rabbinical

"If there is doubt concerning the hands as to whether they have contracted uncleanness, have conveyed uncleanness or have attained cleanness, they are deemed clean." "Any doubt that arose in a public domain is deemed clean. "A condition of doubt concerning an ordinance of the scribes": [For instance, he is uncertain whether] he ate unclean food or drank unclean liquids, whether he immersed his head and the greater part of his body in drawn water, or whether there fell on his head and the greater part of his body three log of drawn water, such a condition of doubt is deemed clean. But if a condition of doubt arose concerning a father of uncleanness even though it was only rabbinical, it is deemed unclean.

It is stated: Ten cups one drinks in the house of a mourner: two before the meal, five during the meal, and three after the meal. These are the three after the meal: one for Grace, one for those who exercise charity, one for those who console mourners. And when Rabban (Simeon ben) Gamliel died, they added another three: One for the Ḥazzan of the community, one for the head of the community, and one for Rabban Gamliel. But when the Rabbinical authorities saw that they regularly got drunk they decreed and returned it to the original status.

It was stated: “Everybody who comes has to accept, even a learned ḥaver; but a rabbi who has been sitting in rabbinical court does not have to accept because he did it at the moment he joined the court.” Rebbi La said, only if he really accepted it from the first hour on. Rebbi Yose asked, if it was from the first hour, what is the difference between a ḥaver and an am ḥaäreẓ? The position of Rebbi La parallels that of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, for Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish came to those of the house of Rebbi Yannai; the women saw him and removed themselves from before him. He said to them, I shall come to your house; I am an am haäreẓ with respect to purities.

It is written (Lev. 11:28): “They are impure for you”. Why does it say (Lev. 11:35) “they shall be impure for you”? One is for the prohibition of eating, the other for the prohibition of usufruct. Anything forbidden by the Torah is forbidden for trade but everything whose prohibition is rabbinical is permitted for trade. But is there not the donkey? It is raised for work. Is there not the camel? It is raised for work. Rebbi Yehoshaiah traded in muries, Rebbi Ḥuna traded in asafoetida.

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, if he shows him the stump; then he pays him only the wages of his feet. Rebbi Joḥanan said, even if he did not show it to him it is as if he had. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, as it was stated: “If somebody hires a worker to bring wine for a sick person, or an apple for a sick person, if he delivered it, he must pay, otherwise he does not have to pay. But if he said to him, wine for a sick person from place X, or an apple for a sick person from place X, he has to pay him whether he delivered or not because he pays him the wages of his feet.” What does Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish do with this? He explains that he showed him. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan, as it was stated: “Nobody should say to his neighbor, here you have a denar and bring me gleanings today, bring me peah today. But he may say to him, for gleanings you will bring today, for peah you will bring today. The same rules apply to a Levite.” Here, he did not show him; is it considered as if he showed him? What does Rebbi Joḥanan dowith this? They were particularly lenient with the Sabbatical because it is rabbinical.

“The one for the fire has a measure,” for it is biblical. “The one for the Cohen has no measure,” for it is rabbinical. Should he give for the fire and not for the Cohen? That they should not say, we saw pure heave being burned. Should he give for the Cohen and not for the fire? That they should not say, we saw impure heave being eaten. Since he gives both of them, when he comes here, he will ask.

But both are rabbinical! It is better to increase the one to be eaten, not the one to be burned.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, our teachers in the Diaspora used to separate heave and tithes until the youngsters came and dissuaded them. Who are the youngsters? The interpreters. Rebbi Zeïra, Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: For ḥallah from outside the Land and heave from outside the Land one may eat before one separates. Rebbi Abba in the name of Samuel: They only worried about heave of grain, cider, and oil. Rebbi Hila in the name of Samuel: They only worried about heave, but for vegetables they did not worry even about the Great Heave, as it was stated: Issi ben Aqabiah says that tithes for vegetables are rabbinical.

Mishnah: “If there is a doubt whether it is dark or not dark,” etc. It happened that Rebbi Eliezer was dying on a Friday when it got dark. His son Hyrcanus entered to remove his phylacteries. He told him, my son, you neglected the commandment of the light which is for the Sabbath and for which one incurs extirpation and you came to remove phylacteries which is only rabbinical and is only a [positive] commandment. He left crying and said, woe to me that my father has lost his mind. He told him, your mind is lost, my mind is not lost. When his students saw that he answered him wisely they entered to him and started asking him. He answered on the impure impure and the pure pure; at the end he said “pure” and his soul vanished. They said, it is clear that our teacher is pure. Rebbi Mana said, it still is clear. Rebbi Joshua entered, removed his phylacteries, was embracing him, and kissing him, and crying, and said, my teacher, my teacher, the vow has been dissolved; my teacher, chariot of Israel and its riders.

HALAKHAH: 7: In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan there one burns biblical impurity with biblical impurity. He comes to add biblical disqualification with biblical impurity. In the opinion of Bar Qappara there one burns rabbinical impurity with biblical impurity. Here, biblical disqualification with biblical impurity only comes to diminish. Explain it if he was ṭevul yom from a bet happeras which is rabbinical. Rebbi Ḥananiah, the executive officer of the Cohanim, did state it in the name of the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel.

HALAKHAH: 7: In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan there one burns biblical impurity with biblical impurity. He comes to add biblical disqualification with biblical impurity. In the opinion of Bar Qappara there one burns rabbinical impurity with biblical impurity. Here, biblical disqualification with biblical impurity only comes to diminish. Explain it if he was ṭevul yom from a bet happeras which is rabbinical. Rebbi Ḥananiah, the executive officer of the Cohanim, did state it in the name of the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel.

Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose stated in the name of his father: If there was a daughter, she enables to eat. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Because she is able to take her upkeep away from them. Is a wife not also able to take her upkeep away from them? She might request her ketubah be paid or lose her ketubah. This is difficult! The ketubah is a biblical institution, the upkeep of the daughters is rabbinical; do their institutions uproot a word of the Torah? It follows him who said that they accepted tithes voluntarily.

HALAKHAH: “On the same day, Rebbi Aqiba explained,” etc. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rav and Samuel. One said, Rebbi Aqiba referred to both heave and profane food, but the other referred to heave but not to profane food. But one does not know who said what. Since Rebbi Yose said in the name of Rebbi Jonah, they said, Rav in the name of the elder Rebbi Ḥiyya: The tertiary comes because of the reptile. This implies that he said that Rebbi Aqiba referred to both heave and profane food. A Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “If tithe food was prepared [for impurity] by a fluid and a ṭevul yom or unclean hands touched it, one may take from it the heave of the tithe in purity because it is tertiary, and the tertiary is pure for profane food.” He explains that it is a leniency about hands [whose impurity] is rabbinical. But did we not state: “A ṭevul yom”? Explain it by a ṭevul yom from [the impurity] of a broken field. Rebbi Zeïra said, you may even say a biblical tevul yom. There is a difference since it is written “pure, impure”. Pure for profane food during daytime and for heave when it gets dark. Rebbi Ḥaggai objected before Rebbi Yose: May we not say: Pure for touch and impure for eating? He answered him, vessels are mentioned in the paragraph! Can you say about vessels that they are pure for touch and impure for eating?

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Mana: Why did they say that secondarily impure profane food defiles profane fluids? Because of the hands. Since hands, [whose impurity] is rabbinical, defile profane fluids, secondarily impure food, [whose impurity] is biblical, not so much more? Also, since hands, in a case of doubt whether they defiled, impart impurity, so also secondarily impure fluids, in a case of doubt whether they defiled, impart impurity. Rebbi Ḥanina objected before Rebbi Mana: Look, if somebody eats secondarily impure food and drinks secondarily impure fluids, in a case of doubt whether they defiled, they impart impurity. But secondarily impure foods by biblical standards, in a case of doubt whether they defiled, leave it pure! Rebbi Ḥanina said before Rebbi Mana: Do we not deal with heave? He said to him, even if you say that we deal with heave; is the one who argues “is impure”, “shall become impure” as word of the Torah not Rebbi Aqiba?

“Rebbi Yose said, if a slave said, ‘I shall be a nazir when manumitted,’ his master forces him in matters of nezirut. [The master] can force a slave in matters of nezirut; he does not have to force him in matters either of vows or of oaths.” Rebbi Jeremiah asked before Rebbi Ze‘ira: If his master forced him and he became impure, is he to be whipped? Or is that only practice? Where do we hold? If his nezirut has biblical status and by practice one may force, he is whipped. If both are rabbinical, he is not whipped. Rebbi Mana said, does one whip for practice? But it must be the following: If his nezirut is practice and by practice one may force, he is whipped. If both are rabbinical, he is not whipped.

“Rebbi Yose said, if a slave said, ‘I shall be a nazir when manumitted,’ his master forces him in matters of nezirut. [The master] can force a slave in matters of nezirut; he does not have to force him in matters either of vows or of oaths.” Rebbi Jeremiah asked before Rebbi Ze‘ira: If his master forced him and he became impure, is he to be whipped? Or is that only practice? Where do we hold? If his nezirut has biblical status and by practice one may force, he is whipped. If both are rabbinical, he is not whipped. Rebbi Mana said, does one whip for practice? But it must be the following: If his nezirut is practice and by practice one may force, he is whipped. If both are rabbinical, he is not whipped.

It is written: “They are impure for you”. Why does it say “they shall be impure for you”? One is for the prohibition of eating, the other for the prohibition of usufruct. Anything forbidden [by the Torah is forbidden for trade, but everything whose prohibition] is rabbinical is permitted for trade. But is there not the donkey? It is raised for work. Is there not the camel? It is raised for work.

Ahi [asked of him] a Tanna of the school of R. Hiyya, asked R. Hiyya : May one interrupt the Hallel or the Megillah [to greet a person] ? Do we argue a fortiori : If with the reading of the Shema', which is an ordinance of the Torah, one may interrupt, how much more so should it be permitted in the case of the Hallel or the Megillah, which is only a Rabbinical ordinance ! Or is it perhaps that the proclamation of a miracle is superior [to the reading of the [Shema'] ?

Rabina said to Raba : Has the master seen the Rabbinical scholar who has come from the West and said, "Who has no water wherewith to wash his hands should rub them with earth or pebbles or sawdust"?

GEMARA What was Rabban Gamaliel's reason? He was of the opinion that the application of the laws of mourning in the night is a Rabbinical injunction; for it is written, "And the end thereof as a bitter day" (Amos viii. 10); and in the case of a person in delicate health, the Rabbis do not so decree.

It is different with a Rabbinical scholar, because the Holy One, blessed be He, defends his honour.

Rab Adda b. Ahabah said : Women are under the obligation to recite the Sanctitication of the [Sabbath] day by the ordinance of the Torah. But why, since it is a command the observance of which is dependent upon a certain point of time, and women are exempt from all commands of this class ! Abbai answered : [The Sanctification by women] is a Rabbinical ordinance.

A certain man went down [to the Ark] in the presence of Rabbah and said, "Thou hast compassion on a bird's nest ; do Thou have compassion and mercy upon us." Rabbah exclaimed, "How this Rabbinical scholar knows how to find favour with his Lord!" Abbai said to him, "Lo, we have learnt in the Mishnah: We silence him!"

Then let him say : The Halakah is in agreement with R. 'Akiba outside the Land; for everyone who takes the lenient view within the Land, the Halakah is in accord with him outside the Land ! If he had stated that, I might have said : This applies to the tithe of trees which within the Land is a Rabbinical ordinance ; but with regard to 'Orlah, which within the Land is ordained by the Torah, I must suppose that likewise outside the Land we must apply it ! Therefore he informs us.

Rammi b. Hamma refused to include for Zimmun Rab Menashya b.Tahlifa who taught Sifra, Sifre and the Halakah. When Rammi b. Hamma departed this life, Raba said : He only died because he refused to include Rab Menashya b. Tahlifa for Zimmun. But there is a teaching : Others declare ; Even if one has studied Torah and Mishnah but has not ministered to the disciplas of the wise, he is an 'Am ha'ares ! It is different with Rab Menashya b. Tahlifa because he did minister to the Rabbis, but Rammi b. Hamma failed to make careful inquiry about him. Another version is : Rab Menashya heard the teachings from the mouth of the Rabbis and studied them, and therefore was like a Rabbinical scholar.

And If you will answer [the duty of educating] a child who is not dependent on his mother is merely a Rabbinical decree, and she took no heed of a Rabbinical decree, I add ‘and besides, she did nothing except in accordance with the command of the Sages’.

And If you will answer [the duty of educating] a child who is not dependent on his mother is merely a Rabbinical decree, and she took no heed of a Rabbinical decree, I add ‘and besides, she did nothing except in accordance with the command of the Sages’.

Judah speaks only there with regard to the eruv of courtyards, which is of rabbinical origin, but here, with regard to the sukkah which is from the Torah, he does not [say so]. ‘Nor does R. Yose hold the opinion of R. Judah,’ for R. Yose speaks only here with regard to the Sukkah which is merely a positive commandment but with regard to Shabbat, which is a prohibition punishable by stoning, he does not say so.

The master said, [The word] "every" comes to include minors. But have we not learned: women, slaves and minors are exempt from the sukkah? There is no difficulty. One source refers to a minor who has reached the age of education, and one source refers to where he has not yet reached the age of being trained. But is not the obligation of a minor who has reached the age of being trained a derabanan (from the rabbis) commandment? It is indeed of rabbinical origin, the Scriptural verse was merely a support.

Rava said: What difficulty is this? Perhaps one is a Torah commandment and one is a rabbinical obligation? Rather Rava said: If there is a difficulty, it is this: He should take it when he comes home [even if he is] at his table therefore he must interrupt [his meal]. And then it teaches: If he did not take it during the morning he should take it at any time before dusk—therefore he need not interrupt [his meal].

R. Zera said: What difficulty is this? Perhaps it is a mitzvah to interrupt [one's meal for the purpose of taking the lulav] but if he did not interrupt it he should take [the lulav] at any time before dusk, since the whole day is valid for the taking of the lulav? Rather said R. Zera: [The difficulty] is indeed as we said previously; and with regard to your difficulty one is from the Torah and one is from the rabbis, here we are dealing with the second day of the Festival when [the obligation of taking the lulav on] which is only Rabbinical.

It is R. Judah who was mistaken. He thought that He thought that [R. Yohanan b. Zakkai] meant that it was forbidden as a rabbinical prohibition, but it is not so. He meant it as a Torah prohibition. But does it not say, "He instituted"? What is meant by "He instituted" is that he expounded (the Torah) and instituted the law accordingly.

Rabbah b. Bar Hana said in the name of R. Yohanan: [The blessing is recited over] the Sukkah for seven days and over the lulav for one day. What is the reason? For the Sukkah which is a Toraitic commandment [the blessing must be recited all] seven [days]; in the case of the lulav which is only a rabbinical commandment [a blessing on] one day suffices.

On days when Hallel was to be recited, there was no Ma'amad, etc. Why should there be such a distinction between the one (the day with a Musaf offering) and the other (the day with a wood offering)? Answer: The Musaf offering is a biblical ordinance and therefore requires no additional protection by the Rabbis (hence it is enough when it is made to supersede the Ma'amad during Minḥah service only), but the wood offering is a rabbinical enactment and therefore must have special protection (hence the wood offering is made to supersede both the Minḥah and the Ne'ilah services of the Ma'amad).

Abaye said to a one of the rabbinical students who used to arrange his mishnah in front of R. Sheshet: Have you ever heard from R. Shesheth what is meant by dukhsusya? He replied: This is what R. Shesheth said: The town horseman.

Abaye said: This shows that a rabbinical student who has heard something of which he does not know the meaning should ask one who is frequently in the company of the Rabbis, since he is almost certain to have heard the answer from some great man.

Akiva asked R. Nehunia the Great: How did you live so long? His attendants came and beat him. He went and sat on the top of a date tree. He said to him: Rabbi, seeing that it says “a lamb” why does it also say “one” (Numbers 28:4)? Thereupon he [R. Nehuniah] said: He is a rabbinical student, leave him alone.

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

Rafram eulogized his daughter-in-law in the synagogue, saying: For my honor and for the honor of the dead all the people will come. Zera eulogized a certain rabbinical student in the synagogue, saying: Either for my honor and for the honor of the dead all the people will come.

Resh Lakish eulogized a certain rabbinical student who was frequently in the Land of Israel and who used to repeat halakhoth before twenty-four rows [of disciples]. He said: Alas! The Land of Israel has lost a great man.

The Mishnah teacher said, The expression "all thy males" is to include the children. But there is a canonical Mishnah, Except a deaf man, a fool and a child (Chag. 2a, i. 1). Abai said, There is no difficulty. The one case has to do with a child who has reached the age for initiation in the law, the other with a child who has not reached the age for initiation. A child who has reached the age for initiation—this is Rabbinical only. Even so, and the expression is a mere supporting peg. But why does the expression come? To correspond with what the others said. For we have a Baraitha, Others say, the cordwainer and the smelter in bronze and the tanner are exempt from the holocaust, because it is said "all thy males" (Ex. xxiii. 17, Deut. xvi. 16), i.e., he who is able to go up with all thy males. They are exempt, who are not fit to go up with all thy males.

MISHNA: How are witnesses [which come before a rabbinical court to testify] made zomemim [false witnesses]? Witnesses [proven false] testify that this person is a son of a divorcee or a son of a Levirite marriage. We don't say that they become like a son of a divorcee or a son of a Levirite marriage, rather they are lashed forty times.

Rava says, the boundary regarding eating is Biblical, but the boundary regarding encompassing is only Rabbinical. And when did the Rabbis decree this rule? Only when it is actually there, but in a case where it is untithed the Rabbis did not apply this rule.