Mga Sanggunian sa Talmud para sa Levitico 19:15: Sanhedrin & Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim

as it says, "There will be one law for you" (Leviticus 24:22). So what's the reason they said that monetary cases do not require cross-examination? In order to not lock the door before the borrowers [i.e. to make borrowing very difficult]."

Rather, Rava said: "It teaches two things because of Rabbi Chanina." Rav Acha son of Rav Ika said: "From the Torah, one [judge] would also be fitting, as it is said, 'With justice shall you judge your people' (Leviticus 19:15)."—But is it because of the problem of tramps at street corners [judging confessions and loans that we require] ...

Rebbi Yasa asked: Why does Rebbi Yose say, this is not the implication? Rebbi Yasa had heard that Rebbi Joḥanan said, “from the words of Rebbi Aqiba and Rebbi Ḥananiah the executive officer of the Cohanim,” and he had heard that Bar Qappara said, “original impurity is a word from the Torah, derivative impurity is of their words¹⁶⁶This refers to the terms used by R. Ḥananiah in the Mishnah. In the Babli, 15a/15b, the attributions are switched. In the Yerushalmi the attributions are confirmed in Šeqalim 8:5..” But he had not heard that Rebbi Joḥanan had said, “both these and those are words of the Torah¹⁶⁷In his opinion, biblically pure food, even if it may no longer be eaten or sacrificed, may not be destroyed..” Therefore, he was asking: Just as it is permitted to burn what is (rabbinically) [biblically] forbidden with what is biblically impure, since one burns what is (rabbinically) [biblically] impure with what is biblically impure, so it should be permitted to burn what is (biblically) [rabbinically] forbidden with what is biblically impure since one burns what is (biblically) [rabbinically] impure with what is biblically impure. But there must be a difference between prohibition and impurity. And Rebbi Yasa said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Everybody agrees that on the Sixteenth one burns pure and impure heave [together]²⁰⁷If leavened heave was discovered during the holiday it must be burned. If unleavened heave became impure during the holiday, it must be burned, in both cases by biblical decree. But sancta other than Temple sacrifices may not be burned on the holiday; the burning must be on the first of the intermediate days where work is permitted.. Just as you did not make a difference for us between biblical prohibition and biblical impurity since one burns what is biblically impure with what is biblically impure, so you should not make a difference for us between what is rabbinically forbidden with what is biblically impure since one burns what is rabbinically impure with what is biblically impure. But it must be that both these and those are words of the Torah²⁰⁸Since the statement of R. Joḥanan about the 16^th implies that it does not apply on the 14th, it is inconsistent with the statement of Bar Qappara. R. Yasa concluded that R. Joḥanan must disagree with Bar Qappara without having heard his statement. Then the correct text is the scribe’s (in parentheses), not the corrector’s the the printed texts’ [in brackets] since for R. Joḥanan Mishnah 7 refers to biblical impurities.. There came Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba from Tyre and said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: both these and those are words of the Torah, and I²⁰⁹R. Yasa. said, it is correct. There¹⁹¹“Here” refers to the statement of R. Aqiba, “there” to that of R. Ḥananiah, the executive officer of the Cohanim (Notes 166,167). (rabbinic) [biblical] impurity with biblical impurity but here¹⁹²R. Aqiba compared to R. Ḥananiah. biblical disqualification with biblical impurity. Therefore Rebbi Yose said, this is not the implication²¹⁰In addition to the reason given in Note 201, if R. Joḥanan’s statement about the 16^th is correct, R. Yose will not accept R. Meïr’s treatment of rabbinic and biblical impurity as equivalent.. The position of Rebbi Joḥanan is difficult for Rebbi Meïr²¹¹Since R. Joḥanan is an Amora and R. Meïr a Tanna, the statement rather should be that R. Joḥanan’s position is inconsistent with R. Meïr’s.; therefore Rebbi Yose said, this is not the implication. Bar Qappara must argue like Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, as Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, from the words of Rebbi Eliezer and the words of Rebbi Joshua. Then the opinion of Bar Qappara is difficult for Rebbi Yose²¹²Bar Qappara allows burning of rabbinically impure sacrificial meat with biblically impure even though momentarily the rabbinically impure will become biblically impure. In Mishnah Terumot 8:7, discussed in the next paragraph, R. Joshua prescribes making possibly rabbinically impure heave biblically impure. Since the first generation R. Joshua is an overriding authority, it is difficult to see how the third generation R. Yose could disagree. based on what Rebbi Meïr said, “from their words we learned.” Rebbi Abbin said, Rebbi Meïr is consistent²¹³For R. Meïr the disputes between Bar Qappara and R. Joḥanan and R. Joḥanan and R. Simeon ben Laqish are irrelevant. Even if R. Ḥananiah speaks only about biblical impurities, it makes no difference for R. Meïr who applies all biblical stringencies to rabbinic prohibitions. since Rebbi Meïr is restrictive in their words as in words of the Torah. Where do we find that Rebbi Meïr is restrictive in their words as in words of the Torah? Rebbi Ḥinena said, as we have stated there²¹⁴Mishnah Niddah 6:13.: “A woman who sees a stain is out of order and worries because of flux[, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, nothing in stains implies flux²¹⁵In biblical rules (which are difficult for rabbinic women to follow, cf. Niddah Chapter 4, Note 3) there is a big difference between menstrual discharges (Lev. 19:15–24) and non-menstrual flux (Lev. 19:25–30). In rabbinic theory, there are 11 days after the end of a menstrual period in which no discharges are menstrual. If a woman discovers a stain on an undergarment, it is rabbinically considered evidence of a discharge. Since this is a purely rabbinic rule, she is “out of order” in that the 11 day rule cannot be applied. In addition, if the undergarment was worn for three days and the stain is large enough to possibly be the result of three discharges, for R. Meïr all rules spelled out in vv. 19:28–30 do apply even though there is no biblical impurity.].”