המקורות שציטטו חכמי הגמרא

holds: That ḥaver , who heard the first ḥaver speaking to the am ha’aretz , may immediately eat from the basket, and he is not required to tithe the produce, as the first ḥaver certainly separated tithes for the person who picked the figs, as he would not have caused an am ha’aretz to eat tevel . And Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel disagrees and says: That ḥaver may not eat of the fruit until he has tithed them, for ḥaverim are not suspected of separating teruma and tithes from produce that is not adjacent to the produce they seek to exempt. And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to him: It is better that ḥaverim should be suspected of separating teruma and tithes from produce that is not adjacent to the produce they seek to exempt, and they should not feed amei ha’aretz produce that is tevel . The Gemara asks: With regard to what principle do they disagree? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds: It is preferable to a ḥaver that he commit a minor transgression, namely separating tithes from produce that is not adjacent to the produce they seek to exempt, so that an am ha’aretz will not commit the major transgression of eating tevel on his account. And Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds: It is preferable to a ḥaver that an am ha’aretz commit a major transgression, and that he himself not commit even a minor transgression. MISHNA: If one placed his eiruv in a tree above ten handbreadths fro…

Rav Pappa said: The halakha is that when a creditor gives a loan by oral contract, he can collect the debt from the heirs of the debtor after his death, but he cannot collect the debt from the purchasers of the debtor’s property. He can collect the debt from the heirs so as not to lock the door in the face of potential borrowers. But he cannot collect the debt from the purchasers, as a loan by oral contract has no publicity associated with it. § The mishna teaches: If one presents to a debtor a document in the handwriting of the debtor stating that he owes money to him, but without witnesses signed on the document, the creditor can collect only from unsold property. Rabba bar Natan asked Rabbi Yoḥanan: If the document in the handwriting of the debtor was ratified in court at a later time, what is the halakha ? Would it then be possible to collect the debt from liened property that has been sold? Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him in reply: Even if the document in the handwriting of the debtor was ratified in court, the creditor can collect the debt only from unsold property. Rami bar Ḥama raises an objection from a mishna ( Gittin 86a), which states: There are three types of bills of divorce that are not valid ab initio , but if the woman marries another man on the basis of one of these bills of divorce the lineage of the offspring from this marriage is unflawed. In other words, she is…

Do not speak to your father in that manner, where you tell him directly that he is mistaken. Rather, raise the matter in a circumspect manner, as it is taught in a baraita : In a case where one’s father was violating Torah matters he should not say to him: Father, you violated Torah matters. Rather, he should say to him: Father, it is written so in the Torah. The Gemara asks: Ultimately, isn’t this formulation identical to that previous formulation? In both cases he embarrasses his father. Rather, say to him: Father, there is a verse written in the Torah and this is what it says. Tell him the halakha or the verse in a way in which it is not obvious that it relates to the action that his father performed. MISHNA: One who is liable to be executed with two different court -imposed death penalties, as he violated two different capital transgressions, is sentenced to the more severe form of execution. If one violated one transgression for which he is liable to receive two death penalties, e.g., if one engaged in intercourse with his mother-in-law, who is also a married woman, he is sentenced to the more severe form of execution. Rabbi Yosei says: He is sentenced to the form of execution that he is liable to receive due to the first relationship that came upon him, i.e., if she was his mother-in-law before she was married, he is executed by burning; if she was married before she was…

The word of G OD came to me: What do you mean by quoting this proverb upon the soil of Israel, “Parents eat sour grapes and their children’s teeth are blunted”? As I live—declares the Sovereign G OD —this proverb shall no longer be current among you in Israel. Consider, all lives are Mine; the life of the parent and the life of the child are both Mine. Only the person who sins shall die. Thus, if a certain man is righteous and does what is just and right: If he has not eaten on the mountains or raised his eyes to the fetishes of the House of Israel; if he has not defiled another man’s wife or approached a menstruous woman; if he has not wronged anyone; if he has returned the debtor’s pledge to him and has taken nothing by robbery; if he has given bread to the hungry and clothed the naked; if he has not lent at advance interest or exacted accrued interest; if he has abstained from wrongdoing and executed true justice between one party and the other; if he has followed My laws and kept My rules and acted honestly—he is righteous. Such a person shall live—declares the Sovereign G OD . Suppose, now, that he has begotten a son who is a ruffian, a shedder of blood, who does any of these things, whereas he himself did none of these things. That is, [the son] has eaten on the mountains, has defiled another man’s wife, has wronged the poor and the needy, has taken by robbery, has not re…

Once she said to her husband, “I am sure it is a holy agent of God who comes this way regularly.

A prayer of one who is lowly and faint, pouring forth a plea before G OD .

the legs of each were [fused into] a single rigid leg, and the feet of each were like a single calf’s hoof; and their sparkle was like the luster of burnished bronze.

You shall not eat anything with its blood. You shall not practice divination or soothsaying.

Tell a scribe and he will write the document and tell so-and-so and so-and-so and they will sign it. And due to the shame of the scribe, who asks: Don’t you consider me a sufficiently upright person to sign the document as a witness, the agents are concerned to avoid that disgrace and have one of those witnesses and the scribe sign together with him, and the husband did not say to do so. The bill of divorce is invalid because it was signed contrary to the husband’s instructions, and the agents will mistakenly think it is valid. The Gemara answers: Since the Master said, as cited later, that such a bill of divorce is valid, however, it shall not be done in Israel, as the husband himself should appoint the scribe and the witnesses, it is an uncommon case for the husband to appoint an agent to arrange the bill of divorce, and the Sages do not issue a decree for cases that are uncommon. The Gemara asks: And let us be concerned lest the husband say to two people: Tell the scribe and he will write the document and you sign it, and these two, due to the shame of the scribe, go and have the scribe sign the document together with one of them, and the husband did not say to do so. The Sages say: In this case too, it is valid; however, it shall not be done. This too is uncommon, and there is neither concern nor a decree. The Gemara responds: This works out well according to the one who sa…

How abundant is the good that You have in store for those who fear You, that You do in full view for those who take refuge in You.

The E TERNAL passed before him and proclaimed: “G OD ! G OD ! a Deity compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, abounding in kindness and faithfulness,

but who instantly requites with destruction those who are disloyal—never slow with those who are disloyal, but requiting them instantly.

I would have understood that he thereby taught us the meaning of the verse: “Who brought you forth from Egypt,” and he thereby taught us that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. However, what did he teach us by reciting motzi ? Everyone agrees that one fulfills his obligation when reciting motzi . The Gemara explains: The son of Rav Zevid did this in order to preclude himself from taking sides in the dispute. He preferred to phrase his blessing in a manner appropriate according to all opinions, rather than teach a novel concept, which is not universally accepted. The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is that one recites: Who brings forth [ hamotzi ] bread from the earth, as we hold in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis who say that it also means: Who brought forth. We learned in the mishna that over vegetables one recites: Who creates fruits of the ground. The Gemara comments: The mishna taught vegetables together with, and therefore similar to, bread, and from this analogy one may infer: Just as bread is food that was transformed by fire, so too vegetables retain the blessing: Who creates fruits of the ground, after they have been transformed by fire. Rabbenai said in the name of Abaye: This means that over boiled vegetables one recites: Who creates fruits of the ground. From where is this matter inferred? From the fact that the mishna taught ve…

There are conflicting opinions with regard to reciting havdala over the cup of wine after reciting it in the Amida prayer. One opinion holds that it is appropriate to recite havdala a second time, while the other holds that it is prohibited. Ravina said to Rava: What is the halakha ? Rava said to him: The halakha in the case of havdala is like the halakha in the case of kiddush . Just as in the case of kiddush , although one recited kiddush in the Amida prayer he must, nevertheless, recite kiddush again over the cup of wine, so too with havdala , although one recited havdala in the Amida prayer he must recite havdala again over the cup of wine. The mishna states that Rabbi Eliezer says: It is recited in the seventeenth blessing of the Amida prayer, the blessing of thanksgiving. The Gemara cites the conclusion with regard to this halakha by relating a story: Rabbi Zeira was riding a donkey while Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Avin was coming and walking after him. He said to him: Is it true that you said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer in the case of a Festival that occurs directly after Shabbat? Since in that case, one cannot recite havdala in the blessing of Who graciously grants knowledge, as it is not included in the Amida prayer on the Festival, there is no alternative but to adopt Rabbi Eliezer’s ruling. He said to him: Yes…

I would say to the Satan: An arrow in your eye, i.e., I would not be afraid of the evil inclination at all. Rava said to Rabbi Natan bar Ami: While your hand is still on your son’s neck, i.e., while you still have authority and control over him, find him a wife. What is the appropriate age? From sixteen until twenty-two, and some say from eighteen until twenty-four. The Gemara notes that this is like a dispute between tanna’im , based on the verse: “Train a child in the way that he should go” (Proverbs 22:6). Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Neḥemya disagreed about the age in which the verse instructs the parent to educate his child: One said that the verse is referring to the ages from sixteen until twenty-two, and one said it is referring to the ages from eighteen until twenty-four. The dispute concerning the correct age for marriage and the dispute about educating a child are the same, as while a father still has a large measure of influence over his son, he must both teach him and find him a wife. § The Gemara continues its discussion of a father’s obligation to teach his son Torah. To what extent is a person obligated to teach his son Torah? Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: One should emulate the education of, for example, Zevulun ben Dan, a contemporary of Shmuel, whose father’s father taught him Bible, Mishna, Talmud, halakhot , and aggadot . The Gemara raises an objection from a…

During the closing prayer [ ne’ila ] of Yom Kippur, which also includes the Priestly Benediction, what do the people say? Mar Zutra says, and some say that this was taught in a baraita : “Behold, surely thus shall the man who fears the Lord be blessed” (Psalms 128:4), “The Lord shall bless you out of Zion, and you shall see the good of Jerusalem all the days of your life” (Psalms 128:5), and “And see your children’s children. Peace be upon Israel” (Psalms 128:6). The Gemara asks: Where does the congregation say these verses during the Priestly Benediction? Rav Yosef says: They are said between each and every blessing. And Rav Sheshet says: They are said during the mention of the name of God in each of the three blessings. Rav Mari and Rav Zevid disagree about this matter. One says: The congregation recites one verse at a time, corresponding to the verse that the priests recite. And one says: For every single verse that the priests recite, the congregation says all three verses. Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says: Anyone who recites these verses in the outlying areas, i.e., outside the Temple, is nothing other than mistaken in his practice. Rabbi Ḥanina bar Pappa said: You should know that in the Temple also people should not recite these verses. Do you have a servant who is being blessed and does not listen to the blessing, but rather speaks at the same time? Conversely, Rabbi Aḥa bar Ḥ…

pronounce the ineffable name of God with all of its letters, i.e., as it is spelled. The Gemara asks: And how could he do that? But didn’t we learn in the mishna ( Sanhedrin 90a): These are the people who have no share in the World-to-Come: One who says that the Torah is not from Heaven or that there is no source from the Torah for the resurrection of the dead. Abba Shaul says: Also one who pronounces the ineffable name as it is written, with all of its letters, has no share in the World-to-Come. The Gemara answers: Rabbi Ḥanina ben Teradyon did it to teach himself, as it is taught in a baraita with regard to the prohibition against sorcery: “You shall not learn to do” (Deuteronomy 18:9); this indicates: But you may learn to understand and to teach. In other words, certain prohibitions do not apply when one is acting only in order to acquire knowledge of the subject. The Gemara asks: Rather, what is the reason that he was punished? The Gemara answers: He was punished because he would pronounce the ineffable name of God in public, instead of privately. And his wife was condemned to execution by decapitation because she did not protest his doing so. From here the Sages stated: Anyone who has the capability to protest effectively the sinful conduct of another and does not protest is punished for that person’s sin. The Gemara asks: And why was his daughter condemned to sit in a bro…

during all the thirty days that follow the wedding celebration, if the gentile invites a Jew to a feast, whether he said to the Jew that the feast is due to the wedding celebration or whether he did not say to him that the feast is due to the wedding celebration, it is prohibited to attend, as it is assumed the festivity is part of the wedding celebration. From this point forward, if he said to him that the feast is due to the wedding celebration, it is prohibited to participate, but if he did not say to him that the feast is due to the wedding celebration, it is permitted to do so. The Gemara asks: And in a case where he said to him that the feast is due to the wedding celebration, until when is the feast assumed to be connected to idol worship? Rav Pappa said: Until twelve months of the year have passed since the wedding. The Gemara asks: And initially, before the wedding, from when is it prohibited? Rav Pappa said in the name of Rava: From the time when they cast barley into the mortars [ ba’asintei ] to prepare beer for the wedding. The Gemara asks: And after the twelve months of the year have passed since the wedding, is it always permitted to participate in a feast? But Rav Yitzḥak, son of Rav Mesharshiyya, happened to come to the house of a certain gentile after twelve months of the year had passed since his son’s wedding, and he heard the gentile giving thanks to his id…

by those who were invited by the Nasi , the president of the Great Sanhedrin, for that purpose. There was an incident involving Rabban Gamliel, who said to the Sages: Bring me seven of the Sages early tomorrow morning to the loft designated for convening a court to intercalate the year. He went to the loft early the next morning and found eight Sages there. Rabban Gamliel said: Who is it who ascended to the loft without permission? He must descend immediately. Shmuel HaKatan stood up and said: I am he who ascended without permission; and I did not ascend to participate and be one of those to intercalate the year, but rather I needed to observe in order to learn the practical halakha . Rabban Gamliel said to him: Sit, my son, sit. It would be fitting for all of the years to be intercalated by you, as you are truly worthy. But the Sages said: The year may be intercalated only by those who were invited for that purpose. The Gemara notes: And it was not actually Shmuel HaKatan who had come uninvited, but another person. And due to the embarrassment of the other, Shmuel HaKatan did this, so that no one would know who had come uninvited. The Gemara relates that the story about Shmuel HaKatan is similar to an incident that occurred when Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was sitting and teaching, and he smelled the odor of garlic. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was very sensitive and could not tolerate this od…