R. Yossi n. Yoezer, Ish Tz'raidah, a témoigné à propos de l'ayal kamtza [un type de criquet] qu'il est propre [et peut être mangé. (Le Targum de "kachagavim" ["comme les sauterelles" (Nombres 13:33)] est "kekamtzin")]; et (il a témoigné) au sujet des liquides [c'est-à-dire, le sang et l'eau] de l'abattoir, [dans l'azarah] qu'ils sont purs. [Selon un point de vue, ils sont entièrement propres; car la tumah des liquides n'est pas basée sur la Torah, mais sur décret rabbinique, et dans ce cas ils n'ont pas décrété ainsi. Selon un autre point de vue, ils sont «purs» en ce qu'ils ne souillent pas les autres; mais ils sont tamei en eux-mêmes, car la tumah des liquides en eux-mêmes est basée sur la Torah, et les rabbins ne peuvent pas permettre ce que la Torah a proscrit]; et (il a témoigné) que celui qui touche un cadavre devient tamei. [C'est-à-dire que celui qui, d'une certitude, touche un cadavre devient tamei, mais, en cas de doute (safek), même vis-à-vis du tumah rigoureux d'un cadavre, il est tahor—combien plus il en vient à permettre la moindre tumah d'un sheretz et un coffre-fort de tumah dans le domaine public. Et même si un coffre-fort de tumah dans le domaine public est tahor (même) selon la Torah—car tout l'isur de safek tumah est dérivé de sotah, à savoir. (Nombres 5:13): «… et elle s'était sécrétée et elle était souillée», l'Écriture nous dit qu'elle est interdite en cas de doute («sécrétée, etc.»), et tout comme sotah n'obtient que dans l'intimité domaine, il n'y a pas de "sécrétion" dans le domaine public, donc le tumah de safek n'obtient que dans le domaine privé—encore, avant la décision de Yossi ben Yoezer, ils disaient: "C'est une halakha (que la tumah n'obtient pas dans le domaine public), mais nous ne l'enseignons pas." Et il est venu et a témoigné que nous l'enseignons ab initio, pour rendre tahor tout coffre-fort de tumah dans le domaine public.] Et ils l'ont appelé "Yossi, le permitter." [Car il a permis trois choses vis-à-vis desquelles ils se sont déportés comme étant interdits. Pour chaque beth-din qui permet trois choses dont heter (permis) n'est pas apparent est appelé "un beth-din autorisant."]
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!
