the orb of Saturn; for the experimental philosophers say, that each one
of the ministering servants has a certain day of the week in which he
exhibits his strength, and he is master of the first hour in the day,
and thus it is also with him who is master of the first hour in the
night. They say, also, that Saturn and Mars are the two hurtful stars,
and whosoever begins a work, or to walk in the way, when either of these
two is in the ascendant, is sure to fall into harm. Therefore our
ancients have said, that permission is given to do injury on the nights
of the fourth and seventh days of the week. And behold, thou wilt not
find, in all the days of the week, a night and a day, one after the
other, on which these two hurtful stars rule except on this day;
therefore it is not suitable on it to engage in worldly affairs, but to
devote it entirely to the fear of God.” This exposition shows that Aben
Esra believed in astrology, and that the power of the stars extended to
Israel as well as to the other nations, nay the power of the stars to do
harm is here made the foundation of the command respecting the
Sabbath-day. A man, whose mind was not thoroughly imbued with faith in
astrology, could never have been led even to entertain such an opinion,
when God himself has assigned another and entirely different reason for
the institution of the Sabbath. But indeed it is not necessary to go to
the rabbies to prove that modern Judaism teaches astrology. That common
wish which one so often hears amongst the Jews, even at the present day,
מזל טוב _mazzal tov_, or good luck, has its origin in the doctrine of
the Talmud, and shows how universally it has been received. And thus we
see the influence which the oral law has had in leading away both
learned and unlearned from the Word of God, and of spreading amongst
them, as a tradition from Moses, what is merely one of the numerous
errors of heathen idolatry. The heathen worshipped the host of heaven.
The sun, and the moon, and other heavenly bodies, they considered as
deities; it was, therefore, natural for them to suppose that they
exercised an influence over the affairs of men. The Chaldeans were
especially devoted to this doctrine, and had almost exalted it to the
rank of a science. From them, probably during the Babylonish captivity,
the Jaws learned this system; and though altogether idolatrous in its
origin, and learned from idolaters, it was congenial to the minds of the
superstitious rabbies, and was, therefore, introduced into the oral law,
where it has ever since continued. The oral law has, therefore, in this
respect, adopted heathen doctrine, and teaches heathenism. Every Jew who
wishes his neighbour מזל טוב, _mazzal tov_, uses a heathen idolatrous
expression—sanctioned, indeed, by the Talmud, but utterly repugnant to
the doctrine of Moses. But where will he find in the New Testament any
warrant either for such a doctrine or such a wish? The New Testament is
entirely free from all shadow and tincture of this heathenism. Your oral
law has taught you that the course of events depends upon the stars.
Jesus of Nazareth has taught us, that the ordering of all events, even
the minutest, proceeds from our Heavenly Father. He says, “Are not two
sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of them shall not fall on the
ground without your Father. But the very hairs of your are all
numbered.” (Matt. x. 29, 30.) Jesus of Nazareth, therefore, whom you are
afraid to follow, lest he should lead you after other gods, directs all
his followers to the one living and true God, the Creator, Preserver,
and Redeemer of all things. Those men, on the contrary, who crucified
Jesus of Nazareth, and that oral law, which you prefer to Christianity,
have led you away from the doctrines of Moses and the prophets to the
principles of heathenism. The general doctrine, that the moral nature,
the weal and wo of men, are altogether dependent upon the stars, is not
Mosaic, it is heathen; and the particular details concerning the
influence of Venus, Mars, and Mercury, are plainly the offspring of the
worst part of heathen mythology. If, then, Jews believe in this Talmudic
astrology, they approach very nearly to heathenism, and such has been
the case with the majority and the most learned of the nation for the
last eighteen hundred years. If from the unavoidable influence of
Christian knowledge, they now reject this portion of the oral law, they
declare that all their most learned rabbies have been in gross error,
and that the oral law, which led them astray, is not from God, but, on
the contrary, in one of its most important features, a mere copy of
idolatrous heathenism.
Footnote 20:
According to Rashi.
Footnote 21:
According to Rashi, one who goes from house to house to get alms.
Footnote 22:
Rashi says a man who is liberal in almsgiving.
No. XXIV.
AMULETS.
In magic and astrology we have discovered two features common to
idolatrous heathenism, and to the religion of the oral law. We have seen
that it pervades the Talmud and the writings of the subsequent rabbies,
and that it has tinctured the language of every-day life. It occurs,
therefore, as might be expected, incidentally, when the oral law treats
of other things; and we are induced to notice one passage of this kind,
not only because it proves that faith in astrology is an essential
element in the religion of the oral law, but because it sets before us
another feature of resemblance to heathenism. In treating of the virtues
of amulets, and of the tests, whereby to try them and those that write,
the following passage occurs—
אמר רב פפא פשיטא לי תלת קמיעא לתלת גברי תלתא תלתא זימני אתמחי גברא
ואתמחי קמיעא תלתא קמיעי לתלתא גברי חד חד זימני גברא אתמחי קמיעא לא אתמחי
חד קמיעא לתלתא גברי קמיעא אתמחי גברא לא אתמחי בעי רב פפא תלתא קמיעי לחד
גברא מאי קמיעא ודאי לא אתמחי גברא אתמחי או לא אתמחי מי אמרינן הא אסי ליה
או דילמא מזלא גברא הוא דקא מקבל כתבא תיקו וכו׳ ׃
“Rav Papa says, I am certain in the case of three amulets for three men;
where three copies of one amulet have cured three times, then both the
writer and the amulet are approved. In the case of three amulets for
three men, where each performs only one cure, then the writer is
approved, the amulet is not approved. In the case of one amulet for
three men, then the amulet is approved, the writer is not approved. But
Rav Papa asks, What is to be the decision when there are three amulets
for one man? The amulet is certainly not approved, the writer may or may
not be. Shall we say that he cured him? Or was it perhaps the influence
of the stars, belonging to that man, that had an affinity for that which
was written? That must remain undecided.” (Shabbath, fol. 61, col. 2.)
Here we have the influence of the stars again, and that not in the case
of the heathen, but in the case of Israelites. The whole passage refers
to none but Israelites. The question, from which this digression about
amulets arose, was whether it is lawful to wear amulets on the
Sabbath-day, a question concerning the Jews, and them only. In this
question, then, we find the doctrine of sidereal influence mixed up, or
rather so certainly pre-supposed as to prevent the solution of a doubt.
A case is supposed where a man has been cured by the help of three
amulets, and thence arises a doubt as to whether the maker may be
considered as an approved writer of amulets; and upon this case R. Papa
does not venture to decide, because it is possible that the cure may be
owing to the influence of the stars. How can there be a stronger proof
of faith in the power of the stars over Israelites as well as over other
persons?
This passage proves incontrovertibly that the heathen notion of
astrology is inseparably interwoven with the religious system of the
oral law, but it also presents to our consideration another circumstance
equally startling, and that is, that the oral law sanctions the use of
amulets or charms, as a cure for, or defence against, sickness and other
evils. What, is it possible, that the Jews who think that their religion
is the true religion revealed by God to Moses, and whose chief objection
to Christianity is the fear lest it should lead them to strange gods, is
it possible that this people should still entertain the old heathen
notion concerning amulets? Yes, whilst the followers of Jesus of
Nazareth have learned from him to renounce this superstitious and wicked
practice, the Jews, taught by those who rejected and crucified him,
still believe in the oral law which teaches the manner of making and
using charms. But perhaps some one will say, it occurs only in the
Gemara, but not in the Mishna. This is at all times but a poor apology
for the oral law, or rather an open confession that the greatest part of
that law is indefensible, but it will not serve here. The doctrine of
amulets proceeds from the Mishna, which says,—
ולא בקמיע בזמן שאינו מן המומחה ׃
“It is not lawful to go forth on the Sabbath-day with an amulet, unless
it be from an approved person.” The Gemara then takes up this
commandment, and comments thus upon it,—
אמר ר׳ פפא לא תימא עד דמומחא גברא ומומחא קמיע אלא כיון דמומחא גברא אע׳׳ג
דלא מומחא קמיע דיקא נמי דקתני ולא בקמיע בזמן שאינו מן המומחה , ולא קתני
בזמן שאינו מומחה ש׳׳מ , ת׳׳ר איזה וקמיע מומחה כל שריפא ושנה ושלש אחד
קמיע של כתב ואהד קמיע של עקרין אחד חולה שיש בו סכנה ואחד חולה שאין בו
סכנה לא שנבפה אלא שלא יכפה רכר׳ ׃
“Rav Papa says, do not think that it is necessary that both the man and
the amulet must be approved; it is enough if the man be approved, even
though the amulet be not approved. The proof is, that the Mishna says,
‘Unless the amulet be from an approved person,’ but does not say,
‘Unless the amulet be approved,’ from which it is plain. Our rabbies
have taught thus, What is an approved amulet? Any amulet that has
effected a cure, and done so twice or thrice. The doctrine holds good,
whether the amulet be a written one, or made of roots—whether the man be
dangerously ill or not—not only if he be epileptic, but that he may not
become epileptic.” (Shabbath, fol. 61, col. 1.) From this it appears
that there are two sorts of amulets, one containing some written words,
the other made of roots of various kinds, and it is equally plain that
the object of wearing them was either to prevent sickness or to effect a
cure. On the Sabbath those only are lawful, which have been manufactured
by a man, who has already established his character for making
efficacious amulets, or which have been already tried and proved to be
so. This is the doctrine of the Talmud, and let every Jew remember that
this doctrine is not extracted from the legendary part, but from those
laws which are binding upon the consciences of all who acknowledge an
oral law. And this is not any private opinion of our own, as may be seen
by referring to any compilation where the laws are collected, as for
instance the Jad Hachazakah, where this law is thus expressed:—
ויוצאין בקמיע מומחה ואי זה הוא קמיע מומחה זה שריפא לשלשה בני אדם או
שעשהו אדם שריפא שלשה בני אדם בקמיעין אחרים ׃
“It is lawful to go out with an approved amulet. What is an approved
amulet? One that has cured three persons, or has been made by a man who
has cured three persons with other amulets.” (Hilchoth Shabbath, c. xix.
14.) The Arbah Turim enters more at length into the subject, thus—
אין יצאין בקמיע שאינו מומחה ואם הוא מומחה יוצאין בו לא שנא אתמחי גברא
ולא קמיע כגון שכתב לחש אחד בג׳ אגרות ורפאו שלשתן דאתמחי גברא לאותו לחש
בכל פעם שיכתבנו אבל לא שאר לחשימ וגם אין הקמיע מומחה אם יכתבנו אחר , ולא
שנא אתמחי קמיע ולא גברא כגון שכתב לחש שחד באגרת אחת וריפא בו שלשה פעמים
שאותה אגרת מומחה לכל אדם וכ׳׳ש אתמחי גברא וקמיע כגון שכתב לחש אחד בג׳
אגרות וכל אחד הועילה לג׳ אנשים או לאדם אחד שלשה פעמים אתמחי גברא ללחש זה
בכל אגרות שיכתוב ואתמחו אגרות הללו לכל אדם , אבל אם כתב ג׳ קמיעים לאדם
אחד ורפאו ג׳ פעמים לא אתמחי גברא ולא קמיע , ומותר לצאת בקמיע מומחה לא
שנא הוא של כתב או של עקרין בין בחולה שיש בו סכנה בין שאין בו סכנה , ולא
שנכפה כבר ותולהו לרפואה אלא אפילי לא אחזר חחולי אלא שהוא ממשפחת נכפין
ותולהו שלא יאחזנו שרי ׃
“It is not lawful to go out in an amulet, which is not approved, but if
it be approved, it is lawful. Whether it be the man or the amulet, which
is approved, makes no difference; for instance, if a man have written
one and the same charm in three copies, and all three have affected a
cure, the man is approved with respect to that charm every time that he
writes it, but not with respect to other charms; neither is the amulet
approved if written by another. There is also no difference in the case,
when the amulet is approved but the man not so; for instance, if a man
write one charm, and only one copy, and has with it effected a cure
three times, then that copy is approved for every man. A third case is,
when both the man and the amulet are approved; for instance, if a man
write one charm in three copies, and each has been of use to three men
or to one man three times, then the man is approved with respect to this
charm in every copy which he may write, and these copies are considered
as approved for the use of all men. But if he have written three
different amulets for one man, and have cured him three times, then
neither the man nor the amulet is approved. Further, it is lawful to go
out with an approved amulet, whether it be a writing or one made of
roots, and whether the man be dangerously ill or not. Neither is it
necessary that he should have been already epileptic, and now makes use
of it for a cure. On the contrary, if he be of an epileptic family, and
wear it as a preventive, it is lawful.” (Orach Chaiim. sec. 301.) There
can be no mistake here. This is Jewish law binding upon all who
acknowledge tradition. Neither is it a doubtful or passing notice; on
the contrary, the different cases are all enumerated, and every
particular specified. The oral law here gives the most unqualified
sanction to the use of amulets or charms, and that even on the
Sabbath-day. That such charms are near akin to magic or witchcraft is
plain from the nature and purpose of the manufacture, and from the
undisguised use of the word לחש “charms;” but there is a passage in
Rashi’s commentary on another Talmudic treatise, which puts this beyond
all doubt; we therefore give both the text and the commentary—
תנו רבנן שמונים תלמידים היו להלל הזקן שלשים מהן ראוים שתשרה עליהם שכינה
כמשה רבינו שלשים מהם ראוים שתעמוד להם חמה כיהושע בן נון עשרים בינוניים
בדול שבכולן יונתן בן עוזיאל קטן שבכולן ר׳ יוחנן בן זכאי אמרו עליו על ר׳
יוחנן בן זכאי שלא הניח מקרא משנה גמרא הלכות והגדות דקדוקי תורה ודקדודי
סופרים וקלין וחמורין וגזרות שוות ותקופות וגמטריאות ומשלות כובסים ומשלות
שועלים שיחת שדים ושיחת דקלים מלאכי שרת וכו׳ ׃
“Our rabbies have handed down the tradition that Hillel the elder had
eighty disciples, of whom thirty were as worthy as Moses our master to
have the Shechinah resting upon them. Thirty others were as worthy as
Joshua the son of Nun that for them the sun should stand still. Twenty
were in the middle rank, of whom the greatest was Jonathan the son of
Uziel; and the least of all was Rabbi Johanan ben Zachai. Of this
last-named rabbi it is said, that he did not leave unstudied the Bible
or the Mishna, Gemara, the constitutions, the Agadoth, the niceties of
the law and the Scribes, the argument, _a fortiori_, and from similar
premises, the theory of the change of the moon, Gematria, the parables
taken from grapes and from foxes, the language of demons, the language
of palm-trees, and the language of the ministering angels,” &c. (Bava
Bathra, fol. 134, col. 1.) This was pretty well, considering that he was
the least of the eighty; what then must have been the knowledge of the
others? This tradition alone, from its gross exaggeration, would be
sufficient to mark the character of the rabbies as false witnesses. It
is plainly a fable, such as one might expect in the “Arabian Nights’
Entertainments,” but not in a law that professes to have come from God.
It is another proof that the account of the oral law is a mere fiction.
But our object in quoting the passage here, is to point out its
connexion with charms and amulets. It tells us, that this rabbi
understood the language of the ministering angels? Now what use was
this? Rashi tells us in his commentary, להשביעם to conjure or to adjure
them: that is, to compel them to serve him, when he adjured them; that
is, by their means to act the part of a conjuror. It may perhaps be
said, these were the good angels, with whom a holy man might hold
converse, but we are also told that he understood “the language of
demons.” What was the object of this? Rashi answers again—
להשביעם ונפקא מיניה לעשות קמיע לרפואה ׃
“For the purpose of adjuring them: and hence it follows that amulets may
be made in order to effect cures.” From this it appears that the Talmud
allows a man to have converse with evil spirits, and that this precedent
establishes the lawfulness of amulets. And this is the religion of the
oral law, these the doctrines and practices of the men who rejected
Jesus of Nazareth! Here is real heathenism, not one shade of which
appears in the New Testament. Oh! how different is this from the
doctrine of Moses and the prophets. The oral law sends sick men to seek
help in amulets and charms, but not to the God of Israel. Now what
difference is there between this and the conduct of Ahaziah, when he
fell down through the lattice in his upper chamber in Samaria, and was
sick? “He sent messengers, and said unto them, Go inquire of Beelzebub
the god of Ekron, whether I shall recover of this disease. But the angel
of the Lord said to Elijah the Tishbite, Arise, go up to meet the
messengers of the King of Samaria, and say unto them, Is it not because
there is not a God in Israel, that ye go to inquire of Beelzebub, the
god of Ekron?” (2 Kings i. 2, 3.) And so it may still be said to Israel,
Is it not because there is not a God in Israel, that ye go to amulets
and charms in order to get cured of your diseases? Moses points to God
as the great physician; he says, “Wherefore it shall come to pass, if ye
hearken to these judgments, and keep and do them, that the Lord thy God
shall keep unto thee the covenant and the mercy which he sware unto thy
fathers. And the Lord will take away from thee all sickness.” (Deut. vi.
12-15.) God himself says—
אני ה׳ רופאך ׃
“I am the Lord that healeth thee.” (Exod. xv. 26.) But the oral law
leads men away from God, and tells them to go to an approved man and to
get an approved amulet, and for this allows to learn the language of
demons, and to compel them by adjuration to be subservient. Where, in
all the Old Testament, is there any thing like this? When the widow’s
son was sick, Elijah did not give her an amulet to make him well, and
yet, if there were such things, it might be supposed that he knew of
them, and knew how to make them; in short, that he was an approved man
and could make an approved amulet; but Elijah’s trust was not in such
heathen nonsense, but in the God of Israel. Before Him he prostrated
himself and said, “O Lord my God, I pray thee, let this child’s soul
come into him again.” (1 Kings xvii. 22.) When Hezekiah was sick, we
read not that he sent for an approved amulet, but that “He turned his
face towards the wall, and prayed unto the Lord.” Not charms, but faith
and prayer, are the amulets of the Old Testament, and also of the New.
The Lord Jesus Christ wrought many miracles of healing, and multitudes
of sick people applied to him for relief, but he never directed them to
amulets in order to attain it. His direction is, “Be not afraid, only
believe.” (Mark v. 36.) His disciples also wrought great miracles on the
sick, but not by amulets. Their confession is “His name, through faith
in his name, hath given him this perfect soundness in the presence of
you all.” (Acts iii. 16.) And their command is, not to wear amulets, but
to pray. “Is any sick among you? Let him call for the elders of the
Church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name
of the Lord; and the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord
shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins they shall be forgiven
him. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.
Elias was a man subject to like passions as we are, and he prayed
earnestly that it might not rain, and it rained not on the earth by the
space of three years and six months. And he prayed again, and the heaven
gave rain, and the earth brought forth her fruit.” (James v. 13-18.)
This is the doctrine of the New Testament, exactly agreeing with that of
Moses and the prophets, so that you need not fear that Christianity will
lead you to heathenism: on the contrary, it will lead you back from the
heathenism of magic and astrology, and amulets, to the God of Israel.
But there is another feature in this doctrine concerning amulets, which
must not be overlooked, and that is that the manufacture of amulets may
be made a mere trade for collecting the money of the credulous. If a man
get a reputation as an approved manufacturer, the believers in the oral
law will naturally apply to him in case of sickness, or other
circumstances, where amulets are of service, and of course the remedy is
not to be had for nothing. We have known and heard of such things both
in the west and in the east. And thus the poor Israelites are led away
from the God of Israel, and induced, as the prophet says, “To spend
their money for that which is not bread, and their labour for that which
satisfieth not.” But what a testimony does this whole doctrine furnish
to the conduct and the doctrine of Jesus of Nazareth? His great
endeavour was to show the apostacy of the oral law, and to lead the
people back from tradition to the Holy Scriptures. Was he right or was
he wrong? Which is the religion, of the oral law or of the New
Testament, most agreeable to the religion revealed to Moses and the
prophets. Is the practice of magic a Mosaic doctrine? Is permission to
hold converse with evil demons a Mosaic doctrine? Is astrology a Mosaic
doctrine? Is the manufacture of amulets and charms a Mosaic doctrine?
No; they are all directly opposed to the doctrine and commandments of
Moses, and the practice of all the holy men of old. Are these things
doctrines of the oral law? Yes. Are they the doctrines of the New
Testament? No. Christians are taught to abstain from all such things.
Then in this, at least, Christianity is more like Mosaism. How long will
the Jews suffer themselves to be thus deluded and imposed upon? Many are
perhaps ignorant of the details of that system which they profess, but
such ignorance is highly culpable. If men profess a religion they ought
to know what it is, and what are its doctrines, and what the practices
which it prescribes. Modern Judaism teaches, as the truth of God, all
these heathenish notions and practices; it is time, then, for the Jews
to inquire whether this be the true religion in which they have
continued for so many centuries, and if not, to stand in the ways and
ask for the old paths. It is a vain thing for a few individuals of the
nation to attempt to deny that these superstitions are an essential
portion of modern Judaism. As long as the oral law is acknowledged to be
of Divine authority, that oral law must itself be taken as the witness
for its own doctrines, and the standard of the modern Jewish religion.
There is no possible middle course: either Jews must altogether and
publicly renounce the Talmud as false, superstitions, and heathenish, or
they must be content to be regarded in one of two characters, either as
its faithful disciples, who believe all it says, or as timid
men-pleasers, who are afraid to confess the truth of God, or to protest
against the errors of man, lest they should suffer some worldly loss or
inconvenience. But is it possible that cowards, in the cause of God,
should be found amongst the people of Gideon, who stood boldly against
the idolatry of a whole city, and overthrew the altar of Baal, or
amongst the offspring of Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, who dared a
fiery furnace, or amidst the countrymen of Daniel who trembled not at
the view of the lion’s den? No, we will rather believe that all the Jews
are still bigoted Talmudists, and that when they cease to be, they will
come forward with the spirit of their fathers and the strength of their
God to vindicate the truth.
No. XXV.
CHARMS.
Both Jew and Gentile will agree that true religion is the fear of the
Lord, but the difficulty is how are we to know it, and what are the
marks that will help us to distinguish the true from the false? The Word
of God gives many, of which at present we select this one:—
ראשית חכמה יראת ה׳ ׃
“The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.” (Psalm cxi. 10.) True
religion, as the Bible teaches, does not only better the heart, but also
improves the understanding; whereas false religion not only corrupts,
but also makes its votaries foolish. This is the uniform representation
of the Bible, and thus we read of true religion, “The law of the Lord is
perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the Lord is sure, making
wise the simple.” (Psalm xix. 7.) And again, the wisest of men says,
“Then shalt thou understand righteousness, judgment, and equity; yea,
every good path. When wisdom entereth into thine heart, and knowledge is
pleasant to thy soul, discretion shall preserve thee, understanding
shall keep thee.” (Prov. ii. 9-11.) The votaries of false religion are,
on the contrary, described as devoid of all wisdom. “They are altogether
brutish and foolish; the stock is a doctrine of vanities.” (Jer. x. 8.)
And again, “None considereth in his heart, neither is there knowledge
nor understanding to say, I have burned part of it in the fire; yea,
also, I have baked bread on the coals thereof; I have roasted flesh and
eaten it; and shall I make the residue thereof an abomination? Shall I
fall down to the stock of a tree? He feedeth on ashes; a deceived heart
hath turned him aside, that he cannot deliver his soul, nor say, Is
there not a lie in my right hand?” (Isaiah xliv. 19, 20.) According to
these passages of Scripture, wisdom is a test of true religion, and
folly of a false one, let us then apply this test to the religion of the
oral law, does it commend itself to the understanding by its wisdom, and
the wisdom of its teachers? It is true, that it speaks well of itself,
and calls all its doctors חכמים “Wise men,” but the chapter on amulets,
quite fresh in the memory of our readers, excites some doubts upon the
subject, though of these we consider only the theory. The histories,
which the Talmud gives of the Rabbinical practice with regard to such
charms, lead to the inevitable conclusion that wisdom is not one of the
characteristics of the oral law. Take for example the following
direction to stop a bleeding at the nose:—
לדמא דאתי מנחירא ליתי גברא כהן דשמיה לוי ולכתוב ליה לוי למפרע ואי לא
ליתי אינש מעלמא ונכתוב ליה אנא פפי שילא בר סומקי למפרע ואי לא ניכתוב ליה
הכי טעם דלי במי כסף טעם דלי במי פגם ואי לא ליתיה עקרא דאספסתא ואשלא
דפורייא עתיקא וקורטסא ומוריקא וסומקא דלוליבא ונקלינהו בהדי הדדי וליתי
גבבא דעמרא וניגדול תרתי פתילתא ולטמיש בחלא וניגדבל בקיטמא הדין וניתיב
בנחירא ואי לא ליחזי אמת המים דאזלא ממזרח כלפי מערב וניפסע וניקום חד כרעא
להאי גיסא וחד כרעא להאי גיסא ונישקל טינא בידיה דימינא מתותי כרעא דשמאליה
ובידיה דשמאלא מתותי כרעא דימיניה ונגדול תרתי פתילתא דעמרא וניטמיש בטינא
וניתב בנחיריה ואי לא ליתיה תותא מרזבא ונייתי מיא ולישדי עליה ולימרו כי
היכי דפסקי הני מיא ליפסק דמיה דפלניא בר פלנירא ׃