¹BARAITHA. One should not take leave of his teacher or his friend without receiving permission. This rule of good manners all men may learn from the All-present, Who stood at the entrance of the Garden [of Eden] and called to Adam, as it is stated, And the Lord God called unto the man [’Adam], *and said unto him: Where art thou?*² 24). One should not be impatient during his meal. It is reported of Hillel that once a man came to have a meal with him, when a poor person arrived and, standing at the door of his house, said to his wife, ‘I am to be married today and I have no food’. She took the entire meal and gave it to him. Then she went and kneaded fresh dough, cooked another meal and came in and placed it before them. [Hillel] said to her, ‘My dear, why did you not bring this sooner?’ She told him what had happened; whereupon he said, ‘My dear, I did not judge you in the scale of guilt but in the scale of merit, because all your deeds are for the sake of Heaven’.

footnotes: ¹ This Baraitha is derived mainly from DER VI. ² Gen. 3, 9. God was about to part from Adam (cf. ibid.

Let all persons always be in your eyes as robbers, but honour each with the respect due to Rabban Gamaliel.³ It is related of R. Joshua that he extended hospitality [to all]. A man arrived to whom he gave food and drink, took up to the attic and then removed the ladder from under him. What did the man do? He arose in the middle of the night, spread out his cloak, took the vessels [belonging to the room] which he wrapped in his cloak and was about to descend when he fell and broke his collar-bone. In the morning R. Joshua came and, finding him [on the ground], said to him, ‘You worthless person, do men act like you?’ He replied, ‘I did not know that you had removed the ladder from under me’. He said to him, ‘Were you not aware that we were on our guard against you since yesterday?’

footnotes: ³ A Patriarch of Palestine and eminent teacher (1st cent. C.E.) of whom it was said, ‘When he died the honour of the Torah ceased, and purity and piety became extinct’ (Soṭah IX, 15, Sonc. ed., p. 266).

Guests who are received in a house should do whatever the host bids them do. It is related of Simeon b. Anṭipaṭros that once guests came to him and he bade them eat and drink; but they, vowing and swearing in the name of the Torah, [declined to do so]. When they were about to depart, he administered to them forty lashes. On hearing of this, the Sages were angered⁴ by the incident and asked, ‘Who will find out for us why he did this?’ R. Joshua said to them, ‘I will go’. They said, ‘Go in peace’. He went and found [Simeon] sitting at the door of his house, and said to him, ‘Peace be upon you’, to which he answered, ‘Come in peace’, and asked him, ‘Is there anything you want?’ He replied, ‘A place to lodge’. [He said to him, ‘Sit down in peace’.]⁵ The two of them sat down and occupied themselves with the study of the Torah until the evening. [In the morning he said to him,]⁶ ‘Do you wish that we go to the bath-house?’ He replied, ‘As you wish’. [Simeon] said to him, ‘Sit down’, and he sat. As time went on, R. Joshua was afraid lest he would beat him upon his shoulders. [After they had finished eating and drinking,]⁷ he said to [Simeon], ‘Who will accompany me?’ He replied, ‘I will’.⁸ Now R. Joshua was turning things over in his mind, saying to himself, ‘What answer shall I give to the scholars who sent me?’ He turned round and [Simeon] asked him [55a], ‘Why have you turned round?’ ‘There is something which I must ask you’, he said. ‘Why do you beat men who come to you, but me you have not beaten?’ He answered, ‘Rabbi, you are a great scholar and possessed of good manners. When men come to me I bid them eat and drink, but they vow by the Torah [that they will not eat] and later break⁹ for V’s menaddin. the vow; and I have heard from the Sages that he who makes a vow and breaks it is liable to receive lashes’. He replied, ‘I command you that you should give them twice forty [lashes], forty for me and forty for you’. R. Joshua then went and reported to the Sages what he had seen in connection with the son of Anṭipaṭros. GEMARA. ‘Let all persons always be suspect in your eyes as robbers.’ But it is not so! For we have learnt:¹⁰ Do not judge thy fellow-man until thou art come to his place. There is no contradiction: the latter [refers to a man] whom you know and the other¹¹ when he is unknown. Raba said: In one passage ‘persons’ is used and in the other ‘thy fellow-man’. Since [in Aboth the word used is ḥaberka],¹² it clearly speaks of one who is known to him, but is the term ‘all persons’ [used in the Baraitha] not to include a *ḥaber?*¹³ is used here in the sense of ‘scholar’, who is above suspicion. No;¹⁴ the one is [to be explained] in its own way and the other in its own way.¹⁵, whether known to you or not, should not be suspected; but one who cannot be described as a ḥaber is to be suspected.

footnotes: ⁴ Or, according to H’s reading, ‘puzzled’. ⁵ Added by H. ⁶ Added by H. ⁷ So H. V reads: ‘he eventually parted from him in peace’, which is clearly out of place. ⁸ Again V inserts wrongly, ‘eventually he went away in peace’. ⁹ Reading with H mebaddin ¹⁰ Aboth II, 5 (Sonc. ed., II, 4, p. 14). ¹¹ In the Baraitha. ¹² Which also means ‘thy companion’. The translation which follows is based on the reading of H, who corrects לא in V to ליה. ¹³ Even when one knows him. Ḥaber ¹⁴ Such an inference is not to be drawn. ¹⁵ A ḥaber

‘Guests who are received.’ But it is not so! For we have learnt:¹⁶ R. Eliezer [b. Jacob] said: Also he who wishes to subject his friend to a vow to eat with him should declare, ‘Every vow which I will make shall be null’. But perhaps these men [who visited Simeon b. Anṭipaṭros] annulled their vow and yet he beat them when they were about to leave! There is no one who accepts the view of R. Eliezer b. Jacob. Further, there¹⁷ it is the host who makes the vow, but here¹⁸ it is the guest as is evidenced by the words, ‘Whatever the host bids them do’.¹⁹

footnotes: ¹⁶ Ned. 23a (Sonc. ed., p. 67). ¹⁷ In the quotation from Ned. ¹⁸ In the Baraitha. ¹⁹ How was the guest to know beforehand what the host would bid him do? We are therefore not afraid lest the guest annulled the vow beforehand.

‘When they were about to depart, he administered to them forty lashes.’ Infer from this that the halakah is according to the view of R. Judah who said: One liable to flagellation is given forty [lashes] in full!²⁰ Raba said: [The Baraitha] uses colloquial language.²¹ And as for R. Judah, does he not respect the prohibitory law,²². as well as the law derived from the words, *If the wicked man deserve to be beaten?*²³ 2. The Heb. is בן הכות, which is read as בין, ‘between’ the shoulders. The thirty-nine lashes were divided into three groups of thirteen, administered first on the front of the man’s exposed body, and the remaining two groups on each shoulder respectively. Cf. Mak. 22b (Sonc. ed., p. 158). He will reply, ‘The extra lash is administered between his shoulders’.

footnotes: ²⁰ Cf. Mak. 22a-23a (Sonc. ed., pp. 155-162). Whereas Deut. 25, 2f., prescribes forty lashes, according to the Rabbis only thirty-nine were given as a precaution against the forty being inadvertently exceeded. R. Judah’s opinion was otherwise. ²¹ i.e. people speak of ‘forty stripes’ when in fact they mean thirty-nine; therefore no inference can be drawn. ²² In Deut. 25, 3, Forty stripes he may give him, he shall not exceed ²³ ibid.