halakhah

HALAKHAH: “If a woman miscarried an amnion full of water,” etc. It was stated: Full of water, she is impure for a birth; full of blood, she is impure as menstruating; full of flesh, she is impure as menstruating. But did we not state: “If a woman miscarried an amnion full of water, or blood, or flakes, she does not have to consider this as a child”? Rebbi Bevai in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: The Mishnah if [the contents are] clear; the baraita if [the contents are] turbid. Rebbi Simon in the name of R. Joshua ben Levi: Even if all was clear, since only humans have an amnion! That is what is written: “When I gave clouds as his garment and fog as his diapers.” “His garment” is the amnion, “and fog his diapers” that is the placenta.

HALAKHAH: “If a woman miscarried a sole or a placenta,” etc. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah: There only is a sole because it was weighed down by a living [fetus]; it comes out not with a living but with a dead [child]. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya objected: did we not state, “if a woman miscarried a sole or a placenta, she should observe for male and female birth”? That means, it is a child! Rebbi Huna said, I explained it before Rebbi Jeremiah. Explain it if the child was born through the wall of the womb and the sole from the womb. The child within fulfilling, the sole after fulfilling. The child before she converted, the sole after she converted. But even you may say, both were born from the womb, both were born after she converted. Explain that the child was born first and she designated a sacrifice for it. Before she could bring the sacrifice, the sole came out and the first sacrifice was pushed away. It turns out that she brings the sacrifice for the sole.

HALAKHAH: “If a woman miscarries a sexless, or a hermaphrodite,” etc. In all cases in which we have stated “she shall observe for a male and a female,” it means 14 [days] impure and 26 pure; one puts on her the restrictions of both male and female. That means, for her house. But for pure food she observes the rules of a female [birth]. “If it was a sexless and a male, or a hermaphrodite and a male, she shall observe for a male and a female,” one takes into account the possibility of a male. “A sexless and a female, or a hermaphrodite and a female, she shall observe for a female exclusively,” does one not take into account the possibility of a male? This implies that if she gave birth to a male and a female, or a female and a male, she observes the rules for a female.

HALAKHAH: “The daughters of Samaritans are menstruating from their cribs,” etc. Menstrual blood is dirty, virginal blood is not dirty. Menstrual blood is red, virginal blood is not red. Menstrual blood is from the womb, virginal blood is not from the womb but from the side.

Rather for R. Judah the law was learned as a tradition, for R.Hiyya b. Ashi in the name Rav: The laws concerning [minimal measures], interpositions and partitions are [a part of the] halakhah that was given to Moses on Sinai.

It once happened that the daughter-in-law of [Shammai gave birth to a child and he opened up the plaster of the roof and put skhakh above the child]. Did the mishnah cite the incident in order to contradict [the previous halakhah]? There is something missing, and thus it should be taught: But Shammai is strict, and [indeed] it once happened that the daughter-inlaw of Shammai the elder gave birth to a child and he opened up the plaster of the roof, and put skhakh over the bed for the child.

Do not then two statements of Shmuel contradict one another, for here Rav Judah says in the name of Shmuel, The [minimum] length of the hadas and the aravah is three [normal handbreadths], and elsewhere R. Huna said in the name of Shmuel that the halakhah is in accordance with R. Tarfon? [Shmuel] was not precise. Say that we can say that one is not precise when [this results in] a stringency but not when [it results in] a leniency?

Is there not still a difficulty between [the two statements of] Shmuel? He was not precise, and in this case his lack of precision results in a stringency since R. Huna said in the name of Shmuel that the halakhah is according to R. Tarfon.

And the rabbis from where to they derive [the law of the willow] for the Temple? They learned a received tradition; for R. Asi said in the name of R. Yohanan, the laws of ten plants, the aravah and the water libation—are all a halakhah from Moses from Sinai.

R. Judah said in the name of Shmuel: The halakhah is according to R. Tarfon. And Shmuel is consistent with his own opinion, or Shmuel said to those who sold hadasim, "Sell at the normal price, for if not, I will expound to you as R. Tarfon."

Our rabbis taught: One who has to perform many commandments [simultaneously] shall say, “Blessed . . . who has sanctified us by His commandments and commanded us concerning the commandments.” R. Judah said: One must recite a blessing over each one separately. R. Zera or, as some say, R. Hanina b. Papa said: The halakhah is according to R. Judah. R. Zera or, as some say, R. Hanina b. Papa further stated: What is the reason of R. Judah? Because it is written, “Blessed be the Lord day by day” (Psalms 68:20). Now do we bless Him by day and not by night? Rather this comes to teach you: Give Him every day His appropriate blessings. So too here: Give Him for every single thing, its appropriate blessings.

R. Nahman b. R. Hisda expounded: The law is not according to Rav who said, [First the blessing over] the Sukkah and then [that of] the season, rather first [is the blessing of] the season and then [that of] the Sukkah. R. Shesheth the son of R. Idi said: First [the blessing of] the Sukkah and then [that of] the season. And the halakhah is that the blessing of the Sukkah is first and then that of the season.

his shows that he spent the night in the depths [omkah] of the halakhah. And R. Shmuel b. Unia also said: he study of the Torah is greater than the offering of the daily sacrifices, as it says, “I have come now.”

R. Hiyya b. Abin said in the name of R. Yohanan: The halakhah follows R. Simon b. Gamaliel, who said it in the name of R. Yose.

Shimon b. Gamaliel says that books [of the scripture] also are permitted to be written only in Greek. Abbahu said in the name of R. Yohanan: The halakhah follows R. Shimon b. Gamaliel. R. Yohanan further said: What is the reason of R. Shimon b. Gamaliel? Scripture says, “God will enlarge Yapheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem” (Genesis 9:26); [this means] that the words of Yapheth shall be in the tents of Shem.

Let them then say, The halakhah follows Rabban Shimon b. Gamaliel? — Had they said, The halakhah follows Rabban Shimon b. Gamaliel, I would have said that this is the case with other books of the Scriptures but not with the Megillah, in which it is written, “According to their writing.” Therefore it teaches us [that this is not so].

Let them then say, The halakhah follows Rabban Shimon b. Gamaliel? — Had they said, The halakhah follows Rabban Shimon b. Gamaliel, I would have said that this is the case with other books of the Scriptures but not with the Megillah, in which it is written, “According to their writing.” Therefore it teaches us [that this is not so].

if with omissions, he has not fulfilled it. R. Muna said in the name of R. Judah: Even with breaks, if he stops long enough to finish the whole of it, he must go back to the beginning. R. Joseph said: The halakhah is according to R. Muna in the name of R. Judah.

Abba said in the name of R. Jeremiah b. Abba who said it in the name of Rav: The halakhah accords with R. Muna. And Shmuel said: The halakhah does not accord with R. Muna. This is the version taught in Sura. In Pumbedita the following version was taught: R. Kahana said in the name of Rav: The halakhah accords with R. Muna, but Shmuel said that the halakhah does not accord with R. Muna. R. Bibi reverses the statement, [making] Rav say that the halakhah does not accord with R. Muna and Shmuel say that it does accord with R. Muna.

Abba said in the name of R. Jeremiah b. Abba who said it in the name of Rav: The halakhah accords with R. Muna. And Shmuel said: The halakhah does not accord with R. Muna. This is the version taught in Sura. In Pumbedita the following version was taught: R. Kahana said in the name of Rav: The halakhah accords with R. Muna, but Shmuel said that the halakhah does not accord with R. Muna. R. Bibi reverses the statement, [making] Rav say that the halakhah does not accord with R. Muna and Shmuel say that it does accord with R. Muna.

Abba said in the name of R. Jeremiah b. Abba who said it in the name of Rav: The halakhah accords with R. Muna. And Shmuel said: The halakhah does not accord with R. Muna. This is the version taught in Sura. In Pumbedita the following version was taught: R. Kahana said in the name of Rav: The halakhah accords with R. Muna, but Shmuel said that the halakhah does not accord with R. Muna. R. Bibi reverses the statement, [making] Rav say that the halakhah does not accord with R. Muna and Shmuel say that it does accord with R. Muna.

Abba said in the name of R. Jeremiah b. Abba who said it in the name of Rav: The halakhah accords with R. Muna. And Shmuel said: The halakhah does not accord with R. Muna. This is the version taught in Sura. In Pumbedita the following version was taught: R. Kahana said in the name of Rav: The halakhah accords with R. Muna, but Shmuel said that the halakhah does not accord with R. Muna. R. Bibi reverses the statement, [making] Rav say that the halakhah does not accord with R. Muna and Shmuel say that it does accord with R. Muna.

Abba said in the name of R. Jeremiah b. Abba who said it in the name of Rav: The halakhah accords with R. Muna. And Shmuel said: The halakhah does not accord with R. Muna. This is the version taught in Sura. In Pumbedita the following version was taught: R. Kahana said in the name of Rav: The halakhah accords with R. Muna, but Shmuel said that the halakhah does not accord with R. Muna. R. Bibi reverses the statement, [making] Rav say that the halakhah does not accord with R. Muna and Shmuel say that it does accord with R. Muna.

and Shmuel said, The halakhah accords with R. Judah b. Batera.

But does he thereby fulfill his obligation? Has not R. Helbo said in the name of R. Hama b. Guria who said it in the name of Rav, The halakhah is according to the one who says that all of it [must be recited], and even according to the one who says that it is sufficient [to recite] from "A Jew was" (Esther 2:5), it is necessary that the whole should be [already] written?

R. Helbo said in the name of R. Hama b. Guria, who said it in the name of Rav: The halakhah follows the one who says that the whole of it must be read; and even according to the one who says that it need be read only from “There was a Jew” it must all be written.

R. Hiyya b. Abba also said in the name of R. Yohanan: That a space should be left unstitched [in the Sefer Torah] is a halakhah from Moshe on Sinai and he at once protested the remark by saying: They only said this so that it should not be torn.

He replied: I have not heard [any halakhah] about this but I have heard a rule in a similar case, as we have learned On Sundays, [the ma’amad read the paragraph] “In the beginning” and “Let there be a firmament”, and we taught about this, “In the beginning” is read by two and “Let there be a firmament” by one”

R. Tanhum, said in the name of R. Joshua b. Levi: The halakhah follows the "others says". R. Tanhum also said in the name of R. Joshua b. Levi: Just as at the beginning of a section not less than three verses should be read, so too at the end of a section not less than three verses should be left.

as R. Yitzchak said in the name of R. Yohanan: It is forbidden to eat from an animal from which the priestly dues have not been taken out; and R. Yitzchak further said: To eat from an animal from which the priestly dues have not been taken out is like eating untithed produce. The halakhah does not follow him.

Aha the son of Rava asked R. Ashi: If a person needs to call another out of a synagogue, what is he to do? He said: If he is a rabbinical scholar, let him say some halakhah; if he is a tanna, let him recite a mishnah; if he is a kara, let him say a verse of Scripture; if none of these, let him say to a child, “Tell me your verse.” If not, let him stay a little while and then get up.

What have we said about this? R. Joseph said: We take no notice of Rosh Hodesh. But Rabbah said: We take no notice of Hanukkah. The halakhah is that we take no notice of Hanukkah, and Rosh Hodesh is the main consideration.

Zera said: The halakhah is that the place where they leave off in the morning service on Shabbat is the place where they begin at Minhah, on Monday, on Thursday and on the next Shabbat. Why does he not say, “the halakhah follows Rabbi Judah”?

Zera said: The halakhah is that the place where they leave off in the morning service on Shabbat is the place where they begin at Minhah, on Monday, on Thursday and on the next Shabbat. Why does he not say, “the halakhah follows Rabbi Judah”?

Zera said in the name of R. Matanah: The halakhah is that he opens and looks, then says the blessing and reads. Let him say, “The halakhah follows R. Judah”? Because he might reverse the names.

Zera said in the name of R. Matanah: The halakhah is that he opens and looks, then says the blessing and reads. Let him say, “The halakhah follows R. Judah”? Because he might reverse the names.

Abaye raised a difficulty: Just because he cannot produce a sweet voice, [you say] “For I gave them also statutes that were not good”? Rather this is like R. Mesharshya who said: If two scholars live in the same town and do not treat one another’s halakhah respectfully, of them the verse says, “For I gave them also statutes that were not good.”