Search
See
How to Search for an explanation
Found: 3428 articles,
showing 960 - 970
... Babylonian Talmud: Kethuboth 56 Previous Folio / Kethuboth Directory / Tractate List / Navigate Site Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Kethuboth Folio 56a — The fact, however, is that both1 follow [the rule of] assumption; and he who stated that the halachah [was so]2 was well justified, [while in respect of] him who stated that the halachah was not [so],3...
... exempt];49 but why? This,45 surely, is a monetary matter, and R. Judah was heard to rule that in a monetary matter one's stipulation50 is valid. For was it not taught: If a man said to a woman, 'Behold thou art consecrated unto me51 on condition that thou shalt have no [claim] upon me [for] food, raiment or conjugal rights', she is consecrated,52 but the stipulation is...
... the opinion that the man's stipulation is void and that the woman receives [her full kethubah];13 yet since14 the man had said to her15 'You will have but a maneh',16 her mind is not at ease17 and his intercourse is regarded as an act of prostitution.18 But, surely, R. Meir was heard to rule that any stipulation19 which is contrary to what is written in the...
... adversary in self-defence, but kills him instead, he is guilty of murder. II Sam. II, 23 [H] 'loins', 'waist', means also 'fifth'. Hence R. Johanan's interpretation. Son of Abigail, King David's sister, who commanded the rebel army of Absalom. Subsequently he was pardoned by David and given the command of the army when the rebellion of Shebah broke out (II Sam. XX). On that account Joab saw a dangerous...
... rival in him. II Sam. XVII, 25; XIX, 14. Lit., 'he rebelled against the throne.' This was punishable by death. [H], 'but'; [H], 'only', both denoting limitation. The men of Judah. Josh. I, 18. Rak intimating a limitation. Hence the duty to fulfil the King's command does not apply where one is engaged in the study of the Law, According to the view held by Amasa, God's Law seemed more important to him...
... committing a murder, but without avail. When the king directed him to expose Uriah the Hittite to the enemy in such a manner as to ensure his destruction. V. II Sam. XI, 14ff. To kill the priests of Nob. Ibid. XI, 14. And a verbal command by the king is stronger than a mere written order. II Sam. XX, 10. I Kings II, 34. Regarding 'in' as indicating apposition: i.e.,'in his own house,' viz. 'the wilderness...
... disciple, who said, "Suffering is precious."28 Akiba,' queried he, 'whence dost thou know this?' — He replied, 'I interpret a verse: Mannasseh was twelve years old when he began to reign, and he reigned fifty and five years in Jerusalem etc. and he did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord.29 Now it is [elsewhere] written, To Part b Original footnotes renumbered. See Structure of...
... reign,17 yet that was not so, but that Jeroboam would issue from him. Ahitophel, — he beheld leprosy breaking out in him. He thought that it meant that he would reign,18 but it was not so, but referred to Bath Sheba, his daughter,19 from whom issued Solomon. Pharaoh's astrologers, — even as R. Hama son of R. Hanina said: What is meant by This is the water of Meribah?20...
...; 'The reign of thy son Solomon shall already have become due, and one reign may not overlap another even by a hairbreadth.' 'Then let me die on the eve of the Sabbath!' Said He, 'For a day in thy courts is better than a thousand':25 better is to Me the one day that thou sittest and engagest in learning than the thousand burnt-offerings which thy son Solomon is destined to sacrifice before Me on...
... Judaism as an act of worship — indeed, the greatest, though only when it leads to piety; cf. Pe'ah I, 1. Tractate List / Glossary / / Bible Reference Shabbath 30b Now, every Sabbath day he would sit and study all day.1 On the day that his soul was to be at rest,2 the Angel of death stood before him but could not prevail against him, because learning did not cease from his mouth. 'What...
... domination is wrong. If things are cooperating and nobody is trying to dominate anybody, then everything is true. So remember, rhythm is true. To be non-rhythmic is untrue. So if thought is in rhythm there is no problem. Don't think it is phoney, because thought is also yours as much as your feelings. The head is also yours. The problem is not the head. The problem is that your head has become your whole...
... first attitude was wrong; the second is also wrong, because thought has also to be included. Otherwise you will again create a part human being, not whole, because where will you put thought? Thought as such is not phoney. So how to decide whether thought is phoney or not? If thought is in cooperation with feeling it is not phoney. If thought is trying to dominate feeling, then it is phoney. All...
... they have become a servant of the other, and then the resentment - because nobody wants to lose one's freedom - and the fear that love brings, the fear that one is getting into a kind of bondage, that one is getting fettered. Hence the fear of all love, and out of fear, the effort to dominate the other so that he cannot dominate you. Before he starts dominating or she starts dominating, you have to...
... impose your domination. That is the conflict of all lovers, and the whole misunderstanding is because they cannot see some invisible phenomenon which is higher than both. They have not fallen in love with each other, they have fallen in love. Love is a third force. Once this is understood love takes on a totally new dimension. Then there is no conflict, no fear. They both serve something higher...
... [further]: Thou shalt not go back to fetch it — this is to include the sheaf which has been forgotten [by the owner on his return] to town. But is not this needed to indicate that disregard of the law involves the transgression of a negative command?23 — If that were so, the Scriptural verse would only have to say 'Thou shalt not fetch it'. Why does it say: 'Thou shalt not go back...
...'? [Obviously] in order to include the sheaf which has been forgotten [by the owner on his return] to town. But is not this [additional phrase] still required for [the rule] which we have learned: That which is in front of him [who is engaged in reaping] is not [subject to the law of the] forgotten [sheaf]; that which is behind him is [subject to the law of the] forgotten [sheaf], as it is included in the...
... prohibition: 'Thou shalt not go back [to fetch it]'.24 This is the general rule: All that can be included in the prohibition 'Thou shalt not go back [to fetch it]' is [subject to the law of the] forgotten [sheaf]; all that cannot be included in the prohibition 'Thou shalt not go back [to fetch it]' is not [subject to the law of the] forgotten [sheaf]?25 — R. Ashi said: The Scriptural verse...
... but permitted in the synagogue, so spitting is forbidden in the Temple mount but permitted in the synagogue. Said R. Papa to Raba — according to others, Rabina said to Raba, while others again report that R. Adda b. Mattena said it to Raba, Instead of learning the rule from the analogy of a shoe, why not learn it from that of a short cut?41 — He replied: The Tanna derives it from a...
... that regarding a shoe, the wearing of which does not show contempt, the Torah has said, Put off thy shoes from off thy feet,42 must not the rule all the more apply to spitting, which does show contempt? R. Jose b. Judah said: This reasoning is not necessary. For see, it says, For none might enter within the king's gate clothed in sackcloth.43 Now have we not here an argument a fortiori...
.... XXII, 14. Representing as it does the Latin compendiaria via. Raba seems to imply that there is no need to try to interpret it as an Aramaic expression. Before the synagogue was built. Ezek. XLVI, 9. When the Temple is no longer there. I Kings IX, 3. A synagogue may not be used as a short cut, v. Meg. 28a. Ex. III, 5. Esth. IV, 2. Thus we see that the Tanna derives the rule regarding spitting from...
... halizah and the betrothal. Having been born after the halizah they have never been subject to the levirate relationship on account of the first deceased brother and the halizah of the levir had, therefore, imposed no restrictions upon them in relation to the widow. V. supra n. 3. Hence it is the duty of one of these brothers to submit to halizah which is incumbent upon them as brothers of the levir who...
... — The other replied: You have learnt it, 'If one of them27 was a permitted wife and the other a forbidden one; if he28 submit to halizah he must submit to that of the forbidden one;29 and if he marries he marries the permitted one.'29 Now what is meant by 'permitted' and 'forbidden'? If it be suggested that 'permitted' means permitted for all the world,30 and...
... followed a letter of divorce. Though he could certainly submit to halizah from the second, the letter of divorce to whom is invalid, and thereby exempt the first also. He is advised, however, to submit to halizah from the first because by so doing he averts the prohibition to him of the second widow's relatives who, had he submitted to her halizah, would have become forbidden to him as the 'relatives of...
... ADDRESSED A MA'AMAR etc. - To Next Folio - Original footnotes renumbered. See Structure of the Talmud Files It is now assumed that, as the Rabbis disagreed with R. Gamaliel on the question of a divorce that followed another divorce, they disagreed also on that of the levirate bond. According to which the Rabbis maintain that either levir may submit to the halizah (v. supra p. 337, n. 4) and the...
Search time: 0.045 seconds.
-
Enter a search word or a sentence (not too long).
-
If you want to search for an exact phrase, surround it
with quotes (") like "what is love" or
"how to meditate".
-
You can use AND [in UPPER case] between the words if you are
looking for articles containing all of those words.
-
You can specify which collection and/or chapter to search.
All choice in choice boxes - searches all.
-
Search will also search for synonyms (words with similar meaning)
and all the words with the same stem (root).