Doesn't Rav Yosef Live in Bavel?
What is going on with Rav Yosef on Bava Batra 61?!
גְּמָ׳ מַאי ״יָצִיעַ״? הָכָא תַּרְגִּימוּ: אַפְּתָא. רַב יוֹסֵף אָמַר: בַּדְקָא חֲלִילָה. לְמַאן דְּאָמַר אַפְּתָא לָא מִזְדַּבְּנָא – כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן בַּדְקָא חֲלִילָה לָא מִזְדַּבְּנָא; לְמַאן דְּאָמַר בַּדְקָא חֲלִילָה – אֲבָל אַפְּתָא מִזְדַּבְּנָא.
GEMARA: What is a gallery? Here in Babylonia they interpreted this as referring to an attic [apta]. Rav Yosef said: It means a windowed structure [bidka ḥalila] attached to the main building. The Gemara notes that according to the one who says that an attic is not sold together with a house, all the more so is a windowed structure attached to the house not sold together with a house, as it is certainly considered a separate entity and not part of the main building. But according to the one who says that a gallery is a windowed structure attached to the house, it is only such a structure that is not included in the sale of the house, but an attic is sold together with a house.
How can we contrast how they translate yetzia (in the Mishnah) here, meaning in Babylonia, with how Rav Yosef rendered it? As we all know, Rav Yosef was a Pumpeditan third-generation Amora, and Pumbedita is in Bavel. This makes little sense. Unless perhaps hacha means some area within Babylonia, like Sura?
Also, the gemara continues:
תָּאנֵי רַב יוֹסֵף: שָׁלֹשׁ שֵׁמוֹת יֵשׁ לוֹ – יָצִיעַ, צֵלָע, תָּא. יָצִיעַ – דִּכְתִיב: ״הַיָּצִיעַ הַתַּחְתֹּנָה חָמֵשׁ בָּאַמָּה רׇחְבָּהּ״. צֵלָע – דִּכְתִיב: ״וְהַצְּלָעוֹת צֵלָע אֶל צֵלָע שָׁלֹשׁ וּשְׁלֹשִׁים פְּעָמִים״. תָּא – דִּכְתִיב: ״וְהַתָּא קָנֶה אֶחָד אֹרֶךְ וְקָנֶה אֶחָד רֹחַב, וּבֵין הַתָּאִים חָמֵשׁ אַמּוֹת״. וְאִי בָּעֵית אֵימָא, מֵהָכָא: ״כּוֹתֶל הַהֵיכָל שֵׁשׁ, וְהַתָּא שֵׁשׁ, כּוֹתֶל הַתָּא חָמֵשׁ״.
Rav Yosef taught: A small structure attached to a building has three names in the Bible: Gallery [yatzia], side chamber [tzela], and cell [ta]. Such a structure is called a gallery, as it is written: “The bottommost gallery [hayyatzia] was five cubits wide” (I Kings 6:6). It is also called a side chamber, as it is written: “And the side chambers [vehatzelaot] were one over another, thirty-three times” (Ezekiel 41:6). Additionally, it is called a cell, as it is written: “And the cell [vehata] was one reed long, and one reed wide; and the space between the cells was five cubits” (Ezekiel 40:7). And if you wish, say instead that it can be seen that a small structure attached to a building is called a cell from here, as was taught in the mishna (Middot 4:7): The wall of the Sanctuary was six cubits wide, and the cell [vehata] in back of it was six cubits wide, and the wall of the cell was five cubits wide.
Realize that Rav Yosef taught (perhaps a brayta) these three terms for it. But that teaching is extremely short, and is in Hebrew. The way it continues, with dichtiv, is Aramaic, as is the וְאִי בָּעֵית אֵימָא, so likely Rav Yosef said none of this elaboration.
OK, these three terms, from Melachim I, then Yechezkel, then Yechezkel again, are about the cells in the (different, including future) Temple. As described elsewhere, there is the wall of the Heichal, then these cells (three, one vertically upon each other), then the back wall of the cell. That implies that these were entirely closed off. This is not the same as a veranda (see Artscroll) or a windowed structure (see R’ Steinsaltz, immediately above) in the explanation that Rav Yosef gives.
Should we not expect Rav Yosef to be internally consistent? I don’t have an answer, but the question troubles me.
This isn’t a good or complete answer, but Rav Yosef often gives a Targum of a verse. Thus:
So, we might be talking about about a Targum of a Biblical verse that some (Rav) Yosef rendered. And while the Targum Yosef wasn’t the standard adopted Targum in Bavel, it still is noteworthy of mention.
Indeed, Targum Yosef is the name of a Targum on Divrei HaYamim, and the Targum of Neviim (including Melachim, where יציע appears) is also sometimes referred to by some as Targum Yosef.
Would these Rav Yosefs need to be consistent in our sugya? I am not sure. Some quick lookup on Wikipedia, which is not reliable for this sort of thing, says that the Rav Yosef from the “Targum Yosef” can either be Rav Yosef bar Chiyya, who is the famous leader of Pumbedita, Rav Yosef stam. Or, he can be Rav Yosef bar Chama, who is the father of the famous Amora Rava. If so, two Amoraim by the same name need not be consistent.
Even if they are the same Rav Yosef, perhaps the first Rav Yosef who is set in contrast with הָכָא תַּרְגִּימוּ is not commenting on the Mishnah, but on the Biblical verse itself. And even there, he says indeed that it is a veranda. After all, יציע appears twice (when unmodified), once in Yeshaya (to this yetzia you call a fast) and once in Melachim (with a krei / ketiv for a vav instead of the second yud). This might be a matter which requires Targum, because this is a near hapax.