eats

536 occurrences across the corpus

The Jerusalem Talmud

Rebbi Zeїra in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: They disagree if he gathers and delivers. But if he gathers for [his own] food, everybody agrees that he eats one by one and is free, but if he takes them together he is obligated.

Jerusalem Talmud Maasrot 2:23

The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: So did Rebbi Jehudah disprove Rebbi Meїr[’s argument]: Do you not concede to me that one who gives to his son is free? What is the difference between gathering and giving to his son or gathering and giving to another person? Rebbi Yudan asked: What did you see to say ‘if he gathers and delivers,’ can we not say ‘if he gathers and eats’? Rebbi Mana said, there cannot be “if he gathers and eats”, only “if he gathers and delivers,” because of that rose garden. Can you say the rose garden [is a case of] gathering and eating? No, gathering and delivering! There also, he gathers and delivers because he would say to him, if you enter you will damage its roses! A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Mana’s argument: “ ‘I am selling you the vineyard’, this is a valid sale even if there are no vines since he sells him [the real estate] by description. ‘I am selling you the orchard’, this is a valid sale even if there are no trees since he sells him [the real estate] by description.’ ”

Jerusalem Talmud Maasrot 2:23

Jerusalem Talmud Maasrot 2:24

MISHNAH: If somebody says to another person, here take this as for twenty figs that I shall choose, he chooses and eats; for the bunch of grapes that I shall choose, he selects single grape berries and eats; for the pomegranate that I shall choose, he picks single kernels and eats; for the watermelon that I shall choose, he bites off and eats. But if he said, for these twenty figs, for these two bunches, for these two pomegranates, for these two watermelon, he eats as he is used to and he is free since he bought when it was still connected to the ground. If somebody hires a worker to slice figs; if that one told him, on condition that I may eat from the figs, he eats and is free; on condition that I and my son will eat, or that my son may eat in lieu of my wages, he may eat and is free, and his son may eat but is obligated; on condition that I may eat while cutting and after cutting, while cutting he eats and is free, after cutting he eats and is obligated since he does not eat because of the Torah. That is the principle: He who eats because of the Torah is free; if he does not eat because of the Torah he is obligated. If he was working with lĕbāsîm he should not eat benôt ševa‘ and vice-versa. But he may hold back until he reaches the place of good ones and eat there. If somebody switches with another person so that each one eats directly, or each one cuts, or one eats and one cuts, he is obligated. Rebbi Jehudah says, he who exchanges to eat is obligated, to cut is free.

Jerusalem Talmud Maasrot 2:24

Jerusalem Talmud Maasrot 2:25

HALAKHAH: ‘ Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He plucks single berries and eats. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, that is what my teacher did. It was stated in the name of Rebbi Yose: If he bit off the minutest amount from a watermelon, he acquired it. Rebbi Jonah asked, does this also hold for a pomegranate?

Jerusalem Talmud Maasrot 2:27

There, we have stated: “If he worked with his hands but not with his feet, with his feet but not with his hands, even on his shoulder, he eats.” We have stated about this, with his hands he makes bundles, with his feet he creates support, even on his shoulder he carries. “Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah says, only if he works with his hands, feet, and body,” as in threshing where he works with his hands, feet, and body, so for anything he works with his hands, feet, and body. Threshing, just as threshing is particular in that it applies to plucked [grain], so for anything plucked. This excludes him who thins among garlic and onions, makes supports for vines, and weeds under an olive tree. Threshing, just as threshing is particular in that it applies to growth from the earth, so for anything growing from the earth. This excludes him who milks, makes cheese, or churns milk. Threshing, just as threshing is particular in that it does not apply after processing, so for anything not after processing. This excludes him who separates dates or dried figs, wine after it is fermented and olive oil when it descends into the vat. Threshing, just as threshing is particular in that it applies before the obligation of tithes, so for anything before the obligation of tithes. This excludes him who kneads dough, separates, or bakes.

Jerusalem Talmud Maasrot 2:28

It is written (Deut. 23:26): “If you come into your neighbor’s standing grain.” I could think that this means everybody; the verse says “do not swing a sickle over your neighbor’s standing grain,” he who has permission to swing a sickle, that means the laborer. Issy ben Aqabiah says, the verse speaks about everybody. Why does the verse say, “do not swing a sickle over your neighbor’s standing grain?” He has no right except at the time of swinging the sickle. It was stated: Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai says, how far was the Torah careful about robbery that it judged between a human and his neighbor about a swing of the sickle! How great is labor, since the generation of the Flood was destroyed only because of robbery, but the laborer does his work, eats, and is free of any robbery!

Jerusalem Talmud Maasrot 2:31

He who eats by biblical decree, should he not be obligated? Rebbi Jonah said, the Torah freed him.

Jerusalem Talmud Maasrot 2:35

Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: The laborer may eat the first bunch of grapes. It was stated, the last bunch. Rebbi Samuel in the name of Rebbi Hila: If he put it in the basket it is forbidden. Rebbi Yose said, that needs to be said if he harvests and another transports. But if he harvests and transports originally he eats because of local usage. At the end he eats because of “ the laborers eat when they go from one row to the next and when they return to the winepress, and the donkey until it is unloaded.”

Jerusalem Talmud Maasrot 2:35

Jerusalem Talmud Maasrot 3:1

MISHNAH: If somebody transports figs through his courtyard to cut them into pieces, his children and companions may eat and they are free; the same holds for laborers who work for him as long as they cannot claim their meals from him. But those who can claim their meals from him may not eat. If somebody takes his workers out to the field, if they have no claim to meals from him, they eat and are free. But if they can claim meals from him they may eat single fruits from the fig tree but not from the basket or the box or the muqẓeh. If somebody hires a laborer to work with him on olive trees and said to him “on condition to be able to eat olives,” he eats one by one and if he takes them together he is obligated. To thin out onions, if he said to him “on condition to be able to eat vegetables” he snips off leaf by leaf and eats but if he takes them together he is obligated.

Jerusalem Talmud Maasrot 3:1

Jerusalem Talmud Maasrot 3:2

HALAKHAH: May he himself eat? Rav said, he is forbidden to eat; Ulla ben Rebbi Ismael said in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, this one is permitted to eat. Rav follows Rebbi Meїr, Rebbi Eleazar the rabbis. Does Rav follow Rebbi Meїr? Then even his children and domestics should be forbidden! But Rav follows Rebbi, Rebbi Eleazar the rabbis. As Rebbi Simon said in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, Rebbi Yose ben Shaul in the name of Rebbi: The Sages say, one eats from what is going to the muqẓeh only in its place. Rebbi Jacob ben Idi in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: one eats from what is going to the muqẓeh in its place and in other places. Rebbi Yose ben Shaul objected to Rebbi: Did we not state, “carob pods until he collected them on top of his roof?” He said to him, do not object to me about carobs; carobs are animal feed.

Jerusalem Talmud Maasrot 3:2

Jerusalem Talmud Maasrot 3:8

We understand “not from the basket or the box”, but “or the muqẓeh?” Not “ he eats one by one and if he takes them together he is obligated”? Rebbi Isaac said, they considered muqẓeh as being taken together.

Jerusalem Talmud Maasrot 3:9

The house of Rebbi stated: He eats normally and is free. Rebbi Jonah asked, where do we hold? If he hired him to work with him on the olives, everybody agrees that he eats normally and is free. If he hired him to work the olive trees, everybody agrees that he eats one by one and if he takes them together he is obligated. But we must hold that he hired him to thin out the olives. Since the latter part is about thinning out onions, if he said to him “on condition to be able to eat vegetables” he tears them out leaf by leaf and eats but if he takes them together he is obligated.

Jerusalem Talmud Maasrot 3:9

Jerusalem Talmud Maasrot 3:10

Rebbi Ḥaggai asked the colleagues: What is the reason we stated here that “he is free”? They said to him, because he is eating a snack in the field and is free. He said to them, is our Mishnah needed for that, because he is eating a snack in the field and is free? It must be because of abandoned property since if he brings it to his house he still is free. As it is stated: “If somebody found a harvesting basket covered with leaves, that is forbidden because of robbery and is subject to tithes.” It is forbidden because of robbery since it is something with distinguishing marks. It is subject to tithes since the owners still have it in mind. How far, that he could give heave from abandoned property? He cannot give heave from abandoned property! “He turns it into money’s worth and eats.”

Jerusalem Talmud Maasrot 3:28

MISHNAH: From a fig tree standing in a courtyard, one may eat one by one and if he took them together he is obligated. Rebbi Simeon says, one in his right hand, one in his left hand, and one in his mouth. If he climbed to the top of the tree he may fill the fold of his toga and eat. From a vine planted in a courtyard one may take an entire bunch; the same holds for a pomegranate and a watermelon, the words of Rebbi Ṭarphon. Rebbi Aqiba says, he takes single grape berries, single seeds of a pomegranate, and picks from the watermelon. Of coriander sown in the courtyard he snips off leaf by leaf and eats; when he takes them together they are obligated. Calamint, hyssop, and thyme in the courtyard are obligated if they are guarded. If a fig tree was standing in a courtyard but its crown was hanging over a vegetable garden, one eats as usual and is free. If it was standing in a vegetable garden but its crown was hanging over a courtyard, one eats one by one and if he takes them together he is obligated. If it was standing in the Land and hanging over outside the Land or standing outside the Land and hanging over the Land, everything is determined by the stem. For houses of walled cities, everything is determined by the stem. For cities of refuge, all goes by the crown, for Jerusalem all goes by the crown.

Jerusalem Talmud Maasrot 3:28

Jerusalem Talmud Maasrot 3:36

This means “one eats as usual and is free”, when he is standing in the garden; this means “if one eats one by one he is free but if he takes them together he is obligated” if he stands in the courtyard.

Jerusalem Talmud Maasrot 3:36

Jerusalem Talmud Maasrot 5:11

HALAKHAH: So is the Mishnah: A person should not sell his field. Rebbi Simeon permits since he may say to him, I sold mine, go and demand what is yours. If he transgressed and sold, he tithes what he eats but he does not have to tithe for what he sold since we are not responsible for the dishonest.

Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 1:5

“ How does one not take it as a pledge? He who enters another’s house to take a pledge should not take his debtor’s Second Tithe as pledge.” It was stated: “One does not give it as a deposit and he should not give it to a grocer to receive food in its value.” If one transgressed and took as pledge, trangressed and gave as deposit? It shall be as the following: “If somebody eats his Second Tithe, whether in error or intentionally, he shall cry out to Heaven, the words of Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. Rebbi says, in error he shall cry out to Heaven, intentionally the money’s worth shall be restituted. If it was money, in error he shall cry out to Heaven, intentionally the money’s worth shall be restituted, the words of Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. Rebbi says, whether in error or intentionally, the money’s worth shall be restituted.” Rebbi Zeriqa in the name of Ḥizqiah: Practice follows Rebbi for money and Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel for produce. Rebbi Ila said, there was a case about money and they instructed following Rebbi.

Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 3:23

Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, so is the Mishnah: “Their insides are holy and their roofs (are profane), over the holy and in the direction of the holy they are holy, over the profane and in direction of the profane they are profane.” “Built in the holy but open to the holy and the profane, the inside is holy. Built in the profane but open to the holy and the profane, the inside is profane. There, where you say the inside is holy one eats most holy sacrifices, slaughters simple holy sacrifices and the impure who enters is guilty.”

Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 3:24

Rav Jehudah in the name of Rav: One whips only for 187 length by 135 width. But did we not state: In a chamber built flush with the wall of the Temple courtyard one eats most holy sacrifices, slaughters simple holy sacrifices, but an impure person who enters there cannot be punished. Explain it following the Tanna who stated: “Rebbi Yose said, these are the words of Rebbi Aqiba. But the Sages say, they classified the chambers and all chambers follow their openings.”

Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 4:35

MISHNAH: He who put aside an as and ate for half of its worth, then went to another place where it is worth a dupondius, has to eat another as for it. He who put aside a dupondius and ate for half of its worth, then went to another place where it would be worth an as, has to eat another half. He who put aside an as of Second Tithe eats for it 11 as and 1/100 of an as; the House of Shammai say, 10 in total, but the House of Hillel say, if it is certain 11 and for demay 10.

Jerusalem Talmud Challah 1:28

MISHNAH: If somebody eats the volume of an olive of maẓẓah from them on Passover, he did his duty, the volume of an olive of leavened [bread], he is subject to being cut off. If one of them is mixed with other kinds one transgresses on Passover. He who takes a vow not to use bread or produce is forbidden them, the words of Rebbi Meïr; but the Sages say, he who takes a vow not to use flour is only forbidden these. They are subject to ḥallah and tithes.

Jerusalem Talmud Challah 1:30

Therefore, is he who makes a vow not to use bread or produce forbidden everything according to the rabbis? Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, so is the Mishnah: “He who makes a vow not to use flour is only forbidden these.” How do we hold? If he uses “bread” in the biblical sense then also if he says “produce” it is meant in the biblical sense. He should be forbidden everything since it is written (Deut. 22:9): “The produce of the vineyard.” If he simply says “bread”; only from wheat or barley is it simply called “bread”. Rebbi Yose said, I confirmed it, at a place where one eats bread from all [kinds], only from the five kinds it is simply called “bread”.

Jerusalem Talmud Challah 1:64

“It may be made on a holiday.” The Mishnah is Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar’s, as it was stated: “One does not make [food] on a holiday for use after the holiday.” Also, it was stated: “A woman may fill a pot with meat even if one eats only one piece from it, a water pot with hot water even if one drinks only one cup from it. But baking, she should bake only what she needs.” For it is stated: “Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says, a woman may fill the entire oven with bread because the bread turns out well if the oven is filled.”

Jerusalem Talmud Challah 1:68

Ten commandments does a person fulfill before he eats a piece of bread: Do not plough, do now sow, do not muzzle, gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and peah, heave, first tithe, second tithe, and ḥallah. Before Rebbi Isaac went to dinner, he spread out his ten fingers and said, I kept ten commandments.

Jerusalem Talmud Challah 3:1

MISHNAH: One may eat a snack from the dough until it was rolled if wheat dough or compacted if barley dough. After it was rolled if wheat dough or compacted if barley dough, one who eats from it commits a deadly sin. After she added water she may lift its ḥallah on condition that there be five quarters of flour.

Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 1:43

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan and Rav Ḥisda, both say: they differ in the uninformed case. What are we dealing with? If it is certain that it lives off the old tree, everybody agrees it is permitted. If it is certain that it lives off the young tree, everybody agrees it is forbidden. We must be dealing with the uninformed case. How could one know? Rebbi Vivian in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: If the leaves are turned towards the young tree one may be sure that it lives from the old one; if the leaves are turned towards the old tree one may be sure that it lives from the young one. Rebbi Yudan bar Ḥanin said, a sign: He who eats from his neighbor’s is ashamed to look at him. Rebbi Yudan, the father of Rebbi Mattaniah said, explain it if the leaves have fallen off.

Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 2:6

“And are lifted by one and 100”. How do you treat it, as beginning of separation or end of separation? If you say as beginning of separation, no minor may lift, no unrelated person may lift, and it does not push away the Sabbath. If you treat it as end of separation, a minor may lift, an unrelated person may lift, and it does push away the Sabbath. There we have stated: “Rebbi Jehudah says, also one may lift dema‘ by one in a hundred.” On that, it was stated: “Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says, if he wishes he earmarks part of it and eats the remainder.” Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Judah treated it as end of separation and Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar treated it as beginning of separation. Rebbi Yose said, even Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar treated it as end of separation. Does not Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar agree that it is forbidden to do so with certain [produce]? How is that? He should never do it on the Sabbath the way he does it on a weekday.

Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 2:13

How does Rebbi Jehudah think, following Rebbi Eliezer or Rebbi Joshua? Following Rebbi Eliezer he lifts and eats; following Rebbi Joshua he lifts and burns.

Jerusalem Talmud Bikkurim 1:30

Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Putting down prevents, making the declaration does not prevent. But did we not state: “He who eats First Fruits before the declaration was made for them”? Rav Hoshaiah, Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: That is Rebbi Aqiba’s. Rebbi Yose asked, which statement of Rebbi Aqiba? Rebbi Mana said, I heard my father state: Putting down prevents, making the declaration does not prevent; Rebbi Aqiba says, making the declaration does prevent. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Why did they say that putting down prevents? Because it applies to everybody. Rebbi Tanḥuma, Rebbi Huna in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Because it is repeated. Rebbi Abba Mari said both, one following Rebbi Jehudah, the other following the rabbis. For Rebbi Judah who said it had to be repeated, because it applies to everybody. For the rabbis who instruct that it did not need to be repeated, because it was repeated.

Jerusalem Talmud Bikkurim 3:17

Rebbi Ḥizqia, Rebbi Ḥanina the son of Rebbi Abbahu, in the name of Rebbi Eudaimon from Haifa: For an Elder four cubits; once he passed one sits down. The High Priest, from the moment one sees him until he disappears from view. What is the reason? (Ex. 33:8) “It was, when Moses went to the tent, the entire people rose, etc.” Two Amoraïm, one as praise and one as shame. The one who says, as praise: To see the just person and acquire merit. The one who says, as shame: Look at his thighs, look at his feet, he eats from the Jews, he drinks from the Jews, all he has is from the Jews.

Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat 1:49

“From here did Rebbi Phineas ben Yair say, promptitude brings to cleanliness, cleanliness brings to purity, purity brings to holiness, holiness to meekness, meekness to fear of sin, fear of sin to the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit to piety, piety to the Resurrection of the Dead, the Resurrection of the Dead through Elijah, may his remembrance be a blessing.”“Promptitude to cleanliness,” he finishes, and he atones.“Cleanliness to purity,” the Cohen shall atone for her, then she will be pure.“Purity to holiness,” he shall purify it and sanctify it.“Holiness to meekness,” for so says the High and Elevated One, Who thrones eternally, His name is Holy, in sublimity and holiness I dwell, and the suppressed and of meek spirit.“Meekness to fear of sin,” the consequence of meekness is fear of the Eternal. Rebbi Isaac bar Eleazar said, what wisdom proclaimed as a crown to its head, meekness made a heel for its sandal, for it is written, the head of wisdom is the fear of the Eternal, but it is written, the heel of meekness is fear of the Eternal.“Fear of sin to the Holy Spirit,” as it is written, then you will understand and knowledge of God you will find.“The Holy Spirit to piety,” as it is written, then You spoke in a vision to Your pious.“Piety to the Resurrection of the Dead,” as it is written, I shall give My Spirit into you and you will live.“The Resurrection of the Dead through Elijah, may his remembrance be a blessing,” as it is written, behold I am sending to you Elijah the prophet, before the coming of the great and awesome day of the Eternal, that he turn the fathers’ hearts to the sons and the sons’ hearts to their fathers.It was stated in the name of Rebbi Meïr: Anybody permanently in the Land of Israel who eats his profane food in purity, speaks in the holy language, and recites the Shemaˋ mornings and evenings is assured to participate in the life of the World to Come.

Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat 1:53

It was stated, eighteen things they decided, in eighteen they were a majority and in eighteen they were divided. The following they decided: About Gentiles’ bread, and about their cheeses, and about their oil, and about their daughters, and about their semen, and about their urine, and about the rules of a person with an emission, and about the rules of the land of Gentiles. There we have stated: “The following make heave unusable. One who eats food impure in the first degree, and one who eats food impure in the second degree, and one who drinks impure drinks, and one who comes with his head and most of his body in drawn water, and a pure person on whose head and most of his body fell three log drawn water, and a scroll, and hands, and the Ṭevul yom, and food and vessels which became impure by fluids.”

Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat 1:53

Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat 1:91

“One does not put bread dough into the oven.” Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Assi: Women are more careful with bread than with dishes. What is the difference between bread and dish? A dish one usually eats hot, bread one usually does not eat hot. There, they say, hot bread is accompanied by fever. A wasp, cold; a scorpion, hot. He who switches is in danger.

Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat 7:50

If one selected food out of food, Ḥizqiah said, one is liable; Rebbi Joḥanan said, one is not liable. A baraita disagrees with Ḥizqiah: He selects and eats, he selects and puts on the table. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: explain it if guests were eating what was served. But was it not stated: On condition that he did not select all of its kind? In the opinion of Ḥizqiah, because one who selects (normally) on the Sabbath is liable. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan, because one who selects normally at (one) [another] place is liable. In the opinion of Ḥizqiah, even rings among rings, even pomegranates among pomegranates. Or is it so, even people among people? How is this? Everybody agrees with that of Rebbi Immi. For Rebbi Immi had guests; he brought before them lupines and beans. He told them, be careful to eat (the wood-chips)(the sticks) [the artichokes] at the end.

Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat 9:30

“A vineyard bird either live or dead in any amount since one keeps it as medicine.” Rebbi Aḥa said, for a woman with rough skin rubs in with it and she is healed. There, they said, a person who wants to renounce sexual activity eats half of it and keeps half of it. The left hand part is forbidden, the right hand part is permitted. If anything was lost or missing he has no recourse ever. What should he do? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, he preserves it in a honey flask.

Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat 15:9

HALAKHAH: 3. In the House of Rebbi Yannai they said, folding by two persons is forbidden. Rebbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman: On the Sabbath, two together may not fold. If one folds on a footstool it is as if two persons were folding. Rebbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman: Sabbaths and holidays were given only for eating and drinking. Since this mouth [is bothersome] (is smelling), they permitted him to be occupied with words of the Torah. Rebbi Berekhiah in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: Sabbaths and holidays were given only for being occupied with words of the Torah. A baraita supports either one of them: What does one do? Either he sits down and eats or he sits and studies words of the Torah. One verse says, it is a Sabbath for the Eternal, and another verse says, an assembly for the Eternal, your God. How is that? Give part of it to the study of Torah and part to eat and to drink. Rebbi Abbahu said, a Sabbath for the Eternal, rest like the Eternal. Since the Eternal rested from saying, you also should rest from saying.

Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat 17:11

Rebbi Yose said, look how lenient they were on the Sabbath, that even things which are not to be used on the Sabbath they permitted for use on the Sabbath. As Rebbi Eleazar said, why is a tripod impure? Because the waiter eats on it. Why is its base impure? Because the waiter stands on it. Look how stringent they were in impurity, that even things which are not used as a table they declared impure as a table.

Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat 18:7

It was stated: One may move both pure and impure heave. Rebbi Zeˋira said, it means that one is permitted to move ṭevel that has a condition on it on the Sabbath. What does he do? He thinks about a part of it and eats the rest.

Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat 20:11

Rav Huna said, one is permitted to drink asa foetida water on the Sabbath. Samuel said, asa foetida in itself is healthy persons’ food. Rav Huna said, he who eats the weight of a zuz from it is in danger and his skin is loosened. Rebbi Abba ate the weight of a zuz from it and jumped in the river.

Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat 20:14

HALAKHAH: “One cleans up after an animal to be fattened,” etc. Because what the animal to be fattened leaves over, the grazing one eats. The following is in question: May one take from before one animal and give it before another animal? Is that not the Mishnah, “one may take from before one animal and put it before another on the Sabbath”? The Mishnah is about the same kind; what he asks is about another kind. It was stated, a person may take from before a donkey and put before a cow; from before an animal whose mouth is repelling to an animal whose mouth is nice.

Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat 23:1

MISHNAH: A person may ask from a neighbor wine jugs and oil jugs, only he may not say to him: lend me; and similarly a woman loaves from her neighbor. If that one does not trust him he may leave his toga with him and settle the account after the Sabbath. Similarly, on a Passover eve in Jerusalem which happens on a Sabbath he leaves his toga with him, eats his Passover sacrifice, and settles the account after the holiday.

Jerusalem Talmud Eruvin 2:12

HALAKHAH: “It is permitted to make them close to the well,” etc. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac: This is its measure. With this measure even though the camel is entirely outside it is permitted. Less than this measure even if the kid goat is entirely inside it is forbidden. It was stated: Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar said, enough for a camel and its camel driver. Does he disagree? In every case where the cow stretches its neck, the camel bends its neck. Why do you want this? Could not the cow stand in the public domain and eat in a private domain? Rebbi Yose said, there it is about one who [provides] for it, but here if it eats by itself.

Jerusalem Talmud Eruvin 3:13

Rav Sheshet in the name of the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya: It is permitted to move ṭevel which has a condition on it. How does he do it? He puts his eyes on a small part and eats the remainder. And it was stated: The House of Shammai say, one does not use Second Tithe as eruv in Jerusalem. Rebbi Jeremiah said, this you are saying about eruv of courtyards. But for an eruv of domains, a villager who deposits his eruv at Jerusalem can go there and eat it.

Jerusalem Talmud Eruvin 3:35

MISHNAH: Rebbi Eliezer says, if a holiday is next to a Sabbath either before or after, a person may make two eruvin and say: my first eruv shall be to the East and the second to the West, the first to the West and the second to the East, my first eruv but on the second like the people of my town. My eruv for the first [day], but the second like the people of my town; the second [day], but the first like the people of my town.. But the Sages say, either one makes an eruv to one side or one does not make an eruv at all; one makes an eruv for both days or one does not make an eruv at all. What should he do? He brings it on the first day, stays there when it gets dark, takes it and goes home, On the second day he brings it, stays there when it gets dark, eats it and goes home. It turns out that he profits from his going and his eruv. If it is eaten on the first day, it is an eruv for the first but is not an eruv for the second. Rebbi Eliezer told them, you agree with me that they are two kinds if sanctities.

Jerusalem Talmud Eruvin 3:36

HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Eliezer says,” etc. “But the Sages say, either one makes an eruv to one side.” So is the Mishnah: Either one makes an eruv to one side for two days or one does not make an eruv at all. Rebbi Eliezer agrees that one cannot make an eruv for half a day in the South and one for half a day in the North, for half a day in the South and one for half a day (in the North) for the people of his place. They told him, just as you did not split the day for us, so do not split two days for us. They agree that he should not put them in a basket. Rebbi Abba said, that he should not forget and eat it. If he did put it into a basket, he should bring the basket there. If he eats one of them he is a donkey driver-camel driver.

Jerusalem Talmud Eruvin 3:42

HALAKHAH: “And he says if today is holiday my words should be void but he gives a name to his tithes but does not eat from it. On the second [day] he gives a name to his tithes and eats from it.” Rav’s argument seems inverted. There he treats it as one sanctity but here he treats it as two sanctities. There it is one long sanctity but here one is holy, the other profane. The rabbis’ argument seems inverted. There they treat it as two sanctities, but here they make it one sanctity. There a holiday next to a Sabbath is like weekday next to Sabbath but here both are equal. The Sages agree with Rebbi Jehudah about the two days of the New Year which are an institution of the early prophets

Jerusalem Talmud Eruvin 8:4

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. Rebbi Meïr says, on a weekday, when he has nothing to eat, he eats little bread. On the Sabbath, when he has something to eat, he eats a lot of bread. Rebbi Jehudah says, on a weekday, when he has nothing to eat, he eats a lot of bread. On the Sabbath, when he has something to eat, he eats little bread.

Jerusalem Talmud Eruvin 8:4

Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 1:9

Rebbi Yose asked: The courtyards in Jerusalem where one eats the bread of thanksgiving offerings and the wafers of a nazir, do they need checking? Are they not checked anyhow for leftovers? It should be parallel to what Rebbi Zachariah the son-in-law of Rebbi Levi stated: A menstruating woman washes her hair and combs. A priestly woman does not wash her hair and comb. A menstruating priestly woman washes her hair and combs, not to differentiate between one menstruating woman and another. So also here, not to differentiate between elimination and elimination. Rabbi Gamliel bar Inyany stated before Rebbi Mana: A menstruating woman who interrupts for seven days washes her hair and combs. A priestly woman who immerses herself every day does not wash her hair and comb. He told him, it is necessary for one who watches one day for a day.

Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 1:23

“And what he leaves he should deposit at a guarded place so that he would not be obligated to repeat checking.” What does he do? He covers it with a vessel. If he covered it with a vessel but did not find it. I am saying that a hand took it. If he did not cover it with a vessel and did not find it, this house needs checking. Or the other houses would not need checking? Let us hear from the following: “If the volume of an olive from a cadaver was lost in a house; it was searched but not found. The house is pure; if it will be found, the house is retroactively impure.” This can teach about that and that can teach about this. This can teach about that, there is no difference between “was lost” and “what he leaves”. And that can teach about this, only this house needs to be checked. Following Rebbi Jehudah even this house should not need to be checked, as we may hear from the following: “Rebbi Jehudah said, it happened that the slave girl of a discharged veteran at Rimmon threw a still birth into a cistern. A Cohen came and looked to know what she had thrown down. The case came before the Sages and they declared him pure for moles and martens usually drag it away.” It runs after flesh, it does not run after bread. And even if you are saying that it runs after flesh and bread, it drags away flesh and eats it; it drags away bread and stores it. The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: One does not suspect that a mole dragged it, but following Rebbi Jehudah one suspects it.

Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 1:24

MISHNAH: Rebbi Meïr says, one eats all during the fifth [hour] and burns at the start of the sixth. Rebbi Jehudah says, one eats the entire fourth [hour], suspends during the fifths, and burns at the start of the sixth.

Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 1:24

Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 1:25

HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Meïr says, one eats all during the fifth [hour],” etc. Rebbi Meïr says, from noontime on it is from their words; Rebbi Jehudah says, from noontime on it is biblical. What is Rebbi Meïr’s reason? Only on the first day, that is the fifteenth. I could think at nightfall; the verse says only,. How is this? Give it one hour before sundown. What is Rebbi Jehudah’s reason? Only on the first day, that is the fourteenth. I could think the entire day; the verse says only. How is that? Split the day, half for leavened matter, half for mazzah. Rebbi Meïr’s argument seems inverted. There, he said only to add; here he said only to diminish. Rebbi Samuel bar Eudaimon said, he diminished, he excludes leavened matter. Rebbi Meïr says, do not eat leavened matter with it, while it is eaten. Rebbi Jehudah says, do not eat leavened matter with it, while it is prepared.

Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 2:2

HALAKHAH: “Any time” etc. Rebbi Immi said, who is the Tanna of “any time when he is permitted to eat he is permitted to feed, when it is forbidden to the eater he is forbidden to feed”? Rebbi Meïr. But following Rebbi Jehudah, in the fifth hour even though he is forbidden to eat he is permitted to feed. Rebbi Abba objected: Did we not state, “sour dough has to be burned but one who eats it is not liable,” and did not Rav Ḥuna say in the name of Rebbi, one may feed it to the dogs? Rebbi Yose said, did we state “any leavened matter”, not “time”? Who is the Tanna of “time”, Rebbi Meïr.

Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 2:28

Who is the Tanna of it should not be seen in your possession? Rebbi Jehudah, as it was stated: He who eats leavened matter after the sixth hour, as well as leavened matter which was in existence during Passover violates a biblical prohibition but there is no extirpation, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Simeon says, anything for which there is no extirpation there is no biblical prohibition. Rebbi Simeon agrees about the prohibition that it is prohibited. What is its prohibition? Rebbi Jeremiah said, its prohibition is a word of the Torah. Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose both say, its prohibition is from their words. What is Rebbi Jehudah’s reason? No leavened matter may be eaten, today. Where do we hold? If during the holiday, it already is written, you may not eat leavened matter with it. But if it does not refer to the time during the holiday, transfer it to the time after the holiday. How does Rebbi Simeon explain Rebbi Jehudah’s reason, no leavened matter may be eaten, today? Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, he will explain if following Rebbi Yose the Galilean, as it was stated: Rebbi Yose the Galilean says, I am saying that in Egypt the Passover was only one day as it was said, no leavened matter may be eaten, today.

Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 2:34

MISHNAH: Somebody who eats leavened heave on Passover, if in error pays its value and a fifth, if intentionally is not liable for restitution even as value of wood.

Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 2:36

(If he beat) four quarters for themselves and made them leavened, and another four quarters for themselves, and mixed them. If one warned him because of eating ṭevel, he is not flogged, because of one who eats leavened matter on Passover, he is flogged. A severe prohibition falls upon a minor prohibition but a minor prohibition does not fall on a severe prohibition. But if he mixed them and afterwards made them leavened, if one warned him because of eating ṭevel. he is flogged, because of one who eats leavened matter on Passover, he is flogged. A severe prohibition falls upon a minor prohibition but a minor prohibition does not fall on a severe prohibition.

Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 2:36

Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 2:37

If he made a grain heap and worshipped it, then smoothed it, and then ate from it: if one warned him because of eating ṭevel, he is not flogged, because of one who eats idolatrical food, he is flogged. A severe prohibition falls upon a minor prohibition but a minor prohibition does not fall on a severe prohibition. [But if he smoothed it and then worshipped it, if one warned him because of eating ṭevel, he is flogged, because of idolatrical food, he is flogged. A severe prohibition falls upon a minor prohibition but a minor prohibition does not fall on a severe prohibition.]

Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 2:38

Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked: He who eats leavened heave on Passover, to whom does he pay? It is a disagreement between Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, since the disagreed: One who robbed heave from his mother’s father who was a Cohen, Rebbi Joḥanan said, he pays to the tribe; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he pays to himself. Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose: It is reasonable that Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish agree with Rebbi Joḥanan about the fifth that he has to pay it to the tribe. He told him, I also do agree with this, since impure heave is forbidden to the tribe. There came Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: Even in this case they disagree.

Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 2:39

Rebbi Yose asked, if somebody benefited from Temple property less than the value of a perutah, is he liable for reimbursement? (He said to him.) Let us hear from the following: What he appropriated from sancta he has to repay, except what is less than the value of a perutah. There are Tannaim who state, to add. (He who said except, for) [he who said “except what is less than the value of a perutah” for reimbursement and] sacrifice. He who said “to add”, for reimbursement. As you are saying there, intentionally less than the value of a perutah, even though he does not pay the fifth and a reparation sacrifice he has to pay to the tribe, one says the same here. The colleagues said before Rebbi Yose, is that not a Mishnah? “Somebody who eats leavened heave on Passover, if in error pays its value and a fifth, if intentionally he is not liable for restitution even as value of wood”? He told them, there it is impossible to complete, but here it is possible to complete.

Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 3:11

“It is written: Any leavened matter you shall not eat, to include Babylonian kutah, and Median beer, and Edomite vinegar, in the admonition. I might think that these are subject to extirpation, the verse says, for anybody who eats leavened bread will be extirpated.“The colleagues asked before Rebbi Jonah: Here it is written any, and there it is written any. Here you are adding but there you are excluding. He told them, there He added eaters but there He added edibles. They objected, was it not stated: “One fulfills his obligation with spiced mazzah, even if it does not taste of grain, on condition that it be mostly grain”. And for these, because they are mostly grain, he should be liable. He told them, there is a difference, for it is written bread, and these are not bread. Rebbi Yose objected, was it not stated that only mazzah is called bread, seven days you shall eat mazzot, the bread of deprivation? But here you infer mazzah from leavened bread? In addition, from the following which was stated: “A person may acquit himself of his obligation with a soaked wafer, or a cooked wafer, as long as it did not lose its shape.” It only says, “as long as it did not lose its shape,” therefore not if it lost its shape. But in the matter of leavened bread you are saying, if he mashed leavened bread and slurped it, he is liable. How is this? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Idi: Their leavening is not clear leavening. Should he be flogged? Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Concerning flogging, he cannot be flogged, as it was stated: On certain leavened bread he is subject to extirpation, for its admixture he receives forty [lashes]. Rav said, that is sour dough. He could have said, that is Babylonian kutah, and Median beer. Rebbi Abun bar Cahana said before Rebbi La: Explain it if leavened bread and mazzah were mixed. Rebbi Yose said, I pointed out a difficulty for Rebbi Abun bar Cahana: Where do we hold? If most of it was leavened bread, he is subject to extirpation. If most of it is mazzah, he could use it to fulfill his obligation on Passover. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said, Rebbi Joshua from Ono stated: Explain it if the amount of leavened bread was less than the volume of an olive, following Rebbi Simeon, since Rebbi Simeon said, the most minute amount for flogging.

Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 3:34

MISHNAH: Sour dough is to be burned but a person who eats it is not liable; cracked dough is to be burned and a person who eats it is liable for extirpation. What is sour dough? Like locusts’ antlers; cracked if its fissures joined one another, the words of Rebbi Jehudah, but the Sages say, in both cases one who eats it is liable. What is sour dough? Any which is pale like a man whose hair is standing up.

Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 3:34

Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 4:16

HALAKHAH: If they run out in Tiberias but did not run out in Sepphoris. He says to him, 1 brought it from Sepphoris; if you do not believe me, go and bring for yourself. Rebbi Ḥanania and Rebbi Phineas: Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Yose both said the same, as we have stated there: “One eats based on what is abandoned but not on what is guarded. Rebbi Yose says, also on what is guarded.” He says to him, I brought it from what is guarded; if you do not believe me, there is field x guarded before you, go and bring for yourself.

Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 4:24

MISHNAH: In a place where usually one eats roast meat in the Passover nights one eats; in a place where one does not usually eat one does not eat. In a place where one is used to ignite a candle in the night of the Day of Atonement one ignites, in a place where one is used not to ignite one does not ignite. One ignites in synagogues, and in houses of study, and in dark passages, and near sick persons.

Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 4:24

Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 4:42

Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba asked before Rebbi Mana: It is impossible to eat without redemption since Temple property cannot leave without redemption. If one redeems and eats it, it would be as if one bought an axe with Sabbatical money. He said to him, the treasurer exchanges it through a third person. Rebbi Mattaniah said, why do we not explain it according to everybody, as Rebbi Joḥanan said, the words of Rebbi Yose because his vow precedes his declaration of abandonment. But here the vow of abandonment precedes his dedication. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it happened that they gave instructions following Rebbi Yose.

Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 7:68

MISHNAH: Two groups which were eating in the same room, these are turning their faces in one direction while eating, and those are turning their faces in one direction while eating, and the samovar is in the middle. When the waiter stands to mix, he closes his mouth and turns his head unless he is near his own group and eats. But the newly-wed may turn aside her face and eat.

Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 7:71

The waiter who ate the volume of an olive when he was near the oven, if he is intelligent he fills his belly from it. If they want to honor him, they come and eat with him near the oven; otherwise they give him his part and he eats at his place. There, they are saying, this is Rebbi Simeon’s, since they did not hear what Rebbi Hila, Rebbi Issy, Rebbi Eleazar said in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Everybody agrees that at the start they may split, at the end they may not split. Where do they disagree? When they were sitting and a beam cracked over them. Rebbi Simeon says, part of them remove themselves and eat at another place, but the rabbis say, no part of them may remove themselves and eat at another place.

Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 7:72

Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina asked: Then one who removes should not be liable up to the moment when he eats. Rebbi Samuel, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan : One who removes is not liable up to the moment when he eats. Rebbi Zeˋira said, but it was stated there, an individual who removed the volume of an olive from a group is liable but he did not disqualify himself as a member of the group. This implies, even if he did not eat. If you would say, he ate, why did he not disqualify himself as a member of the group? Rebbi Yose said, when he removed it he disqualified it. Even if he ate, he ate something disqualified. Where was this said? There is breaking after breaking but not removing after removing. Either this means that when he removes it, he disqualifies it, or it means that he is not liable up to the moment when he eats.

Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 7:72

Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 8:8

“An orphan for whom guardians slaughtered may eat where he desires.” The Mishnah refers to an underage orphan. But an adult orphan is like one who subscribed to two Pesaḥim; as Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, one who subscribed to two Pesaḥim eats from the one which was slaughtered first. Rebbi Yose says, the Mishnah says so, “if he slaughtered a kid goat and a lamb, one eats from the first.”

Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 8:8

Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 8:11

MISHNAH: One says to his slave, go and slaughter the Pesaḥ for me. If he slaughtered a kid goat, it should be eaten; if he slaughtered a lamb, it should be eaten. If he slaughtered kid goat and lamb, one eats from the first. If he forgot what his master had told him, what can he do? He shall slaughter a kid goat and a lamb and say, if my master said to me a kid goat, the kid goat is his and the lamb mine, but if my master said to me a lamb, the lamb is his and the kid goat mine. If his master had forgotten what he told him, both shall be brought to the place of burning but they are free from bringing the Second Pesaḥ.