depends

but [as regards] R. Huna and R. Chanan b. Rabbah,can we say that they differ on [what minimum of extent constitutes] the kashrus of the Sukkah the former, holding the opinion that the kashrus of the Sukkah [depends upon its being a minimum of] four amos [square] while the latter holds that The kashrus of the Sukkah [depends, upon its capacity of] containing his head, the greater part of his body, and his table?

but [as regards] R. Huna and R. Chanan b. Rabbah,can we say that they differ on [what minimum of extent constitutes] the kashrus of the Sukkah the former, holding the opinion that the kashrus of the Sukkah [depends upon its being a minimum of] four amos [square] while the latter holds that The kashrus of the Sukkah [depends, upon its capacity of] containing his head, the greater part of his body, and his table?

No! Both agree that the kashrus of the Sukkah [depends upon its ability of] containing his head, the greater part of his body, and his table, but here they differ on the following principle: the former, holding the opinion that They differ where the Sukkah [can] contain [only] his head, the greater part of his body, and his table, but if it is larger than this both agree that it is kosher,

until the conclusion of the last day of the Festival [of Sukkot], but if he expressed a condition about them, all depends on [the terms of] his condition? No! It is possible [that the statement was made with reference to sheets] at the side [of the Sukkah].

because [in this case the validity of the sukkah depends on] whether there is the standard size or not, and there is not the standard size, for since their standard sizes are unequal, they do not combine;

because [in this case the validity of the sukkah depends on] whether there is the standard size or not, and there is not the standard size, for since their standard sizes are unequal, they do not combine;

He holds the opinion as this (the following) Tanna, as it has been taught: R. Yose stated: Avtulmos testified in the name of five elders that the tithing of the etrog depends upon [the time of its] picking. But our Rabbis voted in Usha and said [that this applies] both to tithing and the Sabbatical Year.

But who mentioned the Sabbatical Year? There is something missing in the text, and so it should be read: The tithing of the etrog depends upon [the time of its] picking, and its subjection to the laws of the Sabbatical Year depends on [the time of its] blossoming. But our Rabbis voted in Usha and said that ... the etrog is dependent on the time of its picking as regards both tithing and the Sabbatical Year.

But who mentioned the Sabbatical Year? There is something missing in the text, and so it should be read: The tithing of the etrog depends upon [the time of its] picking, and its subjection to the laws of the Sabbatical Year depends on [the time of its] blossoming. But our Rabbis voted in Usha and said that ... the etrog is dependent on the time of its picking as regards both tithing and the Sabbatical Year.

R. Elazar further stated: The reward of charity depends entirely upon the extent of the kindness in it, for it is said, “Sow to yourselves according to charity, but reap according to the kindness.”

The inhabitants of Nawe sent the following question to Rabbi: Inasmuch as we are in need of rain at the time of the solstice of Tammuz, are we to be compared to individuals and hence to include our prayer for rain in the benediction "Who hearest Prayer," or are we regarded as a community and should insert it in the "Blessing of the Years"? Rabbi replied: You are regarded as individuals, and should insert your prayer in the benediction: "Who hearest Prayer." An objection was raised: R. Judah says, the given order of fasts applies only to times when the seasons of the year were divided on the basis of their normal recurrence and Israel was dwelling in its land, but in the present time all depends upon the nature of the seasons and upon the nature of the localities! What! You quote a Baraita to contradict Rabbi! Rabbi is an authority of the Mishnah and is entitled to differ.

This is true in respect of words of Torah, but in respect of business, all depends on the assistance of heaven. And even for words of Torah this is true only of penetrating to the meaning, but for remembering what one has learnt, all depends on the assistance of heaven.

This is true in respect of words of Torah, but in respect of business, all depends on the assistance of heaven. And even for words of Torah this is true only of penetrating to the meaning, but for remembering what one has learnt, all depends on the assistance of heaven.

In fact it is the First Tanna: He mentioned the reading of the Megillah, but the same is true for the gifts of the poor, since one depends on the other.

Abaye raised an objection: If a resident of a walled city went to a town, in any case he reads according to the custom of his own place. “A resident of a walled city” would you really think? His rule depends on whether he means to return. Rather, this is “a villager.”

What says R. Judah to this? In that case all depends on the understanding of the heart, ... and the expounder directs his mind and knows, but here it is because of the benefit [he derives from light], and this one derives no benefit.

R. Chasda enquired, What is the meaning of this verse? "And he sent young men of the children of Israel, which offered burnt-offerings," lambs, "and sacrificed peace-offerings of oxen unto the LORD" (Exod. xxiv. 5). Or perhaps both these and those were oxen. What comes out of it all then? Mar Zot'ra says, It depends upon the division of the verse by the accents. R. Acha, the son of Rabba, said, It is important for a man who says, Behold, I vow a burnt-offering like the burnt-offering which Israel offered in the wilderness. What was it? Were they oxen or lambs? The matter was left undecided.

Nay, but shall I tell you on what authority this depends? This is the teaching of R. Chănaniah ben Akbia; for he said, They have only made this restriction as regards Jordan or a ship, and in accordance with the matter that occurred. What was that? There is a Baraitha, viz., A man shall not take up the waters of sin and the ashes of sin, and carry them away over Jordan or in a ship, and he shall not stand on this side and throw them to the other side, and he shall not make them to swim upon the face of the waters, and he shall not ride upon the back of a beast nor upon the back of his comrade, but if he do, his feet must touch the ground; but he may bear them over a bridge, and he need not regard whether it be Jordan or any other river. R. Chănaniah ben Akbia says, They have only made this restriction as regards Jordan and the case when the man is in a ship, and in accordance with the matter that occurred. What was the matter that occurred? R. Jehudah said that Rab said, A matter occurred with a certain man, who was carrying the waters of sin and the ashes of sin over Jordan and in a ship, and a piece of a dead body as large as an olive was found fixed in the bottom of the ship. In the same hour they said, A man shall not bear waters of sin and ashes of sin and carry them over Jordan in a ship. This question was put by them. In the case of an unclean sandal the law is clear, but what if the case be one of a clean sandal? In the case of an open cask the law is clear, but what if the case be one of a closed cask? What also if it be the case of a man who has passed over and borne it? R. Ela said, If he has passed over and borne it, he is unclean. R. Zera said, If he has passed over and borne it, he is clean.

The unclean in the fourth degree in the case of hallowed things is disqualified. There is a Baraitha, viz., R. Jose said, How is it in the case of the unclean in the fourth degree that in the matter of the hallowed things he is disqualified? But this depends on a logical argument. For look you, He who has entered on the last stage of his atonement, while he is free as regards heave-offering, is disqualified as regards hallowed things. Is it not just, seeing that a man who is unclean in the third degree is disqualified as regards heave-offering, that he should become disqualified as regards hallowed things, if unclean in the fourth degree? But we have learned from the Law that he who is unclean in the third degree is disqualified as regards hallowed things. And that he who is unclean in the fourth degree is so, we have learned, as above, by an a fortiori argument. Whence do we learn from the Law that he who is unclean in the third degree is disqualified as regards hallowed things? Because it is written, "And the flesh that toucheth any unclean thing shall not be eaten" (Lev. vii. 19). Are we not here treating of the touching of a thing of secondary uncleanness? And the Merciful One says, It "shall not be eaten." That which is unclean in the fourth degree is proved to be disqualified by the a fortiori argument, as we have said.

R' Yochanan ben Nuri says, everything depends on how it looks.