Every source cited by Rav Shizvi [the First]

Rabbi Akiva’s testimony is not needed to teach the basic halakha that a vessel combines its ingredients, which is Torah law; it is necessary only for the remainders of the meal-offering, the part of a meal-offering left over after a fistful of it and its frankincense have been sacrificed on the altar, which is eaten by a priest. In such a case the halakha of combining applies only by rabbinic law, for by Torah law only when an item requires a vessel in order for it to be sanctified does the vessel combine it with regard to impurity, even if its parts are not touching each other. But in the case of something that does not require a vessel, the vessel does not combine it. The remainder of a meal-offering no longer requires a vessel, since it is given to a priest after the fistful is sacrificed, so the flour in a vessel would not be considered combined according to Torah law. And the Sages…

William Davidson Edition - English · CC-BY-NC

And what is the reason that the Sages said that if it is known that the sin-offering was obtained through robbery, it does not effect atonement? It is so that people not say that the altar consumes stolen property. The Gemara attempts to clarify the two explanations. Granted, according to the opinion of Ulla, that the concern stems from the fact that the priests will be distraught, this is the reason that the tanna teaches the halakha with regard to a sin-offering: The priests partake of the meat of a sin-offering. If they find out that they ate an animal that was forbidden to them, i.e., an offering slaughtered counter to halakha , they are likely to become distraught. But according to the opinion of Rav Yehuda, that the concern is about the honor of the altar, why does the mishna mention specifically the case of a sin-offering; shouldn’t the same concern apply to a burnt-offering, as w…

William Davidson Edition - English · CC-BY-NC

We learned in the mishna: And one does not recite the blessing over the candle until he derives benefit from its light. Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: Derives benefit does not mean that the one reciting the blessing must actually derive benefit from the light of the candle. Rather, as long as if one were to stand close to the candle he could utilize its light, if he sees it he may recite a blessing over it, even if he is now standing at a distance. The Gemara raises an objection from a Tosefta : One who had a candle hidden in his lap or placed inside an opaque lamp, or if he saw a flame and did not utilize its light, or if he utilized its light and did not see a flame, may not recite a blessing until he both sees the flame and utilizes its light. The Gemara first clarifies the content of the Tosefta itself: Granted, a case where one utilizes its light and did not see a flame, can be foun…

And due to causing the poor to be idle; so that the poor, who have no way of knowing when he is going to cut the grain and where in the field he is going to leave the pe ’ a , will not be sitting and observing until he designates the pe ’ a and constantly saying to themselves: Now the owner of the field is placing pe ’ a . Now that he leaves the pe ’ a in a defined area at the end of his field, and the poor people know exactly where they can receive their portion, they need not waste their time in anticipation. And due to suspicion; if one leaves the pe ’ a in the middle of the field, the poor will come and take their portion immediately when he designates the area of pe ’ a . When the owner then continues to cut and harvest the rest of the grain in the field, the pe ’ a will not be noticeable. Insisting that he leave pe ’ a at the end of the field ensures that passersby will not say: A…

William Davidson Edition - English · CC-BY-NC

is referring to our forefather Abraham, who did not walk in the counsel of the members of the generation of the dispersion, who were wicked, as it is stated that they said to each other: “Come, let us build us a city, and a tower, with its top in heaven” (Genesis 11:4), a project with a wicked aim. “Nor stood in the way of sinners” (Psalms 1:1); this too is referring to Abraham, who did not join in the stand of the residents of Sodom, who were sinners, as it is stated: “Now the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners against the Lord exceedingly” (Genesis 13:13). “Nor sat in the seat of the scornful” (Psalms 1:1); this means that Abraham did not sit in the seat of the Philistines, because they were scorners who engaged in jest and buffoonery. As it is stated with regard to the Philistines in a later period: “And it came to pass, when their hearts were merry, that they said: Call for Samson,…

William Davidson Edition - English · CC-BY-NC

Rabba bar Avuh now asks Elijah another question: From where is it derived with regard to a naked person that he may not separate teruma ? He replied: As it is written: “And He see no unseemly thing in you” (Deuteronomy 23:15). This verse indicates that one may not recite any words of sanctity, including the blessing upon separating teruma , in front of one who is naked. The amora proceeded to ask Elijah a different question and said to him: Is not the Master a priest? What is the reason that the Master is standing in a cemetery? Elijah said to him: Has the Master not studied the mishnaic order of Teharot ? As it is taught in a baraita : Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai says that the graves of gentiles do not render one impure, as it is stated: “And you, My sheep, the sheep of My pasture, are man” (Ezekiel 34:31), which teaches that you, i.e., the Jewish people, are called “man,” but gentiles are n…

William Davidson Edition - English · CC-BY-NC

Actually, I will say to you that one who responds to a claim that he does not know if he owes the one hundred dinars is obligated to pay; but here, in the case of the brothers, it is different. The brothers are not obligated to share their portion with the man in question because the brother who testified is like one who claims: Another person has one hundred dinars in your possession. Since the claimant is not the one who is owed the money, the other party can reject his claim by merely answering that he does not know whether he owes him. § The mishna teaches: If the man in question dies, the property he received from the father’s inheritance shall return to its place, i.e., to the possession of the brother who testified on his behalf, and if the man in question received property from elsewhere, it is inherited by all the brothers equally. Rava raises a dilemma: With regard to the enhan…

William Davidson Edition - English · CC-BY-NC

For the commandment is a lamp, The teaching is a light, And the way to life is the rebuke that disciplines.

THE JPS TANAKH: Gender-Sensitive Edition · CC-BY-NC

A negligent person never has game to roast; A diligent one has precious wealth.

THE JPS TANAKH: Gender-Sensitive Edition · CC-BY-NC

When all these things befall you—the blessing and the curse that I have set before you—and you take them to heart amidst the various nations to which the E TERNAL your God has banished you, and you return to the E TERNAL your God, and you and your children heed God’s command with all your heart and soul, just as I enjoin upon you this day, then the E TERNAL your God will restore your fortunes and take you back in love. You will be brought together again from all the peoples where the E TERNAL your God has scattered you. Even if your outcasts are at the ends of the world, from there the E TERNAL your God will gather you—from there you will be fetched. And the E TERNAL your God will bring you to the land that your ancestors possessed, and you shall possess it; and you will be made more prosperous and more numerous than your ancestors. Then the E TERNAL your God will open up your heart and…

THE JPS TANAKH: Gender-Sensitive Edition · CC-BY-NC