joh

808 occurrences across the corpus

The Jerusalem Talmud

“If he recited and made a mistake then he should return to the place of the mistake.” If he made a mistake between the first and second mention of “writing” he must return to the first “writing”. If he made a mistake and does not know where he made the mistake, he returns to the start, to any place that he is sure about. An explanation: Rebbi Ḥiyya, Rebbi Yasa, Rebbi Ammi were preparing the wedding canopy for Rebbi Eleazar. They heard the voice of Rebbi Joḥanan when he explained something new. They said: Who is going down to hear that from him? They said, let Rebbi Eleazar go down since he is very careful. He descended, ascended, and said to them: So says Rebbi Joḥanan, if he recited and found himself at למען one can be sure that he had the right intention.

Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 2:56

Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 2:61

It was stated: “The porter may recite the Shema‘ even with his load on his shoulders but he should start neither when he unloads nor when he loads because he cannot then concentrate. In any case he may not pray until he unloads, but if he was carrying a load of 4 qab it is permitted.” Rebbi Joḥanan said: only if he is in equilibrium. What means that he is in equilibrium? Two parts on his back and one part in front.

Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 2:66

Rebbi Ḥanina said: Also one who has his water on his shoulder may recite Shema‘ and pray. Rav Ḥuna said: So the reciting of Shema‘ and praying do not require concentration? Rebbi Mana said: I pointed out the difficulty before Rebbi Phineas that even if you say that the recitation of Shema‘ does not need concentration, does prayer not need concentration? Rebbi Yose said: I confirmed it following what Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: You got it, the completion of the works of water that are not clear from the words of the Torah.

Jerusalem Talmud Peah 1:7

“Appearance”. Our Mishnah is about appearance with a sacrifice, but appearance in person has a measure. This agrees with what R. Joḥanan said: “One silver obolus and two silver coins are words of the Torah”.

Jerusalem Talmud Peah 1:8

Rebbi Yasa stated before Rebbi Joḥanan: The appearance is with anything; the sages only said: “One silver obolus, two silver coins.” He said to him: Is there anything like that? Rebbi Jonah said, are not all measures determined by the sages? They said: “The volume of an olive from a corpse, the volume of an olive from a cadaver, the volume of a lentil from a dead reptile.” The question here is only what Rebbi Hoshaia stated: (Ex. 23:15, 34:20) “They should not be seen before Me empty-handed,” with anything; the sages only said: “A silver obolus, two silver coins.” The difficulty is that this is support for the opinion that [the rule] is based on words of the Torah. He said that only the sages instituted: “One silver obolus, two silver coins.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said: Rebbi Johanan follows his own opinion since Rebbi Joḥanan said that all measures are practice taught by Moses at Sinai;

Jerusalem Talmud Peah 1:8

Jerusalem Talmud Peah 1:10

They said, Rebbi Joḥanan changed his mind about this. Rebbis Jonah and Yose said, he did not change his mind; additionally, Rebbi La said in the name of Rebbi Ammi: Ḥizqiah and Rebbi Joḥanan disagreed. Ḥizqiah said, a man may split his obligation for two animals. Rebbi Joḥanan said, nobody may split his obligation for two animals, but for each one he has to have two silver coins in his hand.

Jerusalem Talmud Peah 1:10

Jerusalem Talmud Peah 1:11

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Ḥizqiah: A person adjoins an animal to an animal but no person may adjoin money to money. What may be done? There were before him ten animals, he sacrificed five of them on the first holiday. May the remainder push aside the last holiday? Rebbi Crispus said, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish have differing opinions. One said, they push; the other one said, they do not push. We do not know who said what. Rebbi Zeïra said, we may explain the words of the rabbis through the words of Rebbi Joḥanan, who said: A person may adjoin coins to coins but not animals to an animal. He must say, they push. But Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, a person adjoins an animal to an animal but no person may adjoin money to money. He must say, they do not push. Simeon bar Abba came in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He adds and pushes the holiday further until he says: I do not intend to add further.

Jerusalem Talmud Peah 1:11

Jerusalem Talmud Peah 1:17

Rebbi Tanḥuma in the name of Rav Huna: It does not say (Ex. 38:22) “Bezalel ben Uri ben Ḥur of the tribe of Judah made everything Moses had commanded him,” but “that the Eternal had commanded Moses.” Even matters he did not hear from Moses he did by himself in the way it was said to Moses on Sinai. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Benaiah (Jos. 11:15): “As the Eternal had commanded His servant Moses, so Moses commanded Joshua, and so Joshua executed it.” It does not say “he did not omit anything Moses had commanded him,” but “everything the Eternal commanded Moses.” Even matters he did not hear from his teacher, he did by himself in the way it was said to Moses on Sinai. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Benaiah, Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of Rebbi: (Mal. 2:6) “True teaching was in his mouth,” these are the things he heard from his teacher, “injustice was not found on his lips,” even in matters he did not hear from his teacher.”

Jerusalem Talmud Peah 1:17

Jerusalem Talmud Peah 1:21

And Torah study. They asked Rebbi Joshua: May a person teach Greek to his son? He said to them, he may teach him at an hour that is neither day nor night as it is written (Jos. 1:8): “You shall meditate about it day and night.” If it is so, a man would be forbidden to teach a profession to his son since it is written: “You shall meditate about it day and night.” But Rebbi Ismael stated (Deut. 30:19): “Choose life!” That refers to a profession. Rebbi Abba, son of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Because of informants. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: A person may teach Greek to his daughter since it is an ornament for her. Simeon bar Abba heard that and said: Because he wants to teach his daughters, he attaches it to Rebbi Joḥanan. It should come over me if I ever heard it from Rebbi Joḥanan.

Jerusalem Talmud Peah 1:21

Jerusalem Talmud Peah 1:22

“Honoring father and mother.” Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They asked Rebbi Eliezer, how far does honoring father and mother go? He said to them, you are asking me? Go and ask Dama ben Netinah. Dama ben Netinah was the head of the city council. Once his mother was slapping him in front of the entire council and a slipper fell from her hand, and he handed it back to her so that she should feel no inconvenience. Rebbi Ḥizqiah said: He was a Gentile from Ascalon and the head of the city council. He never sat on the stone on which his father used to sit and when his father died, he worshipped the stone. Once the jaspis of Benjamin was lost. They inquired, who would have one of similar quality? They were informed that Dama ben Netinah did. They went to him and and agreed on 100 denars. He went to the upper floor to bring it and found his father sleeping. Some say that the key to the chest was in his father’s fingers; some say his father’s foot was resting on the chest. He descended to them and told them: I could not bring it to you. They thought, maybe he wants more money, and raised the price to two hundred, then to a thousand. When his father woke up from his sleep, he went up and brought it to them. They wanted to give him according to the amount mentioned last, but he refused. He said: Do I sell my father’s honor for money? I will not have any advantage from honoring my father. What reward did the Holy One, praise to Him, give him? Rebbi Yose bar Abun said: The following night, his cow gave birth to a red heifer and Israel gave him its weight in gold and took it. Rebbi Sabbatai said (Job 37:23): “Justice and much charity He will not suppress.” The Holy One, praise to Him, will not wait to give the reward for good deeds to the Gentiles.

Jerusalem Talmud Peah 1:52

Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai stated: If a person was perfectly just all his days and at the end he rebelled, he lost all he worked for his entire life. What is the reason? (Ez. 33:18) “If a just person reverts from his justness and does mischief.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, if he wonders about his earlier deeds. If a person was perfectly evil all his days and at the end he repents, the Holy One, praise to Him, receives him. What is the reason? (Ez. 33:27) “If a sinner returns from his wickedness.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, not only that but all transgressions are counted as merits for him. What is the reason? (Ps. 45:9) “Myrrh, aloe, cassia, all your faithlessness.” All faithless acts in which you were faithless towards Me are like myrrh, aloe, and cassia.

Jerusalem Talmud Peah 1:63

Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: when it is still standing. Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: when it is cut. What is his intention, to free his field from the obligation or not? Let us hear from the following: Rebbi Yasa said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He may always add. What are we talking about? If it is his intention to free his field from the obligation, it already has been freed. So we must speak about the case where it is not his intention to free his field from the obligation!

Jerusalem Talmud Peah 1:63

Jerusalem Talmud Demai 5:2

HALAKHAH: Also ḥallah? Is ḥallah due for demay? Did we not state: “Ḥallah of the unobservant and food containing heave are free from demay.” Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya, in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: This is from the House of Shammai. We have stated accordingly: “Rebbi Simeon ben Jehudah says in the name of Rebbi Simeon that the House of Shammai obligate for ḥallah and the House of Hillel exempt it.” Did the House of Shammai include seed goods? But he who buys for sowing or animal feed, flour for tanning or oil for lighting, is he not free from demay? But it must be for somebody who kneads his dough with fruit juice. Did not Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina say that this follows Rebbi Eleazar ben Jehudah from Bartota, hence it does not follow the rabbis. But it agrees with Rebbi Joḥanan, since Rebbi Joḥanan said, one case for him who works in purity and one case for him who works in impurity. But what following Rebbi Eleazar, since Rebbi Eleazar said, in both cases if he works in purity? It must be that he is a guest. Was it not stated: “He who is trustworthy for purities is trustworthy for tithes?” Rebbi Yannai ben Rebbi Ismaël stated and said: That is, if one is his guest, but for the public he is not trustworthy unless he accepts it publicly. And here we deal with the public.

Jerusalem Talmud Demai 5:2

Jerusalem Talmud Demai 7:2

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Joḥanan said: The Mishnah deals with demay. Hence, not with certain produce? A Mishnah says, even for certain produce, as we have stated there: “If he had ṭevel figs in his house and he was in the House of Study or on the field.” If you want to say that we deal with demay, you cannot do so, since it is stated: “If it was demay.” What Rebbi Joḥanan said was that it deals with demay. He did not say, not with certain produce, but that this Mishnah deals with demay. What is the difference between demay and certain produce? For demay, a person may make a proviso for something that is not in his possession; for certain produce, he may only make a proviso for something that is in his possession.

Jerusalem Talmud Demai 7:2

Jerusalem Talmud Sheviit 1:23

Rebbi Joḥanan said to Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: Babylonian, two things came from you, prostrating oneself on fast days and the willow of the seventh day. The rabbis of Caesarea say, and the moving.

Jerusalem Talmud Sheviit 1:29

“How long are they called saplings, etc.” What means “until they become profane”? Until they are redeemed or until they become profane by themselves. Rebbi Abba bar Jacob in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The Mishnah means “until they become profane by themselves.” Rebbi Yudan said, a baraita supports Rebbi Joshua: “ Rebbi says, when they said five, six, or seven years old, for vines five years old, for figs six years old, for olives seven years old.” But do we not see the growth of the fig tree come with fruits? Rebbi Yudan said, according to Rebbi we throw it on its width.

Jerusalem Talmud Sheviit 4:11

They saw the young Rebbi Abuna collecting donkey’s dung on the Sabbath. Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose permitted baking for Ursicinus on the Sabbath. Rebbi Mana said, I asked before my father Rebbi Jonah, did not Rebbi Zeїra and Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai, Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Yoẓadaq, say that they voted on the upper floor of the Libzah house in Lydda: About all the Torah, if a Gentile tells a Jew to transgress any commandment of the Torah except those concerning idolatry, incest and adultery, and murder he should transgress and not be killed. That is in private, but in public he should not follow him even for the slightest commandment, as exemplified by Julianus and his brother Pappos whom they gave water in a colored glass and they did not accept. He said, he does not intend to lead you to apostasy, he only wants to eat warm bread. What means “in public”? The rabbis of Caesarea say ten, as it is written (Lev. 22:32): “I shall be sanctified in the midst of the Children of Israel.”

Jerusalem Talmud Sheviit 4:11

Jerusalem Talmud Sheviit 4:34

There, we have stated (Mishnah ‘Uqeẓin 3:6): “Unripe figs and grapes, Rebbi Aqiba said they may become impure by the impurity of food; Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said only after they come to the period of tithing.” We have stated here “immediately” but is it “not immediately”? Rebbi Ḥananiah in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: The Mishnah speaks only about unripe figs, but unripe fruit of any other kind may not become impure by the impurity of food until it reaches the period of tithing. Rebbi Yose said, our Mishnah implies this: “Unripe figs when they started to be radiant one eats them with his bread in the field.” Rebbi Pedat in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Everybody agrees about the Sabbatical year. “Everybody agrees,” the colleagues said that the figs do not become impure by the impurity of food.

Jerusalem Talmud Challah 1:54

Come and look: If it is completely parboiled, the House of Shammai obligate, not completely parboiled, the House of Shammai exempt? Rebbi Assi in the name of Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Two students stated this. Rebbi Ammi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: For this matter I went to the elder Rebbi Hoshaia to Caesarea and he said to me, two students stated this.

Jerusalem Talmud Challah 1:56

What is certainly parboiled? Rebbi Zeïra said, everything the fire burns under. Rebbi Yose said, even if the fire burns under it, since he will use it as dough in the future it is obligated for ḥallah. Roasted flour which he used as flour is obligated for ḥallah. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Only if he baked it.

Jerusalem Talmud Challah 1:59

HALAKHAH: If somebody made a heap [of somebody’s grain] without the latter’s knowledge: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is ṭevel, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it is not ṭevel. Rebbi Joḥanan objected to Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, did we not state: “And similarly women who gave to a baker to make sour dough for them, if none of them had the required amount it is free from ḥallah.” (But what if all of them had the required amount?) He said to him, because if somebody makes dough in order to distribute it, the dough is exempt from ḥallah. But we have stated: “A baker who made sour dough for distribution is obligated for ḥallah.” He said to him, do not answer back about a baker. For a baker, it does not depend on his opinion but on the opinions of his customers; maybe he will find a customer and will make bread dough for him. He said to him, but was it not stated: “The holes of ants which were overnight near an obligated heap are obligated,” therefore, near an exempt heap they are exempt. Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Because of resignation. Samuel ben Abba said, only [if they dragged tips of] ears.

Jerusalem Talmud Challah 1:59

Jerusalem Talmud Challah 1:60

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish objected to Rebbi Joḥanan: Did we not state: “But if he dedicated it before it was finished, the treasurer finished it, and then the owner redeemed it, it is free.” Is not the treasurer a different person and you say what he did is valid? He said to him, this follows him who says the treasurer has the status of owner and goes against Rebbi Yose since Rebbi Yose said, the treasurer is a different person.

Jerusalem Talmud Challah 1:63

The Mishnah said: “if the shepherds eat from it.” Maybe sometimes the shepherds will not eat from it. Rebbi Joḥanan said, any he made into cracknels. We also have stated so: “Any he made into cracknels is obligated; if he made it connected it is free.” Rebbi Abba in the name of Samuel, Rebbi Ammi in the name of the elder Rebbi Ḥiyya, even if he formed it as rolls. But did we not state, “if the shepherds do not eat from it?” Explain it if he made it from the start [thinking] that the shepherds should not eat from it.

Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 1:16

Rebbi Joḥanan said, the words of Rebbi Ismael: Anything not subject to ‘orlah is not subject to the fourth year. Rebbi Joḥanan asked: Until it was subject to ‘orlah for three years? Rebbi Jonah said, he asked about the principle of ‘orlah and no principle of ‘orlah is less than three years. Rebbi Yose said, he asked about the principle of the fourth year; anything not having three years is not subject to ‘orlah and not subject to the fourth year.

Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 1:16

Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 1:17

It was stated: “If a tree is partially planted in the Land and partially outside the Land, since it is partially planted in the Land it is as if completely planted in the Land, the words of Rebbi. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, the part planted in the Land is obligated, the part planted outside the Land is free.” Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It is as if ṭevel and tithed are mixed together.

Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 1:18

Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: An exempt root exempts. Is that following Rebbi who said roots live off one another? It is the opinion of everybody. Here, an exempt root exempts. When you say that an exempt root exempts, [you deal with] an old root that expanded from its own ground to that of another’s; but if it extended from outside the Land into the Land it does not apply.

Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 1:20

Rebbi Assi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Roots do not count. Rebbi Zeïra said to Rebbi Assi, did you hear that explicitly from Rebbi Joḥanan or did you discuss ‘orlah and this came up relating to First Fruits when he said, roots do not count? Rebbi Zeïra said, what we say, roots do not count, if the roots spread from outside the Land into the Land. But when they spread from the Land to outside the Land they do count.

Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 1:20

Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 1:30

It was stated: “If a Gentile grafted a food-tree on a futile tree, even though a Jew is not permitted to do this, it is obligated for ‘orlah.” From when does one count ‘orlah? From the moment it is planted. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, only those for which intent is important; for example carob trees from Ẓalmon or Gidud; but on a willow it is as if planted in the earth. Rebbi Joḥanan said, even on a willow. But did we not state: “One does not plant, sink, or graft in the year preceding a Sabbatical year later than thirty days before the New Year; if he planted, sank, or grafted it should be uprooted.” According to Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish who will explain it by grafting on a willow it is understandable. According to Rebbi Joḥanan who said even on a willow, why should it be uprooted? There is a difference because they unite in the Sabbatical year. And that is what has been said, “If somebody planted, sank, or grafted 30 days before the New Year, it counts for him as a full year and he is permitted to keep it in the Sabbatical year. Less than 30 days before the New Year, it does not count for him as a full year and he is not permitted to keep it in the Sabbatical year. Truly, they said, the fruits from this planting are forbidden until the fifteenth of Shevaṭ.” Rebbi Joshua from Ono stated: There is no “grafted” here. Rebbi Abba Mari said, even for Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish there is no “grafted” here; for the past, certainly not to start out with.

Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 1:30

Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 1:32

Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: A tree planted inside a house is obligated for ‘orlah but free from tithes since it is written (Deut. 14:22): “You shall certainly tithe all yield of your seeds which comes from the field.” For the Sabbatical it is problematic since it is written (Lev. 25:5): “The Land shall celebrate a Sabbath for the Eternal.” And it is written (Lev. 25:6): “You shall not sow your field nor prune your vineyard.”

Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 1:35

Ḥizqiah asked: Less than that, is it as if torn out? If he worshipped it, is it forbidden? Does one write on it women’s bills of divorce? They say, Ḥizqiah retracted this. Rebbi Jonah said: Ḥizqiah retracted because Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Yannai, if it is [thick] like a tenter’s needle it is certain that it is three years old.

Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 1:36

Ḥizqiah asked: A third of a needle [means] one year, two thirds two years? The colleagues asked: A needle and a third, is it obvious that it is four years old? If you say, he did not retract, why would he have asked this? Rebbi Jonah said: Ḥizqiah retracted this, because Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Yannai. if it is [thick] like a tenter’s needle it is certain that it is three yeards old.

Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 1:38

“If a tree was uprooted but it had a sunken branch;” blessing is in it. Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: There is bĕrîkhâ in it. Rebbi Mana said, some people are called Bĕrîkhâ as you say (Gen. 24:31): “Come, the Eternal’s blessed.”

Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 1:40

Rebbi Assi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Roots do not count. Rebbi Zeïra said to Rebbi Assi, did you hear that explicitly from Rebbi Joḥanan or from his argument? As Rebbi Joḥanan said, moreover it was stated: “If someone dedicated and then planted, it is exempt from ‘orlah; planted and then dedicated, it is subject to ‘orlah.” You wanted to say, dedicated is exempt from ‘orlah, old is exempt from ‘orlah. But this is not comparable! Dedicated things can be redeemed and become obligated since he might think about it to obligate; can you [say] about an old tree that one might think about it to obligate?

Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 1:40

Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 1:41

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: A citrus medica tree which formed flower buds subject to ‘orlah and the fruits grew when it was permitted; if [the tree] was attached to another tree even if [the fruit] grows much it is forbidden because growth of something forbidden cannot lift what is forbidden. Therefore, an attached young twig must be permitted because, if you say it is not permitted, even if it grows much it will be forbidden! Rebbi Zeïra in the name of the rabbis: A citrusmedica tree which formed flower buds subject to ‘orlah and the fruits grew when it was permitted; what was attached to another tree even if it grows much is forbidden; one whips for the size of an olive.

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 1:44

“A sunk branch which became separated.” Rebbi Yudan said, not only a sunk branch but even a tree; as Rebbi Assi said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if an onion which one uprooted and replanted grows roots he has to tithe for everything. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if an onion which one uprooted and replanted grows roots he has to tithe for everything, but you should not say it applies to here also.

Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 1:44

Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 1:45

Ḥilfai asked Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon [ben Laqish], do condiments forbid with more than 200? They said to him, condiments are not in more than 200. But did we not state: “Anything which sours, spices, or creates dema‘?” If you say about 100 or 200, even if it does not sour, spice, or create dema‘! But we deal with grapes. Rebbi Assi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if they were not raisins, but if they were raisins they are condiments in more than 200. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if they were not cooked, but if they were cooked they are condiments in more than 200.

Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 1:45

Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 1:46

Rebbi Assi in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi in the name of Bar Pedaiah: [All sources of taste one in a hundred. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi in the name of Bar Pedaiah:] All sources of taste one in sixty. Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said to Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: Rebbi Assi disagrees with you and the Mishnah disagrees with both of you: “Anything which sours, spices, or creates dema‘? If you say about 100 or 200, even if it does not sour, spice, or create dema‘! Therefore, we hold even more. Rebbi Jeremiah said, explain it for meat in meat. Rebbi Yose said, meat in meat is the same as all other prohibitions since Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, one estimates as if they were so.

Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 1:61

Rebbi Pedat, Rebbi Assi, in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi Simeon follows that of Rebbi Joshua, as we have stated there: “Rebbi Simeon says, balsamum is not subject to the Sabbatical because it is not a fruit.” Rebbi Zeïra said to Rebbi Pedat, since we say there that practice follows Rebbi Joshua, would you have to say here that practice follows Rebbi Simeon? Rebbi Jonah said, are the situations similar? It is the other way: Balsamum is essentially sap, a tree is not essentially in its sap. The holiness of the Sabbatical falls on animal feed, but the holiness of orlah never falls on it. Rebbi Abun said, there is another [difference]: Rebbi Joshua quoted it as a tradition, Rebbi Simeon said it in his own name. Sap may be fruit, unripe fruits may be fruit. If you say that sap has the status of fruit, if he did it with heave it is permitted. If you say that unripe fruits are fruit, if he did it with heave it is permitted. Why? Because usufruct of heave is permitted but usufruct of orlah is forbidden.

Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 1:63

“Rebbi Yose said, one may not plant a shoot.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, if one transgressed and planted, it is permitted; if he transgressed and grafted it is forbidden.

Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 2:33

HALAKHAH: Ḥanania stated in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The first Mishnah also is in disagreement. Rebbi Jonah said, we hold to say that they disagree when each one is full strength and the profane sourdough fell in first. But if the heave sourdough fell in first, the dough already became sour.

Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 2:34

“ Everything that can be tasted is forbidden, whether it spoils or improves, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Simeon says, if it improves it is forbidden, if it spoils it is permitted.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, in what do they disagree? If it first improved but then spoiled. But if it spoiled and later improved, even Rebbi Meïr will agree. Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is no difference whether it improved and spoiled or spoiled and improved, it is the disagreement. There, we have stated: “If barley grains fell into a cistern of water, even though they made it stink, the water is permitted.” What is the status of that Mishnah? Rebbi Joḥanan said it is a disagreement; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said it is the opinion of everybody. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said this tradition here: Rebbi Joḥanan said it is a disagreement; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said it is the opinion of everybody.

Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 2:34

Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 2:39

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, there are three kinds of imparting taste. Anything a common person tastes and says, this dish is not missing anything, if it fell in, it may improve the taste but is permitted. Even if he says, this dish contains spice x, when it spoils the taste it is permitted. But if a professional tastes it and says, this dish contains spice x, when it spoils the taste it is forbidden.

Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 2:40

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, all forbidden [food] is estimated as if it were onion, as if it were leeks. That is, anything usually estimated as if it were onion, as if it were leeks. Anything which is not usually estimated as if it were onion, as if it were leeks, how do you estimate it? How do you estimate cumin?

Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 2:43

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One does not whip for anything imparting taste until he tasted the forbidden thing itself. Rebbi Ḥama bar Yose objected before Rebbi Joḥanan: There is meat in milk, where he did not taste the forbidden thing itself and you say that he is whipped! He accepted that. What means, he accepted that? Like a person who listens to the argument of the opposing party he accepted it.

Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 2:43

Jerusalem Talmud Orlah 2:44

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One does not whip for anything imparting taste except imparting taste for the nazir. Rebbi Zeïra said, one does not whip for anything imparting taste until he tasted the forbidden thing itself except the nazir even if he did not taste the forbidden thing itself. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, for food imparting taste what is forbidden and what is permitted are not combined, but for the nazir forbidden and permitted do combine. A baraita supports one and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Zeïra: If wine in the volume of an olive fell into a dish and he ate from it, he cannot be prosecuted unless he ate the entire dish. In the opinion of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal, if he ate the volume of an olive from it he is guilty. A baraita supports Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: “What do we understand when it is said (Num. 6:3): ‘Anything in which grapes were soaked he should not eat’? What did the verse leave out that was not said? But since it was said (Num. 6:4): ‘anything made from the wine-vine, from seeds to grape skins he should not eat;’ (Num. 6:3) ‘from wine and liquor he shall abstain.’ Why does the verse say ‘anything in which grapes were soaked he should not eat’? That means that if he soaked grapes and then soaked his bread in that, if it adds up to the volume of an olive, he is guilty. From here you argue about all prohibitions of the Torah. Since for all that comes from the vine, whose prohibition is neither permanent, nor a prohibition of usufruct, and whose prohibition can be lifted, He made taste like the thing itself; is it not logical that for all prohibitions of the Torah, whose prohibition is permanent, is a prohibition of usufruct, and whose prohibition cannot be lifted, that we treat taste like the thing itself? From here, the Sages inferred that everything imparting taste is forbidden.” This is difficult for Rebbi Zeïra who says everywhere “unless he tasted”, and here he says, “even if he did not taste.”

Jerusalem Talmud Bikkurim 3:42

HALAKHAH: Rebbi (Yannai) in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: They asked Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel, may a person sell a Torah scroll in order to marry a wife? He said to them, yes. To study Torah? Yes. For his livelihood? He did not respond. Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: They asked Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel, may a person sell a Torah scroll in order to marry a wife? He said to them, yes. To study Torah? Yes. For his livelihood they did not ask and he did not respond. According to Rebbi Jonah it is understandable: They did not ask, therefore he did not respond. According to Rebbi Yose, if they asked him, why did he not respond? When Rebbi Ḥanania came, Rebbi Phineas, Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel: A person may sell to marry a wife and to study Torah, and a fortiori for his livelihood.

Jerusalem Talmud Bikkurim 3:43

It was stated: If somebody vows regarding his son to study Torah, he is permitted to fill for him an amphora of water and to light for him. Rebbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He also can buy things for him on the market. Do they differ? Here for a man, there for a woman. If he was a known personality they treated him as a woman. “ It happened that somebody vowed regarding his son to study Torah. The case came before Rebbi Yose ben Ḥalaphta and he permitted him to fill an amphora of water and to light for him.”

Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat 3:44

HALAKHAH: (Mishnah: “One moves a new light but not a used one;” etc.) Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada objected: Did we not state, “one turns a basket upside down in front of the chicks that they may climb up and down”? They said, this is the one of Rebbi Joḥanan.

Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat 3:46

Rebbi Jeremiah and Rebbi Abba, both in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan. One said, the words of Rebbi Meïr, anything which is specifically for something prohibited is prohibited. But the other one said, anything which one specified for something prohibited is prohibited. We did not know who said what. Since Rebbi (Ḥanina) [Ḥanania] said, Rebbi Jeremiah asked, is this (brick) [lamp] not specifically for something forbidden? This implies that he was the one who said, anything which is specifically for something prohibited is prohibited. The one who said specific, so much more if he specified. But he who said if he specified, not if it is specific.

Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat 3:50

Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rav: Practice follows Rebbi Meïr. Samuel said, practice follows Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, practice follows Rebbi Simeon. They asked before Rebbi Joḥanan, you, what are you saying? He told them, I only have the Mishnah: “One may move any light except one which was burning on the Sabbath.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish instructed in al-Tarabulus, it is permitted to move a small light. Rebbi Ḥelbo and Rebbi Abbahu. Before Rebbi Ḥelbo they did not take away, before Rebbi Abbahu they took away. Rebbi Yasa visited Rebbi Tanḥum bar Ḥiyya. He wanted to remove it before him. He told him, before us? Rebbi Yose the Galilean came before Yose ben Ḥanina; he wanted to take it away, he told him, who permitted you? It is found Rav and Rebbi Joḥanan, who forbid, are one. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, who permit, are one. Rebbi Eleazar bar Ḥanina: It happened and they moved a metal lamp instead of a pottery light on the Sabbath. Where do we hold? If following Rebbi Meїr, even the metal lamp should be forbidden. If following Rebbi Simeon, even a pottery light should be permitted. But we are following Rebbi Jehudah since Rebbi Jehudah is the one who said, a pottery light is disgusting, a metal light is not disgusting.

Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat 3:50

Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat 3:51

It was stated: If a light was lying on a table he takes away the table and the light falls down. Rebbi Joḥanan said, this one is close to be liable for a purification sacrifice; forwards for setting a fire, backwards for extinguishing. Samuel bar Abba before Rebbi Yasa: when it was extinguished. He told him, may your mind be at rest. Where do we hold? If following Rebbi Meïr, even the table should be forbidden. If following Rebbi Simeon, even the light should be permitted. But here following Rebbi Jehudah, since Rebbi Jehudah says, a pottery light is disgusting, a table is not disgusting.

Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat 3:56

Rebbi Abba bat Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, it is forbidden to move a tarkos. Rebbi Immi instructed: it is permitted. Rebbi Jeremiah saw them moving it at the great assembly and did not object to them. In the House of Rebbi Yannai they said, up to three it is a chair, more than this a ladder. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, he who permits follows Rebbi Simeon, as it was stated: “A person may not drag a bed, or a chair, or a footstool, or a fauteuil, because he makes a groove, but Rebbi Simeon permits.” Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Ḥuna, Rebbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira, Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Ila: The Sages admit to Rebbi Simeon that a chair whose legs are stuck in mud one is permitted to move on the Sabbath. Since you are saying, it is permitted to move it, similarly it is permitted to return it. Rebbi Yose said, we also have stated: “and they may be removed on the Sabbath.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, it is Rebbi Simeon’s. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, a Mishnah says so, “one may not drag any vessel except a carriage because it presses.”

Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat 3:57

Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of Rebbi: It was said relating to the Sabbath. Ḥizqiah in the name of the House of Rebbi Yannai, it was said relating to presumptions. Rebbi Yose in the name of the House of Rebbi Yannai, it was said relating to impurity. Rebbi Aḥa bar Ḥinnena, Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, it is permitted to move a small light. Is it not a vessel? Is not everything in the house prepared? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, explain it that he took it with him as merchandise, or it arrived Friday evening at nightfall, and you cannot infer anything.

Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat 4:7

Not only if they are wet but even if they were dry and became wet, as these fibers; are these not like dry which became wet? Rebbi Joḥanan bar Shila: This implies that one who hides a cauldron must let it be missing a little lest he take it up and it spills and heats. There, we stated: “The same holds for new olive cake but old one is pure.” What is new and what is old? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: New within 12 months, old after 12 months.

Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat 4:7

Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat 4:11

HALAKHAH: “One may store away in raw hides, which one may move.” Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: This you are saying if they are kept in the household. But if they are kept in storage this does not apply. “And in wool flakes, which one may not move.” Rebbi Judah and Rebbi Joḥanan: This you are saying if they are kept in storage. But if they are kept in the household this does not apply.

Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat 4:18

Rebbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: A man never should refrain from going to the House of Study; since in Jabneh this question was asked many times, why is a Jordan skiff impure? Nobody answered anything until Rebbi Ḥanina ben Antigonos came and explained it in his city: Why is a Jordan skiff impure? Because one fills it with produce and transports it from dry land to the sea and from the sea to dry land. In addition he explained that palm branches which one cut both for lying down and for tents need tying. They objected, are there not the infrequent ones of Askalon? Rebbi Isaac ben Eleazar said, there is a difference since part of them are in the sea and part of them on dry land.

Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat 4:19

The statement of Rebbi Abba bar Ḥana follows Rebbi Ḥanina, as Rebbi Ḥanina said, we were ascending with Rebbi to the Hot Springs of Gadara when he said to us, choose yourselves smooth stones; then you are permitted to move them tomorrow. Rebbi Zeˋira said, only if he chiseled. The colleagues say, only if he polished. The Sepphoreans say, only if he intends. Rebbi Joḥanan said, only if it falls under the designation of implement. You might say that Rav Ḥana bar Abba, and Rebbi Joḥanan, and Rebbi Jonathan are one [opinion]. Rav, and Rebbi Zeˋira, and Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose are one [opinion]. The Sepphoreans, and Rebbi Yose ben Shaul, and Rebbi Ḥalaphta ben Shaul are one [opinion]. The collegues have no pairing.

Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat 4:19

Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat 5:12

“Rebbi Jehudah says goats may go out tied to dry but not for milk.” It was stated: Rebbi Jehudah ben Bathyra says, whether to dry or for milk is forbidden. Rebbi Jehudah ben Bathyra says it correctly; but what is the rabbi’s reasoning? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah; Rebbi Joḥanan bends it in the name of Rav: Practice follows him who said, whether to dry or for milk is forbidden, for who dissolves?

Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat 5:16

It was stated: A hand-breadth from his hand to the animal’s neck is forbidden. Rebbi Zeˋira said, from his hand is forbidden and from his animal’s neck is forbidden! A hand-breadth from his hand to the animal’s neck is forbidden, what is it that is permitted? Rebbi Joḥanan ben Marius said, one who wants to do it right should lead it like a Saracen horse.

Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat 6:4

Cahana asked Rav, may one go out with twisted chains? He told them, does one say, it is forbidden for a man to go out with his belt? Rav Huna instructed the wife of the Head of the Diaspora to put golden felt on the wig. Rebbi Joḥanan instructed these of the House of Con to put a patch with pearls on the jacket. Rebbi Ila said, anything connected to a garment is like the garment. And we have stated, one may go out with bells on his garment but one may not go out with bells around his neck. There are Tannaim who state that in both cases they are subject to impurity, and there are Tannaim who state that in both cases they are not subject to impurity. He who said, in both cases they are subject to impurity, if he made clappers for them, but he who said, in both cases they are not subject to impurity, if he did not make clappers for them. Even if he did make clappers for them they should be pure! Did not Rebbi Abbahu, Simeon bar Abba say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Bells on a crib. Two Amoraim. One said he can move it to and fro, only he should make no sound. But the other said, if he made a sound it is forbidden, otherwise it is permitted. There, although they are not made for sound on the Sabbath they are made for sound on weekdays; but here if they are not made for sound either on the Sabbath or weekdays, why did he make clappers for them?

Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat 6:4

Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat 6:8

One may not look into a mirror on the Sabbath. If it was fixed on a wall, Rebbi permits and the Sages prohibit. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Abba: The reason of him who forbids that occasionally she will see a white hair and tear it out which brings her to the obligation of a purification sacrifice. But for a man it is forbidden also on weekdays because it is not honorable. Three things they permitted the House of Rebbi, that they might look into a mirror, that they got a haircut with a lock, and that they taught their children Greek, because they were in need of Roman government connections. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: A person may teach Greek to his daughter because it is an ornament for her. Simeon bar Abba heard that and said, because he wants to teach his daughters he attaches it to Rebbi Joḥanan. Rebbi Abbahu heard this and said, it should come over me if I did not hear this from Rebbi Joḥanan.

Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat 6:8

Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat 7:23

Rebbi Zakkai stated before Rebbi Joḥanan: If somebody sacrificed, burned incense, and poured a libation in one forgetting, he is guilty for each action separately. Rebbi Joḥanan told him, Babylonian! You crossed three rivers with your hands and were broken. He is guilty only once! {Before he broke it in his hand there is “one” but not “those”; after he broke it in his hand there are “those” but not “one”.} Rebbi Abba bar Mamal asked before Rebbi Zeˋira: Should he not be guilty for each action separately? As you say for the Sabbath: Do not perform any work, principle. Do not light fire in any of your dwelling places, a detail. Was not lighting fire subsumed under the principle, but it is mentioned separately from this principle! Since lighting fire is special in that it is the work of a single individual and one would be guilty for it alone, so everything for which one alone is guilty. Also here: Do not worship them, a principle. Do not prostrate yourself, a detail. Was not prostrating itself included in the principle and why was it mentioned separately? To infer, to tell you that prostrating oneself is special in that it is the action of a single individual and one would be guilty for it alone, so everything for which one alone is guilty. He answered: For the Sabbath, He mentioned the principle at one place and the details at another place. For idol worship, the principle is found close to the detail. He retorted: Is it not written: Do not prostrate yourself before another power? He who sacrifices to Elohim shall be banned. He mentioned the principle at one place and the details at another place! He said, since you do [not] infer anything from it close up, you cannot infer anything from afar. The colleagues say, it makes no difference; whether He gave the principle at one place and the detail at another, or gave principle and detail at the same place, it is a matter of principle and detail. For the Sabbath, He first gave the principle and then the detail. For idolatry, He gave the detail and only later the principle. Rebbi Yose said, it makes no difference whether He first gave the principle and then the detail or He gave the detail and only later the principle, or He gave principle, detail, and principle; it is a matter of principle and detail. For the Sabbath, He gave a general prohibition of work, followed by details; for idolatry, He gave the general principle regarding its worship but detailed the works of Heaven.

Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat 7:23

Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat 7:26

Rebbi Eleazar asked Rebbi Joḥanan. Should not the Two Breads, being mentioned separately, teach about all sancta on the ramp? He told him, it follows what was stated, the altar, this means not only the altar, from where to include the ramp? The verse says, on the altar they shall not be lifted. I could think neither as an act of worship nor as act of worship. The verse says, as aroma smell, I was saying this only as an act of worship. (He retorted,) them is a restriction. For these one is liable on the ramp, for all other sancta one is not liable on the ramp. Because it is written them. If them had not been written, it would instruct. That means, two items which were mentioned separately do (not) separate. Rebbi Ḥananiah the son of Rebbi Hillel said, they do not separate, therefore they instruct.