Talmud su 'Eduyyot 1:5
וְלָמָּה מַזְכִּירִין דִּבְרֵי הַיָּחִיד בֵּין הַמְרֻבִּין, הוֹאִיל וְאֵין הֲלָכָה אֶלָּא כְדִבְרֵי הַמְרֻבִּין. שֶׁאִם יִרְאֶה בֵית דִּין אֶת דִּבְרֵי הַיָּחִיד וְיִסְמֹךְ עָלָיו, שֶׁאֵין בֵּית דִּין יָכוֹל לְבַטֵּל דִּבְרֵי בֵית דִּין חֲבֵרוֹ עַד שֶׁיִּהְיֶה גָדוֹל מִמֶּנּוּ בְחָכְמָה וּבְמִנְיָן. הָיָה גָדוֹל מִמֶּנּוּ בְחָכְמָה אֲבָל לֹא בְמִנְיָן, בְּמִנְיָן אֲבָל לֹא בְחָכְמָה, אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְבַטֵּל דְּבָרָיו, עַד שֶׁיִּהְיֶה גָדוֹל מִמֶּנּוּ בְחָכְמָה וּבְמִנְיָן:
E perché menzioniamo le parole dell'uno, tra i tanti, se l'halachah è solo in accordo con i molti? Quindi, se beth-din mantiene la visione dell'uno e fa affidamento su di essa [contro l'opinione di molti], un [futuro] beth-din non può annullare le parole dei suoi compagni beth-din a meno che non sia maggiore nella saggezza di quello del primo], e in numero [cioè, il numero di discepoli nel secondo è maggiore del numero di discepoli nel primo.] Se fosse maggiore in saggezza ma non in numero, o in numero ma non in saggezza, non può annullare le sue parole se non è maggiore (rispetto alla prima) sia nella saggezza che nel numero.
Jerusalem Talmud Sheviit
If it is so, why was it said: One ploughs until the New Year5From some baraita. The statement of R. Joḥanan is a Tosephta (Ševi‘it 1:1). In the Babli (Mo‘ed qaṭan3b) the statement is attributed to R. Joshua ben Levi; in neither Talmud is it presented as a tannaïtic statement.? Rebbi Crispus in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rabban Gamliel and his court abolished the prohibition of the first two terms. Rebbi Joḥanan asked: Did we not state: No court may annul the words of another court unless it is greater in wisdom and numbers6Mishnah Idiut 1:5. Rabban Gamliel and his court are inferior to the Men of the Great Assembly both in stature and in numbers.? Rebbi Crispus in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If they wanted to plough, they may plough7Since the institution of the Sabbatical year is interwoven with that of the Jubilee year and the Jubilee is possible only if the Twelve Tribes are living on their ancestral lands, the Sabbatical in the times of the Second Commonwealth is not a biblical but a rabbinic institution. It is a general rule in dealing with institutions of the Men of the Great Assembly that one is restrictive in interpretation while the Temple exists and lenient when the Temple does not exist. Since one hopes that the Temple will be re-established, the rules have to be stated in the Mishnah for future generations (Interpretation of Rav Ashi in Babli Mo‘ed Qaṭan 4a).. Then it should have been eliminated from the Mishnah! Rebbi Crispus in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If they wanted to re-establish it, they may do so.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat
And who permitted it? Rebbi and his court permitted it. At three places is Rebbi Jehudah the Prince called “our teachers,” in divorce documents, oil, and a sole. They should have called him “a permissive court”, for any court which permits three [previously forbidden] things is called “permissive court.” Rebbi Yudan ben Rebbi Ismael said, his court disagreed with him about bills of divorce.Rebbi Joḥanan asked: Did we not state328Mishnah Idiut 1:5., “for no court may invalidate the words of another court unless it be greater in wisdom and numbers”? And Rebbi and his court permit what Daniel and his companions forbade? Rebbi Joḥanan follows his own opinion, for Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Ṣadoq, I have a tradition that any restrictive edict passed by a court which is not accepted by the majority of the public is not an edict. They checked and found in the matter of the edict about oil and did not find that a majority of the public followed it.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat
Samuel said, they taught this only about the eighteen. Therefore, other than the eighteen even a lesser [court] may abolish339A court of lesser standing than the one which issued a decree may abolish it as long as it is not of the Eighteen Decrees described earlier.. They objected, is there not the Sabbatical year? This is not of the eighteen items, and Rebbi Joḥanan (said it)340The word was written by the scribe; it was deleted by the corrector. As S. Liebermann has shown, the deletion is unjustified. R. Joḥanan both formulated a tradition and questioned its validity. The following text is from Ševiˋit 1:1, Notes 6–7. and asked about it. Rebbi Krispedai341In Ševiˋit 1:1, his name is Crispus. in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rabban Gamliel and his court abolished the prohibitions of the first two terms342Agricultural work is forbidden in the Sabbatical year. In Tractate Ševiˋit, rabbinic interpretation infers from verses that also the preparation of fields or orchards for the new sowing or planting season, in summer and early fall, is forbidden in the months preceding New Year’s day of the Sabbatical. These terms are different for sowing and planting; they are referred to as “the two periods.”
However, since the biblical commandment of the Sabbatical is intrinsically connected with that of the Jubilee, it cannot be in force when the Jubilee is not in force, i. e., if not all of Israel dwells on the ancestral land distributed by Joshua. Therefore during the Second Commonwealth the Sabbatical was a rabbinic institution. Rabban Gamliel (of Jabneh, the first Patriarch after the destruction of the Second Temple) decided that in the absence of the Temple the rabbinic institution of the Sabbatical should continue without extensions. While his Court was the highest authority in his time, he could not compete in standing with the Men of the Great Assembly who established the rules for the Second Commonwealth.. Rebbi (Jonathan) [Joḥanan]343The text in parentheses is that of the Leiden ms., the [correct] one in brackets is from the Geniza fragment which is legible at this place. asked. Did we not state328Mishnah Idiut 1:5., “for no court may invalidate the words of another court unless it be greater in wisdom and numbers”? There came Rav Abun, Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: they taught this only about other [decrees] than the eighteen. Therefore, the eighteen even a greater one cannot abolish, because they fought for it with their lives. Rebbi Mana said, this makes it reasonable that it is not so; since this is a case of force it is invalid344The first argument was that the 18 decrees must be inviolate because people were killed for it; R. Mana’s argument is that the decrees were imposed by force and therefore are intrinsically invalid.. They objected, is there not oil which is of the eighteen? And Rebbi (Jonathan) [Joḥanan]343The text in parentheses is that of the Leiden ms., the [correct] one in brackets is from the Geniza fragment which is legible at this place. objected! Rav Cahana the son of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba; Rebbi Aḥa bent it in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Oil, they abolished what was abolished345As stated earlier, the decree about Gentile olive oil never was accepted by the people; it never became enforceable law..
However, since the biblical commandment of the Sabbatical is intrinsically connected with that of the Jubilee, it cannot be in force when the Jubilee is not in force, i. e., if not all of Israel dwells on the ancestral land distributed by Joshua. Therefore during the Second Commonwealth the Sabbatical was a rabbinic institution. Rabban Gamliel (of Jabneh, the first Patriarch after the destruction of the Second Temple) decided that in the absence of the Temple the rabbinic institution of the Sabbatical should continue without extensions. While his Court was the highest authority in his time, he could not compete in standing with the Men of the Great Assembly who established the rules for the Second Commonwealth.. Rebbi (Jonathan) [Joḥanan]343The text in parentheses is that of the Leiden ms., the [correct] one in brackets is from the Geniza fragment which is legible at this place. asked. Did we not state328Mishnah Idiut 1:5., “for no court may invalidate the words of another court unless it be greater in wisdom and numbers”? There came Rav Abun, Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: they taught this only about other [decrees] than the eighteen. Therefore, the eighteen even a greater one cannot abolish, because they fought for it with their lives. Rebbi Mana said, this makes it reasonable that it is not so; since this is a case of force it is invalid344The first argument was that the 18 decrees must be inviolate because people were killed for it; R. Mana’s argument is that the decrees were imposed by force and therefore are intrinsically invalid.. They objected, is there not oil which is of the eighteen? And Rebbi (Jonathan) [Joḥanan]343The text in parentheses is that of the Leiden ms., the [correct] one in brackets is from the Geniza fragment which is legible at this place. objected! Rav Cahana the son of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba; Rebbi Aḥa bent it in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Oil, they abolished what was abolished345As stated earlier, the decree about Gentile olive oil never was accepted by the people; it never became enforceable law..
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Jerusalem Talmud Avodah Zarah
Rebbi Joḥanan asked: Did we not state, “for no court may invalidate the words of another court unless it be greater in wisdom and numbers”387Mishnah Idiut1:5.? And Rebbi and his court permit what Daniel and his companions forbade? Rebbi Joḥanan follows his own opinion: Rebbi Joḥanan said, I have a tradition in the name of Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Ṣadoq that any restrictive edict passed by a court which is not accepted by the majority of the public is not an edict388In the Babli 36a: It is forbidden to promulgate a decree that the majority of the public cannot accept.. They checked and found in the matter of the edict about oil and did not find that a majority of the public followed it389Babli 36a. This proves conclusively that the original prohibition of oil was relatively recent and purely rabbinic..
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy