Talmud for Beitzah 5:1

א"ר בא אתא עובדא קומי רבי יסא ובעא מיעבד כרבי יוחנן כד שמע דרב ורבי חנינה תרויהון פליגין שמע מינה דאיתפלגון שירי פתילה שירי מדורה שירי שמן שכבו בשבת מהו להדליקם ביו"ט רב ורבי חנינה תריהון אמרין אסור ורבי יוחנן אמר מותר א"ר מנא קומי רבי יודן מה אפכן לה פתילה גבי ביצה א"ל מן מה דאנן חמיי רבנן מדמיי לה הדא אמרה היא הדא היא הדא משם ארבעה זקנים אמרו הנאכל עירובו בראשון הרי הוא כבני עירו בשני רב חונה בשם רב הלכה כארבעה זקנים רב חסדא בעי מחלפה שטתיה דרב תמן הוא עבד לה שתי קדושות והכא הוא עבד לה קדושה אחת דאיתפלגון שירי פתילה שירי מדורה שירי שמן שכברו בשבת מהו להדליקם ביום טוב רב ור' חנינה תרויהון אמרין אסור ורבי יוחנן אמר מותר וא"ר מנא קומי רבי יודן מה אפכן לה פתילה גבי ביצה א"ל מן מה דאנן חמיי רבנן מדמי לה הדא אמרה היא הדא היא הדא הכל מודין בנשרין שהן אסורין רבי בון בר חייה בעא קומי ר' זעירה מה בין נשרין מה בין בצים אילו נשרין באימותיהן שמא אינן אסורין אילו בצים באימותיהן שמא אינן מותרות מעתה נולדה בי"ט לא תיאכל בשבת בשבת לא תיאכל בי"ט א"ל וכיני לא דייך שהחמרתה עליה שאם נולדה ביום טוב לא תיאכל ביום טוב בשבת לא תיאכל בשבת אלא שאת מבקש להחמיר עליה שאם נולדה ביום יום טוב לא תיאכל בשבת בשבת לא תיאכל ביום טוב רבי ירמיה בעי עיטורי סוכה

R. Hanina says: The sun must have gone down and the moon have commenced to rise. In effect R. Samuel says: The moon cannot shine as long as the sun still lightens, neither can the moon shine after the sun has darted his (morning) beams. R. Samuel bar-Hiya, in the name of R. Hanina, says: If a man, when the sun has begun to set, descends from the summit of Mount Carmel to bathe in the sea, and re-ascends to partake of the oblations, he has certainly bathed during the daytime. It is, however, only a certainty in the case of one taking cross-roads to shorten the route; but not in the case of one who follows the high road (Strata). What is meant by "the intermediate period "? R. Tanhooma says: It resembles the delay of a drop of blood placed on the edge of a sword, i.e. the time required for the drop of blood to divide and run down on either side of the blade, is equivalent to the period of transition. According to R. Nehemiah, it means the time it would require for a man to run half a mile, after sunset. R. Yosse says: This twilight lasts no longer than the twinkling of an eye, and not even the men of science could measure it. Whilst the R. Yosse and R. Aha were together, the former said to the latter: Does it not seem to you that the passage of this half a mile (twilight) lasts but a second? It is certainly my opinion, said R. Aha. However, R. Hiya does not say so, but each twinkling of an eye, measured by the duration of the passage of half a mile (as R. Nehemiah), is doubtful. R. Mena says : I have made an objection in the presence of R. Aha: Have we not learnt elsewhere, that if an impurity is seen, once during the day and again during the intermediate period, or once in the twilight and again on the morrow, when the certainty exists that the impurity dates partly from this day and partly from the next day, there is a certainty as to the circumstances of the impurity, and the sacrifice is obligatory.

Jerusalem Talmud Challah

“Rebbi Jehudah said, when is this? When the ship touches ground.” Rebbi Ḥaggai said, Rebbi Jehudah follows his opinion³⁰In the Babli it is held that if R. Jehudah asks in the Mishnah, when is this?, he does not disagree with the anonymous Tanna but explains the latter’s position (Eruvin 81a–82b, Sanhedrin 24b). This is not the position of the Yerushalmi; cf. Ševi‘it 7, Note 90. since Rebbi Jehudah exempts water³¹Mishnah Beẓah 5:4: “If somebody borrows vessels before the holiday, they follow the feet of the borrower, on the holiday, the feet of the lender. Similarly, if a woman borrowed from another spices, water, or salt, they follow the feet of both of them. Rebbi Jehudah exempts water, for water has no consistency.” If both the borrower and the lender made an eruv (cf. Peah 8, Note 56), the borrowed things can only be moved inside the territory accessible to both of them. R. Jehudah exempts water since it is permitted on a holiday to drink water from a brook; that water was outside the permitted domain when the holiday started., as it has no consistency³²In this interpretation, the water is disregarded and the wooden ship is considered as lying on the gound.. Rebbi Abin said, it is more reasonable to assume his opinion changed; if the ship does not touch ground, would it not be as if the ship touched ground³³According to R. Ḥaggai, the condition that the boat touch ground seems unintelligible.? If the ship does not touch ground, its tithes are of practice; one tithes from it for a flower pot without hole and from a flower pot without hole for it, as it was stated³⁴Kilaim 7:6, Note 84.: “The tithes from a flower pot without hole are of practice³⁵Without any biblical basis. The flower pot is of clay which may be impermeable. Plants growing in a flower pot are considered growing on the ground only if the flower pot has a hole letting the earth in the pot absorb moisture from the ground. A wooden ship touching ground can always be said to be connected to the earth under it; it might only be compared to a flower pot with a hole., its heave does not create dema‘ and one does not owe a fifth for it.” Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: If somebody acquires a flower pot with a hole in Syria, even if he did not acquire the earth under it or the ground on which it stands, he acquired it to be obligated for tithes and the Sabbatical, even if it sits on two pegs. Even Rebbi Jehudah will agree with this. What is the difference between this case³⁶The flower pot with a hole permanently fixed on pegs above ground is obligated, the ship anchored but not touching ground is exempt. and that of a ship? A ship rises and falls, this [flower pot] rests in its place.

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Jerusalem Talmud Maaser Sheni

A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “Spices, water, or salt a woman borrowed from a friend for her dough, goes after both their feet⁵²Mishnah Beẓah 5:4. If one or both of the women had moved their domain for the holiday by an eruv (cf. Peah 8, Note 56), during the holiday the dough cannot be brought to any place not reachable by both of them. This part of Mishnah 5:4 is not discussed in Yerushalmi Beẓah 5:4.
The Yerushalmi is difficult to understand. The Babli (Beẓah 38b–39a) comes up with three possible explanations for the Mishnah. Abbai holds that all is only a rabbinical prohibition to be ready with a rule for the case the two women baked a cake together. Rava holds with R. Simeon ben Laqish that taste cannot be disregarded and, therefore, the spices are essential even if present only in a minute amount. As Tosaphot point out, water certainly cannot be disregarded even if most of it evaporates since without water there would be no dough. But water used to make unleavened dough does not necessarily increase the volume. This seems to be the objection of the Yerushalmi. Rav Ashi holds that one does not invoke special rules if by waiting (ubtil the end of the holiday) all problems disappear automatically..” Rebbi Abba said, for eruv they went according to the logical rule⁵³Since the dish contains contributions from both of them, one does not have to try to allocate parts.. You should know that this is so since they say there⁵⁴In Babylonia. In this version, the dish can be moved only in the common domain even if only the firewood came from a person with a different domain. Firewood cannot be bought with tithe money. in the name of Rav Ḥisda, but we know not whether from a tradition or a Mishnah, “even logs!” Did we want to say that logs have no credible importance? A baraita⁵⁵Tosephta 1:16. disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: “If a tithe dish is prepared with profane spices, the increase belongs to Second Tithe.” Explain it if the improvement cannot be tasted. But was it not stated: “If a profane dish is prepared with Second Tithe spices, the tithe cannot escape redemption⁵⁶Or the entire dish must be eaten under the rules of tithe. This part of the Tosephta requires explanation according to both opinions.”? According to Rebbi Joḥanan, if the volume was increased. According to Rebbi Simeon ber Laqish if the improvement was clearly recognizable.

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim

⁷³This paragraph also is in Beṣah 5:2 (צ). Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Immi: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagreed. One said, one dedicates; the other said, one does not dedicate. The rabbis of Caesarea make it explicit: Rebbi Joḥanan said, one dedicates without problems on a holiday; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, one does not dedicate, without problems on a holiday⁷⁴There is no doubt that biblically one is permitted to dedicate animals as sacrifices on a holiday; the question is whether there is a rabbinic prohibition.. There are Tannaim who state, he goes to sellers of lambs; there are Tannaim who state, he goes to sellers of Pesaḥim⁷⁵If the 14th of Nisan is a Sabbath. In the first formulation, the lambs are profane and have to be dedicated on the Sabbath to be permitted into the Temple court; in the second version they already are dedicated (cf. Babli Šabbat 148b).. He who says, he goes to sellers of lambs, follows him who says, one dedicates. He who says, he goes to sellers of Pesaḥim, follows him who says, one does not dedicate. This implies that it does not become profane and then dedicated again. If you would say that it becomes profane and then dedicated again, it should be forbidden because of dedicating, and we have stated, “one does not dedicate.⁷⁶Mishnah Beṣah 5:2.” Rebbi Ḥananiah and Rebbi Mana, one said, if he dedicates for the next day; but the other said, if he dedicated for the upkeep of the Temple⁷⁷Dedication of a sacrifice to be eaten on the holiday has to be considered part of the preparation of food and is permitted; what the Mishnah forbids are dedications either not for use on the holiday or not for food at all.. Rebbi Shammai said, even for him who said that one dedicates⁷⁸It seems that one has to read “that one does not dedicate”. Since Mishnah Beṣah5:2 explicitly declares that the prohibition of dedication of sacrifices is rabbinical, it implies that inside the Temple precinct proper the prohibition does not apply. In this situation there is no disagreement between R. Joḥanan and R. Simeon ben Laqish and no inference may be drawn about the status of monies dedicated for Pesaḥ., in the Temple Court because rabbinic Sabbath prohibitions were permitted in the Temple.

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Jerusalem Talmud Megillah

Available for Premium members only

Jerusalem Talmud Eruvin

Available for Premium members only

Full Chapter