## Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot Chapter 3

###### Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 3:1:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 3:1:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Berakhot/r/3:1:1)

**משנה:** מִי שֶׁמֵּתוֹ מוּטָּל לְפָנָיו פָּטוּר מִקִּרְיַת שְׁמַע וּמִן הַתְּפִילִּין. נוֹשְׂאֵי הַמִּיטָּה וְחִילּוּפֵיהֶן וְחִילּוּפֵי חִילּוּפֵיהֶן אֶת שֶׁלִּפְנֵי הַמִּיטָּה וְאֶת שֶׁלְּאַחַר הַמִּיטָּה. אֶת שֶׁהַמִּיטָּה צוֹרֶךְ בָּהֶן פְּטוּרִין. וְאֶת שֶׁאֵין הַמִּיטָּה צוֹרֶךְ בָּהֶן חַיָיבִין. אֵילּוּ וָאֵילּוּ פְטוּרִין מִן הַתְּפִילָּה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** Anyone whose dead is lying before him¹ is free from reciting *Shema‘* and from *tefillin*.² to Alfassi declares that good manuscripts do not contain the addition and it also seems that the addition was not accepted by Tosaphot. The carriers of the bier, their substitutes, and the substitutes of their substitutes, in front of the bier or behind the bier, those that are needed by the bier are free, those that are not needed by the bier are obligated.³ All of them are free from the obligation to pray.⁴

footnotes:
¹ Any close relative who has to mourn for the dead and who has to organize the burial.
² This is the text of the Yerushalmi and the Mishnah manuscripts. Most sources of the Babylonian Talmud add “and from all obligations of the Torah”, but the commentary of Talmid Rabbenu Yonah
³ In the Babli: “Those behind the bier are obligated”. Rashi explains that those in front of the bier await their turn to carry the bier to the cemetary but that those behind the bier already did that; they follow only to honor the dead person, but not to actively render any more services. The Yerushalmi does not know of such an organization.
⁴ According to Maimonides, the obligation from the Torah is only to say some prayer every day; hence, even if the participants in the burial miss one prayer they still have two others to fulfill the Biblical requirement. According to Nachmanides, the obligation to prayer is entirely rabbinical and is eliminated before the Torah obligation to bury fellow Jew.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 3:1:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 3:1:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Berakhot/r/3:1:2)

**הלכה:** תַּנִּי וּמִן הַתְּפִילִּין. אָבֵל בְּיוֹם הָרִאשׁוֹן אֵינוֹ נוֹתֵן תְּפִילִּין. בַּיּוֹם הַשֵׁנִי הוּא נוֹתֵן תְּפִילִּין. וְאִם בָּאוּ פָּנִים חֲדָשׁוֹת הוּא חוֹלְצָן כָּל שִׁבְעָה דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר. רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה וּבַשֵּׁנִי אֵינוֹ נוֹתֵן תְּפִילִּין בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁלִישִׁי הוּא נוֹתֵן תְּפִילִּין וְאִם בָּאוּ פָּנִים חֲדָשׁוֹת אֵינוֹ חוֹלְצָן. אִם בַּיּוֹם הַשֵּׁינִי אֵינוֹ נוֹתֵן תְּפִילִּין צוּרְכָה מֵימַר מִי שֶׁמֵּתוֹ מוּטָּל לְפָנָיו. אֶלָּא בְגִין דְּתַנָּא דָא תַנָּא דָא.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** It was stated⁵: “And from *tefillin*.”A⁶ from *Moëd Qaṭan* (3:5); a similar *baraita* (with the names of Rebbis Eliezer and Joshua switched) is quoted in Babli *Moëd Qaṭan* 21a. All authorities in all sources agree that a mourner may not put on *tefillin* the entire first day of mourning, even if the burial was conducted in the preceding night. So there is no connection between *tefillin* and the necessity to attend to the burial. mourner may not put on *tefillin* on the first day; on the second day he puts on *tefillin* and when new faces appear during the seven days of mourning he takes them off; these are the words of Rebbi Eliezer. Rebbi Joshua says: On the first and second days he does not put on *tefillin*; on the third day he puts on *tefillin* and if new faces come he does not take them off. If he does not put on *tefillin* even on the second day, why is it necessary to mention “anyone whose dead is lying before him”? Because he stated the one he stated the other⁷(and from prayer, whether that is stated in the Mishnah or not), the mention of *tefillin* is added as a memory aid. Since for a long time the Mishnah was transmitted by memory, it could not have been written down. Memory aids are an important part of Mishnah composition..

footnotes:
⁵ In the first sentence of our Mishnah.
⁶ This is a baraita
⁷ Since it is necessary to mention that he is free from reciting Shema‘


###### Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 3:1:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 3:1:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Berakhot/r/3:1:3)

רִבִּי זְעִירָה רַב יִרְמְיָה בְשֵׁם רַב הֲלָכָה כְרִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בִּנְתִינָה וּכְרִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בַּחֲלִיצָה. רִבִּי זְעִירָא בָּעֵי נָתַן בְּיוֹם הַשֵּׁנִי כְּרִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר מַהוּ שֶׁיַּעֲשֶׂה רִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר כְּרִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ שֶׁלֹּא לַחְלוֹץ. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן וְכֵינִי נָתָן בַּיּוֹם הַשֵּׁנִי כְּרִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר נַעֲשֶׂה רִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר כְּרִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ שֶׁלֹּא לַחְלוֹץ וְאִין כֵינִי נֵימָא הֲלָכָה כְרִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Zeïra, Rav Jeremiah in the name of Rav: Practice follows Rebbi Eliezer in putting on and Rebbi Joshua in taking off⁸ starting the second day after the funeral and does not take them off for a new visitor. In the Babli, this is a ruling of Ulla, one of the commuters between Babylonia and Galilee in the second generation of Amoraïm.. Rebbi Zeïra inquired: If he put them on on the second day, following Rebbi Eliezer, would Rebbi Eliezer act like Rebbi Joshua, not to take them off? Rebbi Yose bar Abun said: Is it so that Rebbi Eliezer would act like Rebbi Joshua, not to take them off? If it were so, we should say “practice follows Rebbi Eliezer.”⁹ for new visitors, then the ruling should have been: Practice follows Rebbi Eliezer on the second day and Rebbi Joshua from the third day on. Since days are not mentioned, it is clear that Rebbi Joshua’s opinion, that one does not take off *tefillin* for visits of condolence, does not depend on the day. In the Babli, this is the ruling of Rava, of the generation following Rebbi Zeïra. The Babli quotes from the early Tanna Rebbi Jehudah ben Tema that one puts on *tefillin* and takes them off even a hundred times. Since R. Jehudah ben Tema, whose time cannot be determined, precedes Rav in any case, his opinion is not of much practical value.

footnotes:
⁸ The mourner puts on tefillin
⁹ If on the second day, on which we follow Rebbi Eliezer, he takes off tefillin


###### Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 3:1:4
[Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 3:1:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Berakhot/r/3:1:4)

אָמַר רִבִּי בּוּן כְּתִיב לְמַעַן תִּזְכּוֹר אֶת יוֹם צֵאתְךָ מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם כֹּל יְמֵי חַיֵּיךָ. יָמִים שֶׁאַתְּ עוֹסֵק בָּהֶן בַּחַיִּים. וְלֹא יָמִים שֶׁאַתְּ עוֹסֵק בָּהֶן בַּמֵּתִים.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Abun said: It is written (*Deut.* 16:3) “So that you should remember the day of your exodus from Egypt the totality of the days of your living;” the days when you are occupied with the living, not the days that you are occupied with the dead¹⁰ is one of them, are only for living and are invalid once one has to care for the dead. Rebbi Abun here follows the opponents of Ben Zoma in the first chapter who read כֹל֩, “the entirety” and not “all”. The verse gives a complete justification for the Mishnah, *viz*., that the entire first day is not for *tefillin*, even after the burial..

footnotes:
¹⁰ The verse deals with the celebration of Passover but is used to indicate that any obligation of remembrance, and tefillin


###### Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 3:1:5
[Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 3:1:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Berakhot/r/3:1:5)

תַּנִּי אִם רָצָה לְהַחֲמִיר עַל עַצְמוֹ אֵין שׁוֹמְעִין לוֹ. לָמָּה מִפְּנֵי כְבוֹדוֹ שֶׁל מֵת. אוֹ מִשּׁוּם שֶׁאֵין לוֹ מִי שֶׁיִּשָּׂא מַשּׂוֹאוֹ. מַה [נָפִיק] מִבֵּינֵיהֹן הָיָה לוֹ מִי שֶׁיִּשָּׂא מַשּׂוֹאוֹ. וְאִין תֵּימַר מִפְּנֵי כְבוֹדוֹ שֶׁל מֵת אָסוּר. וְאִם תֹּאמַר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵין לוֹ מִי שֶׁיִּשָּׂא מַשּׂוֹאוֹ הֲרֵי יֵשׁ לוֹ מִי שֶׁיִּשָּׂא מַשּׂוֹאוֹ. וְהָתַנִּי פָּטוּר מִנְּטִילַת לוּלָב. תִּיפְתַּר בְּחוֹל. וְהָתַנִּי פָּטוּר מִתְּקִיעַת שׁוֹפָר. אִית לָךְ מֵימַר בְּחוֹל לֹא בְיוֹם טוֹב. אָמַר רִבִּי חֲנִינָא מִכֵּיוָן שֶׁהוּא זָקוּק לוֹ לְהָבִיא לוֹ אָרוֹן וְתַכְרִיכִין כְּיַי דְּתַנִּינָן תַּמָּן מַחְשִׁיכִין עַל הַתְּחוּם לְפַקֵּחַ עַל עִיסְקֵי הַכַּלָּה וְעַל עִיסְקֵי הַמֵּת לְהָבִיא לוֹ אָרוֹן וְתַכְרִיכִין חֲלִילִים וּמְקוֹנְנוֹת כְּמִי שֶׁהוּא נוֹשֵׂא מַשָּׂאוֹ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
It was stated: If he wants to be more stringent with himself¹⁰ is one of them, are only for living and are invalid once one has to care for the dead. Rebbi Abun here follows the opponents of Ben Zoma in the first chapter who read כֹל֩, “the entirety” and not “all”. The verse gives a complete justification for the Mishnah, *viz*., that the entire first day is not for *tefillin*, even after the burial. one does not listen to him¹¹.. Why? Because of the honor of the deceased or because he has nobody to carry his load¹²? What is the difference between them? If he has someone who is carrying his load; if you say because of the honor of the deceased it is forbidden, but if you say because he has nobody to carry his load, here he has somebody to carry his load. Has it not been stated: he is free from taking the *lulab*¹³ on Tabernacles, nor may he blow the *shofar* on New Year’s Day. While the rule of *lulab* applies only to the intermediate days when burials are permitted, one never blows *shofar* as an obligation except on a holiday.? Explain that it refers to weekdays. But has it not been stated: he is free from blowing the *shofar*. Can you say on weekday? No, on holiday. Rebbi Ḥanina said¹⁴ after the end of the Sabbath. The Sabbath domain extends 2000 cubits from the last house of one’s city; one may not move outside that domain on the Sabbath.: Because he is obliged to bring him a casket and burial shrouds as we have stated (*Šabbat* 23:4): “One waits for nightfall at the borders of the Šabbat¹⁵. domain to oversee matters for a bride and matters for a deceased to bring for him a casket, burial shrouds, fifes, and women mourners;” it is as if someone was carrying his load.

footnotes:
¹⁰ The verse deals with the celebration of Passover but is used to indicate that any obligation of remembrance, and tefillin
¹¹ He is forbidden to put on tefillin
¹² In organizing the funeral.
¹³ The mourner whose deceased has not yet been buried may not weave the lulab
¹⁴ Even though it is forbidden to use the Sabbath to prepare for the next day, in these cases it is permitted to position oneself on the Sabbath so that one can start immediately fulfilling a miẓwah
¹⁵ The Venice (and Leyden) text here, כפיטם, is unintelligible. The text given here is that of the Genizah fragments and the parallel in Śemaḥot


###### Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 3:1:6
[Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 3:1:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Berakhot/r/3:1:6)

מֵאֵימָתַי כוֹפִין אֶת הַמִּיטּוֹת מִשֶּׁיָּצָא הַמֵּת מִפֶּתַח הֶחָצֵר דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר. וְרִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר מִשֶּׁיִּסָּתֵם הַגּוֹלָל. וּכְשֶׁמֵּת רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל כֵּיוָן שֶׁיָּצָא מִפֶּתַח הֶחָצֵר אָמַר רִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר לְתַלְמִידָיו כְּפוּ אֶת הַמִּיטּוֹת. וּכְשֶׁנִּסְתַּם הַגּוֹלָל אָמַר רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ כְּפוּ אֶת הַמִּיטּוֹת. אָמְרוּ לוֹ כְּבָר [כְּפִינוּם] עַל פִּי הַזָּקֵן. בְּעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת הוּא זוֹקֵף אֶת מִיטָּתוֹ. וּבְמוֹצָאֵי שַׁבָּת הוּא כוֹפָן.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
When does one overturn the couches¹⁶ is found in *Massekhet Śemaḥot* IX. The entire discussion is taken from Yerushalmi *Moëd Qaṭan* 3:5; the *baraita* is also found Babli *Moëd Qaṭan* 27a.? From the moment when the dead left the gate of the courtyard¹⁷, the words of Rebbi Eliezer. But Rebbi Joshua says, from when the cover plate was laid on the grave¹⁸.. And when Rabban Gamliel died, after he left the gate of the courtyard, Rebbi Eliezer said to his students: Overturn the couches¹⁹. And when the cover plate was laid on the grave, Rebbi Joshua said: Overturn the couches. They said to him: We already did turn them over on the orders of the old man²⁰. Friday evening he rights his couch, at the end of Sabbat he overturns them²¹.

footnotes:
¹⁶ The mourner is not allowed to eat reclining on a couch, but has to eat sitting upright on a chair as a sign of mourning. This duty applies to all those who are required to observe the week of mourning. The baraita
¹⁷ In the Talmud it is assumed that a house has no door leading to the street outside. A number of houses was always clustered around a courtyard, the door of the house lead into the courtyard, and the courtyard had an exit gate. In that way, privacy was always assured. The statement asserts that the moment the funeral procession is on its way is not when the bier leaves the house but when it leaves the outer gate of the courtyard.
¹⁸ The dead was buried on a bier, not in a casket. Hence, the grave had to be covered by a large flat stone, the golal
¹⁹ When the head of the Synhedrion dies, all are mourners.
²⁰ Even though Rebbi Eliezer was put in the ban since he did not agree with a majority ruling when he knew that the ruling contradicted tradition, it follows from here not only that he continued to lead his Yeshivah but also that in his lifetime, his authority in matters of religious practice remained supreme.
²¹ Since any outward sign of mourning is forbidden on the Sabbath.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 3:1:7
[Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 3:1:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Berakhot/r/3:1:7)

תַּנִּי דַּרְגֶּשׁ נִזְקֶפֶת וְאֵינָהּ נִכְפֵּית. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר שׁוֹמֵט קלבינטרין שֶׁלָּהּ וְדַיּוֹ. רִבִּי יוֹסָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי הֲלָכָה כְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר. רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹסֵי מִיטָּה שֶׁנַּיקְלִיטֶיהָ עוֹלִין וְיוֹרְדִין בָּה שׁוֹמְטָן וְדַיּוֹ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
It was stated: “A *dargesh*²² 56a. Maimonides, in his commentary to *Nedarim*, defines *dargesh* as a low couch (used for sitting only in the case of a mourner), much lower than a regular couch called *miṭṭah*. The Babli tentatively defines *dargesh* as a couch made of a frame onto which a leather mattress is attached by ropes. This definition may be compatible with the description given in the next section. is put upright²³ is lifted to stand either on its front end or its foot end. But already *Rosh* (Rabbenu Asher ben Yeḥiël, 14th Century in Mayence and Toledo) has shown in his commentary to Babli *Nedarim* that this explanation is impossible and that the statement must mean: it is left standing as is. The other commentators are influenced by the version of the Babli which instead of the passive form used here have an active “he stands them up”, which seems to imply an action by the mourner, not passive as is implied here. and is not turned over. Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar²⁴, the father of Rebbi and son of Rabban Gamliel. Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar was a Tanna of the last generation who lived to see the start of the second generation of Amoraïm. says, he removes its *qlbnṭryn*²⁵ is קלמנטרין, the corresponding word in the Babli is קרביטין. The last word, according to Z. Frankel, is Greek τὸ κραβάτιον, Byzantine Greek κραββατάριον, “accessories to the bed”; this seems to be correct but is not very instructive. [Cf. also κράββατος “couch, mattress”; Latin *grabatus*, from Macedonian κράβατος “low couch, camp bed” (E. G.).] and that is enough²⁶ XI reads: דרגש המקפת אינה נכפת. רבי שמעון בן אלעזר אומר מוריד קלמנטרין שלה וּמניחה כמות שהיא A surrounding *dargesh* is not turned over. Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says, he removes the accessories and leaves it as is.” In this formulation, Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar explains that while the *dargesh* is not turned over, some sign of mourning has to be made. It seems that this is also the explanation here, that Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar adds a certain requirement to the first statement..” Rebbi Yosa²⁷ in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: practice follows Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Yose, a couch whose posts²⁸ are upright and removed together with it, he takes them off and that is enough.

footnotes:
²² A kind of bed whose exact nature was unknown even in the time of the Talmud, as seen from the discussion that follows and in Babli Nedarim
²³ Most commentators explain that the dargesh
²⁴ In all places where this is quoted in the Babli, the name is Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel
²⁵ The spelling and, therefore, the meaning of the word are uncertain. The spelling here is קלבינטרין, that of the Genizah texts and Śemaḥot
²⁶ There is a question whether the anonymous Tanna requires more or less that Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar. The quote in Śemaḥot
²⁷ Rebbi Yasa.
²⁸ Τὰ ἀνάκλιτα, “things to lean on”; according to both Rashi and Arukh the two posts over which the mosquito screen was hung.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 3:1:8
[Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 3:1:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Berakhot/r/3:1:8)

אֵי זוֹ הִיא מִיטָּה וְאֵי זֶה הוּא דַרְגֵּשׁ. אָמַר רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה כָּל שֶׁמְּסָרְגִין עַל גּוּפָהּ זוֹ הִיא מִיטָּה וְכָל שֶׁאֵין מְסָרְגִין עַל גּוּפָהּ זֶהוּ דַרְגֵּשׁ. וְהָא תַנִּינָן הַמִּיטָּה וְהָעֲרִסָה מִשֶּׁיִּשּׁוֹפָם בְּעוֹר הַדָּג. אִם מְסָרֵג הוּא עַל גּוּפָהּ לְאֵי זֶה דָבָר הוּא שָׁפָהּ. אָמַר רִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר תִּיפְתָּר בְּאִילֵּין עַרְסְתָא קֵיסַרְיְיתָא דְּאִית לָהֶן נְקָבִין.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
What is a couch and what is a *dargesh*? Rebbi Jeremiah²⁹ 20a/b, this appears in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Yoḥanan. said, one that one plaits³⁰ on its body is a couch and one that one does not plait on its body³¹ is a *dargesh*. But have we not stated (*Kelim* 16:1) “Bed and³² crib after he rubs them with fish skin³³.” If he plaits on its body, why does he rub³⁴? Rebbi Eleazar said, explain it with those Caesarean cribs that have holes³⁵.

footnotes:
²⁹ In Babli, Sanhedrin
³⁰ The couch has a frame and instead of a box spring it has length-and crosswise strips that are plaited together.
³¹ Maybe, according to the Babli, because instead of a plaited bed of strips it has a base of leather that is fastened only in a few places to the frame.
³² Reading of the Rome and Mishnah mss. The conjunction is missing in the Venice print and Leyden ms.
³³ This Mishnah deals with the moment when a wooden implement is finished. Wood in itself cannot become ritually impure but wooden vessels and implements can. The moment when a wooden bed frame is finished so that it can become ritually unclean is the moment when it can be delivered by the carpenter to the customer, after it is polished with the classical equivalent of sand paper.
³⁴ If the entire frame is covered by the strips forming the base of the bed, who cares how the wooden frame looks?
³⁵ The strips are not wound around the frame but go through the holes in the frame, leaving half of it exposed.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 3:1:9
[Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 3:1:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Berakhot/r/3:1:9)

מְנַיִּין לִכְפִיַּית הַמִּיטָּה. רִבִּי קְרִיסְפָּא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן וַיֵּשְׁבוּ אִתּוֹ לָאָרֶץ. עַל הָאָרֶץ אֵין כְּתִיב כָּאן אֶלָּא וַיֵּשְׁבוּ אִתּוֹ לָאָרֶץ. דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא סָמוּךְ לָאָרֶץ. מִיכַּן שֶׁהָיוּ יְשֵׁנִין עַל גַּבֵּי מִיטּוֹת כְּפוּפוֹת. בַּר קַפָּרָא אָמַר אֵיקוֹנִין אַחַת טוֹבָה הָיָה לִי בְּתוֹךְ בֵּיתָךְ וּגְרַמְתָּנִי לְכוֹפְפָהּ. אַף אַתְּ כְּפֵה מִיטָּתָךְ. וְאִית דְּמַפְקִין לִישְׁנָא וְיִכְפֶּה כְּפֵה הַסַּרְסוּר. רִבִּי יוֹנָה וְרִבִּי יוֹסֵי תְּרַוֵּיהוֹן בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי שְׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ חַד אָמַר מִפְּנֵי מַה הוּא יָשֵׁן בְּמִיטָּה כְפוּיָה שֶׁיְּהֵא נוֹעֵר בַּלַּיְלָה וְנִזְכַּר שֶׁהוּא אָבֵל. וְחָרָנָה אָמַר מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁהוּא יָשֵׁן עַל מִיטָּה כְפוּיָה הוּא נוֹעֵר בַּלַּיְלָה וְנִזְכַּר שֶׁהוּא אָבֵל.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
From where the overturning of beds³⁶? Rebbi Crispus³⁷ in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: (*Job* 2:13) “They sat with him towards the ground.” It does not say here “on the ground” but “they sat with him towards the ground,” on something close to the ground. It follows that they were sleeping³⁸ on overturned couches. Bar Qappara said: A beautiful form³⁹ I had in your house and you caused me to overturn⁴⁰ 3:5 has לכופתה “to overturn it” (Babylonian Talmudic Hebrew.) The form לכופפה has no parallel in the Yerushalmi and might be a scribal error.
Bar Qappara seems to think that persons die because of the sins of their relatives. This is appropriate only for children who cannot die for their own sins since nobody below the age of 20 is liable before the heavenly court. The following, alternate version also shows that Bar Qappara speaks about mourning for small children. it, you also overturn your bed! Some quote it by the expression “let him overturn; overturn⁴¹ 5:3. The agent is the bed on which one not only sleeps but also has sex. Hence, the couch is the agent which produces the birth of a new baby. the agent!” Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose, both in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. One said, why does he sleep on an overturned coach? So that he should wake up in the night and realize that he is a mourner. The other one said, since he sleeps on an overturned bed he wakes up in the night and realizes that he is a mourner.

footnotes:
³⁶ Levi Ginzberg noted correctly that all the sermons here point only to the overturning of beds on which one sleeps, not couches on which one sits. The Yerushalmi does not address the question whether during the day the mourner has to sit on the ground or may sit on an overturned couch.
³⁷ “Curly haired” (Latin, a Roman surname). A student of Rebbi Joḥanan and R. Simeon ben Laqish, and teacher of Rebbis Jonah and Yose.
³⁸ Since the friends were sitting with Job for seven days and seven nights, they must have slept “towards the ground”.
³⁹ Greek εἰκών “image”, also “phantom”.
⁴⁰ The parallel Megillah
⁴¹ The imperative כפה “overturn!” is missing in the parallel Moëd Qaṭan


###### Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 3:1:10
[Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 3:1:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Berakhot/r/3:1:10)

אָבֵל כָּל זְמָן שֶׁמֵּתוֹ מוּטָּל לְפָנָיו אוֹכֵל אֵצֶל חֲבֵירוֹ וְאִם אֵין לוֹ חָבֵר אוֹכֵל בְּבַיִת אַחֵר. וְאִם אֵין לוֹ בַיִת אַחֵר עוֹשֶׂה מְחִיצָה וְאוֹכֵל. וְאִם אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לַעֲשׂוֹת מְחִיצָה הוֹפֵךְ אֶת פָּנָיו לַכּוֹתֶל וְאוֹכֵל. וְלֹא מֵיסָב וְלֹא אוֹכֵל כָּל צוֹרְכוֹ וְלֹא שׁוֹתֶה כָּל צוֹרְכוֹ. וְלֹא אוֹכֵל בָּשָׂר וְלֹא שׁוֹתֶה יַיִן. וְאֵין מְזַמְּנִין עָלָיו. וְאִם בֵּירַךְ אֵין עוֹנִין אַחֲרָיו אָמֵן. וַאֲחֵרִים שֶׁבֵּירְכוּ אֵינוֹ עוֹנֶה אַחֲרֵיהֶן אָמֵן. הֲדָא דְתֵימַר בְּחוֹל. אֲבָל בְּשַׁבָּת מֵיסָב וְאוֹכֵל. וְאוֹכֵל בָּשָׂר וְשׁוֹתֶה יַיִן. וְאוֹכֵל כָּל צוֹרְכוֹ וְשׁוֹתֶה כָּל צוֹרְכוֹ. וּמְזַמְּנִין עָלָיו. וְאִם בֵּירַךְ עוֹנִין אַחֲרָיו אָמֵן. וַאֲחֵרִים שֶׁבֵּירְכוּ עוֹנֶה אַחֲרֵיהֶן אָמֵן. אָמַר רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל הוֹאִיל וְהִתַּרְתִּי לוֹ אֶת כָּל אֵילּוּ חַיְיבֵהוּ בִשְׁאָר כָּל הַמִצְוֹת שֶׁל תּוֹרָה. אִם חַיֵּי שָׁעָה הִתַּרְתָּ לוֹ חַיֵּי עוֹלָם לֹא כָּל שֶׁכֵּן. רִבִּי יוֹדָה בֶּן פָּזִי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי הֲלָכָה כְרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
⁴² is found in almost identical form in Babli *Berakhot* 17b, *Moëd Qaṭan* 23b, and the Yerushalmi source *Śemaḥot* X. All the time that his deceased in lying before him, he eats at his neighbor’s, and if he has no neighbor, he eats in another room. If he has no other room, he makes a wall of separation and eats. If he is unable to make a wall of separation, he turns his face towards the wall and eats. He does not eat reclining; he does neither eat nor drink his fill. He eats neither meat nor drinks wine. One does not allow him to participate in a group to say Grace. If he recited Grace, one does not answer “amen” after him. If others recited Grace, he does not anwer “amen”. That is meant on weekdays. But on the Sabbath, he does eat reclining; he eats meat and drinks wine, eats and drinks his fill. One lets him participate in a group to say Grace. If he recited Grace, one does answer “amen” after him. If others recited Grace, he answers “amen”. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel⁴³ said: Because I allowed all of these, oblige him for all other obligations of the Torah. If I permitted him temporary life, so much more eternal life⁴⁴. Rebbi Judah ben Pazi in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Practice follows Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel.

footnotes:
⁴² This baraita
⁴³ In Babli sources, the author is Rabban Gamliel. The difference is essential since practice follows Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel even against a plurality of dissenters, but does not necessarily follow Rabban Gamliel. In the interpretation of the Babli, Rabban Gamliel obliges the married male mourner to fulfill his conjugal duties towards his wife. This is rejected as practice by the Babli which requires only that the enjoyment of Sabbath should not be diminished in any situation that is seen by others. The Yerushalmi makes no distinction between public and private obligations.
⁴⁴ And he who does not fulfill his conjugal duties towards his wife on Sabbath transgresses a positive commandment of the Torah. [The emphasis on this probably is anti-Sadducean; for the Sadducees, any sex act on the Sabbath was a Sabbath desecration punishable by death.]


###### Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 3:1:11
[Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 3:1:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Berakhot/r/3:1:11)

נִמְסַר לָרַבִּים אוֹכֵל בָּשָׂר וְשׁוֹתֶה יַיִן. נִמְסַר לַכַּתָּפִים כְּמִי שֶׁנִּמְסַר לָרַבִּים.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
If he⁴⁵ was handed over to the public⁴⁶., he may eat meat and drink wine. If he was handed over to the carriers⁴⁷ it is as if he was handed to the public.

footnotes:
⁴⁵ The deceased. The other “he” denotes the mourner.
⁴⁶ The public body organizing funerals, the Ḥevrah Qadishah
⁴⁷ Paid carriers.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 3:1:12
[Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 3:1:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Berakhot/r/3:1:12)

כַּד דָּמָךְ רִבִּי יָסָא קִבֵּיל רִבִּי חִיָיא בַּר וָוה אֲבֵילוֹי וְאַיְיכְלוּן בָּשָׂר וְאַשְׁקִיתוּן חֲמָר. כַּד דָּמָךְ רִבִּי חִיָיא בַּר אַבָּא קִבֵּיל רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר רַב יִצְחָק אֲבֵילוֹי וְאַיְיכְלוּן בָּשָׂר וְאַשְׁקִיתוּן חֲמָר. כַּד דָּמָךְ רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר רַב יִצְחָק קִבֵּיל רִבִּי זְעִירָא אֲבֵילוֹי וְאַיְיכְלוּן טְלוֹפְחִין מֵימַר כְּמַה דְהוּא מִנְהָגָא. רִבִּי זְעִירָא מִידָמָךְ פָּקֵיד וָמַר לֹא תְקַבְּלוּן עָלַי יוֹמָא הֵן אֵבְלָא לְמָחָר מַזְרְחַיָיא.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
When Rebbi Yassa died, Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba received his mourners⁴⁸ and gave them meat to eat and wine to drink. When Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba died, Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac received his mourners and gave them meat to eat and wine to drink. When Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac died, Rebbi Zeïra received his mourners and gave them lentils to eat, saying that this was the tradition⁴⁹16b as a Galilean tradition (transmitted by Rabba bar Mari, a student of Rebbi Joḥanan) that Jacob prepared a meal of lentils (*Gen.* 25:29) for his father Isaac as the first meal after the burial of Abraham. The same tradition is given anonymously in the Galilean *Midrash Bereshit rabba* 63:16. The substitution of eggs used today instead of lentils is Babylonian (*Baba batra* 16b). Even though Rebbi Zeïra was Babylonian, the practice might have been that of the city of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac.. When Rebbi Zeïra was dying he commanded and said: “You should not accept mourning for me this day, tomorrow consolers.⁵⁰; ed. Chavel, p. 144) and those who quote from the latter. The only consistent interpretation is that of Levi Ginzberg: Rebbi Zeïra told his students not to be among the mourners the first day nor among those who arrange meals of consolation the next day. While he was a Babylonian by birth, he objected to the Babylonian practice that students mourn only one day for their teacher (Babli *Moëd Qaṭan* 25b) but wanted them to mourn for him the entire seven days (or not at all).
מרזחיּא are those who arrange the meal for the mourners, מַרְזֵחַ; as Levi Ginzberg points out, this meaning in Galilean (not Babylonian) Aramaic is clear from *Targum Sheni* on *Esther* 1:2, towards the end.”

footnotes:
⁴⁸ I. e., Rebbi Yasa’s immediate family and possibly students. A mourner returning from the burial has to receive the first meal from others; the mourners were received with food so that they could go home and prepare the next meal themselves. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba did allow meat and wine for this first meal. (In Galilee, under the influence of late Greek, every ב was pronounced ν; ווה stands for בּא in Rebbi Ḥiyya’s name.)
⁴⁹ It is quoted in Babli Baba batra
⁵⁰ It is not very clear what Rebbi Zeïra was commanding to his students; also the text is quoted in very different forms by Nachmanides (Torat Haädam


###### Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 3:1:13
[Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 3:1:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Berakhot/r/3:1:13)

רִבִּי יִצְחָק בְּרֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי [חִיָיא] כָּתוֹבָה מָטְתֵיהּ אוֹנֵס. וְעָלוּן לְגַבֵּיהּ רִבִּי מָנָא וְרִבִּי יוּדָן וַהֲוָּה חֲמָר טָב וְאִישְׁתּוּן סַגִּין וְגָחְכִין. לְמָחָר אָתוּן בַּעְיָין מֵיעוּל גַּבֵּיהּ. אָמַר לוֹן רַבָּנָן אָכֵן בַּר נָשׁ עֲבֵיד לְחַבְרֵיהּ. לָא הֲוִינָן חֲסֵרִין אֶתְמֹל אֶלָּא מֵיקוּם וּמִירְקוֹד.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Isaac the son of Rebbi Ḥiyya the Scribe suffered an accident⁵². Rebbis Mana and Yudan went to him. There was good wine, they drank a lot⁵³ about the cups to be drunk in a house of mourning. (A cup of wine consists of two thirds water and one third wine). and laughed. The next day they wanted to visit him again. He said to them: Rabbis, is that what a man does to his friend? Yesterday, the only thing that was missing for us was that we would get up and dance!

footnotes:
⁵² I. e., a close relative died.
⁵³ More than the 10 cups allowed. The entire story is an introduction to the following baraita


###### Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 3:1:14
[Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 3:1:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Berakhot/r/3:1:14)

תַּנִּי עֲשָׂרָה כּוֹסוֹת שׁוֹתִין בְּבֵית הָאָבֵל שְׁנַיִם לִפְנֵי הַמָּזוֹן וַחֲמִשָּׁה בְתוֹךְ הַמָּזוֹן. וּשְׁלֹשָׁה לְאַחַר הַמָּזוֹן. אֵילּוּ שְׁלֹשָׁה שֶׁל אַחַר הַמָּזוֹן. אֶחָד לְבִרְכַת הַמָּזוֹן וְאֶחָד לִגְמִילוּת חֲסָדִים. וְאֶחָד לְתַנְחוּמֵי אֲבֵילִים. וּכְשֶׁמֵּת רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל הוֹסִיפוּ עֲלֵיהֶן עוֹד שְׁלֹשָׁה אֶחָד לְחַזַּן הַכְּנֶסֶת וְאֶחָד לְרֹאשׁ הַכְּנֶסֶת וְאֶחָד לְרַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל. וְכֵיוָן שֶׁרָאוּ בֵּית דִּין שֶׁהָיוּ מִשְׁתַּכְּרִין וְהוֹלְכִין גָּזְרוּ עֲלֵיהֶן וְהֶחֱזִירוּם לִמְקוֹמָן.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
It is stated⁵⁴ XIV. The Babli version, *Ketubot* 8b, has 3 cups before the meal, 3 during the meal, and 4 after the meal for the four benedictions of Grace.: Ten cups one drinks in the house of a mourner: two before the meal⁵⁵, five during the meal, and three after the meal. These are the three after the meal: one for Grace⁵⁶, one for those who exercise charity⁵⁷, one for those who console mourners⁵⁸. And when Rabban (Simeon ben)⁵⁹ Gamliel died, they added another three: One for the *Ḥazzan* of the community⁶⁰ was not only the reader but also the ritual slaughterer and general servant of the community.), one for the head of the community⁶¹, and one for Rabban Gamliel⁶². But when the Rabbinical authorities saw that they regularly got drunk they decreed and returned it to the original status⁶³.

footnotes:
⁵⁴ This is the Yerushalmi formulation, also found in Śemaḥot
⁵⁵ As an apéritif. The next five are regular drinks to go with the solid food.
⁵⁶ The regular cup over which Grace is said, as explained in later chapters. Since one may not recite Grace together in the presence of the mourner, one cup is needed for each one of the participants.
⁵⁷ In honor of those who gave their time and went out in the funeral procession.
⁵⁸ The outsiders who provided the meal and participate in it.
⁵⁹ As is seen from the following and the parallel sources, “Simeon ben” is a scribal error.
⁶⁰ The religious leader of the community who leads the services and all religious activities including the funerals. (A rabbi is only a religious judge; the ḥazzan
⁶¹ The president of the congregation, who was responsible for the establishment and upkeep of the cemetery.
⁶² He had himself buried in a simple linen shirt and in a plain unadorned wooden casket. Before his time, people were buried in elaborate clothing in expensive caskets. After him it became the Jewish standard that everybody has to be buried in Rabban Gamliel’s way.
⁶³ The preceding story, from later Galilean Amoras, shows that “the original way” are the prescribed 10 cups; there is no prohibition of wine at the funeral meal.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 3:1:15
[Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 3:1:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Berakhot/r/3:1:15)

כֹּהֵן מַהוּ שֶׁיִּטָּמֵא לִכְבוֹד רַבּוֹ. רִבִּי יַנַּאִי זְעִירָא דָּמָךְ חָמוֹי. הוּא הֲוָה חָמוֹי וְהוּא הֲוָה רַבֵּיהּ. שָׁאַל לְרִבִּי יוֹסֵי וְאָסַר לֵיהּ. שָׁמַע רִבִּי אָחָא וָמַר יִטָּמֵאוּ לוֹ תַלְמִידָיו. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי נִטְמְאוּ לוֹ תַלְמִידָיו וְאָכְלוּ בָשָׂר וְשָׁתוּ יַיִן. אָמַר לוֹן רִבִּי מָנָא חָדָא מִן תַּרְתֵּי לָא פְלָטַת לְכוֹן. אִם אֲבֵילִים אַתֶּם לָמָּה אֲכַלְתֶּם בָּשָׂר וְלָמָּה שְׁתִיתֶם יַיִן. וְאִם אֵין אַתֶּם מִתְאַבְּלִין לָמָּה נִטְמֵאתֶם.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
May a Cohen defile himself⁶⁴ 21). The main place of these discussions is in Yerushalmi *Nazir* 7:1. for the honor of his teacher? The father-in-law of Rebbi Yannai the younger⁶⁵ died. He was both his father-in-law⁶⁶ and his teacher. He asked Rebbi Yose who forbade it. Rebbi Aḥa heard it and said: His students should defile themselves for him. The students of Rebbi Yose defiled themselves for him but ate meat and drank wine⁶⁷. Rebbi Mana told them: One of two things you cannot escape. If you are mourners, why did you eat meat and drink wine; if you are not mourners, why did you defile yourselves?

footnotes:
⁶⁴ By touching a dead body or carrying his casket (cf. Lev.
⁶⁵ An Amora of the fourth Galilean generation; so called to distinguish him from Rebbi Yannai, the teacher of Rebbi Joḥanan. It is implied that he was a Cohen.
⁶⁶ A Cohen must defile himself for his wife but may not defile himself for any of her relatives.
⁶⁷ Before the burial.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 3:1:16
[Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 3:1:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Berakhot/r/3:1:16)

מַהוּ שֶׁיִּטָּמֵא כֹהֵן לִכְבוֹד תּוֹרָה. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי הֲוָה יָתִיב מַתְנֵי וְאָעַל מִיתָא. מִן דְּנָפִיק לֵיהּ לֹא אָמַר לֵיהּ כְּלוּם. וּמָן דְּיָתִיב לֵיהּ לֹא אָמַר לֵיהּ כְּלוּם.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
May a Cohen defile himself for the honor of Torah? Rebbi Yose was sitting and teaching when a dead body was brought in⁶⁸. He did not say anything either to those who left or to those who remained sitting⁶⁹.

footnotes:
⁶⁸ To be eulogized in the Yeshivah.
⁶⁹ He said nothing to those who were Cohanim and did not want to stay in the same house with the dead person even though they were missing some of Rebbi Yose’s lectures, nor to those Cohanim among his students who preferred to study even if it meant staying with the dead person in the same “tent”. Rebbi Yose was undecided whether a Cohen should stay or leave.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 3:1:17
[Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 3:1:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Berakhot/r/3:1:17)

רִבִּי נְחוּמְיָה בְּרֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי חִיָיא בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר אַבָּא לֹא הָיָה עָבוֹר תְּחוֹת כִּפְתָּה דְקֵיסַרִין. רִבִּי אַמִּי רִבִּי חִזְקִיָּה וְרִבִּי כֹהֵן וְרִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא הֲווּ מְטַיְּילִין בְּאִילֵּין פְּלָטיוּתָא דְצִיפּוֹרִי. הִגִּיעוּ לְכִיפָּה וּפִירֵשׁ רִבִּי כֹהֵן. הִגִּיעוּ לְמָקוֹם טַהֲרָה וְחָזַר אֶצְלָן. אָמַר לוֹן בְּמַה עַסְּקִין. אָמַר רִבִּי חִזְקִיָּה לְרִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא לֹא תֵימוֹר לֵיהּ כְּלוּם. אִין מִשּׁוּם דְּבָאִישׁ לֵיהּ דְּפָרַשׁ שֶׁמִּטָּמֵא לְתַלְמוּד תּוֹרָה לָא יָדְעִין. וְאִין מִשּׁוּם דַּהֲוָה [גּוּיְיסָן] לָא יָדְעִין.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Nehemiah the son of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said: My father did not walk under the arch of Caesarea⁷⁰ 61a), following R. Simeon bar Yoḥai, that only Jewish graves defile “in a tent” but not Gentile ones. The problem is not mentioned in any of the surviving parts of the Yerushalmi; one might infer from the stories told here that the ruling of the Babli was not that accepted in Galilee. Nachmanides (ענין ההוצאה, תורת אדם ed. Chavel, vol. 2, p. קה) adds: “but R. Ammi (who also was a Cohen) did pass under them.” The rest of the paragraph supports the reading of Nachmanides.. Rebbi Ammi, Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Cohen and Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa went walking on those streets⁷¹, Greek πλατεῖα (*scil*. ὁδός), “street”. of Sepphoris. They came to the arch and Rebbi Cohen left⁷². They reached a place of purity and he returned to them. He asked them: “What were you discussing?” Rebbi Ḥizqiah said to Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa: “Do not tell him anything!” We do not know whether it was because he was angry that he left since one defiles oneself for words of Torah or whether it was because he⁷³ 13a, for all defilements that have a Biblical basis.) was haughty⁷⁴ of Nachmanides has גייסן. The Venice print has טייסן, “a flyer” which makes no sense. The implication seems to be that Rebbi Ḥizqiah, the Rabbinic authority, was piqued by the fact that Rebbi Cohen, a very minor figure, did not ask his opinion whether he might pass under the arc..

footnotes:
⁷⁰ R. Ḥiyya bar Abba was a Cohen, as is also clear from the later account of the visit of Diocletian. He did not pass under an arch attached to a building or archway under which there were graves. The Caesarea here is Caesarea Philippi, on the Jordan near Banias. Even though Caesarea Philippi was built by the Herodian family, it is unlikely that the arch belonged to a building containing a Jewish grave and it is accepted in the Babylonian Talmud (Yebamot
⁷¹ Latin platea
⁷² Probably for the same reason that Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba did not pass under the arch of Caesarea.
⁷³ Rebbi Cohen. (The first “he” refers to R. Ḥizqiah.) Since the problem is unresolved, it seems that in the opinion of the Yerushalmi, as a doubt in matters of Torah, he should not defile himself for Torah study. (This is the opinion of the Babli, Avodah zarah
⁷⁴ The reading is that of the Leyden manuscript; the editio princeps


###### Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 3:1:18
[Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 3:1:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Berakhot/r/3:1:18)

תַּנִּי מִטָּמֵּא כֹּהֵן וְיוֹצֵא חוּצָה לָאָרֶץ לְדִינֵי מְמוֹנוֹת וּלְדִינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת וּלְקִידּוּשׁ הַחֹדֶשׁ וּלְעִיבּוּר שָׁנָה. לְהַצִּיל שָׂדֶה מִן הַגּוֹי וְאֲפִילוּ ליטור יוֹצֵא וְעוֹרֵר עָלֶיהָ. לִלְמוֹד תּוֹרָה וְלִישָּׂא אִשָּׁה. רִבִּי יוּדָה אוֹמֵר אִם יֵשּׁ לוֹ מֵאֵיכַן לִלְמוֹד אַל יִטָּמֵא. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר אֲפִילוּ יֵשּׁ לוֹ מֵאֵיכַן לִלְמוֹד תּוֹרָה יִטָּמֵא שֶׁלֹּא מִכָּל אָדָם זוֹכֶה לִלְמוֹד. אָמְרוּ עָלָיו עַל יוֹסֵף הַכֹּהֵן שֶׁהָיָה מִטָּמֵּא וְיוֹצֵא אַחַר רַבּוֹ לְצִידָן. אֲבָל אָמְרוּ אַל יֵצֵא כֹּהֵן לְחוּץ לָאָרֶץ אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן הִבְטִיחוּ לוֹ אִשָּׁה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
It is stated⁷⁶ is in similar form in other Yerushalmi sources, *Nazir* 7:1, *Śemaḥot* IV:25,26, Tosephta *Moëd qaṭan* 1:12, *Avodah zarah* 1:8, and in materially different Babylonian tradition in Babli *Avodah zarah* 13a, *Erubin* 47a.: A Cohen may defile himself by leaving the Land⁷⁷ 7:17. (The Babli takes the impurity of the “land of Gentiles” to be rabbinic, but this refers to the time when no ashes of a red heifer were available anymore and every Cohen was impure from the start, whereas the Yerushalmi *baraita* might refer to earlier times, cf. Chapter 1, Note 3.) The prohibition for the Cohen to defile himself willingly derives from *Lev.* 21:1–15. for civil and criminal suits, for the consecration of the New Moon and intercalation of a year⁷⁸, to save a field from a Gentile, and he even may leave and lodge a complaint about it⁷⁹, to study Torah and to marry a wife. Rebbi Judah says, if he has a place to study⁸⁰, he should not defile himself. Rebbi Yose says, even if he has a place to study, he may defile himself, since a man may not have the luck to learn from every teacher. They said about Joseph the Cohen⁸¹ that he defiled himself and followed his teacher to Sidon⁸². In truth⁸³, they said a priest should not go abroad unless one promised him a wife.

footnotes:
⁷⁶ This baraita
⁷⁷ It is not clear which verse of the Torah declares all land outside the Land of Israel ritually unclean but the fact that it is so, is obvious from Amos
⁷⁸ In the absence of a computed calendar, the last two activities may be exercised outside the Land of Israel only if political circumstances make the consecration in Israel impossible. (The statements up to this point are missing in the Babli parallels; see the preceding Note.)
⁷⁹ “To lodge a complaint” about real estate usually means to claim ownership against a squatter, in particular if there are no written documents for either party.
⁸⁰ Any place to study in the Land of Israel.
⁸¹ Joseph (called Issi) ben Yehudah (or Aqabiah) from Huẓal in Babylonia who immigrated to Israel and was a student of Rebbis Eleazar ben Shamua and Yose ben Ḥalaphta. He is a Tanna of the last generation and known as the “last of the pious”. If such a holy man leaves Israel to follow his secondary teacher, the practice of leaving the Land for study purposes is well established.
⁸² Note the Talmudic vocalization Ṣīdān, in contrast to Biblical Ṣīdōn, close to modern Arabic Ṣaidā.
⁸³ As a rule, any tannaïtic statement label אבל “in truth”, represents established practice. The permission for a priest to leave the Land for marriage is only for an arranged marriage, not for a search for a possible bride.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 3:1:19
[Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 3:1:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Berakhot/r/3:1:19)

מַהוּ שֶׁיִּטָּמֵא כֹהֵן לִנְשִׂיאַת כַּפָּיִם. [גְּדִילָה] אַחֲוֵי דְרִבִּי אַבָּא בַּר כֹהֵן אָמַר קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי אָחָא מִטָּמֵא כֹהֵן לִנְשִׂיאַת כַּפָּיִם. שָׁמַע רִבִּי אָחָא וָמַר אֲנָא לָא אֲמָרִית לֵיהּ כְּלוּם. חָזָר וְאָמַר אוֹ דִילְמָא לָא שָׁמַע מִינִּי אֶלָּא כְיַי דָמַר רִבִּי יוּדָה בֶּן פָּזִי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר. כָּל כֹּהֵן שֶׁהוּא עוֹמֵד בְּבֵית הַכְּנֶסֶת וְאֵינוֹ נוֹשֵׂא אֶת כַּפָּיו עוֹבֵר בַּעֲשֵׂה. וְסָבַר מֵימַר שֶׁמִּצְוַת עֲשֵׂה דוֹחֶה לְמִצְוַת לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה. אֲנָא לָא אֲמָרִית לֵיהּ כְּלוּם. אַיְיתוּנֵיהּ וַאֲנָא אַלְקוּנֵיהּ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
May a Cohen defile himself for the lifting of hands⁸⁴ 6:24–26) that the Cohen has to recite during morning prayers. Since the priest has to lift his hands for the blessing, in imitation of Aaron the High Priest (*Lev.* 9:22), the entire ceremony is called “the lifting of hands”.? Gedilah⁸⁵, the brother of Rebbi Abba bar Cohen⁸⁶ said before Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: A Cohen defiles⁸⁷ defile himself to fulfill the obligation of reciting the priestly blessing. himself for the lifting of hands. Rebbi Aḥa heard it and said: I never told him anything. On second thoughts he said, maybe he heard from me that which Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi said in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Every Cohen who stays in the synagogue and does not lift his hands transgresses a positive commandment, and he wanted to say that a positive commandment⁸⁸ supersedes a negative commandment. I never told him anything⁸⁹. Bring him in and I will cause him to be flogged!

footnotes:
⁸⁴ The priestly blessing (Num.
⁸⁵ This is the reading of the Rome manuscript. The names given in other sources, מגבילה, גבילה, are not otherwise attested as Semitic names.
⁸⁶ An Amora of the fifth generation, student of the Amora Rebbi Yose, two generations after Rebbi Abba bar Kahana.
⁸⁷ Implying that a Cohen must
⁸⁸ The obligation on the Cohen to recite the blessing. The negative commandment is the prohibition for the Cohen to defile himself without good cause.
⁸⁹ The obligation to recite the priestly blessing is only on a Cohen who happens to be in the synagogue at the right time. But if a coffin is in the synagogue for an eulogy before the funeral, the Cohen cannot be in the synagogue when the priests are called and, hence, would have to enter the synagogue to be defiled at a moment when there is no positive commandment on him. The hypothetical argument of Rebbi Aḥa could only be resolved in favor of Gedilah in the unlikely event that someone in the synagogue dies suddenly while the priests already assemble for the priestly blessing.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 3:1:20
[Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 3:1:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Berakhot/r/3:1:20)

רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ הֲוָא יָתִיב מַתְנֵי בִכְנִישְׁתָּא מֶרְדְּתָה בְּקֵיסַרִין וַהֲוָה תַמָּן מֵיתָא. אָתַת עָנְתָא דִנְשִׂיאוּת כַּפַּיִם וְלָא שָׁאֲלוּן לֵיהּ. אָתַת עָנְתָא דְמֵיכְלָא וְשָׁאֲלוּן לֵיהּ. אָמַר לוֹן עַל נְשִׂיאוּת כַּפַּיִם לָא שְׁאִילְתּוּן לִי וּלְמֵיכְלָא שָׁאֲלְתּוּן לִי. כֵּיוָן דְּשָׁמְעוּן כֵּן הֲוָה כָל חַד וְחַד שָׁבַק גַּרְמֵיהּ וְעָרַק.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Abbahu was sitting teaching in the fortified⁹⁰ synagogue in Caesarea⁹¹; there was a coffin there. There came the time for lifting the hands and they⁹² did not ask him. There came the time for eating and they asked him. He said to them: For the lifting of hands you did not ask me, for eating you are asking me⁹³? When they heard this, each one was taking himself away and fled.

footnotes:
⁹⁰ This is the reading of the Rome ms., from Syriac מרדא, “fortified”. Graetz’s translation “revolutionary” is phantasy. The word could be from Greek μερίς, -ίδος, ἡ “part, region, district”. In that case, the translation would be “regional synagogue” (E. G.). The reading of the Leyden ms. and the Venice print, מדדתא, “measuring” or “tripping”, does not make any sense.
⁹¹ It is not quite clear whether this was Caesarea on Sea or Caesarea Philippi; the former is usually assumed but it will become clear that the latter is in fact meant.
⁹² The Cohanim among his students. They remained sitting for Rebbi Abbahu’s lecture.
⁹³ Since Rebbi Abbahu did not deliver a ruling, it seems that he had not formed a definite opinion on the matter. Rebbi Yose was one of the last students of Rebbi Abahu; the discussion quoted in the preceding paragraph could not have taken place if a ruling was issued by Rebbi Abbahu.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 3:1:21
[Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 3:1:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Berakhot/r/3:1:21)

אָמַר רִבִּי יַנּאַי מִטָּמֵא כֹהֵן לִרְאוֹת אֶת הַמֶּלֶךְ. כַּד סְלִיק דִּוֹקְלֵטִיַינוֹס מַלְכָּא לְהָכָא חָמוּן לְרִבִּי חִיָיא בַּר אַבָּא מִיפְסַע עַל קִיבְרֵיהּ דְּצוֹר בְּגִין מֵיחְמָינֵיהּ. רִבִּי חִזְקִיָּה וְרִבִּי יִרְמְיָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִצְוָה לִרְאוֹת גְּדוֹלֵי מַלְכוּת לִכְשֶׁתָּבוֹא מַלְכוּת בֵּית דָּוִד יְהֵא יוֹדֵעַ לְהַפְרִישׁ בֵּין מַלְכוּת לְמַלְכוּת.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Yannai said: A Cohen defiles himself in order to see the king. When king Diocletian visited here, Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba was seen stepping over graves at Tyre in order to see him⁹⁴ 19b), the ruling (and the statement of Rebbi Joḥanan) is not by an early Amora but by a very early Tanna, Rebbi Eleazar bar Ẓadoq, a Cohen who mentions having seen the late Herodian rulers before the destruction of the Temple.
It was reported before that Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba was a Cohen. We also saw before that the Yerushalmi does not seem to exclude Gentile graves from the defilement of a “tent”; hence, it is not proven that Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba stepped over Jewish graves at Tyre. (The Babli, *loc. cit.*, notes that a Cohen is prohibited by Biblical commandment from stepping over a grave only if there is less than a hand-breadth of space between the corpse and the upper cover of the coffin, as explained in Mishnah *Ahilot* VII; in most cases stepping over a grave is only a rabbinical prohibition which may be lifted in special circumstances.). Rebbi Ḥizqiah and Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: There is an obligation to see great persons of government, so that when the kingdom of the dynasty of David will return one will know how to distinguish one government from the other.

footnotes:
⁹⁴ Since Diocletian changed the constitution of the Roman empire from a formally republican one to an absolute monarchy, it is not totally clear whether a Cohen may defile himself only for a ruler who also carries the formal title of “king” or whether he should be a ruler who has power over life and death. Since the rule appears here in the name of Rebbi Yannai who lived under the principate, the second alternative is the more likely one. In the Babli (Berakhot


###### Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 3:1:22
[Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 3:1:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Berakhot/r/3:1:22)

מַהוּ שֶׁיִּטָּמֵא כֹּהֵן לִכְבוֹד הַנָּשִׂיא. כַּד דָּמָךְ רִבִּי יוּדָן נְשִׂיאָה אַכְרִיז רִבִּי יַנַּאי וָמַר אֵין כְּהוּנָּה הַיּוֹם. כַּד דָּמָךְ רִבִּי יוּדָה נְשִׂיאָה בַּר בְּרֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוּדָה נְשִׂיאָה דָּחַף רִבִּי חִיָיא בַּר אַבָּא לְרִבִּי זְעִירָא בִכְנִישְׁתָּא דְגוּפְנָה דְצִיפּוֹרִין וּסְאָבֵיהּ. כַּד דָּמְכַת נְהוֹרַאי אַחְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי יְהוּדָה נְשִׂיאָה שָׁלַח רִבִּי חֲנִינָה בָּתַר רִבִּי מָנָא וְלָא סְלִיק. אָמַר לֵיהּ אִם בְּחַיֵּיהֶן אֵין מִטַּמְּאִין לָהֶן כָּל שֶׁכֵּן בְּמִיתָתָן. אָמַר רִבִּי נַסָּא בְּמִיתָתָן עָשׂוּ אוֹתָן כְּמֵת מִצְוָה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
When Rebbi Judah the Prince⁹⁵ died, Rebbi Yannai proclaimed and said: “There is no priesthood today⁹⁶.” When Rebbi Judah the Prince, grandson of Rebbi Judah the Prince, died, Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba did push Rebbi Zeïra⁹⁷ in the Gufna synagogue of Sepphoris and defiled him. When Nahoraï⁹⁸, the sister of Rebbi Judah the prince, died, Rebbi Ḥanina⁹⁹ sent for Rebbi Mana but the latter did not come. He said to him, if one does not defile himself for them during their lifetime, so much less in their death. Rebbi Nassa¹⁰⁰.) said, in their death they made them like a corpse of obligation¹⁰¹ defile himself for a corpse of obligation.
It is not too clear who is meant. We may assume that Maimonides writes from tradition when he formulates (*Hilkhot Evel*, 3:10) ’’When a patriarch dies, everybody defiles himself for him, including Cohanim; they made him like a corpse of obligation for everybody because everybody is required to honor him and everybody is stunned by his death.” *Hagahot Maimuniot* (*ad loc.*) note that the sentence “they made him like a corpse of obligation” is the statement of Rebbi Nassa. The discussion goes as follows:
The sister of the patriarch Judah II died after him. Rebbi Ḥanina demanded that Rebbi Mana, a Cohen, should defile himself for her. Rebbi Mana retorted that, since he would not defile himself for her during the patriarch’s lifetime, when it would have constituted an honor for the patriarch, he might not do so after the patriarch’s death. Rebbi Nassa, in support of Rebbi Mana, explains that the defilement of Cohanim for the patriarch is because he is considered an obligation for all of Israel..

footnotes:
⁹⁵ Rebbi, the son of Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel and editor of the Mishnah.
⁹⁶ All priests are obliged to come to the eulogy and funeral.
⁹⁷ Who also was a Cohen and did not want to defile himself. While the Prince Judah I was not only patriarch but also recognized as the greatest rabbinic authority of his day, Judah II was patriarch and a competent but not outstanding scholar. Rebbi Zeïra apparently felt that his scholarship did not merit that a Cohen should defile himself, whereas Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, who like Rebbi Zeïra was a greater scholar than Judah II, insisted that the office of patriarch alone deserved this recognition.
⁹⁸ Nahoraï is really a man’s name. In the parallel in Nazir she is called Yehudinaï, which seems to be the better tradition. She was the sister of Judah II.
⁹⁹ Rebbi Ḥananiah from Sepphoris, a colleague of Rebbi Mana; see Chap. 2, Note 97.
¹⁰⁰ A student of Rebbi Eleazar and others; a resident of Caesarea whose name is prominent in the part of the Yerushalmi that was edited in Caesarea (Neziqin
¹⁰¹ A corpse of obligation is the body of a Jew who is not the known relative of anybody nearby and, therefore, has nobody who could organize his funeral. In such a situation, the first person who finds him must care for him; even the High Priest, who does not defile himself even for father and mother, must


###### Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 3:1:23
[Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 3:1:23](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Berakhot/r/3:1:23)

מַהוּ שֶׁיִּטָּמֵא כֹהֵן לִכְבוֹד אָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ. רִבִּי יָסָא שָׁמַע דְּאָתַת אִימֵּיהּ לְבוֹצְרָה. אָתָא שָׁאַל לְרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן מַהוּ לָצֵאת. אָמַר לֵיהּ אִי מִפְּנֵי סַכָּנַת דְּרָכִים צֵא. אִי מִשּׁוּם כְּבוֹד אָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ. אָמַר רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר רַב יִצְחָק עוֹד הִיא צְרִיכָה. אַטְרַח רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן עֲלוֹי וָמַר אִם גָּמַרְתָּ לָצֵאת תָּבֹא בְשָׁלוֹם. שָׁמַע רִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר וָמַר אֵין רְשׁוּת גְּדוֹלָה מִזּוֹ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
May a Cohen defile himself in honor of his father and mother¹⁰²? Rebbi Yasa heard that his mother had come to Bostra¹⁰³ 31b) is much more explicit, stating that Rebbi Assi’s (Yasa’s) mother was mentally disturbed and that it turned out that her coffin arrived at Bostra.. He went and asked Rebbi Yoḥanan, may I leave? He said to him, if it is because of danger on the road¹⁰⁴, leave. If it is in order to honor father and mother, I do not know. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said, Rebbi Yoḥanan still needs to answer. He importuned him¹⁰⁵, so he said: If you decided to go, return in peace¹⁰⁶. Rebbi Eleazar heard this and said: there is no greater permission than that.

footnotes:
¹⁰² As the sequel shows, the only question is whether a Cohen may leave the Holy Land doing something in honor of father or mother. The Biblical prohibitions cannot be violated for the honor of father and mother.
¹⁰³ This city is South of the Hauran mountains, not far from Edreï, on the caravan route to Babylonia. It is not the Biblical Edomite Boṣra. The parallel in the Babli (Qiddushin
¹⁰⁴ To accompany his mother because of the dangers of the road is clearly allowed since it is a matter of life and death.
¹⁰⁵ Rebbi Yasa did not accept Rebbi Joḥanan’s answer as final, insisting to have a definite yes or no.
¹⁰⁶ Rebbi Joḥanan would not order any Cohen to leave the Holy Land in order to meet father or mother but neither would he hinder any one who very much wanted to go.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 3:1:24
[Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 3:1:24](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Berakhot/r/3:1:24)

מַהוּ שֶׁיִּטָּמֵא כֹהֵן לִכְבוֹד הָרַבִּים. תַּנִּי הָיוּ שָׁם שְׁתֵּי דְרָכִים מַתְאִימוֹת אַחַת רְחוֹקָה וּטְהוֹרָה וְאַחַת קְרוֹבָה וּטְמֵאָה. אִם הָיוּ הָרַבִּים הוֹלְכִין בָּרְחוֹקָה הוֹלֵךְ בָּרְחוֹקָה אִם לָאו הוֹלֵךְ בַּקְּרוֹבָה מִפְּנֵי כְבוֹד הָרַבִּים. עַד כְּדוֹן בְּטוּמְאָה שֶׁל דִּבְרֵיהֶם אֲפִילוּ טוּמְאָה שֶׁהִיא מִדִּבְרֵי תוֹרָה. מִן מַה דָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא גָּדוֹל הוּא כְבוֹד הָרַבִּים שֶׁהוּא דוֹחֶה מִצְוָה בְלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה שָׁעָה אַחַת. אָדָא אָמְרָה אֲפִילוּ בְּטוּמְאָה שֶׁהִיא מִדְּבַר תוֹרָה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
May a Cohen defile himself in honor of the public? It is stated: When there are two acceptable roads, one long and pure, the other one short and impure: If the public was walking¹⁰⁷ is from *Semaḥot* 4:14. Since the following *baraita* 15 speaks about digging the grave, the text here speaks of the procession preceding the actual burial. A similar but different *baraita* in the Babli (*Berakhot* 19b) deals with people returning after the burial. on the long one, he goes on the long one; otherwise, he goes on the short one in honor of the public. That refers to impurity by their words¹⁰⁸; also for impurity that is from the words of the Torah? From what Rebbi Zeïra said, so great is the honor of the public that it temporarily pushes aside a prohibition¹⁰⁹ 9:2 that if somebody notices that his clothing is forbidden as *shaätnez*, he may keep his clothes on until he gets home and does not have to stand naked or in his underwear in public., that means even impurity that is from the words of the Torah¹¹⁰.

footnotes:
¹⁰⁷ In a funeral procession. The baraita
¹⁰⁸ If the impurity is not certain but only possible, the prohibition of passage for the Cohen is only rabbinical, not biblical.
¹⁰⁹ It is explained in Kilaim
¹¹⁰ The Babli comes to the opposite conclusion but, as noted before, it deals with people returning from the funeral, not a funeral procession as here.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 3:1:25
[Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 3:1:25](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Berakhot/r/3:1:25)

רִבִּי יוֹנָה רִבִּי יוֹסֵי גְלִילִיָּא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יָסָא בָּר חֲנִינָא אֵין שׁוֹאֲלִין הֲלָכָה לִפְנֵי מִיטָּתוֹ שֶׁל מֵת. וְהָא רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן שָׁאַל לְרִבִּי יַנַּאי קוֹמֵי עַרְסֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹצָדָק הִקְדִּישׁ עוֹלָתוֹ לְבֶדֶק הַבַּיִת וַהֲוָּה מְגִיב לֵיהּ. נֵימַר כַּד הֲוָה רָחִיק אוֹ כַד הֲווּן מַסְקִין לֵיהּ לְסִדְרָה. וְהָא רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה שָׁאַל לְרִבִּי זְעִירָא קוֹמֵי עַרְסֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר רַב יִצְחָק. נֵימַר כַּד הֲוָה רָחִיק הֲוָה מְגִיב לֵיהּ. כַּד הֲוָה קָרִיב לָא הֲוָה מְגִיב לֵיהּ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Yose the Galilean¹¹¹, Rebbi Yasa bar Ḥanina: One does not ask rulings on practice before the bier of a deceased¹¹² 3b) it is stated more generally, in the name of R. Joshua ben Levi, that words of Torah are forbidden in presence of a coffin. According to Rashi, the reason is (*Prov.* 17:5): “He who scoffs at the poor blasphemes his Maker.” Since the dead person can no longer study Torah, he is poor in this respect.. But Rebbi Yoḥanan asked Rebbi Yannai before the bier of Rebbi Simeon ben Yoẓadaq¹¹³ about him who dedicated his holocaust sacrifice for the upkeep of the Temple, and he answered him¹¹⁴ 32a) states that a forbidden substitution is valid only from lesser to higher sanctity. The highest sanctity of a sacrifice is the עוֹלָה, the holocaust, which is totally burnt on the altar, whereas gifts for the upkeep of the Temple are only a monetary obligation. So it should be impossible to dedicate an *‘olah* for the upkeep of the Temple. However, a *baraita* (Babli *Temurah* 32b) states that a holocaust which afterwards was dedicated for the upkeep of the Temple cannot be slaughtered unless redeemed first and the money given to the Temple. The answer given there (presumably by Rebbi Yannai) is that the obligation of redemption is purely rabbinical, a kind of fine, but that from the Torah the second dedication is invalid.! Let us say when he was far away¹¹⁵ or when they were bringing him to the study hall¹¹⁶. But Rebbi Jeremiah asked Rebbi Zeïra before the bier of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac! Let us say that he answered him when he was far away; when he was close he did not answer him.

footnotes:
¹¹¹ A Galilean Amora of the third generation, teacher of Rebbi Jonah.
¹¹² In the Babli (Berakhot
¹¹³ This is the correct reading of the Rome ms. R. Simeon bar Yoẓadaq was an Amora of the first generation, one of the teachers of Rebbi Yoḥanan. The Leyden ms. has שמואל בר יוצדק by a scribal error.
¹¹⁴ The Mishnah (Temurah
¹¹⁵ So that the deceased could not have heard them even were he still alive.
¹¹⁶ Most commentators explain that Rebbis Yoḥanan and Yannai were outside the Bet-Hamidrash. However, that would be the same as “being far away”. Therefore, it seems that the correct interpretation is given by R. Zacariah Frankel, that a eulogy of a Torah teacher in his own school by necessity must involve words of Torah.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 3:1:26
[Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 3:1:26](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Berakhot/r/3:1:26)

תַּנִּי הַכַּתָּפִים אֲסוּרִין בִּנְעִילַת הַסַּנְדָּל שֶׁמָּא יִפְסוֹק סַנְדָּלוֹ שֶׁל אֶחָד מֵהֶן וְנִמְצָא מִתְעַכֵּב מִן הַמִּצְוָה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
It is stated: The carriers¹¹⁷ may not wear sandals¹¹⁸ on *Shulḥan Arukh Yore Dea* 358:3, this applies only to professional carriers, or members of a society that monopolizes the *mitzvah* of carrying the bier, who will have to walk barefooted. However, it seems that shoes without laces would be permitted by the Yerushalmi. lest a shoelace of one of them break so he would be eliminated from the good deed.

footnotes:
¹¹⁷ The carriers of the bier in the funeral procession, members of the “holy society”.
¹¹⁸ According to Ṭure Zahav


###### Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 3:1:27
[Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 3:1:27](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Berakhot/r/3:1:27)

רִבִּי זְעִירָא שְׁרָע בְּדִיבּוּרָא אָתוּן בְעַיָין מִיזְקְפָנֵיהּ וְאַשְׁכְּחוּנֵיהּ אִיעָנֵי. אָמְרוּ לֵיהּ מַהוּ כֵן אָמַר לוֹן לָכֵן דְּאָתִינָן עַל שֵׁם וְהַחַי יִתֵּן אֶל לִבּוֹ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Zeïra bent down¹¹⁹ during a eulogy. They wanted to straighten him up and found that he tarried¹²⁰. They said to him, what is this? He said to them, because we will go there, following (*Eccl.* 7:2): “Let the one who is alive take it to heart.”

footnotes:
¹¹⁹ Most commentators explain that Rebbi Zeïra fell down. But the parallels quoted in Levy’s dictionary show that Aramaic שרע is the parallel of biblical Hebrew סרח, “overhanging”. The speaker was leaning down over the railing of his pulpit.
¹²⁰ The Aramaic עני may mean 1) to become poor, 2) to take one’s time, tarry, 3) to empty oneself. In Yerushalmi sources, the form איעני is found only in meaning 2). The verse quoted reads in full: “It is better to go to a house of mourning than to go to a wedding. Since that is the end of all humanity, let the one who is alive take it to heart.”


###### Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 3:2:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 3:2:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Berakhot/r/3:2:1)

**משנה:** קָבְרוּ אֶת הַמֵּת וְחָזְרוּ אִם יְכוֹלִין לְהַתְחִיל וְלִגְמוֹר עַד שֶׁלֹּא יַגִּיעוּ לְשׁוּרָה יַתְחִילוּ וְאִם לָאו לֹא יַתְחִילוּ. הָעוֹמְדִין בְּשׁוּרָה הַפְּנִימִיִּין פְּטוּרִין וְהַחִיצוֹנִין חַיָיבִין.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** When they buried the deceased and returned, if they are able to start and finish before they form the row¹²¹ would pass. The words “start” and “finish” refer to the recitation of *Shema‘*. they should start, otherwise they should not start. Those who stand in the row, the innermost are exempt¹²² and the outer ones are obliged.

footnotes:
¹²¹ Before the mourners leave for their home, the other participants of the funeral form two lines and the mourners pass in the row between them. While they pass, words of consolation are spoken to them. Today, that ceremony is performed in the cemetary so that the Mishnah becomes void. In talmudic times, the burial was in the cemetary far from the city, but the ceremony of the row took place at the entrance to the city. There may be a long enough walk from cemetary to town that the prescribed time for Shema‘
¹²² Since the mourners can see and hear them, they are doing a good deed and cannot be distracted by other obligations. The “outer ones” are those who cannot be seen by the mourners.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 3:2:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 3:2:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Berakhot/r/3:2:2)

**הלכה:** תַּנִּי אֵין מוֹצִיאִין אֶת הַמֵּת סָמוּךְ לְקִרְיַת שְׁמַע אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן הִקְדִּימוּ שָׁעָה אַחַת. אוֹ אִם אִיחֲרוּ שָׁעָה אַחַת כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּקְרְאוּ וְיִתְפַּלְלוּ. וְהָא תַנִּינָן קָבְרוּ אֶת הַמֵּת וְחָזְרוּ. תִּיפְתָּר בְּאִילֵּין דַּהֲווּן סָבְרִין דְּאִית בֵּיהּ עֹנָה וְלֵית בֵּיהּ עֹנָה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** ¹²³ 2:2 (fol. 20a). It is stated: “One does not take the dead for burial close to the recitation of the *Shema‘* unless one does it one hour in advance or one hour afterwards, so that they may recite and pray.” But did we not formulate: “When they buried the deceased and returned”¹²⁴ is correct?? Explain it for those who thought that they have a free period¹²⁵ 19a), it is stated flatly that the restriction of the *baraita* does not apply to funerals of important persons. In the opinion of the Babli, the situation envisaged by the Mishnah can apply to previously planned funerals. but they did not have a free period.

footnotes:
¹²³ The entire discussion of this Mishnah is repeated word by word in Yerushalmi Sanhedrin
¹²⁴ How can the situation dealt with in the Mishnah ever arise if the baraita
¹²⁵ In the absence of reliable clocks. In the parallel in the Babli (Berakhot


###### Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 3:2:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 3:2:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Berakhot/r/3:2:3)

תַּנִּי [הַמְּהַסְפֵּד] וְכָל הָעוֹסְקִין בָּהֶסְפֵּד מַפְסִיקִין לְקִרְיַת שְׁמַע וְאֵין מַפְסִיקִין לִתְפִילָּה. מַעְשֵׂה הָיָה וְהִפְסִיקוּ רִבּוֹתֵינוּ לְקִרְיַת שְׁמַע וְלִתְפִילָּה. וְהָא תַנִּינָן אִם יְכוֹלִין לְהַתְחִיל וְלִגְמוֹר. מַתְנִיתָא בְּיוֹם הָרִאשׁוֹן. וּמַה דְתַנִּי תַּנָּא בְּיוֹם הַשֵּׁנִי.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
It is stated¹²⁶ 2:11. This Tosephta comes after the one dealing with the funeral (which will be quoted later in this Halakhah.) Hence, it clearly deals with a eulogy *after* the funeral. The text of the Tosephta follows that of the Genizah fragments; it is slightly corrupted in the Venice (and Leyden) texts that have ההספד instead of the unusual המהספד (the corresponding word in the Babli would be המספיד.) [A seemingly similar *baraita* in the Babli, *Berakhot* 19a, deals with a eulogy before burial and has nothing in common with the text given here.]: The eulogizer and all who participate in a eulogy interrupt for the recitation of *Shema‘* and do not interrupt for prayer. It happened that our teachers interrupted for the recitation of *Shema‘* and prayer. Did we not formulate: “If they are able to start and finish”? Our Mishnah speaks of the first day, what is stated for the second day.

footnotes:
¹²⁶ Tosephta Berakhot


###### Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 3:2:4
[Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 3:2:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Berakhot/r/3:2:4)

אָמַר רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר אֶבְדּוּמָא זֶה שֶׁהוּא נִכְנַס לְבֵית הַכְּנֶסֶת וּמָצְאָן עוֹמְדִין וּמִתְפַּלְלִין. אִם יוֹדֵעַ הוּא מַתְחִיל וְגוֹמֵר עַד שֶׁלֹּא יַתְחִיל שְׁלִיחַ צִיבּוּר כְּדֵי לַעֲנוֹת אַחֲרָיו אָמֵן יִתְפַּלֵּל וְאִם לָאו אַל יִתְפַּלֵּל. בְּאֵי זֶה אָמֵן אָמְרוּ תְּרֵין אֲמוֹרָאִין חַד אָמַר בְּאָמֵן שֶׁל הָאֵל הַקָּדוֹשׁ. וְחַד אָמַר בְּאָמֵן שֶׁל שׁוֹמֵעַ תְּפִילָּה. אָמַר רִבִּי פִּינְחָס וְלֹא פְלִיגֵי. מַאן דָּמַר בְּאָמֵן שֶׁל הָאֵל הַקָּדוֹשׁ בְּשַׁבָּת. וּמַאן דָּמַר בְּשׁוֹמֵעַ תְּפִילָּה בְּחוֹל.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Samuel ben Eudaimon¹²⁷ said: He who enters the synagogue and finds them standing and praying¹²⁸, if he knows that he could start and finish before the reader starts, so that he may answer “Amen”, he may pray, otherwise he should not pray. About which “Amen” did they talk? Two Amoraïm, one says the Amen of “the holy King”¹²⁹ was recited only on special days; it probably was not recited in the Sabbath afternoon prayers and, hence, it is not mentioned that one should be able to respond to *Qedushah*. and the other says the Amen of “He Who listens to prayer”. Rebbi Phineas said, they do not disagree. He who said: the Amen of “the holy King”, on the Sabbath, and he who said: the Amen of “He Who listens to prayer” on weekdays.

footnotes:
¹²⁷ An Amora of the fifth Galilean generation, student of Rebbi Mana. The paragraph added deals with the problem of whether to start or not; it is a kind of appendix to the first two paragraphs. After that digression, one will return to the discussion of the Mishnah.
¹²⁸ The Amidah prayer.
¹²⁹ The third benediction of the Amidah. “He Who hears prayer” is the last of the middle benedictions of weekday prayers (15th in Israel, 16th in Babylonia). The statement refers to the old Galilean usage that Qedushah


###### Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 3:2:5
[Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 3:2:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Berakhot/r/3:2:5)

תַּנִּי רִבִּי יוּדָה אוֹמֵר הָיוּ כוּלָּם שׁוּרָה אַחַת הָעוֹמְדִין מִשּׁוּם כָּבוֹד חַיָיבִין. מִשּׁוּם אֵבֶל פְּטוּרִין. יָרְדוּ לְסֶפֶד הָרוֹאִים פְּנִים פְּטוּרִין. וּשְׁאֵינָן רוֹאִין פְּנִים חַיָיבִין. הֲוֵי הֲדָא דְתַנִּינָן הָעוֹמְדִין בַּשּׁוּרָה הַפְּנִימִיִּים פְּטוּרִין וְהַחִיצוֹנִים חַיָיבִין מִשְׁנָה אַחֲרוֹנָה. הֲדָא דְתַנִּי הָעוֹמְדִין מִשּׁוּם כָּבוֹד חַיָיבִין. מִשּׁוּם אֵבֶל פְּטוּרִין מִשְׁנָה רִאשׁוֹנָה. וְהַיי דְתַנִּינָן תַּמָּן וּכְשֶׁהוּא מְנַחֵם אֶת אֲחֵרִים דֶּרֶךְ כָּל הָעָם עוֹבְרִין זֶה אַחַר זֶה. וְהַמְמוּנֶּה מְמַצְּעוֹ בֵּינוֹ לְבֵין הָעָם מִשְׁנָה אַחֲרוֹנָה. ס״א ראשונה. אָמַר רִבִּי חֲנִינָא בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה הָיוּ מִשְׁפָּחוֹת עוֹמְדוֹת וַאֲבֵלִים עוֹבְרִין. מִשֶּׁרָבַת תַּחֲרוּת בְּצִיפּוֹרִין הִתְקִין רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן חֲלַפְתָּא שֶׁיְּהוּ הַמִּשְׁפָּחוֹת עוֹבְרוֹת וְהָאֲבֵלִים עוֹמְדִין. אָמַר רִבִּי [שְׁמוּאֵל תּוֹסֶפְתָּה] חָזְרוּ הַדְּבָרִים לְיוֹשְׁנָן.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
It is stated (*Tosephta Berakhot* 2:11): “Rebbi Judah says, if they all are standing in one row, those who are standing because of honor are obliged, those because of mourning are exempt¹³⁰ 19b), Rashi reads: “those who come because of themselves”, not “because of honor”, but most manuscripts and old authors have “because of honor”. Also, in the Babli only the second part of the Tosephta is attributed to Rebbi Yehudah. According to Rashi, only those are obliged to read the *Shema‘* who come out of curiosity whereas according to most others those who come to honor the dead and his family but do not actively console are not exempt. The Babylonian Talmud makes no comment; we have to assume that it accepts the position of R. Samuel Tosephta.. When they descend for a eulogy, those who see inside are exempt, those who do not see inside are obliged¹³¹ for themselves without offending anybody..” It would be that what we stated: “Those who stand in the row, the innermost are exempt and the outer ones are obliged” is the last teaching¹³², and what is stated: “Those who are standing because of honor are obliged, those because of mourning are exempt”, is the first teaching¹³³. And what we have stated there (Mishnah *Sanhedrin* 2:2): “When he¹³⁴19a, where it is noted that also under that system people quarrelled in Jerusalem. Here the copyist (or the editor) seems to have doubts whether to go with the definition of “first” and “last” as above or to call “first” the first practice reported by Rebbi Ḥanina and “last” the second one. Hence, there are two opinions about the attribution but the meaning is clear. If the uncertainty is the editor’s, then the note “Another opinion: the first” belongs to the text. If it is the scribe’s or some reader’s, then it is a gloss that has entered the text from the margin. For consistency, the hypothesis of a gloss is preferable. consoles others, all the people stand one behind the other and the executive officer becomes a partition between himself and the people”, the last teaching. (Another opinion: the first.) Rebbi Ḥanina said: Originally, all families were standing still and the mourners passed between them. When competition increased in Sepphoris, Rebbi Yose ben Ḥalaphta decreed that the families should pass by and the mourners stand still. Rebbi Samuel Tosephta¹³⁵ 2:2 (fol. 20a) “Rebbi Samuel of Sofephta”. Tosephta might be the region of Northern Armenia, called Thospitis by Ptolemy, which was the birthplace of Rabba Tosphaä, one of the later heads of the Academy of Sura in Babylonia. said: Matters returned to their original state.

footnotes:
¹³⁰ In the text of the Babli (Berakhot
¹³¹ Since they cannot be seen by the mourners, the may recite the Shema‘
¹³² The question is, what is the last teaching? We are informed that the original custom was that the mourners walk between two rows of participants who greet them with words of consolation. When competition grew in Sepphoris, it seems because people were jostling for the best positions (those who did not make it to the front rows could not be seen or heard by the mourners), Rebbi Yose decreed that the mourners should stay put and all others march by them to greet and console them. This is the case dealt with by Rebbi Judah, that there is only one row (moving, not standing). An otherwise unknown Rebbi Samuel declares that the innovation of Rebbi Jose did not stand the test of time and in his time the consolers stand and the mourners move. Rebbi Samuel’s opinion is the “last teaching”, Rebbi Yose’s “the first teaching”. In the first teaching, there are no people in outer rows, so the Mishnah automatically has to apply to the last teaching.
¹³³ Since the entire Tosephta is Rebbi Judah’s, it speaks of the case where there is only one row. (This argument is not applicable to the text quoted in the Babli.)
¹³⁴ The High Priest. When he goes out, he is accompanied by his executive officer; when he consoles mourners the executive goes first, the High Priest second, and everybody else in one orderly row after him. This is possible only in the scenario envisaged by Rebbi Yose; it is shown that the practice instituted by Rebbi Yose at Sepphoris (in the second half of the second century C. E.) is in effect an old Jerusalem practice from the time before the destruction of the Temple, as stated explicitly in Babli Sanhedrin
¹³⁵ In the Venice text, “Rebbi Simeon of the Tosephta”. The name given in the text is from the Geniza fragments (Rebbi Samuel Tosephta) and similar to the parallel in Yerushalmi Sanhedrin


###### Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 3:3:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 3:3:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Berakhot/r/3:3:1)

**משנה:** נָשִׁים וַעֲבָדִים וּקְטַנִּים פְּטוּרִין מִקִּרְיַת שְׁמַע וּמִן הַתְּפִילִּין וְחַיָיבִין בִּתְפִילָּה וּבִמְזוּזָה וּבְבִרְכַּת הַמָּזוֹן.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** Women, slaves, and minors are exempt from reciting the *Shema‘* and from phylacteries but are obliged for prayer, *mezuzah*,¹³⁶ are based on verses in *Shema‘*, their status is different. and Grace for food.

footnotes:
¹³⁶ While both phylacteries and mezuzot


###### Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 3:3:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 3:3:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Berakhot/r/3:3:2)

**הלכה:** נָשִׁים מְנַיִין וְלִמַּדְתֶּם אוֹתָם אֶת בְּנֵיכֶם. אֶת בְּנֵיכֶם וְלֹא אֶת בְּנוֹתֵיכֶם.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** Women from where? (*Deut.* 11:19) “You must teach them to your sons.” To your sons but not to your daughters¹³⁷, the same is valid for reciting the *Shema‘*. It is general practice that women *may* recite *Shema‘*; it follows that in the opinion of the Yerushalmi, women may study any subjects of Torah they wish. [The Babli, *Berakhot* 20b, simply notes that *Shema‘* is an obligation to be executed at stated times, of which women and slaves are automatically exempted. Since the Yerushalmi brings this argument in relation to other things later in this section, it follows that for it the recital of *Shema‘* is simply an aspect of Torah study and Torah study is required “day and night”, not depending on any particular time.].

footnotes:
¹³⁷ The father is unconditionally obliged to teach his sons Torah; since this is an integral part of Shema‘


###### Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 3:3:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 3:3:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Berakhot/r/3:3:3)

עֲבָדִים מְנַיִין שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר שְׁמַע יִשְׂרָאֵל יי אֱלֹהֵינוּ יי אֶחָד. אֶת שֶׁאֵין לוֹ אָדוֹן אֶלָּא הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא יָצָא הָעֶבֶד שֶׁיֵּשּׁ לוֹ אָדוֹן אַחֵר.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Slaves from where? (*Deut.* 6:4): “Hear, o Israel, the Eternal, our Power, the Eternal is unique.” He who has only one Lord, this excludes the slave who has another lord¹³⁸ as an obligation to be performed at stated times; therefore, a separate argument is necessary to free from the obligation slaves who accepted Judaism..

footnotes:
¹³⁸ As explained in the preceding paragraph, the Yerushalmi does not refer to the obligation of reciting Shema‘


###### Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 3:3:4
[Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 3:3:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Berakhot/r/3:3:4)

קְטַנִּים מְנַיִין לְמַעַן תִּהְיֶה תּוֹרַת יי בְּפִיךָ בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁהוּא תָדִיר בָּהּ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Minors from where? (*Ex.* 13:9) “So that the Torah of the Eternal should stay in your mouth”, at a time when he is permanent in it¹³⁹. 2) The verse deals only with *tefillin*.
In the Yerushalmi tradition, the statement and the tradition are not unquestioned. Both *Mekhiltot* (*Mekhilta dR. Ismael*, ed. Horovitz-Rabin, p. 68; *Mekhilta dR. Simeon bar Ioḥai*, p.41), the Tannaïtic commentaries to Exodus, give the same commentary on the next verse (*Ex.* 13:10): “You must preserve this decree in its time, from year to year”. “Why has this been said? Because it has been said (v.9): ‘It shall be for you a sign on your hand’, I might understand this to include minors. And it is logical, since *mezuzah* is a positive commandment and *tefillin* are a positive commandment; if you find that *mezuzah* applies to minors the same way it applies to adults you might think that *tefillin* apply to minors the same way they apply to adults, but the verse says ‘you must preserve this decree’, I spoke only about those able to watch over their *tefillin*; from here they said: If a minor knows how to watch his *tefillin*, his father makes him *tefillin*.”
The argument presupposes the statement that minors are obliged to have *mezuzot* on their doors (meaning that if they live alone, the rabbinic authorities have to see to it that they have *mezuzot* on their doors). *Mezuzah* and *tefillin* are always mentioned together in the first two paragraphs of *Shema‘*. Hence, one may assume that they are identical in those details that are not spelled out. Both Yerushalmi and Mekhiltot agree that some explanation is needed to distinguish between the rules for *mezuzah* and those for *tefillin*. However, the Mekhiltot extend the obligation of *tefillin* to all school children whereas the Yerushalmi restricts it to those for whom the study of Torah is a permanent obligation, i. e., from Bar-Miẓwah onwards. In itself the argument about minors is totally irrelevant; it is needed to exclude the opinion of the Mekhiltot..

footnotes:
¹³⁹ This paragraph is exceedingly difficult for two reasons. 1) It is a generally accepted principle that minors are not obliged to do anything; it is their parents who are obliged to teach them and see to it that they perform miẓwot


###### Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 3:3:5
[Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 3:3:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Berakhot/r/3:3:5)

וְחַיָיבִין בִתְפִילָּה כְּדֵי שֶׁיְּהֵא כָּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד מְבַקֵּשׁ רַחֲמִים עַל עַצְמוֹ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
They are obliged to pray so that everybody ask mercy for himself¹⁴⁰ 20b), the argument of the Yerushalmi is repeated but then it is stated that in Psalms (*Ps.* 55:18) three times daily are stated for prayer and if that were a general obligation, women would be automatically dispensed from it. Hence, it follows that the rabbinical obligation of prayer for women cannot mean for the Babli an obligation to pray at those stated times, which it could mean in the interpretation of the Yerushalmi. The opinion of the Babli is that of Maimonides, the possible one of the Yerushalmi that of Nachmanides..

footnotes:
¹⁴⁰ Here again, we have a divergence between Yerushalmi and Babli. The Yerushalmi states that prayer is an obligation not because it is a Biblical commandment but because the rabbis thought that everybody has to implore divine mercy for himself. In the Babli (Berakhot


###### Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 3:3:6
[Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 3:3:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Berakhot/r/3:3:6)

וּבַמְּזוּזָה דִּכְתִיב וּכְתַבְתָּם עַל מְזוּזוֹת בֵּיתֶךְ וּבִשְׁעָרֶיךָ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
And for *mezuzah*, as it is written (*Deut.* 6:9): “You shall write them on the doorpost of your house and your gates¹⁴¹.

footnotes:
¹⁴¹ This is an obligation of ownership, not of person.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 3:3:7
[Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 3:3:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Berakhot/r/3:3:7)

וּבִרְכַּת הַמָּזוֹן דִּכְתִיב וְאָכַלְתָּ וְשָׂבָעְתָּ וּבֵרַכְתָּ אֶת יי אֱלֹהֶיךָ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
And grace after meals, as it is written (*Deut.* 8:10): “You will eat and be satiated; then you must praise the Eternal, your God.¹⁴²), this remains questionable.”

footnotes:
¹⁴² According to the Yerushalmi, women and slaves are required to recite Grace from the Torah since everybody who eats must give praise. In the Babli (loc. cit.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 3:3:8
[Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 3:3:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Berakhot/r/3:3:8)

תַּמָּן תַּנִּינָן כָּל מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה שֶׁהַזְּמָן גְּרָמָהּ אֲנָשִׁים חַיָיבִין וְהַנָּשִׁים פְּטוּרוֹת. וְכָל מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה שֶׁלֹּא הַזְּמָן גְּרָמָהּ אֶחָד אֲנָשִׁים וְאֶחָד נָשִׁים חַיָיבִין. אֵי זֶהוּ מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה שֶׁהַזְּמָן גְּרָמָהּ כְּגוֹן סוּכָּה לוּלָב שׁוֹפָר וּתְפִילִּין. וְאֵי זוּ הִיא מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה שֶׁאֵין הַזְּמָן גְּרָמָהּ כְּגוֹן אֲבֵידָה וְשִׁילּוּחַ הַקַּן מַעֲקֶה וְצִיצִית. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן פּוֹטֵר אֶת הַנָּשִׁים מִמִּצְוַת צִיצִית שֶׁהוּא מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה שֶׁהַזְּמָן גְּרָמָהּ. שֶׁהֲרֵי כְסוּת לַיְלָה פָּטוּר מִן הַצִּיצִית. אָמַר רִבִּי לִיָיא טַעֲמוֹן דְּרַבָּנָן שֶׁכֵּן אִם הָיְתָה מְיוּחֶדֶת לוֹ לְיוֹם וּלְלַיְלָה שֶׁהִיא חַיֶיבֶת בְּצִיצִית.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
There (Mishnah *Qiddushin* 1:7) we have stated: “Every positive commandment that is activated by time, men are obliged by it but women are exempt. Every positive commandment that is not activated by time, both men and women are obliged by it.” (Tosephta *Qiddushin* 1:10): “What is a positive commandment that is activated by time? For example *sukkah*, *lulab*, *shofar*, and *tefillin*. What is a positive commandment that is not activated by time? For example lost articles¹⁴³ 22:1–3., sending away the nest¹⁴⁴ 22:6–7., railing¹⁴⁵ 22:8., and *ẓiẓit*¹⁴⁶ in the third section of *Shema‘* where it is stated that they must be seen, so garments, worn exclusively in the night when it is dark, do not need *ẓiẓit*. The Babli (*Qiddushin* 33b–34a; *Menaḥot* 43a) mentions neither *ẓiẓit* nor the opinion of Rebbi Simeon in its quotes from the Tosephta; it assumes the position of Rebbi Simeon to be generally accepted.. Rebbi Simeon exempts women from *ẓiẓit* because it is a positive commandment activated by time.” Because a nightgown is exempt from *ẓiẓit*. Rebbi Lia said: The reason of the rebbbis is that, if a garment is designated both for daytime and for night, it needs *ẓiẓit*.

footnotes:
¹⁴³ The obligation to return found articles and stray animals to their owners in Deut.
¹⁴⁴ The obligation to send away the mother if eggs or chicks are taken from a nest in Deut.
¹⁴⁵ The obligation to make a fence around a flat roof in Deut.
¹⁴⁶ The obligation to wear ẓiẓit


###### Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 3:3:9
[Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 3:3:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Berakhot/r/3:3:9)

תַּנִּי כָּל מִצְוֹת שֶׁאָדָם פָּטוּר אָדָם מוֹצִיא אֶת הָרַבִּים יְדֵי חוֹבָתָן חוּץ מִבִּרְכַּת הַמָּזוֹן. וְהָא דְתַנִּינָן כָּל שֶׁאֵינוֹ חַיָיב בַּדָּבָר אֵין מוֹצִיא אֶת הָרַבִּים יְדֵי חוֹבָתָן. הָא אִם הָיָה חַיָיב אֲפִילוּ אִם יָצָא מוֹצִיא. אָמַר רִבִּי לִיָיא שַׁנְיָיא הִיא בִּרְכַּת הַמָּזוֹן דִּכְתִיב בָּהּ וְאָכַלְתָּ וְשָׂבָעְתָּ וּבֵרַכְתָּ אֶת יי אֱלֹהֶיךָ. מִי שֶׁאָכַל הוּא יְבָרֵךְ. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי וְרִבִּי יוּדָה בֶּן פָּזִי הֲווּ [יָתְבִין וְאָמְרִין] לָא מִסְתַּבְּרָא בְקִרְיַת שְׁמַע שֶׁיְּהֵא כָל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד מְשַׁנֵּן בְּפִיו. לָא מִסְתַּבְּרָא בִתְפִילָּה שֶׁיְּהֵא כָל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד מְבַקֵּשׁ רַחֲמִים עַל עַצְמוֹ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
It is stated: “For every obligation that a man is free of, he may help the congregation to fulfill their obligation, except for Grace.” But have we not stated: “Anybody who is not obligated may not help the congregation to fulfill their obligation”? If he were obligated, he could help them to fulfill even if he himself already fulfilled it!¹⁴⁷ on Rosh Hashanah nevertheless may blow the *shofar* and recite the appropriate benediction for somebody who did not hear the blowing. The only exception mentioned is that of saying Grace. The second statement means, e. g., that a woman, not being obligated to hear the *shofar*, may not blow the *shofar* for a man who is obligated. Since everybody is obligated to say Grace after a meal, there seems to be no reason why Grace should be exempted in the first statement. Rebbi Lia said: There is a difference about Grace since it is written (*Deut.* 8:10): “You will eat and be satiated, then you must praise the Eternal, your God;” he who ate must give praise. Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Judah ben Pazi were sitting together and saying: It would be reasonable¹⁴⁸ and prayer. The argument for *Shema‘* rests on the expression (*Deut.* 6:7) ושננתם ל֩בניך “you should repeat it to your sons”; it implies a personal action and cannot be performed by listening to a reader. The discussion of prayer presupposes the Galilean practice that the reader recite the *Amidah* aloud, without silent prayer, and it is stated that everyone is required to say the prayer with the reader, not just to respond with “Amen”. In Babylonia the question did not arise since silent prayer was always required before the repetition by the reader. for reciting the *Shema‘* that every single person should repeat it aloud. It would be reasonable for prayer that every single person should pray for mercy by himself.

footnotes:
¹⁴⁷ “To be free” does not mean the same as “not being obligated” but rather “having already acquitted himself of the obligation.” The first statement means, e. g., that someone who already has heard the shofar
¹⁴⁸ The exemption mentioned for Grace should be extended to the recital of Shema‘


###### Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 3:3:10
[Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 3:3:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Berakhot/r/3:3:10)

מַה בֵּין סוּכָּה וּמַה בֵּין לוּלָב. סוּכָּה אֵינָהּ טְעוּנָה בְרָכָה אֶלָּא לֵילֵי יוֹם טוֹב הָרִאשׁוֹן בִּלְּבַד. לוּלָב טָעוּן בְּרָכָה כָּל שִׁבְעָה. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי וְרִבִּי אָחָא הֲווּ יָתְבִין אָמְרִין מַה בֵּין סוּכָּה וּמַה בֵּין לוּלָב. סוּכָּה נוֹהֶגֶת בַּלֵּילוֹת וּבְיָמִים. לוּלָב אֵינוֹ נוֹהֵג אֶלָּא בַיּוֹם. הָתִיב רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב דְּרוֹמַיָּא הֲרֵי תַלְמוּד תּוֹרָה נוֹהֵג בַּלֵּילוֹת כִבְיָמִים. מַיי כְדוֹן סוּכָּה אֵיפְשַׁר לָהּ לִיבָּטֵל. תַּלְמוּד תּוֹרָה אִיפְשַׁר לוֹ שֶׁלֹֹּא לִיבָּטֵל.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
What¹⁴⁹ and *lulab* were mentioned as examples of temporary obligations and 2) it was the subject of a discussion between Rebbi Yose (the Amora) and one of his colleagues. is the difference between *sukkah* and *lulab? Sukkah* does not need a benediction after the first night of the holiday, *lulab* needs a benediction all seven days¹⁵⁰ 6:9,10) discussed more in detail later (Halakhah 9:4, fol. 14a) and in Babli *Sukkah* 46a, where Rebbi states that one makes a benediction all seven days of Sukkoth and that Babylonian practice follows Rebbi. Galilean practice followed the rule that the benediction “Who commanded us to dwell in the *sukkah*” was recited only once during the entire holiday. About *lulab*, the Babli notes correctly that in the absence of a Temple, taking the *lulab* after the first day is a rabbinic ordinance, not a Torah commandment; hence, the obligation of the second day cannot be covered by the benediction of the first. It may be that this distinction caused Rebbi Yose to be dissatisfied with the first explanation.. Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Aḥa were sitting and saying, what is the difference between *sukkah* and *lulab? Sukkah* applies both nights and days, *lulab* applies only during daytime¹⁵¹ is one continuous obligation, *lulab* represents seven distinct periods of obligation of which each one merits a new benediction.. Rebbi Jacob the Southerner objected: But the study of Torah applies by night as by day? How is this? *Sukkah* will end; the study of Torah, it is impossible that it should ever end¹⁵² at least gets a new benediction every year..

footnotes:
¹⁴⁹ It seems that this paragraph is put here because 1) sukkah
¹⁵⁰ This is a shortened version of a Tosephta (Berakhot
¹⁵¹ While sukkah
¹⁵² It is unreasonable to say that a boy on becoming Bar Miẓwah should recite the benediction for the Torah once and not repeat it for his entire lifetime. Sukkah


###### Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 3:3:11
[Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 3:3:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Berakhot/r/3:3:11)

תַּנִּי אֲבָל אָמְרוּ אִשָּׁה מְבָרֶכֶת לְבַעֲלָהּ וְעֶבֶד מְבָרֵךְ לְרַבּוֹ וְקָטָן לְאָבִיו. לֹא כֵן אָמַר רִבִּי אָחָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר נְהוֹרָאִי כָּל שֶׁאָמְרוּ בְקָטָן כְּדֵי לְחַנְּכוֹ. תִּיפְתָּר בְּעוֹנֶה אַחֲרֵיהֶן (אמן). כְּיַי דְתַנִּינָן תַּמָּן מִי שֶׁהָיָה עֶבֶד אוֹ אִשָּׁה אוֹ קָטָן מַקְרִין אוֹתוֹ עוֹנֶה אַחֲרֵיהֶן מַה שֶׁהֵן אוֹמְרִין וּתְהֵא לוֹ מְאֵירָה. אֲבָל אָמְרוּ תָּבוֹא מְאֵירָה לְבֶן עֶשְׂרִים שֶׁצָּרִיךְ לְבֶן עֶשֶׂר.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
It is stated¹⁵³ 5:17, Babli *Berakhot* 20b, *Sukkah* 38a. The entire piece is found in *Sukkah* 3:11, *Rosh Hashanah* 3:9.: In truth, they said a woman may say Grace for her husband¹⁵⁴, a slave for his master, and a minor for his father. Did not Rebbi Aḥa say in the name of Rebbi Yose bar Nahoraï: All they said about a minor is for the latter’s education¹⁵⁵? Explain it that he recites after him¹⁵⁶, as we stated there¹⁵⁷: “He for whom a slave, a woman, or a minor were reading it, repeats after them what they are saying, and may it be a curse for him. In truth, they said there should be a curse on the man of twenty years who needs the child of ten.”

footnotes:
¹⁵³ Tosephta Berakhot
¹⁵⁴ He who does not know how to say Grace may listen to a companion recite Grace aloud. The Yerushalmi has no problem with women or slaves but for the Babli the question remains whether women may in fact recite Grace for males who have an obligation from the Torah, i. e., who actually ate their fill.
¹⁵⁵ The minor must be educated; there is an obligation on the father to teach him all religious obligations but the minor himself is not obligated and, by the previously mentioned principle, cannot perform any religious duty for others.
¹⁵⁶ The adult repeats word by word what the minor says, so the adult in fact has recited all benedictions.
¹⁵⁷ In some Tosephta collection no longer extant.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 3:4:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 3:4:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Berakhot/r/3:4:1)

**משנה:** בַּעַל קֶרִי מְהַרְהֵר בְּלִבּוֹ וְאֵינוֹ מְבָרֵךְ לֹא לְפָנֶיהָ וְלֹא לְאַחֲרֶיהָ וְעַל הַמָּזוֹן מְבָרֵךְ לְאַחֲרֶיהָ וְאֵינוֹ מְבָרֵךְ לְפָנֶיהָ. רִבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר מְבָרֵךְ לִפְנֵיהֶן וּלְאַחֲרֵיהֶן.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** He who had *qeri*¹⁵⁸ thinks but does not recite any benediction before or after¹⁵⁹.; on his food he recites the benedictions afterwards¹⁶⁰ but not before. Rebbi Yehudah says, he recites benedictions before and after.

footnotes:
¹⁵⁸ An emission of semen.
¹⁵⁹ The recitation of Shema‘
¹⁶⁰ Grace, which is an obligation from the Torah. He does not recite the rabbinic benedictions before the meal.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 3:4:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 3:4:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Berakhot/r/3:4:2)

**הלכה:** מַהוּ מְהַרהֵר בְּרָכוֹת.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** What does he think of? The benedictions¹⁶¹, which is an obligation from the Torah, he recites normally. But Rashi explains “he thinks the *Shema*‘ ”, and this also seems to be the opinion of Maimonides in his decision based on the Babli..

footnotes:
¹⁶¹ But the Shema‘


###### Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 3:4:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 3:4:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Berakhot/r/3:4:3)

מַתְנִיתָא בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁאֵין מַיִם וּכְרִבִּי מֵאִיר דְּתַנִּי בַּעַל קֶרִי שֶׁאֵין לוֹ מַיִם לִטְבּוֹל הֲרֵי זֶה קוֹרֵא אֶת שְׁמַע וְאֵינוֹ מַשְׁמִיעַ לְאָזְנוֹ וְאֵינוֹ מְבָרֵךְ לֹא לְפָנֶיהָ וְלֹא לְאַחֲרֶיהָ דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי מֵאִיר וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִין קוֹרֵא אֶת שְׁמַע וּמַשְׁמִיעַ לְאָזְנָיו וּמְבָרֵךְ לְפָנֶיהָ וּלְאַחֲרֶיהָ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
The Mishnah deals with a place where there is no water¹⁶² that even Rebbi Yehudah agrees that after an emission one may not recite unless he washed first. So this statement is agreed to by everybody in the Yerushalmi. and follows Rebbi Meïr, as it is stated (Tosephta *Berakhot* 2:13): “He who had *qeri* but no water to immerse himself reads the *Shema‘* but not so that he himself can hear it, but he does not recite any benediction before or after; these are the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, he reads so that he himself can hear it and recites benedictions before and after.¹⁶³ 22a) quotes a parallel but different *baraita* in which the position of “the Sages” is in the name of R. Yehudah.”

footnotes:
¹⁶² It will be confirmed in the next Halakhah
¹⁶³ The Babli (Berakhot


###### Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 3:4:4
[Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 3:4:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Berakhot/r/3:4:4)

תַּנִּי בַּעַל קֶרִי חוֹלֶה שֶׁנָּפְלוּ עָלָיו תִּשְׁעָת קַבִּין מַיִם וְטָהוֹר שֶׁנָּפְלוּ עַל רֹאשׁוֹ וְעַל רוּבּוֹ שְׁלֹשָׁה לוֹגִין מַיִם שְׁאוּבִים טִהֵר לְעַצְמוֹ אֲבָל אֵינוֹ מוֹצִיא אֶת הָרַבִּים יְדֵי חוֹבָתָן עַד שֶׁיָּבֹא בְּאַרְבָּעִים סְאָה. רִבִּי יוּדָה אוֹמֵר אַרְבָּעִים סְאָה מִכָּל מָקוֹם.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
It is stated (Tosephta *Berakhot* 2:12): “A sick person who had *qeri* on whom fell nine *qab*¹⁶⁴ equals 4 *log*, one log is .533 liter or .164 gallons, so that a *qab* equals approximately .563 gallons, 9 *qab* about 5.07 U. S. gallons. One *seäh* is 6 *qab* or about 3.38 gallons, so 40 *seäh* equal about 135.2 gallons or 512 liter. In Roman measures, the *log* corresponds to the *sextarius*, and the *seäh* to the *urna*. That makes 40 *seah* equal to a Roman *culleus*. of water (and a pure one on whose head and body fell three *log* of drawn water)¹⁶⁵ 15:16) but the prohibition of studying Torah and speaking sacred words is from the institutions of Ezra, i. e., it is pre-rabbinic. On the other hand, the impurity of a person washing himself with drawn water after an immersion in a *miqweh* belongs to the “18 ordinances” passed by the adherents of the house of Shammai before the Jewish revolt against the Romans and is purely rabbinical. It was passed because most *miqwaöt* were not built but were water holes in natural caves that were naturally muddy and people had the tendency to wash off the mud after they emerged from the *miqweh*. The rabbis of the time were afraid that in time washing would supersede immersion as (illegal) means of purification, so they decreed that washing after immersion resurrects some mild form of ritual impurity. is clean for himself but he cannot lead the public in their obligations until he immersed himself in 40 *seah*. Rebbi Yehudah says, 40 *seah* in all cases¹⁶⁶. *cit*.) takes the statement of Rebbi Yehudah to mean that he requires the stated amount of water but not that it should be in a *miqweh* that satisfies all rules. However, as Levi Ginzberg points out, that requires the expression בכל מקום which is found in manuscripts of the Babli; it represents the majority opinion in the Babli. The idiomatic translation of מכל מקום is “in every case”, including the sick person. R. Yehudah then is more restrictive than the other sages if water is available, and this may be the meaning of the Yerushalmi. If the parenthesis is genuinely part of this *baraita*, then the latter interpretation is the only possible one since an impurity imposed to enforce immersion in a genuine *miqweh* can be removed only by such an immersion..”

footnotes:
¹⁶⁴ One qab
¹⁶⁵ The parenthesis is not in the Tosephta or in the quote in the Babli 22b, and does not belong here. The impurity of the man with emission is Biblical (Lev.
¹⁶⁶ This translation is not guaranteed. The Babli (loc


###### Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 3:4:5
[Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 3:4:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Berakhot/r/3:4:5)

רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא רִבִּי יָסָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי אֵין קֶרִי אֶלָּא מִתַּשְׁמִישׁ הַמִּיטָּה. רַב חוּנָא אָמַר וַאֲפִילוּ רָאָה אֶת עַצְמוֹ נֵאוֹת בַּחֲלוֹם. הֲווּן בָּעִיין מֵימַר וּבִלְבַד מֵאִשָּׁה. רִבִּי יוֹנָה וְרִבִּי יוֹסֵי תְּרַוֵּיהוֹן אָמְרִין וַאֲפִילוּ מִדָּבָר אַחֵר. תַּמָּן תַּנִּינָן יוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים אָסוּר בַּאֲכִילָה וּשְׁתִיָּיה וּבִרְחִיצָה וְסִיכָה וּבִנְעִילַת הַסַּנְדָּל וּבְתַשְׁמִישׁ הַמִּיטָּה. וְתַנִּי עֲלָהּ בַּעֲלֵי קֶרִיִּין טוֹבְלִין כְּדַרְכָּן בְּצִינְעָה בְיוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים. וְלֵית הֲדָא פְלִיגָא עַל רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי דְּרִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי אָמַר אֵין קֶרִי אֶלָּא מִתַּשְׁמִישׁ הַמִּיטָּה. פְּתַר לָהּ בְּשֶׁשִּׁימֵּשׁ מִיטָּתוֹ מִבְעוֹד יוֹם וְשָׁכַח וְלֹא טָבַל. וְהָתַנִּי מַעֲשֶׂה בְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵה בֶּן חֲלַפְתָּא שֶׁרָאוּ אוֹתוֹ טוֹבֵל בְּצִינְעָה בְיוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים. אִית לָךְ מֵימַר עַל אוֹתוֹ הַגּוּף הַקָּדוֹשׁ בּשׁוֹכֵחַ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: *Qeri* is only from sexual intercourse. Rav Huna said, even if he saw himself enjoying in his dream. They wanted to say, only from a woman. Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose, both of them say, even from something else. There (Mishnah *Yoma* 8:1) we have stated: Eating, drinking, washing, anointing, wearing shoes, and sexual intercourse are forbidden on *Yom Kippur*. And it was stated in that respect: Men with *qeri* immerse themselves secretly in their normal way on *Yom Kippur*¹⁶⁷ 4:5 and Babli *Yoma* 88a the reading is: Men with *qeri* immerse themselves normally on *Yom Kippur;* one speaks of a full immersion and “in secret” is not mentioned. The Tosephta seems to be a Babylonian formulation. (The entire paragraph is also found in Yerushalmi *Yoma* 8:1).. Does this not contradict Rebbi Joshua ben Levi since Rebbi Joshua ben Levi says, *qeri* is only from sexual intercourse? Explain it if he had intercourse on the previous day and forgot and did not immerse himself. But it is stated: It happened that Rebbi Yose ben Ḥalaphta was seen immersing himself secretly on *Yom Kippur*. Can you say about that holy body that he forgot¹⁶⁸?

footnotes:
¹⁶⁷ In Tosephta Kippurim
¹⁶⁸ Hence, the interpretation of Rav Huna is incorrect and that of Rebbis Yose (the Amora) and Jonah is correct.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 3:4:6
[Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 3:4:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Berakhot/r/3:4:6)

אָמַר רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָבוּן כָּל עַצְמָן לֹא הִתְקִינוּ אֶת הַטְּבִילָה הַזֹּאת אֶלָּא שֶׁלֹֹּא יְהוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל כְּתַרְנְגוֹלִין הַלָּלוּ מְשַׁמֵּשׁ מִיטָּתוֹ וְעוֹלֶה וְיוֹרֵד וְאוֹכֵל.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Jacob bar Abun said: This immersion has only been enacted so that Jews should not be like chickens, that one would have sex: mount, descend, and eat¹⁶⁹ 22a, in the name of R. Yose bar Abun) reads: “so that scholars should not be found near their wives like roosters.” One may conclude that there are two main differences between Galilean and Babylonian practice: In the Yerushalmi, the duty of immersion applies uniformly to everybody and requires a kosher *miqweh*, in the Babli it is necessary only for study and may be done by washing.
R. Jacob bar Abun was a Galilean Amora of the third generation, colleague of R. Jeremiah.
There is no hint anywhere that one is forbidden to eat after intercourse or before immersion; the expression here is just a graphic expression of the behavior of cocks (commentary of Levi Ginzberg)..

footnotes:
¹⁶⁹ This means that sexual relations should be stripped of their animal nature as much as possible; the sanctification of marital duties applies to all Jews. The parallel in the Babli (Berakhot


###### Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 3:4:7
[Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 3:4:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Berakhot/r/3:4:7)

רִבִּי חֲנִינָא הֲוָה עָבַר עַל תַּרְעֵי דֵימוֹסִין בִּקְרִיצְתָּא וַאֲמַר מַה טוֹבְלֵי שַׁחֲרִית עוֹשִׂין פֹּה יֵיזְלוּן וִיתַנּוּן. בְּהַהִיא דְצַפְרָא הֲוָה אֲמַר מַאן דְּאִית לֵיהּ עֲבִידָא יֵיזִיל וַעֲבַד.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Ḥanina passed by the gates of public baths¹⁷⁰ only hinders one to pronounce the Divine name (and, hence, to pray) but not to study where the Divine name is seldom mentioned and, if mentioned at all, only by paraphrase. On the other hand, when morning came and the time for morning prayers, he told those that had intercourse to go and immerse themselves before praying. before dawn and said: What are those who have to immerse themselves in the morning doing here? They should go and study Mishnah! In the morning he said: He who has to do it shall go and do it.

footnotes:
¹⁷⁰ Greek δημόσιος, α, ον, adj. “public”, here understood with βαλανεῖα “baths”. The public baths certainly were not open before dawn and Rebbi Ḥanina orders the people there not to waste their time but to study Torah (being from the first Amora generation, he said “to study Mishnah”) since the interpretation given later to qeri


###### Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 3:4:8
[Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 3:4:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Berakhot/r/3:4:8)

מַהוּ לְהַרְהֵר בְּבֵית הַכִּסֵּא. חִזְקִיָּה אָמַר מוּתָּר. רִבִּי יָסָא אָמַר אָסוּר. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעוּרָא כָּל סֶבֶר קָשֶׁי דַּהֲוָה לִי תַּמָּן סְבֵירְתֵיהּ. אָמַר רִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בַּר שִׁמְעוֹן כָּל הַהוּא סְבָרָא קַשְׁיָא דִטְבוּל יוֹם תַּמָּן סְבֵירְתֵיהּ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
What are the rules about thinking¹⁷¹ in the study of Torah subjects. in the toilet? Ḥizqiah said it is permitted; Rebbi Yasa said it is forbidden. Rebbi Zeïra said, all difficult arguments that I had became clear to me there. Rebbi Eleazar bar Simeon¹⁷² 102b. In Babylonia (Babli *Berakhot* 24b) it was accepted by everybody that thinking about Torah subjects in a toilet is forbidden except if the person cannot help doing it. In Galilee the practical rule was to allow it. said, the entire difficult subject of *ṭĕbūl yōm* became clear to me there.

footnotes:
¹⁷¹ About Torah subjects. While this paragraph seems to be somewhat out of place here, it is introduced because of the later discussion of the status of a man with qeri
¹⁷² The son of Rebbi Simeon bar Yoḥai. His difficult argument is detailed in Babli Zebaḥim


###### Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 3:4:9
[Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 3:4:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Berakhot/r/3:4:9)

רִבִּי אָחָא בְשֵׁם תַּנְחוּם בֵּי רִבִּי חִיָיא בְּיוֹמוֹי רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי בִּיקְשׁוּ לַעֲקוֹר אֶת הַטְּבִילָה הַזֹּאת מִפְּנֵי נַשֵּׁי הַגָּלִיל שֶׁהָיוּ נֶעֱקָרוֹת מִפְּנֵי הַצִּינָּה. אָמַר לָהֶן רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא גוֹדֵר אֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל מִן הָעֲבֵירָה אַתֶּם מְבַקְּשִׁים לַעֲקוֹר אוֹתוֹ. מַהוּ גוֹדֵר יִשְׂרָאֵל מִן הָעֲבֵירָה. מַעֲשֶׂה בְשׁוֹמֵר כְּרָמִים אֶחָד שֶׁבָּא לְהִיזָּקֵק עִם אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ. עַד שֶׁהֵן מְתַקְּינִין לָהֶן מָקוֹם אֵיכַן הֵן טוֹבְלִין עָבְרוּ הָעוֹבְרִין וְהַשָּׁבִין וּבָטְלָה הָעֲבֵירָה. מַעֲשֶׂה בְּאֶחָד שֶׁבָּא לְהִיזָּקֵק עִם שִׁפְחָתוֹ שֶׁל רִבִּי. אָמְרָה לוֹ אִם אֵין גְּבִירְתִּי טוֹבֶלֶת אֵינִי טוֹבֶלֶת. אָמַר לָהּ וְלֹא כִבְהֵמָה אַתְּ. אָמְרָה לוֹ וְלֹא שָׁמַעְתָּ בְּבָא עַל הַבְּהֵמָה שֶׁהוּא נִסְקַּל שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר כָּל שׁוֹכֵב עִם בְּהֵמָה מוֹת יוּמָת.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Tanḥum ben Rebbi Ḥiyya: In the days of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi they wanted to abolish this immersion because of the Galilean women who became sterile¹⁷³ were cold-water *miqwaöt*; in a parallel in Babli *Berakhot* 22a, Rav Huna notes that instead of a *miqweh* one could use a hot bath in Babylonia. because of the cold. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi told them: Do you want to uproot something that fences Israel off from sin? What means: Fences Israel off from sin? It happened that a watchman of vinyards wanted to have an affair with a married woman. By the time they were preparing a place where they could immerse themselves, passers-by came by and the sin was not committed¹⁷⁴ 22a is explicitly designated as a *baraita*, dating from Mishnaic times, and applying the need for immersion only to the man. [Levi Ginzberg conjectures that the watchman was a bachelor; hence, he could not use the public *miqweh* (except on holiday eve) without drawing public attention to his unmarried sexual activities. However, it is stated explicitly at the end of this *halakhah* that a *miqweh* was not used for this immersion.]. It happened that someone wanted to have an affair with Rebbi’s slave girl. She said to him: If my mistress does not immerse herself, I do not immerse myself¹⁷⁵ and, therefore, cannot have sex with any man. The slave girl was quite famous for speaking better classical Hebrew than the rabbis.. He said to her: Are you not like an animal¹⁷⁶? She said to him: Did you not hear that one who has relations with an animal will be stoned, as it is said (Ex. 22:18): “Anyone lying with an animal shall certainly be executed.”

footnotes:
¹⁷³ Since in Galilee the immersion was required for everybody, not only for Torah study as in Babylonia, it also applied to women. In winter in upper Galilee, water sometimes freezes and all miqwaöt
¹⁷⁴ A parallel in Babli Berakhot
¹⁷⁵ Meaning that as an unmarried woman she does not frequent the miqweh
¹⁷⁶ The argument here is not perfectly clear. There is a verse in Ezechiel 23:20, speaking about the heathen, "for the flesh of donkeys is their flesh and the semen of horses is their semen" (where "flesh" as human limb here and elsewhere means the penis, the only boneless limb), but that speaks only about males and, in any case, the slave in a Jewish household is a semi-Jew, becoming a full Jew on manumission without any formality of conversion. Hence, no verse applying to heathen is appropriate here. The real reason seems to be the command given to Adam that "a man shall leave his father and his mother and stick to his wife" (Gen. 2:24); since a slave is not legally able to contract a marriage, he is missing the essential human quality of having to marry. That makes questionable humans out of adults who are bachelors by choice. [The sex life of slaves is not discussed in the Yerushalmi. In the Babli (Niddah 47a) it is stated that slaves may have sex with anybody except a Jew (and a married Gentile woman).]


###### Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 3:4:10
[Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 3:4:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Berakhot/r/3:4:10)

אָמַר רִבִּי חִיָיא בַּר וָוה כָּל עַצְמָן לֹא הִתְקִינוּ אֶת הַטְּבִילָה הַזֹּאת אֶלָּא מִפְּנֵי תַלְמוּד. שֶׁאִם אַתָּה אוֹמֵר לוֹ שֶׁהוּא מוּתָּר אַף הוּא אוֹמֵר אַף אֲנִי אֵלֵךְ וְאֶעֱשֵׂה צָרְכִי וּבָא וְשׁוֹנֶה כָל צוֹרְכוֹ וּמִתּוֹךְ שֶׁאַתָּה אוֹמֵר אָסוּר הוּא בָא וְשׁוֹנֶה כָל צוֹרְכוֹ. תַּמָּן אָמְרִין אֲפִילוּ לִשְׁמוֹעַ דִּבְרֵי תוֹרָה אָסוּר.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba¹⁷⁷ said: They ordered this immersion essentially only for study. For if you tell him that he is permitted, he is going to say: “I shall go, satisfy my needs, and then come and study what is needed,” but since you say that it is forbidden, he will come and study all he needs¹⁷⁸. There¹⁷⁹ they said it is even forbidden to hear words of Torah.

footnotes:
¹⁷⁷ Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba the Babylonian quotes here the Babylonian tradition that this immersion is appropriate only for Torah scholars, in contrast to the Galilean practice shown be the preceding and the following examples that the unlearned were the most ardent practitioners of the ritual.
¹⁷⁸ Not having sex in those nights where study starts before dawn, i. e., all week except Friday night.
¹⁷⁹ Any תמן "there" in the Yerushalmi means Babylonia. The ruling is not mentioned in the Babli explicitly but there is a parallel to the statement attributed to Rebbi Eleazar, and a statement by the 10th century Rav Hai Gaon (Ozar Hageonim Berakhot p. 56), that in his time scholars in Babylonia did not pray until they had cleansed themselves by washing.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 3:4:11
[Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 3:4:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Berakhot/r/3:4:11)

אָמַר רִבִּי יוּדָה בַּר טִיטֻס רִבִּי אָחָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר כַּתְּחִילָּה וְהָיוּ נְכוֹנִים לַיּוֹם הַשְּׁלִישִׁי אַל תִּגְּשׁוּ אֶל אִשָּׁה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Judah bar Titus¹⁸⁰, Rebbi Aḥa in the name Rebbi Eliezer: as at the start (*Ex.* 19:11) “They shall be prepared on the third day, do not approach a woman¹⁸¹ for the study of Torah is derived from the theophany at Sinai where the Israelites purified themselves for three days from any impurity caused by marital relations. This gives support to the opinion stated earlier by R. Joshua ben Levi that the impurity of *qeri* is only caused by sexual intercourse. The Talmud notes (Babli *Šabbat* 86a, Yerushalmi *Šabbat* 9:3, fol. 11c) that a separation of three days was needed only for the women since a woman may lose live sperm from her body up to three days after intercourse. For men a simple immersion in water the next day would be enough. This proves that women were included by Divine decree among the original recipients and students of the Torah; the inclusion of women in the Tosephta quoted in the next paragraph is intentional..”

footnotes:
¹⁸⁰ A Galilean Amora from Caesarea Philippi, of the fourth generation.
¹⁸¹ The impurity of qeri


###### Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 3:4:12
[Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 3:4:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Berakhot/r/3:4:12)

תַּנִּי זָבִין וְזָבוֹת נִדּוֹת וְיוֹלְדוֹת קוֹרִין בַּתּוֹרָה וְשוֹנִין מִדְרַשׁ וַהֲלָכוֹת וְהַגָּדוֹת. וּבַעַל קֶרִי אָסוּר בְּכוּלָּן. רִבִּי אַבָּא בַּר אָחָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי שׁוֹנֶה הֲלָכוֹת וְאֵינוֹ שׁוֹנֶה הַגָּדוֹת. תַּנִּי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹסֵי שׁוֹנֶה הִילְכוֹת רְגִילִיּוֹת וּבִלְּבַד שֶׁלֹּא יַצִּיעַ אֶת הַמִּשְׁנָה. אִית דְּבָעֵי מֵימָר וּבִלְּבַד שֶׁלֹּא יַזְכִּיר אַזְכָּרוֹת. רִבִּי זְעִירָא בָּעֵי קוֹמוֹי רִבִּי יָסָא לֵית רִבִּי פָּשַׁט בֵּי עִם רִבִּי בִּין פִּירְקֵיהּ בַּלַּיְלִיָּא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ אִין. רִבִּי חִיָיא בַּר אַבָּא פָּשַׁט עִם רִבִּי נְחֶמְיָה בְרֵיהּ פִּירְקֵיהּ בַּלַּיְלִיָּא. בְּהַהִיא צַפְרָא הֲוָה מַר מַה דְאִית לֵיהּ עֲבִידָא יֵיזִיל עֲבֵיד.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
It is stated¹⁸² 2:12. In the parallel in the Babli, *Berakhot* 22a, only males are in the list. The *baraita* in the Babli is a Babylonian formulation of material ascribed to the students of Rebbi Aqiba.: “Males and females with discharges¹⁸³ suffering from gonorrhea and similar diseases, the female bleeding other than menstruating, see *Lev.* Chapter 15., menstruating women, and women having given birth¹⁸⁴ 12:1–8. read in the Torah and study *midrash*¹⁸⁵ to the last four books of the Pentateuch., practical rules, and homiletics; the person with *qeri* is forbidden all these.” Rebbi Abba bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi¹⁸⁶ 2:24); since a slave is not legally able to contract a marriage, he is missing the essential human quality of having to marry. That makes questionable humans out of adults who are bachelors by choice. [The sex life of slaves is not discussed in the Yerushalmi. In the Babli (*Niddah* 47a) it is stated that slaves may have sex with anybody except a Jew (and a married Gentile woman).]: He may study practical rules¹⁸⁷ but not homiletics. It is stated in the name of Rebbi Yose: He may repeat known rules but he may not expound¹⁸⁸ the Mishnah. Some want to say, only that he may not mention the Divine Name¹⁸⁹. Rebbi Zeïra asked before Rebbi Yasa: Did my teacher not prepare his lecture together with Rebbi Abun in the night? He said, yes. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba prepared his lecture together with his son Rebbi Neḥemiah in the night. The next morning he said, anybody who has to do should go and do it¹⁹⁰ is the same as one who is at a place with no water. While the sources do not discuss the position of Torah study at a place without water, it seems from here and the story about Rebbi Yose in the paragraph following the next that in the night one never goes for the immersion required and that, therefore, all involved here may study Torah during the night and immerse themselves in the morning before prayers..

footnotes:
¹⁸² Tosephta Berakhot
¹⁸³ From their genitals, the male zab
¹⁸⁴ Whose basic impurity is one week after having a son, two weeks after having a daughter; Lev.
¹⁸⁵ This is the derivation of practical rules from the Biblical text, as in the Midrĕshē Hălākhāh
¹⁸⁶ The argument here is not perfectly clear. There is a verse in Ezechiel 23:20, speaking about the heathen, “for the flesh of donkeys is their flesh and the semen of horses is their semen” (where “flesh” as human limb here and elsewhere means the penis, the only boneless limb), but that speaks only about males and, in any case, the slave in a Jewish household is a semi-Jew, becoming a full Jew on manumission without any formality of conversion. Hence, no verse applying to heathen is appropriate here. The real reason seems to be the command given to Adam that “a man shall leave his father and his mother and stick to his wife” (Gen.
¹⁸⁷ Which need only memorization, not independent thinking, in contrast to the construction of sermons which are supposed to be original with the preacher. In this respect, the rule of Rab would coincide with that given in the name of Rebbi Yose (the Tanna) in the next sentence.
¹⁸⁸ Going into the details and general rules behind the simple casuistic statements of the Mishnah; that requires individual mental effort.
¹⁸⁹ This is a problem only in prayer, not in study where the Name is never pronounced even in quotes from the Bible.
¹⁹⁰ Note that all Amoraïm involved here are originally Babylonians, but this may be a coincidence. The point seems to be that in the night, when immersion is dangerous, the position of a baäl qeri


###### Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 3:4:13
[Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 3:4:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Berakhot/r/3:4:13)

מַעֲשֶׂה בְּאֵחָד שֶׁעָמַד לִקְרוֹת בַּתּוֹרָה בִּנְצִיבִין כֵּיוָן שֶׁהִגִּיעַ לְהַזְכָּרָה הִתְחִיל מְגַמְגֵּם בָּהּ. אָמַר לוֹ רִבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן בְּתֵירָה פְּתַח פִּיךָ וְיָאִירוּ דְבָרֶיךָ שֶׁאֵין דִּבְרֵי תוֹרָה מְקַבְּלִין טוּמְאָה. אֲמַר רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא וּנְהִגִין תַּמָּן כְּרִבִּי אִלָּעְאִי בְּרֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז וּכְרִבִּי יֹאשִׁיָּה בְּכִלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם וּכְרִבִי יְהוּדָה בֶּן בְּתֵירָה בְּבַעֲלֵי קֶרִיִין. כְּרִבִּי אִלָּעְאִי בְּרֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז דְּתַנָּא רִבִּי אִלָּעְאִי אָמַר אֵין רֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז אֶלָּא בָאָרֶץ. כְּרִבִּי יֹאשִׁיָּה בְּכִלְאַיִם דְּתַנִּי רִבִּי יֹאשִׁיָּה אוֹמֵר לְעוֹלָם אֵינוֹ חַיָיב עַד שֶׁיִּזְרַע חִטָּה וּשְׂעוֹרָה וְחַרְצָן בְּמַפָּלַת יָד. כְּרִבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן בְּתֵירָה בְּבַעֲלֵי קֶרִיִין דְּתַנִּי רִבִּי יְהוּדָה [בֶּן בְּתֵירָה] אוֹמֵר אֵין דִּבְרֵי תוֹרָה מְקַבְּלִין טוּמְאָה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
It happened that someone was reading the Torah in Nsebin¹⁹¹ 22a), the reason is given that God’s word is compared to fire and fire cannot become impure.; when he came to the Divine Name he started to stutter. Rebbi Yehudah ben Bathyra told him: Open your mouth and let your words shine because words of the .Torah cannot receive impurity. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said: There they act following Rebbi Illaï regarding the first shearing¹⁹² 18:4. While it is not spelled out in the Pentateuch that this is an obligation only on sheep owners in Israel, “there” in Babylonia one did not give first shearings to the Cohen. The entire statement is quoted in the Babli (*Berakhot* 22a) in the formulation “people follow these three”, in the name of Rav Naḥman bar Isaac, a Babylonian contemporary of R. Jacob bar Aḥa., following Rebbi Josiah¹⁹³ regarding *kilaim*¹⁹⁴ in a vineyard are based on *Deut.* 22:9: “Do not sow your vineyard *kilaim*”. Usually, a vineyard is not sown but planted; R. Josiah therefore restricts the prohibition to the case where even the vines are grown from seeds sown, not planted one by one in separate places. in the vineyard, and following Rebbi Yehudah ben Bathyra regarding people with *qeri*. Following Rebbi Illaï regarding the first shearing. as we have stated: “Rebbi Illaï said: The first shearing applies only in the Land.” Following Rebbi Josiah regarding *kilaim* as it is stated: “One is never guilty unless one sowed wheat, barley, and grape kernels falling from the same hand.” Following Rebbi Yehudah ben Bathyra regarding people with *qeri* as it is stated: “Rebbi Yehudah ben Bathyra says, words of the Torah cannot receive impurity.”

footnotes:
¹⁹¹ Nisibis, a town in northern Mesopotamia, today on the border between Syria and Turkey, known as seat of the family Ben Bathyra from at least the start of the Common Era. The authority quoted here is R. Yehuda ben Bathyra II, a student of R. Aqiba. The reader was reading the Torah in the synagogue. In the parallel in the Babli (Berakhot
¹⁹² It has to be given to the Cohen, Deut.
¹⁹³ Tanna of the fourth generation, student of R. Ismael, from the town of Huẓal in Babylonia, a contemporary of R. Yehuda ben Bathyra II. All his traditions are from the school of R. Ismael.
¹⁹⁴ The prohibition of planting or sowing several species together. The special rules for kilaim


###### Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 3:4:14
[Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 3:4:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Berakhot/r/3:4:14)

רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר חֲלַפְתָּא הֲוָה אָתֵי בְאִיסְמְטָא בַלַּיְלִיָּא וַהֲוָה חַמָּרָא מְהַלֵּךְ בַּתְרֵיהּ עַל חַד בֵּית שִׁיחַ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ הַהוּא גַבְרָא בָּעֵי מִסְחֵי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ לָא תַסְכֵּן נַפְשָׁךְ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ מִן נִדָּה וּמִן אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ הַהוּא גַבְרָא בָּעֵי לְמִיסְחֵי. אֲפִילוּ כֵן אֲמַר לֵיהּ לֹא תַסְכֵּן בְּנַפְשָׁךְ. כֵּיוָן דְּלֹא שָׁמַע לֵיהּ אֲמַר לֵיהּ יֵיחוֹת הַהוּא גַבְרָא וְלָא יְסוֹק. וְכֵן הֲוָות לֵיהּ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Yose bar Ḥalaphta came on a footpath¹⁹⁵ (the Rome ms. has איסרטא, *strata* “a paved [street].”) This story belongs to the discussion of the paragraph before the last and shows that in the minds of the people the original intention of the ordinance requiring washing was inverted, that instead of “fencing off Israel from sin” it became a ritual in the minds of the uneducated with which one could wash off even adultery with a menstruating women, combining a capital crime with one punishable by extirpation. Hence, the story supports Rebbi Yehudah ben Bathyra who negates the importance of the ritual even for public reading of the Torah, not only for Torah study. in the night and a donkey driver was walking after him along a ditch. He said to him: This man must wash. He said to him: Do not imperil yourself. He said to him: This man must wash because of a menstruating, married woman. Even so he said to him: Do not imperil yourself. Since he did not listen to him he said: May this man descend and not ascend. And that happened to him.

footnotes:
¹⁹⁵ Latin semita


###### Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 3:4:15
[Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 3:4:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Berakhot/r/3:4:15)

רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן יוֹסֵי הֲוָה אָתֵי בְאִילְפָא חֲמָא חַד קָטַר גַרְמֵיהּ בְּחַבְלָא מֵיחוֹת וּמִיסְחֵי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ לָא תַסְכֵּן בְּנַפְשָׁךְ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ הַהוּא מֵיכַל בָּעֵינָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ אֲכֵיל. הַהוּא גַבְרָא בָּעֵי מִישְׁתָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ שְׁתֵי. כֵּיוָן דְּמָטוּן לְלִמֵינָה. אֲמַר לֵיהּ תַּמָּן לָא שָׁרִי לָךְ אֶלָּא בְגִין סְכַנְתָּא דְנַפְשָׁא בְּרַם הָכָא אָסוּר לְהַהוּא גַבְרָא לְמִיטְעַם כְּלוּם עַד שַׁעְתָּא דְיַסְחֵי.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Yose ben Yose¹⁹⁶, Saur, München 1996, p. xviii). came on a ship. He saw one who was tying a rope around himself in order to descend¹⁹⁷ and wash. He said to him: Do not endanger your life. He said to him: This one needs to eat. He said to him: eat! This man needs to drink. He said to him: drink! When they came to the harbor¹⁹⁸, he said to him: There¹⁹⁹ I permitted it only because of danger to your life but here this man may not taste anything before he washes.

footnotes:
¹⁹⁶ One of the last Galilean Amoraïm. It is not known whether he is identical with the poet of the same name, the first of the synagogal poets known by name; neither is it clear whether his name indicates that he was a posthumous child (cf. E. and H. Guggenheimer, Etymologisches Lexikon der jüdischen Familiennamen
¹⁹⁷ From the ship to the ocean in order to wash. This story makes clear that the washing after sexual intercourse was general practice in Israel down to the time of edition of the Jerusalem Talmud. Its time is six generations after the preceding story. It negates the negative moral implications of the preceding story but retains its emphasis on avoiding life-threatening situations.
¹⁹⁸ Greek λιμήν.
¹⁹⁹ On the high seas. The problem was not that one may not eat before washing but that one is not allowed to pronounce the Divine Name and, therefore, is unable to utter the benedictions before eating.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 3:4:16
[Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 3:4:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Berakhot/r/3:4:16)

אָמַר רִבִּי יַנַּאי שָׁמַעְתִּי שֶׁמְּקִילִין וּמַחְמִירִין בָּהּ. וְכָל הַמַּחְמִיר בָּהּ מַאֲרִיךְ יָמִים בְּטוֹבָה. מִקִיל בָּהּ לִרְחוֹץ בְּמַיִם שְׁאוּבִין מַחְמִירִין בָּהּ לִטְבּוֹל בְּמַיִם חַיִּים.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Yannai²⁰⁰ for the immersion of *qeri*; either one uses a regular bath or a running stream or the sea (whose total volume is certainly greater than 40 *sĕa*.) The parallel in the Babli (*Berakhot* 22a) has only the first part of the statement and no hint of using running water. Running water is required for the cleansing of the male with gonorrhea (*Lev.* 15:13). said: I heard that some take it lightly and some are stringent and every one who is stringent lives a long, good life. Some take it lightly by washing in drawn water; some are stringent to immerse themselves in running water.

footnotes:
²⁰⁰ Rebbi Yannai, from the first generation of Amoraïm, makes it clear that essentially nobody uses the miqweh


###### Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 3:5:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 3:5:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Berakhot/r/3:5:1)

**משנה:** הָיָה עוֹמֵד בִּתְפִילָּה וְנִזְכַּר שֶׁהוּא בַּעַל קֶרִי לֹא יַפְסִיק אֶלָּא יְקַצֵּר. יָרַד לִטְבּוֹל אִם יָכוֹל לַעֲלוֹת וּלְהִתְכַּסּוֹת וְלִקְרוֹת עַד שֶׁלֹּא תֵנֵץ הַחַמָּה יַעֲלֶה וְיִתְכַּסֶּה וְיִקְרָא וְאִם לָאו יִתְכַּסֶּה בַמַּיִם וְיִקְרָא. לֹא יִתְכַּסֶּה לֹא בַמַּיִם הָרָעִים וְלֹא בְמֵי הַמִּשְׁרָה עַד שֶׁיַּטִּיל לְתוֹכָן מַיִם. וְכַמָּה יִרְחִיק מֵהֶן וּמִן הַצּוֹאָה אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** If someone was standing and praying²⁰¹. when he remembered that he had *qeri*, he should not stop but shorten his prayer. If he descended to immerse himself, if he can ascend, get dressed, and recite²⁰² The leniency mentioned here is not only if otherwise the time for *Shema‘* would pass but even for the usage of the very religious (Chapter 1, Note 155) even though it is totally impossible to pray the *Amidah* while immersed in the water and, therefore, one cannot completely follow the practice of the very religious. by the time of sunrise he should ascend, get dressed, and recite; otherwise, he should cover himself with water and recite. He should cover himself neither with stinking water nor with steeping water unless he diluted them with water. How much does one have to remove oneself from these and excrement? Four cubits.

footnotes:
²⁰¹ The formal Amidah
²⁰² The Shema‘.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 3:5:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 3:5:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Berakhot/r/3:5:2)

**הלכה:** מַתְנִיתָא בְּרַבִּים אֲבָל בֵּינוֹ לְבֵין עַצְמוֹ מַפְסִיק וּכְרִבִּי מֵאִיר. בְּרַם כְּרִבִּי יְהוּדָה אֲפִילוּ בֵּינוֹ לְבֵין עַצְמוֹ אֵינוֹ מַפְסִיק. בְּשֶׁאֵין לֹוֹ מַיִם לִטְבּוֹל. אֲבָל יֵשׁ לוֹ מַיִם לִטְבּוֹל אַף רִבִּי יוּדָה מוֹדֵי שֶׁהוּא מַפְסִיק.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** The Mishnah refers to someone in public, but if he is alone he interrupts following Rebbi Meïr²⁰³ is composed of benedictions, it is clear that Mishnah 4 forbids formal praying. Both Mishnah 4 and Mishnah 5 are anonymous; an anonymous Mishnah is always supposed to represent the ideas of Rebbi Meïr since the latter’s collection was the basis of Rebbi’s edition of the Mishnah. To avoid two contradicting Mishnayot, it is spelled out here that the public embarrassment that would be caused by the rule of Mishnah 4 has to be avoided, see *Halakhah* 1, note 119. The opinion of R. Yehudah is given in Mishnah 4.. But following Rebbi Yehudah he does not interrupt even when alone, on condition that he have no water to immerse himself. But if he has water to immerse himself even Rebbi Yehudah agrees that he must interrupt.

footnotes:
²⁰³ Since Mishnah 4 stated that he may not pronounce any benediction and the Amidah


###### Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 3:5:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 3:5:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Berakhot/r/3:5:3)

חוֹלֶה שֶׁשִּׁימֵּשׁ מִיטָּתוֹ אָמַר רִבִּי אַמִּי אִם הוּא גָּרַם לְעַצְמוֹ יִטְבּוֹל וְיָמוּת. וְאִם בְּאוֹנֵס אֵין מַטְרִיחִין עָלָיו. רִבִּי חַגַּי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי אַבָּא בַּר זַבְדָּא בֵּין כַּךְ וּבֵין כַּךְ אֵין מַטְרִיחִין עָלָיו. חוֹלֶה מַרְגִּיל צָרִיךְ תִּשְׁעָת קַבִּין. בָּרִיא מַרְגִּיל צָרִיךְ אַרְבָּעִים סְאָה. חוֹלֶה מֵאוֹנֵס אֵין מַטְרִיחִין עָלָיו. בָּרִיא מֵאוֹנֵס צָרִיךְ תִּשְׁעָת קַבִּין.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
About a sick person who had intercourse, Rebbi Ammi said: If he caused it by himself, let him immerse himself and die²⁰⁴; if it was forced upon him one does not bother him²⁰⁵ comes only from intercourse or also from involuntary emissions. If the second case is accepted, “forced” does not speak of intercourse but only of involuntary emissions. In the second case, one cannot say that one speaks of a sick man fulfilling his marital duties even if it hurts him since in that case he is free from these duties. Even if he was seduced by his wife, there is really no intercourse against one’s will. Hence, one has to conclude that all authorities here decide that involuntary emissions require immersion in water.. Rebbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Zavda: One does not bother him in any case. A sick person²⁰⁶ 22b), Rava reports that any מרגיל needs 40 *seah*. Since the immersion was not practiced in Babylonia, this statement is purely historical or theoretical; the difference between Babylonia and Israel was in the essence of this immersion and not in little details. who does it habitually²⁰⁷ upon himself by having intercourse.” A strictly grammatical explanation would be: “he causes it to be usual”. However, such a translation would require three categories: 1) one who runs after sex, 2) a normal person, 3) a sick person. Since only two categories are mentioned where one would expect three, Rashi’s explanation is the only consistent one even if it does not explain the particular verb form. needs nine *qab*, a healthy person who does it habitually needs 40 *sĕah*. A sick person forced, one does not bother him. A healthy person forced needs nine *qab*.

footnotes:
²⁰⁴ Obviously, that is an exaggeration since it was shown earlier that even an adulterer should not expose himself to danger because of this immersion; it means simply: let him be inconvenienced.
²⁰⁵ It is difficult to know what “forced intercourse” means. Any possible interpretation depends on the problem discussed in the preceding Halakhah, whether qeri
²⁰⁶ This second paragraph clearly is independent of the previous statements since it contradicts them. It represents the consensus of the editors of the Yerushalmi. In the parallel of the Babli (Berakhot
²⁰⁷ In the Babli (22a), Rashi explains מרגיל by: “he draws qeri


###### Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 3:5:4
[Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 3:5:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Berakhot/r/3:5:4)

רִבִּי זְבַדְיָה בְּרֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר זַבְדִּי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹנָה עִיר שֶׁמַּעֲיַינָּהּ רָחוֹק הֲרֵי זֶה קוֹרֵא אֶת שְׁמַע וְיוֹרֵד וְטוֹבֵל וְעוֹלֶה וּמִתְפַּלֵּל. אִם הוּא אָדָם מְסוּיָים עָשׂוּ אוֹתוֹ כְּמַעֲיָין רָחוֹק.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Zevadiah, the son of Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi, in the name of Rebbi Jonah: In a city whose well is far away, he may recite the *Shema‘*, then descends and immerses himself, ascends and prays. If he is blind²⁰⁸, but this makes no sense here. In other Talmudic passages “an outstanding man” means a particularly pious one and it is unimaginable that a pious man should claim for himself exemption from some religious duty. Hence, the derivation from the root *sm’* “to blind”, in the passive “to be blinded”, makes much more sense. they made him like a far-away well.

footnotes:
²⁰⁸ This translation is not given by any commentator. Usually, מסוים means “definite, outstanding”, from the verbal root swm


###### Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 3:5:5
[Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 3:5:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Berakhot/r/3:5:5)

פיסקא. וְאִם לָאו יִתְכַּסֶּה בַמַּיִם וְיִקְרָא. מַתְנִיתָא בַּעֲכוּרִין אֲבָל בִּצְלוּלִין אָסוּר. וְאִם הוּא יָכוֹל לַעֲכוֹר בְּרַגְלָיו יַעֲכוֹר.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**New Section.** “Otherwise, he should cover himself with water and recite.”²⁰⁹ The Mishnah deals with opaque water, but in clear water it is forbidden²¹⁰ 25b).. And if he is able to make it opaque by stirring with his feet he may make it opaque.

footnotes:
²⁰⁹ Quote from the Mishnah.
²¹⁰ Since prayer is forbidden if the genitals are uncovered. (A different tradition is given in Babli Berakhot


###### Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 3:5:6
[Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 3:5:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Berakhot/r/3:5:6)

תַּנִּי מַרְחִיקִין מִצּוֹאַת אָדָם אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת וּמִצּוֹאַת כְּלָבִים אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת וּבְשָׁעָה שֶׁהוּא נוֹתֵן לְעוֹרוֹת. רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי זְעִוֹרָה נְבֵילָה שֶׁנִּסְרְחָה צָרִיךְ לְהַרְחִיק מִמֶּנָּהּ אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת. אָמַר רִבִּי אֲבִינָא וּמַתְנִיתָא אָמְרָה כֵן. וְכַמָּה יִרְחִיק מֵהֶן וּמִן הַצּוֹאָה אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת. אָמַר רִבִּי אַמִּי אָמַר רִבִּי שַׁמַּאי תִּיפְתָּר בְּמִישְׁרָה שֶׁל כּוֹבְסִין. אָמַר לֵיהּ רִבִּי מָנִי אִם בְּמִישְׁרָה שֶׁל כּוֹבְסִין הָא תַנִּינָן לֹא בַמַּיִם הָרָעִים וְלֹא בְמֵי הַמִּשְׁרָה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
It is stated: One removes himself²¹¹. from human excrement four cubits and from dog’s excrement four cubits, the latter when it is given on skins²¹² explains that “steeping water” in the Mishnah refers to tanner’s steeping water and not to launderer’s steeping water that simply does not smell good.
This statement is from Tosephta *Berakhot* 2:16; the Babli (25a) has a different *baraita* that refers to the paragraph after the next one here.. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Zeïra: One must remove hinself four cubits from a stinking carcass. Rebbi Avina said: Does not the Mishnah say all this : “How much does one have to remove himself from these and excrement? Four cubits.” Rebbi Ammi in the name of Rebbi Shammai²¹³, Chap. 3, #44) in the name of Rebbi Simlaï (without mention of Rebbi Ammi), a preacher and Amora of the first generation.: Explain it by steeping water of launderers. Rebbi Mani²¹⁴ said to him: About steeping waters of launderers, we have stated: “neither with stinking water nor with steeping water.”

footnotes:
²¹¹ In order to pray or to recite Shema‘
²¹² Antique technology of making leather from skins required that the skins were steeped in water containing dog’s excrement for a lengthy period of time. The steeping water had a horrible smell. This baraita
²¹³ The tradition of names is impossible since Rebbi Shammai was an Amora of the fifth and last generation in Galilee; he cannot be the author of a tradition of a third generation Amora. The paragraph is quoted by R. Asher ben Yeḥiël (Rosh Berakhot
²¹⁴ Rebbi Mani, Mana, the first. Launderers’ steeping water does not smell so badly that it would need a special entry in the Mishnah. He is a contemporary of Rebbi Simlaï, not Rebbi Ammi.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 3:5:7
[Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 3:5:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Berakhot/r/3:5:7)

תַּנִּי קָטָן שֶׁהוּא יָכוֹל לֶאֱכוֹל כְּזַיִת דָּגָן פּוֹרְשִׁין מִצּוֹאָתוֹ וּמִמֵּימֵי רַגְלָיו אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת וְאִם אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לֶאֱכוֹל כְּזַיִת דָּגָן אֵין פּוֹרְשִׁין לֹא מִצּוֹאָתוֹ וְלֹא מִמֵּימֵי רַגְלָיו אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת. בָּעֵי קוֹמִי רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ מִפְּנֵי מַה פּוֹרְשִׁין מִצּוֹאָתוֹ וּמִמֵּימֵי רַגְלָיו. אָמַר לוֹן מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמַּחְשְׁבוֹתָיו רָעוֹת. אָמְרִין לֵיהּ וְלֹא קָטָן הוּא. אָמַר לוֹן וְלָא כְתִיב כִּי יֵצֶר לֵב הָאָדָם רַע מִנְּעוּרָיו. אָמַר רִבִּי יוּדָן מִנְּעָרָיו כְּתִיב. מִשָּׁעָה שֶׁהוּא נִנְעָר וְיוֹצֵא לָעוֹלָם.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
It is stated: One removes himself four cubits from excrement and urine of a toddler who can eat grain the volume of an olive²¹⁵ 42b) is defined as the time a grown-up can eat half a stuffed pitta. The Yerushalmi does not give a time limit., but if he cannot yet eat grain the volume of an olive one does not need to remove himself four cubits either from his excrement or from his urine. They asked before Rebbi Abbahu: Why does one separate himself from his excrement and urine? He said to them, because his thoughts are evil. They said to him: But is not he too young? He said to them, is it not written (*Gen.* 8:21): “For the inclination of man’s heart is evil from his youth?” Rebbi Yudan said, it is written “from his awakening²¹⁶, is written defective in the Bible; hence, it can be vocalized נִעֲרָיו “his awakenings”, not only puberty, the sexual awakening usually referred to by the root נער but also the first awakening of the baby during birth. According to Rebbi Abbahu, the awakening comes only when the baby is weaned.”, from the moment that the awakes and enters the world.

footnotes:
²¹⁵ In one meal, which in the Babli (Sukkah
²¹⁶ The word נעוּריו, even though it has a long vowel ū


###### Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 3:5:8
[Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 3:5:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Berakhot/r/3:5:8)

רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר חֲנִינָא אָמַר מַרְחִיקִין מִגְּלַלֵּי בְהֵמָה אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת. רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר רַב יִצְחָק אָמַר בְּרַכִּים וּבִלְבַד בְּשֶׁל חֲמוֹר. רִבִּי חִיָיא בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר בְּבָא מִן הַדֶּרֶךְ. לֵוִי אָמַר מַרְחִיקִין מִצּוֹאַת חֲזִיר אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת. וְתַנִּי כֵן מַרְחִיקִין מִצּוֹאַת חֲזִיר אַרְבַע אַמּוֹת. וּמִצּוֹאַת הַנְּמִיָיה אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת. וּמִצּוֹאַת הַתַּרְנְגוֹלִין אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּרִבִּי אָבוּן בְּשֵׁם רַב חוּנָא וּבִלְבַד בַּאֲדוֹמִים.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina said: One removes himself four cubits from animal dung. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said, if it is soft, but only from donkeys. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, if it²¹⁷ arrived from a trip. Levi said, one removes himself four cubits from the excrement of a pig. And it was stated: One removes himself four cubits from the excrement of a pig²¹⁸, four cubits from the excrement of a marten²¹⁹, four cubits from the excrement of chickens. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav Huna: Only from red²²⁰ 14b as a separate kind. All these are singled out for their obnoxious smell. ones.

footnotes:
²¹⁷ The donkey. The statements of Rebbis Samuel bar Rav Isaac and Ḥiyya bar Abba restrict the general statement of Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina to one specific case.
²¹⁸ In the Babli (25a), the excrement of a pig is deemed unacceptable only if it is used in tanning. It seems that in Israel no pig excrement was used in tanning.
²¹⁹ This statement is taken by Medieval commentators to apply also to excrement of cats.
²²⁰ Some commentators prefer to understand “Edomite”, but the meaning “red” is preferable since red chickens are mentioned in Babli Avodah zarah


###### Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 3:5:9
[Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 3:5:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Berakhot/r/3:5:9)

תַּנִּי מַרְחִיקִין מֵרֵיחַ רַע אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת. אָמַר רִבִּי אַמִּי מִסּוֹף רֵיחַ רַע אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת. הֲדָא דְאָמַר לְאַחֲרָיו אֲבָל לְפָנָיו עַד מָקוֹם שֶׁעֵינָיו רוֹאוֹת אוֹתוֹ. כַּהֲדָא רִבִּי לִיָּיא וַחֲבֵרָיָא הֲווּ יָתְבִין קוֹמֵי פּוֹנְדָּקִיָּא בְּרַמְשָׁא. אָמְרִין מַהוּ מֵימָר מִילַּיָיא דְּאוֹרָיְתָא. אֲמַר לוֹן מִכֵּיוָן דְּאִילּוּ הֲוָה אִימָמָא הֲוִינָן חָמִיָין מַה קוֹמֵינָן. בְּרַם כְּדוֹן אָסוּר.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
It is stated: One removes himself four cubits from a bad smell²²¹. Rebbi Ammi said, four cubits from the end of the bad smell. That means behind his back, but in front of him until he can no longer see it. Like that of Rebbi Lia and his colleagues who were sitting in front of a hostelry²²² in the night. They said, may one say words of Torah? He said to them: If it were daytime, we would see what is before us. But²²³ like that it is forbidden.

footnotes:
²²¹ It is clear from the following that one talks of a source of bad smell which can be identified and seen. In the Babli (25a) this is called ריח רע שיש לו עיקר “a bad smell that has a material source.” The opinion of the Yerushalmi corresponds in the Babli to the minority opinion of Rav Ḥisda.
²²² Greek πανδοκεῖον (also πανδοκίον) “inn”. It is difficult to see what is so bad about a hostelry. Maybe they were sitting close to the outhouse.
²²³ The text is elliptic, but we do not know what is missing. Generally, ברם means either “on the other hand” or “in addition”.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 3:5:10
[Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 3:5:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Berakhot/r/3:5:10)

תַּנִּי גֶּרֶף אֶחָד שֶׁל רְיעִי וְאֶחָד שֶׁל מַיִם צָרִיךְ לְהַרְחִיק מִמֶּנּוּ אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת. וְשֶׁלִּפְנֵי הַמִּטָּה נָתַן לְתוֹכוֹ מַיִם כָּל שֶׁהוּא יִקְרָא וְאִם לָאו לֹא יִקְרָא. רִבִּי זָכַּאי אָמַר נָתַן לְתוֹכוֹ רְבִיעִית מַיִם יִקְרָא וְאִם לָאו לֹא יִקְרָא. וּמַהוּ כְדֵי רִבִיעִית רְבִיעִית בְּתוֹךְ רְבִיעִית. אֶחָד כֶּלִי קָטוֹן וְאֶחָד כֶּלִי גָדוֹל. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר שֶׁלְּאַחַר הַמִּיטָּה יִקְרָא שֶׁלִּפְנֵי הַמִּיטָּה לֹא יִקְרָא. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר אֲפִילוּ טְרִקְלִין עֶשֶׂר עַל עֶשֶׂר לֹא יִקְרָא עַד שֶׁיְּכַסֶּנּוּ אוֹ עַד שֶׁיַּנִּיחֶנּוּ תַּחַת הַמִּיטָּה. רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא בְשֵׁם רִבִי חִיָיא בַּר וָוא הוֹרֵי רִבִּי חֲנִינָא תֹּרְתַּיָּה כְּהַדָּא דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
It is stated: One must remove himself four cubits from a chamberpot, be it used for excrement or for urine²²⁴ 2:16) is quite explicit: “A chamberpot *with him in the house*, he has to remove himself four cubits.” The Babli (25a) deals separately with full and empty chamberpots.. If it is before the bed, if he put some water in the pot he may recite²²⁵., otherwise he may not recite. Rebbi Zakkai²²⁶ said, if he put a *quartarius*²²⁷ of .533 liter or about 4.5 fl. oz. U.S. of water in, he may recite; otherwise, he may not recite. How many corresponding *quartarii*? One *quartarius*, corresponding to one *quartarius*²²⁸, be the vessel small or large. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, if it stands behind the bed he may recite, before the bed he may not recite. Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar said, even in a dining hall²²⁹, from Greek τρικλίνιον “dining room”, a hall of three dining couches arranged in U-shape. large ten-by-ten²³⁰.] he may not recite until he covers it up or until he puts it under the couch. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: Rebbi Ḥanina Tortayya²³¹ ruled following Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar.

footnotes:
²²⁴ Since in the preceding paragraph one dealt with visible excrement, it follows that in this entire paragraph we are dealing with a chamberpot used at night which is empty at present but still smells from its prior use. The Tosephta (Berakhot
²²⁵ The Shema‘
²²⁶ Rebbi Zakkai the First, Tanna of the fifth generation, contemporary of Rebbi.
²²⁷ A quarter of a log
²²⁸ As much water as was the volume of urine or excrement in the last use.
²²⁹ Latin triclinium
²³⁰ Probably 10 by 10 cubits, which gives a diagonal distance of 14 cubits, taken as an example. The Babli (25a) speaks of a “dining hall of 100 cubits” where “cubits” stands for “square cubits”. [The use of “cubit” for “square cubit” is frequent in Yerushalmi Kilaim
²³¹ A student of Rebbi Yoḥanan; his birthplace, Torta, has not been identified. His decision is also quoted in the Babli as decision of the earlier generations, later overruled by Rava (bar Joseph bar Ḥama), the leader of the fifth generation of Amoraïm in Babylonia.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 3:5:11
[Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 3:5:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Berakhot/r/3:5:11)

רִבִּי בִנְיָמִן בַּר יֶפֶת בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן צוֹאָה כָּל שֶׁהִיא מְבַטְּלָהּ בְּרוֹק. רִבִּי זְעוּרָא רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר זַבְדִּי הֲווּ יָתְבִין חָמִין צוֹאָתָה. קָם רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר זַבְדִּי רָקַק עַלָּהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רִבִּי זְעוּרָא מִן יַמָּא לְטֵיגְנָא.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Benjamin ben Yephet²³² 38b, Yerushalmi *Pesaḥim* 2:5) that R. Benjamin is not trustworthy as witness to the opinions of Rebbi Yoḥanan. His statement is quoted in the Babli (25b) as original Babylonian tradition. in the name of Rebbi Yoḥanan: A minute amount of excrement can be eliminated by spit. Rebbi Zeïra and Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi were sitting; they saw some excrement. Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi got up and spat on it. Rebbi Zeïra said to him: From the sea to the pan²³³ 44a) and *‘Arukh* (1 טגן) explain this expression to mean: “immediately”, like a fish that has to be fried immediately before it spoils. Most commentators explain that R. Zeïra declares the entire rule invalid since spit dries quickly and afterwards is useless. The Babli avoids the problem by allowing only thick spit, probably from the bronchiae, which does not evaporate. One may consider the treatment of the Babli as answer to R. Zeïra’s criticism.!

footnotes:
²³² A student of Rebbi Yoḥanan. Rebbi Zeïra is on record (Babli Berakhot
²³³ Greek τήγανον. Rashi (Babli Qiddushin


###### Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 3:5:12
[Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 3:5:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Berakhot/r/3:5:12)

תֵּיבָה שֶׁהִיא מְלֵיאָה סְפָרִים נוֹתְנָהּ מְרַאֲשׁוֹתֵי הַמִּיטָּה וְאֵינָוֹ נוֹתְנָהּ מַרְגְּלוֹת הַמִּיטָּה. רִבִּי אָבוּן בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי חוּנָא וְהוּא שֶׁתְּהֵא הַמִּיטָּה גָּבוֹהַּ עֲשָׂרָה טְפָחִים. וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יְהוּ חֶבְלֵי הַמִּיטָּה נוֹגְעִין בַּתֵּיבָה. הוֹרֵי רִבִּי יָסָא בִּמְקוֹמֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר רַב יִצְחָק כְּהַדָּא דְּרִבִּי חוּנָה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
²³⁴ A chest full of scrolls one may put under the head of the bed but one may not put it under the foot end of the bed. Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Ḥuna: But only if the bed is 10 hand-breadths²³⁵ (hand-breadth) is one-sixth of a cubit. The basic information one has about length is that the distance one may travel from a town on Sabbath is one *mil* or 2000 cubits. If the *mil* is taken to be the traditional 1111m = 3648 feet then a cubit is 1.824 ft and a *ṭefaḥ* is 3.65 inches. (If the *mil* is taken to be an unlikely Roman mile of 1473.2m = 4833.33 ft, then a cubit is 2.417 ft and a *ṭefaḥ* is 4.836 inches.)
Another approach is based on Mishnah *Kelim* 17:11 which reports an opinion that fluid measures are Roman. The Babli (*Pesaḥim* 109 a/b) defines 40 *seah* as three cubic cubits. By the data quoted in note 164, the cubit would be 55.47 cm and the *ṭefaḥ* 9.25 cm or 3.64 in.
Anything more than 10 *ṭefaḥ* above the ground is considered to be in another domain. This reason also applies to the next paragraph. high, and only if the ropes of the bed do not touch the chest. Rebbi Yasa taught the ruling of Rebbi Ḥuna in the town of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac.

footnotes:
²³⁴ After discussing what may or may not be put under one’s bed, one continues with the case of holy scrolls in one’s room, first under the bed and then in the room.
²³⁵ A ṭefaḥ


###### Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 3:5:13
[Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 3:5:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Berakhot/r/3:5:13)

לֹא יְשַׁמֵּשׁ אָדָם מִיטָּתוֹ וְסֵפֶר תּוֹרָה עִמּוֹ בַבַּיִת. רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ אִם הָיָה כָּרוּךְ בְּמַפָּה אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה נָתוּן בְּחַלּוֹן שֶׁהוּא גָּבוֹהַּ עֲשָׂרָה טְפָחִים מוּתָּר. רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי עוֹשֵׂה לוֹ כִּילְיוֹן.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
A person should not have sexual intercourse when there is a Torah scroll with him in the room. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: it is permitted if it was wrapped in a wrapper or if it was in a window opening that is ten hand-breadths above the ground. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi made a small curtain²³⁶ 25b, states the dangers of sexual intercourse in the presence of a Torah scroll; its connection with the preceding discussion of praying in presence of a chamberpot can be understood only as a commentary on the Yerushalmi.) for it.

footnotes:
²³⁶ Diminutive of כילה “curtain”. (The parallel statement in the Babli, Berakhot


###### Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 3:5:14
[Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 3:5:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Berakhot/r/3:5:14)

לֹא יֵשֵׁב אָדָם עַל גַּבֵּי סַפְסָל שֶׁסֵּפֶר תּוֹרָה נָתוּן עָלָיו. מַעֲשֶׂה בְּרִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר שֶׁהָיָה יוֹשֵׁב עַל גַּבֵּי סַפְסָל שֶׁסֵּפֶר תּוֹרָה נָתוּן עָלָיו וְהִרְתִּיעַ מִלְּפָנָיו כְּמַרְתִּיעַ מִלִּפְנֵי הַנָּחָשׁ. אִם הָיָה נָתוּן עַל גַּבֵּי דָבָר אַחֵר מוּתָּר. עַד הֵיכָן. רִבִּי אַבָּא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי חוּנָא טֶפַח. רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי זְעוּרָא אֲפִילוּ כָּל שֶׁהוּא.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
A person should not sit on a low bench²³⁷ “bench”. on which a Torah scroll was placed. It happened that Rebbi Eliezer sat down on a low bench on which a Torah scroll was placed and he recoiled from it as one recoils before a snake²³⁸ 3:13, and *Massekhet Sefer Torah* 3:10 (where it says “he got up as if bitten by a snake”); also quoted in Babli *Menaḥot* 32b. The reason given is the verse (*Lev.* 26:6): “You shall fear My holy things.” This is then qualified that one may not sit on a bench on which there is a Torah scroll, but if the scroll is on a separate table or chair, there is no minimum distance to be kept.. If it was placed on something other, it is permitted. How far? Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Ḥuna: One handbreadth. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Zeïra: Anything.

footnotes:
²³⁷ Latin subsellium
²³⁸ Cf. Massekhet Soferim


###### Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 3:5:15
[Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 3:5:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Berakhot/r/3:5:15)

דִּייסַקִּי שֶׁהִיא מְלֵיאָה סְפָרִים אוֹ שֶׁהָיוּ בְתוֹכָהּ עַצְמוֹת הַמֵּת הֲרֵי זֶה מִפְשִׁילָן מֵאֲחוֹרָיו וְרוֹכֵב.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
A double sack²³⁹ full of scrolls or if there were in it bones of a dead person²⁴⁰, one carries it on his back and rides.

footnotes:
²³⁹ Greek δισάκκιον, “saddle bag”, a sack made to be carried by a donkey (or horse) hanging down on both sides of the animal. The rule is inserted here in the sequence of rules dealing with the respect due to holy things. The respect shown here is that the sack may not be put on the animal but must be carried on the person even if the latter is riding.
²⁴⁰ For reburial in an ossuary in a cave.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 3:5:16
[Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 3:5:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Berakhot/r/3:5:16)

תְּפִילִין תּוֹלֶה אוֹתָן מְרַאֲשׁוֹת הַמִּיטָּה וְאֵינוֹ תוֹלֶה אוֹתָם מַרְגְּלוֹת הַמִּיטָּה. רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ רִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי חֲנִינָא רִבִּי הָיָה תוֹלֶה אֶת הַתְּפִילִין בִּמְרַאֲשׁוֹת הַמִּיטָּה. רִבִּי חִזְקִיָּה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ וּבִלְבַד דְּלָא יַעֲבֵיד כְּהָדֵין דִּייקֻלָּרָא אֶלָּא תְּפִילִּין מִלְּמַעְלָן וּרְצוּעוֹת מִלְּמַטָּן.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
*Tefillin* one may hang on the headboard of the bed but one may not hang them at the foot end of the bed²⁴¹. Rebbi Samuel²⁴², Rebbi Abbahu, Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: Rebbi did hang his *tefillin* on the headboard of his bed. Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: But only that he should not do in the way of makers of palm leaf baskets but *tefillin* on top and the straps on the bottom²⁴³ should never hang down. [While דיקולא are palm-leaf baskets, the Latin ending -*arius* is suspect. It might be better to derive the word from Latin *collare*, *collarium* “neck chain, collar”, with the prefix די meaning either “double” or being the Aramaic relative pronoun (E. G.). *Tefillin* should not hang as a pendant from its chain.]
In the Babli (24a), this is a rejected opinion. One requires there that the *tefillin* be put in a pouch, the pouch then may be hung at the head of the bed..

footnotes:
²⁴¹ For the same reason as before, to show respect.
²⁴² Since he was a student of R. Abbahu and sometimes student of R. Zeïra, the chain of transmission here are four uninterrupted generations. It seems that only R. Samuel made a formal statement out of an informal tradition; however, in the Babli (24a) the statement is in the name of R. Ḥanina himself.
²⁴³ In the interpretation of J. Levy, basket makers put their wares on a rope from which they are hanging down. Tefillin


###### Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 3:5:17
[Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 3:5:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Berakhot/r/3:5:17)

תַּנָּא רִבִּי חֲלַפְתָּא בֶּן שָָׁאוּל הָעוֹטֵשׁ בִּתְפִילָּתוֹ סִימָן רַע לוֹ. הֲדָא דְאַתְּ אֲמַר מִלְּמַטָּה אֲבָל מִלְּמַעֲלָה לֹא. אַתְיָא דָּמַר רִבִּי חֲנִינָא אֲנִי רָאִיתִי אֶת רִבִּי מְפַהֵק וּמְעַטֵּשׁ וְנוֹתֵן יָדָיו עַל פִּיו אֲבָל לֹא רוֹקֵק. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר אֲפִילוּ רוֹקֵק כְּדֵי שֶׁיְּהֵא כוֹסוֹ נָקִי. לְפָנָיו אָסוּר לְאַחֲרָיו מוּתָּר. לִימִינוֹ אָסוּר לִשְׂמֹאלוֹ מוּתָּר. הֲדָא הִיא דִכְתִיב יִפֹּל מִצִּדְּךָ אֶלֶף. כָּל עַמָּא מוֹדַיי בְּהָהֵין דְּרָקַק אִיצְטְלִין דְּהוּא אָסוּר. רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי אָמַר הָרוֹקֵק בְּבֵית הַכְּנֶסֶת כְּרוֹקֵק בְּבָבַת עֵינוֹ. רִבִּי יוֹנָה רָקַק וְשִׁיֵיף. רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר חֲלַפְתָּא בְּשֵׁם [רַב] אָדָא בַּר אַחֲוָה הַמִּתְפַּלֵּל אַל יָרוֹק עַד שֶׁיְּהַלֵּךְ אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי אָבוּן וְכֵן הָרוֹקֵק אַל יִתְפַּלֵּל עַד שֶׁיְּהַלֵּךְ אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Ḥalaphta ben Shaul²⁴⁴. In the Babli, he mostly appears as Rebbi Taḥlipha ben Shaul. The section here is a continuation of the discussion of respect due to either places of holiness (the synagogue) or acts of holiness (prayer). stated: It is a bad sign if one lets wind during one’s prayer. That means on one’s bottom, but not on one’s top. This parallels what Rebbi Ḥanina said: I saw Rebbi yawning, belching, putting his hand on his mouth, but not spitting²⁴⁵. Rebbi Yoḥanan said, one may even spit so that one’s cup²⁴⁶ should be clean; forward is forbidden, behind oneself is permitted²⁴⁷. To one’s right is forbidden, to one’s left is permitted; that is what is written (*Ps.* 91: 7): “On your left hand side will fall a thousand.²⁴⁸” Everybody agrees about one who spits toward the stele²⁴⁹ n, Lĕšōnēnū 32 (5728), 276–277]. This passage appears in many corrupt versions in early medieval rabbinic authors (e. g., R. Abraham bar David and the student of Rabbenu Jonah) and has given rise to many phantastic conjectures., that he is forbidden to do so. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi says, he who spits in the synagogue is like one who spits into his own eye²⁵⁰. Rebbi Jonah spat and rubbed out. Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Samuel bar Ḥalaphta in the name of Rav Ada bar Aḥava: He who prayed should not spit until he walked four cubits. Rebbi Yose bar Rebbi Abun said, similarly he who spat should not pray until he walked four cubits.

footnotes:
²⁴⁴ An Amora of the first generation, of the collectors of baraitot
²⁴⁵ In the Babli (24a/b), R. Ḥanina reports that he saw Rebbi spitting; this is permitted in the Babli only for people who were disgusted if they had to spit into their garments.
²⁴⁶ I. e., one’s mouth.
²⁴⁷ In the Babli (24b) this is reported as an act of Rav Ashi, the first editor of the Babylonian Talmud. Its theoretical justification must be sought here in the Yerushalmi.
²⁴⁸ As usual, the real argument is from the later part of the verse which is not quoted: “On your left hand side will fall a thousand, but ten thousand on your right hand side.” Hence, the right hand side is ten times as important as the left hand side.
²⁴⁹ Greek στήλη. The stele in the synagogue was the pulpit on which the Torah scroll was laid for reading and was a place of particular holiness [Cf. Y. Brand, Iẓṭeli
²⁵⁰ A parallel in the Babli (24b) states “he is as if he spat out before the king.”


###### Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 3:5:18
[Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 3:5:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Berakhot/r/3:5:18)

תְּנִי הַמִּתְפַּלֵּל אַל יָטִיל אֶת הַמַּיִם עַד שֶׁיְּהַלֵּךְ אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת. וְכֵן הַמַּטִּיל מַיִם אַל יִתְפַּלֵּל עַד שֶׁיְּהַלֵּךְ אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת. אָמַר רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא לֹא סוֹף דָּבָר עַד שֶׁיְּהַלֵּךְ אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת. אֶלָּא אֲפִילוּ שָׁהָא כְּדֵי הִילּוּךְ אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת. אָמַר רִבִּי אַמִּי אִם אוֹמֵר אַתָּה עַד שֶׁיְּהַלֵּךְ אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת יְהֵא אָסוּר אֲנִי אוֹמֵר אַחֵר בָּא וְהִטִּיל שָׁם.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Similarly, he who urinates should not pray until he walks four cubits²⁵¹ 2:19), the language is more restrictive: “A person should not urinate at the place where he prays unless he removes himself four cubits. Once he urinated he should not pray unless he removed himself four cubits. If it is dry or absorbed (in the earth) it is permitted.” This text is the basis of the discussion of the Babli (*Megillah* 27b) but not of the Yerushalmi.. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said: not only that he walks four cubits but even if he waits corresponding to a walk of four cubits. Rebbi Ammi said, if you say that he is forbidden until he removes himself four cubits, I say that maybe somebody else came and urinated there²⁵² 25a) explicitly rules out this argument and states that one is forbidden only at a place where certainly somebody urinated and the moisture is still recognizable..

footnotes:
²⁵¹ In the Tosephta (Berakhot
²⁵² And there is no place in the world where he could pray. The Babli (Berakhot


###### Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 3:5:19
[Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 3:5:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Berakhot/r/3:5:19)

רִבִּי אַבָּא בְשֵׁם רַב צוֹאָה עַד שֶׁתְּיַבֵּשׁ כְּעֶצֶם. מַיִם כָּל זְמָן שֶׁהֵן מַטְפִּיחִין. גְּנִיבָא אָמַר מַיִם כָּל זְמָן שֶׁרִישׁוּמָן נִיכָּר. שְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר עַד שֶׁיִּקְרְמוּ פָנֶיהָ. שִׁמְעוֹן בַּר וָוא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן עַד שֶׁיִּקְרְמוּ פָנֶיהָ. רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה רִבִּי זְעוּרָא בְּשֵׁם רַב צוֹאָה אֲפִילוּ עֲשׂוּיָה כְעֶצֶם אֲסוּרָה. שְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר עַד שֶׁיִּקְרְמוּ פָנֶיהָ. שִׁמְעוֹן בַּר וָוא אָמַר בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן עַד שֶׁיִּקְרְמוּ פָנֶיהָ. אָמַר חִזְקִיָּה רִבִּי אַבָּא מַחְמִיר בְּמַיִם יוֹתֵר מִן הַצּוֹאָה. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רִבִּי מָנָא מִן הֲדָא דִגְנִיבָה. אָמַר לֵיהּ אֲפִילוּ עֲשׂוּיָה כְעֶצֶם אֲסוּרָה מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמַּמָּשָׁהּ קַיָים מַיִם אֵין מַמָּשָּׁהּ קַיָים.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav: Excrement until it is hardened like bone, urine all the time it makes moist²⁵⁴ for urine but the conclusion, that excrement is forbidden even if it is hard like bone, while supported there in the name of R. Yoḥanan, is finally rejected as a matter of common practice.. Ganiva²⁵⁵ said: All the time that its impression is visible. Samuel said: Until its²⁵⁶ surface is hardened. Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Yoḥanan: Until its surface is hardened. Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rav: Excrement is forbidden even if it is hard like bone. Samuel said: Until its surface is hardened. Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Yoḥanan: Until its surface is hardened²⁵⁷. Ḥizqiah said: Rebbi Abba is more restrictive for urine than for excrement? Rebbi Mana said to him: From that of Ganiva²⁵⁸; he said to him: Even if it is hard like bone it is forbidden because its matter exists; urine’s matter no longer exists²⁵⁹

footnotes:
²⁵⁴ This refers to the earlier statement that one has to remove himself from excrement until he no longer sees it, and from urine four cubits. The question is how long excrement legally is in its state.In the Babli (25a), the statement of Samuel/R. Yoḥanan is attributed to Rav by Rav Yehudah and Rebbi Abba’s statement about urine to Samuel/Rebbi Yoḥanan. There is no difference between the Talmudim in praxi
²⁵⁵ A colleague of Rav in Babylonia. He was an extreme political opponent of the then Resh Galuta and was executed by the Persian king as a trouble maker (without the intervention of the Resh Galuta.) His statement refers to urine and is quoted as such in the Babli (25a).
²⁵⁶ Refers to excrement only.
²⁵⁷ The seeming repetition shows that Rebbi Zeïra formulated the entire statement concerning the opinions of Rav, Samuel, and R. Yoḥanan. In the first half, the statements of Rebbi Abba, Samuel, and Rebbi Yoḥanan are three independent statements.
²⁵⁸ “As long as it is recognizable” applies both to excrement and to urine. Since excrement is recognizable even if it is hard as bone (Rome ms.: “hard as wood”), it remains forbidden.
²⁵⁹ As recognizable entity.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 3:6:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 3:6:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Berakhot/r/3:6:1)

**משנה:** זָב שֶׁרָאָה קֶרִי וְנִדָּה שֶׁפָּלְטָה שִׁכְבַת זֶרַע וְהַמְּשַׁמֶּשֶׁת שֶׁרָאֲתָה נִדָּה צְרִיכָה טְבִילָה וְרִבִּי יוּדָה פּוֹטֵר.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** The person with gonorrhea who had an emission of semen, as well as a menstruating woman who lost semen, and the woman who started menstruating while having intercourse, need immersion, but Rebbi Yehudah frees them²⁶⁰ 15 that the man with gonorrhea makes everything around himself impure and cannot be become pure except by a lengthy procedure. Similarly, the menstruating woman needs at least seven days for her purification. If any of these is polluted by the minor impurity of *qeri* as explained in the preceding *halakhah*, any immersion for *qeri* has no influence on the severe impurity already existing (or the one additional in the case of the woman who notices her period while she is already impure by having intercourse). Rebbi Yehudah notes that since the immersion for *qeri* has no practical consequences, it is not needed. The other sages seem to think that since the immersion does not need *miqweh* or flowing water and since it is needed to let the persons pray it is of a completely different character and independent of the other impurities. Since the woman noticing her period during intercourse has to stop it immediately, even before emission of semen, it is clear that her impurity is not the Biblical one described in *Lev.* 15:16–18 but the rabbinic one of *qeri*.

footnotes:
²⁶⁰ It is explained in Lev.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 3:6:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 3:6:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Berakhot/r/3:6:2)

**הלכה:** עַד כְּדוֹן זָב שֶׁרָאָה קֶרִי וַאֲפִילוּ קֶרִי שֶׁרָאָה זוֹב מוֹעִיל הוּא שֶׁהוּא טוֹבֵל. נִשְׁמְעִנָהּ מִן הֲדָא הַמְּשַׁמֶּשֶׁת שֶׁרָאֲתָה נִדָּה צְרִיכָה טְבִילָה. וְרִבִּי יוּדָה פּוֹטֵר.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** So far the person with gonorrhea who had an emission of semen; is it good for anything if the person immerses himself who had an emission and afterwards has an episode of gonorrhea? We hear it from this: “The woman who started menstruating while having intercourse needs immersion, but Rebbi Yehudah frees her.²⁶¹ preceded the severe Biblical impurity and, nevertheless, the disagreement between the majority and Rebbi Yehudah is the same as when the severe impurity precedes *qeri*. This particular case, which is not in the Mishnah, is treated in Babli 26a where it is stated explicitly not only that Rebbi Yehudah does not require immersion but that the majority require it.”

footnotes:
²⁶¹ In both cases, the impurity of qeri


###### Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 3:6:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 3:6:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Berakhot/r/3:6:3)

מַה טַעַם דְּרִבִּי יוּדָה מִשֻּׁם מַה מוֹעִיל הוּא שֶׁהוּא טוֹבֵל שֶׁאִם שֵׁם לְטוּמְאָה קַלָּה אֵצֶל טוּמְאָה חֲמוּרָה. מַה נָפַק מִבֵּינֵיהוֹן רָאָה קֶרִי אִין תֵּימַר מַה מוֹעִיל שֶׁהוּא טוֹבֵל מוֹעִיל הוּא הֲוֵי לֵית טַעֲמֵיהּ דְּלָא מִשּׁוּם שֶׁאֵין שֵׁם לְטוּמְאָה קַלָּה אֵצֶל טוּמְאָה חֲמוּרָה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
What is Rebbi Yehudah’s reason? Is it because what would one profit if he immersed himself²⁶² or whether there is a name for light impurity in the presence of severe impurity²⁶³? What is the difference between these possibilities? If he saw *qeri*, if you say what would one profit if he immersed himself, he would profit²⁶⁴ without washing.! Hence, the only reason is that there is no name for light impurity in the presence of severe impurity!

footnotes:
²⁶² Since the person remains impure as before.
²⁶³ Does the severe impurity eliminate the minor impurity, or does it simply add another level of impurity?
²⁶⁴ He eliminates the rabbinic prohibition against studying Torah and reciting Shema‘


###### Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 3:6:4
[Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 3:6:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Berakhot/r/3:6:4)

עַד כְּדוֹן כְּשֶׁבָּאָת לוֹ טוּמְאָה קַלָּה בְּסוֹף. אֲפִילוּ בָּאָת לוֹ טוּמְאָה חֲמוּרָה בְסוֹף. נִשְׁמְעִינָהּ מִן הֲדָא וְהַמְּשַׁמֶּשֶׁת שֶׁרָאֲתָה נִדָּה צְרִיכָה טְבִילָה וְרִבִּי יוּדָה פּוֹטֵר. הֲדָא אָמְרָה הִיא הֲדָא הִיא אֲדָא.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
That is if the light impurity came at the end. Is it even if the severe impurity came at the end²⁶⁵? We may understand it from this: “The woman who started menstruating while having intercourse needs immersion, but Rebbi Yehudah frees her.” That means, one case is like the other case.

footnotes:
²⁶⁵ Does the severe impurity add to the minor impurity or does it supersede the minor impurity?