Si l'un était marié à deux orphelins mineurs [étrangers] et qu'il mourait, la cohabitation de la chalitzah de l'un d'eux [après sa majorité] exempte sa tsara. De même, avec deux sourds-muets. [C'est-à-dire, tout comme avec deux mineurs, la cohabitation d'une exonère sa tsarah, donc avec deux sourds-muets. Mais la chalitzah n'est pas mentionnée en ce qui concerne une sourde-muette, la chalitzah n'obtenant pas avec elle.] (S'il était marié à) un mineur et un sourd-muet, la cohabitation de l'un d'eux ne dispense pas sa tsarah. [Même si le mariage des deux n'est pas un mariage de bonne foi, nous ne savons toujours pas lequel il préférait, et lequel était davantage considéré comme sa femme.] Un pikachath (qui possède toutes ses facultés) et un sourd-muet—la cohabitation des pikachath exempte les sourds-muets; mais la cohabitation des sourds-muets n'exempte pas le pikachath. Un adulte et un mineur—la cohabitation de l'adulte exempte le mineur, mais la cohabitation du mineur n'exempte pas l'adulte. [La cohabitation avec une personne dont le mariage était de bonne foi exempte celle dont le mariage n'était pas de bonne foi, mais le contraire n'est pas le cas.]
Jerusalem Talmud Terumot
HALAKHAH: Rebbi Yudan bar Pazi and Rebbi Ayvo bar Naggari66Galilean Amora of the early fourth generation, student of R. Ḥiyya bar Abba and R. La. were sitting and saying: We did state “after they conceded”; who conceded to whom? The House of Shammai to the House of Hillel or the House of Hillel to the House of Shammai? They said, let us go out and study. The went out and heard Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Jehudah bar Ḥanina: We never find the House of Shammai conceding to the House of Hillel except in this matter. Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Abbai67His name appears only here, and nothing more is known about him. understood it from the following68Mishnah Ṭevul Yom 2:7. For most severe impurities it is not enough that the impure person immerse himself in water; after the immersion, as ṭevul yom “immersed during the day”, he is pure only for profane food. For heave, and certainly for sacrifices, he becomes pure only at sundown. If in the period between his immersion and sundown he touches heave, it becomes unusable; this is classified as “impure in the third degree”. If the ṭevul yom touches a stream of heave fluid (wine or oil) poured from one vessel to the other, in the opinion of the Sadducees the entire fluid in both vessels becomes unusable (MMT lines 55–58). In rabbinic tradition, only the part touched by the ṭevul yom becomes unusable; the fluid cannot be used because unusable heave is contained in it, but it can be repaired by the usual lifting of one out of 101.: “If someone pours from vessel to vessel and a ṭevul yom touches it, it should be lifted by 101.” If you say that the House of Hillel conceded to the House of Shammai that it cannot be lifted, who is the Tanna here, neither the House of Shammai nor the House of Hillel! Rebbi Ḥanina the son of Rebbi Hillel said, we might say that the House of Hillel stated that before they conceded. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah said so: “After they conceded, Rebbi Eliezer said it should be lifted and burned”, and is Rebbi Eliezer not a follower of Shammai? Rebbi Ḥinena said, the Mishnah said so, after they conceded one to another, the House of Shammai recused themselves and the others69The Sages, who always represent the tradition of the House of Hillel. teach us. Rebbi Abin says, there is another answer70Which the House of Hillel could have given to the House of Shammai, in addition to the argument presented in the Mishnah., following what Rebbi Hoshaia stated: Since pure [heave], which for outsiders is forbidden as deadly sin, can be lifted, certainly also impure [heave] which is [prohibited] as positive commandment71Which is classified as a misdemeanor, rather than a felony. for Cohanim.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Jerusalem Talmud Beitzah
“The House of Shammai say, one may not take128On the holiday one may not take a pigeon to slaughter as food unless he took the bird in his hand and reserved it for that purpose before the start of the holiday. But for the House of Hillel a timely declaration of intent is enough. unless one had moved when it was still daylight.” The argument of the House of Shammai seems inverted, as we have stated there135Mishnah 4:7.: “In addition, Rebbi Eliezer said, a person stands near the drying figs Friday afternoon in a Sabbatical year136Since produce is ownerless in the Sabbatical year, no tithes do apply. The same statement would apply in a regular year if tithes had been given from the drying figs. But since the obligation of tithes applies only to produce ready to be used, fig cakes (and raisins) usually are tithed only if they are fully dry. Since no tithes are due, a declaration of intent is all that is needed to make the food usable on Sabbath or holiday; no physical action is required. and says, from here I shall eat tomorrow.” Is Rebbi Eliezer not a Shammaite137And therefore his statement should be logically consistent with the Mishnah of the House of Shammai. A parallel to this paragraph is in Halakhah 4:7.? One is restrictive if living things are involved.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Jerusalem Talmud Nazir
HALAKHAH: The argument of Rebbi Eliezer seems inverted. There258Mishnah 3:4., he says: “he has to repeat only for 30,” and here, he says so259If he becomes incapacitated, he has to repeat only for 30 days. If his sacrifice becomes invalid, why should he have to start everything anew?? Rebbi Joḥanan says, he has to repeat all his sacrifices248Not the nezirut, but all his sacrifices since he holds, against the Sages, that the sacrifices cannot be brought separately (cf. Mishnah 8:4).. It is obvious, if it would have been valid without him becoming impure, then why is it not valid if later he becomes impure260Why should R. Eliezer not agree that once part of the ceremony was performed correctly, he can replace any missing part?? Rebbi Ḥinena said, is that not Rebbi Eliezer’s? And Rebbi Eliezer follows the Shammaites, as it was stated261Babli 46b (in different formulation), Yoma 61b; Tosephta 1:6. As the Babli explains, the House of Shammai require him to shave, but since he cannot shave he never can terminate his nezirut.: Concerning a nazir who lost all his hair, the House of Shammai say, he has to move a shaving knife over his head; the House of Hillel say, he does not need to move a shaving knife over his head.
