joh

808 occurrences across the corpus

The Jerusalem Talmud

MISHNAH: Rabban Gamliel had pictures of the moon phases on a tablet and on the wall on his upper floor which he showed to the common people and asked, did you see it like this or like that? It happened that two came and said, we saw it in the morning in the East and in the evening in the West. Rebbi Joḥanan {ben Nuri} said, they are false witnesses. Rabban Gamliel accepted them when they came to Jabneh. Another time two came and said, we saw it on time, and in the night of the addition it was not seen, but Rabban Gamliel accepted them. Rebbi Dosa ben Hyrkanos said, they are false witnesses. How can one testify about a woman that she gave birth and the next day she is in labor pains? Rebbi Joshua said to him, I am agreeing with your words.

Jerusalem Talmud Rosh Hashanah 2:31

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Simlai said, the reason of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri is that for any month which starts before noontime the eye is not able to see the old moon. And it was stated thus: If the old moon was seen in the morning, the new moon is not seen in the evening. If the new moon was seen in the evening the old moon was not seen in the morning. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, why did Rabban Gamliel accept them? Because he had a tradition from his forefathers that sometimes it moves in a shortcut, sometimes it moves on an extended path.

Jerusalem Talmud Rosh Hashanah 2:36

“Rabban Gamliel rose, kissed him on his head, and said to him, come in peace, my teacher and my student.” My teacher in wisdom and my student in the fear of sin. My teacher in wisdom and my student since all that I am deciding about him he fulfills. It is written, our chiefs are patient. Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. Rebbi Joḥanan said, [it is not written our bulls are carrying but] our chiefs are patient. When the great ones suffer the smaller ones then there is neither breach, nor tumult, nor crying in our streets. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish inverts this verse. It is not written (our bulls) [the bulls] are carrying but our chiefs are tolerated. When the smaller ones tolerate the greater ones then there is neither breach, nor tumult, nor crying in our streets.

Jerusalem Talmud Rosh Hashanah 2:36

Jerusalem Talmud Rosh Hashanah 2:37

Rebbi Shila from Kefar Tamarta in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He made the moon for festive times, the sun knows its destination. Because the sun knows its destination, He made the moon for festive times. Rebbi Berekhiah said, it is written: They travelled from Rameses in the first month,etc. When {the sun} sets on the nights of the holiday there were fourteen settings preceding it. This means that one counts for the moon from the setting of the sun. Rebbi Simon said, they shall be, by both of them. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it was evening, it was morning, one day. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, the month, until it be totally from the new one. You are finding to say, what Rebbi Joḥanan said requires the statement of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, and what Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said requires the statement of Rebbi Joḥanan. If Rebbi Joḥanan had stated his but Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish had not made his statement, we would have said that he only said that all might be from the new one. Therefore it is necessary that Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish made his statement. Or if Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish had stated his but Rebbi Joḥanan had not made his statement, we would have said that he stated day, therefore not night. Therefore what Rebbi Joḥanan said is necessary and what Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said is necessary.

Jerusalem Talmud Rosh Hashanah 2:37

Jerusalem Talmud Rosh Hashanah 3:5

“When they sanctified the year at Usha, on the first day Rebbi Ismael, the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa, led and recited following the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, we did not follow this at Jabneh. On the second day, Rebbi Ḥananiah, the son of Rebbi Yose the Galilean, led and recited following Rebbi Aqiba. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, this we did follow at Jabneh.” But does this not mean that they sanctified it on the first and the second day? Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Rav Ḥisda: That year was disorganized. What is “on the first, on the second”? Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav: The first year, the second year! But was it not stated: the first day, the second day?

Jerusalem Talmud Rosh Hashanah 3:5

Jerusalem Talmud Rosh Hashanah 3:7

Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi: “If they sanctified it and after this the witnesses were found perjured, it remains sanctified.” Rebbi Yose met Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi. He asked him, did your hear this from your father? He answered him, so said my father in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, one is not fussy with testimony of the new moon.

Jerusalem Talmud Rosh Hashanah 3:19

They were blowing before Rebbi Joshua ben Levi on a fast day. Rebbi Yose asked, should they not blow before him with trumpets? He had not heard what was stated, trumpets in the Temple, no trumpets in the countryside. Should they not pray 24 before him? As the following, Rebbi Joḥanan on the Ninth of Av was praying 24 but ordered his students, do not learn this action from me; because it was a problem for him whether it was mourning or a public fast day. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: It is not a public fast day. Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: It is mourning, it is not a public fast day. Rebbi Ze`ira said, the case of Rebbi Joḥanan implies that a person prays four [times] of the Ninth of Av. He only said four, but not 24.

Jerusalem Talmud Rosh Hashanah 3:19

Jerusalem Talmud Rosh Hashanah 3:24

“A Jubilee [it is], even though they did not observe the Sabbatical, even though they did not blow the shofar. Or maybe even though they did not manumit slaves? The verse says it is, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Yose says, a Jubilee, even though they did not observe the Sabbatical, even though they did not manumit slaves. Or maybe even though they did not blow the shofar? The verse says it is. Rebbi Yose said, since the verse makes it dependent on blowing the shofar, and another verse makes it dependent on manumitting slaves, why am I saying, Jubilee even though they did not manumit slaves? For it is (impossible) [possible] for a Jubilee without manumitting slaves but (possible) [impossible] for the Jubilee without sounding the shofar. Another explanation: The blowing of the shofar depends on the Court but manumission of slaves depends on everybody.” And it follows what Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, the Eternal spoke to Moses and Aaron and commanded them to the Children of Israel. About what did he command them? About the chapter on manumission of slaves. This parallels what Rebbi Ila said, Israel was only punished because of the Chapter about manumission of slaves; that is what is written, at the end ofseven years everyone has to set free his Hebrew brother, etc. It was stated in the name of Rebbi Neḥemiah, she was like a trading vessel, from far she brings her bread. The words of the Torah are poor in their proper place but rich at another place. Rebbi Joḥanan said, these are the words of Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Yose, but the words of the Sages are, consecration by the High Court, and blowing the shofar, and remission of debts cause it to be Sabbatical. One understands consecration by the High Court, and blowing the shofar. But is remission of debts not at the end? Rebbi Ze`ira understood it from the following: He said to me, do not fear, Daniel, since your words were heard from the first day when you concentrated to understand and fast before your God. Your words already were heard.

Jerusalem Talmud Rosh Hashanah 3:25

Rebbi Joḥanan said, the reason of Rebbi Jehudah: to associate the frequent with the frequent, and the infrequent with the infrequent

Jerusalem Talmud Rosh Hashanah 3:27

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

Jerusalem Talmud Rosh Hashanah 3:27

Jerusalem Talmud Beitzah 5:21

Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Immi: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagreed. One said, one dedicates; the other said, one does not dedicate. The rabbis of Caesarea make it explicit: Rebbi Joḥanan said, one dedicates without problems on a holiday; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, one does not dedicate without problems on a holiday. There are Tannaim who state, he goes to sellers of lambs; there are Tannaim who state, he goes to sellers of Pesaḥim. He who says, he goes to sellers of lambs, follows him who says, one dedicates. He who says, he goes to sellers of Pesaḥim, follows him who says, one does not dedicate. This implies that it does not become profane and then dedicated again. If you would say that it becomes profane and then dedicated again, it should be forbidden [because of dedicating], and we have stated, “one does [not] dedicate.” Rebbi Ḥananiah and Rebbi Mana, one said, if he dedicates for the next day; but the other said, if he dedicated for the upkeep of the Temple. Rebbi Shammai said, even for him who said that one dedicates, in the Temple Court because rabbinic Sabbath prohibitions were permitted in the Temple.

Jerusalem Talmud Beitzah 5:21

Jerusalem Talmud Beitzah 5:24

May one light an idle candle? Ḥizqiah said, it is forbidden. A baraita disagreed with Ḥizqiah: “Do not make fire in all of your dwelling places on Sabbath day. On the Sabbath you may not make fire, but you make fire on a holiday.” If you would say, we deal with cases connected with food, is there not written, only what can be eaten by any breathing being, that alone may be made by you. Therefore what we are dealing with an idle candle. Rebbi Avuna said, it was stated there, the House of Shammai forbid but the House of Hillel permit. Rebbi Naḥum the brother of Rebbi Ila asked before Rebbi Joḥanan. He said to him, do neither forbid nor permit.

Jerusalem Talmud Beitzah 5:31

HALAKHAH: “Five things were said about burning charcoal and five about the flame. One commits larceny with the burning charcoal of the Temple; one may not use its flame but one cannot commit larceny with the latter. Burning charcoal of idolatry is forbidden, its flame is allowed. He who makes a vow not to use anything of another person may not use his burning charcoal but is allowed his flame. He who carries burning charcoal into the public domain is liable but for the flame he is free of punishment. One makes the benediction over the flame but not over glowing charcoal.” Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Rav: If the charcoal was crackling one makes the benediction. Rebbi Joḥanan from Karṣion in the name of Rebbi Naḥum bar Simai: Only if {the flame} is jumping off.

Jerusalem Talmud Beitzah 5:33

HALAKHAH: [A well] between two Sabbath domains. Rebbi Joḥanan said, one makes an iron wall for it. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, even a partition made of reeds, on condition that the water not flow in both directions. Rebbi Yudan said, they were more strict with their words than with words of the Torah. Rebbi Ḥanina said, is it not {mixture of} kind in its own kind? But they were strict with their words as with words of the Torah.

Jerusalem Talmud Taanit 1:9

Where does he return to? Just as Rebbi Simeon bar Abba said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: On the day of the New Moon, if he had moved his feet he repeats from the start, otherwise from “Temple service”. Here also, if he had moved his feet he repeats from the start.

Jerusalem Talmud Taanit 1:11

It was stated: If he prayed but does not know what he mentioned, Rebbi Joḥanan said, all of thirty days there is a presumption that what he is used to he (would mention) [mentioned]. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Ḥuna: On the second holiday of the diaspora he mentions in the morning prayers but not in the musaf prayer. Afternoon prayers like morning prayers and evening prayers like musaf prayers. Ḥananiah the son of Rebbi Joshua’s brother says, in the Diaspora they did not have this custom, but until sixty days after equinox. Samuel said, practice follows Ḥananiah the son of Rebbi Joshua’s brother. And it was stated thus: When was this said? Outside of the Land. But in the Land of Israel, everything according to the season, everything according to the event. That is, about rain. But dew, if he wants to mention the entire year he may mention it.

Jerusalem Talmud Taanit 1:15

A person sinned with his tongue. He came before Rebbi Joḥanan who sent him before Rebbi Ḥanina. The latter told him, go, examine yourself, and study Torah, as it is written, the tree of life is healing for the tongue.

Jerusalem Talmud Taanit 1:16

Rebbi Ḥanina ben Rebbi Abbahu said, in the book of Rebbi Meïr they found: a saying about Duma, “a saying about Domae, to me He called from Seïr. Rebbi Joḥanan said, He called to me because of Seïr. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, from where was He inimical to me, from Seïr. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, if a person asks you, where is your God? Tell him, in the great fortification at Rome. What is the reason? To me He called from Seïr.

Jerusalem Talmud Taanit 1:20

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Joḥanan said, practice follows Rebbi Jehudah who said in the name of Rebbi Jehudah ben Bathyra. Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The reason of Rebbi Jehudah, that all holidays end with dew since dew is a good sign for the world.

Jerusalem Talmud Taanit 1:20

Jerusalem Talmud Taanit 1:21

The argument of Rebbi Jehudah seems inverted. There he says, “the one who stands before the Ark on the last holiday of Tabernacles, the last one mentions but the first one does not mention;” and here he says so? One {Mishnah} in his own name, the other one in the name of Rebbi Jehudah ben Bathyra. But we do not know which one in his own name and which one in the name of Rebbi Jehudah ben Bathyra. Since “Rebbi Joḥanan said, practice follows Rebbi Jehudah who said in the name of Rebbi Jehudah ben Bathyra, and Rebbi Abun said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The reason of Rebbi Jehudah, that all holidays end with dew since dew is a good sign for the world,” this implies that the first one is in his own name, the second one in the name of Rebbi Jehudah ben Bathyra.

Jerusalem Talmud Taanit 1:21

Jerusalem Talmud Taanit 1:22

They asked before him, or might we say, here to mention and there to ask for? He said to them, practice is that where one mentions one asks. Rebbi Yose said to Rebbi Ḥanania the brother of Rav Hoshaia, do you remember when we were standing in front of your uncle Rav Hoshaia’s store, Rebbi Ze`ira passed by and we asked him, but he said, this is still problematic for me; Rebbi Yasa passed by and we asked him, but he said, this is still problematic for me. But at the end you heard from him: there is no difference; where one mentions one asks. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba came from Tyre and said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, practice is that where one mentions one asks. Rebbi Aḥa preached in the house of study, Rebbi Jeremiah preached in the council synagogue, practice is that where one mentions one asks. But did we not state, “[on the third of] Marḥeshwan one asks for rain”? Rebbi Tanḥum bar Ḥiyya said, that was stated in Temple times.

Jerusalem Talmud Taanit 1:26

How much rain should fall that a man is required to recite a benediction? Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: At the start, that it should fertilize, at the end that a brick should be soaked. Rebbi Yannai ben Rebbi Ismael in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: At the start, that it should fertilize, at the end that the seal of the amphora should be soaked. Is the seal ever soaked? But it is as if it were soaked. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rav Jehudah, Rebbi Jonah, Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: At the start, that it should fertilize, at the end even a minimal amount. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Ze`ira: It was said for the interruption of fasting. Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Naḥum, and Rav Ada bar (Ikoma) <abimi>> is to be adopted here also. were sitting. Rebbi Naḥum said to Rav Ada bar (Ikoma) <abimi>: Is it not reasonable that this was said for the benediction; he answered: Yes. <rebbi Ḥizqiah said to rav ada bar (ikoma) <abimi>: Is it not reasonable that this was said for the interruption of fasting; he answered: Yes.> He said to him, why did you say “yes” here? He said to him, because he follows the argumentation of his teacher. Rebbi Mana asked Rebbi Ḥizqiah, who is his teacher? He said to him, Rebbi Ze`ira. He said to him, so we are saying: Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Ze`ira: It was said for the interruption of fasting.

Jerusalem Talmud Taanit 1:31

“If the year was deficient, one makes up for the deficiency; otherwise one follows its order, the words of Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. Rebbi says, one always follows its order. If the year was intercalary, one follows its intercalation.” The argument of Rebbi seems inverted. There he says, one follows its order. And here he says, after its intercalation. Rebbi Ze`ira, Rebbi Yasa, Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac brings it in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, this was needed for the end.

Jerusalem Talmud Taanit 1:41

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Joḥanan said, pregnant and nursing women do not fast on any fast-day for which the Court decides to interrupt. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said, this seems reasonable if they originally decided not to interrupt, but if they directly decided to interrupt, pregnant and nursing women have to fast. It was stated thus: “Pregnant and nursing women fast regularly on the Ninth of Av [and the Day of Atonement] and on the first and the second groups of fast-days. But on the seven last ones they do not fast; nevertheless they should not spoil themselves but eat and drink for the necessities of the child.” Does this not refer to the case that they decided originally not to interrupt? Rebbi Abba bar Zavda, Rebbi Isaac bar Tevlai came in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Even if they directly decided to interrupt, pregnant and nursing women do not fast.

Jerusalem Talmud Taanit 1:41

Jerusalem Talmud Taanit 1:47

“Anointing.” As it was stated: On the Sabbath both anointing for pleasure and anointing not for pleasure are permitted. On the Day of Atonement, both anointing for pleasure and anointing not for pleasure are forbidden. On the Ninth of Av and public fasts, anointing for pleasure is forbidden but anointing not for pleasure is permitted. But it was stated: Anointing is equal to drinking regarding prohibition and reparation but not punishment. On the Day of Atonement regarding prohibition but not punishment But was it not stated, they shall not desecrate, to include him who anoints or drinks? Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is no “anoints” there. Rebbi Abba Mari said, if there is no “anoints” there is no “drinks”. For if it were not so, do matters combine which come from two different prohibitions?

Jerusalem Talmud Taanit 2:8

Explanation. Rebbi Abba bar Zavda, Rebbi Tanḥum bar Ilai, and Rebbi Joshia came to the fast. Rebbi Abba bar Zavda preached: Let us lift our hearts on the palms. Is this possible? May a person take his heart and put it on his hand? So what means “let us lift”? Let us treat our hearts equal to our hands, and then to God in Heaven. So if somebody would hold a crawling animal in his hand, even if he immerses himself in the waters of Siloam or of the ocean, he never can become pure. But if he throws it from his hand he immediately is pure. Rebbi Tanḥum bar Ilai preached: The ministers of Israel and the King submitted and said, the Eternal is just. And when the Eternal saw that they submitted, the Eternal’s word was to Shemaya as oracle. It is not written “their fast” but they submitted, I shall not destroy them. Rebbi Joshia preached: Become improved and improve, let us purify ourselves before we purify others. Since here are people present who calumniate me before Rebbi Joḥanan. But every single one is called to justice. Attending were Rebbi Ḥiyya, Rebbi Issy, and Rebbi Immi. They got up and left.

Jerusalem Talmud Megillah 1:25

“And the Ninth of Av.” Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya, it should have been logical that one should fast on the Tenth, since on it it was burned. Why on the Ninth? Because the calamity started on it. So it was stated, on the Seventh they entered, on the Eighth they were misbehaving in it, on the Ninth they started the fire, and on the Tenth it was burned. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi fasted Ninth and Tenth. Rebbi Levi fasted on the Ninth and the night of the Tenth. Rebbi Abba bar Zavda in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: Rebbi wanted to uproot the Ninth of Av but they did not let him. Rebbi Eleazar said to him, I was with you but it was not said so, but Rebbi wanted to uproot the Ninth of Av which fell on a Sabbath but they did not let him. He said, because it was pushed aside, let it be pushed aside. They said to him, let it be pushed to the next day. In a similar case, that which we stated there: “Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa said, for both of them it says, God blessed them and God said to them, be fruitful and multiply, etc.” Rebbi Eleazar in the Name of Rebbi Ḥanina: Practice follows Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa. Rebbi Abba bar Zavda said to him, I was with you and it was only said, if she asks to be married the law is on her side. He said about them, two are better than one.

Jerusalem Talmud Megillah 1:25

Jerusalem Talmud Megillah 1:30

“On the seventeenth of it Gentiles attacked the remainder of the Sopherim at the city of Khalkis and Bet-Zabdin and there was relief.” In Rebbi Meïr’s opinion it is understandable, it comes to forbid the {day} itself. What does it come to forbid for Rebbi Yose? Rebbi Yose said, all these matters neither support nor contradict either Rebbi Meïr or Rebbi Yose; they only come to report the days on which miracles were done for Israel. You have to understand that this is so since we have stated: “On the New Moon of Nisan the Daily Offering was settled, one may not eulogize.” Without this is it not already forbidden to him because of the New Moon? “But on Sabbath and holidays one fasts before and after them. What do you understand to be lenient with these and restrictive with those? For these are words of the Torah, and words of the Torah do not need reinforcement. But those are words of the Sopherim, and words of the Sopherim need reinforcement.” That is what you were saying, as long as Megillat Ta`anit was not abolished. But since Megillat Ta`anit was abolished, all these were abolished. Rebbi Ḥanina and Rebbi Joshua ben Levi both said, Megillat Ta`anit was abolished. Rebbi Abba and Rebbi Simon both said, Megillat Ta`anit was abolished. Rebbi Jonathan said, Megillat Ta`anit was abolished. Rebbi Joḥanan said, yesterday I was repeating, “it happened that in Lydda they decided on a fast-day on Ḥanukkah. They said about Rebbi Eliezer that he got a haircut, and about Rebbi Joshua that he took a {thermal} bath. Rebbi Joshua said to them, go and fast because you fasted.” And you are saying, Megillat Ta`anit was abolished? Rebbi Abba said, even if you are saying that Megillat Ta`anit was abolished, Ḥanukkah and Purim were not abolished.

Jerusalem Talmud Megillah 1:32

Simeon bar Abba said, there came a case before Rebbi Joḥanan and he instructed following Rebbi Yose. Rebbi Eleazar was sorry about this; he said, does one disregard the anonymous {Mishnah} and follow an isolated opinion? He found that Rebbi Ḥiyya stated this in the name of Rebbi Meïr. When he understood that Rebbi Ḥiyya stated this in the name of Rebbi Meïr, he said, the old man understands his chapters well. Rebbi Mana asked before Rebbi Yudan: Did not Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Abbahu say in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, every place where Rebbi taught a disagreement and afterwards taught it anonymously, practice follows the anonymous statement. He said to him, and if not Rebbi, maybe somebody else. How is this? If it is found that Rebbi taught a disagreement and afterwards taught it anonymously, then practice follows the anonymous statement. In a case where Rebbi did not teach a disagreement but others taught it in disagreement and Rebbi taught it anonymously, certainly practice has to follow the anonymous text. There come Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, every place where Rebbi taught a disagreement and afterwards taught it anonymously, practice follows the anonymous statement. Why does he instruct here following the isolated opinion? Rebbi Samuel bar Ina in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: That is, if no disagreement is stated together with the anonymous opinion. But if a disagreement is stated together with the anonymous opinion, practice does not follow the anonymous opinion.

Jerusalem Talmud Megillah 1:38

Rav, and Rebbi Ḥanina, and Rebbi Jonathan, and Bar Qappara, and Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, this scroll had be said to Moses on Sinai; only there is no earlier and later in the Torah. Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. Rebbi Joḥanan said, Prophets and Hagiographs will in the future be nullified, but the five books of the Torah will never be nullified. What is the reason? A strong voice, never ending. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, also the Esther scroll and practices will never be nullified. It is said here, a strong voice, never ending, and it is said there, their remembrance will not end from their descendants. Practices? His practices are eternal.

Jerusalem Talmud Megillah 1:38

Jerusalem Talmud Megillah 1:47

“The only difference between Sabbath and the Day of Atonement is that in the first case its intentional desecration is punished by man and in the second case by extirpation.” Therefore, for payment both follow the same rules. This is by Rebbi Neḥoniah ben Haqanah since Rebbi Neḥoniah ben Haqanah says, the Day of Atonement follows the rules of Sabbath for payment. But Rebbi Simeon ben Menassiah says those subject to extirpation equal those subject to capital punishment. What is between them? Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Abuna said, a menstruating adolescent girl is between them. Rebbi Mana said, also his wife’s sister is between them. In the opinion of Rebbi Neḥoniah ben Haqanah, just as the Sabbath does not become permitted after its prohibition started; so the Day of Atonement does not become permitted after its prohibition started. However, these may become permitted after their prohibition started, he has to pay. But Rebbi Simeon ben Menassiah said, extirpation applies to the Sabbath and the day of Atonement; extirpation does not apply to these, he has to pay. Rebbi Judah bar Pazi asked: What say these Tannaim about whipping and extirpation? Rebbi Yose said, that is a problem for the rabbis. Rebbi Jonah said, why can we not understand it from what Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai stated? As Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai stated: Rebbi Tarphon says, extirpation was mentioned for the Sabbath and the Day of Atonement. Since for extirpation mentioned for the Sabbath there can be no whipping connected to extirpation, so for extirpation mentioned for the Day of Atonement there is no whipping in a case involving extirpation. Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose: When do we need this? Not for Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? But for Rebbi Joḥanan, if he admits flogging in death penalty cases, certainly flogging in extirpation cases, since they disagreed: If somebody slaughters an animal and its young for idolatrous purposes. Rebbi Joḥanan says, if he was cautioned about an animal and its young, he is flogged, about idolatry, he is stoned to death. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, even if he was cautioned about an animal and its young, he is not flogged since he would be stoned to death had he been cautioned about idolatry. He said to him, we need it even for Rebbi Joḥanan! Here are two cases, there it is one case.

Jerusalem Talmud Megillah 1:47

Jerusalem Talmud Megillah 1:55

If it spread while in quarantine, Rebbi Joḥanan said, he needs birds. Rebbi Eleazar said, he does not need birds. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, a baraita supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “From the sufferer from skin disease; to include one on whom it spread on his entire person that he needs birds. Is that not a logical argument? If a person became pure and the signs of what made him impure are not on him shall need birds, (should not) [is it not logical that] one who became pure and the signs of what made him impure are on him [shall] need birds? [But] the one on whom it was stable for two weeks shall disprove it, since he became pure and the signs of what made him impure are on him, but he does not need birds. So do not wonder if one on whom it spread while in quarantine and the signs of what made him impure are on him does not need birds. The verse says, from the sufferer of skin disease to include one on whom it spread on his entire person that he needs birds.” If you would say that one becoming pure in quarantine does not need birds, should he not have objected that it would have been better to argue spreading against spreadings and not staying stable against spreadings? Rebbi Ḥananiah the colleague of the rabbis: the baraita supports Rebbi Joḥanan since the Tanna answers his colleague, no. If you are saying about this one who never was up to be declared absolute, what can you say about the one who was to be declared absolute? Because he was to be declared absolute, he needs birds. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, the closing statement supports Rebbi Eleazar. The one becoming pure in quarantine is not liable for torn clothing, and untended hair, and shaving, and birds. All of this is what we are considering here, about spreadings. Rebbi Samuel bar Eudaimon said, all they are disagreeing is about bringing birds. But in the matter of bringing a sacrifice everybody agrees that he does not bring a sacrifice. It was stated thus: On the seventh he has to shave, on the eighth he shall bring; one who needs shaving brings a sacrifice, one who does not need shaving does not bring a sacrifice. Rebbi Ḥama bar Uqba in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina: All days on which the skin disease is on him he will be impure, one whose impurity is caused by his skin disease. This excludes him whose (purity) [impurity] depends on the count of his days. So far torn clothing and unkempt hair. From where shaving and birds? Rebbi Eleazar the Southerner in the name of Rebbi Shammai: This shall be the doctrine of the sufferer from skin disease on the day. One who may become impure and pure on one day; this excludes one who cannot become impure and pure on one day.

Jerusalem Talmud Megillah 1:55

Jerusalem Talmud Megillah 1:57

HALAKHAH: It is written all Earth was one tongue and unified words. Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Joḥanan. One said, they were speaking seventy languages. But the other said, they were speaking in the language of the Unique of the World, the holy language. Bar Qappara stated, may God embellish Japhet and dwell in the tents of Shem, that one should speak Japhet’s language in Shem’s tents. The sons of Japhet: Gomer and Magog, and Yawan, and Tubal, and Meshekh, and Tiras. Gomer, Germamia. Magog, Gothica. Madai, as it is understood. Yawan, Ephesus. Tuval, Bythinia. Meshekh, Moesia. Tiras, Rebbi Simon said Persia, but the rabbis said Thrace. The sons of Gomer: Ashkenaz, and Riphat, and Togarma. Asia, and Adiabene, and Germanicia. The sons of Yawan: Elisha, and Tarshish, Kittim and Dodanim. Elis, Tarsos, Euboea, and Dardania. The Arwadite, Rhodos. The Ṣamarite, Ḥoms. The Ḥamatite, Ḥama. Up to Lasha`. Rebbi Eleazar said, to Kallirrhoe. Rebbi Yudan bar Shalom said, from here about the Targum.

Jerusalem Talmud Megillah 1:61

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

Jerusalem Talmud Megillah 1:62

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

Jerusalem Talmud Megillah 1:63

Rebbi Aḥa the son of Rebbi Simeon in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: No man should stand at an elevated place and pray. What is the reason? Rebbi Abba the son of R. Pappai said: From the depth I call on You, Eternal! Rebbi Ada bar Simeon in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan said: No man should pray when he has an urge to go to the bathroom. What is the reason? Israel, prepare yourself before Your God. Rebbi Alexandri said: Watch your feet when you go to God’s house; watch yourself from the drops that drip from between your feet. That means, for urine. But for defecation, if he can bear it, let him bear it. Rebbi Jacob bar Abiah in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: Watch your feet when you go to God’s house; watch yourself when you are called to God’s house that you should be pure and innocent. Rebbi Abba said: Your fountain shall be blessed, your being called to the grave shall be blessed. Rebbi Berekhiah said: A time to be born and a time to die, hail to the man whose hour of death is like the hour of his birth; just as at the hour of his birth he was innocent so at the hour of his death may he be innocent.

Jerusalem Talmud Megillah 1:63

Jerusalem Talmud Megillah 1:66

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

Jerusalem Talmud Chagigah 2:41

HALAKHAH: But needs profane food intention? He is informing you of more: even if he immersed himself for profane food and considers himself pure for profane food he is prohibited tithe. Did not Rebbi Eleazar say, the count for profane food is the count for tithe? Here it is for eating, there for touching. He who immerses himself without specification is pure for all of them. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if he had relationship with all of them. As long as his feet are in the water, he may consider himself pure for any stage he chooses.

Jerusalem Talmud Chagigah 2:42

There, we have stated: “A staff which is full of impure fluids, when it touched the miqweh it is pure, the words of Rebbi Joshua. But the Sages are saying, only if he immerses it completely.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, where do they disagree? For easy impurity; but for severe impurity even Rebbi Joshua agrees. Rebbi Joḥanan said, they even disagree for severe impurity. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: “As long as his feet are in the water, he may consider himself pure for any stage he chooses.” Explain it about one who ate impure food and drank impure drinks. Did not Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi, Rebbi Abbahu say in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, the body of one who ate impure food and drank impure drinks is pure without special intention? From the moment he intended elevated purity he (needs) [does not need] intention. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: “A miqweh containing exactly 40 seah into two persons descended, [both are pure]. One after the other, the first one is pure, the second impure. Rebbi Jehudah says, if the feet of the first touched the water, the second one also is pure.” Still this is about one who ate impure food and drank impure drinks. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: A woman in her period may rinse a radish in a cave and it is pure. If she lifted it in any way out of the water it is impure. And we have stated thereto: Rebbi Jehudah declares it pure in the name of Rebbi Joshua. And represents a menstruating woman not a severe impurity? This disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish and it has no standing.

Jerusalem Talmud Chagigah 2:43

MISHNAH: The garments of the vulgar are “support” for Pharisees; the garments of Pharisees are “support” for the eaters of heave; the garments of eaters of heave are “support” for the eaters of sancta. Yose ben Yoezer was the most pious of the priests but his handkerchief was “support” for sancta. Joḥanan ben Gudgada all his life ate in the purity of sancta but his handkerchief was “support” for the ashes of the Red Cow.

Jerusalem Talmud Chagigah 2:44

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They stated it for touchings. Rebbi Ze`ira asked before Rebbi Yasa, from where did this garment become impure by support? He told him, explain it that the vulgar’s wife sat on it naked. Samuel bar Abba asked before Rebbi Ze`ira: As you are saying there, there is no “support” for profane food but there is “support” for profane food by touching, similarly there is no load for profane food but there is load for profane food by touching. Rebbi Samuel the brother of Rebbi Hoshaia said, Rebbi Jeremiah asked, if she sat on a chair and touched it? As you look at it, if load, there is load; it touching there is touching. As you are saying about load, on condition that most of it be carried, similarly if most of it be touched?

Jerusalem Talmud Chagigah 2:45

May the body of a Pharisee be considered like that of a sufferer from gonorrhea for heave? Rebbi Joḥanan asked, but did we not state, “somebody who let a vulgar watch his house, at times when he sees those who enter and those who leave, food, and drinks, and open clay vessels are impure. But couches and seats and clay vessels tightly wound closed are pure”? If you are saying, they considered the body of a Pharisee like that of a sufferer from gonorrhea for heave then even those tightly [wound] closed should be impure. Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi said, explain it concerning a vulgar at a Pharisee’s, and you cannot infer anything. Rebbi Mana said, so said my teacher Rebbi Yose, all that we are considering here refers to heave. You may know that this is so, since we have stated there, “even moved, even tied, everything is impure.” Did they not say they are impure, not because moving? Did not Rebbi Joḥanan say, concerning heave there is neither separations, nor movings, nor [private domain, nor] vulgar. May heave itself be considered like a sufferer from gonorrhea in relation to sancta? Let us hear from the following. If one cuts a tube for sancta, he who cuts it and he who immerses it need immersion. One understands he who cuts. He who immerses? Could he not bind it with a (sit) [fiber] and immerse it? But explain it that he cut it in order to immerse it. May a sanctum itself be considered like a sufferer from gonorrhea in relation to the ashes of the Red Cow? Let us hear from the following. Two pitchers, one pure for sancta and one pure for heave, who touched one another are both pure. But does not a baraita disagree? They made that the person pure for the ashes of the Cow who moved spittle or semen of one pure for heave that it became impure. The same is pure for heave and pure for sancta.

Jerusalem Talmud Chagigah 2:45

Jerusalem Talmud Chagigah 3:2

HALAKHAH: “Sancta are more stringent than heave,” etc. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, because eaters of heave are vigilant but eaters of sancta are not vigilant. Rebbi Ḥanania said before Rebbi Mana, is that eminence? If it were a thing equal for both but impure for one and pure for the other, that would be eminence. He said to him, explain it if it is connected to sancta. Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if the impure was [heavy] a lb. one does not immerse it. Abba Shaul said, also for heave one immerses only a basked or a willow-basket. Rebbi Joḥanan said, Abba Shaul and Rebbi Simeon said the same, as we have stated there, “if one holds a human or vessels and immerses them, they are impure, but if he had rinsed his hands in water they are pure. Rebbi Simeon said, he should hold them loosely so the water may come into them.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is reasonable that Rebbi Joḥanan would agree with Abba Shaul but Abba Shaul not with Rebbi Simeon. The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Practice follows Abba Shaul. It was stated thus: Practice follows his words. Rebbi Jonah said, the Mishnah is Rebbi Meïr’s, but the words of the Sages are that one acts thus even for sancta, since finger-holes are no interior; for vessels of sancta all is interior.

Jerusalem Talmud Chagigah 3:2

Jerusalem Talmud Chagigah 3:3

Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: It happened that seven Elders assembled in the valley of Rimmon. Who were they? Rebbi Meïr, and Rebbi Jehudah, and Rebbi Yose, and Rebbi Simeon, and Rebbi Neḥemiah, and Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob, and Rebbi Joḥanan the Alexandrian. They said, how many distinctions have sancta compared to heave? Rebbi Meïr says, thirteen. Rebbi Yose says, twelve. Rebbi Meïr said, so I heard from Rebbi Aqiba, thirteen. Rebbi Joḥanan the Alexandrian said, I served Rebbi Aqiba standing more than you served sitting. They said, Rebbi Joḥanan the Alexandrian is a true Alexandrian. They rose kissing, and if any of them had no kaftan, his colleague cut half of his kaftan and gave it to him. And why did they do this? Because all of them were explaining the following verse, each one in seven ways: I shall sing to my beloved, my beloved’s song for his vineyard. They acclaimed the last one for the versions he found in it. They said, this was Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai. Why were they exerting themselves in this matter? They were explaining, saying, molten gods you shall not make for yourself. What is written next? The holiday of unleavened bread you shall observe. They said, anybody able to intercalate a year and he does not intercalate is as if he worshipped strange gods. When they were leaving they said, come and let us record our act. A rock of marble was there. Each of them took a nail and fixed it in it; it descended and sank in as in dough. Until now it is called the rock of nails.

Jerusalem Talmud Chagigah 3:3

Jerusalem Talmud Chagigah 3:4

Rebbi Joḥanan said, the finger-holes which they mentioned, whether inside or outside, in the manner in which cleanly people hold it. Rebbi Ze`ira said, “it is impossible to say, about one which is wiped dry, for hands are not made impure by anything wiped dry. In truth it is impossible to say, if it is full of fluid, for in the moment he touched it he made it impure. But we must hold that [it was dirtied] by fluid.” Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Banaiah: They treated fluid in a finger-hole like fluid at the slaughtering place. As you are saying there that fluids of the slaughtering place are pure at their proper place but impure at any other place, [so here, fluids in a finger-hole are pure at their proper place but impure at any other place.] Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: fluids of the slaughtering place which came outside {the Temple courtyards} become impure. But did we not state, fluids of the slaughtering place which came outside continue in their sanctity? Rebbi Yose said, Rebbi Simon explained it. Rebbi Ḥinena, Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi. If they came out and returned. If the upper fluid became impure and flowed down, Rebbi Abba and Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya. One said, at its place it is pure, if it flows down it is impure. The other one said, since it comes from purity it is pure.

Jerusalem Talmud Chagigah 3:4

Jerusalem Talmud Chagigah 3:12

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

Jerusalem Talmud Chagigah 3:12

Jerusalem Talmud Chagigah 3:13

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

Jerusalem Talmud Chagigah 3:13

Jerusalem Talmud Chagigah 3:15

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

Jerusalem Talmud Chagigah 3:15

Jerusalem Talmud Chagigah 3:16

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

Jerusalem Talmud Chagigah 3:16

Jerusalem Talmud Chagigah 3:18

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, they only stated “the other”, not a stranger’s. Rebbi Joḥanan said, even a stranger’s. Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, even a loaf. They said, Rebbi Joḥanan retracted this; when he said so it was before he changed his mind. He only said to make a loaf impure, because of “anything which disqualifies heave makes hands impure in the second degree.” Therefore to make a loaf impure everybody agrees that it does not make impure, since “no second degree creates second degree.”

Jerusalem Talmud Chagigah 3:18

Jerusalem Talmud Chagigah 3:21

There we have stated: “If he ate a fig cake with dirty hands, put his hand into his mouth to remove a pebble, …” Ḥizqiah said, one stated this only for a fig cake where he desires the fluid remaining on his finger, therefore not for anything else. Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is no difference, equally a fig cake where he desires the fluid remaining on his finger or anything other. The Mishnah disagrees with Ḥizqiah: “Touching by a person impure in the impurity of the dead who had food or drink in his mouth: if he put his head inside a pure stove he made it impure. If a pure person with food or drink in his mouth put his head inside the impure stove he became impure.” One understands drinks. From where was the food susceptible to impurity? Not from his saliva! Explain it either from a moist fig cake or as food which already outside were susceptible to impurity. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “One eats dry food with dirty hands with heave but not with sancta.” Explain it if he throws. If he throws then even for sancta. Maybe he will forget and touch. If maybe he will forget and touch then it should be forbidden also for heave. Eaters of heave are vigilant and he will not forget but eaters of sancta are not vigilant and he forgets.

Jerusalem Talmud Chagigah 3:21

Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 3:32

Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Ḥalaphta from Haifa: Any who were married on the basis of such a document should not leave in order not to give a bad reputation to her children. His daughter who was married outside on the basis of such a document should not leave in order to damage her co-wife to her father. Her co-wife who was married outside on the basis of such a document has to leave. His daughter who married his brother on the basis of such a document has to leave. Her co-wife who was married to his brother on the basis of such a document, or even to her father, should not leave.

Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 3:35

HALAKHAH: “Three brothers married to three women,” etc. Can a woman waiting for a levir who became available to several brothers-in-law not be married in levirate? Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: The wife of one [dead husband] is married in levirate, not the wife of two dead. One understands that he has to perform ḥalîṣah with the “bespoken” because the wife of one [dead husband] is married in levirate, not the wife of two dead. Why can the other one not be married in levirate? Rebbi Eleazar said, this follows Rebbi Meïr, since Rebbi Meïr said, of any one you cannot marry in levirate, you cannot marry the co-wife in levirate. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if Rebbi Eleazar formulated this, he formulated what he had heard from me. Rebbi Yose said, a Mishnah said so: “ A boy at least nine years and one day old who had intercourse with his sister-in-law and when he grew up he married another wife; if he never had intercourse with the first again after he became an adult, the second [wife] may perform ḥalîṣah or be married in levirate. The first one must perform ḥalîṣah and cannot be married in levirate.” Here you say, she performs ḥalîṣah; there you say, she is married in levirate! Where you say she performs ḥalîṣah, Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon; where you say, she is married in levirate, Rebbi Simeon and the rabbis. Rebbi Abun bar Bisna in the name of Rebbi Aḥa, but only if first he married in levirate and then performed ḥalîṣah. But if he performed ḥalîṣah first, it is forbidden; perhaps “bespeaking” acquired and she was freed by her co-wife’s ḥalîṣah.

Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 3:37

HALAKHAH: “Two brothers married to two sisters,” etc. Rebbi Avina said, that is what Rebbi Hila, Rebbi Yose, said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The prohibition of sisters who are sisters-in-law does not compare with the prohibition of sisters who not are sisters-in-law.

Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 4:2

HALAKHAH: “If somebody performed ḥalîṣah with his sister-in-law but she turns out to have been pregnant,” etc. If he transgressed, but not from the start. That follows the Mishnah: “The widow should not perform ḥalîṣah or have levirate until after three months.” Why can she not have ḥalîṣah immediately? As you take it, if she has a live birth, ḥalîṣah did not affect her. If she has a still birth, she holds ḥalîṣah in her hand. Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rebbi Ḥiyya, Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, that she should not need a proclamation for the priesthood. Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Jacob bar Idi, in the name of Rebbi Hoshaiah, that she should not need a proclamation for the priesthood. Rebbi Hoshaiah stated: “My levir refuses.” To the one to whom one says: perform levirate, to him one says: perform ḥalîṣah; but to the one to whom one cannot say: perform levirate, to him one cannot say: perform ḥalîṣah! What is the difference between them? If she had been acceptable and was desecrated, e. g., a widow for the High Priest or a divorcee or one who had performed ḥalîṣah for a common priest. According to him who says that she should not need a proclamation for the priesthood; that one, who does not need a proclamation for the priesthood, should have ḥalîṣah. According to him who says that to the one to whom one says: perform levirate, to him does one say: perform ḥalîṣah?

Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 4:3

If there was ḥalîṣah during these three months, does she need another one after three months? Let us hear from the following: “A minor who performed ḥalîṣah should perform ḥalîṣah after she grows up; if she performed [only one] ḥalîṣah, the ḥalîṣah she performed is valid.” Rebbi Mana said it anonymously, Rebbi Isaac the son of Rebbi Ḥiyya brought it in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan; this is Rebbi Meïr‘s, since Rebbi Meïr says one does neither perform ḥalîṣah nor levirate with a minor: maybe she would turn out to be a she-ram. As you say there, even though she already performed ḥalîṣah, she again performs ḥalîṣah; so here also though she did perform ḥalîṣah, she performs ḥalîṣah.

Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 10:17

Would it not be reasonable that she should be permitted if she remarried with permission, forbidden if she remarried without permission? Rebbi Joḥanan said, the words of Rebbi Simeon [imply] that the court made their decision like intentional [relations between] man and woman, if she remarried without permission like erroneous [relations between] man and woman. Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is no “free” here but “obligated”. Rebbi Ḥaggai objected before Rebbi Yose: should it not be an act of instruction? When they instructed that it is permitted to sleep with an [otherwise] married woman. Is that not uprooting a principle? When they instructed that she is forbidden for five years, from then on permitted. Then it should be so if she misbehaved! Misbehaving is like eating fat or blood. When they instructed that fat is permitted and [she ate] blood.

Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 10:17

Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 10:19

HALAKHAH: “If a woman’s husband and son went overseas,” etc. How do you consider this situation, comparing to witnesses of death or witnesses of divorce? If you compare it to witnesses of death, it disagrees with the (rabbis there). If you compare it to witnesses of divorce, it disagrees (both with the rabbis here and those there). Rebbi Joḥanan said, it was stated thus: Two [witnesses] say he died, [later] two witnesses said, he did not die. She shall not remarry, but if she has remarried she should not leave. Two [witnesses] say she was divorced, [later] two witnesses said, she was not divorced. She shall not remarry; if she has remarried she must leave. There, they say, it makes no difference; whether about death or divorce she should not leave. In the opinion of the rabbis there it is understandable, there is no difference between death and divorce. In the opinion of the rabbis here, what is the difference between death and divorce? Rebbi Ze‘ira said it without attribution, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It is reasonable to decide in the case of witnesses of death that if he comes he contradicts them. Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, the rabbis there stick to their opinion since the rabbis there say, when the [first] testimony was accepted, it was accepted as certain. So the rabbis here say, at the moment of her remarriage, she remarried based on certain testimony. Rebbi Yose said, it is reasonable that the rabbis there did not change their argument. Do the rabbis there not agree if two [witnesses] say, his father died while in possession, and two say his father died while not in possession, that the field is in Reuben’s possession? Therefore, if two say, she was married, divorced, and remarried, and two say she was not divorced, rightly she should not leave.

Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 10:19

Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 10:20

A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “If two are saying, she was betrothed, and two are saying, she was not betrothed, she should not be married, but if she married she should not leave.” Rebbi Hoshaia said, Rebbi Joḥanan may explain it as follows: “If two are saying, she was betrothed and divorced, and two are saying, she was not divorced, she should not be married, but if she married she should not leave.” What is the difference between this and the first case? There, she was considered a married woman in everybody’s opinion. Here, she is considered a married woman only for two people. If two others would come and identify the man who was betrothed to her.

Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 10:20

Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot 10:21

A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “If two are saying, she was kidnapped but is pure, and two are saying, she was kidnapped and is impure, she should not be married, but if she married she should not leave.” Rebbi Yose said, since these say, she is pure, and those say, she is impure, it is as if two said, she was kidnapped, and two said, she was not kidnapped, and we depend on what she says.