qualified

485 occurrences across the corpus

The Jerusalem Talmud

Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ze‘ira had a different version: Rebbi Eleazar asked Rebbi Joḥanan, what is the rule about a dough widow? He said to him, she is qualified. What about her daughter? He said to him, the one who declares her to be qualified, declares her daughter to be qualified. They wanted to say, according to Rebbi Eleazar, a child of unknown paternity is disqualified; according to Rebbi Joḥanan, a child of unknown paternity is qualified. Rebbi Joḥanan also holds that in some cases a child of unknown paternity is disqualified; he answered [Rebbi Eleazar] following the latter’s reasoning: Since you reason that the child is simply of unknown paternity, we find that a child of unknown paternity can be High Priest! How is this possible? A group of Cohanim was passing by, one of them came and had sexual relations; it turns out that the child of unknown paternity can be High Priest.

Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 1:49

Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 1:50

The word of Rebbi Zera implies that a child of unknown paternity is qualified, for Rebbi Ze‘ira asked before Rebbi Yasa: Is it the same for families? He said to him, so says Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: There, for families, but here for sanctified food in the country. The word of Rebbi Samuel ben [Rav] Isaac implies that a child of unknown paternity is disqualified, for Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac asked: Does this mean that a child of unknown paternity is does not exist following Rabban Gamliel and Rebbi Eliezer, only following Rebbi Joshua? He turned around and said, a child of unknown paternity is possible following Rabban Gamliel and Rebbi Eliezer, if she remains silent. And even if you say that she talks, if she said that she does not know.

Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 1:56

It happened that a baby girl was noticed who had been thrown on a garbage heap. The case came before Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose, who said, she should be adjoined to dough. Rebbi Jeremiah thought to say, to qualified dough, would Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose disagree with his father? Rebbi Yose said, even if you say to disqualified dough, Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose would not disagree with his father. Why? While the qualified whore, only the disqualified throw away.

Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 1:56

Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 11:27

Rebbi Yose said: All the time my teacher Rebbi Hila told me, state in your baraita that he inherits from her and defiles himself for her. We have also stated so: A man defiles himself for his qualified wife but does not become defiled for his disqualified wife.

Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 1:2

HALAKHAH: “Somebody who brings a bill of divorce from overseas,” etc. This is difficult. If somebody brings a gift document from overseas,would you require him to say, it was written and signed before me? Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, there is a difference because they are not conversant with the fine points of bills of divorce. Rebbi Joḥanan said, that is a leniency lest she sit abandoned. Is that a leniency? It is only a restriction, for if he does not say to her, it was written and signed before me, you do not permit her to remarry. Rebbi Yose said, the difficulty which you impose upon her at the beginning, that he is required to say, it was written and signed before me, makes it easy for her at the end. For if [the husband] would come and protest, his protest would be void. Rebbi Mana wanted to say, a protest other than the text of the bill. But is a protest about the text of the bill a protest which has no validity? Even for a protest which has validity, said Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun, since you say that the reason for the difficulty which you impose upon her at the beginning, that he is required to say, it was signed before me, is to make it easy for her at the end, that if [the husband] would come and protest, his protest would be void; this means that there is no difference whether it is a protest not about the text of the bill or about the body of the bill, a protest which has no validity, or a protest which does have validity! But should you worry that maybe be gave the bill to disqualified witnesses to sign? Rebbi Abun said, he is not suspect to damage her before Heaven. Before the court he is suspect to damage her. But since he knows that if he comes and protests his protest is void, he will choose qualified witnesses to sign.

Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 2:27

HALAKHAH: “Also those women who cannot be believed if they say that [a woman’s] husband died,” etc. Would you believe her if it was written but not signed [in her presence]? If she did not say ‘it was written in my presence, it was signed in my presence’, would you permit her to remarry? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, that parallels what Rebbi Abun said, he is not suspect to damage her before Heaven. Before the court he is suspect to damage her. But since he knows that if he comes and protests, his protest is void, he will choose qualified witnesses to sign.

Jerusalem Talmud Kiddushin 3:57

Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav: A proselyte, a freedman, and a disqualified priest are permitted priestly wives. What is the reason? Qualified men are warned against disqualified women and disqualified women against qualified men but not qualified women against disqualified men nor disqualified men against qualified women. Did we not state: “they should not take, should not take”, which teaches that the woman is warned through the man? They wanted to say, qualified women against disqualified men but it is only disqualified women against qualified men.

Jerusalem Talmud Kiddushin 3:57

Jerusalem Talmud Kiddushin 3:61

It was stated: “If a Gentile or a slave had intercourse with a Jewish woman, the child is a bastard; Rebbi Simeon ben Jehudah says in the name of Rebbi Simeon, the child is not a bastard, for a bastard is only from a woman forbidden to him by an incest prohibition for which the penalty is extirpation.” Both of them explained the same verse, “nobody may take his father’s wife, etc.” Rebbi Meïr explains: Since his father’s wife is special in that he cannot have preliminary marriage with her, but she could have preliminary marriage with others, and the child is a bastard, so in all cases in which she cannot have preliminary marriage with him, the child is a bastard. Rebbi Simeon ben Jehudah explains: Since his father’s wife is special in that she cannot have preliminary marriage with him, but she could have preliminary marriage with others, and the child is a bastard; this excludes the Gentile and the slave who cannot contract preliminary marriage with her or with others. Rebbi Samuel bar Abba questions that first Tanna: The sister-in-law who whored cannot have preliminary marriage with him or with others, but the child is qualified! Rebbi Yannai in the name of Rebbi: If a Gentile or a slave had intercourse with a Jewish woman, the child is a bastard. Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both say, the child is a bastard. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Simeon bar Abba, Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, in the name of Rebbi (Yannai ben) Rebbi: The child is neither qualified nor disqualified but dirtied. Rebbi Jonathan went with Rebbi Jehudah Neśia to the hot springs of Gadara. There, he instructed: The child is qualified. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, this child improves as time goes by. Rebbi declared the child dirtied, his grandson declared him qualified. Rebbi Abba bar Zavda instructed in the name of all rabbis: The child is qualified. Rebbi Bevai said before Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: The child is qualified. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, if it is from that, one does not learn from a declaration. Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, I know the story from beginning to end. Rebbi Ḥama bar Ḥanina went up to the hot springs of Gadara. He visited his father who said to him: Be careful, because there are those who are disqualified, lest you injure them.

Jerusalem Talmud Kiddushin 3:61

Jerusalem Talmud Kiddushin 3:64

Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba went to Tyre. When he came before Rebbi Joḥanan, he asked him, what case did you handle? He said to him, a proselyte who had been circumcised but had not immersed himself. He asked him, why did you not injure him? Rebbi Joshua ben Levi told him, leave him alone, he acted correctly not to injure him. The argument of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi seems inverted. There, Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Simeon bar Abba, Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, in the name of Rebbi Gamliel ben Rebbi: The child is neither qualified nor disqualified but dirtied. And here, he says so? Did we not state: If a proselyte was circumcised but not immersed, immersed but not circumcised, everything depends on circumcision, the words of Rebbi Eliezer. Rebbi Joshua says, immersion also is necessary. But Rebbi Joshua ben Levi follows what Bar Qappara stated, as Bar Qappara stated: A proselyte who was circumcised but not immersed is qualified since there is no proselyte who did not immerse himself for his emission of semen. Is that not difficult? The cleansing from a minor impurity is counted for him for a major impurity? Rebbi Yose ben Abun said, since either one is for the holiness of Israel, it is counted for him.

Jerusalem Talmud Kiddushin 3:64

Jerusalem Talmud Kiddushin 4:12

Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Josia: The eleventh generation of bastards is qualified following Rebbi Simeon; he does not use [the principle of gezerah šawah for] “the tenth, the tenth.” It was stated: Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon says, in the eleventh generation of bastards, the males are forbidden but the females permitted. Rebbi Samuel ben Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, it turns out that Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon follows the argument of Rebbi Meïr. As Rebbi Meïr said, a gezerah šawah is as if written in a verse, so Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon says, a gezerah šawah is as if written in a verse. Here also, the males are forbidden but the females permitted. In that case, even immediately? Only from the tenth onward.

Jerusalem Talmud Kiddushin 4:13

They asked Rebbi Eliezer, what is the status of the eleventh generation of a bastard? He said to them, bring to me a third generation and I shall declare him pure, for he would not live. Rebbi Eliezer parallels Rebbi Ḥanina? As Rebbi Ḥanina said, once every sixty to seventy years the Holy One, praise to Him, brings a plague into the world to eliminate the bastards and he takes the qualified ones with them in order not to publicize the sinners. This parallels what Rebbi Levi said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: “In the place where the ascent offering has its throat cut before the Eternal, the purification sacrifice has its throat cut,” in order not to publicize the sinners. “Also He is wise and brings evil;” could one better understand “also He is wise and brings good”? But to teach you that even the evil that the Holy One, praise to Him, brings to the world, He brings in wisdom. “His word He did not remove, He overcomes the house of evildoers and accomplices of workers of iniquity.” Rav Huna said, no bastard lives more than thirty days. When Rebbi Ze‘ira immigrated here, he heard voices call “he-bastard, she-bastard”. He said, what is this? There goes that of Rav Huna, since Rav Huna said, no bastard lives more than thirty days. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said to him, I was with you when Rebbi Abba, Rav Huna said in the name of Rav: No bastard lives more than thirty days, when? If it is unknown. Therefore, if it is known, he lives.

Jerusalem Talmud Kiddushin 4:23

[In the opinion of Rebbi Jehudah, may a male bastard not marry a female bastard?] Let us hear from the following, as Rebbi Immi said, Rebbi Jacob from Gebal stated before Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Isaac bar Tevele in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Rebbi Jehudah stated that a male bastard should not marry a female bastard so that bastards should disappear from the world. Similarly, is an Ammonite man forbidden to marry an Ammonite woman? Was that needed for the rabbis? For if Rebbi Jehudah thought that this disqualified converts from any of the Eternal’s congregations, then [the Ammonite] could not marry an Ammonite woman since for her he would be of the Eternal’s congregation. He could not marry an Egyptian woman since for her he would be of the Eternal’s congregation. Rebbi Mattania said, one frees a slave girl and marries her to him. Similarly, could an Egyptian man not marry an Egyptian woman? Let us hear from the following, as Rebbi Abbahu stated before Rebbi Joḥanan: “Rebbi Jehudah said, Benjamin, an Egyptian convert, was a student of Rebbi Aqiba. He said, I am an Egyptian convert married to an Egyptian convert. My son is an Egyptian convert; I shall marry him to an Egyptian convert so that my grandson will be qualified to marry into the congregation. Rebbi Aqiba said to him, my son, it is not so. But you marry him to the daughter of an Egyptian woman convert so that there should be three generations on either side.”

Jerusalem Talmud Kiddushin 4:27

HALAKHAH: “One who comes to marry a woman from a priestly family,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, this is Rebbi Meïr’s, as we have stated: “What is qualified dough? Anyone about whom there is [no suspicion of descent from] a desecrated one, a bastard, or a Gibeonite. Rebbi Meïr says, the daughter of any woman not tainted with any of these is qualified for the priesthood. But about a family in which a disability had disappeared, Rebbi Meïr says he checks up to four mothers and marries, but the Sages say, he checks forever.” Rav said, these are the words of Rebbi Meïr, but the Sages say, he checks from which family one marries into the priesthood and marries. Through whom does he check? Rebbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rebbi Josia: He checks through his female relatives. To Rebbi Ḥama came an old man; he asked him: Does one marry into the priesthood from this family? He answered: yes, and he was making a match based on this information. Rav said to his son Ḥiyya: Descend a degree to marry a wife. Rebbi Idi said, the following is a frequent saying of the rabbis: “If the woman was not impure but she is pure.” If she was not impure, she is pure. Not like Pappos ben Jehudah who locks the door before his wife. One said to him, did your forefathers act like this? A Cohen came to Rebbi Joḥanan and said to him: I acted on the Mishnah when I married a woman from a priestly family and checked after her four mothers which are eight. He said to him, if the origin was defective, who would inform you?

Jerusalem Talmud Kiddushin 4:27

Jerusalem Talmud Kiddushin 4:31

MISHNAH: The daughter of a male desecrated priest is always disqualified for the priesthood. The daughter of an Israel who married a desecrated woman is qualified for the priesthood. The daughter of adesecrated priest who married an Israel woman is disqualified for the priesthood. Rebbi Jehudah says, the daughter of a male proselyte is like the daughter of a desecrated priest. Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob said, the daughter of an Israel who married a proselyte is qualified for the priesthood and the daughter of a proselyte who married an Israel woman is qualified for the priesthood, but the daughter of a proselyte who married a proselyte is disqualified for the priesthood, both proselytes and freedmen, even for ten generations, unless the mother be from Israel. Rebbi Yose says, even the daughter of a proselyte who married a proselyte is qualified for the priesthood.

Jerusalem Talmud Kiddushin 4:31

Jerusalem Talmud Kiddushin 4:32

HALAKHAH: “The daughter of a desecrated priest,” etc. Rav Hamnuna in the name of Rav: Daughter, daughter’s daughter, forever. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Ismael: “In his clans.” Since by “in his clans” said there males are forbidden and females permitted, so by “in his clans” said here males are forbidden and females permitted. What is the difference between them? A Cohen who came to a divorcee and fathered a son; the son went and fathered a son and a daughter. In the opinion of Rav the son, the son’s daughter, the daughter’s son, and the daughter are forbidden. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan the son’s daughter is forbidden, the daughter’s son is permitted. The Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “The daughter of an Israel who married a desecrated woman is qualified for the priesthood.” He explains it, a broomstick desecrated one. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “Rebbi Jehudah says, the daughter of a male proselyte is like the daughter of a desecrated priest.” He explains that Rebbi Jehudah only comes to add. If he had said that the daughter of a desecrated priest is like the daughter of a male proselyte, you would have had a point.

Jerusalem Talmud Kiddushin 4:34

If a Cohen had intercourse with a divorcee and fathered a daughter, what is the status of the daughter’s daughter? Rebbi Ḥanania and Rebbi Mana, one said she is qualified, the other said she is disqualified. The one who said that she is qualified asked the one who said that she is disqualified: Is the daughter of a male desecrated priest not disqualified? Is the broomstick desecrated one not disqualified? Why is she disqualified?

Jerusalem Talmud Kiddushin 4:34

Jerusalem Talmud Kiddushin 4:48

MISHNAH: One man should not be alone with two women but one woman may be alone with two men. Rebbi Simeon says, he may be alone with two women as long as his wife is with him; he can sleep with them in a hostelry because his wife will watch over him. A man can be alone with his mother or his daughter and sleep with them with their skins touching; once they grew up each one sleeps in his garment. And a bachelor shall not be a school teacher; a woman shall not be a school teacher. Rebbi Eliezer says, also a man without a wife shall not be a school teacher. Rebbi Jehudah says, a bachelor shall not be a shepherd and two bachelors shall not sleep under one cover, but the Sages permit. Anybody whose occupation is with women should never be alone with women. And a man should not teach his son a craft for women. Rebbi Meïr says that a man should try to teach his son a clean and easy trade and pray to Him to Whom riches and properties belong since there is no trade in which poverty and riches are not found, for neither poverty nor riches come from the trade. Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says, did you ever see a wild animal or a bird which had a trade? And they sustain themselves without pain. But they were created only to serve me and sustain themselves without pain, and I was created to serve my Maker, it should be logical that I should be able to sustain myself without pain; only I worsened my deeds and destroyed my sustenance. Abba Gorion from Sidon says in the name of Abba Shaul: A man should not teach his son to be a donkey driver, a camel driver, a hairdresser, a sailor, a potter, a shepherd, or a grocer, since their occupations are those of robbers. Rebbi Jehudah says in the latter’s name: Most donkey drivers are wicked, most camel drivers are in order, most sailors are pious; the best of physicians goes to hell, the qualified among the butchers is an associate of Amaleq.

Jerusalem Talmud Kiddushin 4:54

New paragraph. Abba Orion from Sidon says in the name of Abba Shaul: Most donkey drivers are wicked, most camel drivers are in order, most sailors are pious, most bastards are intelligent, most slaves are beautiful, most children of reputed parents are bashful, most sons look like their mother’s brothers. The qualified physicians go to hell, the qualified among the butchers is an associate of Amaleq. Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai stated: Kill the best of Gentiles, smash the head of the best of snakes; the best qualified among women is a sorceress. Blessed is he who does the will of the Omnipresent.

Jerusalem Talmud Kiddushin 4:54

Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 1:16

New paragraph. “Properties not subject to the laws of misappropriation of sancta.” As it was stated: “These properties are acquired together with properties subject to the laws of misappropriation of sancta.” Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: This follows Rebbi Yose the Galilean, as it was stated: “ ‘He commits larceny before the Eternal,’ Rebbi Yose the Galilean says, this includes simple sancta. Ben Azzai says, this includes well-being sacrifices. Abba Yose ben Dosai says, Ben Azzai said this only for the firstling.” What is between them? He who says well-being sacrifices certainly include tithes. But he who says tithes excludes the firstling. “Rebbi Simeon says, both most holy and simple sancta; about any sancta for which he is responsible if alienated, I am reading ‘against his neighbor and he lied’; but about any sancta for which he is not responsible if alienated, I am reading ‘against the Eternal and he lied’ ”. Rav Huna said, both qualified and disqualified sancta, if he is responsible if alienated, even if they are for the Eternal, I am reading “against his fellow and he denied”, but if he is not responsible if alienated, I am reading “against the Eternal and he lied” but not “against his fellow and he lied”.

Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma 4:34

HALAKHAH: “If it was handed over to an unpaid trustee,” etc. Rebbi Eleazar said, the words of Rebbi Meïr that watching for damages is on the level of an unpaid trustee; Rebbi Jehuda said that watching for damages is on the level of a paid trustee. Rebbi Eleazar said, the words of Rebbi Meïr: If one handed over a bull to an unpaid trustee, if it went off and did damage, he is not liable; if it went out and became torn, he is not liable. To a paid trustee, if it went off and did damage, he is liable; if it went out and became torn, he is not liable. Rebbi Eleazar said, the words of Rebbi Jehudah: If one handed over a notorious bull to an unpaid trustee, if it went off and did damage, he is liable; if it went out and became torn, he is not liable. To a paid trustee, if it went off and did damage, he is liable; if it went out and became torn, he is liable. Rebbi Eleazar said, was it not watched? But the Torah declared him liable. Rebbi Eleazar said, for every guarding required by the Torah, even if it was done by enclosing in an iron wall, one only qualifies by personal presence. Therefore one determines whether he is qualified for watching; then he is not liable, otherwise he is liable.

Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 1:92

“From where that one adds another three, etc. It was stated: Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, in earlier times the ketubah of qualified women was signed only by priests, Levites, or Israel whose daughters were qualified to marry into the priesthood. Rebbi Yose said, in earlier times there was no disagreement in Israel but the Synhedrion of 71 members were sitting in the free-stone hall; two courts of three members each were sitting, one in the glacis and one on the Temple Mount; and a court of 23 was sitting in every town of the Land of Israel. If somebody had a question of religious practice, he went and asked it from the court in his town. If they had heard [the answer], they told him; otherwise he and their distinguished member went and asked a court in their neighborhood. If these had heard [the answer], they told him; otherwise he and their distinguished member went and asked from the court on the Temple Mount. If these had heard [the answer], they told him; otherwise he and their distinguished member went and asked from the court on the glacis. If these had heard [the answer], they told him; otherwise they together entered the High Court in the free-stone hall since from there instruction came accepted in all of Israel, as it is said: From this place which the Eternal will choose. Even though the Synhedrion in the free-stone hall had 71 members, those present never numbered less than 23. If one of them had to leave, he was looking around; if 23 others were present, he would leave, otherwise he would not leave. They were in session from the daily morning sacrifice to the daily evening sacrifice. On Sabbaths and holidays, they were sitting in the study hall on the Temple Mount. If a question of practice came up, if they had heard the answer, they told them; otherwise they prepared to vote. If a majority was for acquitting, they acquitted. If a majority was for a guilty verdict, they rendered a verdict of guilty. If a majority was for declaring pure, they declared pure. If a majority was for declaring impure, they declared impure. From the time that there were many students of Shammai and Hillel who did not study enough under their teachers, many disagreements arose and two doctrines developed. From there, they were sending to all towns in the Land of Israel; any time they found a person who was wise, meek, even-tempered, benevolent, pleasing, humble, good-hearted, with good intentions, and well endowed, they were placing him on the court of the Temple Mount, from there to the court on the glacis, and from there to the High Court in the free-stone hall.

Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 1:92

Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 3:3

MISHNAH: Each of them disqualifies the other’s judge, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, when is this? If he brings proof that they are relatives or disqualified. But if they are unexceptionable or qualified by the court he cannot disqualify them.

Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 3:6

MISHNAH: Each of them disqualifies the other’s witnesses, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, when is this? If he brings proof that they are relatives or disqualified. But if they are unexceptionable or qualified by the court he cannot disqualify them.

Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 3:11

MISHNAH: The following are disqualified: The dice-player, the lender on interest, participants in pigeon contests, dealers in sabbatical produce, and slaves. Rebbi Simeon said, earlier they were listing harvesters of sabbatical produce; but since the increase of oppressors they returned to list only dealers in sabbatical produce. Rebbi Jehudah said, when? If he has no profession but this; but if he has another profession, he is qualified.

Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 3:15

Rav Huna said: Who is the Tanna of “participants in pigeon contests”? Rebbi Eliezer, as we have stated there: “Participants in pigeon contests are disqualified from testimony.” Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose: Is that statement in Sanhedrin Rebbi Eliezer’s? He told him, it is everybody’s opinion. So said Rebbi Yose: We knew that he was disqualified for testimony in money matters. What does he come to testify about? For as he is disqualified in money matters, so he is disqualified to testify in criminal trials. The witnesses for the New Moon are held to the standards of criminal trials, as we have stated: “This is the principle: Any testimony for which a woman is not qualified, they are not qualified for.” Who stated this? The rabbis! Do the rabbis follow Rebbi Eliezer? They agree with him and disagree with him. Rebbi Huna in the name of Rav Huna said: It follows Rebbi Eliezer in everything. It turns out that this disagreement parallels another disagreement, as it was stated: A perjured witness is disqualified for any and all testimony required by the Torah, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Yose said, when has this been said? When he was found perjured in criminal matters. But if he was found perjured in money matters, he is disqualified only from that particular testimony. It turns out that Rebbi Yose parallels the rabbis and Rebbi Meïr Rebbi Eliezer.

Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 3:15

Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 3:16

“Rebbi Simeon says, earlier they were listing harvesters of sabbatical produce; but since the increase of oppressors they returned to list only dealers in sabbatical produce. Rebbi Jehudah said, when? If he has no profession but this; but if he has another profession, he is qualified.” How is this implemented? If he was sitting idle all the years of the sabbatical cycle but when the Sabbatical began he became active and traded in sabbatical produce. If at the same time he is engaged in another occupation, he is qualified; otherwise he is disqualified. But if he was working in his profession all the years of the sabbatical cycle and when the Sabbatical began he became active and traded in sabbatical produce, even if he has no other profession on the side he is qualified. Rebbi Abba bar Zavda, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Practice follows Rebbi Jehudah of our Mishnah. Rebbi Abba bar Zavda was praised for formulating the tradition in the name of a person younger than himself.

Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 3:16

Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 3:27

MISHNAH: The following are the relatives: His brother, his father’s brother and his mother’s brother, his sister’s husband, his father’s sister’s husband and his mother’s sister’s husband, his father-in-law, and his brother-in-law; these, their sons and sons-in-law, but his steps alone. Rebbi Yose said, this is Rebbi Aqiba’s teaching; but the original Mishnah was: His uncle and his uncle’s son, and anybody in line to inherit from him, and any related to him at that moment. If he had been related but became unrelated, he is qualified. Rebbi Jehudah says, even if his daughter had died but he had children from him, he remains a relative.

Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 3:61

“Qualified one but not disqualified one.” For it is said, if he does not tell, he has to bear his punishment. If he told, the other would have to pay money. This excludes one where the other would not have to pay money even if he told.

Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 3:62

“Before the court.” To exclude a single witness. If they told him that they would accept his word as if there were two [witnesses], would he be guilty? The verse says, if he had seen or known. One who is qualified to testify according to biblical standards; this excludes a single witness who is not qualified to testify according to biblical standards.

Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 3:62

Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 4:21

MISHNAH: In cases of money matters, purity, and impurity, one starts with the greatest. In criminal cases, one starts from the side. Everybody is qualified to judge money matters but not everybody is qualified to judge criminal matters, but only Cohanim, Levites and Israel whose daughters may marry into the priesthood.

Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 4:21

Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 4:25

“Anybody is qualified to judge money matters.” Rebbi Jehudah says, even bastards. Rebbi Jehudah says, one does not investigate about libation wine.

Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 4:26

“The Synhedrion was like a semicircular threshing floor,” etc. It is written: Do not bend your destitute’s proceeding in his trial. In his trial you do not bend; you may bend in the ox’s trial. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: But only in those rules which are different for civil and criminal suits. How many are these? We have stated nine; Rebbi Ḥiyya stated eleven. Which rules are the last two? The castrate and one who never had children is qualified to judge civil suits but not criminal suits. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Also one who is less than twenty years of age or who does not have two pubic hairs is qualified to judge civil suits but not criminal suits. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said thirteen. Which rules are the last two? One judges two civil suits on one day but one does not try two criminal suits on one day. Rebbi Abin said, even adulterer and adulteress.

Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 4:26

Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 10:45

Doëg was a man great in Torah. Israel came and asked David, does the showbread supersede the Sabbath? He told them, its arrangement supersedes the Sabbath, but neither its kneading nor its forming supersedes the Sabbath. Doëg was there and said, who is the one who comes to instruct in my presence? They told him, it is David ben Jesse. He went immediately and counseled Saul, the king of Israel, to kill the priests of Nob, the city of priests. This is what is written: The king said to the runners who stood by him, surround and kill the priests of the Eternal for they also are involved with David, etc., up to they did not inform me. Who were they? Rebbi Samuel bat Rav Isaac said, they were Abner and Amasa. They told him, you have us indebted to you only for this belt and this כלינירין. Here they are torn for you. The king’s servants did not want to kill the priests of the Eternal. The king said to Doyeg. Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi said, it is written to Doyeg. They told him, you are caught like a fish; you committed a great sin. Turn you and smite the priests of the Eternal. Doëg the Edomite turned and smote the priests, etc. But did not Rebbi Ḥiyya state, “one does not appoint two High Priests together”? But this teaches that all of them were qualified for the High Priesthood. How was he removed? Rebbi Ḥanina and Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: One said, fire came from the Holiest of Holies and burned around him. But the other said, competent students came to him, they were learning but he was forgetting, to confirm what is written: The property swallowed by him he throws up; God removes it from his belly.

Jerusalem Talmud Shevuot 3:53

MISHNAH: A blurted oath applies to men and women, relatives and unrelated persons, qualified and disqualified persons, before a court or out of court, from his own mouth. For intentional violation one is liable to flogging, for unintentional [to bring] a variable sacrifice. A vain oath applies to men and women, to relatives and unrelated persons, to qualified and disqualified ones, in court and out of court, and by his own words. For intentional violation one is liable to flogging, for unintentional he is not prosecutable. In both cases, one who is sworn to by another person can be liable. How is this? One said, “I did not eat today, I did not put on phylacteries today.” “I want you to swear to it,” if he said “Amen” he is liable.

Jerusalem Talmud Shevuot 3:53

Jerusalem Talmud Shevuot 4:1

MISHNAH: An oath about testimony applies to men but not to women, to unrelated persons but not to relatives, to qualified but not to disqualified ones; it applies only to those admitted to testify, in court and out of court, and by the person’s own words. By the words of others they only become liable if they renege before a court, the words of Rebbi Meїr. But the Sages say, whether by the person’s own words or by the words of others they only become liable if they renege before a court. They are liable both for intentional [violation of the] oath and for erroneous one, and for intentional [refusal of] testimony, but one is not liable unintentionally. What is one liable for if intentional? A variable value sacrifice.

Jerusalem Talmud Shevuot 4:17

“To qualified but not to disqualified ones.” For it is said, if he does not tell, he has to bear his punishment. If he told, the other would have to pay money. This excludes one where the other would not have to pay money even if he told.

Jerusalem Talmud Shevuot 4:18

“Before the court.” To exclude a single witness. If they told him that they would accept his word as if there were two witnesses, from where? The verse says, if he was a witness, had seen or known; if he does not tell he shall bear his punishment. One who is qualified to testify according to biblical standards; this excludes a single witness who is not qualified to testify.

Jerusalem Talmud Shevuot 4:18

Jerusalem Talmud Shevuot 5:1

MISHNAH: An oath about a deposit applies to men and women, unrelated persons and relatives, qualified and disqualified persons, before a court or out of court, from his own mouth. From the mouth of another he is liable only if he denies in court, the words of Rebbi Meїr. But the Sages say, whether by his own mouth or the mouth of others, from the moment that he denies, he is liable. He is liable for intent about the oath, or error about it with intent about the deposit, but he is not liable for error about the latter. What is he liable for in case of intentional violation? A reparation offering in the value of two Šeqalim.

Jerusalem Talmud Shevuot 6:27

“Rebbi Simeon says, both most holy and simple sancta; about any sancta for which he is responsible if alienated, I am reading against his neighbor and he lied; but about any sancta for which he is not responsible if alienated, I am reading against the Eternal and he lied.” Rav Huna said, both qualified and disqualified sancta, if he is responsible if alienated, even if they are for the Eternal, I am reading against his neighbor and he lied; but if he is not responsible if alienated, I am reading against the Eternal and he lied but not against his neighbor and he lied.

Jerusalem Talmud Shevuot 7:20

Rav Huna said: Who is the Tanna of “participants in pigeon contests”? Rebbi Eliezer, as we have stated there: “Participants in pigeon contests are disqualified from testimony.” Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose: Is that statement in Sanhedrin Rebbi Eliezer’s? He told him, it is everybody’s opinion. So said Rebbi Yose: We knew that he was disqualified for testimony in money matters. What does he come to testify about? For as he is disqualified in money matters, so he is disqualified to testify in criminal trials. The witnesses for the New Moon are held to the standards of criminal trials, as we have stated: “Any testimony for which a woman is not qualified, they are not qualified for.” Who stated this? The rabbis! Do the rabbis follow Rebbi Eliezer? They agree with him and disagree with him. Rebbi Huna in the name of Rebbi Jonah said: It follows Rebbi Eliezer in everything. It turns out that this disagreement parallels another disagreement, as it was stated: A perjured witness is disqualified for any and all testimony required by the Torah, the words of Rebbi Meїr. Rebbi Yose said, when has this been said? When he was found perjured in criminal matters. But if he was found perjured in money matters, he is disqualified only from that particular testimony. It turns out that Rebbi Yose parallels the rabbis and Rebbi Meїr Rebbi Eliezer.

Jerusalem Talmud Shevuot 7:20

Rav Huna said: Who is the Tanna of “participants in pigeon contests”? Rebbi Eliezer, as we have stated there: “Participants in pigeon contests are disqualified from testimony.” Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose: Is that statement in Sanhedrin Rebbi Eliezer’s? He told him, it is everybody’s opinion. So said Rebbi Yose: We knew that he was disqualified for testimony in money matters. What does he come to testify about? For as he is disqualified in money matters, so he is disqualified to testify in criminal trials. The witnesses for the New Moon are held to the standards of criminal trials, as we have stated: “Any testimony for which a woman is not qualified, they are not qualified for.” Who stated this? The rabbis! Do the rabbis follow Rebbi Eliezer? They agree with him and disagree with him. Rebbi Huna in the name of Rebbi Jonah said: It follows Rebbi Eliezer in everything. It turns out that this disagreement parallels another disagreement, as it was stated: A perjured witness is disqualified for any and all testimony required by the Torah, the words of Rebbi Meїr. Rebbi Yose said, when has this been said? When he was found perjured in criminal matters. But if he was found perjured in money matters, he is disqualified only from that particular testimony. It turns out that Rebbi Yose parallels the rabbis and Rebbi Meїr Rebbi Eliezer.

Jerusalem Talmud Avodah Zarah 2:70

Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: At first they were saying, one curdles neither with the stomach content of the carcass nor with the stomach contents of the Gentile. They changed to say, one curdles with the stomach content of the carcass but not with the stomach contents of the Gentile. Rebbi Abba bar Zavda, Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac asked: Does this negate the declaration of Rebbi Eliezer, since Rebbi Eliezer said, the thoughts of the Non-Jew are about pagan worship? Rebbi (Assi) [Yasa] came in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Originally, they said, one does curdle [neither] with carcass stomach contents nor with Gentile’s stomach contents. They changed to say, one does curdle with carcass stomach contents and with Gentile’s stomach contents. The language of a baraita supports Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: Stomach contents of a Gentile or a carcass is forbidden following the original teaching. (The stomach contents of a torn animal which suckled from a qualified one are permitted following the later teaching; the stomach contents of a qualified animal which suckled from a torn one are forbidden following the later teaching.) [The stomach contents of a qualified animal which suckled from a torn one are forbidden following the former teaching, and the stomach contents of a torn animal which suckled from a qualified one are permitted following the later teaching.] And even if the House of Shammai would argue like the House of Hillel in the first teaching, an egg is a growth of its body; the contents of the stomach come from the outside. It parallels what Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It happened to the son[s] of (Rebbi) Jehudah ben Shamua that wolves tore more than 300 of their flock. The case came before the Sages who permitted their stomach contents. They said, an egg is a growth of its body; the contents of the stomach come from the outside.

Jerusalem Talmud Avodah Zarah 2:70

Jerusalem Talmud Avodah Zarah 4:5

Rav commanded to the family of Rav Aḥa, Rebbi Immi commanded to his own family, if you go out on the fast day you should not incline normally. Rebbi Jonah inclined on his side; Rebbi Aḥa inclined on his side. Rebbi Samuel said, I saw Rebbi Abbahu inclining normally. Rebbi Yose said, I pointed out a difficulty before Rebbi Abbahu, is it not written, a maskit stone you shall not put up in your land to bow down on it. Explain it if he fixed a place for it. But is it not written, it was when David arrived at the mountaintop where one bows down before God? Except bowing down which is not on the ground. Does there exist bowing down which is not on the ground? They fell down with their faces to the ground and bowed down. Rebbi Abbahu added up to give thanks to the Eternal for He is good; Rebbi Mana added up to for eternal is His kindness to Israel. Rebbi Joḥanan said to Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: Babylonian, two things came from you, the stretching out on the Fast Day, and the willow of the Seventh Day. The rabbis of Caesarea say, also this blood letting. It follows what Rebbi Immi said, the Babylonians in the name of the rabbis there: They permitted prostrating only on a public fast, and only on the side. The younger Rebbi Yannai in the name of his fathers: Anybody who is not qualified like Joshua that if he falls on his face the Holy One, praise to Him, would tell him, get up, should not fall down, in the case of an individual [praying] for the community.

Jerusalem Talmud Makkot 1:4

It is written: He shall not desecrate his issue in his people. Not only his issue will be desecrated; from where also she? Is this not a logical inference? Since the issue, which did not sin, is desecrated, should she, who committed a sin, not logically be desecrated? He himself is a counter example, since he committed a sin but was not desecrated. No. If you argue about a man who is not desecrated in any circumstance, what can you say about a woman who is desecrated in many circumstances? Since she is desecrated in many circumstances, it is logical that she should be desecrated. If you wish you can say “not to desecrate”, not to desecrate, about somebody who was qualified and became desecrated.

Jerusalem Talmud Horayot 3:32

If one was incapacitated and the other officiated. The first has all the sanctity of the High Priesthood on him; the second one is qualified neither as High Priest nor as common priest. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if he transgressed and officiated, his officiating is (invalid) [valid]. Whose officiating? Let us hear from the following: It happened to Ben Illem from Sepphoris that the High Priest experienced an emission of semen on the Day of Atonement; Ben Illem entered and officiated in his stead. He went out and asked the king: “The bull and the ram which are brought today, from whose property are they offered? From his or from the High Priest’s?” The king understood what he was asking and answered him, “is it not enough for you that you served once before Him Who spoke and the world was created?” Ben Illem understood that he was removed from the High Priesthood.

Jerusalem Talmud Horayot 3:54

“A Sage has precedence over the king.” If a Sage dies, we do not have a replacement. If a king dies, all of Israel are qualified for the kingdom.

The Babylonian Talmud

Babylonian Talmud Berakhot 4:65

Let us, then, appoint R. Eleazar b. 'Azariah, for he is wise, rich, and he is of the tenth generation from Ezra. He is wise, so if anyone puts difficult questions to him, he will be able to reply to him ; and he is rich, so if it be necessary for someone to attend at the palace of the Emperor, he will be qualified to do so ; and he is of the tenth generation from Ezra, so he possesses ancestral merit and Rabban Gamaliel will not be able to worry him on that score." They attended upon R. Eleazar b. 'Azariah and asked him, "Would the master consent to become the head of the College?" He replied, "I will first go and take counsel with the members of my household." He went and consulted his wife, and she said to him,

Babylonian Talmud Megillah 1:317

How have you explained [the Mishnah]? As not agreeing with R. Meir. What about the end of the mishnah: There is no difference between a serving [high] priest and one whose time has passed except the bull of Yom HaKippurim and the tenth of the ephah. But we can infer that in all other matters they are the same; and so we come to the view of R. Meir, as it has been taught, If something happened to disqualify him and they appointed another priest to take his place, when the first returns to his service the second is still liable to all the obligations of the high priesthood, the words of R. Meir. R. Yose said: The first returns to his service whereas the second is not qualified to act as a high priest or as an ordinary priest.

Babylonian Talmud Megillah 1:318

R. Yose further said: It happened with R. Jose b. Ulam from Tziporri that a disqualification occurred to the high priest and they appointed him in his place, and the case eventually came before the Sages and they said: The first returns to his service. The second is not qualified to act either as a high priest or as an ordinary priest:

Babylonian Talmud Megillah 2:111

But perhaps the whole [of the Mishnah] is R. Judah, and he teaches of two kinds of minors, and the Mishnah is lacking and it should teach this: All are qualified to read the Megillah, except a deaf man, an imbecile and a minor. What is this speaking of? Of a minor who is not old enough to be educated in the mitzvot. But a minor who is old enough to be educated in the mitzvot may read even ab initio, since R. Judah declares a minor qualified!

Babylonian Talmud Megillah 2:111

Babylonian Talmud Megillah 2:118

R. Judah declares a minor qualified. It has been taught: R. Judah said: When I was a young boy, I read it [the Megillah] in front of R. Tarfon and the elders in Lod. They said to him: Proof cannot be brought from the testimony of a minor.

Babylonian Talmud Megillah 3:82

Our Rabbis taught: All are qualified to be among the seven [who read], even a minor and a woman, only the Sages said that a woman should not read in the Torah out of respect for the congregation.