dies

214 occurrences across the corpus

The Jerusalem Talmud

MISHNAH: The commandment for the two he-goats of the Day of Atonement is that they be equal in looks, in height, and in value, and be bought simultaneously. Even if they are not equal they are qualified; if one was bought one day and the other the next day they are qualified. If one of them dies, if it died before he drew lots he should take a match for the second one; if it dies after he drew lots one brings two and he draws new lots for them. Then he shall say if the one for Hashem dies, “the one for which the lot for Hashem is drawn shall be taken in its stead.” And if the one for Azazel died, “the one for which the lot for Azazel is drawn shall be taken in its stead.” The second one shall graze until it becomes unfit, then be sold, and its proceeds used for voluntary sacrifices since no public purification sacrifice is allowed to die. Rebbi Jehudah says, it shall die. In addition, Rebbi Jehudah says, if the blood is spilled the one to be sent away shall die, if the one to be sent away dies the blood shall be spilled.

Jerusalem Talmud Yoma 6:1

Jerusalem Talmud Shekalim 7:21

Not only if he died, but even if he became impure; and even if he became disabled by a defect. Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi stated from Bar Delaia: Even if he became disabled by a defect. “From where that if a High Priest dies and no other was appointed in his stead that his flour offering is brought from the heirs? The verse says, from his sons he shall make. I could think that he should bring it in halves, the verse says, it, entire I said, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Simeon says, it only comes from the public, for it says, an eternal law, (to whom the creatures belong.) Totally it shall be burned, all is for burning.

Jerusalem Talmud Shekalim 8:17

Did sheqalim therefore become holy? Rebbi Simeon ben Jehudah in the name of Rebbi Simeon: Both these and those did not become holy. It was stated: A proselyte today has to bring for his nest a quarter of a silver {denar}. Rebbi Simeon said, Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai already disestablished this because of the mishap. What is “because of the mishap”? As was stated, today one does neither dedicate as sacrifice, nor dedicate one’s value, nor dedicate as ḥerem, nor does one collect [heave and tithes]. If somebody dedicates as sacrifice, or dedicated one’s value, or dedicated as ḥerem, or collected, cloth must be burned, an animal castrated. [How? One locks it in and it dies by itself.] Monies shall go to the Dead Sea. If he transgressed and dedicated, since Rebbi Simeon said, Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai already disestablished this because of the mishap, this implies if he transgressed and dedicated, it became sanctified. Rebbi Yudan from Antodria asked before Rebbi Yose: here you are saying it became sanctified, and there you are saying, it did not become sanctified. He said to him, there [because of the following one may not dedicate from the start because it is an obligation to bring from the new contribution, and this would be from the old one. Here, what can you say? That one is old. But in respect to other dedications, the proselyte’s nest does not have to be from new money; if he dedicated it is holy;] maybe the Temple will be built like earlier and the heave of the lodge will be lifted on time on the first of Nisan. But here, what do you have? Rav Ada and Rav Hamnuna, Rav Ada bar Aḥawa in the name of Rav: Practice follows Rebbi Simeon.

Jerusalem Talmud Beitzah 3:14

MISHNAH: An animal which dies one may not move from its place. It happened that Rebbi Tarphon was asked about this and about ḥallah which became impure. He entered the study hall and asked. They told him that one may not move them from their place.

Jerusalem Talmud Chagigah 2:6

“Nor the Chariot to one.” Is this still Rebbi Aqiba’s? It is the opinion of everybody, so that a person know how to take care of the glory of his Maker. Did not Rav say, nobody is permitted to pronounce anything (about skin disease) [against his teacher] unless either he saw or he served. How does one proceed? At the start his teacher indicates the topics of the verses and summarizes. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi had a competent student who explained one Chapter in the Work of the Chariot to which Rebbi did not concur; he was stricken with scabies. This teaching may be compared to two roads, one of fire and the other of snow. If he takes one he dies in fire, if he takes the other he dies in snow. What should he do? Walk in the middle.

Jerusalem Talmud Chagigah 2:6

Jerusalem Talmud Moed Katan 3:41

From where in the Torah that mourning is seven {days}? He organized seven days of mourning for his father. Can you infer anything from before the giving of the Torah? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ze`ira understood it from the following: At the door of the Tent of Meeting you shall sit day and night for seven days, and keep the watch of the Eternal’ s sanctuary. Just as the Holy One, praise to Him, watched over His World for seven {days}, so you shall watch for your brothers for seven {days}. And from where that the Holy One, praise to Him, watched over His World for seven {days}? It was after seven days that the Deluge came over the world. May one mourn before the dying person dies? Only flesh and blood who do not know what will be in the future do not mourn until the dying person dies. But the Holy One, praise to Him, Who knows what will be in the future did first watch for His world. Some want to say, these are the seven days of mourning for Methusela the Just. Rebbi Hoshaia said, for the Eternal’s anointing oil is on you. Just as you were anointed with the anointing oil all of seven, so watch for your brothers all of seven. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: please let her not be like the dead. She shall be locked away. Just as the day of isolation for the dead are seven, so the days of quarantine are seven. One student reported this from Rebbi Joḥanan before Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, who did not accept it. He said, here he uses it for isolation, but there he uses it for making absolute, as Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Yannai, please let her not be like the dead: just as the days of the dead are not counted, so the days of being absolute are not counted. Rebbi Jeremiah and Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish; Rebbi Abbahu, Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: the days of crying of the mourning for Moses ended. “The days”, seven. “Of crying”, two. “Mourning”, thirty. Some switch, “the days”, two, “of crying”, seven, “mourning”, thirty. Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Ḥiyya, and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Rebbi Judah the Patriarch: I shall turn your holiday into mourning. Since the days of Tabernacles are seven, also the days of mourning are seven. Rebbi Immi said to Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: Maybe since the days of Tabernacles are eight, also the days of mourning are eight? He answered him, the eighth day is a separate holiday Or since Pentecost is one day, also mourning is one day? He answered him, from here about a deferred information. And it was stated such: Current information requires Seven and Thirty. Deferred information does not require Seven and Thirty.

Jerusalem Talmud Moed Katan 3:41

Jerusalem Talmud Moed Katan 3:60

HALAKHAH: “Only the relatives of the deceased tear their clothes, or take them off, or are brought the first meal. Rebbi Jeremiah said, only relatives who have to mourn. As this which was stated: If a Sage dies [all] are his relatives, even relatives who do not have to mourn. As the following: Rebbi Abun died on a holiday and Rebbi Mana did not participate in mourning. The Sepphoreans said, he hates him even in death. After the holiday he eulogized him. He preached and said in front of them, as was stated: If a Sage dies all are his relatives, referring to those who were present. We were not present.

Jerusalem Talmud Moed Katan 3:60

Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 1:22

Rebbi Yudan asked: Following him who said, a man is not guilty for the woman who got ḥalîṣah but he is guilty for the co-wife, ḥalîṣah is freeing; is intercourse freeing? As you say, if he performed ḥalîṣah with her, she became forbidden to the brothers. Similarly, if he had intercourse with her, she became forbidden to the brothers. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: If the first husband died, the second brother shall take her in levirate. If the second dies, the third shall take her in levirate! Rebbi Yose said, what do you think? That ḥalîṣah is the same as intercourse? Once he performed ḥalîṣah, the claim of the dead is removed from her retroactively. Retroactively fell on her the prohibition of the dead man regarding the brothers. But if he had intercourse with her, she is his wife. On that did Rebbi Ḥiyya state: If the first husband died, the second brother shall take her in levirate. If the second dies, the third shall take her in levirate.

Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 1:22

Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 1:29

Rebbi Yudan, the father of Rebbi Mattaniah said: Explain it when they died without having repudiated since there is a Mishnah: “If a woman could repudiate but did not do so, her co-wife performs ḥalîṣah but cannot be married in levirate.” So is the Mishnah: “If a woman could repudiate but did not dies, her co-wife performs ḥalîṣah but cannot be married in levirate.” Rebbi Abba Mari said, you may even say if she still lives; explain it if her father is the only levir.

Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 1:37

MISHNAH: How do they free their co-wives? If a man’s daughter or one of the incest-prohibited women was married to his brother who has another wife and dies, just as his daughter is free so her co-wife is free. If his daughter’s co-wife went and was married to a second brother who then died, just as his daughter’s co-wife is freed, so the co-wife’s co-wife is freed; even if this is repeated a hundred times.

Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 3:10

A Mishnah disagrees with Samuel: “If somebody performs ḥalîṣah with his sister-in-law, her relatives are forbidden to him and his relatives are forbidden to her.” There is a difference here, since he already is available to free himself from her. A Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “If somebody performs ḥalîṣah with his sister-in-law, then his brother marries her sister and dies, she performs ḥalîṣah but cannot have levirate.” This supports him who says that ḥalîṣah is freeing. But according to him who says, ḥalîṣah is acquisiton, is there anybody who wants to acquire two sisters together? Explain it, after her death. Is there no levirate after death? Explain it following Rebbi Eleazar, since Rebbi Eleazar said, if the cause is removed the prohibition remains. A Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “Three brothers, two of them are married to two sisters and the third is free. One of the sisters’ husbands died, the free [brother] “bespoke” her, then the second brother died. The House of Shammai say, his wife is with him and the other one should leave as the wife’s sister. The House of Hillel say, he divorces his wife with a bill of divorce (and ḥalîṣah), and his wife’s sister with ḥalîṣah. This supports him who says that ḥalîṣah is (acquisiton) [freeing]. But according to him who says, ḥalîṣah is acquisiton, is there anybody who wants to acquire two sisters together? Explain it, after her death. Is there no levirate after death? Explain it following Rebbi Eleazar, since Rebbi Eleazar said, if the cause is removed the prohibition remains. A Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “If a brother gives qiddushin to the sister of a woman waiting for the levir, they said in the name of Rebbi Jehudah ben Bathyra: One says to him, wait until your brother has acted. If one of the brothers performed ḥalîṣah or married her, he may marry his wife. If the sister-in-law died, he may marry his wife. If the levir died, he has to remove his wife by a bill of divorce and his brother’s widow by ḥalîṣah.”. This supports him who says that ḥalîṣah is freeing. But according to him who says, ḥalîṣah is acquisiton, is there anybody who wants to acquire two sisters together? Explain it following Rebbi Eleazar, since Rebbi Eleazar said, if the cause is removed the prohibition remains. A Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “If a brother of the High Priest dies, he performs ḥalîṣah but not levirate.” This supports him who says that ḥalîṣah is freeing. But according to him who says, ḥalîṣah is acquisiton, does one say to him, transgress the words of the Torah? Rebbi Ḥama, the colleague of the rabbis, objected: Does not a Mishnah disagree with Rav? “Three brothers, two of them married to two sisters or a woman and her daughter or a woman and her daughter’s or her son’s daughter. These perform ḥalîṣah but not levirate.” There is a difference since the prohibition of a woman and her daughter applies both when she is alive as also after her death. These last two disagree with Rav and one cannot explain them away.

Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 3:10

Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 3:34

MISHNAH: Three brothers are married to three unrelated women. If one of them died, his second brother “bespeaks” her and then dies, these perform ḥalîṣah but not levirate, as it is said: “Her levir shall come to her,” if on her is the candidacy from one brother but not from two. Rebbi Simeon says, he takes in levirate the one he prefers and performs ḥalîṣah with the other.

Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 4:12

If the uncertain [son] comes to take his part in his father’s [inheritance]. one says to him, the other one is your father. If the levir comes to take his part in his brother’s [inheritance], one says to him, that one is his son. How is that? They compromise between themselves and split the property of the deceased. One finds, compromise with his brother is loss to the brothers; competition between the brothers is catastrophy for the brothers. If the old man dies, one finds that certain sons and an uncertain grandson come. If the uncertain [son] dies there exists a certain son of his father’s brother and an uncertain mother. If one of the brothers dies, there is a certain son and an uncertain son of a brother. If the mother of the uncertain [son] dies, there is a certain son and an uncertain husband. If first the uncertain [son] dies and after that his mother, a son of the mother’s brother is certain but the husband uncertain. If the levir dies and the uncertain [son] comes to take his part in his father’s inheritance, if the first one was poor, they tell him, that one is your father. If he was rich, the tell him, we all are brothers, sons of his brother. Come and let us inherit our father’s part and the part of our father’s brother.

Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 4:12

Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 4:14

MISHNAH: If property came to a woman waiting for her levir, the House of Shammai agree with the House of Hillel that she may sell or give away and it is valid. If she dies, what does one do with her ketubah and property that enters and leaves with her? The House of Shammai say, the husband’s heirs should split with her father’s heirs. But the House of Hillel say that all property remains where it is; the ketubah in the hands of the husband’s heirs and property that enters and leaves with her in the hands of her father’s heirs.

Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 4:15

HALAKHAH: “If property came to a woman waiting for her levir,” etc. Here, you say “she may sell or give away and it is valid. If she dies, what does one do with her ketubah?” And you also say “the husband’s heirs should split with her father’s heirs!” Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, when do you say “she may sell or give away and it is valid”? If they came to her before she became a woman waiting for her levir. When do you say “the husband’s heirs should split with her father’s heirs”? If they came to her after she became a woman waiting for her levir. If they came to her before she became a woman waiting for her levir and produced revenue after she became a woman waiting for her levir, [that revenue is as if] they came to her after she became a woman waiting for her levir. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, the levir in this situation is a problem for the House of Shammai. If he is a husband, he inherits everything. If he is not a husband, he inherits nothing. Because of the doubt, “the husband’s heirs should split with her father’s heirs.” For the House of Hillel it is obvious that he is a husband and inherits everything. For even his brother had only the usufruct.

Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 6:20

“If a brother of the High Priest dies, he performs ḥalîṣah but not levirate.” This supports him who says that ḥalîṣah is freeing. But according to him who says, ḥalîṣah is acquisiton, does one say to him, transgress the words of the Torah?

Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 8:13

It was stated: “A Jew may circumcise a Samaritan but a Samaritan may not circumcise a Jew since he is circumcised in the name of Mount Gerizim, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Yose said to him, where do we find in the Torah that circumcision needs intent? Let him continue to circumcise in the name of Mount Gerizim until he dies!” “The drawn should not circumcise [again] lest he get into danger, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Yose said to him, many drawn ones were in the days of Ben Koziba, they all circumcised, lived, and begat sons and daughters. One has to draw a drop of covenant blood from the drawn [circumcised], the one born circumcised, and the circumcised before he converted. Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar stated: The House of Shammai and the House of Hillel did not disagree that one has to draw a drop of covenant blood from the one born circumcised since that is a compressed prepuce; what did they disagree about? About the convert who converted when already circumcised, for the House of Shammai said one has to draw a drop of covenant blood from him, but the House of Hillel say, one does not have to draw a drop of covenant blood from him.” Rebbi Issac bar Naḥman said in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Practice follows the words of the student. There came a case before Rav, who said: Who is he who said that it is a compressed prepuce? That means, he certainly is uncircumcised and one pushes the Sabbath away for him. Rebbi Abbahu said, one does not push the Sabbath away for him but one has to draw a drop of covenant blood from him. A male child was born to Rav Ada bar Aḥawa in that condition. He squeezed it, he died. Rebbi Abin said, his penis was damaged and he fasted for him that he should die. The rabbis of Caesarea said, his testicles became injured and he fasted for him that he should die.

Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 13:35

MISHNAH: Two brothers are married to two underage orphan [sisters]. If the husband of one of them dies, the other one has to leave as wife’s sister. And so for two deaf-mute [sisters]. If one is adult and the other underage, if the husband of the underage girl died, she has to leave as wife’s sister. If the husband of the adult one died, Rebbi Eliezer said, one teaches the underage one to repudiate him. Rabban Gamliel says, if she repudiated, she repudiated; otherwise she should wait until she becomes of age and the other one has to leave as wife’s sister. Rebbi Joshua says, woe to him for his wife, woe to him for his brother’s wife! He has to send away his wife by a bill of divorce and his brother’s wife by ḥalîṣah.

Jerusalem Talmud Sotah 1:11

MISHNAH: How does he declare his jealousy? If he said to her in front of two [witnesses]: Do not speak with the man X, and she spoke with him, she still is permitted to her house and to eat heave. If she enters a hidden room together with him and remains there long enough for impurity, she is forbidden to her house and forbidden to eat heave; if he dies she needs ḥalîṣah but cannot be married in levirate.

Jerusalem Talmud Sotah 1:18

It was stated: Rebbi said, three times is “impurity” said in the paragraph, one for the husband, one for the paramour, and one for heave. For heave? Do we find that a woman is forbidden to her house and permitted to eat heave? Why not? If the daughter of a Cohen was married to an Israel and raped, is she not permitted to her house but forbidden heave? We never find that a woman is forbidden to her house and permitted to eat heave! Rebbi Abin said, it was said: One for the husband, one for the paramour, and one for the levir. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, the Mishnah says so: “If he dies she needs ḥalîṣah but cannot be married in levirate.”

Jerusalem Talmud Sotah 1:40

HALAKHAH: “By the measure a person measures one measures him,” etc. It was stated in the name of Rebbi Meïr: By the measure a person measures one measures him. What is the reason? בְּסַאסְּאָה., seah for seah. Not only a seah, from where a three-qab, half a three-qab, half a qab, a quarter [qab], a toman, half a toman, or an ukla? The verse says, “for all that is in a seah, breaks the seah noisily;” he added many seot here. Not only things that can be measured, from where that small coins add up to a large bill? The verse says, “one to one, to find the bill.” It happens in the world that a person stumbles in a sin for which one would be punished by death by the hands of Heaven. His ox dies, his hen is lost, his flask breaks, and he hurts his finger, by that the bill is paid in full. Another explanation: One is filled into the next and the bill is established. And what is the fulfillment of the bill? Once.

Jerusalem Talmud Sotah 1:41

It was stated in the name of Rebbi Meïr: Just as there are opinions in eating and drinking, so opinions are [varied] among men. There is a man, if a fly falls into his cup, he takes it out, throws it away and drinks. That is like a normal man who sees his wife talking to her neighbors and relatives. Or you have a man who if a fly flies over his cup, takes it, pours [the contents] out, and does not taste them. That is a bad human attitude because he thinks of divorcing her. Or you have a man who, if a fly sits on his cup, takes it and leaves [the cup] untouched. That is Pappos ben Jehudah who locked his wife in. They said to him, did your forefathers behave like this? Or you have a man who finds a dead fly in his cup, takes it, licks it, and drinks. That is the wicked one who sees that his wife is overbearing with her slaves and slave-girls, where he would be commanded to divorce her, as it is said: “She left his house and went and married another man.” The verse called him other because he is not of the class of the first who expelled his wife because of a sexual transgression and the other one stumbled over her. If Heaven gives him credit, he will divorce her; otherwise, at the end she will bury him as it is said, “or if the latter man dies.” That man deserves to die since he brought that woman into his house.

Jerusalem Talmud Sotah 3:26

MISHNAH: Rebbi Simeon says, merit does not suspend in the case of the bitter water. If you say that merit suspends in the case of the curse water, you weaken the water in the eyes of all women who drink it and you smear the reputation of the pure women who drank because one would say that they are impure but that merit suspended for them. Rebbi says, merit suspends in the case of the curse water, but she does not have children, does not get better, but degenerates and in the end she dies that death.

Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 4:13

HALAKHAH: “If a proselyte woman converted,” etc. It is written: “For he calumniated a virgin of Israel”. That excludes this one who is not from Israel. “For he calumniated a virgin,” to include the proselyte whose conception was not in holiness but her birth was in holiness, that she should be stoned. Why does one not add her for the fine? You cannot do that; as Ḥizqiah stated: We understand that it was said “they shall stone her,” does that not imply that she dies? Why does the verse say, “and she shall die”? But there must be another one who is stoned but (she) [he] is free; who is that? That is the proselyte whose conception was not in holiness but who was born in holiness.

Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 7:9

HALAKHAH: “If somebody causes a vow of his wife that she should not adorn herself,” etc. Rav Huna said, so is the Mishnah: “Among the poor if he did not give a time limit.” Ulla bar Ismael said, among the poor if he did not give a time limit; but if he gave a time limit even if it were for ten years it is permitted, for no fox dies if he gets dusty from his lair. Nathan bar Hoshaiah said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Except holidays.

Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 9:1

MISHNAH: If somebody writes to his wife: “I shall have nothing to do with your properties,” he receives their revenues and if she should die, he inherits from her. In this case, why did he write “I shall have nothing to do with your properties”? If she sold or gave away, it is valid. If he wrote to her: “I shall have nothing to do with your properties, nor with their revenues,” he does not receive their revenues during her lifetime but if she should die, he inherits from her. Rebbi Jehudah says, he continues to receive the investment results of her revenues unless he writes: “I shall have nothing to do with your properties, nor with their revenues, nor with revenues derived from revenues, without limits.” If he wrote “I shall have nothing to do with your properties, nor with their revenues, nor with revenues derived from revenues during your lifetime and after your death,” he does not receive the revenues during her lifetime and does not inherit from her after her death. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, if she dies, he should inherit from her since he made a condition contradicting what is written in the Torah, and anybody’s condition contradicting what is written in the Torah is invalid.

Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 9:7

Rav Jeremiah in the name of Rav: Practice follows Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel, but not in the matter of words. Practice follows Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel for he said, if she dies he inherits from her, but in matters of words, “since he made a condition contradicting what is written in the Torah, and anybody’s condition contradicting what is written in the Torah is invalid,” in personal matters. But in money matters, one’s stipulations are valid and that is a money matter! Why did we say that the condition is invalid? Because in the end he acquired it. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The law should have been that if she sold or gave it away it should be valid, for [the buyer] acquired it. Why did they say it is invalid? That a wife should not sell her husband’s property and say, it is mine.

Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 9:41

HALAKHAH: “From encumbered property, how is that?” Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If somebody disputes a court document, he is not trustworthy. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said to him: Is that not the Mishnah? “If she produced her bill of divorce without a ketubah, she collects her ketubah”! Rebbi Joḥanan said to him: Babylonian, after I removed the clay from the pearl, you say to me: Is that not the Mishnah? Rav said, at a place where one does not write a ketubah. But at a place where one writes a ketubah, what she produces she collects. He changed his mind and said, she collects even at a place where one writes a ketubah; let anyone powerful object to this! Rebbi Yose objected: Was it not stated: She might collect on her divorce document, hide her ketubah, and collect a second time? If those died. Are there not witnesses? Bring them! They went overseas. Is there not an agreement? Is there no registrar of agreements? There is a registrar of agreements; as you say, if a document is lost, one writes a replacement. This is what one says, if the ketubah was lost, one writes a new one. Rebbi Abba objected: Was it not stated, she might collect on her divorce document, hide her ketubah, wait until he dies, and collect a second time? Rebbi Yose bar Abun said to him: Would she not have to prove that she lived with him until he died?

Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 12:7

If she dies she is not with him. If she was divorced she is not with him. If he took her back? One says, this was stated for the ketubah but not for the stipulations; one says, both for the ketubah and the stipulations, which opinion is valid? “The intelligent ones did write: On condition that I support your daughter for five years the entire time you are with me;” on that it was stated: Only for the first marriage. This parallels what Rebbi Ḥanina said, if somebody marries off his son in a house, the latter acquires the house, but only for a first marriage.

Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 12:9

HALAKHAH: “If the widow said, I cannot move from my husband’s house,” etc. It is written (Ps. 88:6): “Among the dead is freedom.” When a person dies he becomes free from the Commandments.

Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 12:20

It is written (Jer. 20:6–7): “But you, Pashḥur, and all inhabitants of your house will go into captivity. You will come to Babylon, die there, and be buried there.” Rebbi Abba [bar Zemina] said, Rebbi Ḥelbo and Rebbi Ḥama bar Ḥanina. One of them said, if somebody dies there and is buried there, he has two [detriments] in hand. If he dies there and is buried here, he has one [detriment] in hand. The other one said, burial atones for their death.

Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 12:20

Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 13:15

MISHNAH: Admon promulgated seven [rules]. If somebody dies and is survived by sons and daughters. If the estate is large, the sons inherit and the daughters will be sustained. If the estate is small, the daughters shall be sustained and the sons shall go begging. Admon said, because I am a male, shall I lose? Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, I am convinced by Admon’s statement.

Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 5:10

“This, your house,” because of what do you catch him? Because of “your house,” “this”? If it collapsed and he himself rebuilt it, is it not “this”? Let us hear from the following: “If somebody said to his heirs, give a wedding house to my son or a widow’s house to my daughter, if it collapsed, the heirs are required to rebuild it.” There, we have stated: “If somebody says to his son, ‘a qônām that you can not enjoy anything from me,’ if he dies, [the son] inherits. ‘During my lifetime and after my death,’ if he dies, [the son] does not inherit.” [Did we not state, ‘during my lifetime’, [the son] inherits; ‘after my death’, [the son] inherits?] What is the difference between the one who says it one by one and the one who says it by twos? Rav Jeremiah and Rebbi Yose [ben Ḥanina] both say, ‘a qônām that I cannot enjoy these my properties during my lifetime and after my death,’ from the moment he said “these” he forbade to him during his lifetime and after his death. Rebbi Yose said, we have stated in Nedarim what we did not state in S̄ebuot: “A qônām that I shall not enter your house, or that I shall not buy your field, if the owner died or sold it, the other is permitted. That I shall not enter this house, or that I shall not buy this field, if the owner died or sold it, the other is forbidden.” Because he said “this”. Therefore, if he had not said “this”, he would have forbidden to him both during his lifetime and after his death.

Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 5:10

Jerusalem Talmud Nazir 4:11

HALAKHAH: “If a woman had made a vow of nazir,” etc. Biblical whippings are 39 lashes. One evaluates him; if he can stand it, one whips him, if not, one does not whip him. Blows of rebelliousness: one strikes him until he accepts or until he dies.

Jerusalem Talmud Nazir 9:12

So far for the people celebrating Passover. From where the nazir? Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi [Yannai]: “If a person dies suddenly on him”. Since on him it is in the open, so everything in the open. This eliminates the grave in the abyss which is not in the open.

Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 1:28

MISHNAH: If one says, “give this bill of divorce to my wife or this document of manumission to my slave,” if he wants to change his mind in either case he can retract, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, only for women’s bills of divorce but not for slaves’ documents of manumission because one may bestow benefit on a person in his absence but put a detriment on him only in his presence; for if one chooses not to sustain his slave, he has the right not to do so, but not to sustain his wife he has no right. He said to them, but he disqualifies his slave for heave the same way he disqualifies his wife! They answered him, because he is his property. If one says, “give this bill of divorce to my wife or this document of manumission to my slave” and dies, they shall not be delivered after his death; “give this mina to Mr. X” and dies, they shall deliver it after his death.

Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 1:28

Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 1:36

“ ‘Give this mina to Mr. X’ and he dies, they shall deliver it after his death”. Rebbi Abin in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: The Mishnah refers to a sick person.

Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 4:5

“Because of the public good.” They say in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: That she should not risk bastardy. Some say in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: That she should not remain anchored. He who said, that she should not remain anchored, [is afraid that] she turns out to be anchored if she thought that he annulled when he did not annul. He who said, that she should not risk bastardy, [is afraid that] her children will be bastards if she thought that he did not annul when he annulled, she goes and marries without a bill of divorce. If she thought that he annulled when he did not annul, another man comes and marries her preliminarily; the preliminary marriage is valid but she thinks it is invalid. She waits until her first husband dies, then she goes and marries [another man]; the result is that her children will be bastards. Rebbi Mana said, I went with a caravan and heard Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa and Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: That she should not risk bastardy. Rav Huna said, even the one who said that she should not remain anchored also agrees that she should not risk bastardy.

Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 5:32

MISHNAH: Rebbi Joḥanan ben Gudguedah testified about a deaf-mute girl who was married off by her father, that she must be divorced by a bill of divorce, and about an underage girl who was married to a Cohen, that she may eat heave and her husband inherits from her if she dies, and about a stolen log which was used to build a house, that [the owner] has to take the value, and about a purification sacrifice of a stolen animal which was not known in public, that it atones because of the order of the altar.

Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 7:14

MISHNAH: “This is your bill of divorce if I should die, this is your bill of divorce if I should die from this illness, this is your bill of divorce after my death,” he did not say anything. “From today if I should die, from now if I should die,” that is a bill of divorce. “From today after my death” is no bill of divorce; if he dies she must receive ḥalîṣah but is barred from levirate marriage.

Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 7:27

What is the status of her intercourse? Some Tannaïm state, her intercourse is certain, but some Tannaïm state, her intercourse is in doubt. According to him who says that her intercourse is certain, he brings a “hung” sacrifice. According to him who says that her intercourse is in doubt, if [the husband] dies, he is free; if [the husband] does not die, he brings a purification sacrifice.

Jerusalem Talmud Kiddushin 1:27

“She regains her autonomy by a bill of divorce,” as it is written: “He shall write her a bill of divorce.” “Or the husband’s death,” as it is written: “Or if the latter husband dies.” So far, if the latter one dies, [what about] the death of the former? Since the latter’s death releases her, even though his death does not cause a complete release, it is only logical that the former’s death should release her since his death will cause a complete release. Rebbi Ḥuna said, the verse implies that death releases, as it is written: “If brothers live together and one of them dies childless, etc.” Therefore, if he had a child, death releases. Rebbi Yose bar Abun said, if you would say that death does not release, how could we find a widow for a High priest, a divorcee or one who has received ḥalîṣah for a common priest? Rebbi Joḥanan bar Marius said, explain it for a sister-in-law.

Jerusalem Talmud Kiddushin 1:27

Jerusalem Talmud Kiddushin 2:8

If she was preliminarily married with agreement but definitively married without agreement, may she eat heave? Rav said, she does eat; but Samuel said, she may not eat. Rebbi Mana said, Rav’s reason is that if she was preliminarily married with agreement, the permanence of the status quo implies the assumption that he definitively married her with agreement. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rav’s reason is that by the earlier Mishnah, a preliminarily married daughter of an Israel may eat heave. What is the difference between them? Her earnings. According to Rebbi Mana, for Rav her earnings belong to her husband; according to Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun, for Rav her earnings belong to her father. If she should die, who inherits from her? According to Rebbi Mana, for Rav her husband inherits; according to Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun, for Rav her father inherits if she dies. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun stated, for Rav her husband inherits if she dies. If she was preliminarily married without agreement and definitively married without agreement, may she eat heave? Samuel said, she does eat. Come and see: If she was preliminarily married with agreement and definitively married without agreement, Samuel says that she may not eat; here he says she may eat? Samuel treats her as an orphan.

Jerusalem Talmud Kiddushin 2:8

Jerusalem Talmud Kiddushin 3:8

“Here you have money that your slave shall become acquired by me after thirty days.” Some Tannaïm stated: The first [owner] is subject to “a day or two”. But some Tannaïm stated: The second [owner] is subject to “a day or two”. Some Tannaïm stated: Neither the first nor the second [owners] are subject to “a day or two”. But some Tannaïm stated: Both first and second [owners] are subject to “a day or two”. He who says, the first [owner] is subject to “a day or two”, “if he dies in his possession.” He who says, the second [owner] is subject to “a day or two”, “for he is his money.” He who says, both first and second [owners] are subject to “a day or two”, the first because of “if he dies in his possession,” the second because of “for he is his money.” He who says, neither the first nor the second [owners] are subject to “a day or two”, for he is not the first’s money and does not die in the possession of the second.

Jerusalem Talmud Kiddushin 3:8

Jerusalem Talmud Kiddushin 4:57

MISHNAH: Rebbi Nehorai says: I am leaving aside all trades in the world and teach my son only Torah, for a man eats from its rewards in this world and the capital remains for the future world. But with other trades it is not so, for if a person is afflicted with sickness, or old age, or a measure of suffering, and cannot continue in his trade, he dies, abandoned, from hunger. But the Torah is different, it guards him from all evil in his youth and gives him a future and hope in his old age. What does it say about his youth? “Those who trust in the Eternal will renew strength, they rise on wings like an eagle, they run without effort, they walk without tiring.” What does it say about his old age? “They still bear fruit in old age, fat and invigorated they will be.” So it says about our father Abraham, peace on him: “Abraham was old, came into days, and the Eternal blessed Abraham with everything.” We find that our father Abraham kept the entire Torah before it was given, as it is said: “As a reward because Abraham listened to My voice and kept My watch, My commandments, My laws, and My teachings.”

Jerusalem Talmud Kiddushin 4:58

HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Nehorai says: I am leaving aside all trades in the world and teach my son only Torah.” For all trades support a person only in his youth as long as he is in possession of his powers. But if a person is afflicted with sickness or a measure of suffering, and cannot continue working, he dies from hunger. But the Torah is different, it honors him and guards him from all evil in his youth and gives him a future and hope in his old age. What does it say about his youth? “Those who trust in the Eternal will renew strength, they rise on wings like an eagle, they run without effort, they walk without tiring.” What does it say about his old age? “They still bear fruit in old age, fat and invigorated they will be.” So you find about the patriarch Abraham who kept the Torah before it came into the world, as it is said: “As a reward because Abraham listened to My voice and kept My watch, My commandments, My laws, and My teachings.” Also it made him great and blessed him in his youth and gave him a future and hope in his old age. What does it say about his youth? “Abraham was very wealthy with livestock, silver, and gold.” And about his old age, what does it say? “Abraham was old, came into days, and the Eternal blessed Abraham with everything.”

Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 9:23

MISHNAH: If somebody says to his son: A qônām that you cannot enjoy anything from me, when he dies he can inherit from him. During my lifetime and after my death, when he dies he cannot inherit from him but should give it to his sons or his brothers, and if he has nothing he may take a loan; the creditors come and make themselves paid.

Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 9:23

Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 9:24

HALAKHAH: “If somebody says to his son: A qônām that you cannot enjoy anything from me,” etc. Rebbi Jeremiah said, look what we did state here: “If somebody says to his son, ‘a qônām that you can not enjoy anything from me,’ if he dies, the son inherits; ‘during my lifetime and after my death,’ if he dies, he cannot inherit.” Did we not state, ‘during my lifetime’, he inherits; ‘after my death’, he inherits, ‘during my lifetime and after my death’, he cannot inherit? What is the difference between the one who says it one by one and the one who says it by twos? Rav Jeremiah and Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina both say, ‘a qônām that I shall not enter this house during my lifetime and after my death’, since he said “this house”, he forbade it on himself during lifetime and after death. Rebbi Yose said, we have stated in Neziqin what we did not state in Nedarim: ‘A qônām that I cannot enjoy these my properties during my lifetime and after my death,’ from the moment he said “these” he forbade them to himself during his lifetime and after his death.

Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 9:24

Jerusalem Talmud Bava Metzia 5:23

“If it dies because of gross negligence, he gives everything; not because of gross negligence, he gives half. How is this? It was estimated as one mina and improved and now is worth 200. If it dies because of gross negligence, he gives six gold denars; if not because of gross negligence, he gives 50 zuz.”

Jerusalem Talmud Bava Metzia 5:23

Jerusalem Talmud Bava Metzia 7:18

MISHNAH: One wolf is not an unavoidable accident, two wolves are. Rebbi Jehudah says, in times when wolves appear in packs, even a single wolf is an unavoidable accident. Two dogs are not an unavoidable accident. Yaddua the Babylonian says in the name of Rebbi Meїr: From the same direction it is not an unavoidable accident; from two different directions it is an unavoidable accident Robbers are an unavoidable accident. A lion, and a bear, and a leopard, and a panther, and a snake are unavoidable accidents. When? If they came by themselves. But if he led [the flock] to a place of troops of wild animals or robbers, these are not unavoidable accidents. If [an animal] dies a natural death it is an unavoidable accident. If he tortured it and it died, it is not an unavoidable accident. If it climbed to the top of a cliff and fell, it is an unavoidable accident. If he led it onto the top of a cliff and it fell, it is not an unavoidable accident. The unpaid keeper may stipulate that he be free from swearing, the borrower that he not be liable to pay, the paid keeper and the renter that they not be liable to swear or to pay. The stipulation of anybody who stipulates against what is written in the Torah is invalid. Any stipulation which follows a prior action is invalid. But any stipulation which it is possible to fulfill at the end and he stipulated it at the start is valid.

Jerusalem Talmud Bava Metzia 9:28

MISHNAH: A person who lends to another may take a pledge from him only in court. He may not enter his house to take his pledge, as it is said: “You have to stand outside.” If he had two vessels, he takes one and returns one. He returns the pillow for the night and the plough for the day. If he dies, he does not return it to his heirs. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, even to himself he returns it only up to 30 days; after thirty days he sells it in court

Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 8:22

There, we have stated: “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, if she dies, he should inherit from her since he made a condition contradicting what is written in the Torah.” Rav Jeremiah in the name of Rav: “Since he made a condition contradicting what is written in the Torah and anybody’s condition contradicting what is written in the Torah is invalid”? Conditions other than for money matters. But here we are dealing with a money matter! What is Rav’s reason? Because in the end he acquired it. Rebbi Joḥanan said, practice follows Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa, for Rebbi Joḥanan said, if she sold or gave away, the rule should be that it is valid. Then why did they say that her sale is invalid? Lest she smuggle away her properties from her husband and say, they are mine. Rebbi Justinus had a case before the rabbis and they obligated him. He came before Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish who told him, enter your properties. Rebbi Jeremiah asked before Rebbi Ze‘ira: Did not Rav say, because in the end he acquired it. Did not Rebbi Joḥanan say, practice follows Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa? Did not Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish say, go and enter your properties? Who are these rabbis? The rabbis of Rebbi Justinus.

Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 8:28

MISHNAH: He who says, this is my son, is to be believed. This is my brother, he is not to be believed but he shall split his part with him; if he dies the properties shall return to their origin. If he received property from another source, his brother shall inherit with him. If somebody died and a will was found tied to his hip, this is nothing. If in it he transferred property to another, whether of the heirs or not of the heirs, his words are confirmed.

Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 8:32

MISHNAH: One who writes his properties over to his sons must write: “from today and after my death,” the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Yose said, it is unnecessary. If one writes his properties over to his son for the time after his death, the father cannot sell them because they are written over to the son; the son cannot sell because they are in the father’s possession. If the father sold, they are sold until he dies. If the son sold, the buyer has no claim until the father dies. The father harvests and feeds anybody he pleases; what becomes part of his estate belongs to the heirs.

Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 8:32

Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 8:36

One who said, my property should be given to X, if X died to Y, if Y died to Z. The one who was mentioned earlier receives the property earlier. If the second died during the first’s lifetime, the first one has the usufruct; when he dies the property reverts to heirs of the bequeather. If the third died during the second’s lifetime, the first one has the usufruct; when he dies the property reverts to heirs of the bequeather. If both the second and the third die during the first’s lifetime, the first has the usufruct and acquired the real estate, the words of Rebbi. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, he only has the usufruct. Ḥizqiah said, practice follows Rebbi. Rebbi Yannai said, Rebbi agrees that he cannot dispose of it by a death-bed will. Rebbi Joḥanan said, not even as a gift from a healthy person. As in the following: A woman wrote her properties over to a certain man. She needed money and sold it to her husband. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Madia brought the case before Rebbi Yose. Did not Rebbi Yannai say, Rebbi agrees that he cannot dispose of it by a death-bed will? Rebbi Joḥanan said to him, is that not the gift of a healthy person? Since the husband of this woman is obligated to provide for her food, is that not like a death-bed will? So far, he is obligated to provide for her bread and legumes. Maybe eggs? Maybe chicken? Since it was stated that the first has the usufruct and acquired the real estate, that means that she may sell the property even in order to eat delicacies. Rebbi Aḥa bar Jacob said, it was stated there that her burial is part of her upkeep. If she did not have a burial site, since it was stated that the first has the usufruct and acquired the real estate, it means that he may sell the real estate and acquire a burial site.

Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 8:36

Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 2:1

MISHNAH: The High Priest judges and one judges him; he testifies and one testifies against him. He gives ḥalîṣah and one gives ḥalîṣah to his wife, and one marries his wife in levirate marriage. But he may not marry in levirate marriage since a widow is forbidden to him. If a family member of his dies, he cannot follow the bier but if they are unseen he can be seen; if they are seen he must be unseen. He leaves with them up to the city gate, the words of Rebbi Meïr; Rebbi Jehudah said, he does not leave the Temple since it is said: The Sanctuary he shall not leave.

Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 2:44

One does not ride on a horse of a king of Israel, nor does one sit in his chair, nor does one use his crown or his scepter, or any of his personal utensils. When he dies, all these are burned before him, as it is said: You shall die in peace and like the burnings of your forefathers they will burn for you.

Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 3:2

HALAKHAH: “Money matters by three,” etc. Rebbi Zeˋira said, because he selected him, he will take care of his interests. What is Rebbi Meïr’s reason? So that all three should be chosen unanimously. What is the rabbis’ reason? “I do not trust you to select and let me sit with whom you want, but I and you shall select and empanel whom we want.” It is difficult for the rabbis: If one of them dies, will not all three have been chosen through the choice of one person?

Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 9:21

HALAKHAH: “If somebody injures another person,” etc. So is the Mishnah: “Rebbi Neḥemiah declares him not [criminally] liable but the Sages declare him [criminally] liable since it is not unsubstantiated.” The Sages say, two estimations have precedence over one estimation; Rebbi Neḥemiah says, the intermediate estimation has precedence over the two. What is Rebbi Neḥemiah’s reason? If he gets up and walks outside on his cane, the attacker is exonerated. Could you think that this one walks in the market and the other one is executed because of him? But even if he dies according to the first estimation, he cannot be prosecuted. What is the rabbi’s reason? If he does not die but is bedridden. Would we not know that even if he does not die that he will be bedridden? But if they did not estimate that he would die. If they did not estimate that he would die, that is what is written: If he gets up and walks outside on his cane, the attacker is exonerated. Therefore, if he does not get up, [the attacker] is [criminally] liable. But if they estimated that he would die? If they estimated that he would die, that is what is written: But he has to pay for his disability and the medical costs. Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: It is an extraordinary decree of Scripture that he has to pay. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: It was an erroneous estimation. What is the difference between them? “But he got better and only afterwards deteriorated and died; he is [criminally] liable. Rebbi Neḥemiah declares him not liable since it is not unsubstantiated.” For him who said, it is an extraordinary decree of Scripture that he has to pay; if he paid, he paid. If he did not pay, does he have to pay? For him who said, it was an erroneous estimation; if he did not pay, one does not order him to pay. If he paid, can he take it back? A baraita supports one and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina: If they estimated that he would live but he died, from when does one count for him? From the moment he turns worse. This implies that the estimate was wrong. If you would say, it is an extraordinary decree of Scripture that he has to pay, he should pay from the first moment. A baraita supports Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: If they estimated that he would die but he lived, from when does one count for him? From the moment he turns worse. Rebbi Yose said, it does not say here “from the moment he turns worse” but “from the moment he turns better.” That means, it is an extraordinary decree of Scripture that he has to pay. But if you say, it was an erroneous estimation, he has to pay until [the victim] dies.

Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 9:21

Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 10:71

HALAKHAH: Slaying you shall slay the inhabitants of that town by the sword, etc. Rebbi Simeon says, its domesticated animal, not first born or tithes found there; its booty, not Temple money or Second Tithe found there. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina asked: What is the status of hair of its just women? Let us hear from the following: Rebbi Simeon says, its domesticated animal, not first born or tithes found there; its booty, not Temple money or Second Tithe found there. The sancta of a seduced town, Rebbi Joḥanan said, one cannot commit larceny with them; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, one can commit larceny with them. Rebbi Joḥanan objected to Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: According to your opinion that one can commit larceny with them, should one not state that “six purification offerings are left to die”? He answered, because in this case even an elevation offering dies. Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: One can commit larceny with them because of sancta of an apostate. Should they not be sacrificed? Because of the sacrifice of an evildoer is an abomination. Rebbi Uqba said, also in the following they disagree: If a bull was led out to be stoned when its witnesses were found to be perjured, Rebbi Joḥanan said, the first to come acquires it; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it was false despair. Similarly, if a slave was led out to be executed when its witnesses were found to be perjured, Rebbi Joḥanan said, he acquired himself; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it was false despair.

Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 11:19

HALAKHAH: “And the false prophet,” etc. “And one who prophesies what he did not hear,” like Ṣedekias ben Kenaana. “And what was not said to him,” like Ḥanania ben Azzur. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, Ḥanania ben Azzur was a true prophet; only he took instruction and heard what Jeremiah prophesied in the upper market; he went and prophesied in the lower market. Ḥanania ben Azzur told him, is not the essence of the matter only once seventy years will be fullfilled for Babylon, I shall remember you. In all, the days of Manasse were 55 years. Deduct from them 20 years for which the Heavenly Court does not punish or extirpate, add the two of Amon and 31 of Josia. That is what is written: At the beginning of the reign of Ṣedekias the king of Jehudah, in the fifth year, in the fifth month, Ḥanania ben Azzur, the prophet from Gibeon, said to me in the House of the Eternal, before the priests and all the people, as follows: So said the Eternal of Hosts, the God of Israel, as follows. I broke the yoke of the king of Babylon; in another two years I shall return to this place all the Temple vessels which Nebuchadnezzar, the king of Babylon, took from this city and brought to Babylon. Jeremiah told him, you are saying thatin another two years I shall return, etc. But I say that Nebuchadnezzar will come and take the remainder. To Babylon they will be brought and stay there, etc. He said to him, give a sign. He answered, I am prophesying bad things and cannot give a sign for my words since the Holy One, praise to Him, said to bring evil and might refrain from it. But you prophesy good things; you are obligated to give a sign. He said to him, no, it is you who has to give a sign for your words. He answered, if it is so, I shall give a sign and miracle in the person of that man; this year he dies, for he spoke obstinately about the Eternal. This happened to him; Ḥanania the prophet died in this year, in the Seventh month. This was another year and you are saying so? But it teaches that he died on the Eve of New Year’s Day and ordered his sons and wife to hide the matter, that they should bury him after the new Year in order to falsify Jeremiah’s prophecy.

Jerusalem Talmud Shevuot 7:5

It is obvious: If the householder dies, the journeyman swears to his heirs. Even if the journeyman dies, do his heirs swear to the householder’s heirs? They made this ordinance only for the journeyman. Maybe for his heirs? Rebbi Eleazar said, if he claimed before witnesses. [But if he claimed without witnesses, he can tell him,] I paid your wages. Rebbi Joḥanan said, does one not in money matters argue “because?” Because he can say to him, I did not hire you, he can tell him, I hired you and paid your wages. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Eleazar: “When was this said? If he said, I gave, but the other said, I did not take; I gave you your wages, but he says, I did not take. You hired me, but he says, I did not hire you. The burden of proof is on the claimant.” It is difficult for Rebbi Eleazar, if he hired him before witnesses, how can this one say, I did not hire you?

Jerusalem Talmud Shevuot 7:5

Jerusalem Talmud Shevuot 8:7

For the borrower only the broken is written. From where loss and theft? It is logical. Since the paid keeper and the renter who do not pay for the broken or the dead have to pay for theft and loss, the borrower who pays for the broken or the dead certainly has to pay for theft and loss. It was stated about this: This is an argument de minore ad majus which cannot be challenged. From where the abducted? It is said here, it was broken or died; and it is said there, it dies or was broken. Since there the abducted was included, here also the abducted was included. So far following Rebbi Aqiba. Following Rebbi Ismael? Rebbi Ismael follows Rebbi Nathan. Rebbi Nathan says, or, to include the abducted. Or following Rebbi Meïr who said, an equal cut at the place it comes from. Since there one swears for duress, also here one swears for duress. Still following Rebbi Nathan, for Rebbi Nathan said, or it died, to include the abducted one.

Jerusalem Talmud Avodah Zarah 1:14

Rav said, Adam, the first man, instituted Calendas. When he saw that the night was getting longer, he said, woe to me, maybe this is what is written for, he shall smite your head, you will sneak to his heel, maybe it will come to bite me. I said, but darkness will smite me. When he saw that days were getting longer, he said calendas, καλόνdies. This follows him who said that the world was created in Tishre. But following him who said that the world was created in Nisan, he would have known. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, who thinks that the world was created in Tishre? Rav! As we have stated in the composition for shofar blowing from the House of Rav: “This is the day of the beginning of Your works, a remembrance of the first day.” This implies that the world was created on New Year’s Day.

Jerusalem Talmud Horayot 3:11

Everybody agrees that if the first one was still in existence it is pushed aside. What should be done with it? Rebbi Yose said, it is suspended for atonement. Rebbi Zeˋira said, where neither itself nor its blood are usable it dies immediately.

Jerusalem Talmud Horayot 3:12

If he ate five times the volume of an olive; the doubt became known to him before he was appointed (and in court) [as the certainty] after he was removed. In the opinion of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish he is not liable; in the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan he is liable. Did Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish state to free from liability, not rather to insist on liability? But it must be as follows: He ate five times the volume of an olive. The doubt became known to him before he was appointed; the certainty after he was appointed. Following the opinion of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish who said, the knowledge about his doubt determines his kind of transgression, he must say that one is liable. Following the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan who said, the knowledge about his doubt does not determine his kind of transgression, he must say that one is not liable. Everybody agrees that if the first one was still in existence it is pushed aside. What should be done with it? Rebbi Yasa said, it is suspended for atonement. Rebbi Zeˋira said, if neither itself not its blood are usable, it dies immediately.

Jerusalem Talmud Horayot 3:17

If he ate five times the volume of an olive; the doubt became known to him before he was appointed, and (in court) after he was appointed. In the opinion of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish he is liable; in the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan he is not liable. Did Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish state to insist on liability, not rather to free from liability? But it must be as follows: He ate five times the volume of an olive. The doubt became known to him after he was appointed; (in court) after he was removed. Following the opinion of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish who said, if the sin was partially atoned for it was not totally atoned, he must say that he is not liable. Following the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan who said, if the sin was partially atoned for it was totally atoned, he must say that one is liable. Everybody agrees that if the first one was still in existence it is pushed aside. What should be done with it? Rebbi Yasa said, it is suspended for atonement. Rebbi Zeˋira said, if neither it nor its blood are usable it dies immediately.

Jerusalem Talmud Horayot 3:18

Rebbi Joḥanan agrees that if the first one was still in existence it is pushed aside. What should be done with it? Rebbi Yasa said, it is suspended for atonement. Rebbi Zeˋira said, if neither it nor its blood are usable it dies immediately.

Jerusalem Talmud Horayot 3:54

“A Sage has precedence over the king.” If a Sage dies, we do not have a replacement. If a king dies, all of Israel are qualified for the kingdom.

Jerusalem Talmud Horayot 3:54

“A Sage has precedence over the king.” If a Sage dies, we do not have a replacement. If a king dies, all of Israel are qualified for the kingdom.

The Babylonian Talmud

Babylonian Talmud Berakhot 3:47

"Whoever despises the washing of the hands" ; where is this found ? There is a Mishnaic teaching : R. Judah said : God forbid that we should suppose that 'Akabya b. Mahalalel was excommunicated, for the Temple-court was not locked upon any man of Israel equal to him in knowledge, purity and fear of sin. But who was it they excommunicated? It was Eleazar b. Hanok, because he made light of the washing of the hands ; and when he died the Bet Din sent and placed a large stone upon his coffin, to teach that whoever is excommunicated and dies under the ban, the Bet Din stones his coffin.

Babylonian Talmud Berakhot 9:223

Come and hear : If his father dies and he is his heir, he first says, "Blessed be the true Judge" and then "Blessed... Who art good and dispensest good"! Here also there are brothers who share the inheritance with him.

Babylonian Talmud Berakhot 9:298

the lungs absorb all kinds of liquids, the liver arouses anger, the gall lets a drop fall upon it and stills it, the milt produces laughter, the large intestine grinds [food], the maw induces sleep and the nose awakens. Should the organ which induces sleep arouse from sleep, or should the organ which arouses from sleep induce sleep, the person pines away. It has been taught : Should both of them induce sleep or arouse from sleep simultaneously, one immediately dies.