passages adduced lead to this conclusion only by inference, and that none of them expressly declares that an idolater is not our neighbour. We shall, therefore, add a few passages where this is plainly taught. הגונב את הגוי או שגנב נכסי הקדש אינו משלם אלא הקרן בלבד שנאמר ישלם שנים לרעהו , לרעהו ולא להקדש , לרעהו ולא לגוי ׃ “He that steals from a Gentile, or he that steals property _devoted_ to sacred purposes, is only to pay the principal: for it is said, ‘He shall pay double unto _his neighbour_.’ (Exod. xxii. 8, English 9.) To his neighbour, not to devoted property. To his neighbour, and _not to a Gentile_.” (Hilchoth Genevah, c. ii. 1.) The same decision is given with respect to the law found, Levit. v. 20, in English vi. 1, “If a soul sin, and commit a trespass against the Lord, and _lie unto his neighbour_, ... all that about which he has sworn falsely; he shall even restore it in the principal, and shall add the fifth part more thereto.” The oral law says— הנשבע לגוי משלם את הקרו ואינו חייב בחומש שנאמר וכחש בעמיתו ׃ “He that sweareth to a Gentile must pay the principal, but is not bound to add the fifth part—(why not?) because it is said, ‘and lie unto his neighbour.’” (Hilchoth Gezelah, c. i. 7.) So that the reason here assigned why the Gentile is not to get the fifth part in addition, is, because he is not a neighbour. In like manner, in the 11th chapter of this same treatise, which treats of the restoration of things found, it is expressly commanded to restore whatever belongs to a Jew, because he is a brother; but to keep whatever belongs to an idolater, because he is not a brother. השבת אבדה לישראל מצות עשה שנאמר השב תשיבם ׃ “To restore to an Israelite anything that he has lost, is an affirmative commandment, for it is said, ‘Thou shalt in any case bring them again unto thy brother.’” (Deut. xxii. 1.) אבדת גוי עובד ע׳׳ז מותרת שנאמר אבדת אחיך , והמחזירה הרי זה עובר עבירה מפני שהוא מחזיק ידי רשעי עולם , ואם החזירה כדי לקדש את השם שיפארו את ישראל וידעו שהם בעלי אמונה הרי זה משובח ׃