18 (22) And the men turned their faces from there and went toward Sedom: but Avraham stood yet before the Lord.
(23) And Avraham drew near, and said, Wilt Thou also destroy the righteous with the wicked?
(24) Perhaps there are fifty righteous within the city: wilt Thou also destroy and not spare the place for the fifty righteous that are therein?
(25) Far be it from Thee to do after this manner, to slay the righteous with the wicked: and that the righteous should be as the wicked, far be it from Thee: Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?
(26) And the Lord said, If I find in Sedom fifty just men within the city, then I will spare all the place for their sakes.

4 (22) And she called to her husband, and said, Send me, I pray thee, one of the young men, and one of the asses, that I may run to the man of God, and then come back.
(23) And he said, Why wilt thou go to him today? it is neither new moon, nor sabbath. And she said, It shall be well.
(24) Then she saddled an ass, and said to her servant, Drive, and go forward; do not slacken the pace, unless I bid thee.
(25) So she went and came to the man of God to mount Karmel. And it came to pass, when the man of God saw her afar off, that he said to Geĥazi his servant, Behold, yonder is that Shunammite woman:
(26) run now, I pray thee, to meet her, and say to her, Is it well with thee? is it well with thy husband? is it well with the child? And she answered, It is well.

4 (10) Hear, O my son, and receive my sayings; and the years of thy life shall be many.
(11) I have taught thee in the way of wisdom; I have led thee in paths of rectitude.
(12) When thou goest, thy steps shall not be confined; and when thou runnest, thou shalt not stumble.
(13) Take fast hold of instruction; let her not go: keep her; for she is thy life.
(14) Do not enter into the path of the wicked, and do not go in the way of evil men.

1. Beit Shammai say: With regard to all the offerings whose blood is to be placed on the external altar, even those that require that the blood be sprinkled on two opposite corners of the altar so that it will run down each of its four sides, in a case where the priest placed the blood on the altar with only one placement, he facilitated atonement. And in the case of a sin offering, which requires four placements, one on each of the four corners of the altar, at least two placements are necessary to facilitate atonement. And Beit Hillel say: Even with regard to a sin offering, in a case where the priest placed the blood with one placement, he facilitated atonement after the fact. Therefore, since the priest facilitates atonement with one placement in all cases other than a sin offering according to Beit Shammai, and even in the case of a sin offering according to Beit Hillel, if he placed the first placement in its proper manner, and the second with the intent to eat the offering beyond its designated time, he facilitated atonement. Since the second placement is not indispensable with regard to achieving atonement, improper intent while performing that rite does not invalidate the offering. And based on the same reasoning, if he placed the first placement with the intent to eat the offering beyond its designated time and he placed the second placement with the intent to eat the offering outside its designated area, the second of which does not render an offering piggul, the offering is piggul, an offering disqualified by improper intention, and one is liable to receive excision from the World-to-Come [karet] for its consumption. This is because the intent that accompanied the second placement does not supersede the piggul status of the offering.
2. All this applies to those offerings whose blood is to be placed on the external altar. But with regard to all the offerings whose blood is to be placed on the inner altar, if the priest omitted even one of the placements, it is as though he did not facilitate atonement. Therefore, if he placed all the placements in their proper manner, and one placement in an improper manner, i.e., with the intent to eat the offering beyond its designated time, the offering is disqualified, as it is lacking one placement; but there is no liability for karet for one who partakes of the offering, as the improper intention related to only part of the blood that renders the offering permitted for consumption, and an offering becomes piggul only when the improper intention relates to the entire portion of the offering that renders it permitted for consumption.
3. And these are the items for which one is not liable to receive karetdue to violation of the prohibition of piggul. One is liable to receive karet only if he partakes of an item that was permitted for consumption or for the altar by another item. As for the items listed here, either nothing else renders them permitted for consumption or for the altar, or they themselves render other items permitted. They are as follows: The handful of flour, which permits consumption of the meal offering; the incense, which is burned in its entirety, without another item rendering it permitted for the altar; the frankincense, which is burned together with the handful of the meal offering; the meal offering of priests, from which no handful of flour is removed and which is burned in its entirety (see Leviticus 6:16); the meal offering of the anointed priest, which is sacrificed by the High Priest each day, half in the morning and half in the evening; the blood, which permits all the offerings; and the libations that are brought by themselves as a separate offering and do not accompany an animal offering; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: The same halakha applies even with regard to libations that are brought with an animal offering. With regard to the log of oil that accompanies the guilt offering of a recovered leper, Rabbi Shimon says: One is not liable for consuming it due to violation of the prohibition of piggul, because it is not permitted by any other item. And Rabbi Meir says: One is liable for consuming it due to violation of the prohibition of piggul, as the blood of the guilt offering of the leper permits its use, as only after the blood’s sacrifice is the oil sprinkled and given to the priests. And the principle is: With regard to any item that has permitting factors, either for consumption by a person or for burning on the altar, one is liable for eating it due to violation of the prohibition of piggul.
4. The mishna elaborates: The burnt offering, its blood permits its flesh to be burned on the altar and its hide to be used by the priests. The bird burnt offering, its blood permits its flesh and its skin to be burned on the altar. The bird sin offering, its blood permits its meat for consumption by the priests. Bulls that are burned, e.g., the bull for an unwitting communal sin, and goats that are burned, e.g., the goats sacrificed for an unwitting communal sin of idol worship, their blood permits their sacrificial portions to be sacrificed on the altar. Rabbi Shimon says: Those bulls and goats are not subject to piggul because their blood is presented in the Sanctuary, and in the case of any offering whose blood is not presented on the external altar like that of a peace offering, with regard to which the halakha of piggul was stated in the Torah, one is not liable for eating it due to violation of the prohibition of piggul.
5. With regard to offerings consecrated by gentiles for sacrifice to God, one is not liable for eating them, neither due to violation of the prohibition of piggul if the sacrificial rites were performed with the intent to eat the offering beyond its designated time, nor due to violation of the prohibition of notar, nor due to violation of the prohibition against eating the meat while ritually impure. And one who slaughters them outside the Temple courtyard is exempt; this is the statement of Rabbi Shimon. And Rabbi Yosei deems him liable. Even with regard to those items enumerated in the previous mishna (42b) for which one is not liable for eating them due to violation of the prohibition of piggul, e.g., the handful, the frankincense, and the incense, one is, nevertheless, liable for eating them due to violation of the prohibition of notar, and due to violation of the prohibition against eating consecrated food while ritually impure, except for the blood. Rabbi Shimon deems one liable for an item whose typical manner is such that one eats it. But with regard to the wood, the frankincense, and the incense, one is not liable for eating them due to violation of the prohibition against eating a consecrated item while ritually impure.
6. The slaughtered offering is slaughtered for the sake of six matters, and one must have all of these matters in mind: For the sake of the particular type of offering being sacrificed; for the sake of the one who sacrifices the offering; for the sake of God; for the sake of consumption by the fires of the altar; for the sake of the aroma; for the sake of the pleasing of God, i.e., in fulfillment of God’s will; and, in the cases of a sin offering and a guilt offering, for the sake of atonement for the sin.Rabbi Yosei says: Even in the case of one who did not have in mind to slaughter the offering for the sake of any one of these, the offering is valid, as it is a stipulation of the court that he should not state any intent ab initio. This is necessary because the intent follows only the one performing the sacrificial rite, and therefore if the one who slaughters the animal is not careful and states the wrong intent, the offering would be disqualified through his improper intent.

§ Apropos the altar and the Temple, the Gemara relates that Rava taught: What is the meaning of that which is written concerning David: “And he and Samuel went and dwelt in Naioth. And it was told Saul, saying: Behold, David is at Naioth [beNayot] in Ramah” (I Samuel 19:18–19)? But what does Naioth have to do with Ramah? They are in two distinct places. Rather, this means that they were sitting in Ramah and were involved in discussing the beauty [benoyo] of the world, i.e., the Temple.
David and Samuel said: It is written: “Then you shall arise, and get you up unto the place which the Lord your God shall choose” (Deuteronomy 17:8). This teaches that the Temple is higher than all places in Eretz Yisrael. And Eretz Yisrael is higher than all countries. They did not know where the highest place in Eretz Yisrael was.
They brought the book of Joshua. With regard to all of the borders of the tribes it is written: “And went down” (see Joshua 15:10, 16:3, 17:9), and it is written: “And the border went up to Beth Hoglah.” (Joshua 15:6), and: “And the border was drawn from the top of the mountain to the fountain of the waters of Nephtoah” (Joshua 15:9). The verse uses different terms to describe the borders of the portion of each tribe. And with regard to the borders of the tribe of Benjamin it is written only: “And went up” (Joshua 18:11), but it is not written: “And went down.” They said: Conclude from the verses that the Temple’s place is here, in the portion of Benjamin.
They thought to build it at Ein Eitam, which is higher than any other place in the portion of Benjamin. They said: Let us lower it a bit, as it is written: “He covers it throughout the day, and He dwells between his shoulders” (Deuteronomy 33:12). This indicates that the Temple is situated slightly lower, between two peaks.
And if you wish, say instead that it is learned as a tradition that the Sanhedrin is to be located in the portion of Judah, and the place of the Divine Presence is to be located in the portion of Benjamin. They said: And if we raise it and place it near Ein Eitam it will be too distant from the portion of Judah. They said: It is preferable that we lower it a bit, as it is written: “He covers it throughout the day, and He dwells between his shoulders” (Deuteronomy 33:12).
And with regard to this matter, that David and Samuel discovered the location of the Temple, Doeg the Edomite was jealous of David, as it is written: “Because jealousy for Your House has eaten me up” (Psalms 69:10), and it is written: “Lord, remember for David all his affliction; how he swore to the Lord, and vowed unto the Mighty One of Jacob: I will not come into the tent of my house, nor go up into the bed that is spread for me; if I will give sleep to my eyes, or slumber to my eyelids; until I find a place for the Lord, a dwelling place for the Mighty One of Jacob” (Psalms 132:1–5).
The verse following those verses states: “We heard of it as being in Ephrath; we found it in the field of the wood” (Psalms 132:6). Rava explains the meaning of these words: “In Ephrath”; this is a reference to Joshua, who came from the tribe of Ephraim. This alludes to the fact that David and Samuel were able to locate the highest place in Eretz Yisrael based on the book of Joshua. “We found it in the field of the wood”; this is a reference to Benjamin, as it is written concerning him: “Benjamin is a wolf that tears apart; in the morning he devours the prey, and in the evening he divides the spoil” (Genesis 49:27). A wolf is a wild animal living in the field, and David and Samuel found the location of the Temple in the portion of Benjamin.

(1) R. Judah further discoursed on the verse: In all their affliction he was afflicted, and the angel of his presence saved them (Is. 63, 9). He said: ‘This is the translation of the k’ri, hut according to the k’thib we should translate, “He was not afflicted.” The lesson to be derived from this variation is that Israel’s affliction reaches the Holy One even in the place above which is beyond affliction or perturbation.

(2) “And the angel of his presence saved them.” If He is together with them in their affliction, how can it be said that He saves them? Observe, however, that it is not written, “He saves them”, but “he saved them”, that is, He determined in advance to partake in their sufferings. For whenever Israel is in exile the Shekinah accompanies them, as it is written, “Then the Lord thy God will return (v’-shab) with thy captivity” (Deut. 30, 3).

(3) According to another explanation, “The angel of his presence” signifies the Shekinah, which accompanies them in exile. Hence in the Scripture the words “and I have remembered my covenant” (Ex. 6, 5) are immediately followed by “and now, behold, the cry of the children of Israel is come unto me; moreover, I have seen” (Ex. 3, 9).

(4) It is also written, “And God remembered his covenant” (Ibid. 2, 24), referring to the Shekinah, “with Abraham” (Ibid.), symbolic of South-west, “with Isaac” (Ibid.), symbolic of North-west, “and with Jacob” (Ibid.), symbolising the complete and perfect union.

(5) The Holy One, blessed be He, will one day send forth a voice to proclaim to the world the words, “For he said, Surely, they are my people, children that will not deal falsely; so he was their saviour” (Is. 63, 8). Blessed be the Lord for evermore, Amen and Amen.

It is forbidden to steal even if it is a small amount according to the judgment of the Torah and it is forbidden to steal, even if it is in a playful manner, even on the condition of returning it or in order to repay double or in order to cause pain. Everything is forbidden in order that he not accustom himself to this.
Anyone who steals even on par with a penny’s worth transgressed not stealing and he is obligated to pay, one that steals money of a Jew or who steals money of a non-Jew and one that steals from the great or from the small. Note: a gentile’s mistake, for example to mistake in counting or repaying his loans, is permitted, and provided that he doesn’t know, so that there is no blasphemy. And there are those who say that it is forbidden to mislead him except if he makes the mistake from his own, and then it’s allowed.