Commentary for Tahorot 5:13

השרץ (creeping thing) – the creeping animal defiles through contact but not by lifting (see Tractate Kelim, Chapter 1, Mishnah 1 as well as Leviticus 11:29-30).

A [dead] sheretz and a [dead] frog in a public domain,
And so also [if there was there] an olive's bulk of a corpse and an olive's bulk of carrion,
A bone of a corpse and a bone of carrion;
A clod of clean earth and a clod from a doubtful grave area
A clod of clean earth and a clod from the land of the Gentiles,
Or if there were two paths, the one unclean and the other clean, and a man walked through one of them but it is not known which,
Or if overshadowed one of them but it is not known which, or he shifted one of them but it is not known which:
Rabbi Akiva rules that he is unclean, But the sages rule that he is clean.
Today's mishnah brings up a series of cases in which one of two possible things occurred one which would have caused him to be impure and one in which he was not impure. In the end of the mishnah we can see that the rabbis and Rabbi Akiva disagree as to whether or not the person is pure or impure.
Section one: A dead sheretz causes impurity but a dead frog does not because it is not one of the defiling creepy crawly things listed in Leviticus 11:29.
Section two: Flesh from a corpse defiles in all ways, but flesh from carrion of an animal defiles only by touch and by carrying, not by overshadowing.
Section three: Bone of carrion is pure. Bone from a corpse defiles through contact and carrying.
Sections four and five: Earth from an area that might have been a graveyard defiles through contact and carrying, as does dirt from outside of the land of Israel.
Section seven: This section refers to all of the sections above.
Section eight: Rabbi Akiva says that doubtful cases of impurity in the public domain are pure only if the person didn't perform any action. But in the cases listed here the person moved, carried or overshadowed one of the objects that might have been impure, and therefore he is impure.
The other sages disagree doubtful cases of impurity are always pure in the public domain.

צפרדע – a ritually pure [frog], but since it is similar to a species of lizard and they (i.e., the Rabbis) erred concerning it, because of this, it (i.e., the Mishnah) took [the word] צפרדע/frog.

כזית מן המת -defiles in a tent. But a carrion does not defile in a tent.

עצם מן המת – [a bone from a corpse] defiles through movement, but the bone of a carrion is ritually pure.

גוש מבית הפרס וגוש מארץ העמים – they defile through contact and by lifting/carrying but do not defile in a tent.

שני שבילין אחד טמא – that one of them is a grave lying width-wise and fills all of it, and he doesn’t pass through it so that he will not be overshadowed.

האהיל על אחד מהן – we are referring to on an olive’s bulk of a corpse or on an olive’s bulk of a carrion.

הסיט אחד מהם – [on a bone from the corpse or a bone from the carrion, and similarly] a clod of earth from a ritually pure land and a clod of earth from an area in which uncertainty exists concerning the location of a grave or a corpse/בית הפרס and a clod of earth from the land of the nations (i.e., outside the Land of Israel), that defile through movement.

ר' עקיבא מטמא – for Rabbi Akiba holds that defilement in the public domain – its manner of doubt is pure – these words apply when he made/prepared pure things, since they lack any remedy when they are defiled. But concerning a person who is caused to need ritual immersion [in a Mikveh] and sprinkling [of ashes], he holds that he requires ritual immersion and sprinkling, lest today or tomorrow the matter becomes verified that he was defiled.

וחכמים מטהרים – for even a person who has a remedy, we don’t we require him to undergo ritual immersion and sprinkling. And the Halakha is according to the Sages.

אחד שאמר נגעתי בזה – it refers to the frog and the creeping animal of the first clause [found in Mishnah 1 of this chapter], for the frog is similar to a species of lizard and they (i.e., the Rabbis) erred concerning it.

Introduction Today's mishnah is a direct continuation of yesterday's mishnah, in which a person was not sure if he had been defiled in the public domain.

שדרך בני אדם להלוך – that it is impossible for a person to prevent himself that he should not walk in the public domain, therefore a manner of doubt regarding pathways is ritually pure. But [regarding] touching/contact it is possible for a person not to touch it, therefore, if he has doubt whether he touched it or not, his manner of doubt is ritual impurity. But the Halakha is neither according to Rabbi Akiba or Rabbi Yossi.

One who said, "I touched an object but I do not know whether it was unclean or clean," or "I touched one but I do not know which of the two I touched": Rabbi Akiva rules that he is unclean, But the sages rule that he is clean. This section refers to the frog and sheretz (dead creepy crawly thing) case from section one in yesterday's mishnah. The person knows that he touched one of the two, but isn't sure which one he touched. Some commentators point out that a turtle, which does count as a sheretz, might be considered to look a little like a frog. This might be especially true when they are dead, which is when the sheretz defiles. The positions of the sages and R. Akiva are the same as they were above Rabbi Akiva says that he is impure and the sages say that he is pure.

Rabbi Yose says that he is unclean in every case and clean only in that of the path, since it is the usual custom for people to walk but it is not their usual practice to touch. Rabbi Yose distinguishes between the person who walked down the path but doesn't know whether it was the pure or impure path and the other cases. Walking down a path is a normal activity. Therefore, we can assume he might not remember which path he walked down. But randomly touching things (like bones or dead flesh!) is not normal. He could live without touching these things. Therefore, he is considered impure.

הזה ושנה – he sprinkled on the third [day] and repeated it on the seventh [day].

Introduction Today's mishnah goes back to the case of the two paths, one pure and one impure. The case discussed here is one where he walks down both paths.

אלו ואלו תלויות – even though that in the two [paths] that they walked, we establish that each one is in the presumption of ritual purity, as is taught in the Mishnah further on (Mishnah 5), here concerning one [person] in two times, it doesn’t belong to ritually purify with those which remain, for even with two when they came to interrogate him at the same time, they are ritually impure. And the other, even with one after the other is considered like at the same time.

If there were two paths, the one unclean and the other clean, and one walked on one of them and then prepared clean foods which were then eaten and, then he was sprinkled upon once and a second time and he performed immersion and became clean, then he walked on the second path and then prepared clean foods, the latter are clean. This case is a bit complicated. The man walks down one of the paths and doesn't know which one he walked down. After walking down the first path, he goes and prepares food, probably terumah. After having prepared the food, he realizes that he might have become unclean so he cleanses himself by having the hatat waters sprinkled on him and by going to the mikveh. He is now certainly clean. Then he goes down the second path (seems to have forgotten that this was not a wise thing to do). And then he prepares food again. The first food was originally deemed clean because of the sages' opinion in mishnah one. The second is also deemed clean because we also don't know if it was impure, since he was purified after having walked down the first path. In other words, each set of food is judged on its own, as if the other case didn't even happen.

השניות ישרפו – for certainly it was ritually impure when they were made.

If the first foods were still in existence both must be held in suspense. However, if both sets of food are still in existence, then we can't look at each set individually. In this case, we must consider both of them as potentially impure. If they are terumah, both are "suspended." This means that they are not burned, because they might not be impure, but neither can they be eaten because it is forbidden to eat impure terumah.

If he had not become clean in the meantime, the first is held in suspense and the second must be burnt. If he didn't become clean in the meanwhile then we know that the second set of food must be impure because by this point he has walked down both paths. If the first set of food is still in existence, it is suspended, as it was in section two.

If there was a sheretz and a frog in a public domain and a man touched one of them and then prepared clean foods which were subsequently consumed; and then he immersed, and then he touched the other and then prepared clean foods, the latter are deemed clean. If the first foods were still in existence both must be held in suspense. If he did not immerse in the meanwhile, the first are held in suspense and the second must be burnt .
This mishnah is basically the same mishnah as yesterday's mishnah, except the doubt about whether the person was impure is slightly different. In today's mishnah the person is not sure whether he touched a frog, in which case he is pure, or a sheretz, a dead creepy crawly thing, in which case he is impure. The mishnah teaches that the rule here is the same as the rule in yesterday's mishnah concerning one who walked down two paths, one of which was impure. For an explanation, see yesterday's mishnah.

אם נשאלו – each of by the Sages on his manner of doubt by himself, no Jewish court is able to defile them, for we hold that regarding a manner of doubt in the public domain, his manner of doubt is ritually pure, but if they came at one time, since that with one decision we are able to say, “you [both] are ritually impure or “you are [both] ritually impure, it is impossible for us to say “you [both] are ritually pure” since one is definitely impure.

If there were two paths, the one unclean and the other clean, and a man walked by one of them and then prepared clean food, and subsequently another man came and walked by the second path and then prepared clean foods: The difference between this case and that in the previous two mishnayot is that here we have two people, one of whom is definitely impure. The food prepared by one of them must be impure, although the other food must be pure.

ר' יוסי אומר בין כך ובין כך טמאין – Rabbi Yossi and Rabbi Yehuda did not disagree when they came to be interrogated at the same time, for everyone states that they are ritually impure. But when they came to be interrogated one after another, everyone states that they are ritually pure. On what did they disagree? One when one comes to be interrogated him and on his fellow, for Rabbi Yehuda compares this to one coming after the other, whereas Rabbi Yossi comes it to simultaneously. And the Halakha is according to Rabbi Yossi.

Rabbi Judah rules: if each by himself asked for a ruling they are both to be declared clean. But if they asked for a ruling simultaneously, both are to be declared unclean. Rabbi Judah says that if each asked a sage for a ruling individually, then each is considered separately and all of the food is pure. This is because we invoke the normal rule, that cases of doubtful impurity are pure. However, if both ask together then we must treat this as if one person walked down both paths without immersing in between. One must be impure, and therefore both are regarded as impure.

Rabbi Yose ruled: in either case they are both unclean. Rabbi Yose rules more stringently and says that since one is definitely unclean, both must be treated as unclean.

אכל אחד מהן – it (i.e., the Mishnah) taught defilement according to the Torah and it [also] teaches defilement according to the Rabbi. And the dispute of Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yossi here also is when one comes to be interrogated upon and on his neighbor, like the dispute above (in Mishnah 5). And the Halakha is according to Rabbi Yossi.

If there were two loaves, the one unclean and the other clean, and a man ate one of them and then prepared clean food, and afterwards another man came and ate the second loaf and then prepared clean food:
Rabbi Judah ruled: if each by himself asked for a ruling they are both to be declared clean, but if they asked simultaneously both are to be declared unclean.
Rabbi Yose ruled: in either case they are both unclean.
This mishnah contains the same ruling as yesterday's mishnah, it just refers to a different case of doubtful impurity. Whereas yesterday's case discussed a situation in which we are not sure which of two men walked down an impure path, today's mishnah discusses a case where we are not sure which of two men ate an impure loaf of bread. Other than that, the mishnah is the same, so look at yesterday's mishnah for an explanation.

על רוקו שורפים – that on the spittle that is found, we burn the heave-offering/priest’s due as it is taught in the Mishnah in our chapter above (Tractate Taharot, Chapter 4, Mishnah 5), and even though they are a matter of doubt, we don’t follow after the majority.

If a man sat in a public domain and someone came and trod on his clothes, or spat and he touched his spit, on account of the spit terumah must be burnt, but on account of the clothes the majority principle is followed. Spit of undetermined origin found in the public domain is considered impure (see 4:5). Therefore, if the person who was spit upon (yuck) then touched terumah, the terumah must be burned lest it is impure. However, when it comes to this person's clothes we follow a majority principle. If a majority of the people who were walking past him were pure, then the clothes that one of them touched are pure. If the majority is impure (for instance the person finds himself in a zav colony), then the clothes are impure.

ועל בגדיו הולכים אחר הרוב - if the majority of the people of that city are people with gonorrhea/זבים and זבות/women with a flux, we burn [the priest’s due/heave-offering].

If a man slept in the public domain, when he rises his clothes have midras uncleanness, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages say that they are clean. If a person slept out in the public domain then it is likely that many people have stepped on his clothes. If any one of them was a zav, he would have imparted midras impurity, the type of impurity that is transmitted by pressing on something (leaning, sitting, standing etc.), to the clothes. Rabbi Meir rules strictly and says that the clothes are impure. The other sages retain the rule that cases of doubtful impurity in the public domain are pure.

כליו טמאין מדרס – although that when he sat and another came and tread, we go after the majority. Sleeping is different, for we are concerned that perhaps the majority of people tread on his clothing and one of them was a man with gonorrhea or a woman with a flux.

If a man touched someone in the night and it is not known whether it was one who was alive or dead, but in the morning when he got up he found him to be dead: Rabbi Meir says that he is clean. But the sages rule that he is unclean, since all doubtful cases of uncleanness are [determined] in accordance with [their appearance at] the time they are discovered. In this case, Rabbi Meir follows the rule that cases of doubtful impurity in the public domain are pure. But the sages say that in this case we must follow the rule that was found in 3:5 we always judge cases of doubtful impurity according to how they appear at the time they are discovered. Since the person was dead when he was discovered, and we are not sure if he was alive when the person touched him, we must consider the person to be impure.

וחכמים מטהרין – since there was a doubtful defilement in the public domain, he is ritually pure, perhaps no one tread at all.

נגע באחד בלילה – we are speaking specifically in the public domain.

וחכמים מטמאין – if he saw him from the evening even though he came in the morning and found that he had died, the Sages agree with Rabbi Meir that he is ritually pure, but if he saw him living, there is a dispute. But the Halakha is according to the Sagesץ

שוטה אחת בעיר – and specifically a woman imbecile, but not a male imbecile. For a woman is regularly in a menstruating status, whereas a male is not normally having a flux.

Introduction The spit of a woman who is a menstruant is impure. Women who are menstruating are expected not to go around spitting in the public domain. Our mishnah deals with a town in which there are women who may not observe this i.e. they go around spitting. Glad this doesn't seem to happen as much anymore.

או נכרית – and the same law applies regarding a heathen/gentile, for according to the Torah, there is no distinction between a male and a female, and all of them are ritually pure, but the Rabbis decreed upon them that they would be like those with a flux. And similarly, regarding a female Cuthean (i.e., a member of the sect of Samaritans), there is no distinction between a male Cuthean to a female Cuthean according to the one who says that Cutheans are lion-proselytes (i.e., proselytes from mere fear – referring to II Kings, Chapter 17, verse 25), and even today, they (i.e., the Rabbis) decreed concerning them that they would be like heathens regarding all their matters.

If there was in the town one who was not of sound sense, a Gentile, or a Samaritan woman, all spit encountered in the town is deemed unclean. The woman who is not of sound senses is not assumed to refrain from spitting when she is menstruating. Gentile and Samaritan women also don't refrain from spitting because they don't know or perhaps don't care that their spit defiles (when menstruating). Therefore, if there is one such woman in the city, all found spit is impure. Note that according to rabbinic understanding of the Torah, only Jews transmit impurity. However, the rabbis decreed that Gentiles too can transmit impurity. Thus a Gentile menstruant's spit is impure. Samaritans are sometimes considered as Jews, and sometimes not. The rabbis said that a Samaritan woman is considered as a menstruant from birth. See Nidah 4:1 (we will learn this in a few months).

כל הרוקין שבעיר טמאים – for it is their manner to walk throughout the city.

If a woman trod on a man's clothes or sat with him in a boat: If she knew that he was one who eats terumah, his clothes remain clean: But if not, he must ask her. A zavah or a menstruant impart midras impurity by pressing on clothing. This includes sitting on something, leaning on it or standing upon something. If a woman stepped on a man's clothing or sat close to her on a boat, he needs to know whether she is impure if he wants to eat terumah. So if the woman knew that he ate terumah, for instance, if she knew that he was a priest, then we can assume that she would have been careful and his clothes are clean. However, if she didn't know him, he must ask her if she is indeed a menstruant or zavah. You can imagine that this would have been awkward. Probably not a good way to start a conversation, especially on the tight quarters of a boat.

או שישבה עמו בספינה – that she defiles through treading/leaning (i.e., Midras – Levitical uncleanness arising from a person with gonorrhea’s immediate contact) even though her clothing does not touch, as is taught in the beginning of the third chapter of [Tractate] Zavim (Mishnah 1).

אם מכירתו שהוא אוכל בתרומה כליו טהורים – that if she was a menstruating woman or a woman with a flux she would not tread on his clothing nor enter with him on the ship.

ר' מאיר מטמא – that if two [witnesses] brought him to a grave death [as punishment], they would not bring him to [bring] the lenient sacrifice (see also the reasoning of Rabbi Meir in Tractate Kritot, Chapter 3, Mishnah 1).

Introduction The final mishnah of chapter five deals with cases where witness testify as to whether a person had been defiled.

וחכמים אומרים אדם נאמן על פי עצמו – that we provide the answer through his word. What is “I was not defiled” that he stated? I didn’t stand in my defilement but rather I ritually immerse, and since this is the case, a person is believed concerning himself.

If one witness says, "You have become unclean," but he says, "I have not become unclean," he is regarded as clean. His own testimony outweighs that of the witness, and therefore he is considered clean.

ברה"י טמא ברה"ר טהור – that he is considered like the rest of merely doubtful matters of defilement.

If two witnesses say, "You have become unclean," and he says, "I have not become unclean," Rabbi Meir says: he is unclean. But the sages say: he may be believed on his own evidence. Rabbi Meir says that the two witnesses outweigh the person's own statement that he is pure. Two witnesses are always believed. Therefore, he must accept that he is impure. The other sages say that since he claims to know with certainty that he is pure, he may continue to act upon his own words.

If one witness says, "You have become unclean," and two witnesses say, "He has not become unclean," whether in a private domain or in a public domain, he is regarded as clean. Since two witnesses say he is clean, he is not considered unclean no matter where the defilement purportedly occurred.

If two witnesses say, "He has become unclean’, and one witness says, ‘"He has not become unclean," whether in a private domain or in a public domain, he is regarded as unclean. The opposite case: since two witnesses say he is unclean, he is considered unclean no matter where it occurred.

If one witness says, "He has become unclean," and another says, "He has not become unclean," or if one woman says, "He has become unclean’, and another woman says, "He has not become unclean," he is regarded as unclean if in the private domain, but if in a public domain he is regarded as clean. In this case there is contradictory testimony between two men or two women, one saying he is unclean and one saying he is clean. If this occurred in the public domain, he is clean because cases of doubtful impurity are clean in the public domain. However, if the defilement supposedly occurred in the private domain, he must be considered unclean. Women are generally not allowed to testify in rabbinic law. However, this mishnah teaches that one woman's testimony with regard to matters of impurity is sufficient to create suspicion that he might be impure. Were the opposing witness a man, the mishnah would have said that the man's testimony outweighs her testimony. But since the opposing witness was also a woman, the person in question must be considered impure, if it occurred in the private domain.