invalidates

96 occurrences across the corpus

The Mishnah

A sukkah which is more than twenty cubits high is not valid. Rabbi Judah validates it. One which is not ten handbreadths high, or which does not have three walls, or which has more sun than shade, is not valid. An old sukkah: Bet Shammai invalidates it and Bet Hillel validates it. What is an “old sukkah”? Any one which he made thirty days before the festival; but if he made it for the purpose of the festival, even at the beginning of the year, it is valid.

Mishnah Sukkah 1:11

One who makes his sukkah like a cone-shaped hut or leans it against a wall: Rabbi Eliezer invalidates it since it has no roof, But the sages declare it valid. A large reed mat: if made for lying upon it is susceptible to [ritual] uncleanliness and is invalid as skhakh. If made for a skhakh, it may be used for skhakh and is not susceptible to uncleanliness. Rabbi Eliezer says, whether small or large: if it was made for reclining upon, it is susceptible to uncleanliness and is invalid as skhakh; if made for a covering, it is valid as a skhakh and is not susceptible to uncleanliness.

Mishnah Gittin 2:4

They do not write [a get] on something still attached to the ground. If he wrote it on something still attached, and then detached and signed and given to the wife, it is valid. Rabbi Judah invalidates it until it is both written and signed on something detached from the ground. Rabbi Judah ben Batera says: they do not write [a get] on a sheet from which writing has been erased nor on semi-finished parchment, for it can be faked. But the sages validate [such a get].

Mishnah Zevachim 3:3

If one slaughters the sacrifice [intending] to eat what is not normally eaten, or to burn [on the altar] what is not normally burned [outside of the time or place the sacrifice must be eaten or burned], it is valid; But Rabbi Eliezer invalidates [the sacrifice]. [If he slaughters it intending] to eat what is normally eaten and to burn what is normally burned [outside of the time or place the sacrifice must be eaten or burned], [but] less than the size of an olive, it is valid. To eat half as much as an olive and to burn half as much as an olive [outside of the time or place the sacrifice must be eaten or burned], it is valid, because [intentions concerning] eating and burning do not combine.

Mishnah Zevachim 5:1

Which is the place [for the offering] of the sacrifices? Most holy sacrifices are slaughtered on the north [side of the altar]. The bullock and the goat of Yom Kippur are [done] at the north, and the receiving of their blood is [performed] with ministering vessels at the north, and their blood requires sprinkling between the poles [of the ark], on the curtain, and on the golden altar. [The omission of] a single application of [the blood] invalidates [them]. He [the priest] would pour out the remainders of the blood on the western base of the outer altar, but if he did not pour it out, he did not invalidate [the sacrifice].

Mishnah Zevachim 5:2

As for the bullocks which were burnt and the goats which were burnt, their slaughtering is [done] at the north, and the reception of their blood is [done] at the north, and their blood requires sprinkling on the veil, and on the golden altar; [The omission of] a single one of these applications invalidates [the sacrifice]. He [the priest] pours the remainder of the blood on the western base of the altar; but if he did not pour it out, he did not invalidate [the sacrifice]. Both of these were burnt at the ash pit.

Mishnah Menachot 3:5

Regarding the handful: the [absence of the] smallest part invalidates the whole. Regarding the tenth [of flour for the minhah] the [absence of the] smallest part invalidates the whole. Regarding the wine [libation which accompanies the minhah] the [absence of the] smallest part invalidates the whole. Regarding the oil [which is mixed in with the minhah] the [absence of the] smallest part invalidates the whole. Regarding the flour and the oil, the [absence of] one invalidates the other. Regarding the handful and the frankincense, the [absence of] one invalidates the other.

Mishnah Menachot 3:5

Mishnah Menachot 3:6

Regarding the two goats of Yom Hakippurim, the [absence of] one invalidates the other. Regarding the two lambs of Shavuot, the [absence of] one invalidates the other. Regarding the two loaves [that accompany the lambs] the [absence of] one invalidates the other. Regarding the two rows [of the showbread] the [absence of] one invalidates the other. Regarding the two dishes [of frankincense] the [absence of] one invalidates the other. Regarding the rows and the dishes the [absence of] one invalidates the other. Regarding the: two kinds [of cakes] used in the offering of the nazirite, the three kinds used for the red cow, the four kinds [of cakes] used in the todah, the four kinds [of species] used for the lulav, and the four kinds used for the [purification of the] leper, the [absence of] one invalidates the others. Regarding the seven sprinklings [of the blood] of the red cow the [absence of] one invalidates the others. Regarding the seven sprinklings between the staves of the ark, and of those towards the veil and upon the golden altar, the [absence of] one invalidates the others.

Mishnah Menachot 3:6

Mishnah Menachot 3:7

Regarding the seven branches of the menorah, the [absence of] one invalidates the others. Regarding the seven lamps on it, the [absence of] one invalidates the others. Regarding the two portions of Scripture in the mezuzah, the [absence of] one invalidates the other; indeed even one letter can invalidate the whole. Regarding the four portions of Scripture in the tefillin, the [absence of] one invalidates the others; indeed even one letter can invalidate the whole. Regarding the four fringes, the [absence of] one invalidates the others, since the four together form one mitzvah. Rabbi Ishmael says: the four are four separate mitzvot.

Mishnah Menachot 3:7

Mishnah Menachot 4:3

The [absence of the] bull, or the rams, or the lambs or the goat does not invalidate the bread, neither does the [absence of the] bread invalidate them. The [absence of the] bread invalidates the lambs, but the [absence of the] lambs does not invalidate the bread, the words of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Shimon b. Nanas said: it is not so, but rather the [absence of the] lambs invalidates the bread, while the [absence of the] bread does not invalidate the lambs; for so we find that when the Israelites were in the wilderness for forty years they offered the lambs without the bread, therefore now too they may offer the lambs without the bread. Rabbi Shimon said: the halakhah is according to the words of Ben Nanas but not for the reason he stated; for every offering stated in the Book of Numbers was offered in the wilderness, but not every offering stated in the book of Leviticus was offered in the wilderness; however, when they came into the land of Israel they offered both kinds. Why then do I say that the lambs may be offered without the bread? Because the lambs render themselves permissible without the bread, whereas bread without lambs, there is nothing that renders it permissible.

Mishnah Menachot 4:3

Mishnah Kinnim 2:1

If from an unassigned pair of birds a single pigeon flew into the open air, or flew among birds that had been left to die, or if one [of the pair] died, then he must take a mate for the second one. If it flew among birds that are to be offered up, it becomes invalid and it invalidates another bird as its counterpart [in the pair]; for the pigeon that flew away is invalid and invalidates another bird as its counterpart [in the pair].

Mishnah Kinnim 2:1

Mishnah Parah 11:4

All that require immersion in water according to the rulings of the Torah defile consecrated things, terumah, unconsecrated food, and [second] tithe; And he is forbidden to enter the sanctuary. After immersion [but before the sun sets] he defiles holy things and invalidates terumah, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages ruled: he invalidates consecrated things and terumah. But he is permitted to unconsecrated food and [second] tithe. And if he entered the sanctuary, whether before or after his immersion, he incurs guilt.

Mishnah Parah 11:4

Mishnah Tahorot 2:3

First [degree uncleanness] in common food is unclean and conveys uncleanness; Second [degree uncleanness] invalidates but does not convey uncleanness. And third [degree uncleanness] may be eaten in a dish mixed with terumah.

Mishnah Mikvaot 4:5

In the case of a trough in a rock: One may not fill up [the hatat waters] from it, nor may the [hatat waters] be consecrated in it, nor may one sprinkle from it. And it does not require a tightly stopped-up covering, And it does not invalidate the mikveh. If it was a vessel and had been joined to the ground with lime: One may fill up the hatat waters from it and the hatat waters may be consecrated in it, and one may sprinkle from it, And it requires a tightly stopped-up covering; And it invalidates the mikveh invalid. If a hole was made in it below or at the side so that it could not contain water in however small a quantity, it is valid. And how large must the hole be? Like the tube of a water-skin. Rabbi Yehudah ben Batera said: it happened in the case of the trough of Yehu in Jerusalem that there was a hole in it like the tube of a water-skin, all the pure things in Jerusalem were made using it. But Bet Shammai sent and broke it down, for Bet Shammai say: [it remains a vessel] unless the greater part of it is broken down.

The Jerusalem Talmud

Jerusalem Talmud Terumot 5:15

MISHNAH: One seah of impure heave which fell into 100 seah of pure heave, the House of Shammai forbid and the House of Hillel permit. The House of Hillel said to the House of Shammai: Since pure it is forbidden to outsiders and impure is forbidden to priests; just as pure [heave] can be lifted, so impure should be lifted. The House of Shammai answered them no, if simple profane produce which is permitted to outsiders lets pure [heave] be lifted, can one infer that heave, operating under stringent rules, may let the impure be lifted? After they conceded, Rebbi Eliezer said it should be lifted and burned but the Sages say, it was lost in its minority. One seah of heave which fell into one hundred, was taken out, and fell into another place: Rebbi Eliezer says it creates dema‘ like certain heave but the Sages say, it creates heave only in proportion. One seah of heave which fell into less than one hundred and made it dema‘ and from the dema‘ fell into another place; Rebbi Eliezer says it creates dema‘ like certain heave but the Sages say, dema‘ creates heave only in proportion; sour agent makes sour only in proportion, and drawn water invalidates a ritual bath only in proportion. One seah of heave which fell into one hundred, was taken out, and another one fell in: the latter is permitted until there will be more heave than profane. A seah of heave fell into 100 [profane] and before he managed to lift it, another one fell in: that is forbidden but Rebbi Simeon permits it.

Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni 1:26

“Afterwine before it fermented cannot be bought with tithe money and invalidates a miqweh; after it fermented it may be bought with tithe money and does not invalidate a miqweh.” Our Mishnah follows Rebbi Jehudah as we have stated there: “If someone makes after-wine and pours in a measured amount of water, if he found the same amount he is free. Rebbi Jehudah declares him obligated.” Rebbi Abbahu said, sometimes in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, sometimes in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: Only if it fermented. Rebbi Yose said, it is the opinion of everybody since even salt water may be bought with tithe money.

Jerusalem Talmud Challah 3:11

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Jonah said: The elder Rebbi Ḥiyya stated two contradictory things, that ṭevel is counted with profane food and that every doubt invalidates heave and disables profane food from becoming heave. This is difficult; if ṭevel is counted with profane food why should it disable profane food from becoming heave? That means, it is counted with heave! Rebbi Jonah said, we also have stated both statements! We have stated there: “If tithe food was prepared with a fluid and a ṭevul yom or unwashed hands touched it, one still may in purity take heave of the tithe from it because it is of the third degree.” This implies that ṭevel is counted with profane food. But every doubt invalidates heave and disables profane food from becoming heave, as we have stated there: “If a doubt of impurity arose before it was rolled it may be processed in impurity but after it was rolled it must be processed in purity.” Rav Sheshet said, this follows Rebbi Aqiba, since Rebbi Aqiba said, he should make it in impurity and not make it single qab. Rebbi Zeïra said, it is the opinion of everybody that in a case of doubt he should make single qabim. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abun objected before Rebbi Zeïra, did we not state: “This applies also to other kinds”? Can you say she should make single qabim in cases of doubt? Rebbi Zabida said, I asked that. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Hila: It is the law that a person may make his ṭevel impure by biblical standards as it is written (Num. 18:8): “I put on you the watch over my heaves.” Heave has to be watched, ṭevel does not have to be watched. How do I confirm (Num. 18:28): “You should give from it the Eternal’s heave to Aaron the priest?” You have to give it to Aaron in his quality of priest, but here, since you cannot give it to a Cohen in his quality of priest, you may make it impure.

Jerusalem Talmud Challah 3:11

Jerusalem Talmud Bikkurim 2:15

“This applies to heave and First Fruits but not to tithe.” There, we have stated: “One washes his hands for profane, tithe, and heave; but for sacrifices one immerses.” There, you say that tithe does not need washing and here you say, tithe needs washing! Those who say, tithe needs washing, the rabbis; he who says, tithe does not need washing, Rebbi Meїr. There, we have stated: “Anything needing immersion in water by rabbinic decree makes sacrifices impure and heave unusable but is permitted for profane food and tithe. But the Sages forbid for tithe.” Is that not explained by what Rebbi Samuel says in the name of Rebbi Zeïra, what means the Sages forbid for tithe? His body is disqualified from eating tithe. What is that? May you say tithe needs washing, if he wants to eat; may you say tithe does not need washing, if he wants to touch? No, wanting to touch is the same as wanting to eat. So it must be washing as discipline. But we have stated: “heave”! Is there washing as discipline for heave? But it is about profane food prepared by the rules of sacrifices. Is profane food prepared by the rules of sacrifices not profane? Explain it either following Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar or following Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Ẓadog. Either following Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar as it was stated: Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says in the name of Rebbi Meїr: Hands are [impure] in the first degree for profane food, in the second for heave. Or following Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Ẓadog as it was stated there: “Profane food prepared by the rules of sacrifices is profane. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Ẓadog says it is like heave, it may be impure in two degrees and invalidates a third.”

Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat 11:11

“The enclosure of a cistern or a rock high ten [hand-breadths] and wide four [hand-breadths].” Where do we hold? If ten high (and four wide, it is a domain by itself. Ten high) but not four wide, that is what Rav Ḥisda said in the name of Issi: If a stick stuck in the public domain ten hand-breadths high, it is permitted both ways; on condition that he not exchange. But we must deal with the case that it is neither four wide nor ten high. But did not Ḥiyya, the son of Rav, say, anything which hinders access in the public domain is called karmelit? Rebbi Yudan said, what Ḥiyya, the son of Rav, said refers to the middle, but on the side the public domain invalidates it.

Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 4:5

From where that the song is called atonement? Ḥinena the father of (Rav Yanta) [Bar Nata] in the name of Rebbi Banaia: and to atone for the Children of Israel, that is the song. From where that the song invalidates? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Simeon βουλευτής, in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina, and to atone for the Children of Israel, that is the song.

Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 5:11

HALAKHAH: From where that he must slaughter it for its purpose? Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav: And you shall say, a Pesaḥ slaughter it is; to imply that if he slaughtered it for the purpose of Pesaḥ it is Pesaḥ, otherwise it is not Pesaḥ. From where the remainder of its actions? You shall make [a Pesaḥ], that all its actions shall be for the purpose of Pesaḥ. But then also the burning of its parts? The verse says, slaughter But then also the burning of its parts? The verse says, slaughter. Since slaughter is particular in that it invalidates expiation, this excludes the burning of its parts which does not invalidate expiation.

Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 5:12

From where for purification offerings? He shall slaughter it as purification offering. From where the remainder of its actions? [He]shall make one as purification offering. But then also the burning of its parts? The verse says, he shall slaughter. Since slaughter is particular in that it invalidates expiation, this excludes the burning of its parts which does not invalidate expiation.

Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 5:13

From where that a purification sacrifice must be for the name of its owner? Rebbi Jeremiah said, the Cohen shall make the purification offering and expiate for the one who purifies himself from his impurity. Rebbi Yose said to him, but then also the burning of its parts? The verse says, and expiate. Since pouring is particular in that it invalidates expiation, this excludes the burning of its parts which does not invalidate expiation.

Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim 5:53

There, we have stated: “Rebbi Jehudah declares liable for squeezed blood.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Jehudah added it only for extirpation. There came Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi Jehudah added it only for extirpation. There, they are saying in the name of Rav Ḥisda: a baraita says so: “They said to him, is that not squeezed blood? And squeezed blood is disqualified on the altar. And also from the following, most of it was not received in a vessel, and blood not received in a vessel is disqualified on the altar.” Does Rebbi Jehudah hold that blood invalidates blood? Since he did not reply, it follows that he accepted their position. Since in the other case he does not hold so but did not respond, so here he does not hold so but did not respond. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav Ḥisda: a baraita says so: “Not only life blood for sancta, matter appropriate for atonement, from where life blood for profane animals and squeezed blood for both sancta and profane animals? The verse says blood and all blood. When it is about life it mentions atonement, for squeezed blood it does not mention atonement.

Jerusalem Talmud Taanit 4:21

From where that the song is called atonement? Ḥinena the father of Bar Nata in the name of Rebbi Banaia: and to atone for the Children of Israel, that is the song. From where that the song invalidates? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Simeon βουλευτής , in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina, and to atone for the Children of Israel, that is the song.

Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 1:28

HALAKHAH: “All these free their co-wives and the co-wives of their co-wives from ḥalîṣah and levirate, etc.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, she may repudiate the levir to invalidate the claim of the dead brother, to permit the co-wife to her father, and the daughter-in-law to her father-in-law. Rav and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both say, she may not repudiate the levir to invalidate the claim of the dead brother, to permit the co-wife to her father, and the daughter-in-law to her father-in-law. Do Rav and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish follow the house of Shammai, since the House of Shammai say “the husband”? Where do we hold? If she says, I can stand neither the marriage with your brother nor with you, everybody agrees that she invalidates. But we hold in case she says “I cannot stand marriage”. Rebbi Joḥanan said, I can stand neither the marriage with your brother nor with you. Rav and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both say, she says I cannot stand marriage with you but marriage with your brother I want. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “And all of these, if they died, or repudiated, or were divorced, or found to be she-rams, their co-wives are permitted.” Was she not divorced from him? Similarly, she repudiated him. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: If they repudiated or were divorced in the husband’s lifetime, their co-wives are permitted. After the husband’s death their co-wives perform ḥalîṣah but not levirate.

Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 13:5

What is the reason of the House of Shammai? The husband she may repudiate since she married him with her consent. The levir to whom she was given by an act of God she cannot repudiate. What is the reason of the House of Hillel? If she can repudiate the principal, so much more the levir! Rebbi Joḥanan said, she may repudiate the levir to invalidate the claim of the dead brother and to permit the co-wife to her father and the daughter-in-law to her father-in-law. Rav and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both say, she may not repudiate the levir to invalidate the claim of the dead brother and to permit the co-wife to her father and the daughter-in-law to her father-in-law. Do Rav and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish follow the house of Shammai, since the House of Shammai say “the husband”? Where do we hold? If she says, I can stand neither the marriage with your brother nor with you, everybody agrees that she invalidates. If she says, I can stand marriage with you but not with your brother? Rav and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both say, she says I cannot stand marriage with you but marriage with your brother I want. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “And all of these, if they died, or repudiated, or were divorced, or found to be she-rams, their co-wives are permitted.” Was she not divorced from him? Similarly, she repudiated him. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: If they repudiated or were divorced in the husband’s lifetime, their co-wives are permitted. After the husband’s death their co-wives perform ḥalîṣah but not levirate.

Jerusalem Talmud Sotah 5:8

A Mishnah supports Rav: “Profane food which is impure primarily is impure and defiles, secondarily it invalidates but does not defile, but the tertiary can be eaten in heave broth.” This implies that it is forbidden to turn it into heave. And it is said after that: “Heave which is impure primarily or secondarily is impure and defiles, tertiarily impure it invalidates but does not defile, but the fourth degree can be eaten in sacrificial broth.” If you say that it is forbidden to turn it into sacrificial food, you would find that Rav’s statements are contradictory since Rebbi Abba said in the name of Rav: The tertiary comes because of the reptile but the fourth degree can be turned into sacrificial food, because they spoke about fourth degree [of impurity] for sacrifices only for dedicated sacrifices of the Temple! Rebbi Ḥuna said, are we not talking about heave? But it is forbidden to turn heave into sacrificial food in order to avoid accidents! And it was said after that: “Sacrifices which are impure primarily, secondarily, or tertiarily are impure and defile, impurity in the fourth degree invalidates but does not defile, but the fifth degree can be eaten in sacrificial broth.” If you say, it is forbidden to turn it into sacrificial food, is there any impurity of the fifth degree in sacrifices? But you say there is not. So here also, there is not.

Jerusalem Talmud Sotah 5:8

Jerusalem Talmud Nazir 3:7

HALAKHAH: “If somebody says, ‘I am a nazir’,” etc. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi Eliezer learned from the sufferer from skin disease, for whom we find seven days between shaving and shaving. Why does he not learn from the impure nazir? The sufferer from skin disease shaves repeatedly; the impure nazir does not shave repeatedly. The rabbis from Caesarea say, they disagree explicitly: Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Eliezer learned from the sufferer from skin disease; Rebbi Eleazar says, Rebbi Eliezer learned from the impure nazir. What difference does it make for Rebbi Eliezer whether the vow for nazir was implicit rather than explicit? If the vow for nazir was implicit, he does not invalidate if he tears his hair out, and his seventh day is counted for him; if the vow for nazir was explicit, he invalidates if he tears his hair out and his seventh day is not counted for him.

Jerusalem Talmud Nazir 3:16

Rebbi Yose said, what is his problem? Of a pure nazir. But for an impure nazir, it is obvious to him that they cannot be combined. Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose: Is that not an argument of “so much more”? Since for days which are counted neither for his nor for his son’s nezirut, you say that they are combined, days which are counted for his and for his son’s nezirut, it would only be logical that they should be combined! Rebbi Mana said, there he is not in a state to receive a warning, but here he is in a state to receive a warning. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked: Since you say there about Rebbi Eliezer, at the start only if he has something to omit; at the end even if he has nothing to omit? Rebbi Ze‘ira said before Rebbi Mana, is that not a Mishnah? “If he became impure on day 101, he invalidated 30; Rebbi Eliezer said, he invalidated only seven.” He said, we hear that he invalidates; did we hear that he brings a sacrifice?

Jerusalem Talmud Nazir 7:39

“They shall fall away, for his vow of nazir is impure.” From here that the days of impurity fall away. Then should he invalidate? He invalidates only the days of [impurity of] the dead. Why should they not be counted? If you say that days in which he causes [impurity to] couch and seat are counted, days in which he does not cause [impurity to] couch and seat are certainly counted! What did you see to say that they are not counted? Rebbi [] said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: “For a wild growth of his head’s hair”. Days of hair growth are counted, days preparing for shaving are not counted. So far in his days of counting; in the days of his definite status? Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: “Please do not let her be like a corpse.” Since the days of a corpse are not counted, the days of quarantine are not counted. A student quoted this saying cf Rebbi Joḥanan’s before Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, who did not accept it. He said to him: Here, you call it quarantine, but there, you want to call it absolute; you cannot do that. For Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: “Please do not let her be like a corpse; let her be quarantined.” Just as the days of the dead are seven, so the days of quarantine are seven.

Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 2:2

HALAKHAH: “If somebody brings a bill of divorce from overseas,” etc. One understands “it was written before me” but not “it was signed before me”, but “it was signed before me” but not “it was written before me”? Is not a bill of divorce validated by its signatures? That must follow Rebbi Jehudah, for Rebbi Jehudah invalidates forms. Following Rebbi Jehudah outside the Land as for one who divorces in the Land of Israel. Are there forms of bills of divorce outside the Land for divorces outside the Land? It is necessary for him to know that it is a bill of divorce and that he be appointed as an agent; he would not know that it was a bill of divorce unless it was written completely before him. Rebbi Ḥanin stated: It is permitted that he enter and leave.

Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 3:6

Rebbi Ḥanania in the name of Rebbi Abin bar Ḥiyya, [this is Rebbi’s opinion.] Rebbi Joḥanan said, and it was stated so: “All conditions invalidate a bill of divorce, the words of Rebbi. But the Sages say, what invalidates orally invalidates in writing, and what does not invalidate orally does not invalidate in writing.” “You are permitted to marry anybody except Mr. X,” because this invalidates orally it invalidates in writing. “This is your bill of divorce on condition that you give me 200 zuz”; because this does not invalidate orally it does not invalidate in writing. Rebbi Yudan said, when do they disagree? If he rescinded his condition. But if he did nor rescind his condition, even Rebbi agrees. Otherwise, we would have to say that all conditions which were stated for bills of divorce do not follow Rebbi. Rebbi Ḥinena said, there when he writes “on condition,” here if he gives “on condition.” Rebbi Ezra asked before Rebbi Mana: Does this imply that Rebbi does not recognize formulaic texts? He answered him, about whom do you ask? About Rebbi! He follows Rebbi Jehudah, for Rebbi Jehudah invalidates formulaic texts. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, everybody agrees that all conditions invalidate a bill of divorce. There came a case before Rebbi Jeremiah and he acted following Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. Rebbi Yose said to him, does one neglect Rebbi Joḥanan and act following Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? He answered him, is Rebbi Joḥanan’s instruction an instruction but Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish’s instruction not an instruction? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, it is not that Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan, but he understood a baraita and acted accordingly. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, not that Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish fights against Rebbi Joḥanan when he disagrees with him only to extract a ruling from him. If he finds a baraita, he depends on it; if he does not find a baraita, he retracts his opinion before Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion.

Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 3:6

Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 3:7

MISHNAH: If somebody writes formulaic texts of bills of divorce he has to leave space for the man, the woman, and the time. For bonds, he has to leave space for the lender, the borrower, the sum, and the time. For commercial deeds, he has to leave space for the buyer, the seller, the sum, the field, and the time, because of good order. Rebbi Jehudah invalidates all of these. Rebbi Eleazar validates all of them except women’s bills of divorce, for it is said: “He shall write for her”, in her name.

Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 4:2

HALAKHAH: “If somebody sent a bill of divorce to his wife,” etc. This disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan, since Rebbi Joḥanan said that a person invalidates the agent appointed by him by a declaration. He explains it by the stringency of the rules of incest. If he appointed an agent to deliver the bill of divorce, the latter has to deliver it in the presence of two [witnesses]; the agent is not counted as one of the two. If another agent went to invalidate the bill of divorce, he has to invalidate it in the presence of two [witnesses] and the agent is counted as one of the two. If he met him on the road and asked him, what about the bill of divorce I gave you? He answered, I delivered it to her. While they were talking there, he dropped it. He said, did you not tell me that you delivered it to her? He explained, I delivered it to her and she said, keep it for me. What? Can he be believed since it is in his power to divorce, or can he not be believed because it is in his hand? If the agent fell sick, how do you treat this? By the rules of divorces or the rules of preliminary marriages? By the rules of divorces one can divorce through the agency of anybody. By the rules of preliminary marriages one cannot preliminarily marry through the agency of anybody.

Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 6:28

If somebody slaughtered with the intention of sprinkling [the victim’s] blood in idolatry or to burn its fat for idolatry, Rebbi Joḥanan said, the intention invalidates, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, the intention does not invalidate. Rebbi Jacob bar Idi objected before Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Did we not state: “Rebbi Yose said, that is a matter of a conclusion de minore ad majus. Since in a case where thought makes sanctified food unusable, etc.,” and thought invalidates for piggul and leftover. He said to him, truly thought invalidates for piggul and leftover; but if somebody slaughtered with the intention of sprinkling [the victim’s] blood in idolatry or to burn its fat for idolatry, the intention does not invalidate. If he slaughtered and then the blood was sprinkled in an idolatrous rite and the fat was burned in an idolatrous rite, there was such a case in Caesarea and they pronounced neither prohibition nor permission. Rebbi Ḥanina in the name of Rav Ḥisda: This means that they were not apprehensive. If you say that they were apprehensive, they should have taught a prohibition. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rav Ḥisda: This means that they were apprehensive. If you say that they were not apprehensive, they should not have dealt with the case.

Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 6:28

Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 7:13

We understand, to the witnesses, sign! But to the scribe, write? Does this not disagree with Rebbi Joḥanan, since Rebbi Joḥanan said, if he wrote the essential text with the formula, it is valid. He explains it following Rebbi Jehudah, since Rebbi Jehudah invalidates formulas.

Jerusalem Talmud Kiddushin 4:42

HALAKHAH: “Similarly, if a woman empowered her agent,” etc. Does this not disagree with Rebbi Joḥanan, since Rebbi Joḥanan said that a person invalidates agency by a declaration? He explains it by the stringency of the rules of adultery and incest. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun understood this from the latter part: “Similarly, if a woman empowered her agent to contract preliminary marriage for her and then went and contracted for herself.” Does this not disagree with Rebbi Joḥanan, since Rebbi Joḥanan said that a person invalidates agency by a declaration? He explains it by the stringency of the rules of adultery and incest.

Jerusalem Talmud Kiddushin 4:42

Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 3:26

As we have stated: If somebody sells a field to another but the buyer was lazy and did not enter into possession when the seller went and legally took possession, the taking possession invalidates the sale or the gift.

Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 8:31

It was stated: “Rebbi Simeon ben Gamiel says: A will invalidates a will, a gift does not invalidate a gift.” Rebbi Abba bar Ḥana: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both are saying that in any case where he can invalidate his will if he recuperates, he also can repeal his gift. As the following: Rebbi Onias’s sister wrote her property over to Rebbi Onias. She needed money and sold it to her husband. After she died, he came to protest against him. He asked him, why did you not claim it during her lifetime? He answered, I did not want to cause her pain. Nevertheless, Rebbi Immi removed it.

Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 9:9

HALAKHAH: “If he is survived by sons, daughters,,” etc. It was stated: “If somebody says, he who brings me the news that my wife gave birth to a male shall take 200”: if his wife gave birth to a male he takes 200. If she gave birth to a female he shall take a mina”: if his wife gave birth to a female he takes a mina. If it was a male and a female, he only takes a mina.” Rebbi Mana said, the pain about the daughter invalidates the joy about the son.

Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 10:6

Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: An empty space of two lines in a text about one subject in any case [invalidates]. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said: The Mishnah says so: “One Hebrew- and one Greek-writing witness …” Is not Hebrew combined with Greek one item? “How far from the text should the witnesses sign? That they can be read with it, the words of Rebbi. Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says, one full line. Rebbi Dositheos ben Jehudah says, the width of the witnesses’ handwriting.” Rav Jeremiah said in the name of Rav: One estimates לך ולך. Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Sabbatai: the width of the witnesses’ handwriting.

Jerusalem Talmud Avodah Zarah 3:49

There exists a baraita which says, idols are like a menstruating woman and its appurtenances are like a menstruating woman. Also there exists a baraita which says, idols are like a menstruating woman and its appurtenances are like crawling animals. The one who says, idols are like a menstruating woman and its appurtenances are like a menstruating woman, is understandable. But the one who says, idols are like a menstruating woman and its appurtenances are like crawling animals, is it not called “unwell” only for its appurtenances? Explain it if they were engraved on its body. As Rebbi Jacob of Kefar Ḥanan said, explain it if one worships the ephod itself, similar to what is written, Gideon made an ephod. Our Mishnah follows him who said, idols are like a menstruating woman and its appurtenances are like a menstruating woman, and we have stated: “its stones, its wood, and its dust make impure like a crawling animal.” Explain it if he worshipped the house itself, as Rebbi Abba, Rab Huna said in the name of Rav: One who worships a house makes it forbidden. Rebbi Zeˋira, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If somebody dedicates a house one does not commit larceny with it. And he who says, one does not commit larceny with it, can he make it forbidden? Rebbi Ḥaggai objected before Rebbi Yose, does not a Mishnah disagree with Rav? “A trough in a rock: one does not fill from it, and one does not sanctify with it, and one does not sprinkle with it, it does not have to be fastened with a tightened cover, and it does not invalidate a miqweh. If it was a vessel and he fixed it with lime, etc., up to it invalidates a miqweh.” Because he excavated it and after that combined it. Then if he fixed it and after that excavated it, what do you do with it? Explain it following Rebbi Joḥanan that the hewing of stones is the completion of work on them. Does this not disagree with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish who said, an idol which was broken is permitted? And so we are thinking to say if in the future he can restore it to its vessel it is forbidden according to everybody. Explain it if he worships every single stone and then builds with them. Does this not disagree with Rebbi Joḥanan, as Rebbi Joḥanan said, an idol which was broken is forbidden? And so we are thinking to say if in the future he cannot restore it to its vessel it is permitted according to everybody. Explain it if he worshipped a vine and afterwards planted it.

Jerusalem Talmud Horayot 1:12

HALAKHAH: “If the Court gave an instruction; then they realized that they erred,” etc. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Our Mishnah, for example, if Simeon ben Azzai was sitting before them. Where do we hold? If he removed them, their instruction would be invalid. If they removed him, his instruction would be invalid. But we hold in the case that each side stands by its answer. For him, their instruction is no instruction, for they did not remove him. For others it is an instruction, for he did not remove them. Does this not disagree with Rebbi Mana bar Tanḥum, since Rebbi Mana bar Tanḥum said, if a hundred came together, only if they instructed unanimously? One explains it, that he was not present. Does this invalidate? He explains it following Rebbi, since Rebbi said, no one invalidates but the distinguished member of the Court (at Lydda) [only]. Since Rebbi Mana bar Tanḥum said, if a hundred came together, only if they instructed unanimously; is it the same in retraction or by majority? If it is obvious for you by majority, what kind of majority? The majority of those who instructed or the majority of those remaining? How is this? If there were a hundred but ten of them had died. If you say, a majority of those who instructed, 51. If you say, a majority of those remaining, 46.

Jerusalem Talmud Horayot 1:23

HALAKHAH: “If the Court ruled but one of them knew that it was in error,” etc. The Mishnah is Rebbi’s, since Rebbi said, no one invalidates but the distinguished member of the Court (at Lydda) [only]. It is written: If from the eyes of the congregation, from him who is appointed as eyes of the congregation. It is written, they shall stand there with you. Just as you are neither proselyte, nor Gibeonite, nor a bastard. Proselytes are reasonable, but bastards? does the court appoints bastards? Rav Ḥuna said, when they breached the rules and appointed. Rebbi Ḥanania, Rebbi Mana. One said, as part of the Seventy; the other said, apart from the Seventy. He who said, apart from the Seventy, is understandable. But he who said, as part of the Seventy, therefore not apart from the Seventy? Since he is not suitable for ordination, he is considered like a stone.

The Babylonian Talmud

Babylonian Talmud Sukkah 1:210

Mishnah: An old sukkah: Bet Shammai invalidates it and Bet Hillel validates it. What is an “old sukkah”? Any one which he made thirty days before the festival; but if he made it for the purpose of the festival, even at the beginning of the year, it is valid.

Babylonian Talmud Sukkah 1:423

Rabbah stated: I found the rabbis of the house of Rav sitting and saying, ‘an open air space invalidates if it is three [handbreadths wide]; an invalid covering invalidates if it is four [handbreadths wide]’,

Babylonian Talmud Sukkah 1:423

Babylonian Talmud Sukkah 1:424

And I said to them: from where do you know that an air space of three [handbreadths] invalidates? From that which we learned: if he distanced the skhakh three handbreadths from the walls, it is invalid. [But if so,] invalid skhakh too should not invalidate unless it extends to four cubits, since we have learned: if [the roof of] a house is opened and he placed skhakh over it, if there is a distance of four cubits from the wall to the skhakh, it is invalid.

Babylonian Talmud Sukkah 1:426

And I said to them: what [would the law be] if the invalid skhakh were less than four [handbreadths], with an air space of less than three [handbreadths]? It would be valid. And what if he filled in this space with metal spits? It would be invalid. Now should not an air-space which invalidates with three [handbreadths] be treated like invalid skhakh which only invalidates with four?

Babylonian Talmud Sukkah 1:426

Babylonian Talmud Sukkah 1:427

And they answered me, If so, then even according to you, who says that invalid skhakh invalidates only if there are four cubits, how [would it be] if there was invalid skhakh of less than four cubits, and [next to it] an air space of less than three handbreadths? It would be valid. And if he filled in this space with metal spits? It would be invalid. Now [can it not similarly be argued] should not an air space which invalidates with three [handbreadths] be like the skhakh which invalidates [only] if there are four cubits?’

Babylonian Talmud Sukkah 1:427

Babylonian Talmud Sukkah 1:437

In Sura they taught this passage in the above words; In Nehardea they taught [as follows]: Rav Judah said in the name of Shmuel: invalid skhakh in the middle [of the sukkah] invalidates if it is four [handbreadths wide]; at the side only if it is four cubits wide; While Rav says, whether in the middle or at the sides, [it invalidates] only if it is four cubits wide.

Babylonian Talmud Sukkah 1:437

Babylonian Talmud Sukkah 1:438

We have learned: if he placed over it a plank four hand breadths wide, it is valid. It is well according to Rav who says that whether in the middle or at the sides [the invalid covering must be no less than] four cubits [to invalidate it]; for this reason it is [here] valid; but according to Shmuel who says that at the middle a width of four [handbreadths invalidates], why is it here valid? Here what are we dealing with? When [the plank was placed at] the side.

Babylonian Talmud Sukkah 1:440

It is well according to that version which says that Rav says that ‘whether in the middle or at the sides [it invalidates only] if it is four cubits wide;’ What does it mean by ‘combine'? They combine to make four cubits. But, according to the version which says that Rav says that, in the middle [even] four handbreadths [width of invalid skhakh] invalidates, what kind of boards are we to imagine? If they are each four handbreadths wide, why do they need to combine? And if they are each less than four handbreadths wide, they are mere sticks!

Babylonian Talmud Sukkah 1:440

Babylonian Talmud Sukkah 1:474

Rabbah b. Bar Hana said in the name of R. Yohanan: it was necessary only in the case of a Sukkah, most of which has more shade than sun, while a minor part of it has more sun than shade. What might one have said? That this small portion invalidates it, therefore he informs us [that it does not]. What then is meant by ‘going out’? [It means] going out from the validity of a Sukkah.

Babylonian Talmud Sukkah 1:480

Mishnah: One who makes his sukkah like a cone-shaped hut or leans it against a wall: Rabbi Eliezer invalidates it since it has no roof, But the sages declare it valid.

Babylonian Talmud Sukkah 1:485

— He answered him, ‘The Mishnah represents an individual opinion, as it has been taught, If he makes his Sukkah like a cone-shaped hut, or leaned it against a wall R. Natan says that R. Eliezer invalidates it because it has no roof while the Sages declare it valid.'

Babylonian Talmud Sukkah 2:43

If thick like a house. Our rabbis have taught, if it is thick like a house, even though the stars cannot be seen through it, it is valid. If the rays of the sun cannot be seen through it: Bet Shammai invalidates it, and Bet Hillel declares it valid.

Babylonian Talmud Sukkah 3:40

Come and hear: "An old Etrog is invalid, and Rabbi Yehudah validates it." This is a rejection of Rava, and [his opinion that Rabbi Yehudah invalidates a dry Lulav] is rejected.

Babylonian Talmud Sukkah 3:41

But do we not teach, "[An Etrog] green as turquoise, Rabbi Meir validates, and Rabbi Yehudah invalidates?" Is [Rabbi Yehudah's opinion] not because he requires beauty? No. It is because it has not ripened yet [and is not a complete Etrog].

Babylonian Talmud Megillah 2:113

Then that which was taught by R. Judah the son of R. Shimon b. Pazzi: One who can speak but not hear may set aside terumah ab initio. Whose view is this? If you say, R. Judah, he holds that this is only ex post facto, but not ab initio. If you say R. Yose, he invalidates the action even ex post facto.