Talmud for Sukkah 3:1

על גבי חולייה של עמוד פשיטא אם ימוד מן הנסר יש כאן עשרים אמה. אם ימוד מן הקרקע אין כאן עשרים אמה. מה את עביד ליה כאויר פסול כסכך פסול. אין תעבדיני' כאויר פסול פוסל בג' טפחים. אין תעבדיניה כסכך פסול אינו פוסל אלא בד' אמות. ר' יוסה בי ר' בון בשם חזקיה מפני מה אמרו סכך פסול אינו פוסל אלא בד"א שלא בא אלא להיתירה של סוכה. א"ר מיישא ותמיה אנא היך רב הושעיה צריכא ליה ולמה לא יליף לה מן הדא דרבי בא בר ממל דתנינן תמן המשלשל דפנות מלמעלן למטן אם גבוה מן הארץ ג' טפחים פסולה. וא"ר בא בר ממל כשאינו יושב ואוכל בצילן של דפנות אבל אם היה יושב ואוכל בצילן של דפנות כשירה. א"ר יוסה לית הדא דר' בא בר ממל אולפן מן מתניתן יליף לה ר' בא בר ממל דתנינן תמן כצוצטרא שהיא למעלה מן הים אין ממלין הימינה בשבת אלא אם כן עשו לה מחיצה גבוה י' טפחים בין מלמעלן בין מלמטן. וא"ר זעירא רב יהודה בשם רב והוא שתהא מחיצה משוקעת במים כמלואו של דלי. ולא דמייא ים כרמלית היא אינה לא רשות היחיד ולא רשות הרבים. ברם הכא התורה אמרה בסכת תשבו מקרקע סוכה את מודד עשרים אמה.

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;

Jerusalem Talmud Eruvin

⁷¹Here starts a Genizah fragment edited by Ginzberg (pp. 95–101,G).“One may make an eruv for a nazir with wine” for another person may drink it. “And for an Israel with heave,” for a Cohen may eat it. For a Cohen in a bet happeras⁷²In the Mishnah in the Babli and in Maimonides’s autograph Mishnah this is a separate declarative sentence, independent of Symmachos’s statement who there forbids heave for the Israel and requires strictly profane food. In the Yerushalmi Mishnah Symmachos adds to the statement of the anonymous Tanna but he does not disagree with him. Therefore it is impossible to read the Babli’s Mishnah in the Yerushalmi text.? The Mishnah follows the House of Shammai, for the House of Shammai say that one may not make an eruv for a person unless his personal vessels may be there⁷³In the interpretation of the Babli this means that for the House of Shammai an eruv teḥumin is possible only if a person transports his bed to the place of the eruv.. Symmachos follows the House of Shammai as we have stated: “Symmachos says, also with profane food for a Cohen in a bet happeras⁴A place where a source of impurity is known but its location is unknown. The Cohen may not enter by rabbinic decree but he could be carried there in a wooden box which shields against the impurity of the dead. The food may not be heave since heave in a bet happeras is at least rabbinically impure and must be burned; it is no longer food..” Then also between the graves? He might transgress a rabbinic prohibition and eat there⁷⁴This sentence should be read before the preceding one. Since the prohibition of the bet happeras is rabbinical, the Cohen could disregard the prohibition without defiling himself biblically.. For he could enter on a bench⁷⁵Arabic سدّة. It is presumed that the bench is fixed to a flat wooden plank. Since wooden implements which do not enclose a volume are impervious to impurity, the Cohen sitting on the bench can be transported through the cemetery without violating the biblical prohibition of defiling himself with the impurity of the dead., in a box or a chest, make a hole less than a hand-breadth [wide]⁷⁶Mishnah Sukkah 3:5. The topic of the Mishnah is the etro g,C
itrus medica, a fruit which is part of the “four kinds” of plants carried on Tabernacles., stick a spindle or a splinter into it, and eat it.

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot

HALAKHAH: “If she performed ḥalîṣah with a sandal that was not his,” etc. ⁵⁰A partial copy of this paragraph is in Sukkah 3:1. R. Lazar mentioned here is a Tanna. Rebbi Eleazar says, a ram’s horn⁵¹The ram’s horn used on New Year’s Day. belonging to idolatry⁵²The usufruct of any implements of idolatrous worship is forbidden. The horn is only permitted since Divine Commandments are not for enjoyment or use. The Babli, Roš Haššanah 28a, agrees. or to a “seduced city”⁵³A city in the Land of Israel that was seduced to embrace idolatry and defected by a communal vote. This city must be burned to the ground (Deut. 13:13–19) with all its belongings, of which any usufruct is forbidden; a case that never happened and never will happen (Tosephta Sanhedrin 14:1).
The Babli, Roš Haššanah 28a, disagrees in this case since a ram’s horn in a “seduced city” must be burned and therefore is considered to be ashes even if not burned. Arguments of this kind are absent in the Yerushalmi. is valid. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, it is valid. Rebbi Hoshaia stated, it is invalid⁵⁴In the Babli, property of an idolatrous temple is undesirable, a dedicated gift to an idolatrous temple is prohibited, as is the shoe from a “seduced city”; 103b/104a.. Everybody agrees that such a palmbranch is invalid⁵⁵Mishnah Sukkah 3:1. The palmbranch stands for the three kinds of branches and the fruit that are taken together on the Festival of Booths (Lev. 23:40).. What is the difference between a ram’s horn and a palmbranch? Rebbi Yose said, for a palmbranch it is written: “You shall take for yourselves⁵⁶Lev. 23:40.,” from your own money. But here, “a day of horn blowing it shall be for you⁵⁷Num. 29:1.,” from any source. Rebbi Eleazar said, there he fulfills his obligation with the article itself, but here with its sound. Is any sound forbidden usufruct⁵⁸R. Eleazar the Amora argues that without reference to Scripture it is obvious that palmbranches from idolatrous property are unusable since the essence of the commandment is the acquisition of the branches.? Everybody agrees that a sandal from a “seduced city” is valid⁵⁹In the Babli, the uncontested rule is promulgated that a shoe from a “seduced city” is invalid; 104a. In the opinion of the Yerushalmi, a shoe may be worn as long as it exists; for the Babli the shoe is legally nonexistent as soon as it has been condemned to be burned, cf. Note 53.. For it is written “stripped of shoe,” from any source. Rebbi Mana said, as you say there, “a day of horn blowing it shall be for you,” from any source, so you say here, “stripped of shoe,” from any source.

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Jerusalem Talmud Eruvin

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. “One may make an eruv with demay⁵Demay is produce of which one may assume that heave was taken but one suspects that it was not tithed. While a scrupulous person will not eat demay it may be given to the poor and the traveler and therefore is edible food., and with First Tithe.” Rebbi Jacob the Southerner asked, is our Mishnah not following the House of Shammai? As we have stated⁷⁶Mishnah Sukkah 3:5. The topic of the Mishnah is the etro g,C
itrus medica, a fruit which is part of the “four kinds” of plants carried on Tabernacles., “of demay, the House of Shammai declare invalid but the House of Hillel declare valid⁷⁷Since demay may not be eaten, for the House of Shammai it is not a fruit and therefore cannot be part of the “four kinds”. By analogy it should be forbidden to use demay as food for eruv. For the House of Hillel demay can always be turned into food even on Sabbath and holidays as explained later by the Elder R. Ḥiyya; therefore it is food in all respects.. Of Second Tithe in Jerusalem one should not take but if he took it is valid⁷⁸Second tithe has to be consumed in Jerusalem; it is food there. But the use of the etro G for a religious ceremony is not consumption; while it is permitted it is inappropriate..”

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Jerusalem Talmud Rosh Hashanah

Available for Premium members only

Jerusalem Talmud Maasrot

Available for Premium members only

Full Chapter