The halacha we have today is mostly sourced in Talmud Bavli(the Babylonian Talmud),Medrash and Zohar. I would like to know what Halachot which we have today which are sourced strictly in the Yerushalmi (the Jerusalem Talmud) and where they can be found in the Yerushalmi. Any Halacha would be appreciated.
The answers to this question refer to a Yerushalmi (Shabbos 7:2) that extends the melachah of זורה (winnowing) to scattering something in the wind (the example given is spitting). This is cited as halachah in Rema, Orach Chaim, end of sec. 319,17
But see the Mishna Brura quoting Rabbi Akiva Eiger that its permitted to spit on Shabbos as one is not intending to Winnow at all and this is not how one normally winnows.
מפזר הרוק - ולא ראינו מי שחושש לזה כיון דאינו מתכוין לכך וכ"ש דאין זה דרך זורה [חידושי רע"א]
So so so many laws of Zeraim as there is no Bavli on that order of Mishna.
[I know this isn't specific, but I wanted to put it out there]
אקב"ו על פדיון מעשר שני
The Shulchan Aruch rules in OC 448:6 that you can't feed chametz to an ownerless animal based on Yerushalmi Pesachim 2:1
In Hilchot Mezuza (Yore Deah 285) the Rama rules like Rav Huna in the Yerushalmi Megilla 4,12 that if one can only buy Tefilin or Mezuza, he should buy Tefilin.
Consider, for example, four examples that I happen to have written about or am writing about currently—tefillin on Chol ha-Moed, aliyot in a city where all the men are kohanim, whether the daughter of a gentile man and Jewish woman may marry a Kohen, and the of using charity funds to build synagogues rather than to support the poor.
In all four cases, the Bavli is silent while the Yerushalmi directly addresses the matter. On the topic of tefillin on Chol ha-Moed, Y.Moed Katan 3:4 is clear that tefillin should be worn; in Y.Gittin 5:9 it is clear that even in a city where all the men are kohanim, women do not get called to the Torah; Y.Yevamot 4:15 is clear that such a woman cannot marry a Kohen; and in Y.Peah 8:8 it is clear that a synagogue is a valid recipient of charity. Although it is obvious that each of these four matters generates some controversy among the Poskim, I suspect that the core dispute is whether one needs to adopt the halachic norm as expressed by the Jerusalem Talmud. Much more could be written on this matter.
According to the Yerushalmi (Megillah 1:9), letters in Sta"m need to be mukaf gevil (surrounded by white parchment) on the inside of the letter as well (eg a the inside of a samech). See Shulchan Aruch OC 32:15
The Rambam Hilchos Shofar 2,8 says that the during the time of the Beis Hamikdash they would blow the Shofar on Shabbos in Yerushalayim and all the surrounding cities that were in eyesight of Yerushalayim becaue they knew of the fixing of Rosh Chodesh
בזמן שהיה בית המקדש קיים והיה בית דין הגדול בירושלים היו הכל תוקעין בירושלים בשבת כל זמן שבית דין יושבין. ולא אנשי ירושלים בלבד אלא כל עיר שהיתה בתוך תחום ירושלים
The Mirkeves Hamishne says that the source of the Rambam is in the Yerushalmi Rosh Hashana 4,1:
סמך רבנו על הירושלמי היוצא מזה לפי טעמו של רשב"י פי' המשנה אפילו בירושלים נמי תוקעין כיון דידעי בקביעא דירחי
see here for a full explanation Torah prohibition of Shofar on Shabbos Rosh Hashanah?
אסור לשמש מטתו בשני רעבון אלא לחשוכי בנים [פירוש מי שאין לו בנים] הגה וע"ל סי' תקע"ד ס"ד וה"ה בשאר צרות שהם כרעבון [ירושלמי דתענית]
One may not have intercourse in times of hardship, because they are akin to famine-stricken years.
Rambam Choveil umazik 1:11, Rif and almost all rishonim on Bava kamma 26b quoting the Yerushalmi halacha 2,8:
במה דברים אמורים שהישן חייב לשלם בשנים שישנו כאחד ונתהפך אחד מהן והזיק את חבירו או קרע בגדו. אבל אם היה אחד ישן ובא אחר ושכב בצדו. זה שבא באחרונה הוא המועד ואם הזיקו הישן פטור
When is a person liable to damages when "not at fault" i.e oneis in a case when flailing in his sleep and whacking the fellow next to him? If he slept next to someone else sleeping and did damage. But he is not liable when flailing in his sleep if that person only went to sleep next to him after he was already asleep because the latter is responsible for putting himself in a position of damage i.e oneis gommur
אחר סעודת שחרית קובעים מדרש לקרות בנביאים ולדרוש בדברי אגדה ואסור לקבוע סעודה באותה שעה: הגה ופועלים ובעלי בתים שאינן עוסקים בתורה כל ימי שבוע יעסקו יותר בתורה בשבת מתלמידי חכמים העוסקים בתורה כל ימי השבוע ותלמידי חכמים ימשיכו יותר בעונג אכילה ושתיה קצת שהרי מתענגים בלמודם כל ימי השבוע: [ב"י סי' רפ"ח בשם ירושלמי]:
After the morning meal, we establish learning, to read in Prophets and expound on Agada. And it is forbidden to establish a meal during that time. Haga: And workers and homeowners who do not toil in Torah during all the days of the week, should toil more in Torah on Shabbos than Torah scholars who toil in Torah all days of the week. And the Torah scholars should engross more in the enjoyment of eating and drinking, a bit, because they pleasure in their studies all days of the week.
רבי חגי בשם רבי שמואל בר נחמן לא ניתנו שבתות וימים טובים אלא לאכילה ולשתייה. על ידי שהפה זה מסריח התירו לו לעסוק בהן בדברי תורה. רבי ברכיה בשם רבי חייא בר בא לא ניתנו שבתות וימים טובים אלא לעסוק בהן בדברי תורה.
The Rambam allowed a convert to say “God of our fathers” in prayers, which a convert was, up to that point, not allowed to say, because his “fathers” were not Jewish. Indeed, the Mishna in Bikkurim does not allow it. [The Babylonian Talmud (the Bavli) has no Gemara in Bikkurim, and hence accepts the Mishna]:
The convert brings [first fruits] but does not recite [the relevant declaration in Deuteronomy] because he cannot say “the land which God has sworn to our fathers to give us.” [Deuteronomy 26:3]. But if his mother was of Israel, he may [both] bring [first fruits] and recite [the declaration]. And when he prays by himself, he says, “God of the fathers of Israel”. And when he is in synagogue [with the community], he says, “God of YOUR fathers.” But if his mother was of Israel, he says, “God of our fathers.” [B. Bikkurim 1:4]
But the Jerusalem Talmud (the Yerushalmi) allows it!
A… convert brings [first fruits] AND recites [the declaration in Deuteronomy]. Why? [Because God said to Abraham]: “For I have made you the father of a multitude of nations” [Genesis 17:5]. In the past you were a father to Aram [only], but now, henceforth, you are a father to all the nations. [J. Bikkurim 1:4, 64a]
Normally, when the two Talmuds differ the Bavli wins. But Maimonides ruled in favor of the Yerushalmi. In his letter to a convert named Obadiah, he says:
You ask me if you, too, are allowed to say… “Our God and God of our fathers”, “who has sanctified us through His commandments”, “who has separated us”, “who has chosen us”, “who has given to our fathers to inherit [a pleasant, good and spacious land]”, “who has brought us out of the Land of Egypt”, “who has worked miracles to our fathers”, and more of this kind. Yes, you may say all this in the prescribed order and not change it in the least…
And he concludes:
Toward father and mother we are commanded to honor and revere them, toward the prophets to obey them, but toward converts we are commanded to have great love in our inmost hearts.... God, in His glory, loves a convert --... [because he is] a man who left his father and birthplace and the realm of his people at a time when they are powerful, who understood with his insight, and who attached himself to this nation which today is a despised people, the slave of rulers, and recognized and knew that their religion is true and righteous... and pursued God... and entered beneath the wings of the Divine Presence... [Letter to Obadiah the Convert]
The debate continued. It took four centuries for the Rambam’s position to be universally accepted.