rebbi

39436 occurrences across the corpus

The Jerusalem Talmud

It was stated: If someone ate impure heave, he has to pay in pure profane food, but if he paid in impure profane, he discharged his obligation. Rebbi Nathan says, Symmachos says, if inadvertently, what he did is done, intentionally, he did not do anything. There, we have stated: “One does not give heave from impure produce for pure.” It was stated in the name of Rebbi Yose, “if he gave heave from impure produce for pure, whether inadvertently or intentionally, what he did is done.” It turns out that the single opinion here is like the anonymous one there, and the single there like the anonymous here.

Jerusalem Talmud Terumot 6:6

Jerusalem Talmud Terumot 6:7

How is this? Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: The replacements of heave are like heave in every respect except that what grows from them is profane. The growth from heave is like profane in every respect except that it is forbidden for outsiders. Rebbi Yose said, we have stated all three: The replacements of heave are like heave in every respect as we have stated, “he does not pay in heave but in totally profane food which is turned into heave.” Except that what grows from them is profane as we have stated, “the growth from heave,” which implies that what grows from replacement is profane. The growth from heave is like profane in all respects, as we have stated, “ it is subject to gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and peah; Israel poor and Cohanim poor collect it,” except that it is forbidden to outsiders as we have stated, “Israel poor sell theirs to Cohanim for the price of heave but the money is theirs.”

Jerusalem Talmud Terumot 6:7

Jerusalem Talmud Terumot 6:8

It was stated: One does not use the complement of heave for payment of principal and fifth and for them one does not pay principal and fifth, it is not subject to ḥallah, and hands and the ṭevul yom do not make it unusable in the way they do not make profane unusable. Even Rebbi Simeon and Rebbi Yose agree with this.

Jerusalem Talmud Terumot 6:8

Jerusalem Talmud Terumot 6:9

“Although the Cohen may want to forgive this, he has no right to forgive.” That is, if he did not yet separate. If he separated and after that ate, the disagreement of Rebbi and Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon, as it is stated: “(Lev. 22:14) ‘He shall give the holy food to the Cohen,’ his delivery sanctifies it so that he cannot eat it because it is heave. Also the separation sanctifies it so that he should be liable for principal and fifth, the words of Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon. Also the separation sanctifies it so that he should be liable for principal and fifth preventing him from eating it because it is heave.”

Jerusalem Talmud Terumot 6:9

Jerusalem Talmud Terumot 6:10

If he [the Cohen] forgave and after that he [the Israel owner] ate, there is disagreement between Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish since they disagreed: If he robbed heave from his maternal grandfather, a Cohen, Rebbi Joḥanan said, he has to pay to the tribe, but Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he pays to himself. Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish answered Rebbi Joḥanan thus: According to you, who says he has to pay to the tribe, did we not state: “If he stole heave of the Sanctuary, he has to pay two fifths and the principal.” Should he not pay three? Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The Torah said, it takes him out of his robbery. Rebbi Zeïra said to Rebbi Ammi: Two things you say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan but you do not say why. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it takes him out of his robbery but you do not say why. It is so, “he shall give the holy food to the Cohen;” once he gave it, it stopped being his robbery. You say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, at the place of its slaughter should be its burning. You do not say why. Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia, Num. 19:5: “On its excrement shall be its burning.” How do you understand this? Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ammi: At the place of its exit from life shall be its burning.

Jerusalem Talmud Terumot 6:10

Jerusalem Talmud Terumot 6:11

Rebbi Joḥanan follows Rebbi, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish follows Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, even if Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish would hold with Rebbi, but only for something he is obligated to give to a Cohen; but for something he is not obligated to give to a Cohen, even Rebbi will agree since that is a Mishnah: “If he separated the redemption of a first-born donkey and then it died, Rebbi Eliezer says one is responsible for alienation as for the five tetradrachmas of the [human] first-born; but the Sages say, he is not responsible for alienation, as for Second Tithe.” Rebbi Eliezer will agree about first-born donkeys he inherited from the estate of his maternal grandfather, a Cohen, that he sanctified it when he separated it.

Jerusalem Talmud Terumot 6:11

Jerusalem Talmud Terumot 6:12

One who ate the heave of a Fellow has to pay the Fellow, one who ate the heave of a vulgar person has to pay the vulgar person. Does he then not deliver his pure food to a vulgar person? How does he do it, he gives both to a Cohen Fellow, takes the price of one of them and gives that to the vulgar Cohen. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said before Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, this follows him who says, its separation sanctifies. But for him who says, the delivery sanctifies, does it not need acquisition in any case? He said to them, he operates through the services of a third person.

Jerusalem Talmud Terumot 6:12

Jerusalem Talmud Terumot 6:14

MISHNAH: If one serves heave to his workers or his guests, he pays the principal and they pay the fifth, the word of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, they pay principal and fifth and he pays them the price of their meal. He who steals heave but does not eat it pays double restitution for the value of heave. If he ate it, he pays twice the principal and a fifth. The principal and the fifth from profane food and a principal the value of heave. If he stole heave of the Sanctuary and ate it, he pays two fifths and the principal since double restitution does not apply to the Sanctuary. One does not pay with gleanings, forgotten sheaves, peah, and abandoned property, nor with First Tithe whose heave was taken, nor with Second Tithe, nor with dedicated food that was redeemed, for dedicated food cannot redeem dedicated food, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages permit the latter.

Jerusalem Talmud Terumot 6:14

Jerusalem Talmud Terumot 6:15

HALAKHAH: Now Rebbi Meïr says, they pay, and the Sages say, they pay, what is between them? Rebbi Joḥanan said, the meal itself is between them. Rebbi Meïr said, the meal is the resposibility of the employer, but the rabbis say, the meal is the resposibility of the workers. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, the exertion is between them. Rebbi Meïr said, the exertion is the resposibility of the employer, but the rabbis say, the exertion is the resposibility of the workers. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: To what can this be compared, to one who sells something to another person, but it turns out that it was not his [to sell]. Does he not have to replace his buy? If you hold with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, this is fine. But if you hold with Rebbi Joḥanan, who said, the meal itself is between them, and you say so? He said following Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: The value of the meal is between them. If he promised them to feed them profane honey-cakes but he fed them heave honey-cakes. Did they not eat already? This follows him who says, a person’s soul is afraid of ṭevel.

Jerusalem Talmud Terumot 6:15

Jerusalem Talmud Terumot 6:16

Rebbi Yannai said, the Mishnah is split. If there is the size of an olive but it is not worth a peruṭah, he pays to the Sanctuary. If it is worth a peruṭah but is not the size of an olive, he pays to the tribe. If it is the size of an olive and is worth a peruṭah, Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, he pays to the Sanctuary. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he pays to the tribe. Rebbi Zeïra said, it is a decision of the verse (Lev. 22:14): “If somebody should eat consecrated food in error,” where the principal goes, there the fifth has to go. Cahana said, he pays two fifths, one to the tribe and one to the Sanctuary.

Jerusalem Talmud Terumot 6:16

Jerusalem Talmud Terumot 6:18

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it refers to the last two. Why? Because these have affinity to heave and tithes. Do gleanings and forgotten sheaves never have affinity to heave and tithes? But we deal with growth of peah and standing peah. Does this not simply answer Hilfai’s question, since Hilfai asked: Do gleanings become sanctified in the act of falling down? Rebbi Joḥanan said to him, but did we not state “gleanings”? How can you have peah from gleanings? Rebbi Joḥanan said to him, about everything.

Jerusalem Talmud Terumot 6:18

Jerusalem Talmud Terumot 6:19

MISHNAH: Rebbi Eliezer says, one repays from one kind for another kind which is not the same, on condition that he repay with better quality for worse, but Rebbi Aqiba says, one only repays from one kind for its own. Therefore, if one ate green melon of the year before the Sabbatical, he should wait for green melons of the year following the Sabbatical and repay from them. From the verse which Rebbi Eliezer reads to be lenient, from there Rebbi Aqiba is restrictive, since it is said (Lev. 22:14): “He hands over the consecrated food to the Cohen,” anything that may be consecrated, the words of Rebbi Eliezer. But Rebbi Aqiba says, “he hands over the consecrated food to the Cohen,” the consecrated food he himself ate.

Jerusalem Talmud Terumot 6:19

Jerusalem Talmud Terumot 6:21

Rabbi Abin in the name of the rabbis from there: This means that one may not repay with produce from outside the Land. Even if you say one may repay, our Mishnah is from before Rebbi permitted the import of vegetables from outside the Land. He mentioned only green melons which are forbidden produce. But not permitted produce, because if you say so, does it not turn out that he buys himself an axe from Sabbatical money?

Jerusalem Talmud Terumot 7:2

HALAKHAH: “If somebody eats heave intentionally,” etc. There, we have stated: “The following are flogged,” and we have stated: “These are the girls.” Here you say, he is flogged, and there you say, he pays. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the Mishnah is two-sided: If he was cautioned, he is flogged; if he was not cautioned, he pays. Rebbi Joḥanan is of the opinion that in a case where there is flogging or restitution, when he pays he is not flogged. Why should he not be flogged and have to pay? (Deut. 25:2) “His guilt.” You sentence him for one guilt but you may not sentence him for two guilts. The verse speaks of one who may incur two punishments (Deut. 25:2): “The judge shall have him laid down and flogged in his presence, a number [of times] because of his guilt.”

Jerusalem Talmud Terumot 7:2

Jerusalem Talmud Terumot 7:3

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, even if he was not cautioned should he not pay since when cautioned he would be flogged? A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: “These are the girls for which one incurs a fine,” but if he was cautioned, will he not be flogged? Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish holds with Rebbi Meïr since Rebbi Meïr said, he is flogged and pays. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Rebbi Meïr learned from the calumniator. (Deut. 22:19) “And they shall fine him”, money; (Deut. 22:18) “they shall punish him,” flogging. But the rabbis say, [the law of] the calumniator is separate because of its novelty; one cannot learn from a novelty! Because nowhere else will a person become guilty by speech, but here he becomes guilty by speech. Since one cannot transfer this feature, one cannot transfer the rules of either payment or flogging. Did not Rebbi Abbahu say in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: If he [eats] fat intentionally but is in error about the sacrifice, if he was cautioned he will be flogged and has to bring a sacrifice! Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said, (Deut. 25:2) “Because of his guilt.” If two possibilities are given to the court, one chooses one of them. This excludes matters in the power of Heaven.

Jerusalem Talmud Terumot 7:3

Jerusalem Talmud Terumot 7:4

Everybody agrees that there is no money payment in capital cases, as it is written (Lev. 24:21): “The slayer of a living animal must pay for it but the slayer of a human shall be put to death.” Just as you did not make a difference between unintentional and intentional action of a slayer of an animal to force him to pay money, so you should not make a difference between unintentional and intentional action of a slayer of a human to free him [from paying]. Where do they differ? About money in a flogging case. Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is no money in a capital case but there is money in a flogging case, but Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, just as there is no money in a capital case so there is no money in a flogging case.

Jerusalem Talmud Terumot 7:4

Jerusalem Talmud Terumot 7:5

Rebbi Immi the Babylonian in the name of the rabbis from there: The reason of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is “criminal, criminal.” “Criminal” is mentioned in capital cases, “criminal” is mentioned in cases of flogging. Just as for the criminal in capital cases there is no monetary fine, so for the criminal mentioned in flogging cases there is no monetary fine.

Jerusalem Talmud Terumot 7:5

Jerusalem Talmud Terumot 7:6

Nathan bar Hoshiah said, one speaks about a girl, the other about an adult woman. The girl has a fine but cannot be sold, the adult has no fine, she cannot be sold; has she no claim for shame and blemish? The rabbis of Caesarea said, explain it that she seduced him or forgave him. Nathan bar Hoshaiah thinks that in a case of flogging and payment he pays and is not flogged. Why should he not be flogged and have to pay? (Deut. 25:2) “Because of his guilt.” You sentence him for one guilt but you may not sentence him for two guilts. Why should he pay and not have to be flogged? From perjured witnesses. Just as perjured witnesses pay and are not flogged, here also he pays and is not flogged. Rebbi Jonah said, the reason of Nathan bar Hoshaiah: (Deut. 25:2): “The judge shall have him laid down and flogged in his presence.” It refers to one whose flogging frees him from his guilt, excluding one who is told: get up and pay.

Jerusalem Talmud Terumot 7:7

Our Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish! Did we not state “If somebody eats heave in error”? He explains it following Rebbi Meïr, since Rebbi Meïr said, he is whipped and pays. But did we not state: “If somebody eats heave intentionally”? In the opinion of Nathan bar Hoshaiah who said, when he pays he is not flogged, it is understandable. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan who said, if he was cautioned he is flogged, but if he was not cautioned he pays, he explains it as intentional without cautioning. In the opinion of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish there is no difference between intentional and unintentional, between cautioned or not cautioned. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish holds with Rebbi Meïr since Rebbi Meïr says, he is flogged and he pays.

Jerusalem Talmud Terumot 7:7

Jerusalem Talmud Terumot 7:8

Rebbi Ḥinena said before Rebbi Mana: If Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish thought the entire Mishnaiot were Rebbi Meïr’s, he would call them “the words of Meïr.” But is it not written (Lev. 22:14): “If a person ate consecrated food in error, etc.”? But Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish must hold that the fifth is a sacrifice. But even if he holds that the fifth is a sacrifice, can the principal be a sacrifice? Rebbi Yudan bar Shalom said, the Mishnah declares that the principal is a fine, as we have stated: “He does not pay in heave but in totally profane food which is turned into heave.” If he had to pay from what he ate, it would be fine. And it was stated: “If he ate impure heave, he has to pay in pure profane food, but if he paid in impure profane, he discharged his obligation.” Does he not owe him the price of wood? That shows that the principal is a fine and since the principal is a fine, the fifth also is a fine. But Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish follows his own opinion. Just as Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, there, everybody was under the obligation of (Ex. 20:16) “Do not become a false witness against your neighbor”, but this one was treated separately, (Deut. 19:19) “do to him what he intended to do to his brother”, to force him to pay; also here, everybody was under the obligation of (Lev. 22:10) “no outsider shall eat holy [food],” but this one was treated separately, (Lev. 22:14) “if somebody should eat holy [food] in error,” to force him to pay.

Jerusalem Talmud Terumot 7:8