Talmud Jerusalem
Talmud Jerusalem

Talmud for Chagigah 2:1

מי שבת שם אמרו לו ר' לעזר בן עזריה מה היתה פרשתו הקהל את העם האנשים והנשים והטף פתח בה אמר הואיל והאנשים באין ללמוד והנשים לשמוע הטף למה באו אלא כדי ליתן שכר למביאיהן אמר להן אין הדור יתום שר' לעזר בן עזריה בתוכו אתיא דרבי לעזר בן עזריה דלא כבן עזאי דתנינן תמן מיכן אמר בן עזאי חייב אדם ללמד את בתו תורה שאם תשתה תדע שהזכות תולה לה: חרש: חברייא בשם ר' לעזר (דברים ל״א:י״ב) למען ישמעון ולמען ילמדון עד כדון במדבר ואינו שומע חרש שומע ואינו מדבר ר' אילא בשם ר' לעזר למען ילמדון ולמען ילמדון א"ר יונה הדא אמרה דלית כלליי דר' כללין דתנינן תמן חרש המדבר ואינו שומע לא יתרום וסברינן מימר מדבר ואינו שומע חרש שומע ואינו מדבר אינו חרש ותנינן החרש שנחלץ והחרשת שחלצה והחולצת לקטן חליצתה פסולה א"ר יוחנן בשאין יכולין לומר ואמר ואמרה ותנינן חרש שדיברו חכמים בכל מקום שאינו לא שומע ולא מדבר ודא מסייעה לר' יונה דר' יונה אמר הדא אמרה לית כלליי דרבי כללין ר' יוחנן בעי חרש באזנו אחת מהו אמר רבי יוסי בי רבי בון מחלוקת רבי יוסי ורבנן דתניא (שמות כ״ח:מ׳) ולבני אהרן תעשה כתנות רבנן אמרו שתי כתונת לכל אחד ואחד רבי יוסי אומר אפילו כתונת אחת לכל אחד ואחד מה טעמון דרבנן ולבני אהרן תעשה כתנות מה טעמא דרבי יוסי לק' בני אהרן תעשה כתנות והכא (דברים ל״א:י״א) תקרא את התורה הזאת נגד כל ישראל באזניהם רבנן אמרי שתי אזניים לכל אחד ואחד רבי יוסה אומר אפילו אוזן אחת לכל אחד ואחד: שוטה: אמר רבי לעזר (דברים ד׳:ל״ה) אתה הוראת לדעת: קטן: רבי ירמיה ור' אייבו בר נגרי הוון יתיבין אמרין תנינן אי זהו קטן כל שאינו יכול לרכוב על כתיפו של אביו וקטן שומע וקטן

Come and see, [let us test this hypothesis by implication from our mishnah]: "...from the time that the Kohanim go in to eat their terumah." It is [still close to] daytime. It is as soon as the stars come out!? [and the Tosefta says:] "...from the time when people usually go in to eat their bread on the eve of the Sabbath." That is an hour or two after nightfall! [These are obviously two very different times.] And yet you say: "These opinions are close enough to be equal!?" --Rabbi Yose said: "Let the problem be resolved [by claiming that the Tosefta refers only] to those small villages whose way is to go on up [home] while it is still day, to spare themselves from the animals." It teaches in a Baraita: "The one who recites [the Shema] before this has not fulfilled their obligation. If so, why do we recite it [before nightfall] in the synagogue? Rabbi Yose said: 'We do not recite it in the synagogue to fulfill its obligation. Rather, [we recite it] so that we may stand up in prayer after a word of Torah." Rabbi Zeira in the name of Rav Yirmiyah: "If there is doubt whether he made the blessings after his food or not, he should make the blessings [even though he may be doing it a second time]. For it is written (Deut. 8:10) 'And you shall eat, and you shall be satisfied, then you shall bless [the LORD your God...]' If there is doubt whether he prayed or not, he should not pray [as he may have already done so.]" But he disagrees with Rabbi Yohanan. For Rabbi Yohanan said: "If only a person could pray the entire day!" Why? For prayer is never a waste. If there is doubt whether he recited [Shema] or not, we may gather from this baraita: "The one who recites [the Shema] before this has not fulfilled their obligation." And is not before [nightfall] a time of doubt? And yet you say "he should recite [Shema]." This implies that if there is doubt whether he recited [Shema] or not, he should recite [Shema]. [From Tosefta 1:1] "The indicator of this is when the stars come out. And though there is no proof of it [from Scripture], there is a trace of it: (Neh. 4:21) '...we were doing the labor, and half of them were holding the spears from the break of dawn until the stars came out.' And he writes: '...it is guard-time for us by night and labor by day." How many stars should come out so that it becomes night? Rabbi Pinhas in the name of Rabbi Abba bar Papa: "One star, surely day. Two, doubt. Three, surely night." "...two doubt," [really]? But is it not written, "...until the stars came out!?" Rather, [the plural] "stars" indicates two! [Not three!]--The first one doesn't count. [An unattributed baraita:] "If he sees one star on the eve of the Sabbath and performs a creative task, he is exempt [from punishment]. Two, he brings a conditional guilt offering, Three, he brings a sin offering. On the departure of the Sabbath, if he sees on star and performs a creative task,

Jerusalem Talmud Chagigah

MISHNAH: Sancta are more stringent than heave in that one may immerse vessels inside vessels1Vessels immersed in a miqweh to be pure for use with sancta must be immersed singly. For heave one may immerse vessels inside vessels if only it is possible for the water to touch each vessel fully inside and out. for heave but not for sancta. One considers back2Clay vessels by biblical standards become impure only from inside a cavity. Any impurity on the concave parts of the outside is rabbinical., inside, and finger-holes3Holes on the outside of a pot or cup into which one puts his fingers to hold the cup are independent cavities. For heave, all these rules of rabbinic impurity are observed. For sancta any impurity of any source disqualifies the vessel. for heave but not for sancta. He who carries “support” may carry heave but not sancta4A person may carry both the shoe of a sufferer from gonorrhea and heave if both of them are placed on wooden planks (impervious to impurity) and the carrier never touches shoe and heave.. The garments of eaters of heave are “support” for sancta5Mishnah 2:7.. The action for sancta is different from that for heave in that for sancta one unties before immersing whereas for heave one may tie and then immerse6For heave one may assume that the water penetrates any rope with which immersed vessels are tied. For sancta this assumption may not be made..
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Jerusalem Talmud Bikkurim

55The origin of this paragraph is in Ḥagigah 2:5; a parallel discussion in Babli Ḥagigah 18b. The statement discussed is that tithe, in contrast to heave and First Fruits, may be eaten with unwashed hands. “Tithe” here always means Second Tithe since First Tithe whose heave of the tithe was separated is totally profane.“This applies to heave and First Fruits but not to tithe.” There56Mishnah Ḥagigah 2:5., we have stated: “One washes his hands for profane, tithe, and heave; but for sacrifices one immerses57One has to immerse his hands in 40 seah of water. “Washing” means that at least a quarter log (1/96 seah) of water flows over the hands..” There58“There” is the Mishnah Bikkurim 2:1, “here” is Mishnah Ḥagigah 2:5., you say that tithe does not need washing and here you say, tithe needs washing! Those who say, tithe needs washing, the rabbis; he who says, tithe does not need washing, Rebbi Meїr. There59Mishnah Parah 11:5., we have stated: “Anything needing immersion in water by rabbinic decree60Any impurity not explicitly stated in the Pentateuch. makes sacrifices impure and heave unusable61Unwashed hands are always impure in the second degree by rabbinic decree (cf. Berakhot 8, Note 46). Profane food can only become impure in two degrees; the second cannot induce impurity in other profane food. Heave can become impure in three degrees; the third is called “unusable” since it cannot induce impurity in other food (except sacrifices which have four degrees.) but is permitted for profane food and tithe. But the Sages forbid for tithe62Second Tithe cannot be eaten with unwashed hands..” Is that not explained by what Rebbi Samuel says in the name of Rebbi Zeïra, what means the Sages forbid for tithe? His body is disqualified from eating tithe. What is that? May you say tithe needs washing, if he wants to eat; may you say tithe does not need washing, if he wants to touch? No, wanting to touch is the same as wanting to eat63Nobody can expect a food handler not to eat.. So it must be washing as discipline64Washing one’s hands for profane food (in the Babli restricted to eating bread) is to teach people the discipline needed to handle heave (sources cf. Note 55).. But we have stated: “heave”! Is there washing as discipline for heave65For heave, washing is a biblical requirement. If heave is mentioned in a Mishnah, it cannot be dealing with washing because of rabbinic discipline.? But it is about profane food prepared by the rules of sacrifices66This was practiced, e. g., by the Qumran sect who ate all their food under the strict rules of impurities applicable to sacrifices. Usually, strict Pharisees prepared their food under the rules of heave.. Is profane food prepared by the rules of sacrifices not profane? Explain it either67This use of אי is a Babylonism not usually found in the Yerushalmi. following Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar or following Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Ẓadog. Either following Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar as it was stated: Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says in the name of Rebbi Meїr: Hands are [impure] in the first degree for profane food, in the second for heave68They will transfer impurity to any food but that food cannot induce other impurity.. Or following Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Ẓadog as it was stated there69Mishnah Ṭahorot 2:8.: “Profane food prepared by the rules of sacrifices is profane. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Ẓadog says it is like heave, it may be impure in two degrees and invalidates a third.”
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Jerusalem Talmud Chagigah

MISHNAH: The garments of the vulgar211A person who disregards the rules of impurity (unless on a pilgrimage to the Temple); cf. Introduction to Tractate Demay. are “support”212Rabbinically it is considered a source of original impurity. The expression “support” comes from the severe impurity of a menstruating woman where Lev. 15:21 implies that any implement which had supported her body (chair or bed) imparts impurity to anybody touching it and his garments. for Pharisees213People observing the laws on impurity in their daily lives.; the garments of Pharisees are “support” for the eaters of heave; the garments of eaters of heave are “support” for the eaters of sancta. Yose ben Yoezer214Cf. Mishnah 2:2. was the most pious of the priests but his handkerchief217If the wife of the vulgar, still a source of original impurity from her period, sat on the garment, the latter became an original source of impurity. Therefore there is a (slim) possibility that the Pharisaic restriction correspond to a case of actual biblical impurity. Babli Ḥulin 35b. was “support” for sancta. Joḥanan ben Gudgada all his life ate in the purity of sancta but his handkerchief was “support” for the ashes of the Red Cow215But not for the eaters of sancta. This Mishnah contradicts the practice established after the destruction of the Temple which considers profane food eaten in the purity of sancta not different from other profane food (Note 180)..
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Full Chapter