chicks is a potential danger. [Rebbi Abun was in personal danger for refusing to worship the Roman emperor as a god; Yerushalmi Berakhot 5:1).]. Rebbi Levi said, this one is greater; repaying a debt is greater than fulfilling an obligation that does not involve repaying a debt. Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai stated: Just as their rewards are the same, so their punishments are identical. (Prov.30:17) “The eye that scoffs at the father and despises to obey the mother,” the eye that scoffs about honoring father and mother and despises the commandment not to take the mother with the chicks¹³³In the verse it is written ליקהת “referring to obeying;” in the Talmud text, this is shortened to לקהת and, apparently under the influence of the dialect of lower Galilee, which makes no difference between ה and ת, reads לקחת “to take.” It must be noted that the writing of the letter hē as ה is a new development; in old texts its left leg touches the top but is displaced towards the right; it looks very much like ח., “the river ravens should pick it out,” the cruel raven¹³⁴Which is reputed not to feed its young (Ps. 147:9, cf. Babli Ketubot 49b). should come, pick it out, and not have any enjoyment from it, “the sons of the eagle should eat it,” the merciful eagle should come and enjoy it.

MISHNAH: “We testify against this man that he owes another 1’000 denars payable within 30 days” but he says, within ten years²⁴The witnesses found to be plotting wanted to deprive their victim of the use of 1’000 denars for almost ten years.. One estimates how much a person would be willing to pay to have 1’000 denars at his disposal to return them after ten years instead of returning them after thirty days.
“We testify against this man that he owes another 200 denars” and they are found to be plotting, they are flogged and have to pay since the title which brings him to flogging is not the one which brings him to restitution²⁵They are flogged for false testimony and have to pay restitution as plotters., the words of Rebbi Ṃeïr. But the Sages say, anybody who pays is not flogged⁹As a general principle, no crime can be punished by more than one punishment. There never can be separate penalties for testifying falsely (Ex.20:13) and plotting (Deut. 19:19). This justifies the alternative presented in the preceding paragraph.
The text is copied from Terumot 7:1 Note 14; also Bava qamma 7:2, Note 30..
“We testify against this man that he is liable to be flogged 40 lashes” and they are found plotting, they are whipped 80 because of do not testify against your neighbor as a false witness and because of do to him as he plotted to do to his neighbor, the words of Rebbi Ṃeïr. But the Sages say, they only are flogged 40 times⁹As a general principle, no crime can be punished by more than one punishment. There never can be separate penalties for testifying falsely (Ex.20:13) and plotting (Deut. 19:19). This justifies the alternative presented in the preceding paragraph.
The text is copied from Terumot 7:1 Note 14; also Bava qamma 7:2, Note 30..
One distributes money but one does not distribute floggings. How? If they testified that he owes another person 200 denars and were found plotting, one distributes between them²⁶There must be at least 2 witnesses for their testimony to be heard. If there were n witnesses, each one has to pay 200/n denars.. If they testified that he is liable to be flogged 40 lashes and were found plotting, each one of them is flogged 40 lashes.

BARAITHA.¹K 16. R. Judah said: The bold-faced are [destined] to Gehinnom and the shamefaced to the Garden of Eden. The bold-faced, R. Eliezer said, is the bastard; R. Joshua said: the son of a niddah; R. ‘Aḳiba said: both a bastard and the son of a niddah.
GEMARA. What is R. Judah’s reason [for his statement]? For it is written, A wicked man hardeneth his face.²Prov. 21, 29. Since he hardens his face he is termed wicked and the wicked man is [destined] to Gehinnom. And according to R. Judah, what if he repented? He will answer: There is no [likelihood of] repentance for the bold-faced. ‘The shamefaced to the Garden of Eden’. It has been taught: The shamefaced will not easily yield to sin, as it is stated, And that His fear may be before you, that ye sin not.³Ex. 20, 17; in the Heb. text XX, 20. What is the meaning of the word for ‘a bastard’ [mamzer]? R. Eliezer said: Me’um zar [‘something strange’].⁴i.e. anyone objectionable; cf. Yeb. 76b (Sonc. ed., p. 517).

What is the fence that Moses made around his words? It says (Exodus 19:10), “The Eternal said to Moses: Go to the people, and keep them holy, today and tomorrow.” But Moses the Righteous did not want to say this to them the way that the Holy Blessed One said it to him. So instead he said this to them (Exodus 19:15): “Prepare yourselves: for three days do not go near a woman.” Moses added an extra day for them on his own. (For this is what) Moses reasoned [to himself]: A man will go be with his wife [on the first day] and then his semen will come out of her on the third day, and then they will be [ritually] impure. And so Israel will receive words of Torah from Mount Sinai while in a state of impurity! Instead, I will add a third day for them (so that no man goes to be with his wife, and no semen will come out of her on the third day), and they will be [ritually] pure (and so they will receive Torah from Mount Sinai in a state of purity).
This is one of the things that Moses decided on his own (as a more strict ruling), and his decision was in accordance with the will of the Omnipresent God. He broke the tablets, and his decision was in accordance with the will of the Omnipresent God. He stayed outside the Tent of Meeting, and his decision was in accordance with the will of the Omnipresent God. He stayed apart from his wife, and his decision was in accordance with the will of the Omnipresent God. How so? He said to himself: If Israel need only remain in a state of holiness for a short period of time, and need only be ready to receive the Ten Commandments from Mount Sinai, and yet the Holy Blessed One said to me (Exodus 19:10), “Go to the people, and keep them holy, today and tomorrow”; then I, who am appointed [to receive the Divine Countenance] every day, at every moment, and do not know when He will speak with me, nor whether it will be during the day or at night – all the more so must I stay apart from my wife! And his decision was in accordance with the will of the Omnipresent God. Rabbi Yehudah ben Beteira said: He did not stay apart from his wife until he was told to straight from mouth of the Almighty, as it says (Numbers 12:8), “Mouth to mouth I speak to him”; that is, mouth to mouth I told him to stay apart from his wife, and so he did. Another opinion also held that Moses did not stay apart from his wife until he was told to straight from the mouth of the Almighty, [but derived it instead from these verses] (Deuteronomy 5:27–28): “Go and tell them to return to their tents,” and then after that it says, “But you stay here with Me.” So [Moses] returned [to God] and stayed apart [from his wife], and his decision was in accordance with the will of the Omnipresent God.
He stayed outside the Tent of Meeting. How so? He said to himself: If my brother Aaron, who was anointed with the anointing oil, and wrapped in [the priestly] garments, and is able to use all these things in a state of holiness, and yet the Holy Blessed One said to me (Leviticus 16:2), “Tell your brother Aaron he may not come any time he wishes into the Sanctuary”; then I, who am never allowed in – all the more so should I stay outside the Tent of Meeting! So he stayed outside the Tent of Meeting, and his decision was in accordance with the will of the Omnipresent God.
He broke the tablets. How so? They say that when Moses went up on High to receive the tablets, he found that they had already been written and set aside during the six days of Creation, as it says (Exodus 32:16), “And the tablets were the work of God, and the writing was God’s writing, engraved there upon the tablets.” (Do not read “engraved” [harut], but “freedom” [herut], for anyone who labors in Torah makes himself a free man.) At that moment, the angels who serve God pinned an accusation on Moses, saying: Master of the World, [it says] (Psalms 8:5–9), “What is the human that You should be mindful of him, the son of man that You should take note of him? You have made him a little less than God, and crowned him with glory and splendor. You have set him up to rule over Your handiwork. The world is beneath Your feet. Sheep and oxen, and all of them, and wild beasts as well. The birds of the heavens, and the fish of the sea.” So they spoke behind Moses’ back and asked: Why is this one, born of an earthly woman, worthy of ascending to the heights? as it says (Psalms 68:19), “You went up to the heights, having taken captives, having taken gifts.” He took them and went down, and was overjoyed. But when he saw that they were disgracing themselves with the Golden Calf, he said to himself: How can I give them these tablets? I will be binding them in serious commandments, and causing them to deserve death from Above! For it is written on these tablets, “You shall have no other gods before Me” (Exodus 20:3). So he started to go back up. The seventy elders saw him and ran after him. He was holding on to one end of the tablets, and they grabbed on to the other end. But Moses’ strength was greater than all of theirs, as it says (Deuteronomy 34:12), “And for all the awesome power that Moses displayed before all of Israel.” (He looked and saw that the writing was flying off them, and he said: How can I give these tablets to Israel? For there is nothing on them! So instead, I will take ahold of them and smash them, as it says [Deuteronomy 9:17], “I grabbed the two tablets, and I cast them out of my two hands, and I broke them.”) Rabbi Yosei HaGalili says: I will give you a parable. To what can this be compared? [It can be compared] to a human king who said to his messenger: Go out and betroth to me a beautiful, gracious maiden, whose deeds are lovely. The messenger went and betrothed such a woman. But after he betrothed her, he went and found her cheating with someone else. He made an instant (a fortiori) judgment with himself and said: If I give her the marriage contract now, she will immediately deserve death. [So let her instead] be released from my master forever. So, too, did Moses the Righteous make an (a fortiori) judgment with himself, and said: How can I give these tablets to Israel and bind them in serious commandments and cause them to deserve death? For it is written upon them (Exodus 22:19), “One who sacrifices to any gods other than the Eternal alone will be put to death.” So instead (I will take ahold of them and smash them, and thereby return the people to good standing, lest Israel say: Where are the first tablets that you brought down? These things are counterfeit! Rabbi Yehudah ben Beteira says: Moses did not break the tablets until he was told to straight from the mouth of the Almighty, as it says [Numbers 12:8], “Mouth to mouth I speak to him” – that is, mouth to mouth I said to him: Break the tablets!) And there are others who say: Moses did not break the tablets until he was told to straight from the mouth of the Almighty, as it says (Deuteronomy 9:16), “I saw there that you had sinned against the Eternal your God.” It says only, “I saw there,” because he saw the writing flying off [the tablets]. Others say: Moses did not break the tablets until he was told to straight from the mouth of the Almighty, as it says (Deuteronomy 10:5), “[The tablets] were there, as the Eternal had commanded me.” It says only, “commanded me,” because [first] he was commanded to [break them], and then he broke them. Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah says: Moses did not break the tablets until he was told to straight from the mouth of the Almighty, as it says (Deuteronomy 34:12), “…that Moses performed before all of Israel.” Just as later on he was commanded and then did, so too here, he was commanded and then did. (Rabbi Akiva says: Moses did not break the tablets until he was told to straight from the mouth of the Almighty, as it says [Deuteronomy 9:17], “I took ahold of the two tablets.” A person can take ahold only of that which he has been permitted by his Creator. Rabbi Meir says: Moses did not break the tablets until he was told to straight from the mouth of the Almighty, as it says [Deuteronomy 10:2], “That [asher] which you broke”: Well done [yishar koach] that you broke them!)¹Rashi says the language of asher, “that,” is like the language of ishur, “permission.” I think it more likely that the text is making a play on words between asher and yishar [koah], “well done.” [trans.]

R. Nehorai said: Whoever puts his neighbour to shame will in the end himself be put to shame; furthermore, the Angels of Destruction thrust and drive him out of the world and expose his shame before all mankind. But whoever is shamefaced will not speedily yield to sin; as it is stated, And that His fear may be before you, that ye sin not.²⁷Ex. 20, 17. As regards anyone who is not shamefaced, it is certain that his forefathers did not stand at the foot of Mount Sinai.

Why did they say, if he was riding on an animal one tells him, descend? The colleagues say, maybe the animal will (be girded, be nursing) [be damaged]⁴¹The text is not clear, nor is its meaning. The scribe’s text is תיטק but the letter ט is damaged and was read as נו by the Venice printer and נז by the corrector. There is no Hebrew root נטק (or יטק) on record; the Arabic root נטק means “to gird”. In the Babli 36b the reason is purely rabbinic, lest one cut a twig from a tree to drive the animal. The reader’s own conjecture as to the meaning will be as good as any other proposed interpretation.. Rebbi Yose said to them, think of it, if it was a large camel! Rebbi Aḥa bar Pappus stated before Rebbi Ze`ira: There is a difference, because he is commanded about the rest of his animals like his own: That your ox and your donkey rest⁴²Ex. 23:12.; like you⁴³Deut. 5:14.. There are Tannaim who state, one may lean on an animal. There are Tannaim who state, one may not lean on an animal. Rav Ḥisda said, he who said one may lean on, if he is healthy; he who said one may not lean on, if he is weak⁴⁴A healthy person leans on an animal as he would lean on a human; this must be permitted. A sickly person might use the animal to support his entire weight; this is counted as a biblical infraction.. Rebbi Yose says, Rebbi Abba bar Mamal and the colleagues disagreed. One said, one may lean on, but the other said, one may not lean on. He who said one may lean on, if he leans a little bit; he who said one may not lean on, if he puts on his full weight. We do not know who said what. Since Rebbi Yose did not say anything in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal, this implies⁴⁵Since R. Yose reported the disagreement between Amoraim without further discussion he indicated that this disagreement was unimportant since the apparent disagreement between Tannaim already was explained away by Rav Ḥisda; the latter’s explanation was accepted also in the Galilean Academy. In the Babli (Šabbat155a, Ḥagigah16b) any leaning on animals is forbidden. that a healthy person may lean on, a weak one may not lean on.

Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi said, the Holy One, praise to Him, took a spoonful from the place of the altar and created Adam from it. He said, he shall have been created from the place of the altar so that he should be able to stand up¹⁰¹Gen. rabba 14(9), R. Berekhiah and R. Ḥelbo in the name of R. Samuel ben Naḥman. The altar, with definite article, is the altar in the Temple courtyard in Jerusalem which by tradition [Gen. rabba 34(8)] is the altar used by Adam, Noah, and Abraham.. That is what is written: “The Eternal Omnipotent formed Adam the first of dust from the earth¹⁰²Gen. 2:7.”, and it is written: “You shall build for me an altar of earth¹⁰³Ex. 20:24..” Since “earth” there means an altar, here also [it means] an altar. “His days should be a hundred and twenty years.¹⁰⁴Gen. 6:3.” Adam the first lived close to a thousand years and you say, “his days should be a hundred and twenty years”! But after 120 years he returns to be a spoonful of decay. That is difficult. For Og, the king of Bashan, 120 years, and for a newborn baby 120 years? Og [becomes] a spoonful of decay, and a newborn baby becomes a spoonful of decay. “¹⁰⁵Tosephta Ahilut 2:2; Kelim Baba Meṣi‘a 7:1, as legal principle independent of the story of 120 years. Quoted in the Babli, 50b, but there the rabbis derive the decay from the body of the hand, without the fingers. The spoonful of decay which they mentioned is from his finger joints and upwards, the words of Rebbi Meïr, but the Sages say, from a fully developed hand.” Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi was illustrating that of Rebbi Meïr one way, that of the rabbis in another way.

Aḥitophel was a man great in Torah. It is written²⁴²2S. 6:1. The verse is written in military language but does not appear in a military context.: David again assembled all young men in Israel, 30’000. Rebbi Berekhiah in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Cahana²⁴³Num. rabba 4(21),12(25); Midrash Samuel 24(5).: Ninety thousand Elders did David ordain on one day, but he did not ordain Aḥitophel with them²⁴⁴Justifying Ahitophel’s hatred of David. He had enough reason as Batseba’s grandfather.. That is what is written: David again assembled all young men in Israel, 30’000. He added, 30’000. Again, 30’000, and the simple sense of the verse, 30’000; together 90’000. You find that at the moment when David came to carry the Ark of the Eternal’s Covenant, he did not carry it following the Torah²⁴⁸Num. 7:9.. They moved the Ark of God’s Covenant on a new car²⁴⁵2S. 6:3., etc. The Ark lifted the Cohanim up and tore them down to the ground; lifted the Cohanim up and tore them down to the ground. David sent and brought Aḥitophel. He told him, can you not tell me why the Ark lifted the Cohanim up and tore them down to the ground, lifted the Cohanim up and tore them down to the ground? He answered, send and ask all the wise men whom you ordained. David said, any man who knows how to put this in order but does not put it in order should end up strangled. He said something in front of it and it was steadied. That is what is written²⁴⁶2S. 6:13; 2 Chr. 15:20. The two verses contradict one another.: It was when the carriers of the Eternal’s Ark took six steps that he sacrificed a bull and a fattened calf. Rebbi Ḥanina and Rebbi Mana, one said, for every step a bull and a fattened calf and at the end seven oxen and seven rams; but the other said, for every step seven oxen and seven rams and at the end a bull and a fattened calf²⁴⁷To explain both verses (Note 246). Babli Sotah 35b.. The Holy One, praise to Him, said to Aḥitophel: Something which the schoolchildren say every day in assembly you did not say to him: to the Bene Qehat he did not give; for the service of the holy [vessels] is on them, they should carry on the shoulder²⁴⁸Num. 7:9.. But so you told him. ²⁴⁹Differently Babli Sukkah 53a; hinted at Makkot 11a. Similarly you find that when David started to excavate the foundations²⁵⁰Greek θεμελίωσις; cf. Sotah 6:2 Note 17. of the Temple, he dug down fifteen hundred cubits and did not find the abyss. At the end he found a clay pot and wanted to lift it. It told him, you cannot lift me. We asked, why? It answered, because I am here suppressing the abyss. He asked it, since when are you here? It answered, from the Moment that the Merciful spoke on Sinai: I am the Eternal, your God²⁵¹Ex. 20:2., the earth trembled and sank down, and I was put here to suppress the abyss²⁵²Cf. Babli ˋAvodah zarah 3a, Midrash Tehillim 74 #4. The reference is to Ps.76:9: The earth was fearful and quiet. The earth was fearful because it was created on condition that Israel accept the Torah; when Israel accepted the Ten Commandments the earth became quiet since its continued existence was assured. The cover on the abyss sits on the waters of the Deluge (Gen.7:11).. Nevertheless, he did not listen to it; when he lifted it the abyss rose and threatened to flood the world. Aḥitophel was standing there. He said, now David will be strangled and I shall rule. David said, any Sage who knows how to put this in order but does not put it in order should end up strangled. He said what he said²⁵³A magical spell. and it was steady. David started to sing a song of ascent, a song for a rise of 100 [cubits]. For each hundred cubits he composed a song. Nevertheless, he ended up strangled. Rebbi Yose said, that is what the proverb says, a person has to worry about the curse of a rabbi, even if it is for nothing²⁵⁴Babli Berakhot 56a, Makkot 11a.. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: The scroll which Samuel handed over to David, Aḥitophel composed it by the Holy Spirit²⁵⁵The blueprint for building the Temple (1Chr. 28:11).. What did Aḥitophel do? If anybody asked for his counsel in anything and he gave his advice, he said go and do such and such, and if you do not believe me ask the Urim and Tummim. He went, asked, and found it correct²⁵⁶Midrash Tehillim 3(4). (We do not find that the oracle could be used for anything but affairs of state.). That is what is written²⁵⁷2S. 16:23.: The counsel of Aḥitophel which he gave in those days, etc. Man is read but not written²⁵⁸Babli Nedarim 37b.; the verses could not call him “a man.²⁵⁹In Midrash Tehillim 3(4): “but an angel.””

HALAKHAH: 3. In the House of Rebbi Yannai they said, folding by two persons is forbidden²⁷Folding garments or bedsheets, as mentioned in Mishnah 3. Two people folding a sheet is professional work. Babli 113a (which has a list of further restrictons unknown to the Yerushalmi.). Rebbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman: On the Sabbath, two together may not fold. If one folds on a footstool²⁸Latin subsellium, -ii, n. it is as if two persons were folding²⁹Since folding garments on a low bench is easier than folding when holding them in the air, the low bench has the status of a work tool which rabbinically cannot be used.. Rebbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman: Sabbaths and holidays were given only for eating and drinking. Since this mouth [is bothersome]³⁰As E proves, this word, which was written by the Leiden scribe, is the correct expression. It was changed by the corrector into a word, reproduced in the Venice edition, which makes no sense in this context. (is smelling), they permitted him to be occupied with words of the Torah. Rebbi Berekhiah in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: Sabbaths and holidays were given only for being occupied with words of the Torah³¹Here E has an explanatory addition which is attested to in some Medieval sources [Sefer Haˋittim §198 p. 290; some mss. of Meїri ad 118b, ed. I. S. Lange p. 459, Or zarua Šabbat §89; it is missing in the quotes of the paragraph in Šibbole Halleqet (ed. S. Buber fol. 34a) and Sefer Hamanhig (ed I. Raphael p. 181)]: “on weekdays since he is occupied he has no free time to occupy himself with words of Torah; holidays and Sabbaths were given to him to occupy himself with words of Torah.”. A baraita supports either one of them: What does one do? Either he sits down and eats or he sits and studies words of the Torah. One verse says, it is a Sabbath for the Eternal³²Lev. 23:3. This means totally to the Eternal., and another verse says, an assembly for the Eternal³³Deut. 16:8. This means partially to the Eternal., your God. How is that? Give part of it to the study of Torah and part to eat and to drink. Rebbi Abbahu said, a Sabbath for the Eternal³⁴Ex. 20:10. E shows that probably the quote Lev. 23:3 is intended., rest like the Eternal. Since the Eternal rested from saying, you also should rest from saying³⁴Ex. 20:10. E shows that probably the quote Lev. 23:3 is intended..

“At a distance of four cubits from the place of stoning,” etc. ⁶⁹Babli Makkot 5b, Hagigah 16b; Tosephta 6:6. The text is badly truncated; following the parallel sources it should read approximately:
Jehudah ben Ṭabbai said, may I never see consolation if I did not execute a perjured witness, for the Sadducees were saying, a perjured witness is not executed unless the accused was executed, as it is said, a life for a life. Simeon ben Shetah told him, may I never see consolation if it is not held against you that you spilled innocent blood since no perjured witness is executed unless both of them are shown to be perjured. At that time, he took it upon himself not to teach except what he heard from Simeon ben Sheṭaḥ.
This is the first of a series of treatments of the Simeon ben Shetaḥ legend (Mishnah 8) before one returns to a discussion of the Mishnah.
If only one of the witnesses is found perjured, neither his testimony nor that of the other witness can be used against the accused since both are testimonies of single witnesses unsupported by a second witness. The case against the accused has to be dismissed; there is no case.“Rebbi Jehudah ben Ṭabbai said, may I never see consolation if I did not execute a perjured witness, for they were saying, until he was executed, as it is said, a life for a life. Simeon ben Shetaḥ told him, may I never see consolation if it is not held against you that you spilled innocent blood. At that time, he took it upon himself not to teach except what he heard from Simeon ben Sheṭaḥ.”

Rebbi Abbahu said, for you as help for us⁴⁷Ps. 80:3.. For you is recognized⁴⁸The reading of the text is unsafe and its meaning unclear. In line with the following homilies, the presumed meaning is that God liberated Himself by liberating Israel from Egypt.. Rebbi Abba from Saronga, and the Eternal will first save the tents of Jehudah⁴⁹Sach. 12:17.. It is written “he saved.⁵⁰Meaning: He saved Himself.” Rebbi Zibai explained, for now leavethe city and dwell in the field⁵¹Mica 4:10., my Shekhina is in the field⁵²A homily on the word ושכנת which is revocalized וּשְּכִנָתִ “My Presence”, the field being a simile for the desert.. Ḥananiah the son of Rebbi Joshua’s brother says, I am the Eternal, your God, Who led you out of the land of Egypt⁵³Ex. 20:2., it is written “who was led out with you.⁵⁴There is no textual evidence for a missing letter in this word.”

BARAITHA. Love the Torah and honour it.
GEMARA. ‘Love the Torah.’ Whence have we this? For it is written, Thou shalt love [’eth] the Lord thy God,¹¹⁰Deut. 6, 3; ’eth is the sign of the accusative case. ’eth [being added] to include love of the Torah. Similarly you may quote, Honour [’eth] thy father,¹¹¹Ex. 20, 12. where ’eth [is added to include] your stepmother; and [we’eth] thy mother to include your stepfather; [or] we- [and] to include your elder brother.¹¹²Cf. Keth. 103a (Sonc. ed., p. 657). What is ‘love’ and what is ‘honour’? ‘Love’ is with the heart and ‘honour’ with deeds. And [is ‘honour’] not with words? It has been taught: He who speaks against the Torah and against the disciples of the wise has no share in the World to Come! Say that [‘honour’] is also with words.

Rebbi Mana made light of those ordained for money. Rebbi Ammi⁶⁰In the Babli, Sanhedrin 7b, this is ascribed to Rav Ashi and directed against those who ordain for money. The ordination discussed here is original ordination in the succession of Moses and the Prophets, in Mishnaic times expressed by the title of “Rebbi”, in contrast to the informal (Babylonian and modern) ordination known by the title of “Rav.”. read for them (Ex. 20:19): “Do not make for yourselves gods of silver or gods of gold.” Rebbi Yoshia said, their prayer shawl is like a donkey’s saddle cover. Rebbi Ashian said, if somebody is ordained for money, one does not get up before him and one does not address him as Rebbi; his prayer shawl is like a donkey’s saddle cover. Rebbi Zeïra and one of the rabbis were sitting together when a person ordained for money was passing by. One of the rabbis said to Rebbi Zeïra, let us behave like Tannaïm⁶¹People of prior generations, before the patriarchate, the only authority empowered to ordain in their time, had discovered ordination as a source of income. Not to honor an ordained person was really an insult to the patriarchate. and not get up before him.

Rebbi Mana made light of those ordained for money. Rebbi Ammi⁶⁰In the Babli, Sanhedrin 7b, this is ascribed to Rav Ashi and directed against those who ordain for money. The ordination discussed here is original ordination in the succession of Moses and the Prophets, in Mishnaic times expressed by the title of “Rebbi”, in contrast to the informal (Babylonian and modern) ordination known by the title of “Rav.”. read for them (Ex. 20:19): “Do not make for yourselves gods of silver or gods of gold.” Rebbi Yoshia said, their prayer shawl is like a donkey’s saddle cover. Rebbi Ashian said, if somebody is ordained for money, one does not get up before him and one does not address him as Rebbi; his prayer shawl is like a donkey’s saddle cover. Rebbi Zeïra and one of the rabbis were sitting together when a person ordained for money was passing by. One of the rabbis said to Rebbi Zeïra, let us behave like Tannaïm⁶¹People of prior generations, before the patriarchate, the only authority empowered to ordain in their time, had discovered ordination as a source of income. Not to honor an ordained person was really an insult to the patriarchate. and not get up before him.

MISHNAH: A bull which gored a human who then died, if it is notorious [the owner] pays weregilt⁶⁶Ex. 21:30., if tame he is not liable for weregilt; in both cases they have to be killed⁶⁷Ex. 21:28,29.. The same holds for a son or a daughter⁶⁸There is no difference whether the victim was adult or underage. The statement is only necessary since the verse, Ex. 21:31, stresses that the same rules apply to underage as to adult victims.. It it gored a male or female slave, [the owner] pays 30 tetradrachmas⁶⁹Ex. 21:32., whether he was worth a mina or was worth only a gold⁷⁰This reading is also found in some Babli mss., Alfasi, and the Naples print of the Mishnah. In other texts: “one (silver) denar”. denar.

HALAKHAH: Mishnah: “The House of Shammai say, one does not soak ink¹²Blocks of soot or sepia used to make India ink. This and the following rules are based on a fundamental disagreement between the House of Shammai, who hold that a person may not use his vessels for any procedure which he could not do on the Sabbath, and the House of Hillel who allow a person’s machines to work for him as long as he does not risk temptation to interfere with their working on the Sabbath., chemicals, or vetch,”³⁴⁸Quote from Mishnah 9. etc. What is the reason of the House of Shammai? Six days you shall work and do all your deeds³⁴⁹Ex. 20:9. The argument is quoted in Tosephta 1:21, Mekhilta dR. Simeon ben Yoḥai p. 149.. All your deeds, finish them by daylight. What is the reason of the House of Hillel? Six days you shall work on your works and on [the seventh] day³⁵⁰Ex. 23:12.. How do the House of Hillel explain the reason of the House of Shammai, six days you shall work and do all your deeds? When they work with their hands³⁵¹While work on the Sabbath is forbidden, letting machines work for you on the Sabbath is permitted.. How do the House of Shammai explain the reason of the House of Hillel, six days you shall work on your works and on [the seventh] day? Following what was stated³⁵²Tosephta 1:23, Babli 18a; Mekhilta dR. Simeon ben Yoḥai p. 149. The Tosephta stated rules common to the Houses of Hillel and Shammai even if the reasons for permission or prohibition may be different for the Houses. It is clear from the Tosephta that the House of Shammai forbid soaking ink in water during the Sabbath only because nothing of it is usable when the Sabbath begins, while watering a garden or smoking out lice from a garment is useful even if done only for a short time. The Babli disagrees, 18a (Explanation of S. Liebermann.), “One opens a water canal leading into a garden on Friday evening and it is continuously watered on the Sabbath. One puts ointment³⁵³Greek κολλύριον, τό. on an eye on Friday evening and it is continuously healing on the Sabbath. One puts a compress on a wound on Friday evening and it is continuously healing on the Sabbath. One puts burning incense under clothing on Friday evening and it is continuously smoked on the Sabbath. One puts sulfur under clothing on Friday evening and it is continuously sulfured on the Sabbath. One may not give wheat into a water mill on Friday evening unless it will be completely ground as long as it is daylight.” Rebbi Ḥaggai said, because it is making noise³⁵⁴In the Babli 18a this is an argument of the Babylonian Rabba. Since some grain will have been turned into flour, without this argument also the House of Shammai would permit milling flour in a watermill on the Sabbath.. Rebbi Yose said to him, this is fine if one holds with Rebbi Jehudah. But for the rabbis, just as they say because not every single drop was started, so they say here because not every grain kernel was started³⁵⁵This refers to Mishnah 2:4 where R. Jehudah permits feeding a burning light on the Sabbath with oil dripping from a vessel above the fire while the majority forbid it.. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, because he is apt to forget and will push the peg³⁵⁶According to him by biblical law milling on the Sabbath in an automatic mill is permitted according to both Houses; the prohibition is purely rabbinic; both Houses agree that it should be forbidden because the miller will hear when the milling is done and move a peg on his mill, which is a Sabbath desecration..

⁸⁰The old Midrashim, Lev. r. 33:6, shorter Cant. r. ad 2:14, Eccl. r. ad 8:2 quote this in the name of the older R. Levy. Possibly there is no claim of originality asserted here for R. Yose ben R. Abun, three generations after R. Levy, but the sermon is quoted as objection to the lenient rulings mentioned before. Rebbi Yose ben Abun said: I shall keep the King’s sayings⁸¹Eccl. 8:2., Who told me at Sinai I am the Eternal, your God⁸²Ex. 20:2., on the pronouncement⁸¹Eccl. 8:2., you shall not have other gods before Me⁸³Ex. 20:3., of God’s oath⁸¹Eccl. 8:2., do not take the Name of the Eternal, your God, in vain⁸⁴Ex. 20:7.. In this matter we come together, this man⁸⁵The speaker. and this dog⁸⁶Nebuchadnezzar, who is said to have barked like a dog during his spell of insanity, Lev. r. 33(6). are both equal.

⁸⁰The old Midrashim, Lev. r. 33:6, shorter Cant. r. ad 2:14, Eccl. r. ad 8:2 quote this in the name of the older R. Levy. Possibly there is no claim of originality asserted here for R. Yose ben R. Abun, three generations after R. Levy, but the sermon is quoted as objection to the lenient rulings mentioned before. Rebbi Yose ben Abun said: I shall keep the King’s sayings⁸¹Eccl. 8:2., Who told me at Sinai I am the Eternal, your God⁸²Ex. 20:2., on the pronouncement⁸¹Eccl. 8:2., you shall not have other gods before Me⁸³Ex. 20:3., of God’s oath⁸¹Eccl. 8:2., do not take the Name of the Eternal, your God, in vain⁸⁴Ex. 20:7.. In this matter we come together, this man⁸⁵The speaker. and this dog⁸⁶Nebuchadnezzar, who is said to have barked like a dog during his spell of insanity, Lev. r. 33(6). are both equal.

⁸⁰The old Midrashim, Lev. r. 33:6, shorter Cant. r. ad 2:14, Eccl. r. ad 8:2 quote this in the name of the older R. Levy. Possibly there is no claim of originality asserted here for R. Yose ben R. Abun, three generations after R. Levy, but the sermon is quoted as objection to the lenient rulings mentioned before. Rebbi Yose ben Abun said: I shall keep the King’s sayings⁸¹Eccl. 8:2., Who told me at Sinai I am the Eternal, your God⁸²Ex. 20:2., on the pronouncement⁸¹Eccl. 8:2., you shall not have other gods before Me⁸³Ex. 20:3., of God’s oath⁸¹Eccl. 8:2., do not take the Name of the Eternal, your God, in vain⁸⁴Ex. 20:7.. In this matter we come together, this man⁸⁵The speaker. and this dog⁸⁶Nebuchadnezzar, who is said to have barked like a dog during his spell of insanity, Lev. r. 33(6). are both equal.

The question was asked: May one say, ‘Would that I had So-and-so’s money! Would that I had a wife like So-and-so’s wife!’? May one sleep in one bed with his wife who is niddah or not? May one quarrel with a man with whom it is not fit to quarrel? Come and hear and I will answer all these questions. It is stated, Thou shalt not covet:⁸Ex. 20, 17, in A.J. 14. even [by saying,] ‘Would that I had So-and-so’s money!’ To say, ‘Would that I had So-and-so’s money!’ is [the conduct of] a thief or a robber. But [as for the remark], ‘Would that I had as much money as So-and-so!’ why should this be definitely forbidden? He only expresses a wish for himself! But [to say], ‘Would that So-and-so gave me his money!’ constitutes an act of coveting. ‘Would that I had a wife like the wife of So-and-so!’—[by saying this he indicates that] he has already impure thoughts concerning her; but to say ‘Would that the daughter of So-and-so would marry me!’ is certainly permissible. Is not this self-evident? It is necessary [to state this because] he may say to her, ‘Be betrothed to me’ and she may refuse. ‘May one sleep in one bed with his wife who is niddah?’ [It is stated,] And thou shalt not approach unto a woman to uncover her nakedness, as long as she is impure by her uncleanness.⁹Lev. 18, 19. He is allowed, however, to eat with her. Whoever approaches his wife¹⁰Add with H ‘who is niddah’, which is implied. while she is asleep is as if he approached a ship which is about to be wrecked in the sea.¹¹He is heading for a sin against the Torah. Here it is written, And thou shalt not approach, and there it is written, So the shipmaster came to him.¹²Jonah 1, 6. The Heb. for came to is the same as for approach. The context is the danger to the ship in which Jonah was sailing. Some say that he is obliged to bring a sin-offering, as it is written, The soul that sinneth, it shall die.¹³Ezek. 18, 20. This sentence is omitted in H. The point appears to be this: The word sinneth is הַחׄטֵאת, which is written without the waw and can be read הַחַטָאת, ‘the sin-offering’. Since Ezekiel, in verse 6, mentions [coming] near to a woman in her impurity, by the rule of analogy it is concluded that such a sin can only be atoned by a sin-offering. Some say: It is as if he offered sacrifices to the Golden Calf.¹⁴H adds Ex. 32, 19, as the proof-text where came nigh occurs, which in Heb. is the same as approached. ‘May one quarrel with a man with whom it is not fit to quarrel?’ It is written, And I contended with them, and cursed them.¹⁵Neh. 13, 25. Nehemiah strove with the Jews who had married heathen women.

Also you say that Joab was of the opinion that the horns of an altar give asylum⁸⁷1K. 2:28, Babli 12a. but only its top gives asylum; in fact only the top of the one in Shilo gives asylum, but that of the Temple does not give asylum. But I am saying that neither the altar gives asylum, nor does its top give asylum, nor the one in Shilo gives asylum, nor that of the Temple gives asylum. Nothing except the six cities of refuge give asylum. Is it possible that Joab, about whom it is written, the most wise, head of the third⁸⁸2S. 23:8. Joab himself is not mentioned in the Chapter. Targum Jonathan and the Babli (Moˋed qatan 16b) read the expression as referring to David. should err in this matter? Rebbi Tanḥuma said, he fled to the Sanhedrin, because it is stated: The property of people executed by the court goes to their heirs; the property of people executed by the government goes to the government⁸⁹This projects Roman practice into Jewish law.. Joab said, it is better that I should be executed by the court and my sons will inherit from me than that the king should execute me and inherit from me. When Solomon heard this he said, do I need his money? Immediately, I shall remove the blood for free⁹⁰1K. 2:31. In the MT, confirmed by LXX, וַהֲסִירֹתָ. The blood is the innocent blood of Abner and Amasa., but his money is not free. He sent through Benaiahu who smote him and killed him; they buried him in his house in the wilderness⁹¹A combination of 1K. 2:29,34.. Was his house a wilderness? But to tell you that when Joab the commander of Israel’s army died⁹²Here starts the second sheet of the Genizah fragment (G)., Israel was turned into a wilderness. If you say that he collected booty to build public baths and baths⁹³A double expression of Greek (Sanhedrin 7:19, Note 357) and Hebrew terms for public baths., this is worthy of praise. But if you say that he collected booty to support Sages and their students, it is worthy of the highest praise⁹⁴Babli Sanhedrin 49a refers to 1Chr.11:8 as proof that Joab used his riches to support scholars.. And from where that the Supreme Sanhedrin is near the altar? Do not ascend on my altar by stairs. What is written next? These are the rules of law you shall put before them⁹⁵Ex. 20:23, 21:1..

Also you say that Joab was of the opinion that the horns of an altar give asylum⁸⁷1K. 2:28, Babli 12a. but only its top gives asylum; in fact only the top of the one in Shilo gives asylum, but that of the Temple does not give asylum. But I am saying that neither the altar gives asylum, nor does its top give asylum, nor the one in Shilo gives asylum, nor that of the Temple gives asylum. Nothing except the six cities of refuge give asylum. Is it possible that Joab, about whom it is written, the most wise, head of the third⁸⁸2S. 23:8. Joab himself is not mentioned in the Chapter. Targum Jonathan and the Babli (Moˋed qatan 16b) read the expression as referring to David. should err in this matter? Rebbi Tanḥuma said, he fled to the Sanhedrin, because it is stated: The property of people executed by the court goes to their heirs; the property of people executed by the government goes to the government⁸⁹This projects Roman practice into Jewish law.. Joab said, it is better that I should be executed by the court and my sons will inherit from me than that the king should execute me and inherit from me. When Solomon heard this he said, do I need his money? Immediately, I shall remove the blood for free⁹⁰1K. 2:31. In the MT, confirmed by LXX, וַהֲסִירֹתָ. The blood is the innocent blood of Abner and Amasa., but his money is not free. He sent through Benaiahu who smote him and killed him; they buried him in his house in the wilderness⁹¹A combination of 1K. 2:29,34.. Was his house a wilderness? But to tell you that when Joab the commander of Israel’s army died⁹²Here starts the second sheet of the Genizah fragment (G)., Israel was turned into a wilderness. If you say that he collected booty to build public baths and baths⁹³A double expression of Greek (Sanhedrin 7:19, Note 357) and Hebrew terms for public baths., this is worthy of praise. But if you say that he collected booty to support Sages and their students, it is worthy of the highest praise⁹⁴Babli Sanhedrin 49a refers to 1Chr.11:8 as proof that Joab used his riches to support scholars.. And from where that the Supreme Sanhedrin is near the altar? Do not ascend on my altar by stairs. What is written next? These are the rules of law you shall put before them⁹⁵Ex. 20:23, 21:1..

It is written¹⁰²Jos. 9:27.: At that moment Joshua dedicated them as hewers of wood and drawers of water for the congregation. One understands “for the congregation.” But “for the Eternal’s altar”? But Joshua kept them in limbo. He said, I shall [neither]¹⁰³Added from the Qiddušin text. exclude nor include them. But he who sometime in the future will build the Temple, if he wants to include he may include, if he wants to exclude he may exclude. David came and excluded them as it is said¹⁰⁴2S. 21:1–2.: But the Gibeonites are not part of the Children of Israel. Why did he exclude them? Because there was a famine in David’s time, three years year after year. David said, for three sins the rains are locked away: Foreign worship, incest and adultery, and murder. Foreign worship, as it is written¹⁰⁵Deut. 11:16–17.: Beware, lest you be seduced and next to it, He locks the sky up. Incest and adultery, as it is written¹⁰⁶Jer. 3:2–3. Rain-showers were withheld, there was no late rain, for you had the forehead of a whoring woman. Murder, as it is written¹⁰⁷Num. 35:33.: Because blood will distort the Land. Some say, also those who publicly promise money for welfare but do not pay, as it is written¹⁰⁸Prov. 25:14.: Clouds and wind but no rain means the man who boasts with lying gifts. David checked on all his ways and did not find any of them. He turned to ask the Urim and Tummim. That is what is written¹⁰⁴2S. 21:1–2.: David asked before the Eternal. Rebbi Eleazar said, it is written¹⁰⁹Zeph. 2:3.: Ask the Eternal, all the meek of the Land, who execute His Law, etc. ¹⁰⁴2S. 21:1–2.The Eternal said, because of Saul and the House of blood-guilt, for he had killed the Gibeonites. Because of Saul, whom you did not grant the last favor, and because of the House of blood-guilt, for he had killed the Gibeonites. David sent and called them. He asked them, what is between you and the House of Saul? They told him, because he killed seven of our men, two hewers of wood, two drawers of water, a scribe, a religious leader, and a beadle. He asked them, what do you want now? They said to him, May there be given to us seven men … and we shall hang them before the Eternal in Gibeon¹¹⁰2S. 21:6.. He said to them, what use is it to you that they be killed? Take silver and gold for yourselves! But they answered, there is no silver or gold for us from Saul and his house¹¹¹2S. 21:6.. He said, maybe they are afraid one of the other; he dealt which each of them separately, trying to mollify him by himself, but nobody accepted it. That is what is written, there is no silver or gold for us, it is written for me. At this moment, David said that the Holy One gave three good gifts to Israel: They are decent, merciful, and charitable. Decent, for it is written¹¹²Ex. 20:20.: that His fear be on your faces. Merciful, for it is written¹¹³Deut. 13:18,: He gave you mercy, had mercy on you and increased you. Charitable, for it is written¹¹⁴Deut. 7:12.: The Eternal, your God, kept for you covenant and charity. But these, nothing of this is found in them; he excluded them: But the Gibeonites are not of the Children of Israel¹⁰⁴2S. 21:1–2.. And Ezra also excluded them, as it is said:¹¹⁵Neh. 3:26, 11:21. And the dedicated ones dwelt in the Ophel; Ziha and Gishpa were of the dedicated ones. Also in the future, the Holy One, praise to Him, will exclude them as it is written¹¹⁶Ez. 48:19.: The city worker will cultivate it, from all tribes of Israel. He will eliminate them from all tribes of Israel.

It is said (Lev. 19:3): “Everybody must fear his mother and his father,” and it is said (Deut. 6:13): “You must fear the Eternal, your God, and serve Him.” This brackets the fear of father and mother with the fear of the Omnipresent. [It is said (Ex. 20:12): “Honor your father and your mother,” and it is said (Prov. 3:9): “Honor the Eternal with your property.” This brackets the honor of father and mother with the honor of the Omnipresent.] Is is said (Ex. 21:17): “He who curses his father or his mother shall be put to death,” and it is said (Lev. 24:19): “Everybody who curses his God must bear his sin.” This brackets cursing father and mother with cursing the Omnipresent. It is impossible to speak about hitting relative to the Deity. All this is logical since all three of them are partners in him.

The words of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba disagree, for Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said that Rebbi Yudan, son of Rebbi Simeon bar Ioḥai’s daughter, stated that Rebbi Simeon bar Ioḥai stated: Honoring father and mother is great because the Holy One, praise to Him, preferred it over His own honor. It is said (Ex. 20:12): “Honor your father and your mother,” and it is said (Prov. 3:9): “Honor the Eternal with your property.” How do you honor Him? From your property! ⁶⁰⁹From here on there exists a Genizah fragment of the text (G). It is fragmentary in this paragraph, continuous in the following. One gives gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and peah, one gives terumah, the First and Second Tithes and the tithe for the poor, ḥallah, one makes a sukkah, and lulav,shofar, and tefillin, and ẓiẓit, one feeds the hungry and gives to drink to the thirsty. If you have the wherewhithal, you are obliged for all of these; if you have nothing, you are not obliged even for one of them. But when it comes to honoring father and mother, whether you own property or you do not, you must honor father and mother, even if you are a beggar at people’s doors.

Whoever is not shamefaced will readily sin, as it is stated, The show of their countenance doth witness against them;¹⁶Isa. 3, 9. but he who experiences shame¹⁷i.e. who is not callous, but is self-conscious when he is doing wrong. will not readily sin, as it is stated, [And Moses said unto the people: ‘Fear not; for God is come to prove you] and that His fear may be before you, that ye sin not.¹⁸Ex. 20, 17; cf. Ned. 20a (Sonc. ed., p. 57).

The allegorical interpreters⁸⁸lit. ‘expounders of jewels’, i.e. precious ethical principles. These interpreters stressed the idea behind the law and not its fulfilment. This type of interpretation was a product of Alexandria and was strongly opposed by the Talmudical Rabbis. Cf. Lauterbach, Jewish Quarterly Review (new series), I, pp. 503ff. of Scripture said: And ye shall break down their altars:⁸⁹Deut. 12, 3. wherein have the trees and the stones sinned?⁹⁰Cf. Sanh. 55a (Sonc. ed., p. 374). Because they were a stumbling-block to man Scripture decreed, And ye shall break down. This is an argument from minor to major: if with trees and stones, which are capable neither of merit nor guilt, neither of good nor evil, because they were a stumbling-block to man the Torah declared, And ye shall break down, how much more [will a man be punished] who causes his neighbour to sin and turns him away from the way of life to the path of death! Similarly, And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast.⁹¹Lev. 20, 16. If a human being sinned, how has the animal offended?⁹²Sanh. 54a (Sonc. ed., p. 367). Because evil came to a human being through it, and so that the animal shall not pass through the street and people say, ‘This is the animal on account of which So-and-so was stoned’. This is an argument from minor to major: if with an animal, which is capable neither of merit nor guilt, neither of good nor evil, because it was a stumbling-block to a human being the Torah declared, It shall be stoned, how much more [will a man be punished] who causes his neighbour to sin and turns him from the way of life to the path of death!
Similarly Scripture declares of the stones of the altar, Thou shalt lift up no iron tool upon them,⁹³Deut. 27, 5. and elsewhere it states, For if thou lift up thy tool upon it, thou hast profaned it.⁹⁴Ex. 20, 22. Wherein is iron different from all other metals to be unfit for [the building of] the altar? Because the sword is a symbol of curse and the altar an agent of atonement; so we remove the symbol of curse on account of the agent of atonement. This is an argument from minor to major: if with the stones of the altar which do not see and speak, eat or drink, because they make peace between Israel and their Father in heaven the Torah declared, Thou shalt lift no iron tool upon them, the children of the Torah,⁹⁵The people of Israel. who are an atonement for the world, how much more [should they not lift an iron tool against each other!] Similarly Scripture declares, Thou shalt build the altar of the Lord thy God of unhewn stones⁹⁶Deut. 27, 6.—stones that bring peace to the world. This is an argument from minor to major: if with stones which do not see or hear, speak or eat or drink, because they make peace between Israel and their Father in heaven they must be ‘whole’ [48a] before [the Holy One, blessed be He], how much more the children of the Torah, who are an atonement for the world, must be ‘whole’ before the Holy One, blessed be He!

MISHNAH: The worshipper of strange worship²³⁷Who is mentioned in Mishnah 5 as subject to stoning. whether he worships²³⁸In a way customary for the worship of the idol even if it does not resemble any approved worship of Heaven., or sacrifices²³⁹Any of the acts required in the Temple proffered to an idol is a capital crime even if ordinarily this is not the worship of this idol., or burns incense, or makes a libation, or prostrates himself; also one who accepts it as a god and says to it: you are my god²⁴⁰Without any other action..
But one who embraces²⁴¹A statue., or kisses, or sweeps clean²⁴²The floor on which the statue stands., or sprinkles water²⁴³To settle the dust on the dirt floor on which the statue is standing.; one who washes, rubs with oil, clothes, or puts shoes on it, violates a prohibition²⁴⁴The penalty would be flogging, not stoning.. He who makes a vow in its name or keeps one in its name violates a prohibition. One who defecates in front of Baal Pe`or follows its worship<sup>245</sup>While in later biblical texts (Is. 5:14, Job 6:10) פער فعر means “to open one’s mouth wide”, in rabbinic Hebrew it always means “to defecate”. Therefore Ba`al Pe`or is interpreted as a deity worshipped by defecating in front of it. The defecation then becomes a capital crime.. One who throws a stone at a statue of Mercury follows its worship²⁴⁶While in general throwing a stone at an idol would be a commendable sign of disrespect, throwing a stone at a Hermes stele is a capital crime..

HALAKHAH: “The worshipper of strange worship,” etc. From where warning about strange worship? Do not worship them²⁴⁷Ex. 20:5, Deut. 5:9 the Second Commandment.. Extirpation from where? He blasphemed the Eternal and will be extirpated²⁴⁸Num. 15:30. The verse describes any person who sins intentionally as a blasphemer. The verse decrees extirpation as punishment for any willful deed for which a sacrifice would be required if done inadvertently, in case it cannot be prosecuted in court for lack of witnesses.
The traditional interpretation of the purification sacrifices prescribed in Num. 15:22–29, which differ from those prescribed under similar headings in Lev. 4:1–5:14, assigns the sacrifices prescribed in Num. exclusively to sins of idolatry; those of Lev. to the atonement of all other transgressions (Sifry Num. 111–112). Therefore, the following verse 15:30 can also be interpreted as specifically referring to idolatry.. But is there not written “blasphemed”? As one would say to another, you scraped out the entire pot²⁴⁹It seems that in Galilean dialect גדּף جدف “to blaspheme” was pronounced like גדף جذف “to fly quickly” and this in turn sounded like גרף جرف “to scoop out with a shovel, to scratch out completely.” The parallel in the Babli, Keritut 7b, formulates גִּירַפְתָּ הַקְּעָרָה “you scratched out the pot” and Rashi comments: ד can be replaced by ר. and did not leave anything; a parable which Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar formulated: Two people were sitting with a pot of porridge between them. One of them stretched out his hand, scraped out the entire pot, and did not leave anything in it. So both the blasphemer and the worshipper of strange worship do not leave any commandment as residue²⁵⁰Obeying a Divine command after blaspheming or worshipping a strange deity is an empty gesture, devoid of all value.. From where the punishment? You shall lead out that man, or that woman, who did this deed to your gates, etc., up to and stone them with stones until they die²⁵¹Deut. 17:5..

Do not worship them²⁴⁷Ex. 20:5, Deut. 5:9 the Second Commandment.. Should I say, not unless he worshipped every single strange worship in the world? The verse says, do not prostrate yourself before them²⁴⁷Ex. 20:5, Deut. 5:9 the Second Commandment.. ²⁵²The argument is hinted at in the Babli, 60b. Prostration was included²⁵³Even though in the verse prostrating is mentioned before worshipping, it clearly is an act of worship and on purely logical grounds would not have to be mentioned separately.; why is it mentioned separately? To tie to it: Prostration is special in that it is the act of a single person and is punishable separately, so I am adding any single act that one is liable for separately. Even though Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar said²⁵⁴Halakhah 13, 25c l. 18, the entire argument is attributed to R. Jehudah ben Tanhum., if one sacrificed, and burned incense, and poured a libation in one forgetting²⁵⁵If he was oblivious to the fact that worshipping other gods was forbidden, he only has to bring one purification sacrifice. he is liable only for one; he agrees that if one worshipped it in its proper worship which is identical with the worship of Heaven like prostrating, he is liable for each single action²⁵⁶Applying any forms of worship of Heaven to any other purpose is sinful. Therefore, using it for pagan worship is not the same as accepting pagan rites of other forms.. As Rebbi Samuel said in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira: They should not continue to offer their sacrifices to spirits.²⁵⁷Lev. 17:7. They said to him, turn and refer it to sacrifices²⁵⁸The paragraph forbids any sacrificial act outside the holy precinct. It is not applicable to the question at hand..

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.

This is the principle¹⁶⁶Babli 21a, Makkot16a, Temurah3a. In the Babli the formulation of this (undisputed) principle is attributed to R. Yose the Galilean.: One flogs for any prohibition involving an action, but one does not flog if there is no action except for one who substitutes¹⁶⁷Before an animal can be sacrificed, it has to be sanctified by dedication (Lev. 27:9). Once sanctified, it is forbidden to substitute another animal (v. 10). If somebody would substitute, both the original and the substitute are dedicated. Therefore the oral declaration of substitution is at the same time the real act of sanctification which makes the animal prohibited for all profane use. This argument is not found in the Babli. already, or swears, or curses a fellow man by the Name. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: This does not include one who substitutes; substituting implies speech and action¹⁶⁷Before an animal can be sacrificed, it has to be sanctified by dedication (Lev. 27:9). Once sanctified, it is forbidden to substitute another animal (v. 10). If somebody would substitute, both the original and the substitute are dedicated. Therefore the oral declaration of substitution is at the same time the real act of sanctification which makes the animal prohibited for all profane use. This argument is not found in the Babli. already. From where one who swears falsely? Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: For the Eternal will not cleanse; but the judges will cleanse him¹⁶⁸Ex.20:7, Deut. 5:11. As the Babli explains, if the verse simply had said “he will not be cleansed”, then a vain or false oath would be an unpardonable sin. But since it said, the Eternal will not cleanse, it implies that punishment by the earthly court will remove the sin from the Heavenly ledger.. From where one who cursed his fellow man by the Name? Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: To fear the Name¹⁶⁹Deut. 28:58. While the language is that of a positive commandment, the context shows that its violation is punishable., etc. The one who swears falsely in the opinion of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish from where? Since he swore falsely, he does not fear. The one who cursed his fellow man by the Name in the opinion of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish from where? Since he cursed, he does not fear. What is the difference between them? If one swore falsely and cursed a fellow man by the Name. In Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion he is liable for two [punishments]¹⁷⁰Since the two offenses violate two different prohibitions. But for R. Simeon ben Laqish they are repeated violation of the same law, punishable only once.. In Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish’s opinion he is only liable for one.

Shemaya and Avatalyon received from them. Shemaya would say: Love work, hate power, and do not become too familiar with the authorities.
Love work.” How so? This teaches us that a person should love work, and not hate work. For just as the Torah was given in a covenant, so work was given in a covenant, as it says (Exodus 20:10), “For six days you shall labor and do all your work, and the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Eternal your God.” Rabbi Akiva would say: Sometimes a person labors and escapes death, and sometimes a person does not labor and becomes liable for death from Heaven. How so? Say a person sat around all week and did no labor, and then on the eve of the Sabbath he had nothing to eat. But he had money that had been designated [to the Temple] in his house. So he took from this and ate, and thus became liable to death from Heaven. However, if he had labored on the building of the Temple, then even though they paid him in money designated for the Temple and he took that money and used it for food, he would still escape the death penalty.
Rabbi Dostai would say: How do we know that if someone did no work all six days, he will end up doing work on the seventh? For, see, if he sat all the days of the week and did no work, and then on the eve of the Sabbath he had nothing to eat, he would then go out looking, and end up seized by conscription officers, who would grab him by the collar and force him to do on the Sabbath all the work that he did not do for six days.
Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar would say: Even Adam did not taste anything until he worked, as it says (Genesis 2:15–16), “And God placed him in the garden, to work it and guard it”; and then [it says (verse 17)], “From every tree of the garden you may certainly eat.”
Rabbi Tarfon would say: Even the Holy Blessed One did not rest His presence upon Israel until they had done work, as it says (Exodus 25:5), “Make Me a Sanctuary, and I will dwell among them.”
Rabbi Yehudah ben Beteira would say: If someone who has no work to do, what should he do? If he has a dilapidated yard or field, he should go and work on them, as it says (Exodus 20:10), “Six days you shall labor and do all your work.” What do we learn from the phrase, “do all your work”? That even someone who has dilapidated yards or fields should work on them.
Rabbi Yosei HaGalili would say: A person dies only because of idleness, as it says (Genesis 49:33), “And he expired [or: exhausted himself], and so was gathered to his people.”¹It does not say that Jacob “died,” only that he was “gathered to his people.” Rabbi Yosei is reading that as a reward for “exhausting himself,” i.e., not being idle. And see, if someone is pushed and falls over on his own craftwork and dies, we know his death was because of idleness. And if he was standing on the top of the roof, the top of a palace, or the top of any building, or at the edge of the river, and he fell and died, we know his death was because of idleness.
All this we know to be true for men. And how do we know it is also true for women? For it says (Exodus 36:6), “Let no man or woman do any more work for the donations to the Sanctuary.” And how do we know it is true also for children? For it says (there), “So the people stopped bringing.”
Rabbi Natan said: When Moses was carrying out the work of the Tabernacle, he did not want to take direction from the chiefs of Israel. So the chiefs of Israel sat there quietly and said: Perhaps now Moses will need our help. When they heard the announcement in the camp that said enough work had been done, they said: Alas, we have not participated at all in the work of the Tabernacle! So they got up and added a great thing by themselves, as it says (Exodus 35:27), “And the chiefs brought the shoham stones [for the breastplate of the high priest].”

Shemaya and Avatalyon received from them. Shemaya would say: Love work, hate power, and do not become too familiar with the authorities.
Love work.” How so? This teaches us that a person should love work, and not hate work. For just as the Torah was given in a covenant, so work was given in a covenant, as it says (Exodus 20:10), “For six days you shall labor and do all your work, and the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Eternal your God.” Rabbi Akiva would say: Sometimes a person labors and escapes death, and sometimes a person does not labor and becomes liable for death from Heaven. How so? Say a person sat around all week and did no labor, and then on the eve of the Sabbath he had nothing to eat. But he had money that had been designated [to the Temple] in his house. So he took from this and ate, and thus became liable to death from Heaven. However, if he had labored on the building of the Temple, then even though they paid him in money designated for the Temple and he took that money and used it for food, he would still escape the death penalty.
Rabbi Dostai would say: How do we know that if someone did no work all six days, he will end up doing work on the seventh? For, see, if he sat all the days of the week and did no work, and then on the eve of the Sabbath he had nothing to eat, he would then go out looking, and end up seized by conscription officers, who would grab him by the collar and force him to do on the Sabbath all the work that he did not do for six days.
Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar would say: Even Adam did not taste anything until he worked, as it says (Genesis 2:15–16), “And God placed him in the garden, to work it and guard it”; and then [it says (verse 17)], “From every tree of the garden you may certainly eat.”
Rabbi Tarfon would say: Even the Holy Blessed One did not rest His presence upon Israel until they had done work, as it says (Exodus 25:5), “Make Me a Sanctuary, and I will dwell among them.”
Rabbi Yehudah ben Beteira would say: If someone who has no work to do, what should he do? If he has a dilapidated yard or field, he should go and work on them, as it says (Exodus 20:10), “Six days you shall labor and do all your work.” What do we learn from the phrase, “do all your work”? That even someone who has dilapidated yards or fields should work on them.
Rabbi Yosei HaGalili would say: A person dies only because of idleness, as it says (Genesis 49:33), “And he expired [or: exhausted himself], and so was gathered to his people.”¹It does not say that Jacob “died,” only that he was “gathered to his people.” Rabbi Yosei is reading that as a reward for “exhausting himself,” i.e., not being idle. And see, if someone is pushed and falls over on his own craftwork and dies, we know his death was because of idleness. And if he was standing on the top of the roof, the top of a palace, or the top of any building, or at the edge of the river, and he fell and died, we know his death was because of idleness.
All this we know to be true for men. And how do we know it is also true for women? For it says (Exodus 36:6), “Let no man or woman do any more work for the donations to the Sanctuary.” And how do we know it is true also for children? For it says (there), “So the people stopped bringing.”
Rabbi Natan said: When Moses was carrying out the work of the Tabernacle, he did not want to take direction from the chiefs of Israel. So the chiefs of Israel sat there quietly and said: Perhaps now Moses will need our help. When they heard the announcement in the camp that said enough work had been done, they said: Alas, we have not participated at all in the work of the Tabernacle! So they got up and added a great thing by themselves, as it says (Exodus 35:27), “And the chiefs brought the shoham stones [for the breastplate of the high priest].”

HALAKHAH: “One who desecrates the Sabbath,” etc. From where warning for the desecrator? Do not perform any work³⁴³Ex. 20:10.. From where extirpation? For any who would perform work on it would be extirpated³⁴⁴Ex. 31:14.. From where punishment? Its desecrator shall be made to die the death. Should we not state 37 kinds of extirpation in the Torah³⁴⁵This is a copy from Halakhah 9, Note 149. The question should be that in Keritut1:1 74 kinds of extirpation should be mentioned since, as R. Yose ben Abun explains, each one of the 39 categories of work forbidden on the Sabbath defines its own obligation for a purification sacrifice if the person was aware that it was Sabbath and that he was performing this kind of work, and only had forgotten that it was forbidden. Then a single person could be obligated for up to 39 sacrifices for desecrating a single Sabbath. But if he simply had forgotten that it was Sabbath, a single sacrifice is due and this is what is counted in Keritut.? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, because if he performs all of them, intentionally on the Sabbath and intentionally for the work, he is liable for each one singly.

A question²¹In connection with the preceding Rule. was asked of²²Another reading is ‘he came and asked’. R. Simon. ‘There is no section’,²³lit. ‘you have not’. he told them in the name of R. Joshua b. Levi, ‘which requires a benediction before and after its reading other than the Song at the Sea, the Ten Words,²⁴The Decalogue (Ex. 20, 2-17). and the curses in Deuteronomy’.²⁵Deut. 28, 15-68. Others add ‘the curses in Leviticus’.

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].”

He would also say: Do not hang around with cynics, for you may begin to learn from their ways. Do not break bread with an unlearned priest, for you may end up desecrating holy things. Do not break your vows, for you may come to break your oaths.¹Oaths are more grave than vows, as he who swears a false oath in God’s name “will not be held guiltless” (Exodus 20:7). Do not accustom yourself to eating big meals, for you may end up having to eat scraps. Do not cause yourself to doubt, for you may then cause yourself to be overconfident. Do not leave the Land of Israel, for you may end up worshiping idols, just as David said (I Samuel 26:19), “For they have driven me out today, so that I cannot have a share in the Eternal’s inheritance, but am told to go and serve other gods.” Do you actually think King David would worship idols? Rather, David was saying that anyone who leaves the Land of Israel and goes to a foreign country, it is as if he were worshiping idols.
He would also say: Anyone who is buried in any foreign country, it is as if he were buried in Babylon. Anyone who is buried in Babylon, it is as if he were buried in the Land of Israel. Anyone who is buried in the Land of Israel, it is as if he were buried underneath the altar, for all of the Land of Israel is fit for the altar. Anyone who is buried underneath the altar, it is as if he were buried under the Throne of Glory, as it says (Jeremiah 17:12), “A Throne of Glory, exalted from the beginning, is the place of our Sanctuary.”