213 occurrences across the corpus

The Jerusalem Talmud

Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 1:62

“When they sanctified the year at Usha, on the first day Rebbi Ismael, the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa, led and recited following the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, we did not follow this at Jabneh. On the second day, Rebbi Ḥananiah, the son of Rebbi Yose the Galilean, led and recited following Rebbi Aqiba. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, this we did follow at Jabneh.” But does this not mean that they sanctified it on the first and the second day? Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rav Ḥisda: That year was disorganized. What is “on the first, on the second”? Rav Abba in the name of Rav: The first year, the second year! But was it not stated: the first day, the second day?

Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 2:37

Rebbi Aḥa said: Solomon said, three things I desecrated where I got the better of the law. He shall not add wives, and it is written: King Solomonloved foreign women. Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai said, he really made love to them immorally. Ḥananiah, Rebbi Joshua’s nephew, says, because you shall not intermarry with them. Rebbi Yose said, to draw them to the words of the Torah and bring them under the Wings of the Divine Presence. Rebbi Eliezer said, because also the foreign wives made him sin. It turns out that one may say that Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai, Ḥananiah, and Rebbi Eliezer mean the same. Rebbi Yose disagrees with all three of them.

Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 2:37

Rebbi Aḥa said: Solomon said, three things I desecrated where I got the better of the law. He shall not add wives, and it is written: King Solomonloved foreign women. Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai said, he really made love to them immorally. Ḥananiah, Rebbi Joshua’s nephew, says, because you shall not intermarry with them. Rebbi Yose said, to draw them to the words of the Torah and bring them under the Wings of the Divine Presence. Rebbi Eliezer said, because also the foreign wives made him sin. It turns out that one may say that Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai, Ḥananiah, and Rebbi Eliezer mean the same. Rebbi Yose disagrees with all three of them.

Jerusalem Talmud Shevuot 8:2

HALAKHAH: “There are four kinds of keepers,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, there are four kinds of keepers and they become liable only through acquisition. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Also in matters of robbery they become liable only through acquisition. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun said, a baraita said so: “one who contracts with another for a field,” etc. Rebbi Ḥananiah said, Rebbi Abun, also in theft cases they become liable only through acquisition. Rebbi Ḥananiah in the name of Rebbi Phineas, our Mishnah said so: “If he was pulling it to lead it out but it died on the owner’s property, he is not liable. If he lifted it or had it led outside the owner’s property when it died, he is liable.” If he lifted it inside the owner’s property it is as if he had taken it out of the entire property of the owner. If he was pulling it and it left, only after it left the entire property of the owner. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If it was standing at his feeding trough. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked: If it was standing at his feeding trough then even if he did not pull it! But we must deal with the case that it was standing in the public domain. Does Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya follow the House of Shammai, since the House of Shammai say, “he shall be hit by less or more”? How do we hold? If it was standing in the public domain and he intended to rustle it when it died, according to everybody he became liable by that intention. If he did not start to pull it, according to everybody he is not liable. But we most hold that it was standing at a feeding trough on his property. As Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, following the House of Shammai. Rebbi Abun said, there he acquired without the knowledge of its owner; but here when he acquires with the knowledge of its owner.

Jerusalem Talmud Shevuot 8:2

HALAKHAH: “There are four kinds of keepers,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, there are four kinds of keepers and they become liable only through acquisition. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Also in matters of robbery they become liable only through acquisition. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun said, a baraita said so: “one who contracts with another for a field,” etc. Rebbi Ḥananiah said, Rebbi Abun, also in theft cases they become liable only through acquisition. Rebbi Ḥananiah in the name of Rebbi Phineas, our Mishnah said so: “If he was pulling it to lead it out but it died on the owner’s property, he is not liable. If he lifted it or had it led outside the owner’s property when it died, he is liable.” If he lifted it inside the owner’s property it is as if he had taken it out of the entire property of the owner. If he was pulling it and it left, only after it left the entire property of the owner. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If it was standing at his feeding trough. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked: If it was standing at his feeding trough then even if he did not pull it! But we must deal with the case that it was standing in the public domain. Does Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya follow the House of Shammai, since the House of Shammai say, “he shall be hit by less or more”? How do we hold? If it was standing in the public domain and he intended to rustle it when it died, according to everybody he became liable by that intention. If he did not start to pull it, according to everybody he is not liable. But we most hold that it was standing at a feeding trough on his property. As Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, following the House of Shammai. Rebbi Abun said, there he acquired without the knowledge of its owner; but here when he acquires with the knowledge of its owner.

Jerusalem Talmud Avodah Zarah 2:41

There, we have stated: “With a Gentile, it is like his produce. Rebbi Simeon says, it is demay.” Rebbi Ḥananiah asked before Rebbi Mani: Does it mean, really like his produce? Freeing what would be ṭevel at another place? He said to him, for all that is in it. Rebbi Ḥanina was uselessly opposing him.

Jerusalem Talmud Avodah Zarah 2:42

If he deposited with him with a seal. Rebbi Ḥananiah and Rebbi Mana, one says, prohibited, and one says, permitted. Where do they disagree? For usufruct. But for drinking it is forbidden.

Jerusalem Talmud Avodah Zarah 5:44

So far when they fell in one after the other. What can one say if they fell together? Let us hear from the following: “When is leavened matter of Samaritans permitted after Passover? Of private persons after three weekly bakings, of city bakers after three days, of rural ones after three baking loads.” Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says, even when they said of private persons after three weekly bakings, if he was an important personality or he married off his son, if he baked three loads in one week one after the other it is permitted. Even when they said of (rural) [city] bakers after three days, if he was under pressure and baked three loads one after the other, it is permitted. It was stated: Rebbi Simeon says, even when they said of rural bakers after three baking loads, it is forbidden at least three days since in the morning he prepares sourdough for the entire day.” Does the second dough not become sour from forbidden and permitted? And Rebbi Jeremiah said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, who is the Tanna of “the leavened matter of the Samaritans”? Rebbi Eliezer! And Rebbi Yose said to Rebbi Ḥanina Eyntanaya: Do you remember that you and Rebbi Jeremiah were instructing in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, who is the Tanna of “the leavened matter of the Samaritans”? Rebbi Eliezer! But here we do not instruct so but Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, they treated leavened matter of the Samaritans following Rebbi Eliezer. In addition from the following:: Rebbi Ḥananiah bar Rebbi Abbahu said, my father had a case; he sent to Rebbi Ḥiyya, and Rebbi Immi, and Rebbi Yasa, and they instructed him following Rebbi Eliezer. How? Would they instruct following an isolated opinion? No, since they treated leavened matter of the Samaritans following Rebbi Eliezer.

Jerusalem Talmud Makkot 3:14

HALAKHAH: [“Rebbi Ḥananiah ben Aqashiah says: The Holy One,praise to Him,wanted etc.” Why does one use a substitute name for the Name of the Holy One, praise to Him, and calls Him Place? To say that He is the Place of the world but the world is not His place. Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of Rebbi Immi: It is written, dwelling is the Primordial God, to say that He is the dwelling of the world but the world is not His dwelling. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥalaphta said, it is written: The Eternal said, there is a place with Me; to say that He is the Place of the world but the world is not His place. Rebbi Isaac said, it is written: The Eternal is there, Sinai in the Holy. Would “the Holy in Sinai” not have been more reasonable? To say that He is the Place of the world but the world is not His place. Rebbi Yudan said, [a parable of] a hero riding on a horse with his weapons hanging down at both sides. It is not that the horse puts up with the hero, but the hero puts up with the horse.

Jerusalem Talmud Horayot 1:20

HALAKHAH: “If the Court ruled to uproot an entire subject,” etc. Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, “of a subject,” not the entire subject. Rebbi Hila said, “of the commandments”, not entire commandments. Is that written? As Rebbi Immi said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: For interpretation, one removes from the beginning of the paragraph to its end. Rebbi Ḥananiah in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah: Even a middle word. You have to pour oil on it, it is a flour offering, to include all flour offerings for pouring.

The Babylonian Talmud

Babylonian Talmud Ta'anit 1:93

R. 'Osha'ya said: Why are the words of the Torah likened unto these three liquids: water, wine, and milk?—As to water, it is written (Is., 55.1): "Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters"; as to wine and milk, it is written (ibid.): "And he that hath no money come ye, buy, and eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk without money and without price"?—To indicate to you that just as these three liquids can be preserved only in the cheapest kind of vessels, so will the words of the Torah be preserved only in him whose mind is lowly. This explains the story of the daughter of a Roman emperor, who said to R. Joshua b. Ḥananiah: "What brilliant wisdom in such an ugly vessel!" Whereupon he exclaimed: "Oh, you daughter of a man who puts wine in vessels of clay!" "Wherein should he put it?" she asked. "You nobles should put it in vessels of gold and silver!" Whereupon she went home and told her father, who ordered the wine to be put into vessels of gold and silver, and the wine became sour. They then went to R. Joshua and asked him, "Why did you give her such advice?" "As she spoke to me, so I spoke to her," R. Joshua replied. "But there are also handsome people that are learned!" they said.

Babylonian Talmud Ta'anit 1:150

A Baraita reads: Ḥananiah said, in the diaspora we must wait until the sixtieth day after the autumnal equinox. R. Huna b. Ḥiyya said in the name of Samuel, the law follows Ḥananiah. This cannot be so! For when Samuel was asked when we must begin to say: "And give dew and rain," he replied: From the time when the employees of Ṭabūt the Fowler begin to carry in the twigs! Answer: Both of these time-limits may be the same.

Babylonian Talmud Ta'anit 1:150

A Baraita reads: Ḥananiah said, in the diaspora we must wait until the sixtieth day after the autumnal equinox. R. Huna b. Ḥiyya said in the name of Samuel, the law follows Ḥananiah. This cannot be so! For when Samuel was asked when we must begin to say: "And give dew and rain," he replied: From the time when the employees of Ṭabūt the Fowler begin to carry in the twigs! Answer: Both of these time-limits may be the same.