אמר רבי יצחק הדא הילכתא לית שמע מינה כלום לא מראשה ולא מסיפה.
TO HIM: I ALSO DID NOT SAY TO PRAY4 BUT TO MAKE MENTION [IN THE WORD] ‘HE CAUSETH THE WIND TO BLOW AND THE RAIN TO FALL’5 -IN ITS DUE SEASON. HE [R. JOSHUA] REPLIED TO HIM: IF THAT IS SO ONE SHOULD AT ALL TIMES MAKE MENTION OF IT. WE PRAY FOR RAIN ONLY CLOSE TO THE RAINY SEASON. R. JUDAH SAYS: THE LAST TO STEP BEFORE THE ARK6 ON THE LAST DAY OF THE FEAST MAKES MENTION, THE FIRST DOES NOT; ON THE FIRST DAY OF PASSOVER THE FIRST MAKES MENTION, THE LAST DOES NOT. GEMARA. What has the Tanna [in mind] when he teaches WHEN etc.?7 -The Tanna refers to [a Mishnah] elsewhere which teaches: We make mention of the Power of Rain in the [benediction of] the Revival of the Dead,8 and we pray for [rain] in the Benediction of the Years9 and [we insert] the Habdulah10 in [the benediction] ‘Thou favourest man with knowledge’.11 [With that passage in mind] the Tanna now teaches: When do we [begin] to make mention of the Power of Rain? Would it not have been more appropriate to teach it there, why did he leave it until now? — [Say] rather, because the Tanna had just completed [learning the Tractate] Rosh Hashanah12 where we have learnt: And on the Feast [the world] is judged through water. And, [as there] he taught: ‘And on the Feast [the world] is judged through water,’ therefore there he teaches: When do we [begin] to make mention of the Power of Rain. But let him teach: When do we [begin] to make mention of Rain: why, the Power of Rain?-R. Johanan said: Because Rain comes down by the Power [of God], as it is said, Who doeth great things und unsearchable, marvellous things without number.13 And it is [further] written, Who giveth rain upon the earth, and sendeth waters upon the fields.14 Where [in these verses is this idea] implied? — Rabbah b. Shila replied: It is derived from the analogous use of the word heker in verses treating of Creation. Here it is written, ‘Who doeth great things and unsearchable’. And there it is written, ‘Hast thou not known? hast thou not heard that the everlasting God, The Lord, the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is weary? His discernment is past searching out.15 And [of Creation] it is [also] written, Who by Thy strength settest fast the mountains, Who art girded about with might.16 Whence do we know that mention of Rain is to be made in the Prayer?17 - It has been taught: To love the Lord your God and to serve Him with all your heart.18 What is Service of Heart? You must needs say, Prayer. And the verse following reads, That I will give the rain of your land in its season, the former rain and the latter rain.19 R. Johanan said: Three keys the Holy One blessed be He has retained in His own hands and not entrusted to the hand of any messenger, namely, the Key of Rain, the Key of Childbirth, and the Key of the Revival of the Dead. The Key of Rain, for It is written, The Lord will open unto thee His good treasure, the heaven to give the rain of thy land in its season,20 The Key of Childbirth, for it is written, And God remembered Rachel, and God hearkened
Jerusalem Talmud Bava Metzia
MISHNAH: If somebody hires workers to work with him in his fourth-year plantation, they may not eat. If he did not inform them, he has to redeem it and feed them37Newly planted fruit trees in their first three years have to be stripped of their fruits as forbidden ‘orlah. In the fourth year the yield may be redeemed and then eaten in place, or brought to the Temple and eaten there in purity (Lev. 19:23–24; Tractate ‘Orlah). Since eating from the fruit is a recognized privilege of agricultural workers, if they are not informed that they are to work on forbidden fruit they could not ask for higher wages to compensate for the fruit.. If his fig cakes were dislodged or his amphoras opened, they may not eat. If he did not inform them, he has to tithe and feed them38It was stated in Mishnah 3 that workers on food processed to the stage of tithes have no privilege of eating from it. It is forbidden to eat titheable but untithed food If the workers were hired under the impression that they had the privilege, the employer has to provide them with permitted food..
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Jerusalem Talmud Bava Metzia
MISHNAH: If somebody hires workers to work with him in his fourth-year plantation, they may not eat. If he did not inform them, he has to redeem it and feed them37Newly planted fruit trees in their first three years have to be stripped of their fruits as forbidden ‘orlah. In the fourth year the yield may be redeemed and then eaten in place, or brought to the Temple and eaten there in purity (Lev. 19:23–24; Tractate ‘Orlah). Since eating from the fruit is a recognized privilege of agricultural workers, if they are not informed that they are to work on forbidden fruit they could not ask for higher wages to compensate for the fruit.. If his fig cakes were dislodged or his amphoras opened, they may not eat. If he did not inform them, he has to tithe and feed them38It was stated in Mishnah 3 that workers on food processed to the stage of tithes have no privilege of eating from it. It is forbidden to eat titheable but untithed food If the workers were hired under the impression that they had the privilege, the employer has to provide them with permitted food..
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot
“He robbed one of five people.” Rebbi Assi said, there is a Mishnah which follows Rebbi Aqiba against Rebbi Tarphon. As we have stated there166Mishnah Baba Meṣi‘a 3:3; Tosephta Yebamot 14:2.: “If he said to two people, I robbed a mina from one of you but I do not know who of you it was; I received a deposit of a mina from the father of one of you but I do not know who of you it was; he gives to each of them a mina because he confessed himself.” Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: This is everybody’s opinion. One says, to be clean before Heaven167Since one understands from the Mishnah that the person was not sued but made the statement on his own initiative, one tells him that while the court could not force him to pay more than one mina and let the parties involved fight about the distribution, to assuage his conscience he has to give to each of the parties the amount they might be entitled to. The Babli concurs, Baba Meṣi‘a 37a.. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah: Here, if witnesses know; there, if no witnesses know168The expression כאן … כאן makes it difficult to know to which statement one refers. In the interpretation of R. David Fränkel (קרבן העדה), the Mishnah Yebamot refers to a case where there are witnesses to the robbery but they cannot identify the victim, but in Baba Meṣi‘a there are no witnesses at all. In the interpretation of R. Moses Margalit (פני משה), the Mishnah Baba Meṣi‘a refers to a case where there are witnesses to the robbery but they cannot identify the victim, but in Yebamot there are no witnesses at all. In the latter interpretation, the fact that the robber confessed makes him liable to pay every claim as a matter of law, not of ethics. The first interpretation is more acceptable.. Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Here if they are silent; there if they are talking169In Yebamot, there are no claimants (they are silent), in Baba Meṣi‘a there are no claimants (they talk). R. Ṭarphon must agree in the second case that he pays since if he does not want to pay he would have to swear that he owes nothing; since he does not know whether he owes, he cannot swear.. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rav: Here if he swore; there if he did not swear170If he swore falsely that he did no rob anything. R. Tarphon will agree that he has to satisfy each individual claim against him.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if he swore, he should have appointed an officer of the court and hand it over to him171He immediately could have deposited the money claimed with the court and let the claimants go to court to get the money (Mishnah Baba Qama 9:7).. Rebbi Joḥanan seems to say, a court which determined that one was a robber, not a court which determined that one was robbed172The remedy of R. Joḥanan works only if the robber can choose the court to which he confesses before he is sued and where he deposits the amount he owes.. Rav said, a court which determined that one was robbed, not a court which determined that one was a robber173If the court has to be the one to which the victims apply, the robber cannot forestall suits against himself and cannot free himself of responsibility by delivering restitution to a court convenient to himself.. The strength of Rav is from the following, that Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar said, a court which determined that one was robbed, not a court which determined that one was a robber174The opinion of R. Simeon ben Eleazar is not recorded elsewhere. The Babli, 118b, throws out the Mishnah Yebamot in favor of a baraita (found in shortened form in Tosephta Yebamot 14:2) in the name of R. Simeon ben Eleazar, which reduces the disagreement of R. Aqiba with R. Tarphon to the case (a) of a consummated marriage and (b) of a witnessed robbery.. Otherwise he should have kept silent. Rebbi Jeremiah wanted to say, he should have kept silent and not confessed175Then he would not have to pay.. Rebbi Yose wanted to say, he should have kept silent and not have sworn176He would have to pay only once.. Rebbi Yudan said, even following those who say that there is no difference between keeping silent and talking in matters of a robbery, for a deposit they agree that he who keeps silent is rewarded177The root of מתגר is Aramaic אגר “reward”. and he who talks loses. He who keeps silent is rewarded from the following: “Two people deposited with the same person, one a mina and one 200 [tetradrachmas]. This one says, the 200 belong to me, and that one says, the 200 belong to me. He gives each one a mina and the rest shall lie with him until Elijah comes.” He who talks loses, from this: “If he said to two people, I robbed178Obviously, the proof is not from this but from the second half of the Mishnah quoted: “I received a deposit of a mina from the father of one of you but I do not know which one of you it was …”. a mina from one of you but I do not know which one of you.”
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot
HALAKHAH: “A rabbi who forbade a woman to her husband because of a vow”, etc. “A rabbi who forbade a woman to her husband because of a vow cannot marry her.” I would say, that was his intention from the start. “If she repudiated or performed ḥalîṣah before him he may marry her since he acts as a court”, because two will not usually sin for the benefit of a third. There205Baba Meṣi‘a, Mishnah 3:7., we have stated: “If somebody deposits fruit with another person, that one should not touch it even if it spoils. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, he shall sell it under the supervision of a court because one is obliged to return a find to its owners.” Rebbi Abba bar Jacob said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, practice follows Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel206Babli Baba Meṣi‘a 39b (R. Abba ben R. Jacob in the name of R. Joḥanan). In the Babli, the circumstances of this ruling are very much in dispute.. What does one do with the money? Rav Jehudah said, the disagreement of Rebbi Aqiba and Rebbi Ṭarphon207Mishnah Baba Meṣi‘a 2:7. If somebody finds perishables (with characteristics that might allow the indentification of the lawful owner), he sells them under the supervision of a court. R. Tarphon holds that he uses the money in his own business; therefore he is totally responsible for it. R. Aqiba says, he may not touch the money; therefore, he is not responsible if it is stolen.. It is a condition that the members of the court cannot buy. Rebbi Aqiba200A woman made a vow that she will have no usufruct from her husband. This is a vow the husband cannot dissolve since it is not a “vow of deprivation” (Num. 30:2–17). She can go to a competent rabbi who may find a way to relieve her from her vow if she sincerely repents. If he did not find a way to repeal the vow, the husband will divorce her (obviously, he need not pay her anything.) Since the refusal of the rabbi to annul the vow forces the divorce, he cannot profit from his act or people will suspect him of bending the law for his own profit. said, Rebbi Ḥiyya ben Rebbi Sabbatai208An otherwise unknown Amora. asked: Here, you say, “if she repudiated or performed ḥalîṣah before him he may marry her since he acts as a court,” and here, you say so209Why are the members of the court forbidden to buy the produce to be sold under their supervision?? Rebbi Yose said, there, the buy could be in thirds210Every judge could profit from the transaction., but here, two will not usually sin for the benefit of a third.
