verse

1486 occurrences across the corpus

The Jerusalem Talmud

MISHNAH: On the same day, Rebbi Aqiba explained: “ Then would Moses and the Children of Israel sing the following song to the Eternal to tell.” The verse should not have said “to tell”; why does the verse say “to tell”? It was that Israel were repeating after Moses every word, as one reads the Hallel: “I shall sing to the Eternal for He is very highly high;” therefore “saying” was said. Rebbi Neḥemiah said, they were reciting it as one recites the Šema‘, not as one reads the Hallel.

Jerusalem Talmud Sotah 5:21

Jerusalem Talmud Sotah 5:23

Why does the verse say, “to tell”? To tell to [future] generations. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina, the entire verse. Moses said, “I shall sing”, and they recite after his lead: “I shall sing to the Eternal for He is very highly high; horse and rider He cast into the sea.” Moses said: “strength and growth”, and they recite after his lead: “strength and growth is Yah”. It is written: “When retribution is retributed for Israel, when the people volunteers;” the heads of the people volunteered. When the Holy One, praise to Him, does wonders for Israel, they should sing a song. They objected: There is the redemption from Egypt! That is something else since it was the beginning of their redemption. They objected. There is redemption of Mardocai and Esther! That is something else since they were outside the Land; some want to say that Mardocai and Esther were freed of their enemies, they were not freed from [Gentile] government.

Jerusalem Talmud Sotah 5:23

Jerusalem Talmud Sotah 5:24

MISHNAH: On the same day, Joshua ben Hyrkanos explained that Job served the Holy One, praise to Him, only out of love, as it is said: “Behold, even if He will kill me, to Him I pray.” But the matter is still in suspense, “to Him I look forward” or “I do not look forward to Him”. The verse says, “until I die I shall not remove my innocence from me,” this teaches that he did it out of love.

Jerusalem Talmud Sotah 5:26

One verse says, “you shall love the Eternal, your God,” and another verse says, “fear the Eternal, your God, and Him you should serve.” Act from love and act from fear. Act from love, because if you are tempted to hate, know that you must love and a lover is no hater. Act from fear, because if you are tempted to rebel, know that you must fear and one who fears does not rebel.

Jerusalem Talmud Sotah 5:26

Jerusalem Talmud Sotah 5:29

Rebbi Aqiba was tortured before the evil Tineius Rufus. There came the time for reciting the Shema‘. He started to read and laughed. He said to him: Old man, you are either a sorcerer or one contemptuous of suffering. He said to him: The spirit of this man should be blown away; I am neither a sorcerer nor contemptuous of sufferings. But all my life I read this verse (Deut. 6:5): “You must love the Eternal, your God, with all your heart, all your soul, and all your force.” I loved Him with all my heart. I loved Him with all my money. But whether with all my soul I could not test. But now, when “with all your soul” came, the time of reciting the Shema‘ has arrived and my mind has not wavered, therefore I am reciting and laughing.

Jerusalem Talmud Sotah 6:6

HALAKHAH: “If a single witness said ‘I saw her when she became impure’,” etc. “And there is no witness against her”; not only a witness [of good standing], from where even a male or female slave? The verse says, “and there is no witness against her”, any one. And following Rebbi Ismael? As Rebbi Ismael said, at any place where the Torah mentions “a witness”, in principle that means two witnesses unless the verse makes it clear that he is a single witness. It was found stated: Rebbi Ismael says two witnesses.

Jerusalem Talmud Sotah 6:6

Jerusalem Talmud Sotah 6:10

MISHNAH: It would have been logical: Since the first testimony, which does not forbid her permanently, is not confirmed if not from two [witnesses], the last testimony, which forbids her permanently, should reasonably only be confirmed by [witnesses]. The verse says: “There is no witness about her”, any kind of testimony about her. There would now be an argument de minore ad majus for the first testimony! Since the last testimony, which forbids her permanently, is confirmed from a single witness, the first testimony, which does not forbid her permanently, should logically be confirmed from a single witness. The verse says, “for he found out about her a matter of sexual misbehavior,” and further, it says, “by the mouth of two witnesses a matter should be confirmed.”

Jerusalem Talmud Sotah 6:10

Jerusalem Talmud Sotah 7:14

It was stated: “Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob says, the verse comes only to prepare the road for them and say that they should walk on the road, not in fields, in inhabited regions, not in the desert, in the valley, not in the mountains.

Jerusalem Talmud Sotah 7:18

One could think that those on Mount Gerizim did recite the blessings and those on Mount Ebal did recite the curses, the verse says “the blessings and the curses”; both were saying blessings and curses. One could think that after they had recited the blessings they were reciting the curses, the verse says “the blessing and the curse”, one blessing and one curse. One could think that those on Mount Gerizim did answer “Amen” after the blessings and those on Mount Ebal did answer “Amen” after the curses, the verse says “the entire people will answer and say “Amen”; these and those did answer “Amen” after the blessings and after the curses. How is that? When they were reciting the blessings they were turning their faces towards Mount Gerizim; when they were reciting the curses they were turning their faces towards Mount Ebal.

Jerusalem Talmud Sotah 7:18

Jerusalem Talmud Sotah 7:21

It is written: “Cursed be he who would not raise all the words of this Torah.” Can the Torah fall down? Simeon ben Yaqim says, that is the ḥazzan who stands. Rebbi Simeon ben Ḥalaphta says, that is the earthly house, as Rav Ḥuna, Rav Jehudah said in the name of Samuel: Josia tore [his garments] about this verse and said, I have to raise.

Jerusalem Talmud Sotah 7:23

Why does the verse say: “and the half of it”? This teaches that a minority was on Mount Gerizim and a majority on Mount Ebal. Why? Because the tribe of Levi was not completely there. For if the tribe of Levi had been completely there, they would have been equal. Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: If the tribe of Levi had been completely there, they would not have been equal. Why? Since already 24’000 had fallen at Shiṭṭim from the tribe of Simeon. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, if the tribe of Levi had been completely there, they would have been equal. Why? Because from the tribes of Reuben and Gad only 40’000 front line troops came there.

Jerusalem Talmud Sotah 8:8

“ ‘To save you’, that is the camp of the Ark.” But some say, that is the Name which was given in the Ark, as it was stated’: “Rebbi Jehudah ben Laqish says, two arks were travelling with Israel in the desert; one in which the Torah was deposited and one in which the broken pieces of the tablets were deposited. The one in which the Torah was deposited was put into the Tent of Meeting; that is what is written: “Moses and the Ark of the Eternal’s covenant did not move from the camp.” The one in which the broken pieces of the tablets were deposited was going out and coming in with them. But the Rabbis say, it was only one, and once it went out in the days of Eli and was taken prisoner. A verse supports the Rabbis: “Woe to us, who will save us from this mighty god?” A word [which shows that] they never had seen it before. A verse supports Rebbi Jehudah ben Laqish. “Saul said to Aḥiya: present God’s Ark”. But was the Ark not at Qiryat Ye‘arim? What do the rabbis with it? ‘Present to me the High Priest’s diadem.’ Another verse supports Rebbi Jehudah ben Laqish: “The Ark, Israel, and Jehudah, dwell in huts.”. Was the Ark not in Zion? What do the rabbis with it? The straw roof cover that was in the walls, since the Temple was not yet built.

Jerusalem Talmud Sotah 8:8

Jerusalem Talmud Sotah 8:15

How did Beṣalel make the Ark? Rebbi Ḥanina said, he made three boxes, two of gold and one of wood. He put one of gold inside the one of wood, and the one of wood inside the other one of gold. That is what is written: “You shall cover it inside and out with pure gold inside and out.” Why does the verse say, “you shall cover it”? To include the upper rim. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he made one box and gilded it. That is what is written: “You shall cover it inside and out with pure gold inside and out.” Why does the verse say, “you shall cover it”? Rebbi Phineas said, also between the planks.

Jerusalem Talmud Sotah 8:15

Jerusalem Talmud Sotah 8:16

How were the tablets written? Rebbi Ḥanania ben Gamliel says, five on one tablet each. But the rabbis say, ten on each tablet, as it is written: “He informed you of His covenant which He had commanded you to do, the ten words”, ten on each tablet. Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai said, twenty on each tablet, as it is written: “He informed you of His covenant which He had commanded you to do, the ten words”, twenty on each tablet. Rebbi Simai says, forty on each tablet, as it is written, “on each side they were written,” a square Ḥananiah, the son of Rebbi Joshua’s brother, says: Between every two commandments, the details and the letters [of the Torah] were written. “Filled with taršiš”, like the Great Sea. When Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish had occasion to discuss this verse, he said, Ḥananiah, the son of Rebbi Joshua’s brother, did teach us correctly. Just as in the sea there are small waves between a large wave and the next, so between any two commandments there are the details and the letters of the Torah.

Jerusalem Talmud Sotah 8:19

HALAKHAH: “Who built a house”, not only who built; if he bought, inherited, or it was given to him as a gift, from where? The verse says, “the man,” “who is the man”. From where he who builds a barn, a cow-shed, a wood-shed, a storage facility, from where? The verse says, “who builds”. I could think that one who builds a portico, a covered walkway, and a verandah would return; the verse says “house”; the house is distinguished by the fact that it can be used as a dwelling. This excludes those items which cannot be dwellings. It also excludes a house which does not enclose four by four cubits. As it was stated: A house which does not enclose four by four cubits is free from the obligation of a parapet, or a mezuzah, or an erub. It also does not induce ṭevel for tithes and one does not give it four cubits in front of its door, and it is not counted as a connection to the town, and one who forswears any use of a house is permitted to sit in it, and it does not remain with the buyer in the Jubilee year, and it cannot become impure by disease, and its owner does not become exempt from the war because of it.

Jerusalem Talmud Sotah 8:19

Jerusalem Talmud Sotah 8:20

Why does the verse say, “who built”? This excludes him whose house collapsed and he rebuilt it. (Rebbi Yose said, this implies that one who remarries his divorcee does not return.) One could think that somebody who builds a house outside the Land would return; the verse said, “and he did not inaugurate it,” meaning where there is an obligation of inauguration; this excludes cases where there is no obligation of inauguration. If he received prepaid rent, it is as if he inaugurated it; if [the rent is payable] only after twelve months, it is as if he had not inaugurated it. If he locked it, if it contains valuables for which one usually stops working, it is as if he inaugurated it; otherwise, it is as if he had not inaugurated it.

Jerusalem Talmud Sotah 8:20

Jerusalem Talmud Sotah 8:22

HALAKHAH: “Who planted”. Not only who planted; if he bought, inherited, or it was given to him as a gift, from where? The verse says, “the man,” “who is the man”. From where about him who planted a vineyard but also who planted five fruit trees, even from five different kinds? The verse says, “who planted”, in any circumstance. I could think that one who planted four fruit trees or five futile trees may return? The verse says, “a vineyard.” Since a vineyard is special in that it is composed of five vines, this excludes the case where there are not five vines.

Jerusalem Talmud Sotah 8:22

Jerusalem Talmud Sotah 8:24

I could think that somebody who redeems a vineyard outside the Land would return, the verse says: “And he did not redeem it”. In case one is commanded to redeem it; this excludes where there is no commandment to redeem. It was stated: Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob says, one only understands “vineyard”. And similarly, one only understands “planted”. It was stated: “And he did not redeem it”, that excludes him who sinks or grafts. Rebbi Joḥanan said, this follows Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob. Rav Ḥisda said, this is everybody’s opinion if he grafted fruits of sin. Where do we hold? If he grafted a fruit tree on another fruit tree of a different kind; these are fruits of sin. But if he grafted a fruit tree on a futile tree, as if it were its own kind, he is planting anew. But we hold if he grafted a black fig tree on a white one.

Jerusalem Talmud Sotah 8:27

HALAKHAH: “Who became betrothed”. Not only a young man who married a young woman. From where even a young man who married a widow, a widower who married a young woman, a widower who married a widow? From where? The verse says, “a woman”, of any kind. Why does the verse say, “new”? That excludes him who remarries his divorcee. Rebbi Yose said, this implies that one who marries a sheram does not return since he has no religious obligation to live with her.

Jerusalem Talmud Sotah 8:27

Jerusalem Talmud Sotah 8:38

HALAKHAH: It is written: “When the policemen finish to speak to the people, the officers will have taken up position at the head of the people.” Not only in front of the people, from where also behind the people? The verse says, “take up position”, “and take up position”. That follows Rebbi Aqiba. Following Rebbi Ismael? Rebbi Ismael follows Rebbi Meïr, since Rebbi Meïr used to call the end of a rope its head.

Jerusalem Talmud Sotah 9:11

HALAKHAH: It was stated: Rebbi Eliezer says, if he was found strangled and hanging from a tree they did not break its neck. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah said, one does not have to say strangled and hanging from a tree, from where even if he was found cast away? The verse says “fallen”, why does the verse say “slain”? But even if he was found strangled or hanging from a tree they did not break its neck.

Jerusalem Talmud Sotah 9:11

Jerusalem Talmud Sotah 9:27

Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Ze‘ira: “One which never had been used for work,” a general statement, “which never had drawn under a yoke,” a detailed statement. If a general statement is followed by a detail, the general does not contain more than the detail. He said to him, if it were written “which never had worked, which never had drawn,” you would be justified; but it is written “one which never had been used for work.” This does not describe general and detail, but the additional reference to “yoke” for an equal cut. Since relative to “yoke” said for the calf He treated all work as a yoke, so for the “yoke” said for the cow we have to treat all work as a yoke. Since relative to “yoke” said for the calf work disables whether intentional or unintentional, so for the “yoke” said for the cow work disables whether intentional or unintentional. Since relative to “yoke” said for the cow, the yoke disables, also for the “yoke” said for the calf the yoke disables. Then since for the “yoke” said for the cow blemishes disable, so also for the “yoke” said for the calf blemishes disable? The verse says, “where this one has no blemish.” Blemishes disable the cow, blemishes do not disable the calf. Then it also says “one which never had been used for work,” for this one work disables, does for the cow work not disable? Can you say there, “where this one has no blemish,” this one is disabled by blemishes, sacrifices are not disabled by blemishes?

Jerusalem Talmud Sotah 9:35

HALAKHAH: The rabbis here explain the verse about the murderer, the rabbis there explain the verse about the murder victim. The rabbis here explain the verse about the murderer, "he did not come to our attention and we sent him away," and did not execute him; "or that we did not see him and left him," and muddled his trial. But the rabbis there explain the verse about the murder victim, "he did not come to our attention and we sent him away," without company; "or that we did not see him and left him," without provisions.

Jerusalem Talmud Sotah 9:35

Jerusalem Talmud Sotah 9:55

“The arousers.” Those who were saying (Ps. 44:24): “Be roused, why do You sleep, o Eternal, etc.” Does there exist sleep before the Omnipresent? Has it not already been said (Ps. 121:4): “Lo, He will not slumber nor sleep, the Guardian of Israel!” Why does the verse say (Ps. 78:65): “Like a sleeper awoke the Eternal, like a hero exhilarated by wine.” But in a symbolic way it is as if sleep were before Him when Israel is in trouble and the other peoples are at ease. So it says (Job 17:2): “When they apostasize, My Eye will rest.”

Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 1:29

Rebbi Jeremiah and Rebbi Ammi asked: What is the difference between her and one who had sex with a finger? Is the one who had sex with a finger not disabled for priesthood? Rebbi Haggai said, explain it that there was no penetration. Rebbi Haggai wanted to change his mind; Rebbi Abba said to him, do not change your mind. Why did Rebbi Haggai want to change his mind? Because of the verse: “But he shall marry a wife in her virginities,” only if she is a virgin in both respects. Similarly, “a virgin and no man had known her.” A virgin, with respect to penetration. No man had known her, without penetration. Rebbi Isaac ben Eleazar said, [no man] ever had wanted to touch her hand, for it was said: “The staff of evil shall not rest on the just’s lot.” Why did Rebbi Haggai want to change his mind? He could explain it by “touching”. Why does (Rav Yosef) [Rebbi Yasa] not explain it by “touching”? Rebbi Mana said, because it presented a problem for him: Rebbi Yasa asked: What is the legal status of “touching” with a male? “Touching” with an animal? When Rebbi Jeremiah heard that of Rebbi Haggai, he said, that was not Rebbi Ammi’s problem.

Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 1:32

Rebbi Eleazar asked, what about a male who sleeps with a manumitted slave girl? Let us hear from the following: I could think that a male who sleeps with a Gentile slave has to pay; the verse says: “He shall take her as wife by the bride price.” If he can marry her. This excludes the [gentile] slave (or any) whom he cannot marry. Only because he cannot marry her! Therefore, if he can marry her, she collects the fine, and any who collects the fine has a ketubah. Rebbi Yudan said, does that depend on a fine? Look, the adult collects no fine but her ketubah is 200, the virgin after marriage collects a fine but her ketubah is a mina! Rebbi Ze‘ira said before Rebbi Mana, explain it if she was converted or freed before she reached three years and one day. He said to him, any woman who was converted or manumitted before she reached three years and one day is like an Israel.

Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 2:42

Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Yosef sent after his wife. He said, three students should accompany her, so that if one has to absent himself for his needs, she should still be with two of them. But did we not state: “And they give him two scholars to prevent him from sleeping with her on the trip”? Rebbi Abin said, with her husband that makes three. Also he rented a house for her and looked after her upkeep but was never alone with her except in the presence of her children. He applied to himself the verse: “I exercised myself in my worry but found no rest”.

Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 3:2

HALAKHAH: “The following adolescent girls,” etc. It is written: “She should be his wife,” one who can be his wife. Can the bastard girl be his wife? Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, “he should weigh silver appropriate for the bride-price of virgins”, that added many virgins. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, if it had said “virgin’s brides-prices”; but it says only “appropriate for the bride-price of virgins”; the verse added them only for the bride-price. But where was this said? As Ḥizqiah stated: “If refusing her father should refuse,” not only if her father refuses; from where even if from Heaven they refuse? The verse says “refusing should refuse”, in any case. But then a man who has intercourse with a slave girl should pay the fine! This is impossible, as it was stated: I could think that one who has intercourse with a Gentile slave-girl should be obligated, the verse says, “by bride-money he should take her as a wife to himself.” Only one whom he can marry; this excludes the Gentile slave whom he cannot marry. But he cannot marry his sister and he pays the fine! There is a difference since she can be married to others. But his daughter can be married to others and he does not pay the fine! There is a difference since it is a capital crime and nobody who commits a capital crime pays money.

Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 3:2

Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 3:6

There, we have stated: “If somebody eats heave intentionally, he pays the principal but not the fifth.” And we have stated: “The following are flogged.” 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) “Corresponding to his guilt.” You sentence him for one offence but you may not sentence him for two offences. 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 Ketubot 3:12

Rebbi Ḥinena said before Rebbi Mana: Even if Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish thought the entire Mishnaiot were Rebbi Meïr’s, does the verse agree with Rebbi Meïr? Is it not written (Lev. 22:14): “If a person ate consecrated food in error”? 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 pay money; 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 pay money.

Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 3:24

Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: We understand that, since it said “if there is no case of murder, a fine shall be imposed”, that if it is a case of murder, you shall take life for life? Why does the verse say, it is a case of murder? To add the case of premeditation and warning. Rebbi Yose said, is that not a Mishnah, “for anybody committing a capital crime does not pay cash”, that it deals not only with cases of error. Ḥizqiah said, one states a baraita: “The slayer of an 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 money.

Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 3:34

HALAKHAH: “How does he drink from his pot,” etc. Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Ḥiyya, in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: It should not have said “she shall be his wife” for the calumniator; it is superfluous since she already is his! Why does the verse say, “she shall be his wife”? You should infer from this by an equal cut. One has to infer from “she shall be his wife”, “she shall be his”. Since “she shall be his” which is said there means a wife appropriate for him, so “she shall be his” which is said here means a wife appropriate for him. Then since “she shall be his” which is said there means a wife appropriate for him and he pays the fine, so “she shall be his” which is said here means a wife appropriate for him and he pays the fine. Rebbi Ze‘ira, Ulla [ben] Ismael, in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: It should not have said “she shall be his wife” for the calumniator; it is superfluous since she already is his! Why does the verse say, “she shall be his wife”? You should infer from this by an equal cut. One has to infer from “she shall be his wife”, “she shall be his”. Since “she shall be” which is said there means that if he divorced her one tells him to take her back, so “she shall be his” which is said here means that if he divorced her one tells him to take her back. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: “In the cases of both the rapist and the calumniator who divorced, one forces them to take back. If they were Cohanim they absorb the forty.”

Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 3:34

Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 3:43

Jacob bar Abba asked before Rav: What is the law for him who comes to a minor? He said to him, by stoning. What is the law for him who comes to an adult? He said to him, I am reading “an adolescent”, not an adult. Read “an adolescent”, not a minor! “‘Because he mistreated her’, that includes a minor for a fine”, read ‘because he mistreaded her’, that includes an adult for a fine! Rav said, even though Jacob won the logical argument, practice is that he who comes to a minor is [punished] by stoning but she is free. Rebbi Abin in the name of Samuel: Why? He understood it from the following: “The man who had lain with her alone should die.” Did we not know that “the girl has not committed a capital crime”? Then why does the verse say: “Do not do anything to the girl, the girl has not committed a capital crime”? That includes him who comes to a preliminarily married underage girl that he is stoned and she is free.

Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 4:6

From where comes this? Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: “You shall give them as inheritance to your sons to inherit property,” those to your sons and not your daughters to your sons; the verse speaks about the fine. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: They have no right to the fines of the daughter nor to payments for seduction or injuries. When does the fine become due? Rebbi Jonah said, from the first moment; Rebbi Yose said, at the end. Rebbi Yose objected to Rebbi Jonah: Since you say, from the first moment, did we not state: “If there were court proceedings during her father’s lifetime, [the payments] are the father’s; after the father’s death they are the brothers’”? He said to him, that refers to what Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai stated, “He shall give to the girl; he shall give to the girl’s father.” Rebbi Jonah objected to Rebbi Yose. In your opinion, since you say, at the end, did we not state: “If there were court proceedings before she became an adult, they are the father’s; after she became an adult they belong to herself.” Does an adult have a claim to a fine? He said to him, that refers to what Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, as Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: “Because he mistreated her,” that includes if she was an adolescent and became an adult. Does it turn out that this disagreement parallels another disagreement, as we have stated there: “If he stole from his father, slaughtered or sold, and afterwards [his father] died, …, he pays fourfold or fivefold”? Rebbi Yose objected to Rebbi Ḥaggai: In your opinion, since you say that it depends on the court proceedings, should one not state: If he stole from his father, slaughtered or sold during his father’s lifetime but did not appear in court until after his father’s death, he pays twofold? But it says fourfold or fivefold! But here, everybody agrees that they belong to herself. The only problem is whether he has to pay to her or to her father.

Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 4:9

Rebbi Ze‘ira sent to Rav Naḥman bar Jacob and Rebbi Immi bar Pappai: Who owns the earnings of the daughter? They said to him, the diligent said, herself. Who is the diligent? Samuel! Rebbi Mattanah said, it was said in the name of Rebbi as explanation of a verse: “You shall give them as inheritance to your sons to inherit property,” those to your sons and not your daughters to your sons; the verse speaks about the earnings of the daughter. Rebbi Yudan said, the Mishnah says so: “Her earnings and what she finds, even if she had not collected when the father died, belong to the brothers.” Anything she earned during her father’s lifetime. But what she earned after her father’s death according to everybody is hers.

Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 4:9

Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 4:13

HALAKHAH: “If a proselyte woman converted,” etc. It is written: “For he calumniated a virgin of Israel”. That excludes this one who is not from Israel. “For he calumniated a virgin,” to include the proselyte whose conception was not in holiness but her birth was in holiness, that she should be stoned. Why does one not add her for the fine? You cannot do that; as Ḥizqiah stated: We understand that it was said “they shall stone her,” does that not imply that she dies? Why does the verse say, “and she shall die”? But there must be another one who is stoned but (she) [he] is free; who is that? That is the proselyte whose conception was not in holiness but who was born in holiness.

Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 4:14

It is written: “If a man takes a wife, comes to her, and hates her.” He is not guilty unless he marries her definitively, has intercourse, and accuses her not to be a virgin. “He puts a libel on her”; I could think even if she spoiled a dish? It says here “a libel” and it says later “a libel”. Since “a libel” later implies whoring, so also here it means whoring. Since “a libel” later implies from the place of virginity, so also here? From where if he came upon her otherwise? The verse says, “and he calumniates her”, in any way. “He said, I took this wife and came to her,” that excludes assignations; “I took”, to exclude the one waiting for her levir; “I took”, to exclude the preliminarily married one.

Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 5:16

“If she spent six months for her husband and six months for the levir, she cannot eat heave. Not only six months for the levir but even all the time for the levir except for one day, she cannot eat heave.” The Mishna follows neither the earliest not the last Mishnah, but the intermediate development. As it was stated: First, they were saying that a preliminarily married woman, daughter of an Israel, could eat heave, for they were explaining: “If a Cohen acquires a person, acquistion by money;” for what would be the difference between one who acquires a wife and one who acquires a slave girl? They changed, to say: after twelve months, when he becomes responsible for her upkeep. The court of the later ones said: A woman never eats heave before she enters the bridal chamber. ”Already Rebbi Joḥanan ben Bagbag sent to Rebbi Jehudah ben Bathyra at Nisibis: They say in your name that the preliminarily married daughter of an Israel eats heave. He sent back the following: I had been convinced that you are knowledgeable in the secrets of the Torah, but you do not even know the rules de minore ad majus! Since money can acquire a Gentile slave girl to permit her to eat heave, but she cannot be acquired by sexual relations to permit her to eat heave, whereas a wife can be acquired by sexual relations to permit her to eat heave, it is only logical that money can acquire a wife to permit her to eat heave! But what can I do? They said that no woman eats heave before she enters the bridal chamber,” and they supported it by the verse: “Every pure person in your household shall eat it.” Rebbi Yudan said, that is an argument de minore ad majus that can be reversed! Because he could say to him, since a Gentile slave girl can be acquired by active possession to permit her to eat heave, what can you say about a wife who cannot be acquired by active possession? If an argument de minore ad majus can be reversed, the argument is invalid.

Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 5:31

”The period mentioned in the Torah.” Some Tannaïm state: שְׁאֵר that is intercourse; עוֹנָה that is food. Some Tannaïm state: עוֹנָה that is intercourse; שְׁאֵר that is food. He who said שְׁאֵר is intercourse: “No person to the שְׁאֵר of his flesh;” עוֹנָה is food: “He fed you and made you hunger”. He who said שְׁאֵר is food: “He let rain on them שְׁאֵר like dust”; עוֹנָה that is intercourse, “that you should not deprive my daughters,” that refers to intercourse. Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob explains the verse, “her flesh her garment”, that her garment should fit her flesh, that he should not give a young woman clothes of an old woman nor an old woman clothes of a young one. “Her garment her season”, that he should not give summer clothing for the rainy season nor that for the rainy season in summer. From where does he get food? Since he is not permitted to withhold from her things that are not necessities of life, not so much more things that are necessities of life! From where does he get the obligation of periodic intercourse? Since he may not withhold from her things which do not constitute the main reason for marriage, so certainly he may not withhold the things which constitute the main reason for marriage!

Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 5:32

Rebbi Eliezer inferred from the gift which Jacob had sent to his brother Esaw, for he sent him according to copulations. “200 she-goats and 20 he-goats,” one for ten; “200 ewes and 20 rams,” one for ten. “Nursing camels and their sons 30.” Rebbi Berekhiah said, because it is decent in his sexual behavior did the verse not publicize. “40 cows and ten bulls,” one for four since they are tired; “20 she-donkeys and ten he-donkeys,” one for two since they are tired.

Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 5:45

She has no claim to wine since poor Jewish women do not drink wine. Do rich women drink? Did we not state: It happened that the Sages assigned to Martha bat Boethos two se‘ah of wine every day. How can the court assign wine? Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, because of “Whoring, wine, and cider will destroy the mind.” But did we not state: ”If she was nursing, one reduces the amount of her work and increases her food”? Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said wine, for it increases the milk. Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Also they assigned it for cooking. Nevertheless, she cursed them and said to them, so you should give to your daughters. Rebbi Aḥa said, and we answered her, Amen. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Ẓadoq said, I should not see consolation if I did not see her collecting barley grains between horses’ hooves at Acco. I quoted about her the verse: “The dainty one among you and the pampered, …” “If you have no experience, most beautiful of women, go following the flock …”. But did we not state: It happened that the Sages assigned to Miryam, the daughter of Simeon ben Gorion, a daily supply of perfume for 500 denar, when she was only waiting for her levir. Nevertheless, she cursed them and said to them, so you should give to your daughters. Rebbi Aḥa said, and we answered her, Amen. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Ẓadoq said, I should not see consolation if I did not see her bound with her hair to a horse’s tail at Acco. I quoted about her the verse: “The dainty one among you and the pampered, …”.

Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 5:45

Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 7:14

HALAKHAH: “If somebody causes a vow of his wife that she should not pay condolence visits,” etc. ”If he made her vow not to lend out fine and coarse sieves, he shall divorce her and pay the ketubah, since he gives her a bad reputation among her [female] neighbors. And so if she made a vow not to lend out fine and coarse sieves, she should leave without ketubah since she gives him a bad reputation among his [male] neighbors.” ”If he made her vow not to pay condolence visits or go to weddings, he shall divorce her and pay the ketubah, since tomorrow a relative of hers will die and nobody will take notice of her. And so if she made a vow not to pay condolence visits or go to weddings, she should leave without ketubah since tomorrow a relative of his will die and nobody will take notice of him.” ”Rebbi Meïr is saying in the name of his teacher Rebbi Aqiba: ‘It is better to pay condolence visits than to go to a wedding since the former is the end of every human, and the living should take notice.’ Why does the verse say, ‘and the living should take notice’? But do so they shall: eulogize so they should eulogize, bury so they should bury, accompany so they should accompany.”

Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 7:34

It was stated: “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, I met an old man, smitten with boils, from Sepphoris. He told me, there are 24 kinds of boils; the worst one, and the one for which a woman is bad, is flowing boils. Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: With the latter kind, the evil Pharao was smitten; that is what is written: “The Eternal smote Pharao and his house with great plagues,” etc. Rebbi Berekhia said: Because he dared to touch the matron’s body. There are 24 kinds of cedar, and from all of them the verse mentioned only seven. That is what is written: “I shall give in the desert cedar, acacia, myrtle, and oil wood; I put in the prairie beroš, tidhar, and teaššur together. Beroš is cypress; tidhar is idra;teasššur is the box-tree. They added to them ’allonim, ‘armonim, and ’almogim. ’Allonim are oaks, ‘armonim plane trees, ’almuggim aloës.

Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 11:18

HALAKHAH: “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, her sale is valid,” etc. That is, if she sold them in four contracts. If she sold them in one contract, there is disagreement between Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, as they disagreed: If somebody wrote all his property over to two persons in one document and the testimony of the witnesses was valid for one but invalid for the other. Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Yasa: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagreed; one said, since it is invalid for one it is invalid for the other, but the other said, it is valid for one and invalid for the other. Rebbi Mana did not specify; Rebbi Abin specified: Rebbi Joḥanan said, since it is invalid for one it is invalid for the other; but Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it is valid for one and invalid for the other. Rebbi Elazar said, a Mishnah supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “Since testimony of two [witnesses] is invalid if one of them turns out to be related or disqualified, so also of three [witnesses] it is invalid if one of them turns out to be related or disqualified. From where even 100? The verse says, ‘witnesses’”. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, Rebbi Ḥananiah the colleague of the rabbis and the rabbis disagree. One says, the argument of Rebbi Eleazar is correct, but the other says, the argument of Rebbi Eleazar is not correct. For him who says, the argument of Rebbi Eleazar is correct, it is as if there was one testimony about one person. For him who says, the argument of Rebbi Eleazar is not correct, it is as if two groups of witnesses came, valid for one and disqualified for the other.

Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 13:3

Rebbi Ḥizqiya in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: Rebbi used to explain three verses for praise. “She sat at the entrance to the double spring.” Is this possible? Even the most brazen whore would not do that. But she lifted her eyes to the door to which all hope is directed; she said before Him: Master of the universe, do not let me leave this house empty. Another explanation: “She sat at the entrance to the double spring;” she opened his eyes and told him, I am single and pure. “And Eli was very old; …, that they slept with.” It is written “they bedded them”. Rebbi said, the women were bringing their nests to become purified for their husbands and they were deferring the sacrifices; the verse counts it as if they had slept with them. Rebbi Tanḥuma said, that is what he scolds them for: “Why do you disregard my slaughter sacrifice and my flour sacrifice?” Could he remove them from the serious sin and scold them for the simple one? “His sons did not walk in his ways,” that they were taking tithe and judging. Rebbi Berekhiah said, a camel caravan was passing by, they neglected public needs and dealt in merchandise.

Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 1:2

HALAKHAH: “All substitute names of vows are like vows,” etc. It is written “Any person who vows,” why does the verse say “a vow”? From here that substitute names of vows are like vows. “Or he swears,” why does the verse say “an oath”? From here that substitute names of oaths are like oaths. “But any ban,” why does the verse say “which he bans”? From here that substitute names of bans are like bans. “A vow of nazir”, why does the verse say “to be a nazir”? From here that substitute names of nazir vows are like nazir vows. So far for Rebbi Aqiba who says that these are expressions of additions. For Rebbi Ismael who said, these are double expressions in the normal style of the Torah, “going you went, desiring you desired, by stealing I was stolen”, from where? “ Any person who vows a vow to the Eternal or swears an oath to forbid a prohibition on himself shall not profane his word,” why does the verse say “he must fulfill anything coming out of his mouth”? From here that substitute names of vows are like vows and substitute names of oaths are like oaths. And from where that substitute names of bans are like bans? “A vow, a vow”. Since “a vow” at one place means that substitute names of vows are like vows and substitute names of oaths are like oaths, “a vow” at the other place means that substitute names of bans are like bans. And from where that substitute names of being a nazir are like being a nazir? “A vow, a vow”. Since “a vow” at one place means that substitute names of oaths are like oaths, “a vow” at the other place means that substitute names of being a nazir are like being a nazir.

Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 1:2

Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 1:14

“Like vows of the good ones, he did not say anything.” Does this mean that good people make vows? Since that one made a vow, he is not a good one. The Mishnah follows Rebbi Jehudah since it was stated in the name of Rebbi Jehudah, the ancient pious ones desired to bring a purification offering, but the Omnipresent did not let a sin happen to them; so they made a vow of nazir in order to be able to bring a purification offering. Rebbi Simeon says, they became sinners because they made a vow of nazir, for it was said: “He shall atone for him for what he sinned about the person,” that one sinned against his own person because he barred himself from [drinking] wine. It turns out that that of Simeon the Just parallels Rebbi Simeon. As it was stated: Simeon the Just said, I never ate the reparation offering of a nazir except once. Once a man came to me from the South, I saw that he was reddish, with beautiful eyes and good looks, and his hair in nice rows of waves. I said to him, my son, what induced you to cut off that beautiful hair? He said to me: Great man, I was a shephard in my village and I went to fill the water vessel with water when I saw my mirror image in the water and my instinct rushed over me and tried to lose me from the World. I said to it, wicked! You are rushing me to something which is not yours; it is upon me to sanctify you to Heaven! I bent my head to him and said, my son, there should be many more in Israel who fulfill the Omnipresent’s will like you. About you the verse says, “man or woman, if he clearly articulates vowing a vow of nazir, to be a nazir for the Eternal.” Rebbi Mana asked: Why following Simeon the Just, even following Rebbi Simeon? Did Simeon the Just never eat a purification offering for suet? Did Simeon the Just never eat a purification offering for blood? Simeon the Just holds that people make a vow while they are upset. Since they make the vow while they are upset, in the end, they wonder. But if he wonders, his sacrifices become similar to one of those who slaughtered profane animals in the Temple courtyard. But this one made a well thought-out dedication, when his mouth and his thoughts were in unison.

Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 2:2

HALAKHAH: “The following vows are permitted,” etc. “To the Eternal”, nobody can forbid anything on himself unless it could be given to the Eternal. What is stated in the House of Rav disagrees: “From where that one may not make and dissolve vows which are dissolved for you from Heaven but people consider them as binding? The verse says, ‘he shall not profanate his word.’ He should not make his words profane.” They wanted to say, for example using “qorbān” or “oath”; but in all other respects it would be permitted. It comes to tell you, also all other respects. “To prohibit a prohibition on himself”. There are Tannaїm who state: on himself, not on others. There are Tannaїm who state: even on others. They wanted to say that he who says on himself, not on others, to forbid others’ property, but he who says even on others, to forbid his own property for others, but not the property of others for himself.

Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 2:3

“One who says to his wife, you are for me like my mother”. Your cohabitation is for me like cohabitation with my mother, like my mother’s flesh; he did not say anything. If he said, this loaf is for me like cohabitation with my mother, what? Let us hear from the following: A qônām that I shall not sleep with you, Rav says, he is forbidden, Samuel says he is permitted. How does Samuel uphold “he shall not profanate his word”? As if he shall not profanate his word. Rav sticks with his opinion: The Tannaїm in the House of Rav disagree: “From where that one may not make and dissolve vows which are dissolved for you from Heaven but people consider them as binding? The verse says, ‘he shall not profanate his word.’ He should not make his words profane.”

Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 3:32

“On the eighth day one shall circumcize,” even on the Sabbath. How can I confirm “its desecrator shall certainly die?” Even for circumcision? How can I confirm “on the eighth day one shall circumcize”? Even on the Sabbath? The verse says “But on the eighth day one shall circumcize,” even on the Sabbath. In Torah, Prophets, and Hagiographs we find that the Sabbath is as weighty as all other commandments of the Torah [taken together]. In the Torah, “until when will you refuse to keep My Commandments and Teachings,” and it is written: “See that the Eternal gave you the Sabbath.” In Prophets, as is written: “But the sons rebelled against Me; My Laws they did not follow” etc., and it is written: “My Sabbaths they much desecrated.” In Hagiographs, as it is written: “On Mount Sinai You descended,” and it is written: “And about Your holy Sabbath You informed them,” etc. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Abuna said, commandment of Sabbath is written plene, to inform you that it is as weighty as all other commandments of the Torah. A parable of two ladies who meet and you do not know which one is of higher standing. If one makes room for the other, you know that the other is of higher standing.

Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 3:35

“The flesh of his prepuce should be circumcized.” Even if it has white skin disease. How can I confirm: “Beware of skin disease to watch it carefully and to do …”? Also at a circumcision. Then how can I confirm: “The flesh of his prepuce should be circumcized”? If there is no white skin disease? The verse says, “the flesh”, even if it has white skin disease. This is simple in the opinion of Rebbi Jonah, who says that a positive commandment supersedes a prohibition even if they are not written together. But in the opinion of Rebbi Yose, who says that a positive commandment supersedes a prohibition only if they are written together? Since it is written “the flesh of his prepuce,” it is as if it were written together.

Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 4:12

It is written: “Behold, I taught you laws and rules.” Just as I did it for free, so you have to do it for free. One could think the same is true for Bible and translations? The verse says laws and rules. You have to teach laws and rules for free; you do not have to teach Bible and translations for free. But do we not see that the baraita teachers take their fees? Rebbi Yudan, the son of Rebbi Ismael, said: They take payment for lost time.

Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 6:2

HALAKHAH: “One who makes a vow to abstain from cooked food,” etc. A Mishnah states that scalding is called cooking, as we have stated: “If he cooked the well-being offering or scalded it.” A verse [states] that “roasted” is called “cooked”: “They cooked the pesaḥ” etc. If you say, against the rules, Rebbi Jonah from Bostra said, “as is the rule”. A Mishnah states that scalded is called cooked, and a verse that roasted is called cooked; but did we not state: “One who makes a vow to abstain from cooked food is permitted roasted and scalded food”? Rebbi Joḥanan said, in matters of vows one follows common usage. Rebbi Joshia said, in matters of vows one follows biblical usage. What is the difference between them? ‘A qônām that I shall not taste wine on Tabernacles.’ In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan he is forbidden on the last day of the holiday. In the opinion of Rebbi Joshia, is he permitted? Also Rebbi Joshia agrees that he is prohibited. Rebbi Joshia said it only for restrictions.

Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 6:2

Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 6:3

Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, Rebbi Joḥanan ate bake-meats and said, I did not taste food on that day. But did we not state: “He who made a vow not to eat food is permitted water and salt”? Explain it following Rebbi Joshia, who said, in matters of vows one follows biblical usage. And from where that everything is called food? Rebbi Aḥa bar Ulla said: “And ten female donkeys carrying grain, bread, and food.” Why does the verse say, “and food”? From here that everything is called food.

Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 6:34

If they sanctified it before its time or after its lengthening, should I assume it was lengthened? The verse says (Lev. 23:2) “them”, “them”, “these are My holidays.” Before its time is not “My holidays.” Before its time, the 29th day, after its lengthening, the 32nd day. From where that one intercalates for the year because of the [men of the] diaspora who set out but did not yet arrive? The verse says (Num. 23:44), “Moses spoke about the holidays of the Eternal to the Children of Israel”. Make the holidays so they can be observed by all of Israel. Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman said, only if they had reached the river Euphrates.

Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 6:34

Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 8:14

“Until the grain harvest”. It is written, “until the end of the barley harvest and the wheat harvest”. That verse speaks of the South, the Mishnah of Galilee.

Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 9:28

HALAKHAH: “And when Rebbi Ismael died,” etc. It is written, ““Daughters of Israel, cry about Saul, etc.” Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Neḥemiah. One said, really daughters of Israel. For their husbands went to war and he provided them with food. Why does the verse say “who puts a golden jewel on your garments”? Jewellery looks good only on a supple body. The other one said, “the daughters of Israel” means the builders of Israel, the councils of Israel. When he saw a group of fellows, he gave them to eat and drink. What does the verse mean by “who puts a golden jewel on your garments”? That he heard the reason for a practice from a Sage and praised him.

Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 9:28

Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 10:2

HALAKHAH: “An adolescent girl,” etc. It is written, “if she should be a man’s”. What are we speaking about? If a married one, it already is written “if she vowed in her husband’s house”. If about an unmarried one, it already is written “if she vows a vow to the Eternal”. Why does the verse say, ““if she should be a man’s with her vows on her”? That refers to the preliminarily married adolescent girl whose vows are dissolved by father and husband. So far for vows which she vowed after she was prelinimarily married. Vows which she vowed before she was prelinimarily married? “With her vows on her,” to include the vows which come with her from her father’s house.

Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 10:3

It was stated in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: “If she should be a man’s”, the verse speaks about a preliminarily married adult girl. The colleagues say, Rebbi Eleazar says it correctly. Is it not difficult for Rebbi Eleazar: Did she not leave her father’s power the moment she became an adult? Who may dissolve the vows of an orphan whose father had died? The husband dissolves. It is difficult for the rabbis: If he may dissolve before she entered his power, is it not obvious [that he may dissolve] after she entered? How do the rabbis explain “with her vows on her”? What are we talking about? If about vows which she made before she was preliminarily married and she became preliminarily married, already the father and the husband had the power to dissolve. But we must talk about a vow which she made before her father died, then the father died and she became an adult. From where does Rebbi Eleazar obtain: “The father and the husband dissolve the vows of a preliminarily married adolescent girl.” “Between a man and his wife.” That deals with the husband. The father? “Between a father and his daughter.” How do the rabbis interpret “between a man and his wife”? Not what is between her and others. “Between a father and his daughter,” not what is between her and others. Does Rebbi Eleazar not agree with this? He agrees; he understands everything from there: “Between a man and his wife”, not what is between her and others; “between a father and his daughter,” not what is between her and others.

Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 10:10

“Since the husband dissolves in adulthood.” The Mishnah follows Rebbi Eleazar, since it was stated in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: “If she should be a man’s”, the verse speaks about a preliminarily married adult girl.

Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 10:28

It was stated: One is asked about vows only while sitting and wrapped. The one who is asked must be sitting and the one who is asking is standing; from the following: “And the two people who have the dispute shall stand.” “Standing” means only “being judged”. That is for asking legal rules. Asking about sermons from where? The verse says “shall stand, and shall stand”. Rebbi Aḥa bar Pappus went to permit the vow of Rebbi Immi. He remained standing to say “there is no vow”. Rebbi Mana went to permit the vow of the older Gamliel. He remained standing to say “there is no vow, there is no oath”. Rebbi Mana went to permit the vow of Gamliel the grandson. He said to him, do not treat me as you treated my grandfather, but sit down and I shall remain standing.

Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 11:16

They asked before Rebbi Zeїra: a Cohen to an Israel, Rebbi forbids. What does Rebbi Yose say? Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Aḥa said, so he responded to them: In the opinion of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina, why is a Cohen to an Israel forbidden, not because it looks badly? Also Rebbi Joḥanan holds that from an Israel to an Israel it is forbidden because it looks badly. In addition, because of the following, as it was stated: “Cohanim and Levites who help at the threshing floor have no right either to heave or to tithe, and if the farmer gave, it is desecrated, as it is said (Lev. 22:15): ‘They should not desecrate the sanctified things of the Children of Israel,’ but they desecrate them! In addition, they said that their heave is no heave, their tithes are no tithes, their dedications are no dedications, and about them the verse says (Micha 3:11): ‘Their heads judge for bribes, [their priests are for hire].’ The Omnipresent brings over them three catastrophies; that is what is written (Micha 3:12): ‘Therefore, because of you Zion will be ploughed over as a field, Jerusalem will be desolate, and the Temple Mount a wooded hill.’

Jerusalem Talmud Nazir 1:2

HALAKHAH: “All substitute names for nazir vows are like nazir vows,” etc. “All substitute names for vows are like vows,” etc. It is written “Any person who vows,” why does the verse say “a vow”? From here that substitute names for vows are like vows. “Or he swears,” why does the verse say “an oath”? From here that substitute names for oaths are like oaths. One reads that at the start of the first Chapter of Nedarim, up to: Rebbi Ismael stated: “any person who vows a vow of nazir”. From there that a person can obligate himself as nazir while he currently is a nazir.

Jerusalem Talmud Nazir 1:2

Jerusalem Talmud Nazir 1:30

The Mishnah follows Rebbi Jehudah since it was stated in the name of Rebbi Jehudah, the ancient pious ones desired to bring a purification offering, but the Omnipresent did not let a sin happen to them; so they made a vow of nazir in order to be able to bring a purification offering. Rebbi Simeon says, they became sinners because they made a vow of nazir, for it was said: “He shall atone for himself for what he sinned about the person,” that one sinned against his own person because he barred himself from [drinking] wine. It turns out that the position of Simeon the Just parallels Rebbi Simeon. As it was stated: Simeon the Just said, I never ate the reparation offering of a nazir except once. Once a man came to me from the South, I saw that he was handsome, with beautiful eyes and good looks, and his hair in waves. I said to him, my son, what induced you to cut off that beautiful hair? He said to me: Rabbi, I was a shepherd in my village and I went to fill the water vessel with water when I saw my mirror image in the water and my instinct rushed over me and tried to remove me from the World. I said to it, wicked! You are rushing me to something which is not yours; it is upon me to sanctify you to Heaven! I embraced him, kissed him on his head and said, my son, there should be many more in Israel who fulfill the Omnipresent’s will like you. About you the verse says, “man or woman, if he clearly articulates vowing a vow of nazir, to be a nazir for the Eternal.” Rebbi Mana asked: Why following Simeon the Just, even following Rebbi Simeon? Did Simeon the Just never eat a purification offering for suet? Did Simeon the Just never eat a purification offering for blood? Simeon the Just holds that people make a vow while they are upset. Since they make the vow while they are upset, in the end, they wonder. But if he wonders, his sacrifices become similar to one of those who slaughtered profane animals in the Temple courtyard. But this one made a well thought-out dedication, when his mouth and his thoughts were in unison.

Jerusalem Talmud Nazir 2:2

HALAKHAH: “I shall be a nazir [abstaining] from dried figs and fig cake,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the reason of the House of Shammai: because he mentioned the state of nazir. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, because of substitutes of substitutes. Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi said, a verse supports Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: “So says the Eternal, as cider is found in the grape bunch, etc.” The Torah called a grape bunch “cider”. And people call a dried fig cider, because of substitutes of substitutes. What is the difference between them? If he said, “I shall be a nazir[abstaining] from dried figs and fig cake.” In Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion he is a nazir, in Rebbi Simeon’s opinion he is not a nazir. “I shall be a nazir[abstaining] from a loaf of bread,” in Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion he is a nazir, in Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish’s opinion he is not a nazir. “From a loaf of bread,” he did not say anything. Rebbi Uqba asked before Rebbi Mana: The opinion of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish seems to be inverted, as we have stated there: “ ‘I take upon myself the obligation to bring a flour offering from barley.’ He shall bring from wheat.” And Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, because he mentioned “flour offering.” And here, he says so? He accepts one and he accepts the other. He accepts because he mentioned the state of nazir, and he accepts because of substitutes of substitutes. You should know that it is so since we have stated: “If he said, the cow said.” She did not say anything; it is because he mentioned the state of nazir, and here he mentioned the state of nazir.

Jerusalem Talmud Nazir 3:12

If he is still there, Rebbi Joḥanan said, one warns him about everything for every possible leaving, and he is whipped. Rebbi Eleazar said, he does not accept [warning] unless he leaves and returns. Rebbi Abba said: So did Rebbi Joḥanan answer Rebbi Eleazar: Is it not written, “he shall not come” and “he may not defile himself”? He said to him, if they warned him because of “he shall not come”, he is whipped; because of “he shall not defile himself” he is not whipped. Rebbi Hila said, Rebbi Joḥanan learned from prostrating, as we have stated there: “If he prostrated himself or stayed there long enough to prostrate himself.” Rebbi Mattaniah said, we thought that was where they do disagree? About lashes, but not about a sacrifice. Since Rebbi Hila said, Rebbi Joḥanan learned from prostrating, that means that lashes and sacrifices are one and the same. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “A nazir who drank wine the entire day is guilty only once.” He explains it, that his throat was never empty. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “If he was defiling himself for the dead the entire day, he is guilty only once.” He explains it about one who waits before every leaving, who is whipped. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: If a Cohen was standing in a cemetery and they were handing another corpse to him, could he accept? The verse says, “the husband shall be defiled for his family.” If he accepted it, I could think that he was guilty. The verse says, “to be profaned”. One who adds impurity to the impurity; that excludes him who does not add impurity to his impurity. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, Rebbi Neḥemiah said, “to be profaned”, that excludes him who does not add impurity to his impurity, lest he say, because I became defiled for my father I may go and collect the bones of X. “To be profaned”, at the time of death; Rebbi said, also “in their death.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, they disagree. It follows that Rebbi Simeon bar Abba follows Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. When Simeon bar Abba was dying, he said, this should be taken out here, that should be taken out there.

Jerusalem Talmud Nazir 3:12