Pt1 The ‘Eighteen Decrees’: A Foundational Rabbinic Story, and a Case Study in Formatting a Yerushalmi Sugya for Literary Structure (Yerushalmi Shabbat 1:4)

This is the first part of a three-part series. The outline of the series is below.

This sugya is the Yerushalmi’s extended treatment of the Mishnah in Shabbat 1:4 about the gathering in the upper chamber of Ḥananiah ben Ḥizkiah ben Garon, where Beit Shammai outnumbered Beit Hillel and eighteen decrees were enacted.¹ The sugya begins from that frame, and broadens beyond the Mishnah’s brief notice. It presents the day as a decisive and contested moment in the formation of rabbinic restrictions, especially in matters of separation from non-Jews and impurity law.

Overall, the sugya is a layered legal narrative about a formative confrontation between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel, the scope and rationale of anti-assimilation and impurity decrees, the authority of rabbinic courts, and the relation between formal enactment and older tradition. Its structure moves from the remembered foundational event, to competing lists of decrees, to detailed case discussions, and finally to general principles about legislation and repeal. In that sense, the sugya uses the “day of the eighteen decrees” as a framework for a broader inquiry into how rabbinic law is made, justified, transmitted, and sometimes undone.

The opening section emphasizes how fraught that day was. One tradition states that it was as hard for Israel as the day of the biblical Golden Calf. Another records a dispute between R’ Eliezer and R’ Yehoshua over whether the decrees should be viewed positively or negatively: R’ Eliezer treats the day as one of productive completion, while R’ Yehoshua treats it as one of harmful overfilling. The sugya then preserves even harsher traditions, including reports of coercion and violence by the disciples of Beit Shammai against those of Beit Hillel. This gives the passage a dual character: it is both a catalogue of legal enactments and a memory of institutional crisis.

The sugya then turns to classification. It raises the problem of what exactly counts among the “eighteen”: eighteen things decreed, eighteen decided by majority, and eighteen disputed. Different lists are preserved, and the relationship among them is not fully stable. Some passages give a short core list, while others expand it substantially. This instability is part of the sugya’s subject. The sugya thus preserves disagreement about how to count, group, and historically assign them.

Most of the discussion focuses on decrees concerning non-Jews and on impurity regulations. The list includes non-Jewish bread, cheese, oil, women (“daughters”), semen, urine, the laws of a baal keri, and the impurity of foreign lands (i.e. lands outside of Eretz Yisrael). Other traditions expand the scope further, adding wine, vinegar, fish products, preserves, cooked or processed foods, testimony, gifts, intermarriage (“their sons and daughters”), and firstborns. The overall pattern is that the sugya clusters together measures that regulate eating, social contact, sexual boundary, testimony, and ritual purity. The result is a composite picture of rabbinic separation, in which social distance, dietary restriction, and impurity law reinforce one another.

After listing the decrees, the sugya develops several of them individually. The discussion of non-Jewish bread examines whether the restriction was softened in practice where Jewish bread was unavailable, and concludes that leniency could exist because of basic necessity. The discussion of cheese and milk gives two different rationales: concern about admixture from non-kosher animals, and concern about danger from uncovered liquids (גילוי). The discussion of oil traces the prohibition back to the biblical Daniel, but then records that R’ Yehuda HaNasi and his court permitted it, raising the larger jurisprudential problem of how a later court can revoke an earlier enactment.

Other parts of the sugya move from concrete prohibitions to broader legal theory. The case of oil becomes the central example for the rule that a decree not accepted by the majority of the public is not fully binding. The sugya also discusses whether later courts can revoke earlier rulings, and whether the eighteen decrees have a stronger status than other enactments because they were established under extreme conditions. At the same time, the sugya complicates any simple rule by preserving cases where later authorities did in fact modify earlier prohibitions.

A further theme is historical layering. Some restrictions attributed here to the attic gathering are elsewhere traced back to earlier pairs of rabbis/Pharisees. The sugya explicitly notes that certain laws were older traditions later (purportedly) forgotten and then restored by subsequent authorities. That move allows the passage to treat rabbinic legislation in two ways at once: some rules are framed as new decrees, while others are framed as recoveries of older law.

Outline

Intro

The Passage

Mishnah (#1 = Mishnah Shabbat 1:4)

1. In the upper chamber of Ḥananiah ben Ḥizqiah ben Garon; Beit Shammai outnumbered Beit Hillel, and eighteen decrees were enacted

Talmud Yerushalmi (#2)

1. That day was as grievous for Israel as the day of the making of the biblical Golden Calf

2. R’ Eliezer; R’ Yehoshua - dispute how to characterize the day of the eighteen decrees: R’ Eliezer sees it as “filling the measure” beneficially; R’ Yehoshua sees it as damaging dilution; Each gives a container metaphor

3. R’ Yehoshua of Ono - disciples of Beit Shammai stood below and killed disciples of Beit Hillel during the confrontation over the decrees (#3)

4. Baraita - Only six (Shammaites) went up to the attic; the others stood below with swords and spears (ie. coercion and intimidation)

5. Baraita - three sets of eighteen: eighteen decreed, eighteen decided by majority, and eighteen disputed (#4)

   1. Decree list: on non-Jews’ bread, cheese, oil, women, semen, urine, the laws of a baal keri, and the impurity of foreign lands - list of 8 items

6. Rabbis of Caesarea - only seven of the decrees were from items where one side actually had the majority, with a list of the other items (#5)

   1. Additional list of decrees - handing one’s wallet to a non-Jew before Shabbat, preventing a zav from dining with a zavah, impurity transmission by movables, harvesting in a beit ha-pras, vessels under a pipe, and six doubtful cases for burning terumah - a list of 6 items

7. R’ Yosei b. Avin - Adds growths of terumah to the list of decrees

8. R’ Shimon ben Yohai - expanded list of that day’s decrees concerning various non-Jewish foods, language, testimony, gifts, intermarriage, and firsborns - List of 18 items

Part 2

Non-Jews’ bread (#6)

1. R’ Yaakov bar Aḥa citing R’ Yonatan - the rule about non-Jewish bread belongs to “practices of obfuscation” (a softened / qualified rule)

2. R’ Yosei - Questions what that “obfuscation” means: whether the original tendency was to forbid and then permit, or the reverse

3. R’ Mana - Rejects the idea of “obfuscation toward prohibition” and concludes that where Jewish bread is unavailable, non-Jewish bread was technically forbidden but was leniently allowed for basic sustenance

4. Rabbis of Caesarea citing R’ Yaakov b. Aḥa - the lenient view applies only to bread from a professional baker, though in practice people did not rely on it

5. R’ Shimon ben Yohai - Derives from “food you may buy … and water” that only items unchanged from their natural state are included in the lenient scriptural model (#7)

6. Baraita - certain processed non-Jewish foods such as beans, roasted grain, and hot water are nevertheless permitted

   1. Resolution of that objection - most of those foods can revert to their original state by soaking, which explains their permissibility

7. R’ Yosei b. Avin citing Rav - Any food edible raw is not subject to the prohibition of non-Jewish cooking, and may also be used for eruv tavshilin

8. R’ Ḥiyya the Elder - Reinterprets the verse pragmatically: “buy with food”; feed or pay an influential person in order to win him over

9. Anecdote re R’ Yonatan - sent honor-gifts to important visitors, so he could later mollify them in cases involving orphans or widows

Non-Jews’ cheese (#8)

1. R’ Yirmiyah - the prohibition of non-Jewish milk is due to fear of admixture from non-kosher animals

2. R’ Abba citing Rav Yehuda; R’ Shimon citing R’ Yehoshua ben Levi - a different reason for forbidding non-Jewish milk: danger from uncovered liquids

3. R’ Shmuel b. Yitzḥak - why making cheese would not solve the problem: poison could remain trapped between the holes

4. Baratia - Three types of poison: one that floats, one that sinks, and one that spreads like a net on top

5. Anecdote from the era of R’ Yirmiyah - used to illustrate the danger of “sinking poison”: early drinkers survived, later ones died

6. Rule on uncovered liquids - Oil, vinegar, brine, fish sauce, and honey are not subject to the danger of uncovered liquids - a list of 5 items (#9)

7. R’ Shimon - Takes a stricter view on the danger of uncovered substances; the rabbis agree with him when pecking (by an animal) is observed

8. Baraita - Even after several people already ate from a pecked watermelon or drank from uncovered wine, it remains forbidden for later users because poison may have sunk lower

Part 3

Non-Jews’ oil (#10)

1. Rav Yehuda - Attributes the original prohibition of non-Jewish oil to the biblical Daniel

2. R’ Aḥa; R’ Tanḥum b. Ḥiyya citing R’ Yoḥanan / R’ Yehoshua ben Levi - people even risked death over the issue of non-Jewish oil

3. R’ Yehuda HaNasi and his court formally permitted non-Jewish oil (#11)

4. In three places R’ Yehuda HaNasi is referred to as “our teachers”: in divorce documents, oil, and sandal law

   1. His court was called a “permissive court”, since a court that permits three prior prohibitions is called a “permissive court”

5. R’ Yudan b. Yishmael - R’ Yehuda HaNasi’s court disagreed with him in one of the other permissive rulings - bills of divorce

6. R’ Yoḥanan - legal problem: how could a later court revoke Daniel’s prohibition if a lesser court cannot overturn an earlier one?

7. R’ Yoḥanan citing R’ Elazar b. Tzadok - a decree not accepted by the majority of the public is not fully binding; this is applied to the oil decree

8. The oil decree was investigated, and it was found that the majority of the public had not accepted the prohibition

9. Anecdote re Yitzḥak b. Shmuel b. Marta and R’ Simlai the Southerner in Nisibis - R’ Simlai teaches that R’ Yehuda HaNasi and his court permitted oil (#12)

   1. Shmuel accepts this tradition and eats non-Jewish oil; Rav resists; Shmuel threatens him with ostracism

   2. ... until pressed and informed the ruling is truly attributed to R’ Yehuda HaNasi and his court, after which he eats

Non-Jewish women (#13)

1. R’ Elazar - “do not intermarry with them” appears in seven places in the Bible

2. R’ Avin - the verse is forbidding the seven Canaanite nations

3. R’ Yehoshua of Ono - Extends “their daughters” homiletically to include “their eggs”

4. R’ Yishmael - Supports that reading from the verse “the daughter of the ostrich,” understood as an ostrich egg

Non-Jews’ semen (#14)

1. R’ Aḥa; R’ Ḥinena citing R’ Yoḥanan - non-Jews’ semen is pure, since semen cannot emerge without urine

2. R’ Abba bar Aḥa citing R’ Yehuda HaNasi - a baal keri may study halakhot, but not aggadah (#15)

3. R’ Yose - such a person may review familiar practical laws, but not expound the Mishnah

The land of non-Jews (=outside of Eretz Yisrael) (#16)

1. R’ Ze‘ira bar Avina citing R’ Yirmiyah - the impurity decree on foreign lands and glass vessels is attributed to earlier pairs of sages, not to this later gathering alone

2. R’ Yonah - Attributes one of those earlier decrees specifically to R’ Yehuda ben Tabbai

3. R’ Yosei - R’ Yehuda ben Tabbai and Shimon ben Shetaḥ decreed impurity on metal vessels; Hillel and Shammai decreed concerning hands

4. R’ Yose b. Avin citing R’ Levi - some of these laws were ancient traditions, later forgotten, and then restored by later sages

5. Sustained effort restores Torah truth

6. R’ Mana - “it is not an empty thing from you” means: if Torah seems empty, the deficiency is in human effort, not in Torah itself

7. Shmuel - Distinguishes between the eighteen decrees and other decrees with respect to whether a later court may revoke them (#17)

8. An objection is raised from the Sabbatical-year laws against Shmuel’s distinction between the eighteen decrees and other enactments

9. R’ Krispeda citing R’ Yoḥanan - Rabban Gamliel and his court abolished an earlier Shevi‘it restriction

10. Rav Kahana b. Ḥiyya b. Abba; R’ Aḥa citing R’ Yoḥanan - once the oil decree was abolished, its abolition stood

11. Naḥman b. Shmuel b. Naḥmani citing R’ Shmuel b. Naḥmani - a court can revoke the rule that certain sin-offerings must die (#18)

12. R’ Ḥiyya bar Adda - Qualifies that such animals may be diverted to non-obligatory use, but not actually offered on the altar

The Passage

https://chavrutai.com/yerushalmi/Shabbat/1#4

Mishnah (#1 = Mishnah Shabbat 1:4)

#1 (= Mishnah_Shabbat.1.4)

In the upper chamber of Ḥananiah ben Ḥizqiah ben Garon; Beit Shammai outnumbered Beit Hillel, and eighteen decrees were enacted

אילו מהלכות שאמרו בעליית חנניה בן חזקיה בן גרון

כשעלו לבקרו.

נמנו ורבו בית שמאי על בית הלל

ושמונה עשר דבר גזרו בו ביום

These are of the halachot which were pronounced at the upper floor of Ḥananiah ben Ḥizqiah ben Garon,

when they came to visit him.

They voted and the House of Shammai had the majority over the House of Hillel;

18 items they decreed (גזרו) on that day.

Talmud Yerushalmi (#2)

#2

אילו מהלכות שאמרו בעליית חנניה בן חזקיה בן גרון

כשעלו לבקרו כול׳.

Mishnah:

“These are of the halachot which were pronounced at the upper floor of Ḥananiah ben Ḥizqiah ben Garon,

when they came to visit him,” etc.

That day was as grievous for Israel as the day of the making of the biblical Golden Calf

אותו היום היה קשה לישראל כיום שנעשה בו העגל.

“This day was hard for Israel like the day on which the Golden Calf was made.

R’ Eliezer; R’ Yehoshua - dispute how to characterize the day of the eighteen decrees: R’ Eliezer sees it as “filling the measure” beneficially; R’ Yehoshua sees it as damaging dilution; Each gives a container metaphor

רבי ליעזר אומר: בו ביום גדשו את הסאה.

רבי יהושע אומר: בו ביום מחקו אותה.

R’ Eliezer said: on that day they filled the bushel to overflow ( גדשו את הסאה).

R’ Yehoshua said: on that day they filled the bushel to the rim (מחקו אותה).

אמר לו רבי ליעזר:

אילו היתה חסירה ומילאוה --

יאות.

לחבית שהיא מליאה אגוזין.

כל מה שאתה נותן לתוכה שומשמין --

היא מחזקת.

R’ Eliezer said to him:

if it was deficient and they filled --

[it it would have been] reasonable (יאות),

as with an amphora (חבית) full of nuts;

if you fill it with sesame seeds --

it will be strengthened.

אמר לו רבי יהושע:

אילו היתה מליאה וחיסרוה --

יאות.

לחבית שהיתה מליאה שמן.

כל מה שאתה נותן לתוכה מים --

היא מפזרת את השמן.

R’ Yehoshua said to him:

if it had been full and they diminished it --

[it would have been] reasonable,

as with an amphora filled with oil;

if you add water to it --

it dilutes the oil.²

R’ Yehoshua of Ono - disciples of Beit Shammai stood below and killed disciples of Beit Hillel during the confrontation over the decrees (#3)

#3

תנא רבי יהושע אונייא:

תלמידי בית שמי עמדו להן מלמטה

והיו הורגין בתלמידי בית הלל.

R’ Yehoshua from Ono stated:

The students of the House of Shammai were standing downstairs

and killing the students of the House of Hillel.

Baraita - Only six (Shammaites) went up to the attic; the others stood below with swords and spears (ie. coercion and intimidation)

תני:

ששה מהן עלו

והשאר עמדו עליהן בחרבות וברמחים.

It was stated:

6 of them [=Shammaites] went up;

the rest were standing around them with swords and lances.

Baraita - three sets of eighteen: eighteen decreed, eighteen decided by majority, and eighteen disputed (#4)

#4

תני:

1. שמונה עשר דבר גזרו

2. ובשמונה עשרה רבו

3. ובשמונה עשרה נחלקו.

It was stated:

1. 18 things they decided,

2. in 18 they were a majority

3. and in 18 they were divided.³

Decree list: on non-Jews’ bread, cheese, oil, women, semen, urine, the laws of a baal keri, and the impurity of foreign lands - list of 8 items

ואילו הן שגזרו:

1. על פיתן שלגוים

2. ועל גבינתן

3. ועל שמנן

4. ועל בנותיהן

5. ועל שכבת זרען

6. ועל מימי רגליהן

7. ועל הילכות בעל קרי

8. ועל הילכות ארץ העמים.

The following they decided:

1. About non-Jews’ bread (פיתן),

2. and about their cheeses,

3. and about their oil,

4. and about their daughters,

5. and about their semen,⁴

6. and about their urine,

7. and about the rules of a person with an emission,⁵

8. and about the rules of the land of non-Jews.⁶

תמן תנינן:

אילו פוסלין את התרומה:

1. האוכל אוכל ראשון.

2. והאוכל אוכל שיני.

3. והשותה משקין טמאין.

4. והבא ראשו ורובו במים שאובין.

5. וטהור שנפלו על ראשו ורובו שלשת לוגין מים שאובין.

6. והספר והידים והטבול יום.

7. והאוכלים והכלים שניטמאו במשקין.

There we have stated:

“The following make terumah unusable:

1. One who eats food impure in the 1st [degree],

2. and one who eats food impure in the 2nd [degree],⁷

3. and one who drinks impure drinks,

4. and one who comes with his head and most of his body in drawn water,⁸

5. and a pure person on whose head and most of his body fell 3 log drawn water,

6. and a [biblical] scroll,⁹ and hands, and the Ṭevul yom,

7. and food and vessels which became impure by fluids.”

Rabbis of Caesarea - only seven of the decrees were from items where one side actually had the majority, with a list of the other items (#5)

#5

רבנן דקיסרין אמרו:

אילו שגזרו ממה שרבו שובעה אינון.

The rabbis of Caesarea said:

of those which they decided there were 7 of those where they had a majority.

Additional list of decrees - handing one’s wallet to a non-Jew before Shabbat, preventing a zav from dining with a zavah, impurity transmission by movables, harvesting in a beit ha-pras, vessels under a pipe, and six doubtful cases for burning terumah - a list of 6 items

ואילין אינין חורנייתא:

1. מי שהחשיך בדרך -- נותן כיסו לנכרי.

2. כיוצא בו: לא יאכל הזב עם הזבה, מפני הרגל עבירה.

3. כל המיטלטלין מביאין טומאה כעובי המרדע.

4. כיצד בוצרין בית הפרס.

5. המניח כלים תחת הצינור.

6. על ששה ספיקות שורפין את התרומה.

The others are the following:

1. A person being on the road when it gets dark¹⁰ -- gives his wallet to a non-Jew.

2. Similarly, the zav should not eat with a zavah, because of inducement to sin.

3. All movables (מיטלטלין) transmit impurity by the thickness of the yoke.

4. How one harvests grapes in a beit ha-pras.¹¹

5. One who puts vessels under the pipe.

6. For 6 doubts (ספיקות) one burns terumah.

R’ Yosei b. Avin - Adds growths of terumah to the list of decrees

אמר רבי יוסי בירבי בון:

אף גידולי תרומה.

R’ Yosei ben R’ Avin said:

also the growth of terumah.

R’ Shimon ben Yohai - expanded list of that day’s decrees concerning various non-Jewish foods, language, testimony, gifts, intermarriage, and firstlings - List of 18 items

אילו הן שגזרו:

אילין עשרתי קדמייתא

והשאר מן מה דתני רבי שמעון בן יוחי:

בו ביום גזרו

1. על פיתן

2. ועל גבינתן

3. ועל יינן

4. ועל חומצן

5. ועל צירן

6. ועל מורייסן

7. על כבושיהן

8. ועל שלוקיהן

9. ועל מלוחיהן

10. ועל החילקה

11. ועל השחיקה

12. ועל הטיסני

13. ועל לשונן

14. ועל עדותן

15. ועל מתנותיהן

16. על בניהן

17. ועל בנותיהן

18. ועל בכוריהן.

The following they decided:

the first 10

and the remainder from what R’ Shimon ben Yoḥai stated:

On that day¹² they decided

1. about their [=non-Jews’] bread,

2. and their cheeses,

3. and their wine,

4. and their vinegar,

5. and their fish brine (צירן),

6. and their muries,

7. and their preserves (כבושיהן),

8. and their parboiled food (שלוקיהן),

9. and their corned food (מלוחיהן),

10. and on split grain (חילקה),

11. and on ground food (שחיקה),

12. and on peeled barley (טיסני),

13. on their language (לשונן),

14. and on their testimony,

15. and on their gifts,

16. on their sons,

17. and on their daughters,

18. and on their firstborns (בכוריהן).

1. Compare the discussion in Hebrew Wikipedia, entry “שמונה עשר דבר”.

2. Ed. Guggenheimer interprets (ff. 290):

[R’ Eliezer and R’ Yehoshua] are engaged in a discussion about the principles of Pharisaic Judaism, couched in a dispute whether to compare the legalistic rabbinic framework to a bushel of dry or fluid measure.

R. Eliezer, an adherent of the House of Shammai who was a student of the Hillelite Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai, compares biblical commandments to nuts in a barrel and rabbinic additions to small grains which fill the spaces between the nuts and give stability to the amphora. His view of Judaism is static; he views all rabbinic enactments as positive.

By contrast, R. Joshua compares biblical commandments to oil; his view of Judaism is dynamic. He accepts rabbinic enactments only if they do not threaten to cause overflow, in which case biblical commandments may be lost because of rabbinic stringencies. He has a dim view of the ordinances from the House of Ḥananiah ben Ḥizqiah ben Garon.

3. Ed. Guggenheimer interprets (ff. 291):

In this opinion, there were 54 items up for discussion, 18 were unanimously decided, 18 where the House of Shammai had a majority but it was not unanimous and not accepted by the House of Hillel, and 18 where the discussion was inconclusive.

This explains the difficulty both Talmudim have to come up with the list of the 18 decrees which were definitely issued.

In the Bavli [Shabbat] 14b, only two groups of 18 are mentioned.

See Shabbat 14b#6 (=Shabbat 15a#2)

[…]

אמר רב יהודה, אמר שמואל:

שמנה עשר דבר גזרו,

ובשמנה עשר נחלקו

[…]

Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel said:

With regard to 18 matters they issued decrees (גזרו),

and with regard to those 18 matters they [=Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel] disagreed (נחלקו)

4. Compare my note in “Pt3 Trending Talmud: Top Queries, Popular Posts, and Plain Readings of Controversial Talmudic Passages“, section “Impurity of a Non-Jewish Child Experiencing Ziva (Avodah Zarah 36b-37a)“, sub-section “3rd-century rabbis of Eretz Yisrael (R’ Zeira, R’ Asi, R’ Yoḥanan, R’ Yannai, R’ Natan ben Amram, and R’ Yehuda HaNasi) query re the age at which a male non-Jew becomes subject to the impurity of ziva“.

5. בעל קרי - keri.

6. ארץ העמים - literally: “land of the [non-Jewish] nations”.

On this, see Wikipedia, “Impurity of the land of the nations“:

Impurity of the land of the nations (Tum’at eretz Ha’Amim טומאת ארץ העמים) is a rabbinic edict stipulating a specified degree of tumah (impurity) on all lands outside the Land of Israel.

The demarcation lines of foreign lands effectually included all those lands not settled by the people of Israel during their return from the Babylonian exile during the Second Temple period […]

The decreed uncleanness in respect of the country of the heathens was first enacted by Jose b. Jo’ezer of Ẓeredah and Jose b. Joḥanan of Jerusalem, during the Hasmonean period.

7. See Mishnah Tahorot 2:2, and Bavli, Shabbat 13b#9 and on.

8. מים שאובין.

See Hebrew Wikipedia, “מים שאובים“, my translation:

In the halachot of ritual impurity and purity, “drawn water” refers to water that has been drawn by a person into a vessel that has a receptacle.

Such water is disqualified for use in a mikveh.

Moreover, it imparts impurity to a person when three log of it are poured over him.

9. ספר.

On this impurity and the next one, see these pieces of mine, on Mishnah sections at the end of tractate Yadayim:

• ‘Sacred and Defiles the Hands’: The Canonical Status of the Biblical Books of Ecclesiastes and Song of Songs (Mishnah Yadayim 3:5)

• Disputes Between Pharisees and Sadducees: Scripture, Impurity, and Legal Reasoning (Mishnah Yadayim 4:6-8)

10. Ed. Guggenheimer explains (ff. 306):

A Jew on the road late on Friday evening [i.e. after Shabbat started] may give his valuables to a non-Jew and retrieve them later.

While in general it is forbidden to ask a non-Jew to do something for a Jew which is forbidden to himself, this is an exception.

11. On this technical term, see Hebrew Wikipedia, “בית הפרס“, my translation:

In the halachot of ritual impurity and purity, a beit ha-pras is a field in which there is a ספק (uncertainty) of impurity, or in which one must conduct oneself with respect for the dead [..]

12. בו ביום.

On this formulaic term, see my notes on “‘Sacred and Defiles the Hands’” (cited in previous footnote).