The uncertainty [regarding the purity status] of non-sanctified foods, this is the purity of abstention [i.e. of those who are careful to eat in purity even non-sanctified foods; and such foods, when their status is uncertain, are pure]. The uncertainty regarding [something which may or may not have been rendered impure by] vermin, [its status is] in accordance with how they were found [i.e. if the item in question was not actually touching the vermin when it was found, it is assumed to be pure]. The uncertainty of blights [i.e. regarding the purity status of someone that may have been rendered impure by someone impure due to an illness, such as <i>tsara'at</i>], at the beginning he is pure until he is determined [by the priest] as impure; once he has been determined impure, his uncertainty [i.e. a case of someone or something which may or may not have been rendered impure by him] is impure. The uncertainty regarding [one's] status as a nazerite [i.e. if someone took a vow to be a nazerite contingent on something which remains uncertain], he is permitted [to do the things a nazerite is forbidden from doing, i.e. he is not a nazerite]. The uncertainty regarding [the status of] a first born, whether first born humans or first born animals, whether pure or impure [i.e. kosher or non-kosher], the burden of proof is upon the one [who wants] to remove [possessions] from his fellow [i.e. the priest who makes a claim on the first born must demonstrate that it is a first born before he can take it].
Bartenura on Mishnah Tahorot
זו טהרת פרישות – as it is taught in the Mishnah [Tractate Hagigah, Chapter 2, Mishnah 7]: “The clothing of those who are not careful in their observance of the laws of ritual purity/עם הארץ is in the status of מדרס/Levitical uncleanness arising from a person with gonorrhea immediate contact caused by treading, and the clothing of Pharisees are considered Midras with regard to those who consume heave offering.” But if there is doubt regarding one of the Pharisees who consume [their unconsecrated food] in ritual purity, if he came in contact with the clothes of a person who is not careful in his observance of the laws of ritual purity or didn’t come in contact with it, and similarly, a person who eats heave-offering (i.e., a Kohen) and there is doubt if he had contact with the clothing of the Pharisees and the heave-offering was defiled, their manner of doubt is considered ritually pure.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Tahorot
"A condition of doubt concerning non-sacred food"--this refers to the cleanness practiced by Pharisees. The Pharisees are known, at least in rabbinic literature, to have eaten regular non-sacred food in a state of purity. Nevertheless, the mishnah notes that they ruled leniently if a doubt occurred as to the purity of the food. In this case, the doubt is ruled pure. The leniency is because the law does not actually require non-sacred food to be eaten in a state of purity.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Tahorot
ספק שרצים – he cast a creeping animal between the loaves [of bread], it is doubtful if it touched the loaves at the time that it passed over them, it is doubtful that it did not touch [them]. If he found it that it didn’t touch [the loaves], behold the loaves are like the time that he found them, and their matter of doubt is ritually pure.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Tahorot
"A condition of doubt concerning a sheretz" –according [to their condition at] the time they are found. This is a general principle that we learned in 3:5 all cases of impurity are judged by what we can see when they are found. The mishnah will return to the case of the sheretz, the creepy crawly thing which is a father of impurity, at the end of chapter 9. We should note that the mishnah uses "sheretz" merely as an example. The same would be true of any "father of impurity." All cases are judged by the time at which they are found.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Tahorot
עד שלא נזקק לטומאה (before it had been subjected to a ruling of uncleanness) – In Chapter Five of [Tractate] Negaim (Mishnayot 4-5) it explains how [this is the case].
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Tahorot
"A condition of doubt concerning negaim" it is deemed clean in the beginning before it had been determined to be unclean, but after it had been determined to be unclean, a condition of doubt is deemed unclean. We learned this in Negaim 5:4-5. Briefly if a doubt arises concerning a nega, a sign of scale disease, and the person has not yet been deemed impure, then the doubt is ruled clean. But if it occurs after the person was deemed impure, then the doubtful case is deemed unclean.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Tahorot
ספק נזירות – as, for example, that he said: Behold I am a Nazirite if there is in this heap/pile one hundred KOR, if he went and found that it had been stolen or that he lost it, it is doubt that it had it [and it is doubtful that it didn’t have it, it is permitted [for him] to drink wine and to become defiled with corpses.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Tahorot
"A condition of doubt concerning a nazirite vow" [in such a condition of doubt he] is permitted [all that is forbidden to a nazirite]. Here a doubt occurs as to whether a person is a nazirite or not. For instance, he said, "I am a nazirite if my wife gives birth to a child." His wife then has a baby who dies and it is unknown whether the child was viable and something just happened that caused it to die, in which case he is a nazirite, or the child was never viable, which means he is not a nazirite, because he never had a child. In such a case, he is deemed not to be a nazirite.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Tahorot
ספק בכורות – it is doubtful if it (i.e., the child or the animal) is the firstborn [of its mother] or not.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Tahorot
"A condition of doubt concerning first-borns" whether they are human firstborn or firstborn of cattle, whether the firstborn of an unclean beast or a clean one, for the one who wishes to extract from his fellow bears the burden of proof. In this case there is some doubt whether a human or an animal is a first-born. If the human was a first-born the father must redeem the boy by giving five selas to the priest. If a clean animal was the first-born the animal itself must be given to the priest. If it was a donkey, an impure animal, then the owner must give a sheep to the priest (see Bekhorot for more info on all of this). In all of these cases we invoke the rule that the one who wishes to extract something from his fellow must bring proof. Since the priest cannot prove that the animal was a first-born, the owner or father need not give anything to the priest.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Tahorot
אחד בכורי אדם – except from giving five Selaim (i.e., coins) to a Kohen.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Tahorot
ואחד בכורי בהמה טמאה – the first born of a donkey
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Tahorot
שהמוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה – that he said to the Kohen: “Bring proof that he is a first born and pay the head-tax.
