rebbi

39436 occurrences across the corpus

The Jerusalem Talmud

Rebbi Samuel ben Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: It would have been logical that one commit larceny with them, but they decided that one does not commit larceny with them. But did we not state: “it is ḥattat, this teaches that one commits larceny with it. [With it one commits larceny,] with its ashes one does not commit larceny.” Rebbi Abbahu said, at the beginning they were using it as a disinfectant and were putting it on their wounds and therefore they decided that one would commit larceny with it. When they were fenced in, they decided that one does not commit larceny with it.

Jerusalem Talmud Shekalim 7:25

By what is that woman atoned for? Rebbi Isaac said, it is a stipulation of the Court that the providers of nests also provide the disqualified and the lost ones.

Jerusalem Talmud Shekalim 8:1

MISHNAH: All spittle found in Jerusalem is pure except on the Upper Market, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Yose says, on all other days of the year, those in the middle of the road are impure, and those on the sides pure. On holidays, those in the middle of the road are pure and those on the sides impure since the minority will remove themselves to the sides. All implements which are found in Jerusalem on the road descending to the place of immersion are impure, on the way ascending they are pure since they were brought down on a way different from that on which they were brought up, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Yose says, all are pure except the bag and the rake set apart for graves. If a knife was found on the Fourteenth, one may slaughter with it immediately; on the Thirteenth one has to repeat and immerse. A dagger in either case one has to repeat and immerse. If the Fourteenth falls on a Sabbath, one may slaughter with it immediately; on the Fifteenth one may slaughter with it immediately. If it was tied to a knife its status is that of the knife.

Jerusalem Talmud Shekalim 8:1

Jerusalem Talmud Shekalim 8:2

HALAKHAH: “All spittle,” etc. Rebbi Abbin in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: A Gentile fortification was there. Rebbi Ḥanina said, they were stabbing wild donkeys in Jerusalem and the feet of the pilgrims were immersed in blood up to their knee joints. [They came before the Sages who did not tell them anything.] Rebbi Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: A Gentile fortification was there.

Jerusalem Talmud Shekalim 8:2

Jerusalem Talmud Shekalim 8:3

Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: It happened that a mule of Rebbi’s household died and they declared its blood pure regarding the carcass. Rebbi Eleazar asked Rebbi Simon, how much? He did not take notice of him. He asked Rebbi Joshua ben Levi who told him, it is pure up to a quartarius. More than that is impure. Rebbi Eleazar felt badly that Rebbi Simon had not repeated the tradition to him. Rav Bevai was sitting stating this occurrence. Rebbi Isaac bar Bisna asked him, is it pure up to a quartarius; more than that impure? He was unfriendly to him. Rebbi Zeriqa asked him, because he asked you, you were unfriendly to him? He answered him, because my mind was not clear, as Rebbi Ḥanin said, your life will hang far from you, that is one who buys a year’s supply of wheat, you will be fearful night and day, that is one who buys from the Saracen, and you will not believe in your survival, that is one who buys from the retail store, and I am dependent on retail stores. What about it? “Rebbi Joshua ben Bathyra testified about blood of carcasses that it is pure.” What means pure? It is pure in that it does not prepare, but for impurity it makes impure. There, we have stated “The blood of a crawling animal is like its flesh, it makes impure but does not prepare. Nothing else is like this,” in the amount needed for impurity but its blood makes impure like its flesh. Rav Joseph said, he who says “impure” follows Rebbi Jehudah; he who said “pure” follows Rebbi Joshua ben Bathyra. Rav Eudaimon the emigrant said to him, this is correct. Rebbi Jehudah was the instructor of the Patriarch.

Jerusalem Talmud Shekalim 8:3

Jerusalem Talmud Shekalim 8:4

Did not Rebbi Abbahu say in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina, they did not decide about spittle in Jerusalem? [Was it not said] about this, Rebbi Abbin in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: A Gentile fortification was there? In the remainder of the days of a year the impure ones are walking on the path and the pure ones are walking on the shoulder. The pure ones walk without saying anything, the impure ones tell them, keep apart. During a holiday the pure ones are walking on the path and the impure ones are walking on the shoulder. The impure ones walk without saying anything, the pure ones tell them, keep apart.

Jerusalem Talmud Shekalim 8:4

Jerusalem Talmud Shekalim 8:5

But did not Rebbi Abbahu say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, they did not decide about vessels in Jerusalem? Since they were found on the road descending to the place of immersion, it is proof.

Jerusalem Talmud Shekalim 8:5

But did not Rebbi Abbahu say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, they did not decide about vessels in Jerusalem? Since they were found on the road descending to the place of immersion, it is proof.

Jerusalem Talmud Shekalim 8:8

MISHNAH: If a gobelin became impure by derivative impurity, one immersed it inside and brought it back immediately. But if by original impurity, one immersed it outside and spread it out in the ante-court because it requires sundown. If it was new, one spreads it out on the roof of the stoa so the people could see its workmanship, which was beautiful. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says in the name of Rebbi Simeon, the son of the Executive Officer of the Temple: The thickness of a gobelin was a hand-width. It was woven on 72 strings and each string was composed of 24 threads. Its length 40 cubits and its width 20 cubits; it was made for 820’000 {denar}. Two were made every year and 300 Cohanim were immersing it.

Jerusalem Talmud Shekalim 8:10

“One verse says embroidered work, and one verse says, intelligent work. Embroidered work, one face, intelligent work, two faces.” Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Nehemiah, one said embroidered work, a lion on each side, intelligent work, a lion on one side and nothing on the other side. The other one said, embroidered work, a lion on one side and nothing on the other side, intelligent work, a lion on one side and an eagle on the other side.

Jerusalem Talmud Shekalim 8:10

Jerusalem Talmud Shekalim 8:11

(It was stated:) “It was made for 820’000 {denar}.” Rebbi Isaac bar Bisna in the name of Samuel: exaggerated. There, we have stated: “Sometimes there was on it about 300 kor.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Samuel: exaggerated.

Jerusalem Talmud Shekalim 8:11

Jerusalem Talmud Shekalim 8:12

MISHNAH: Flesh of most holy sacrifices which became impure either by original impurity or by derivative impurity, whether inside or outside, the House of Shammai are saying that everything has to be burned inside except what became impure outside by original impurity. The House of Hillel are saying that everything has to be burned outside except what became impure inside by derivative impurity. Rebbi Eliezer says, what became impure by original impurity, whether inside or outside, shall be burned outside. But what became impure by derivative impurity, whether inside or outside, shall be burned inside. Rebbi Aqiba said, the place of its impurity is the place of its burning.

Jerusalem Talmud Shekalim 8:12

Jerusalem Talmud Shekalim 8:13

HALAKHAH: Bar Qappara said, original impurity is a word from the Torah, derivative impurity is of their words. Rebbi Joḥanan said, both these and those are words of the Torah. The House of Shammai is difficult for Rebbi Joḥanan, since the House of Shammai said, “everything has to be burned inside except what became impure outside by original impurity.” What is the difference between [original] impurity and derivative impurity outside, are not both of them words of the Torah? And even the House of Hillel is difficult for him, since the House of Hillel say, “everything has to be burned outside except what became impure inside by derivative impurity.” What is the difference between derivative impurity inside and original impurity inside, are not both of them words of the Torah? The rabbis only discuss Bar Qappara’s opinion. The House of Shammai is difficult for Bar Qappara, since the House of Shammai said, “everything has to be burned inside except what became impure outside by original impurity.” What is the difference between original impurity outside or inside, are not both of them words of the Torah? Because of Rebbi Aqiba, who said “the place of its impurity shall be the place of its burning.” Would not the House of Hillel also be difficult for him, since the House of Hillel say, “everything has to be burned outside except what became impure inside by derivative impurity.” What is the difference for derivative impurity inside or outside, are not both of them their words? Because of Rebbi Simeon, since Rebbi Simeon said, food and drink of a person afflicted with skin disease are sent outside the three camps.

Jerusalem Talmud Shekalim 8:13

Jerusalem Talmud Shekalim 8:14

MISHNAH: The limbs of the daily sacrifice are deposited on the lower part of the ramp to the West, those of the musaf sacrifices on the lower part of the altar. Those of the days of the New Moon on the rim on the top of the altar. Sheqalim and First Fruits apply only if there is a Temple, but tithes of grain, and tithes of animals, and firstlings, apply whether there is a Temple or there is no Temple. If somebody dedicates sheqalim or First Fruits, they are sanctified. Rebbi Simeon says, even if somebody designates First Fruits as holy, they are not holy.

Jerusalem Talmud Shekalim 8:16

Which of the musaf sacrifices of the Sabbath and of the New Moon has precedence? Rebbi Jeremiah wanted to say, between the musaf sacrifices of the Sabbath and of the New Month, the musaf sacrifices of the New Month have precedence. The strength of Rebbi Jeremiah is from the following: Between the song of the Sabbath and the song of the New Month, the song of the New Month has precedence. Rebbi Yose said, there is a difference there since Rebbi Ḥiyya said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: To make a proclamation to publicize that it is the start of a new month. How does one do it? One slaughters the musaf sacrifices of the Sabbath and says for them the song of the New Month. But here, between the musaf sacrifices of the Sabbath and of the New Month, the musaf sacrifices of the Sabbath have precedence, under the category: what is more frequent than another precedes the other.

Jerusalem Talmud Shekalim 8:16

Jerusalem Talmud Shekalim 8:17

Did sheqalim therefore become holy? Rebbi Simeon ben Jehudah in the name of Rebbi Simeon: Both these and those did not become holy. It was stated: A proselyte today has to bring for his nest a quarter of a silver {denar}. Rebbi Simeon said, Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai already disestablished this because of the mishap. What is “because of the mishap”? As was stated, today one does neither dedicate as sacrifice, nor dedicate one’s value, nor dedicate as ḥerem, nor does one collect [heave and tithes]. If somebody dedicates as sacrifice, or dedicated one’s value, or dedicated as ḥerem, or collected, cloth must be burned, an animal castrated. [How? One locks it in and it dies by itself.] Monies shall go to the Dead Sea. If he transgressed and dedicated, since Rebbi Simeon said, Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai already disestablished this because of the mishap, this implies if he transgressed and dedicated, it became sanctified. Rebbi Yudan from Antodria asked before Rebbi Yose: here you are saying it became sanctified, and there you are saying, it did not become sanctified. He said to him, there [because of the following one may not dedicate from the start because it is an obligation to bring from the new contribution, and this would be from the old one. Here, what can you say? That one is old. But in respect to other dedications, the proselyte’s nest does not have to be from new money; if he dedicated it is holy;] maybe the Temple will be built like earlier and the heave of the lodge will be lifted on time on the first of Nisan. But here, what do you have? Rav Ada and Rav Hamnuna, Rav Ada bar Aḥawa in the name of Rav: Practice follows Rebbi Simeon.

Jerusalem Talmud Shekalim 8:17

Jerusalem Talmud Sukkah 1:1

MISHNAH: A sukkah which is higher than twenty cubits is disqualified; Rebbi Jehudah qualifies it. It is disqualified if it is not ten hand-breadths high, or does not have three walls, or where the sunshine is larger than the shade.

Jerusalem Talmud Sukkah 1:2

HALAKHAH: “An alley which is higher than twenty,” etc. Rebbi Yose said it without attribution, Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rav: The rabbis inferred it from the door of the Sanctuary, but Rebbi Jehudah inferred it from the door of the Hall. An argument from the door of the Hall is sufficient only up to forty cubits, as we have stated there: “The door of the Hall was forty cubits high and twenty cubits wide.” Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, even forty or fifty cubits; Bar Qappara stated, even a hundred cubits. Rebbi Abin said, Rebbi Jehudah follows his opinion and the rabbis follow their opinion, as we have stated there, “and similarly one carries under panelled bridges on the Sabbath, the words of Rebbi Jehudah, but the Sages forbid it.” As you are saying there, one considers the roof as if it came down and closed, here also one considers the cross-beam as if it came down and closed. This is the opinion of Rebbi Jehudah in the case of a sukkah, this is his opinion in the case of an alley. Also the opinion of the rabbis in the case of a sukkah is their opinion in the case of an alley. But they are not comparable. There are items qualified for a sukkah which are disqualified for an alley and those qualified for an alley but disqualified for a sukkah. Double pointed poles are qualified for a sukkah but disqualified for an alley, and it was stated thus: If he brought four double pointed stakes and thatched over them it is qualified as a sukkah but disqualified for an alley. That is, if they are higher by more than three {hand-breadths} than the walls of the alley. But if they are not higher by more than three {hand-breadths} than the walls of the alley it is qualified. If they are not, but if they are four [hand-breadths] wide they are qualified even if arbitrarily high. Walls may be qualified for a sukkah but disqualified for an alley, and it was stated thus: “Two regular and the third even one hand-breadth is qualified.” Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Two of four hand-breadths each and the third even one hand-breadth is qualified. But for an alley only if it is closed in its four directions. Wider than ten cubits is qualified for a sukkah but disqualified for an alley. “If he drew a vine, or squash, or ivy, and used it as roofing it is disqualified.” That means, up to an area of two bet se’ah. But more than an area of two bet se’ah it is a partition made for agriculture where one may transport only four cubits. If its sunshine is more than its shade it is disqualified as sukkah but qualified for an alley. A roofed sukkah is disqualified, a roofed alley is qualified. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Not only roofed, but if he put there a cross beam four hand-breadths wide, it makes the alley permitted.

Jerusalem Talmud Sukkah 1:2

Jerusalem Talmud Sukkah 1:3

Now is a house which is very high not obligated to have a parapet, or to have a mezuzah? But a house is roofed, a sukkah is not roofed. We find that thatching is like roofing, as we have stated there, “if the thatching was three hand-breadths distant from the walls it is disqualified.” But a house is completely enclosed, a sukkah is not completely enclosed. If a porch was totally open to the public domain, do not Rebbi Ila [in the name of] Rav and Rebbi Joḥanan both say, one may carry in its entirety? What about it? Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The Torah said, in sukkot you shall dwell. Up to twenty cubits a person sits in the shade of the thatching; from twenty cubits and higher he sits in the shade of the walls. Rebbi Jonah said, that is, if you are saying, if it is put higher than twenty cubits on the walls. But if it was put lower than twenty cubits inside the walls it is qualified. Rebbi Yose said to him, in your opinion, since you are saying that it is depending on the walls, it should state that “a sukkah which is higher than twenty cubits on the walls is disqualified.” Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav, if it only holds a person’s head, most of his body, and his table. But if it holds more it is qualified. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joshia, only if its walls do not reach up all the way, but if its walls reach up all the way it is qualified. But does not a baraita disagree? “Rebbi Jehudah said, it happened that the sukkah of Queen Helena in Lydda was higher than twenty cubits and the Sages were coming and going there and nobody was saying a word. They said to him, because she was a woman, and a woman is not obligated. He said to them, is that a proof? Did she not have seven learned sons?” Could you say that the sukkah of Queen Helena only held a person’s head, most of his body, and his table? But it must be that the walls do not reach up all the way. What Rebbi Josia said is reasonable and the baraita does not disagree, since it is the way of rich people to make their walls airy so that cool air may enter.

Jerusalem Talmud Sukkah 1:3

Jerusalem Talmud Sukkah 1:4

Rav Hoshaia asked: If he brought a plank and put it protruding on top of a pillar. It is obvious that if he measures from the plank there are twenty cubits, if he measures from the ground it is not twenty cubits. How do you treat this? As disqualified space, as disqualified thatching? If you are treating it as disqualified space, it disqualifies by three hand-breadths. If you are treating it as disqualified thatching, it only disqualifies by four cubits. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Ḥizqiah: Disqualified thatching only disqualifies by four cubits, since it serves only to permit the sukkah. Rebbi Miasha said, I am wondering what was Rav Hoshaia’s problem? Why does he not infer from the statement of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal, since we stated there: “If one makes the wall hanging from top to bottom, if it is more than three hand-breadths higher than the ground it is disqualified;” and Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, if he does not sit and eats in the shade of the walls, but if he was sitting and eating in the shade of the walls it is qualified. Rebbi Yose said, that of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal is not an inference since Rebbi Abba bar Mamal learned it from another Mishnah, as we have stated there: “From a balcony above the sea one may not draw water on the Sabbath unless one made a partition ten hand-breadths high either above or below.” And Rebbi Ze`ira said, Rav Jehudah in the name of Rav: Only if the partition is lowered into the water the full length of a pail. But one cannot compare it. The sea is karmelit, neither private nor public domain. But here the Torah said, in sukkot you shall dwell. From the floor of the sukkah you measure twenty cubits.

Jerusalem Talmud Sukkah 1:4

Jerusalem Talmud Sukkah 1:5

If it was (higher) [lower] than ten, and he hung there decorations which could be used for thatching; these reduce it to disqualify. Otherwise they reduce it but qualify. If it was higher than twenty cubits and he hung there decorations which could be used for thatching they reduce it to (disqualify) [qualify]. Otherwise they reduce it to qualify [disqualify]. Rebbi Shammai said, what they said about above they said about below. Straw and provender do not diminish in it; dust and pebbles do diminish in it. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, if grasses grew in it, they would not diminish it.

Jerusalem Talmud Sukkah 1:5

Jerusalem Talmud Sukkah 1:6

From where that higher than ten [hand-breadths] is a different domain? Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: There I shall make My Appearance to you, and I shall speak to you from above the cover. And it is written, you have seen that from Heaven I spoke to you. Since speech mentioned there is from another domain, also speech mentioned here is from another domain. But is the Ark not nine hand-breadths? In the House of Rebbi Yannai they said, the cover was one hand-breadth. Rebbi Ze`ira asked, from where that the cover was one hand-breadth? Rebbi Ḥananiah bar Samuel stated, for all the vessels in the Sanctuary the Torah gave the measure of length and width, and gave the measure of its height. Except for the cover where the Torah gave the measure of length and width, but did not give the measure of its height. Therefore we shall learn it from the smallest vessel in the Sanctuary, you shall make for it a frame of one hand-breadth all around. Since there it was one hand-breadth, so also here one hand-breadth. But maybe it refers only to: make a golden wreath as its frame all around? Since there it is a minimal size, so here also a minimal size. What about it? Rav Aḥa bar Jacob said, face. There is no face less than a hand-breadth.

Jerusalem Talmud Sukkah 1:6

Jerusalem Talmud Sukkah 1:7

Rebbi Yose asked, if there were a very high chest standing in a house, would it not be permitted to move anything from in it into the house or from the house into it? But we are dealing with the case when it was indicating to them the geographic directions. This is understandable for him who said, a cubit of six {hand-breadths}. But for him who said, a cubit of five hand-breadths? Would the Ark not be seven and one half hand-breadths? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, the House of Rebbi Yannai and Rebbi Simeon ben Yoṣadaq. One learns it from the Ark, but the other learns it from the wagons. [We do not know who learned it from the Ark and who learned in from the wagons.] It is reasonable that the House of Rebbi Yannai learned it from the Ark since the House of Rebbi Yannai said, [the ark was nine and] the cover was one hand-breadth. Rebbi Simeon ben Yoṣadaq learns if from the Wagons. Rebbi Ze`ira asked, from where that the Wagons were ten {hand-breadths} high? Rebbi Yose said, and even if you said that they were ten high, did not Rebbi Neḥemiah state that the Freight Wagons were like a cupola? If there was a hole in the public domain ten deep and four wide, would it no be forbidden to move anything from in it into the public domain or from the public domain into it? But when they were transferring the planks from one to the other they were straight.