Talmud Jerusalem
Talmud Jerusalem

Talmud for Shevuot 3:1

ולמה לי כר' ישמעאל ואפילו כר' עקיבה אתיא היא ידיעה והעלם על טומאת מקדש ידיעה והעלם על טומאת הקדש. א"ל מאן אית ליה העלם טומאה והעלם מקדש לאו רבי ישמעאל ונן בעיי כר' עקיבה. פעמים שיש כאן העלם טומאה והעלם מקדש ואינו חייב אלא אחת. היך עבידא ניטמא וידע נעלמה ממנו טומאה ונכנס למקדש ויצא וידע. נעלם הימינו מקדש ונכנס למקדש ויצא וידע הרי כאן העלם טומאה והעלם מקדש ואינו חייב אלא אחת. ופעמים שיש כאן כמה ידיעות וכמה העלימות ואינו חייב אלא אחת. היך. ניטמא וידע נעלמה הימינו טומאה. עד שהוא בהעלם טומאה נעלמה הימינו מקדש ונכנס למקדש ויצא וידע ואמר טומאה זו אין חייבין עליה קרבן. ניטמא וידע נעלמה הימינו טומאה עד שהוא בהעלם טומאה נעלם הימינו מקדש ונכנס למקדש ויצא אפי' כמה פעמים ובסוף ידע הרי כאן כמה ידיעות והעלימות ואינו חייב אלא אחת: פיסק'. מראות נגעים שנים שהן ארבעה אמר ר' יוסי שאל יהושע בן ר' עקיבה את ר' עקיבה אמר לו מפני מה אמרו מראות נגעים שתים שהן ארבעה. אמר לו ואם לאו מה יאמרו. אמר לו יאמרו מקרום ביצה ולמעלה טמא. אמר לו לומר שאם אין בקי בהן ובשמותן אין רואה הנגעים ומניין שמצטרפין זה עם זה א"ר מנא מנו אותן חכמים שמנים ומנו אותן ארבעה. מה שנים מצטרפין זע"ז אף ארבעה מצטרפין זה עם זה. רבי לעזר בשם ר' אבין

a creative task, he should bring a sin offering. Two--he should bring a conditional sin offering. Three--he is exempt [from bringing a sacrifice of any sort.]” Rabbi Yose bar Bon raised the question [thus]: “If you were to say that two [stars indicate] doubt [as to whether it is day or night, then] if one saw two stars on the eve of the Sabbath and [others] warned him [that it was the Sabbath, thus making him liable for its violation], yet he [nonetheless] performed a creative task; [and if he subsequently] saw two stars on the departure of the Sabbath and [others] warned him [that it was still the Sabbath], yet he performed a creative task; then either way you like [he is liable for a violation of the Sabbath]. If the first [set of stars] were [an indication that it was still] daytime [and not yet the Sabbath], then the last stars were also [an indication that it was still] daytime [and still the Sabbath], then he is liable [for a violation of the Sabbath] on account of the last set [of stars]. If the last [set of stars] were [an indication that it was now] night time [and the Sabbath had begun], then the first stars were also [an indication that it was now] night time [and no longer the Sabbath], then he is liable [for a violation of the Sabbath] on account of the first set [of stars]. [Another example:] If he saw two stars on the eve of the Sabbath and partially harvested a fig, [and] if he [subsequently returned] in the morning and harvested another part, and if he saw two stars on the departure of the Sabbath and harvested the [last] part of the fig, then either way you like [he is liable for a sin offering]. If the first [set of stars] were [an indication that it was still] daytime [and not yet the Sabbath], then the last stars were also [an indication that it was still] daytime [and still the Sabbath] and the morning harvest joins with that of the departure of the sabbath, and he is liable [for a sin offering] on account of the last set [of stars]. If the last [set of stars] were [an indication that it was] night time [and now the Sabbath], then the last stars were also [an indication that it was] daytime [and no longer the Sabbath] and the morning harvest joins with that of the night of the Sabbath, and he is liable [for a sin offering] on account of the first set [of stars].” These [stars] that you are speaking of are [only] those whose way is not to appear in the daytime. However, we do not count those whose way is to appear in the daytime. Rabbi Yose bar Bon said: “Just so long as three stars may be seen aside from that [one we call] Kokhvata (prob. Venus).” (This may be a scribal error and the original version may have been: “Just so long as three stars may be seen [in one place, just] as one star [can be so seen.]”) Rabbi Yaakov of Romana in the name of Rabbi Yehuda ben Pazi: “One star, surely day. Two, night.” But does he [truly] have no [time period of] doubt!? He has doubt about [discerning] one star from another. A baraita teaches: “So long as the eastern horizon is reddened, it is daytime. What has been said about the stars, applies to those which are not generally seen until nightfall; for, no note is taken of those which appear before the day is terminated. Therefore, R. Yosse bar R. Aboon says: It means three stars not counting, R. Jacob from Darom (south) says: One star indicates that it is still day; but two stars certainly show that it is night. Is there any doubt of this? No; the doubt can only exist between the stars visible by day, and the other stars. With regard to this, we are taught that it is still day as long as the sky is red towards the east; SIGN OF [GOD'S] ANGER3 WHY MAKE MENTION OF IT? THEREUPON R. ELIEZER SAID 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 Nedarim

MISHNAH: Exaggeration vows: If he said31In all these cases, it is understood that he says such and such should be qônām for me if …, if I did not see on this road [crowds] like those who left Egypt32About 600‘000 men; Ex. 12:37.; if I did not see a snake [as thick] as the beam of the olive press. Vows in error how? If he said, if I ate or drank, and he remembers33He remembers later but at the moment of his vow he was oblivious of the fact. that he had eaten or drunk, that I shall not eat or shall not drink, and he forgot and ate or drank. If he said, a qônām that my wife cannot enjoy anything from me because she stole my wallet or hit my son34From another wife., and it turns out that she did not hit him or became known that she did not steal. If he saw people eating [his] figs and said to them, these are for you as qorbān35It is to be assumed that people were not afraid to steal but would never break a vow., but the persons turned out to be his father or brothers with others. The House of Shammai say, these are permitted, those with them forbidden. But the House of Hillel say, these and those are permitted36Since a vow which is partially voided is completely voided; Mishnah 9:6..
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Jerusalem Talmud Shevuot

HALAKHAH: “An oath that I shall not eat this loaf,” etc. “An oath that I shall eat this loaf today,” the day passed and then he ate it. Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both say, he is not liable103Criminal liability.; not for the same reason. The reason of Rebbi Joḥanan, because he cannot be duly warned104No criminal prosecution is possible without evidence that the criminal was duly warned not to commit the crime (cf. Introduction to Tractate Sanhedrin, on Chapter Five). The warning must be delivered shortly before the criminal act, so the accused cannot claim to have forgotten. In this case criminality would be inaction; this is not subject to warning.
The Babli, 3b, brings the same example and connects this with the dispute between R. Joḥanan and R. Simeon ben Laqish whether a warning can be delivered even if it is conditional because there is no certainty that the contemplated action will be criminal (Yebamot11:7 Note 171, Nazir8:1 Note 48, Pesaḥim5:4 fol. 32c; Babli 3b). Since R. Joḥanan holds that a conditional warning is acceptable, the Babli is forced to switch the attributions in this case. As a consequence it follows that for the Yerushalmi here, in R. Joḥanan’s opinion this would not be a conditional warning but one which it is impossible to deliver. (In his Notes to Tosaphot s. v. אבל, Babli 4a, R. Akiba Eiger essentially notes that the Babli’s argument cannot be read into the Yerushalmi.). The reason of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, because it is a prohibition without action105Cf. Note 3.. What is the difference between them? He burned it or threw it into the sea. If you say, because he cannot be duly warned106Even if the witnesses are present at the moment when the loaf is thrown into the sea he cannot be warned since what he does is not breaking the oath but making its fulfillment impossible; there is no biblical paragraph prohibiting this action., he is not liable. If you say, because it is a prohibition without action, there is an action.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Full Chapter