פירוש על טהרות 5:7

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