rebbi

39436 occurrences across the corpus

The Jerusalem Talmud

Simeon bar Abba was in Damascus and smaller people than he were ordained but he was not ordained. Simeon bar Abba was an expert in everything concerning pearls but he did not have a loaf to eat. Rebbi Joḥanan quoted about him (Eccl. 9:11): “Also bread is not for Sages.” He said, anybody who does not know the good works of Abraham may know them through the good works of this man’s ancestors. Simeon bar Abba was in Damascus when Rebbi Abbahu sent him a letter and enclosed some of his grey hair: “For these gray hairs’ sake, get up and go to the Land of Israel. Who would remove the earth from your eyes, Rebbi Joḥanan: Abbahu the shoe-clad was ordained, Simeon the toga-clad was not ordained!”

Jerusalem Talmud Bikkurim 3:29

MISHNAH: The fife beats before them until they arrive at the Temple Mount. Arrived at the Temple Mount, even king Agrippas takes the basket on his own shoulder and enters until he arrives at the Temple courtyard. When they arrived at the Temple courtyard, the Levites sang (Ps. 30:2): “I shall elevate You, Eternal, for You drew me up and You did not make my enemies happy because of me.” The pigeons on the baskets were elevation sacrifices and what was in their hands they gave to the Cohanim. As long as the basket is still on his shoulder he reads from (Deut. 26:3) “I am declaring today before the Eternal, your God” until he finishes the entire paragraph. Rebbi Jehudah says, until (v. 5): “My father was a wandering Aramean.” When he comes to “my father was a wandering Aramean”, he takes the basket down from his shoulder, holds it by its rim, and the Cohen puts his hand under it and weaves it. Then he reads from “my father was a wandering Aramean” until he finishes the entire paragraph, he puts it down next to the altar, prostrates himself, and leaves. In earlier times, everybody who knew how to read, read, and everybody who did not know how to read, had someone read before him. When they refrained from bringing they instituted that one read before him who knew and him who did not know. Rich people bring their First Fruits in bowls of silver and gold but poor people bring them in baskets of stripped willow twigs. Baskets and First Fruits are given to the Cohanim.

Jerusalem Talmud Bikkurim 3:32

Rebbi Yose stated: They did not put the pigeons on top of the baskets in order not to dirty them but one hangs them on the sides of the baskets.

Jerusalem Talmud Bikkurim 3:33

An old man stated before Rebbi Zeïra: He returns to “I am declaring today.” But can a person declare and repeat it? We support it: I already declared.

Jerusalem Talmud Bikkurim 3:34

Huna asked: Does depositing it permit to those lacking time? Rav Mattania said, that means, if he took them up again. But if they stayed in their place they are deposited. Rebbi Jonah asked, if he deposited them in the night?

Jerusalem Talmud Bikkurim 3:37

Rebbi Jonah asked: May one bring in large silver bowls?

Jerusalem Talmud Bikkurim 3:38

Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Jeremiah. One says, one repeats “vessel”. The other one says, one repeats “unleavened with vegetables” because you have to say “unleavened with bitter herbs.” We do not know who said what. Since Rebbi Jonah said, may one bring in large silver baskets, that shows that he must have said that one repeats “vessel”. One must say: “basket.” Rebbi Phineas said, one must repeat (Lev. 1:14): “Fattened and young pigeons” because one must say “pigeons and young pigeons.”

Jerusalem Talmud Bikkurim 3:38

Jerusalem Talmud Bikkurim 3:39

MISHNAH: Rebbi Simeon ben Nanas says, one adorns First Fruits [with anything] except from the Seven Kinds. Rebbi Aqiba says, one adorns First Fruits only with the Seven Kinds. Rebbi Simeon says, there are three components of First Fruits. First Fruits, additions to First Fruits, and adornments of First Fruits. Additions to First Fruits are of the same kind, adornments of First Fruits are not of the same kind. Additions to First Fruits are eaten in purity and exempt from the rules of demay, adornments of First Fruits are subject to the rules of demay.

Jerusalem Talmud Bikkurim 3:39

Jerusalem Talmud Bikkurim 3:40

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Yose said: Everybody agrees that one adorns First Fruits with produce of the Land since nobody errs to think that one may bring First Fruits from outside the Land. They differ about this, about Ammon and Moab. For him who says, one adorns First Fruits [with anything] except from the Seven Kinds, one may adorn First Fruits with produce from Ammon and Moab. For him who says, one adorns First Fruits only with the Seven Kinds, one may not adorn First Fruits with produce from Ammon and Moab. Rebbi Mana said: Everybody agrees that one may not adorn First Fruits with produce of Ammon and Moab since people err to think that one may bring First Fruits from Ammon and Moab. About what do they differ? About outside the Land. For him who says, one adorns First Fruits [with anything] except from the Seven Kinds, one may adorn First Fruits with produce from outside the Land. For him who says, one adorns First Fruits only with the Seven Kinds, one may not adorn First Fruits with produce from outside the Land..

Jerusalem Talmud Bikkurim 3:40

Jerusalem Talmud Bikkurim 3:41

MISHNAH: When did they say that additions to First Fruits follow the rules of First Fruits? If they come from the Land. But if they do not come from the Land, they do not follow the rules of First Fruits. Why did they say, First Fruits are the Cohen's property? He may use them to buy slaves, real estate, and impure animals. A creditor can take them for his claim and a woman for her ketuba, like a Torah scroll. And Rebbi Jehudah says, one gives them only to a fellow for goodwill, but the Sages say one gives them to the people of the watch and they distribute them among themselves like Temple-hallowed food.

Jerusalem Talmud Bikkurim 3:42

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

Jerusalem Talmud Bikkurim 3:42

Jerusalem Talmud Bikkurim 3:43

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

Jerusalem Talmud Bikkurim 3:43

Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat 1:2

HALAKHAH: “Export on the Sabbath,” etc. What means “two which are four”? Two which are four for liability and two which are four for no liability, or four for liability and four for no liability? Let us hear from the following: “There are two kinds of oaths which are four kinds.” Rebbi Abba said, there all are about liability, but here we come to state both liability and no liability. This implies four of liability and four of no liability. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah says so, “there are two kinds of oaths which are four kinds,” not because of liability? And similarly, “there are two kinds of export on the Sabbath which are four kinds,” because there is liability. But was it not stated, “the doors of the Temple hall were two which are four?” Can you say, liability and no liability? Should we state twelve cases of no liability? We only come to state cases of no liability which correspond to cases of liability. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, what is this “no liability” which we stated here? Permitted! Rebbi Yose said, the poor man and the rich man are one but the Sages counted them as two. Bringing in or taking out are one but the Sages counted them as two. Taking out on the Sabbath does not include bringing in; if one exports from one domain to the other, does this not include the one who imports? Let us hear from the following, as Rebbi Yasa said in the name if Rebbi Joḥanan: Somebody who brings in half the size of a dried fig and takes out half the size of a dried fig is liable. And from where that taking out is called work? Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan understood it from the following: Moses ordered, they made a public proclamation in the camp as follows, men or women should no longer do work to contribute to the sanctuary. The people refrained from taking objects out from their houses to give them to the collectors. Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Ila: You even understand bringing in from this. Just as the people refrained from taking objects out of their houses to give to the collectors so the collectors did not accept anything from them to bring into the office. Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Aḥa understood everything from the following: do not bring out any load from your houses on the Sabbath day, and perform no work.

Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat 1:2

Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat 1:3

Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If one brought in half a dried fig and took out half a dried fig he is liable. What Rebbi Joḥanan said does not follow Rebbi Yose, as it was stated: “If one took out half a dried fig and again took out half a dried fig during one period of oblivion, he is liable; during different periods of oblivion he is not liable. Rebbi Yose said, during one period of oblivion and one domain he is liable, during one period of oblivion and two domains or during two periods of oblivion and one domain he is not liable.” We find this difficult. If two different transorts do not combine following Rebbi Yose, a fortiori also not bringing in and taking out? Therefore what Rebbi Joḥanan said could not follow Rebbi Yose.

Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat 1:3

Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat 1:4

Rebbi Ila said, not only if two doors open to two public roads but even if they open to the same public road will Rebbi Yose agree, for Rebbi Yose compares domains to periods of oblivion in matters of liability. Just as Rebbi Yose compares domains to periods of oblivion in absence of liability so Rebbi Yose compares domains to periods of oblivion in matters of liability. For if he took out the volume of a dried fig through this door and the volume of a dried fig through that door in one period of oblivion is he not liable twice?

Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat 1:4

Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat 1:5

Rebbi Yudan said, Rebbi Yose compares domains to eating slices. For if one ate the volume of half an olive during the time needed to eat one slice and another volume of half an olive in the time needed to eat another slice, is he not free from liability? If one ate several volumes of olives during several times needed to eat a slice in one period of forgetting, he is liable only once.

Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat 1:5

Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat 1:7

Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The one who takes out is not liable until he put it down. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Unless he take up and put down. Rebbi Zeˋira required, unless he take it up with the intention to put it down. Not if he lifted it to eat and then changed his mind to put it down. What Rebbi Joḥanan said does not follow Rebbi Yose, as it was stated: “If he took out half the volume of a dried fig and put it down, and then took out another volume of half a dried fig. If he put it down within four cubits of the first piece he is liable, otherwise he is not liable. Rebbi Yose said, if he transported it over it, he is liable, otherwise he is not liable.” Rebbi Yose considers the person walking as if he was putting down. Just as Rebbi Yose considers the person walking as if he was putting down for liability so he considers the person walking as if he was putting down for non-liability. When he took it out he is considered having put it down; then he should be free from liability. Explain it if it was put down within four cubits [of the door], as it was stated, “otherwise he is not liable.” Rebbi Abba the son of Rebbi Pappaeus said, explain it if the door was five cubits wide and he brought one out on this side, the other on the other side. Then the second was not taken out within four cubits of the first.

Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat 1:7

Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat 1:8

There, we have stated: “Rebbi Meïr says, if it was a Sabbath and he carried it out. They told him, it is not the category.” Because this one is liable because of walking and that one is liable because of putting down. Who is “they said to him”? Rebbi Yose! The argument of Rebbi Yose is inverted. There, he does not consider the person walking equal to one who was putting down but here he is considering the person walking equal to one who was putting down! Rebbi Yudan said, explain it that he was laying on the threshold partially inside, his mouth outside, when he stretched out his hand, took it, and ate it. Then he did not walk.

Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat 1:8

Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat 1:9

Rebbi Yannai said, one who swallowed half the volume of an olive, then threw it up, and again swallowed it, is liable. But one who brought in half the volume of a dried fig and took it out again, is not liable. What is the difference between this and the first one? There his palate enjoyed the volume of an olive, but here he never dealt with a full volume of a fig. Rebbi Yose said, sometimes a person may be dealing with a full volume of a fig and not be liable. How is this possible? He took out half of the volume of a dried fig, put it down, again took out half of the volume of a dried fig, but did not manage to put it down before the first one was burned. He was dealing with a full volume of a fig but is not liable. Because he compared it to forbidden fat he contrived this.

Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat 1:9

Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat 1:10

Rebbi Joḥanan said, if one exports from a private domain to the public domain through karmelit, he is liable because of him who carries on his back, from the following: “One who intends to carry on his front but it turns out that he carried on his back is not liable. On his back and he carried on his front he is liable.” For it is impossible that between him and the wall should not karmelit be created. Rebbi Yose said, explain it that his face was turned to the wall and his load on his back and so his load exited first. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba asked before Rebbi Mana: But this is not a usual way of carrying out! He told him, professional porters act in this way. But the following implies it, as Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Maisha said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: “If one carries out foodstuffs and puts them on the threshold.” Is the threshold not karmelit? Rebbi Yose was sorry that he had not said this himself.

Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat 1:10

Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat 1:13

A baraita supports one and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rav Huna: If he was standing in the public domain and threw over karmelit into a stable or corral, he is liable; but if he carried it he is not liable. A baraita supports Rebbi Jehudah: “If one carries out foodstuffs and puts them on the threshold; whether he or another person then carries it out, he is not liable since the work was not performed in one step.” Therefore if the work was completed in one step he would be liable. Ben Azzai said, even if be completed the work at one time he would not be liable. But did we not state: “Rebbi Meïr says, if it was Sabbath and he carried it out. They told him, it is not the category.” Because this one is liable because of walking and that one is liable because of putting down. In the opinion of Rav Huna one is not following Ben Azzai. In the opinion of Rav Jehudah one follows neither Ben Azzai nor the Sages. Rebbi Ḥinena said, who is :they said to him”? The Sages who follow Ben Azzai.

Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat 1:13

Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat 1:14

Rebbi Joḥanan asked: If he was standing in the public domain, threw, and then caught it, what? Is that not a Mishnah, “if another person caught it, a dog caught it, or it was burned, he is not liable”? Rebbi Samuel in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira: So it is if he snatches; therefore if he caught it he is liable. What is the difference between its coming to rest on the ground to coming to rest in his arm? There, why is he liable? There he threw and another one received it but here he threw, he received it. Should it be obvious for him that he is not liable? Would he not be liable because of his mouth if he threw with his right hand and received with his left? Is his mouth not like another person? Here, his left hand should be like another person. Rebbi Yudan said, it is obvious to Rebbi Joḥanan that he is liable if he threw with his right hand and received with his left. What was his problem? If he threw with his right and and received with his right hand. The rabbis of Caesarea, Rebbi Shammai in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: He is in doubt whether he is liable even if he threw with his right hand and received with his left. If you want to say “his mouth”, his mouth is like another person since he ate it; but is here his hand like another person? Rebbi Mana asked, if this be so, then even if he exported the volume of a dried fig in both hands he should be not liable because of one action executed by two persons! Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said to him, is that when he did it? But was it not stated: An individual who acted is liable, two or three who acted are not liable.

Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat 1:14

Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat 1:15

Rebbi Joḥanan said, if somebody was standing in the public domain, collected rain from the airspace of walls and carried it out, he is liable. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira, it is so if he grabbed it, but if he collected it he is not liable. What is the difference between whether another person gave him or if Heaven gave? It follows Rebbi, for Rebbi made the airspace of walls like their substance.

Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat 1:15

Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat 1:16

If he was standing inside and his hand full of produce was stretched to the outside when the day became holy he is forbidden to take it back. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Abba: following him who said that it is forbidden to use the space below ten [hand-breadths]. There are Tannaim who state, it is permitted. They wanted to say, he who says it is permitted if there was four [cubits] of space; but he who says it is forbidden if there was not four [cubits] of space. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, in both cases (it is forbidden) it follows him who said that it is forbidden to use the space below ten [hand-breadths]. What about it? He who says it is forbidden below ten [hand-breadths]; he who says it is permitted, above ten [hand-breadths].

Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat 1:16