disqualified

563 occurrences across the corpus

The Jerusalem Talmud

MISHNAH: A father and son who saw the new moon should go; not that they could combine one with the other but that if one of them should be found disqualified the second one could team up with another person. Rebbi Simeon says, a father and his son and all relatives are qualified for the testimony of the new moon. Rebbi Yose said, it happened that that Tobias the healer saw the new moon in Jerusalem, he and his son and his freed slave. The Cohanim accepted him and his son and disqualified his slave; but when he came to the Court they accepted him and his slave but disqualified his son.

Jerusalem Talmud Rosh Hashanah 1:37

Jerusalem Talmud Rosh Hashanah 1:39

“The Cohanim accepted him and his son and disqualified his slave,” because of disqualification, “but when he came to the Court they accepted him and his slave but disqualified his son,” because of relative.

Jerusalem Talmud Rosh Hashanah 1:39

Jerusalem Talmud Rosh Hashanah 1:40

MISHNAH: The following are disqualified: The dice-player, the lender on interest, participants in pigeon contests, dealers in sabbatical produce, and slaves. This is the principle: any testimony for which a woman is not qualified, they are not qualified.

Jerusalem Talmud Rosh Hashanah 1:41

HALAKHAH: “The following are disqualified.” The dice player is the one who plays with small stones. “Not only the player with stones, even one who plays with shells of nuts or pomegranates. When is he accepted? After he breaks his stones, and is checked out, and repents in complete repentance.”

Jerusalem Talmud Rosh Hashanah 1:45

Rav Huna said: Who is the Tanna of “participants in pigeon contests”? Rebbi Eliezer, as we have stated there: “Two in the name of Rebbi Eliezer. A woman may go out with a city of gold, and participants in pigeon contests are disqualified from testimony.” Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose: Is the entire statement in Sanhedrin Rebbi Eliezer’s? He told him, it is everybody’s opinion. What means “it is everybody’s opinion”? So said Rebbi Yose: We knew that he was disqualified for testimony in money matters. What does he come to testify about? For as he is disqualified in money matters, so he is disqualified to testify in criminal trials. The witnesses for the New Moon are held to the standards of criminal trials, as we have stated: “any testimony for which a woman is not qualified, they are not qualified.” Who stated this? The rabbis! Do the rabbis follow Rebbi Eliezer? They agree with him and disagree with him. Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rav Huna: It follows Rebbi Eliezer in everything. It turns out that this disagreement parallels another disagreement, as it was stated: “A perjured witness is disqualified for any and all testimony required by the Torah, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Yose said, when? If he was found perjured in criminal matters. But if he was found perjured in money matters, he is suspect in money matters and disqualified in money matters.” It turns out that Rebbi Yose parallels the rabbis and Rebbi Meïr Rebbi Eliezer.

Jerusalem Talmud Rosh Hashanah 1:45

Jerusalem Talmud Rosh Hashanah 3:15

“Around its mouthpiece covered with gold.” If it was gilded inside it is disqualified, outside it is qualified. If he gilded it at the mouthpiece or if its sound became heavy because of the gilding it is disqualified.

Jerusalem Talmud Rosh Hashanah 3:15

Jerusalem Talmud Rosh Hashanah 3:26

MISHNAH: A shofar which was split and glued together is disqualified. If one glued together pieces of shofarot it is disqualified. If it was pierced and he plugged it, if it obstructs blowing it is disqualified, otherwise it is qualified.

Jerusalem Talmud Rosh Hashanah 3:26

Jerusalem Talmud Rosh Hashanah 3:27

HALAKHAH: “A shofar which was split and glued together is disqualified.” For whom is this needed? For Rebbi Nathan. “If one glued together pieces of shofarot it is disqualified.” This also is Rebbi Nathan’s. “If it was pierced and he plugged it,” Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, it is Rebbi Nathan’s, as it was stated, if it was pierced and then repaired, whether with its own kind or another kind, if it obstructs blowing it is disqualified, otherwise it is qualified; Rebbi Nathan says, with its own kind it is qualified, not with its own kind it is disqualified. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: so is the Mishnah: “if it was obstructing blowing it is disqualified, otherwise it is qualified.” Rebbi Abba bar Zemina in the name of Rebbi Ze`ira: Only if he plugged it. But if he did not plug it it is qualified since all sounds of a shofar are qualified.

Jerusalem Talmud Rosh Hashanah 3:27

Jerusalem Talmud Rosh Hashanah 3:30

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, it only said “somebody was passing by.” Therefore if he stood still, the presumption is that he listened purposefully. “If he put one shofar inside another shofar(,we shall say) [and blew], if one heard the sound of the inner one, he has fulfilled his obligation, if one heard the sound of the outer one, he has not fulfilled his obligation.” Rebbi Abinna asked, what if he turned it inside out? Let us hear from the following: “If he scratched it inside it is disqualified, outside it is qualified.” He only said, he scratched; therefore if he turned it inside out it is disqualified. What is the difference between the two? One eliminated the inner space, the other did not eliminate the inner space.

Jerusalem Talmud Rosh Hashanah 3:30

Jerusalem Talmud Beitzah 3:21

It was stated: One does not strip by the feet on the holiday, nor on a weekday of a firstling or disqualified sancta. Rebbi Abun said, so he should not be like one who uses it for work when it is still living. Rebbi Justus bar Shunem said, they decided that one should not form herds from them. Rebbi Mana said, everybody agrees that to make bellows is permitted, to beat them, the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya and Rebbi Simeon ben Rebbi, one said it is forbidden, the other said it is permitted. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, everybody agrees that to beat them is permitted, to make bellows, the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya and Rebbi Simeon ben Rebbi, one said it is forbidden, the other said it is permitted.

Jerusalem Talmud Taanit 4:4

But was it not stated, if he was known in his town he is permitted? As the following: The finger of Rebbi Naftali was bent. He came and asked Rebbi Mana, who said to him, since you are known in your town it is permitted. Rav Ḥuna disqualified one with sparse facial hair. But was it not stated, if he was known in his town he is permitted? Rebbi Mana said, it was a holiday; so they should not say, we saw a minor lifting his hands. Rebbi Yose said, this implies that one is forbidden to look at the Cohanim at the moment when they are blessing. Rebbi Ḥaggai, when they said, one does not look, was it not because of inattention? By Moses, I shall look and my attention will not be diverted.

Jerusalem Talmud Taanit 4:71

HALAKHAH: One understands the Day of Atonement which is atonement for all of Israel. Why on the Fifteenth of Av? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Yasa: For this is the good time to cut wood, because any wood cut on this day does not develop worms; as we have stated there, “any wood containing a worm is disqualified from the altar.” Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Rav, because on it Hoshea ben Ela abolished the guards which Jeroboam ben Nabath posted on the roads. Cahana asked [Rav]. He did all this good deed and it is written about him, against him came Salmanessar the king of Assyria? He answered him, because he removed the collar from his neck and hung it on the community’s neck. He did not say, all the people should go on pilgrimage, but, any one who wants to go may go. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac, but some say in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman: On it the tribes were permitted to intermarry. As it is written, family heritage should not be transferred from tribe to tribe; but the Children of Israel shall stick everyone to the family heritage of his forefathers, etc. And it is written, any daughter inheriting family heritage in the tribes of the Children of Israel, etc. How is it possible for a daughter to inherit from two tribes? Explain it if her father was from one tribe and her mother from another tribe. But the Rabbis say, on it the tribe of Benjamin was permitted to intermarry, as it is written, cursed be he who gives a wife to Benjamin. They read a verse and included him; they read a verse and excluded him. They read a verse and included him, Ephraim and Manasse shall be to me like Reuben and Simeon. They read a verse and excluded him, a people and community of peoples shall be from you and kings will come from your loins, and Benjamin was not yet born. Rebbi Abun said, digging stopped on it, as Rebbi Levi said, on every eve of the Ninth of Av, Moses had a declaration published in all the encampment and said, go out for digging, go out for digging. They went out, dug graves for themselves, and slept. In the morning they were getting up and found themselves missing 15’000 and detail. In the last year they did that, got up, and found themselves whole. They said, maybe we erred in the computation. The same on the Tenth, the Eleventh, the Twelfth, the Thirteenth, and the Fifteenth. Since the moon was full they said, it seems that The Holy One, praise to Him, vacated this hard judgment against us. They got up and made a holiday.

Jerusalem Talmud Megillah 1:60

It was stated: Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, even Torah scrolls they only permitted to be written in Greek. They investigated and found that the Torah may be correctly translated only into Greek. A villager invented for them Aramaic from the Greek. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: Akylas the proselyte translated the Torah before Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Joshua; they praised him [and said to him], you are a superhuman beauty. Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazy said, Rebbi Joshua ben Levi asked, why do we not say there is a rule valid for Torah scrolls which does not apply to Tefillin and Mezuzot, in that Torah scrolls may be written on two sheets, but Tefillin and Mezuzot may only be written on single sheets. Rebbi Isaac the son of Rebbi Ḥiyya the scribe asked, a stronger question, in that Torah scrolls may be written on two hides, but Tefillin and Mezuzot may only be written on single hides. The colleagues said before Rebbi Mana, or should we say, one column of two different hides? Is that not stronger? He said to them, because even scrolls are not written in this way. One suspends in scrolls; one suspends neither in Tefillin nor in Mezuzot. One does not suspend in scrolls which were written as Tefillin and Mezuzot; one suspends in Tefillin and Mezuzot written as scrolls. Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Rebbi Immi: If he was writing אלא עם, if the paragraph was made in this way it is qualified, otherwise disqualified. Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Rebbi Immi bar Ḥinena: The script of scrolls is used as script of Tefillin and Mezuzot.

Jerusalem Talmud Megillah 1:61

Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Rav: If there is a hole in the hip of a he, if one shaves it off and there remains a small hip it is qualified, otherwise it is disqualified. Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Rav Ḥisda: If a gimel was at the end (of the border) [of the leather]. If one shaves it off and there remains a small hip it is qualified, otherwise it is disqualified. Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Ashian bar Nidba. If there was a hole in the middle of a bet. If the (border) [leather] surrounds it on every side it is qualified, otherwise it is disqualified. Rebbi Ze`ira said, it turns out that Rav Ḥisda follows Rav and both disagree with the system of Ashian bar Nidba. The colleagues are saying, Ashian bar Nidba parallels Rebbi Joḥanan.

Jerusalem Talmud Megillah 1:61

Jerusalem Talmud Megillah 1:62

As it was stated. If he mixed the letters. There are Tannaim who state, it is qualified. There are Tannaim who state, it is disqualified. Rebbi Ada bar Simeon in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He who says qualified, at the top. He who says disqualified, at the bottom; for example ארצך. תפארתינו ,ארצינו is questionable, תפארתך is questionable.

Jerusalem Talmud Megillah 1:62

Jerusalem Talmud Megillah 1:64

Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah: if it was made like half a bagel. The uppermost line under which are two others must contain at least three words, the middle one two, the lowest one even [on the] earth. Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Rav Ḥisda: if it was made like a double flute, the uppermost line under which are two others must contain at least three words, the lowest two. The middle one I do not know. Rebbi Jeremiah said it: Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Rav Ḥisda; Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose both say, Rebbi Ze`ura in the name of Ashian bar Nidba; the colleagues say, Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Rav Ḥananel. If the ink comes out of the holes it is disqualified. What does he do? He licks it off with his tongue and it jells. If he made an error and omitted the Name. There are Tannaim who state, he suspends the Name. There are Tannaim who state, he erases the profane, writes the Name, and suspends the profane. Rebbi Ze`ira, Rav Ḥananel in the name of Rav: practice follows him who says, he erases the profane, writes the Name, and suspends the profane. Rebbi Ze`ira, Rav Ḥananel in the name of Rav: but if it was like I am the Eternal your God it is permitted. Why? Because these are three words or because part of it is profane? What is the difference between them? God, Highest Power, Eternal. If you are saying because they are three words, they are three words. If you are saying, because part of it is profane, nothing there is profane. For the Eternal is questionable, by the Eternal is questionable.

Jerusalem Talmud Megillah 1:66

Rebbi Ze`ira, Rav Ḥananel in the name of Rav: Its sewing is practice of Moses from Sinai. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: the knots of Tefillin are practice of Moses from Sinai. A Tefillin strip of Rebbi Jeremiah broke; he asked Rebbi Abba bar Mamal who said to him, and you stall tie them, even simple tying. Rebbi Ze`ira’s wall of the strip broke. He asked Rav Huna and Rav Qatina, and they permitted him. It broke a second time and they permitted him, not from what they had learned. Rebbi Abba the son of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The practice is that he who sews must leave space on top and bottom so it should not tear. They hit him on the skull, if it is practice why “should not tear”? And if “should not tear” why practice? It is practice of Moses from Sinai that one write on leather, and write with ink, and rule with a ruler, and ties with hair, and patches with a patch, and glues with glue, and sews with sinews. As he sews, he has to sew this stitch. One needs to leave between line and line the width of a line, between word and word the width of a letter, between letter and letter something, between column and column a thumb-width. If he made the end of the column equal to its beginning he disqualified it. One must leave on the top of the scroll {a margin of} two finger-breadths and at the bottom three. Rebbi says, in the Torah at the top three and at the bottom a hand-breadth. Between book and book one has to leave four lines empty, in the Twelve Prophets three. One has to end in the middle of a column and start in its middle; but for a Prophet he ends at the bottom and starts at the top; but for the Twelve Prophets it is forbidden. One makes no sheet less than three columns and none more than eight. That you are saying, at the start. But at the end even a little; and for parchment the Sages did not give any size.

Jerusalem Talmud Megillah 1:67

It is required that he write on leather on the place of the hair and on parchment on the place of its split. If he changed this, he disqualified it. One should not write half of it on leather and half of it on parchment, but he may write on leather from a pure domestic animal and half on leather from a pure wild animal. One only writes on leather from a pure animal. What is the reason? That the Eternal’s teaching be in your mouth, from what you are putting into your mouth. But was it not stated, one writes on leather from carcasses and torn animals? The kind which you are putting into your mouth. One makes a staff at the end of a book, but for the Torah one on both sides. Therefore one rolls a book up to its beginning but the Torah to its middle. Rebbi Samuel, Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Rav Ḥiyya bar Joseph: Even two sheets. Rebbi Ze`ira, Samuel bar Shilat in the name of Kahana: but only at the place of the suture. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman: A scroll which has no cover one turns on the writing so the writing should not be degraded.

Jerusalem Talmud Megillah 1:68

Of all double letters in the alphabet one writes the first form at the start of a word and in the middle of a word, but the last form at the end, and if one changed this he disqualified it. In the name of Rebbi Matthew ben Ḥarash they said, מנצפ״ך is a practice of Moses from Sinai. What is מנצפ״ך? Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: what the seers instituted for you. Who are those seers? It happened on a day of rainstorm that the Sages did not come to the assembly hall, but the children entered. They said, come and let us form an assembly that it should not be cancelled. They said, what is that that it is written mem mem, nun nun, ṣade ṣade, peh feh, kaf khaf. From utterance to utterance, from trustworthy to trustworthy, from just to just, from mouth to mouth, from the hand of the Holy One, praise to Him, to the hand of Moses. The Sages identified them and they all grew to become important personalities. They said, Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Joshua were from these. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba and Rebbi Simon both were saying, in earlier copies of the Torah neither he nor final mem were closed. Therefore samekh was closed.

Jerusalem Talmud Megillah 1:91

It was stated in the name of Rebbi Simeon: “The community only brings what Scripture fixed for it.” Rebbi Simeon is of the opinion that since when Second Tithe was introduced it was not interrupted. What is between them? Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, the bull of hidden things is between them. Rebbi Yose says, voluntary offerings of the community are between them. It was stated, both men and women. Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is no woman here, “man” is written in the paragraph. It was stated, also a nazir’s sacrifices. Rebbi Joḥanan said, there are no nazir’s sacrifices here; nazir’s sacrifices are an obligation. It was stated, also libations. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, he who states “libations” does not hold with Rebbi, as it was stated, Rebbi says, I am saying that also after Israel entered the Land, libations only are brought inside. What is the reason? In the Sanctuary pour alcoholic libations to the Eternal. A prohibition is written only for inside; from where for the outside? Let us hear from the following. From where that one who slaughters as Pesah for an individual on a private altar or the public altar in a time where altars are forbidden, that he transgresses a prohibition? The verse says, you may not slaughter the Pesaḥ at one. He is punished with extirpation and you are saying so? Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, this is about one who slaughters in the afternoon not for its name in a time when altars are permitted. Then why does he say, in a time when altars are forbidden? In a time when his altar is forbidden. Why not for its name? That you should not say, it is well-being offering and qualified. In addition, from the following: I could think that if he slaughtered it in the afternoon it should be qualified. Why do you have (in the afternoon it should be qualified) [in the morning it should be disqualified]? No. It is not for its name. Rebbi Yose said, this implies that well-being sacrifices brought because of Pesaḥ are qualified on an altar. Would an elevation offering be brought because of a reparation sacrifice be qualified on an altar according to Rebbi Eleazar? Let us hear from the following: “This is the principle: Anything which can be vowed or donated is sacrificed on a private altar; but nothing which cannot be vowed or donated is sacrificed on a private altar.”

Jerusalem Talmud Megillah 1:94

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Joḥanan bar Marius understood it from the following: Then Joshua would build an altar for the Eternal, the God of Israel, on Mount Ebal. Not only Mount Ebal, from where Shilo? Samuel took a milk lamb and brought it up totally as elevation offering for the Eternal. Rebbi Abba bar Cahana said, three sins were permitted for Samuel’s sheep: It and its hide, and deficient in time, and he was a Levite. Rebbi Yose said, if about this it implies nothing, since Rebbi Abba bar Cahana said, seven sins were permitted for Gideon’s bull: Disqualified stones, and Asherah wood, and separated, and worshipped, and night, and outsider, and altar prohibition. He who wants may understand it well from that by Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman: When he returned to Rama, for there was his house, and there he judged Israel, and there he built an altar for the Eternal. It is written, the cook lifted the thigh and what was on it and put before Saul, etc. Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman said, the thigh and meat. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the thigh and the fat tail. Rebbi Eleazar said, the thigh and the breast, as Rebbi Eleazar said, the thigh and the breast belong to the Cohanim at a public altar but to the owner at a private altar. Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: The hide of the elevation sacrifice belongs to the Cohanim at a public altar but to the owner at a private altar. Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Rav Jeremiah: The contribution of a thanksgiving sacrifice belongs to the Cohanim at a public altar but to the owner at a private altar. Rebbi Joḥanan asked, is the night qualified at a private altar? Rebbi Eleazar answered, is it not written, Saul said, disperse under the people and tell them, every man shall bring to me his ox, etc. And it is written, they told Saul saying, behold the people are sinning against the Eternal by eating on the blood, etc. How is this? The night for profane {slaughter}, and the day for sacrificial. When Rebbi Joḥanan heard this, he said, well did Rebbi Eleazar teach us.

Jerusalem Talmud Megillah 2:33

What are you doing with cutting during daytime? Like cutting during nighttime or coming from storage? If you would say, like cutting during nighttime, you would find to say that the disagreement between Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon and the Rabbis is that the Rabbis are saying, cutting during daytime is like cutting during nighttime, while Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon is saying, cutting during daytime is not like cutting during nighttime. If you would say, like coming from storage, you would find to say that there are two disagreements between Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon and the Rabbis. For the Rabbis are saying, cutting during daytime is like cutting during nighttime, while Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon is saying, cutting during daytime is not like cutting during nighttime. And the Rabbis are saying, what is coming from storage is qualified, while Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon is saying, what is coming from storage is disqualified.

Jerusalem Talmud Megillah 4:41

HALAKHAH: It was stated, in his face. But was it not stated, if he was known in his town he is permitted? As the following: The finger of Rebbi Naftali was bent. He came and asked Rebbi Mana, who said to him, since you are known in your town it is permitted. Rav Ḥuna disqualified one with sparse facial hair. But was it not stated, if he was known in his town he is permitted? Rebbi Mana said, it was a crowded holiday; so they should not say, we saw a minor lifting his hands. Rebbi Yose said, this implies that one is forbidden to look at the Cohanim at the moment when they are blessing Israel. Rebbi Ḥaggai, when they said, one does not look, was it not because of inattention? By Moses, I shall look and my attention will not be diverted.

Jerusalem Talmud Megillah 4:57

Where does one put this mezuzah? Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Samuel: one divides it into three parts and puts it at the start of the uppermost third. Rebbi Ḥelbo in the name of Rav Ḥuna: One divides the door into half, then into thirds, and puts it at the top of the lowest third. What is between them? The place of the mezuzzah is between them. Bar Tabari asked Rebbi Isaac, think of it, if it was a high gate? He said to him, he puts it at his shoulder’s height. The house of study of Rebbi Ḥanina was made so. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: the container of Rebbi’s mezuzzah was made like a bolt. If it was hung on the door, a danger and it is no meritorious deed. If he excavated the top of a stick and put it at an unbecoming place, a danger and it is no meritorious deed. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah: even if he (nailed) [did not nail] it. But did we not state, on condition that he nailed it? Rebbi Yose said, on condition that he dedicated {the place} for it. Those of the family Malwan did so in the wars. Samuel said, if it was put inside more than a hand-breadth it is disqualified. Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Samuel: It is necessary that its shema` see the door. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ze`ira: So is the baraita, a doorpost serving two doors he puts it on the one he chooses. How can its shema` see the door? If a house has two doors, he puts it on the one usually used. If both were usually used he puts it in front. If both were in front he puts it on the one he chooses. A door which opens to the roof or to a garden is as if open to a wall, the words of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah. But the Sages are saying, it is as open to the market.

Jerusalem Talmud Chagigah 2:37

There, we have stated: [“For heave and First Fruits one incurs the penalty of death or a fine of a fifth; they are forbidden to lay persons, are property of the Cohen, may be lifted by one in 100, need washing of the hands and sundown.] This applies to heave and First Fruits but not to tithe.” There, you are saying tithe does not need washing, but here, you are saying that tithe needs washing. When you are saying that tithe needs washing, following the rabbis; but when you are saying that tithe does not need washing, following Rebbi Meïr. As we have stated there, “anything which requires immersion by the words of the Sopherim makes sancta impure and disqualifies heave but is permitted for profane food and tithe, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages forbid for tithe.” He did not understand that Rebbi Samuel said in the name of Rebbi Ze`ira: What means, “but the Sages forbid for tithe”? His body became disqualified from consuming tithe. How it that? If you are saying, tithe needs washing, [for one who intends to eat. If you are saying, tithe does not need washing,] if he intends to touch. But does not one who wants to eat also want to touch? Only because of [handwashing as discipline. But did we not state “heave”? For heave is there] handwashing as discipline? Therefore about profane food prepared in the purity of sancta. But is profane food prepared in the purity of sancta not profane food? Explain either following Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar or Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Ṣadoq. Either following Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar, as it was stated, Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says in the name of Rebbi Meïr, hands are first degree impure for profane food and second degree impure for heave. Or Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Ṣadoq, as we have stated there: “profane food prepared in the purity of sancta is profane food. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Ṣadoq says, it is like heave, to be impure in two stages and disqualified in the third.”

Jerusalem Talmud Chagigah 2:37

Jerusalem Talmud Chagigah 3:9

MISHNAH: Implements manufactured in purity need immersion for sancta but not for heave. A vessel combines its contents for sancta but not for heave. For sancta the fourth degree is disqualified and the third for heave. For heave, if one of his hands became impure the other remains pure, but for sancta he immerses both. One hand makes the other impure for sancta but not for heave.

Jerusalem Talmud Chagigah 3:12

Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is from Rebbi Aqiba’s testimony. As we have stated there, “Rebbi Aqiba added that fine flour, and incense, frankincense, and coals, part of which were touched by a Tevul Yom are all disqualified.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, they knew that vessels of Servive do combine. About what comes he to testify? About the leftovers of flour-offerings that they do combine together. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Zamina in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Why did they say, leftovers of flour-offerings do combine together? Because they need their vessel. Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Yasa: they knew that vessels of Service do combine. About what comes he to testify? About fine flour, and incense, and frankincense, and coals. One understands fine flour, and incense, and frankincense. Coals? Rebbi Abun bar Cahana said, explain it about coals on the Day of Atonement which he has to carry inside in the vessel which he used to scoop up. But [not] about every day’s coals. As we have stated there, “If a qab of coals were dispersed, one sweeps them into the water canal, but on the Sabbath one covers it with a wine-cooler. Rebbi Mattania said, do fine flour, and incense, frankincense, and coals, need a minimum volume in this respect? Not because they have to be in their vessel? Here also because they have to be in their vessel.

Jerusalem Talmud Chagigah 3:13

Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked: may a fistful be offered from two vessels? Rebbi Ḥanin objected, did we not state, “the vessel combines”? If you would say that a fistful can be offered from two vessels, for which purpose did we state “the vessel combines”? Rebbi Eleazar the Southerner said, did not Rebbi Yose bar Zamina say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, why did they say, leftovers of flour-offerings do combine together? Because they need their vessel. Here also because they have to be in their vessel. Rebbi Mattaniah said, are not fine flour, and incense, and frankincense, and coals offered in many vessels? Nevertheless you are saying, “the vessel combines”; and here “the vessel combines”. Cahana asked the rabbis there, a flour-offering split in the mixing bowl, if one became impure did the other become impure? They said to him, if one became impure the other became impure. Did impurity jump? They said to him, impurity did jump. Even if another {vessel} was in between? They said to him, even if another {vessel} was in between. Taking a fistful from one on the other? They said to him, we did not hear any tradition, we studied a Mishnah, as what we did state there, “if two flour offerings from which no fistfuls were taken were combined together, if he is able to take a fistful from one separately and from the other separately they are qualified, otherwise disqualified.” Do not the remainders of one interrupt between one and the other? There came Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If a fistful was taken from one for the other, if one became impure he other became impure. Anything in-between did not become impure. Was it not stated, “one cup? Which makes its contents one.” Rebbi Ḥinena said, a vessel combines only what is tied to it.

Jerusalem Talmud Chagigah 3:15

Rebbi Jonathan in the name of Rebbi: If somebody eats food which is third degree impure for heave, his body is disqualified from eating heave. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac asked, how? Rebbi follows Rebbi Eliezer? As we have stated there, “He who eats food impure in the first degree is impure in the first degree. He who eats food impure in the second degree is impure in the second degree. He who eats food impure in the third degree is impure in the third degree.” It is everybody’s opinion, so he should stay away from heave. And similarly, if somebody eats food which is second degree impure for tithe, is his body disqualified from eating tithe? Let us hear from the following: “But the Sages forbid for tithe.” They had not heard that Rebbi Samuel said in the name of Rebbi Ze`ira, what means “but the Sages forbid for tithe”? His body is disqualified from eating tithe. And similarly, if somebody eats food which is fourth degree impure for sancta, is his body disqualified from eating sancta? Let us hear from the following, as Rebbi Jeremiah said in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal, they made him like one eating fourth degree impure food for sancta. This implies, if somebody eats food which is fourth degree impure for sancta, his body is disqualified from eating sancta. So far in Temple sancta which were sanctified. Or also for profane food prepared in the standards of sancta? Let us hear from the following, [as we stated there]: “If somebody slaughters domestic animals, wild animals, or birds, and no blood came out from them, they are qualified and may be eaten with unclean hands, since they were not prepared by blood. Rebbi Simeon says, they were prepared by slaughter.” Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: The Mishnah is about profane food prepared in the standards of sancta following Rebbi Joshua. Rebbi Ze`ira, Rebbi Yasa, Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Yannai in the name of Rebbi: If somebody eats food which is third degree impure for heave, his body is disqualified from eating heave. Is that not a Mishnah that third degree impurity is second degree impurity for sancta? The Mishnah is about Temple sancta which were sanctified. He tells you in addition, even for profane food prepared in the standards of sancta. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said before Rebbi Ze`ira: The Mishnah says so, “loaves of sancta bread; the water in their cavities is sanctified.” Does it displease you that it comes to tell you that he makes fluid by your pronouncement like sanctified fluid? Rebbi Ze`ira said, as you are saying there, one made one pure for the ashes of the Red Cow equal to the water for the ashes of the Red Cow and to the ashes of the Red Cow, and here one made fluid by your pronouncement like sanctified fluid. Rebbi Ze`ira, Rebbi Yasa, Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Yannai, and it is unknown whether this is in the name of Rebbi: There is a Mishnah which is both confirmation and disproof. From it confirmation: “For third degree impurity is second degree impurity for sancta, but not second degree impurity for heave, if it was prepared by the standards of heave.” But if it was prepared in the standards of sancta, his body is second degree impure for sancta. From it disproof: For third degree impurity is second degree impurity for sancta, but not second degree impurity for heave, if it was prepared by the standards of sancta. But if it was prepared in the standards of heave, his body is second degree impure for heave and a fortiori for sancta.

Jerusalem Talmud Chagigah 3:15

Jerusalem Talmud Chagigah 3:16

“Rebbi Yose stated, from where that the fourth degree is disqualified in sanctified food? It is an argument. Since one who lacks expiation is not disqualified for heave but disqualified for sanctified food, it is only logical that third degree [impurity] which is disabled for heave should disqualify for sanctified food. That means, we learned third degree from a verse and fourth degree from an argument de minore ad majus.” Rebbi Joḥanan objected: Food that was touched by a Tevul Yom is a counter-example, because he disqualifies in the case of heave but does not disqualify in the case of sanctified food. Rebbi Ḥananiah in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi Yose argues the method of his teacher Rebbi Aqiba. Just as Rebbi Aqiba says impure, impure by the words of the Torah, so Rebbi Yose says it will be impure, it makes impure by the words of the Torah. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: Rebbi Yose does not need that argument de minore ad majus. Rebbi Yose explains the verse: Any meat which would touch, that is second degree food because it touched primary impurity; anything impure, that is third degree food because it touched second degree impurity; shall not be eaten, the endstage of impurity may not be eaten. So far about solid food that became impure in the air space of a clay vessel which had become impure by a reptile. What about solid food that became impure directly from a reptile? Is that not an argument? Since vessels, which cannot become impure in the air space of a clay vessel that became impure by a reptile, become impure by contact with a reptile to defile solid food, is it not logical that solid food itself which became impure by a reptile should become impure by contact with a reptile to defile solid food. So far, following Rebbi Aqiba. Following Rebbi Ismael? Rebbi Ismael stated: Any meat which would touch anything impure, that is first degree food which touched any impurity, shall not be eaten, to add a second degree of impurity. The third degree from where? It is an argument. Since a tevul yom who is not disqualified for profane food disqualifies heave, it is only logical that a person secondarily impure, who disables profane food should disable heave. The fourth degree for sacrifices from where? It is an argument. Since one who lacks expiation who does not disable heave disables sanctified food, it is only logical that third degree [impurity] which disqualifies heave should disable sanctified food. That means, we learned first and second degrees from a verse, the third from an argument and the fourth from an argument de minore ad majus. Can one pile argument on argument? Everything is subject to practice, i. e., that third degree disables heave and fourth degree disables sacrifices.

Jerusalem Talmud Chagigah 3:16

Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 1:46

MISHNAH: The House of Shammai permit the co-wives to the brothers, but the House of Hillel forbid. If they took ḥalîṣah, the House of Shammai disqualify them for the priesthood but the House of Hillel declare them qualified. If they entered levirate, the House of Shammai declare them qualified but the House of Hillel as disqualified. Even though these forbid and those permit, these declare disqualified and those qualified, the House of Shammai did not refrain from marrying women from the House of Hillel nor the House of Hillel from the House of Shammai. Regarding all purities and impurities which these were declaring as pure and those as impure, these did not refrain to process pure foods with the help of those.

Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 1:46

Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 6:8

MISHNAH: Similarly, anybody who comes upon any of the incest-prohibited women specified in the Torah, or of the disqualified ones, [i. e.,] a widow for the High Priest or a divorcee or one who had participated in ḥalîṣah for a private Cohen, a bastard or Gibeonite female for an Israel, or an Israel woman for a male bastard or Gibeonite, disqualified her and there is no difference between intercourse and intercourse.

Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 6:8

Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 7:17

“The deaf-and-dumb disables.” Did not Rebbi Ḥiyya state: “The wife of the deaf-and-dumb or the insane immerses herself from her husband’s bosom and eats”? Rebbi Abba Mari and Rebbi Mattaniah, one said, a disqualified deaf-and-dumb, the other said, a deaf-and-dumb levir.

Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 7:24

“If they are unable to marry in Israel they disable.” These are: “A child of nine years and one day, an Ammonite, Moabite, or Egyptian proselyte, or a bastard, desecrated, Gibeonite, Samaritan, and Gentile who had intercourse with the daughter of an Israel, a Cohen, or a Levite, disqualified her for the priesthood. Rebbi Yose said, everybody’s intercourse disqualifies whose descendant would be disqualified; his intercourse does not disqualify those whose descendant would not be disqualified. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, in all cases, if his daughter is permitted to you, so is his widow; if his daughter is not permitted to you, neither is his widow.” In what do they differ? Rebbi Joḥanan says, an Ammonite or Moabite proselyte is between them. For him who says, everybody’s intercourse disqualifies whose descendant would be disqualified, here since his descendant would be disqualified, his intercourse disqualifies. For him who says, if you may marry his daughter you may marry his widow, here since you may marry his daughter you may marry his widow. The words of the Sages? Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of [the rabbis], Rebbi Abba, both say: Regarding the daughter of an Ammonite or Moabite proselyte or the daughter of a second-generation Egyptian, even though his daughter is permitted to you, his widow is forbidden to you. Rebbi Zakkai: Rebbi Alexander sent to ask [about] the daughter of an Ammonite proselyte and the daughter of a second-generation Egyptian. Rebbi Yose said to him, did you not hear that Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of the rabbis, Rebbi Abba, both say: Regarding the daughter of an Ammonite proselyte or the daughter of a second-generation Egyptian, even though his daughter is permitted to you, his widow is forbidden to you. And everybody’s intercourse disqualifies whose descendant would be disqualified. Do we not need it when her mother was from Israel? That you should not say that since her mother was desecrated so her daughter was desecrated. In addition, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagreed, the daughter of an Ammonite proselyte or the daughter of a second-generation Egyptian, Rebbi Joḥanan said, they are acceptable, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, they are disqualified. Rebbi Yose ben Abun said, they disagree about the old women: Rebbi Joḥanan said, they are acceptable, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, they are disqualified.

Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 7:24

Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 7:26

HALAKHAH: “A slave disables because of intercourse,” etc. From where that the intercourse with a slave disables? Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Ismael: “If a Cohen’s daughter becomes a widow or a divorcee without issue,” from [a man] with whom she has widowhood or divorce she returns, from [a man] with whom she has no relation of widowhood or divorce she does not return. Rebbi Jeremiah objected: But if a widow whored she has no widowhood or divorce and she returns! Rebbi Yose did not say so, but [he held] that the argument of Rebbi Joḥanan is reversed. In Giṭṭin he says, why are Samaritans disqualified? Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Ismael: Because if a Gentile or a slave has intercourse with a Jewish woman, the child is a bastard. In Qiddushin one says, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both say, the child is a bastard. Here he says it in his own name but there he says it in the name of Rebbi Ismael! For also according to the words of the Sages the child is a bastard. Rebbi Ḥizqiah did not say so, but: the argument of Rebbi Joḥanan is reversed. In Giṭṭin he says, why are Samaritans disqualified? Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Ismael: Because if a Gentile or slave has intercourse with a Jewish woman, the child is a bastard. In Qiddushin one says, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both say, the child is a bastard. Here he says, from [a man] with whom she has widowhood or divorce she returns, from [a man] with whom she has no relation of widowhood or divorce she does not return. Rebbi Mattaniah said, I went to Seḥora and heard: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Ismael the sons of Jesua: “If a Cohen’s daughter becomes a widow or a divorcee without issue,” from [a man] with whom she has widowhood or divorce she returns, from [a man] with whom she has no relation of widowhood or divorce she does not return. And I said, that is correct, there is no bastard, following Rebbi Joshua, for a bastard is only from a woman which is for him under an incest prohibition and for whom one is punished by divine extirpation.

Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 7:26

Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 8:4

Are sacrifices forbidden for the uncircumcised? One cannot deduce the answer from Passover since they are not subject to [the prohibition of] breaking a bone, neither from heave since that would be inference after inference. At the end, you have to say “from it, from it.” Since “from it” which was said in the laws of Passover implies that the uncircumcised is disqualified, so “from it” which was said in the laws of sacrifices must imply that the uncircumcised is disqualified. Are sacrifices forbidden for the mourner? “From it, from it.” Since “from it” which was said in the laws of tithe states that the mourner is disqualified, so “from it” which was said in the laws of Passover must imply that the mourner is disqualified.

Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 8:4

Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 8:19

“If he did not know her carnally after he was injured in his testicles or his penis was cut off, they may eat.” Rebbi Eleazar said, this is Rebbi Eleazar’s and Rebbi Simeon’s. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is everybody’s opinion; there is a difference since he did not add an acquisition to disable. It turns out that this disagreement parallels the other disagreement, since they disagreed: A priestly woman waiting for her levir who became eligible to two priestly levirs. If one of them “bespoke” her but did not have occasion to bring her to the marriage chamber before he became injured in his testicles or his penis was damaged, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, since she is a candidate for disabling intercourse, she is disabled. Rebbi Joḥanan said, when he will copulate. If one of them was qualified but the other disqualified, even Rebbi Joḥanan agrees. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada asked before Rebbi Mana, if the qualified one “bespoke” her? He said to him, the disagreement of Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish.

Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 8:22

Some Tannaïm state: Through human action he is disqualified, through Heaven’s action he is qualified. Some Tannaïm state: He is disqualified both through human or Heaven’s action. He who said, through human action he is disqualified, through Heaven’s action he is qualified, infers it from a bastard. “A bastard may not marry,” “no one with a damaged testicle may marry.” Just as a bastard is created by human action, so the one injured in a testicle is created by human action. He who said, he is disqualified both through human or Heaven’s action, from where does he infer it? Rebbi Mana said, from here: “No one with a damaged testicle may marry,” ever. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, he still infers it from a bastard. “A bastard may not marry,” “no one with a damaged testicle may marry.” Just as a bastard is created by Heaven’s action, so the one injured in a testicle is created by Heaven’s action. Is the bastard created by Heaven’s action? His formation is by Heaven’s action. They wanted to say that he who said, through human action he is disqualified, through Heaven’s action he is qualified, follows Rebbi Ismael the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa; he who said, he is disqualified both through human or Heaven’s action, [follows] the rabbis. Rebbi Aḥai bar Pappaios said before Rebbi Ze‘ira, all follows the rabbis. For instance, if scab developed and he rubbed or squeezed it off, that is human action induced by Heaven’s action.

Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 8:22

Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 8:23

“The one whose urethra is cut off, anyone whose penis is cut, but he is qualified if there is a thread’s [breath] left of the corona,” etc. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: Of the upper side of the corona. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: Of the lower side of the corona. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, of the lower side of the corona. There, they said, if it has the shape of a drainpipe, he is qualified. Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if it has the shape of a writing reed, he is qualified, of an inverted writing reed, he is disqualified. If it is punctured, from the inside he is disqualified, from the outside he is qualified. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah, “inside” [means] from the corona towards the body; “outside” [means] from the corona away from the body. If it is punctured, he is disqualified; if it became blocked, he is qualified. If [the urethra] is punctured, he is disqualified, because it pours out; if it became blocked, he is qualified because he can be fertile. That is a disqualification which can revert to a qualification. The only difference between one injured in his lower parts and one whose testicles are injured are medical rules since an injured testicle may heal, an injured urethra does not heal. What can he do? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rav Jehudah: He brings ants, lets them bite, and cuts them off.

Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 8:23

Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 8:25

In the opinion of Rebbi Jehudah, may a male bastard not marry a female bastard? Let us hear from the following, as Rebbi Immi said, Rebbi Jacob from Gebal stated before Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Isaac bar Tevele in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Rebbi Jehudah stated that a male bastard should not marry a female bastard so that bastards should disappear from the world. Similarly, is an Ammonite man forbidden to marry an Ammonite woman? Was that needed for the rabbis? For if Rebbi Jehudah would think that disqualified converts form one of the Eternal’s congregations, then [the Ammonite] could not marry an Ammonite woman since for her he would be of the Eternal’s congregation. He could not marry an Egyptian woman since for her he would be of the Eternal’s congregation. Rebbi Mattania said, one frees a slave girl for him. Similarly, could an Egyptian man not marry an Egyptian woman? Let us hear from the following, as Rebbi Abbahu stated before Rebbi Joḥanan: “Rebbi Jehudah said, Benjamin, an Egyptian convert, was a student of Rebbi Aqiba. He said, I am an Egyptian convert married to an Egyptian convert. My son is an Egyptian convert; I shall marry him to an Egyptian convert so that my grandson will be qualified to marry into the congregation. Rebbi Aqiba said to him, my son, it is not so. But you marry him to the daughter of an Egyptian woman convert so that there should be three generations on every side.”

Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 8:30

If a Cohen had intercourse with a divorcee and had a daughter, and the daughter a daughter, what is her status? Rebbi Ḥanania and Rebbi Mana, one said she is qualified, the other said she is disqualified. The one who said she is qualified objected to the one who said she is disqualified: The daughter of a desecrated male is desecrated for the priesthood. Is this one not from an Israel? Why do you declare her disqualified?

Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 8:30

Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 9:1

MISHNAH: There exist women permitted to their husbands but forbidden to their levirs, permitted to their levirs but forbidden to their husbands, permitted to both of them, or forbidden to both. The following are permitted to their husbands but forbidden to their levirs: If a simple priest was betrothed to a widow and has a brother who is High Priest, or a qualified man married a qualified woman and has a disqualified brother, or an Israel married an Israelite woman and has a bastard brother, or a bastard married a bastard woman and has an Israel brother, [the women] are permitted to their husbands and forbidden for their levirs.

Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 9:3

“If a qualified [priest], married to a woman qualified for the priesthood, has a desecrated brother, she is permitted to her husband and forbidden to her levir.” Did not Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun say in the name of Rav that a proselyte, a freedman, and a disqualified priest are permitted priestly [wives]? So is the Mishnah: If a qualified [priest], married to a woman qualified for the priesthood, has a desecrated brother. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said in the name of Rav: A proselyte, a freedman, and a disqualified priest are permitted priestly [wives]. What is the reason? Qualified men are warned against disqualified women and disqualified men against qualified women but not disqualified women against qualified men nor qualified women against disqualified men. Did we not state: “they should not take, should not take”, which teaches that the woman is warned through the man? They wanted to say, qualified women against disqualified women but it is only disqualified women against qualified women. “If a qualified [priest], married to a woman qualified for the priesthood, has a desecrated brother, she is permitted to her husband and forbidden to her levir.” Did not Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun say that a proselyte, a freedman, and a disqualified priest are permitted priestly [wives]? So is the Mishnah: If a desecrated [priest], married to a woman qualified for the priesthood, has a qualified brother. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said in the name of Rav: A proselyte, a freedman, and a disqualified priest are permitted priestly [wives]. What is the reason? Qualified men are warned against disqualified women but not disqualified women against qualified men nor qualified women against disqualified men. Did we not state: “they should not take, should not take”, which teaches that the woman is warned through the man? They wanted to say, qualified women against disqualified men but it is only disqualified women against qualified men.

Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 9:3