R. Yossi b. Yoezer, Ish Tz'raidah, testified about ayal kamtza [a type of locust] that it is clean [and may be eaten. (The Targum of "kachagavim" ["like locusts" (Numbers 13:33)] is "kekamtzin")]; and (he testified) about the liquids [i.e., the blood and the water] of the slaughtering house, [in the azarah] that they are clean. [According to one view they are entirely clean; for the tumah of liquids is not Torah-based, but of rabbinic decree, and in this instance they did not decree thus. According to another view they are "clean" in that they do not defile others; but they are tamei in themselves, for the tumah of liquids in themselves is Torah-based, and the Rabbis cannot permit what the Torah has proscribed]; and (he testified) that one who touches a dead body becomes tamei. [That is, one who, of a certainty, touches a dead body becomes tamei, but, in an instance of doubt (safek), even vis-à-vis the stringent tumah of a dead body, he is tahor — how much more so does he come to permit the lesser tumah of a sheretz and a safek of tumah in the public domain. And even though a safek of tumah in the public domain is tahor (even) according to the Torah — for the entire issur of safek tumah is derived from sotah, viz. (Numbers 5:13): "…and she had secreted herself and she be defiled," Scripture telling us that she is forbidden in an instance of doubt ("secreted, etc."), and just as sotah obtains only in the private domain, there being no "secreting" in the public domain, so the tumah of safek obtains only in the private domain — still, before the ruling of Yossi ben Yoezer, they said: "It is a halachah (that tumah does not obtain in the public domain), but we do not teach it." And he came and testified that we do teach it ab initio, to render tahor every safek of tumah in the public domain.] And they called him "Yossi, the permitter." [For he permitted three things vis-à-vis which they deported themselves as being forbidden. For every beth-din which permits three things whose heter (permit) is not apparent is called "a permitting beth-din."]
Jerusalem Talmud Chagigah
Rebbi Joḥanan said, the finger-holes which they mentioned, whether inside or outside, in the manner in which cleanly people hold it21Cleanly people hold the cup on the outside, so that their fingers do not touch the drink. The problem with finger-holes is that they are cavities, and as such potential subjects of biblical impurity, but since the cavities are horizontal, not vertical, they are not containers and therefore impervious to biblical impurity. Babli 22b.. Rebbi Ze`ira said, “it is impossible to say, about one which is wiped dry, for hands are not made impure by anything wiped dry22Tosephta Kelim Baba Batra 3:9. Since unwashed hands rabbinically are impure in the second degree, when dry they have no influence on the status of vessels. (By touching they still disqualify heave and make sacrificial food impure.). In truth it is impossible to say, if it is full of fluid, for in the moment he touched it he made it impure23In this case it is certain that the fluid touched the hand. By rabbinic tradition any such fluid is impure in the first degree and so is the vessel containing it.. But we must hold that [it was dirtied] by fluid24In the case of isolated spots of fluids one cannot say that the fluids merge; the rules of the Mishnah are reasonable if applied to this situation..” Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Banaiah: They treated fluid in a finger-hole like fluid at the slaughtering place25Mishnah Idiut 8:4; Kelim 15:6. Even though water and blood are the essential agents of biblical impurity, water used at the slaughtering place in the Temple and blood spilled there are pure, i. e., impervious to impurity and do not act to prepare food to possible impurity.. As you are saying there that fluids of the slaughtering place are pure at their proper place but impure at any other place26Outside of the Temple they just are regular fluids subject to all their rules. Babli Pesaḥim 17a., [so here, fluids in a finger-hole are pure at their proper place but impure at any other place.] Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: fluids of the slaughtering place which came outside {the Temple courtyards} become impure. But did we not state, fluids of the slaughtering place which came outside continue in their sanctity? Rebbi Yose said, Rebbi Simon explained it. Rebbi Ḥinena, Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi. If they came out and returned27If they somehow re-entered the Temple domain while pure by outside standards, they regain their immunity from the rules of impurity.. If the upper fluid became impure and flowed down, Rebbi Abba and Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya. One said, at its place it is pure, if it flows down it is impure. The other one said, since it comes from purity it is pure28The slaughtering place is in the place of the Cohanim, the highest in the Temple domain. The question is the definition of the domain in which the fluids are exempt from the rules of impurity. In one opinion it only is the Cohanim’s courtyard, in the other it is the entire space inside the enclosure of the Temple, including the courtyards accessible to Israel men and women..
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Jerusalem Talmud Niddah
“What is the sole which they mentioned? Anything which looks like the sole, a sea fish. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, anything which looks like an ox tongue. Our teachers voted about this to say, only if it exhibits human traits.”93Tosephta 4:6, Babli 25b. The last sentence reads in the Babli: Our teachers testified that a sole [to be the source of birth impurity] needs the shape of a face. Who are “our teachers”? Rebbi Jehudah the Prince and his court94Šabbat 1:1 (3d 1.20), Giṭṭin 7:3 (48d 1.17), Avodah zarah 2:8 (41d 1.48); obliquely mentioned in the Babli Giṭṭin72b, 76b; Ketubot 2b, Avodah zarah37a.. At three places is Rebbi Jehudah the Prince called “our teachers”, about bills of divorce, oil, and a sole. About a sole, as we just said. About oil, as we have stated: “Rebbi and his court permitted oil94aMishnah Avodah zarah 2:9. The Mishnah has a list of foods that cannot be taken from Gentiles without kosher supervision since one cannot be sure that no forbidden ingredients were used but which are not forbidden for usufruct. A first group contains milk, bread, and olive oil, with a note that “our teachers permitted olive oil” [to be used without supervision.] In the Babli, this permission is attributed to Rebbi, not his grandson R. Jehudah the Prince. (The chronology of the House of Hillel in the third cent. and the attribution of decrees between Rabbis Jehudah I, II, and III is in dispute.).” About bills of divorce, as we have stated there95Mishnah Giṭṭin 7:3. From here on there exists a Geniza text; its readings are given by ג.: “This is your bill of divorce if I die, this is your bill of divorce if [I die from this] sickness, this is your bill of divorce after my death; he did not say anything96After his death, no person can perform any legal action. Therefore, a bill of divorce which shall be valid only after the husband’s death is invalid. If the husband is sick or goes on a trip overseas, and he wants to spare his wife (or prevent her from contracting) a levirate marriage to his brother, he can give her a bill of divorce stating “if I die then this shall be your bill of divorce valid from today.” But then he cannot live with her any longer without invalidating the divorce..” But our teachers said, this is a bill of divorce97The Babli, Giṭṭin 72b, reports the same but in 76b refers the decision to Mishnah 7:9: “If he says, this is your bill of divorce if I do not return within 12 months; if he dies in the meantime, the bill of divorce is void.” In this case also, he did not specify from today. The Babli explains that in both cases they follow R. Yose who holds that “the date of a document is proof of its validity;” a bill of divorce executed before the husband’s death is valid. The same explanation is tentatively accepted in the Yerushalmi, Giṭṭin 7:3 (48d l. 25).. Who are “our teachers”? Rebbi Jehudah the Prince and his court. They should have called him “permissive court” since any court which permits three [previously forbidden] things is called “permissive court.98Mishnah Idiut 8:4, the oldest Mishnah on record.” Rebbi Yudan said, his court disagreed with him about the bills of divorce. Rebbi Yannai shouted, you purified the women giving birth99By freeing all miscarriages without a recognizable fetus from the rules of birth impurity.! Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: This is part of the testimony of Rebbi Onias from Hauran100One should read חוֹנְייָה מִבֵּית חַװְרָן, cf. Sevi‘it 1:7, Note 53.; as from Rebbi Ze‘ira: If this is part of the testimony of Rebbi Onias from Hauran then it was Rebbi Ḥanina101Rebbi Onias’s teacher. who shouted, you purified the women giving birth!
