Yerushalmi Chagigah 1:8 ירושלמי חגיגה א׳:ח׳

MISHNAH: The dissolution of vows¹⁵⁷The power of a rabbi to annul the vow of a person is based on the questionable interpretation, rejected by Sadducees and Karaites, of a single verse. flies in the air and has no support. The rules of the Sabbath, holiday sacrifices, and larceny on sancta¹⁵⁸As mentioned in Lev. 5:14–15. The exact definition of what constitutes larceny on sancta is not found in the Biblical text. are like mountains hanging on a hair, few verses and many rules. Civil law, Temple service, purity and impurity, and forbidden sexual relations have support. All of them¹⁵⁹This text essentially appears in the Venice edition of the Yerushalmi in Nedarim 3:1 as an unjustified corrector’s addition taken from here. Also the attribution there of R. Eliezer’s statement to Ḥananiah the nephew of R. Joshua is unjustified; Ḥananiah refers to the next paragraph. The authorship of R. Eliezer of a similar statement is confirmed in the Babli 10a. are the body of the Torah.

HALAKHAH: ¹⁵⁹This text essentially appears in the Venice edition of the Yerushalmi in Nedarim 3:1 as an unjustified corrector’s addition taken from here. Also the attribution there of R. Eliezer’s statement to Ḥananiah the nephew of R. Joshua is unjustified; Ḥananiah refers to the next paragraph. The authorship of R. Eliezer of a similar statement is confirmed in the Babli 10a. It was stated: Rebbi Eliezer says, they have support. I swore and shall keep it¹⁶⁰Ps. 119:106.. Sometimes I do not keep it. Rebbi Joshua says, they have support. Which I swore in My anger¹⁶¹Ps. 95:11.. I swore in My anger, I am changing My opinion.

¹⁶²Text copied from Nedarim 3:1, Notes 6–7. There, we have stated¹⁶³Mishnah Nedarim 3:1.: “Four kinds of vows did the Sages dissolve.” Do not the Sages permit all kinds of vows? It is written¹⁶⁴Num. 30:2.: Moses spoke to the heads of the tribes of the Children of Israel. He referred the paragraph to the heads of the tribes that they should dissolve their vows. Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: He shall not profane his word¹⁶⁵Num. 30:3.. He cannot profane his word; this implies that others can profane his words. Who is that? That is the Sage who dissolves the vow.

¹⁶⁶This and the following paragraphs are copied from Nedarim 10:10 (Notes 112–128). The first paragraph is complete here and slightly defective there; the end of the second paragraph here is lacunary in the ms. and badly augmented by the corrector. The last paragraph is added from there without any reasonable connection to the topics of Ḥagigah. Rebbi Ze`ira, Rav Jehudah, Jeremiah bar Abba in the name of Samuel: Three who know how to find an opening¹⁶⁷They know the rules of invalidating vows In the Babli, Nedarim 78a, Bekhorot 36b, any three lay persons are empowered to form a court to invalidate vows. may permit like an Elder. They thought, at a place where no Elder was available. The rabbis of Caesarea are saying: Even at a place where there is an Elder¹⁶⁸Invalidation of a vow by three laymen is not infringing on the privileges of the rabbinate. The ordained rabbi has the privilege to invalidate a vow alone (Babli, Nedarim 78a).. They said before Rebbi Yasa: Is Rav Ḥuna “head of tribes”¹⁶⁹He was the undisputed head of the Babylonian rabbinate and was of the family of the davidic Head of the Diaspora. He certainly had the right to invalidate vows, being of the “heads of the tribes”.? He answered them, if Rav Ḥuna is not head of tribes, who are the heads of tribes? Rav Ḥuna is head of the heads of tribes¹⁷⁰He is the head of all ordained rabbis, even though his Babylonian ordination is not complete as explained in the next paragraph..

May one appoint Elders for selected topics¹⁷¹Is it possible to give ordination without conferring all rabbinical powers on the candidate?? Let us hear from the following: Rebbi appointed Rav to invalidate vows and to see stains¹⁷²To decide whether a female genital discharge was menstrual blood or not; i. e., whether the woman would be permitted to her husband or not. This is taken as example of his power to decide in matters of ritual prohibitions and includes permission to judge in all matters of such prohibitions.. After his death, he¹⁷³Rav. asked his¹⁷⁴Rebbi’s. son for {permission to judge} defects of firstlings. He said to him, I shall not add to what my father gave you. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, he gave him everything: To sit in judgment alone, to invalidate vows, to see stains, and to see outside blemishes¹⁷⁵Blemishes of firstlings. In the tradition of the Babli, Sanhedrin5a, Rav received full rabbinic powers except the right to decide anything in matters of firstlings. (A firstling of cattle, sheep, or goats must be sacrificed unless it has a blemish which disqualifies it as a sacrifice. In the absence of a Temple, the firstling must graze until it develops a blemish; Deut. 15:19–23.) The full ordination was refused to him since his intent was to return to Babylonia and Rebbi disapproved of that. After him, all rabbis with the limited diaspora ordination received the title of Rav.. After his death, he asked his son for {permission to judge} hidden defects. He said to him, I shall not add to what my father gave you. Even though you say, one appoints Elders for selected topics, only if he is competent for everything. As the following: Rebbi Joshua ben Levi ordained all his students, but he was sorry about one who (had a defect in his) [had a running] eye¹⁷⁶Since skin lesions (wrongly translated as “leprosy”, Lev. 13–14) must be seen with both eyes, a one-eyed or blind person could not be ordained to decide on their ritual purity. {The meaning of the corrector’s change is questionable.} and he could not ordain him; could he not have ordained him for selected topics? That implies (that one who is competent in one thing has to be competent in everything, even for one thing he is not competent) [one who is competent in everything is competent in one thing but one who is not competent in everything cannot be declared competent in one thing.]¹⁷⁷The scribe’s text is lacunary, the corrector’s wrong. One has to adopt the text from Nedarim: In order to be competent in one thing he has to be competent in everything; one who is not competent in everything cannot be declared competent in one thing.

May one appoint Elders for a fixed time? Let us hear from the following: Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba went to Rebbi Eleazar and asked him to intervene with the Patriarch Rebbi Jehudah, that the latter should write him a letter of recommendation for seeking a livelihood in a foreign country. He intervened, and {the Patriarch} wrote for him: Here we are sending you as our representative a great personality with all our powers until he shall return to us. Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Dositheus, Rebbi Abba bar Zamina, and they report in the name of the old Rebbi Dositheus: He wrote him the following. Here we are sending you a great personality. What is his greatness? He will not be ashamed to say “I did not learn this”¹⁷⁸In the first version the ordination was valid only as long as R. Ḥiyya served outside the Land of Israel. In the second, it was unconditional. The question is not resolved..

May one permit wearing a coat¹⁷⁹May a vow be removed informally or only in a court proceeding with the rabbi sitting as judge? “Robe” is Latin paenula, Greek φαινόλης, παινόλης.? Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One permits wearing a coat. Rebbi permitted wearing a coat. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi permitted wearing a coat. Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah: At a place where one does not wear a toga. Rebbi Yose ben Abun said, for easy vows¹⁸⁰Those which can be permitted unquestionably, for which no argument is needed..

“The rules of the Sabbath.” Rebbi Jonah said that Rebbi Ḥama bar Uqba asked, is it not written only but a spring, or a cystern, a water pool shall be pure¹⁸¹Lev. 11:36., and you infer from this many rules¹⁸²He objects to the distinction made between the rules of the Sabbath and those of purity. While there are many more verses dealing with purity than those dealing with the Sabbath, there are many rules of purity derived from as slim a scriptural basis than those of the Sabbath. Cf. Sifra Shemini Parashah 9..

¹⁸³From here to the last paragraph of the Chapter the text is Halakhah Peah 2:6, Notes 98–120 (פ). This first paragraph is intelligible only in the framework of Tractate Peah. Rebbi Ze`ira said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If you come to notice a practice of which you do not know the reason, do not push it aside as something alien since many practices were said as from Moses on Sinai¹⁸⁴In the Peah text, including Mishnah 2:6: to Moses on Sinai. The formulation here only asserts that these practices were accepted as traditional and valid interpretations of the Law by the time of Ezra’s organization of Judaism. and all of them were absorbed into the Mishnah. Rebbi Abun said, that is correct! If Naḥum had not come and explained it to us about the two kinds of wheat, could we have known¹⁸⁵Referring to Mishnah Peah 2:6 where Naḥum the Scribe asserts a tradition from Moses on Sinai that a farmer harvesting two different strains of wheat has to give only one peah.?

Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: I wrote down for him most of My teaching¹⁸⁶Hos. 8:12.. But was most of the Torah written down? Rather, more things are derived from what is written than what is derived from oral tradition. Is that so? But things derived from what is supported by a verse are preferred over those supported by oral tradition. Rebbi Judah ben Pazi said: I wrote down for him most of My teaching, these are the admonitions. Nevertheless, is it not that they were considered foreign? Rebbi Abun said: If I had written down for you most of my teaching, would it not be considered Gentile¹⁸⁷Since only Jews have oral tradition as main source of a codified system of laws.? What would be the difference between us and the Gentiles? These produce their books and those produce their books. These produce their parchments¹⁸⁸Greek διφθέρα. and those produce their parchments.

¹⁸⁹This paragraph also is from Megillah4:1, Notes 16 ff. Rebbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman: Things have been said orally and things have been said in writing, and we do not know which ones are preferred. From what is written¹⁹⁰Ex. 34:27.: by the mouth of these words I concluded a covenant with you and Israel, it follows that the oral traditions are preferred. Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Yudan ben Rebbi Simeon. One said that if you kept what is oral tradition and kept what is written I will conclude a covenant with you, otherwise I shall not conclude a covenant with you. The other one said, if you watched all that is oral tradition and kept all that is written you will receive your reward, otherwise you will not receive any reward. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said: On them, and on them; all, like all; words, the words; Bible, Mishnah, Talmud, practices and Aggadah. Even what a competent student will discover before his teacher was said to Moses on Sinai. What is the reason? There is something about which one would say, look, this is new! His colleague will answer, it already has been forever¹⁹¹Eccl. 1:10..

Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Samuel: One makes inferences neither from practices<sup>192</sup>Rules of practice declared in the Mishnah; these may be overridden by arguments in the Talmud. The interpretation of this paragraph follows R. Samuel ben Meïr (Rashbam) to Babli Bava batra 130b., nor from homiletics<sup>193</sup>Homiletics, whether incorporated in the Talmud or given in separate Midrashim. Since the sixteenth century this principle has been violated in favor of practices mentioned in the pseudepigraphic Midrash Zohar., nor from extraneous sources<sup>194</sup>The “additional sources” are tannaitic materials not given in the Mishnah, either as single traditions or as part of a collection., but only from study<sup>195</sup>From study which finds the reasons for each ruling.. Did not Rebbi Ḥalaphta ben Shaul state: The case of two kinds of wheat is the same as the case of two kinds of barley<sup>196</sup>If R. Ḥalaphta ben Shaul makes the inference that the rules for barley are identical with those for wheat, does he not violate Samuel's statement that one does not draw inferences from stated practices but only from an argument about the underlying principles?? Rebbi Ze`ira said, that was part of the original practice and it was forgotten: The case of two kinds of wheat is the same as the case of two kinds of barley. But did we not state¹⁹⁷Mishnah Peah 3:3. “He who strips moist onions for the market and stores dry ones¹⁹⁸He has to give peah two times; this rule cannot be deduced from the stated practice regarding two kinds of wheat since one deals here with only one kind of onion. Since this Mishnah cannot be a consequence of the original Halakhah, neither may one assert that the ruling of R. Ḥalaphta ben Shaul was part of the original Ḥalakhah. Hence, neither the statement of R. Ḥalaphta nor the Mishnah are exempt from logical scrutiny on the basis of accepted general principles.;” can you say about market and storage that this was of the original practice and was forgotten?

Rebbi Ḥananiah in the name of Samuel: One makes no inferences from a ruling¹⁹⁹If a rabbi was asked about a practical problem and he gave a certain decision, a third party may make no practical applications of that decision unless he understands the reasoning behind the decision and agrees with it.. Everybody agrees that one makes no inferences from an action²⁰⁰If one saw a rabbinic authority act in a certain way, one may not act in the same way or make inferences from this action unless one knows both the background of and the reasoning for the particular action.. Rebbi Mana said to him, that means somebody who does not understand²⁰¹The reasoning of the rabbinic authority., but he who understands may act. He said to him, whether one understands or one does not understand, if there is a disagreement²⁰²If in the Mishnah or another source there is mention of a disagreement between rabbis about the correct course, action is permitted only if there is an explicit understanding of and agreement with the reasoning behind the ruling.. But if there is no disagreement, whether one understands or one does not understand one acts²⁰³In this case, one may act on the decision or imitate the action of a competent rabbinic authority even without a detailed inquiry into the arguments leading to decision or action.
Here ends the text from Peah..

²⁰⁴This paragraph is copied (somewhat lacunary, completed by the corrector) in Terumot 5:9 (Notes 112–115). Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: All forbidden things²⁰⁵Which can become insignificant in an appropriate plurality of permitted food (60, 100, 200 times, as the case may be)., if one added to them in error it is permitted, intentionally it is forbidden. Is that not the Mishnah²⁰⁶Mishnah Terumot 5:9., “if it was in error it is permitted, if intentional it is forbidden”? The Mishnah is about addition to heave, he comes to tell you about other things. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: Just as one has a duty to instruct about actions that should be done so one has a duty to instruct negatively about actions that should not be done. Rebbi Eleazar said, just as it is forbidden to declare the impure as pure, so it is forbidden to declare the pure as impure. Rebbi Abba bar Jacob in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If a practical case comes before you and you do not know whether to suspend or to burn²⁰⁷The rule is that heave impure by biblical standards must be burned but heave impure only by rabbinic standards must be “suspended”, viz., one must leave it to rot until it is no longer food and, therefore, pure according to all standards., always try to burn rather than to suspend since there is nothing in the Torah more distinguished than burned bulls and burned rams²⁰⁸The expiatory sacrifices whose blood was brought into the Sanctuary., and they are burned. Rebbi Yose asked, is it possible to infer from something whose commandment is thus for something whose commandment is not so²⁰⁹The argument of R. Abba bar Jacob contradicts our principle that homiletics cannot be the base of practical decisions.?