Comentário sobre Tahorot 4:17

הזורק. ככר לבין המטפחות – there is no difference whether he threw a ritually pure loaf among ritually impure keys, or whether he threw impure keys among the [ritually pure] loaves, and it is not known if the loaf came in contact with/touched the ritually impure keys, the loaf is ritually pure, for the [anonymous] Tanna/teacher of this Mishnah holds that someone who throws is like one who lacks the awareness/knowledge to be interrogated.

Introduction In the cases in this mishnah a clean loaf of bread is thrown among an unclean pile of keys, or an unclean key is thrown among a pile of clean loaves of bread. The question is: are the loaves or loaf made impure.

ר' יהודה אומר ככשר לבין המפתחות טמא – for Rabbi Yehuda holds that a person who throws (whether impure keys or loaves) has awareness/knowledge to be interrogated, and his [status of] doubt makes him ritually impure. However, when he threw [a ritually impure key among the loaves], it (i.e., the loaf) is ritually pure, since the defilement does not come to rest in a place but rather passes over the ritually pure [loaf], its doubt is [presumed to be] ritually pure. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Yehuda. And the [ritually pure] loaf and the [ritually impure] keys that our Mishnah uses, the same law applies for all the rest of the things that are thrown, but because it is the practice of people to throw a loaf and keys one to the other, because of that, [the Mishnah] took this [example].

One who throws an unclean object from one place to another: [for instance] a loaf among keys or a key among loaves, [that which was clean remains] clean. According to the first opinion we can assume that the clean loaf did not touch the unclean keys, and therefore it remains pure. According to this opinion it doesn't matter which was thrown and which remained stationary. In either case, the loaf remains pure.

Rabbi Judah says: if a loaf was thrown among keys the former becomes unclean, but if a key was thrown among loaves the latter remain clean. Rabbi Judah holds that in cases where something pure is thrown and we don't know if it became impure, it is deemed impure. This is because the source of impurity is stationary. But in cases where something impure is thrown and we don't know whether it defiled something else, the other thing remains pure for the impurity was moving.

ספק נגע ספק לא נגע ספיקו טהור – and even in the private domain, and even regarding an individual who has awareness/knowledge to be interrogated who is holding the defilement/defiling object, because the defilement has no place that it rests upon, for all the while that it is in the mouth of the weasel or in the mouth of the dog it is not considered to be resting in any place, but rather it is passing defilement, therefore, its matter of doubt is deemed to be ritually pure, and even if the one who is holding the defilement/defiling object has awareness/knowledge to be interrogated.

A dead sheretz that was held in the mouth of a weasel that was passing over loaves of terumah and it is doubtful whether the sheret did or did not touch them, in such condition of doubt [the loaves] are clean. As in yesterday's mishnah, today's mishnah describes a case of moving doubtful impurity. The dead sheretz, a source of impurity, is moving for it is in the mouth of a weasel. Since the sheretz is moving and we don't know for sure if it touched the loaves, the loaves remain pure. However, you might just want to think twice before you eat them…

היו מנקרין בהן – if the weasel cast off the creeping animal or the dog [cast off] the carrion that is in their mouths onto the ground and they would peck at it, there is a place for the defilement and its manner of doubt is ritually impure.

Introduction This mishnah is based on the distinction that we have seen several times already if the source of impurity was moving, and we are not sure if it defiled someone or something, the doubt remains pure. But if the source of impurity was considered to be stationary, the doubt is impure.

A weasel that had in its mouth a [dead] sheretz or a dog that had carrion in its mouth and they passed between clean [persons] or if clean persons passed between them, their condition of doubt is deemed clean, since the uncleanness , had no resting place. A dead sheretz and carrion both defile. But since they were moving by being held by the weasel or dog, the people among whom these things moved are clean.

If they were picking at them while these lay on the ground, and a person stated, "I went to that place but I do not know whether I did or did not touch it," his condition of doubt is deemed unclean, since the uncleanness had a resting place. In case two, the dog or weasel are picking at the sheretz or carrion and dragging them on the ground. Despite the fact that the sources of defilement are indeed moving, the mishnah considers anything on the ground to be stationary. Therefore, they do defile the people who might have walked among them.

ספק אדם – there is doubt if it (i.e., the raven with an olive’s bulk of a corpse in its mouth) overshadowed over a person.

An olive's bulk of corpse was held in a raven's mouth and it is doubtful whether it overshadowed a person or vessels in a private domain: The person's condition of doubt is deemed to be unclean But the vessels’ condition of doubt is deemed clean. There are two reasons why the person is unclean. First of all, a person has the ability to be asked (see mishnah 3:6) and any time someone can be asked, the doubtful case is deemed impure. Second, although the impurity is moving, there is a special rule with regard to impurity transmitted through overshadowing (ohel) it defiles in cases of doubt even though it is moving. The vessels remain pure because they don't have intelligence such that they can be asked.

טמא – for he has awareness/knowledge to be interrogated, and he is not ritually pure for the reason that the defilement [of the olive’s bulk of a corpse] is in the mouth of the raven and it is passing defilement , and everything that overshadows is considered that there is defilement in the palce, and even that which is thrown.

One who drew water in ten buckets and a dead sheretz was found in one of them, it alone is deemed unclean but all the others remain clean. The dead sheretz found in one bucket clearly defiles that bucket. We might have thought that the other buckets should also be impure because they may have had contact with the dead sheretz while it was in the cistern. The mishnah teaches that the other buckets are pure for if we know that impurity is in one place (the bucket in which it is found) we do not assume that it might have been in another place. Furthermore, the sheretz doesn't defile the water, for water that is still connected to its source in the ground (the well or cistern) is not susceptible to impurity.

ספק כלים – there is doubt whether it (i.e., the raven) overshadowed [with the olive’s bulk of a corpse in its mouth] over the vessels.

If one poured out from one vessel into another and a dead sheretz was found in the lower vessel, the upper one remains clean. If one is pouring from one vessel to another and a dead sheretz is found in the lower vessel, only the lower vessel is impure. We don't assume that the sheretz was originally in the upper vessel, for the same reason that we said in section two impurity found in one place is not assumed to have been in another.

טהור – for they lack awareness/knowledge to be interrogated.

הממלא בעשה דליים – one after another.

ונמצא שרץ באחד מהן הוא טמא וכלן טהורים – and these words [refer to the situation] where [the bucket] lacks basins, all of them are ritually impure, for perhaps the creeping animal was the first [inside], and that which didn’t fall in with the water, we state that the basins prevented it.

העליון טהור – [but we are not concerned that perhaps it was from the upper one] it (i.e., the creeping animal) fell to the lower one (i.e., vessel).

על ספק בית הפרס - heave offering/priest’s due that entered into an area in which uncertainty exists concerning the location of a grave or a corpse, that this is a field in which a grave was plowed up and it is doubtful if there within a bone a barley-corn’s bulk from the corpse.

Introduction Our mishnah deals with six cases where a person touched something of doubtful impurity and then touched terumah. In these six cases the terumah must be burned, as if we were certain that the terumah had been defiled. Note that this is the mishnah's way of saying that something is to be treated as if it was certainly defiled, for one would not burn terumah unless he had no other choice. It is prohibited to burn terumah unless one is certain that it is impure.

ועל ספק עפר הבא מארץ העמים – that dust that comes from the lands of the nations, we have doubts regarding the mass of earth from a grave containing parts of a decayed human body. And it is taught concerning the land of the nations/ארץ העמים and the area in which uncertainty exists concerning the location of a grave or a corpse/בית הפרס, they (i.e., the Rabbis) decreed that they would defile through contact and through lifting.

Section one: 1. A bet ha-peras is a place where there used to be a grave but was plowed over. The ground defiles because it might have bones in it. 2. The rabbis say that land from outside the land of Israel is impure (see Ohalot 2:3). The origin of the dirt referred to here is unclear. 3. The garments of an am haaretz, one who is not observant of the strictures of the purity laws, defile. These clothes may have come from such a person. 4. Vessels that were simply found might be impure. Therefore, they have to be treated as such. 5. Spit that is simply found (yuck) might have come from a zav or from a niddah, and the spit of both such people defiles (we will learn more about this in the future). 6. Human urine defiles if it comes from an impure person. Albeck explains that in mishnaic times they would use urine as a cleaning agent. They would usually gather human urine and animal urine separately. The person in this section therefore knows that the urine he touched is human urine. What he does not know is if this human urine was impure.

ועל ספיקן של בגדי עם הארץ – for regarding all of them we are in doubt if his menstruating wife sat upon them.

On account of a certainty of having touched these which causes the doubtful uncleanness, terumah is burned. In all of these cases the person knows that he had contact with one of these things, he just doesn't know whether they were unclean. If he didn't know whether he had even touched them, then he is pure.

ועל ספק כלים הנמצאים – for we don’t know if they are ritually impure.

Rabbi Yose says: also on account of their doubtful contact in a private domain; But the sages say: in a private domain the terumah is only held in suspense and in a public domain it is deemed clean. Section one referred to things found in the public domain. Doubtful impurity is more likely to be deemed impure in the private domain. Rabbi Yose says if this occurred in the private domain then even if he is not sure if he had contact with the item he is impure. The sages are more lenient. In the private domain if he is not sure if he had contact with it, the terumah is "held in suspense." This means that it is not treated as pure, but neither is it burned. However, in the public domain the person is impure only if he is certain that he had contact with the item.

ועל ספק רוקין – for perhaps they are of a person with gonorrhea or a woman with flux, or that of a menstruating woman or someone who just gave birth.

מי רגלי אדם שהן כנגד מי רגלי בהמה – it teaches us a noteworthy point, and we don’t say that since these (i.e. urine) are from beasts, those also are from beasts, and even though there are two doubts (i.e., a compound uncertainty) for a leniency, the doubt regarding beasts [and] the doubt regarding a human being, and even if you can assume that [both] are from a human being, perhaps, the person is pure. And Maimonides explains through reference to the Tosefta (see Tractate Makhshirin, Chapter 3, Halakha 13 and Tractate Taharot, Chapter 5, Halakha 2), as for example, that the urine of a ritually impure man was mixed with the urine of a beast in equal measure, and this is nearby the urine of cattle, and we have a doubt if the appearance of the human urine was nullified and that all of them are ritually pure, or that they weren’t nullified and all of them are ritually impure.

על ודאי מגען שהוא ספק טומאתן (because of certainly touching them which is a manner of doubt in respect to their [imparting] uncleanness)- he knows with certainty that priest’s due/heave offering came in contact with them, but he doesn’t know if they are ritually impure or not, as we have explained the doubt in all of them.

וחכמים אומרים ברשות היחיד תולין – on the doubt of their contact, and we don’t burn them because it is a compound uncertainty which is ruled as a leniency, there is a doubt whether it touched and there is a doubt whether it did not touch, and even if you can assume that it came in contact, there is doubt of whether they are ritually impure or ritually pure. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Yossi who stated that on doubt of their contact we burn them [in the private domain].

אחד טמא – it is not definitively impure that it is known that it (i.e., the two drops of spittle) are from a person with gonorrhea or of a woman with a flux, for if so (i.e., that it is definitely known that it is impure), in the private domain, it is burnt like the other things that are doubtfully impure, but rather, one is ritually impure from mere spittle and one is pure for it is known that it is from a ritually pure person, and since that even if definitely touched the impure [spittle],that which is mere spittle is not [impure] other than according to the Rabbis, here where there is doubt of whether it touched the pure [spittle], we suspend it in the private domain, whether through contact or whether through carrying or whether through movement , whether it is moist or dry. But not so dry that one is not able to return and to permit it as it was, for this is completely pure even if it (i.e., the spittle) is definitely from someone with gonorrhea, but that it is able to be return and to be permitted in the form that it was.

Introduction Our mishnah deals with spittle that is found and whether or not one must treat it as impure lest it have come from a zav or a nidah, both of whose spit is impure.

ועל מגען ברה"ר בזמן שהן לחים – it is impossible that something from them would not cleave/attach a little bit on the body of the one who touches them, and it leaves from the status of doubtfully impure in the public domain, and it has the law of the private domain when it is attached a little bit on the body of a person. But dry spittle which is not attached, if he touched it, it is doubtful impurity in the public domain, where his manner of doubt is considered ritually pure.

Two kinds spittle, one of which was [possibly] unclean and the other was definitely clean: [Terumah] is to be held in suspense if [touched by one who] touched or carried or shifted [one of the two kinds of spittle] while they were in a private domain; Or who touched one of them in a public domain while it was still moist; Or who carried it whether it was moist or dry. In this section there are two kinds of spittle, meaning that they came from two different people. The first kind of spittle was simply found; we don't know who it came from. The second kind of spittle was definitely clean. The mishnah now goes on to describe various scenarios where a person might have been defiled by the unknown spittle. If a person touched, carried or shifted one of them while in a private domain, but he is not sure which spittle it was, then if he subsequently touched terumah, the terumah is "suspended." As we have seen, this means that it is not burned, as it would be if it was impure, but neither can it be eaten. This matches the opinion of the sages in yesterday's mishnah, that in cases of doubtful impurity in the private domain terumah is suspended. Terumah is also suspended if the person touched the spittle in the public domain and it stuck to his body because the spittle was still moist. The sages considered a person's body to be like a private domain and the spittle attached to him is treated as doubtful impurity found in the private domain. Similarly, if the person carries it, the spittle is considered to be in the private domain because a person treated like a private domain.

ועל משאן בין לחין בין יבשין - when the defilement becomes detached in the public domain and is carried by a person, it is not considered any longer as defilement in the public domain, but it is defilement in the private domain as we have stated.

If there was but one [kind of possibly] unclean spittle and a person touched, carried or shifted it in a public domain, terumah is burned on account of it; And one does not even need to say that this is the case if it was in a private domain. However, if there is only one kind of spittle and he is sure that he had contact with it, or carried it or shifted it, then the rule reverts to the general principle found in mishnah five. The terumah is burned even if this occurs in the public domain, all the more so if it occurs in the private domain, where the rule is stricter.

היה רוק יחידי- from the spittle that is found, it is doubtful whether it is of a ritually impure person or of a ritually pure person.

ונגע בו ונשאו והסיטו – even in the public domain, and afterwards it touched heave offering/priest’s-due.

שורפין עליו את התרומה – as is taught in the first clause of the Mishnah, if it had definite contact which is doubtful defilement, we burn the priest’s due/heave-offering.

ספק מים שאובים – it is doubtful if the drawn waters fell into this Mikveh/ritual bath and invalidated it or they didn’t fall, or that we saw that drawn waters fell into it, that there is a doubt if there were three LOG which is the measure to invalidate the Mikveh, or that there weren’t in them according to this measure. And all of the rest of the doubts are explained further in [the Mishnayot] in our chapter.

These are the cases of doubtful uncleanness that the sages declared to be clean:
A doubt concerning drawn water for a mikveh,
A doubt concerning an object of uncleanness that floated upon the water.
A doubt concerning liquids as to whether they have contracted uncleanness it is deemed unclean, but if it was whether uncleanness has been conveyed it is deemed clean.
A doubt concerning the hands as to whether they have contracted uncleanness, have conveyed uncleanness or have attained cleanness, they are deemed clean.
A doubt that arose in a public domain;
A doubt concerning an ordinance of the scribes;
A doubt concerning non-sacred food;
A doubt concerning a sheretz;
A doubt concerning negaim;
A doubt concerning a nazirite vow;
A doubt concerning a first-born;
A doubt concerning sacrifices.
This mishnah introduces all sorts of cases of doubt where the sages ruled that something was clean. Except for the first case, the remainder of the list is explained from mishnah eight until the end of the chapter. Therefore, we will not explain these sections here.
Section one: If drawn water falls into a mikveh, the mikveh is disqualified. If there is a doubt whether this occurred, the mikveh remains valid.
Sections 2-12: These are explained in the following mishnayot. Stay tuned!

ספק טמאה צפה על פני המים – there is a doubt if it (i.e., the water) touched the uncleanness floating on the surface of the water or it didn’t touch it.

Introduction Today's mishnah begins to explain cases of doubtful uncleanness that the rabbis rule pure.

בין בכלים בין בקרקע – whether the water was in vessels or whether the water was on the ground, it is ritually pure, for it is considered as if there is no place for uncleanness.

"A doubt concerning an object of uncleanness that floated upon water:" There is an unclean object floating on some water and there is doubt as to whether a person touched it. Since the object of impurity does not "have a set place," the person who might have touched it is pure. We have seen this principle before in mishnah three.

בכלים טמא – for they are considered as if there is a place for uncleanness. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Shimon.

[It is clean] whether the water was in vessels or in the ground. Rabbi Shimon says: if in vessels he is deemed unclean but if in the ground he is deemed clean. The first opinion holds that it does not matter whether the object was floating in water on the ground, let's say in a pond, or in water in a vessel. In both cases it is considered to not have a fixed place. Rabbi Shimon says that if the water is in a vessel then we consider the impure thing to have a place, because the vessel is set in a specific place.

ספק ירידתו טמא (if the doubt has to do with his descent into the water) – for it is manner of a person when he descends to a pond of water that everything that is in the water comes upon him, on account of the movement that when he begins to wash himself. But when he ascends from the water, the things that are in the water distance themselves from him and go to the sides of the pond.

Rabbi Judah says: if the doubt arose when the man went down into the water he is deemed unclean, but if when he came up he is deemed clean. Rabbi Judah notes that when a person gets into water and there is something floating in the water, it is normal for the thing to come closer and even touch the person. Thus, if the doubt arose when he was getting into the water, he is impure. But when someone gets out of water, it is normal for things to move away from him. Thus in this case the person is pure.

אפילו אין שם אלא מלא האדם והטומאה – that the place is narrow in the path for it is impossible for him that he wouldn’t touch it, nevertheless he is ritually pure, for he (i.e., Rabbi Yossi) holds that the uncleanness that floats does not defile. Such is what I found. But Maimonides explains that all the while that he didn’t know with certainty that he touched uncleanness, he is ritually pure. It appears that if he was on the path where it is impossible for him that he doesn’t touch it, he is ritually impure.

Rabbi Yose says: even if there is only enough room for a man and the uncleanness the former remains clean. Rabbi Yose rules that even if there is only enough room in the water for the person and the object, thereby making it quite likely that the person touched the object, the person remains clean. Note that he seems to simply apply the rule cases of doubtful uncleanness where the impurity is moving are pure. This is a legal truth even if it doesn't seem to be realistic.

ספק משקים ליטמא – ritually pure liquids that a doubt appeared on them if they were susceptible to receive defilement or not, their doubt is ritually impure, as we will explain further on.

"In the case of a doubt concerning liquids as to whether they have contracted uncleanness it is deemed unclean:" How so? If an unclean person stretched his foot between clean liquids and there is doubt whether he touched them or not, such a condition of doubt is deemed to be unclean. If a man had an unclean loaf in his hand and he stretched it out between clean liquids, and there is doubt whether it touched them or not, such a condition of doubt is deemed to be unclean. This section deals with cases where something might have touched an unclean liquid and it is ruled impure. Since liquids are susceptible to impurity according to toraitic law, these liquids are impure.

לטמא טהור – and if the liquids are ritually impure and we have a doubt if they defiled the ritually pure thing or not, its manner of doubt is that it is ritually pure.

"But if it was whether uncleanness has been conveyed, it is deemed clean." How so? If a man had in his hand a stick on the end of which there was an unclean liquid and he threw it among clean loaves and there is doubt whether it touched them or not, such a condition of doubt is deemed clean. Liquids do not convey impurity according to toraitic law only through rabbinic decree. Therefore, in these cases the loaf remains pure. Note that although the source of uncleanness seems to be moving, the sages say that since it is stationary on the stick, it is not moving. Were it moving it would obviously not convey impurity in cases of doubt, as we have learned previously.

וזרקה לבין הככרות כו' ספיקו טהור – as for example that we had a doubt if after the staff came to rest the liquids touched the loaves [of bread] or didn’t touch them. For if it was at the time of throwing, it had defilement that has no place, and even with a creeping animal according to the Torah, its manner of doubt is ritually pure, since the defilement is thrown. But if you say that yet I will derive (that it is ritually pure) even with a creeping animal because it does not have awareness/knowledge to be interrogated. But one can say, that it is possible to establish that our Mishnah is dealing with a case when a person is holding the loaves.

ספק משקין אוכלין טמא – for Rabbi Yossi holds that defilement of liquids to defile others according to the Torah, for he expounds on the Biblical verse (Leviticus 11:34): “as to any liquid that may be drunk, it shall become impure if it was inside any vessel,” to defile others, therefore, something that is a matter of doubt in respect to liquids, if it has to do with foods, it is impure.

Introduction Our mishnah continues to deal with cases of doubtful impurity involving liquids.

ולכלים טהור – for the defilement of liquids to defile vessels is according to the Rabbis, from the eighteen matters that [the Sages] decreed on that day (when Rabban Gamaliel was removed as head of the Sanhedrin – see Tractate Berakhot 28a – see the Bartenura commentary on Tractate Shabbat, Chapter 1, Mishnah 4). For the first Tanna/teacher that disputes on that of Rabbi Yossi who expounds (Leviticus 11:34): “as to any liquid that may be drunk, it shall become impure if it was inside any vessel” but not to defile others, for the defilement of liquids to defile foods and liquids is according to the Rabbis, therefore a matter of doubt of the defilement of liquids to defile others is ritually pure. And the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Yossi.

Rabbi Yose says: a condition of doubt in the case of liquids is deemed unclean in respect of food and clean in respect of vessels. Rabbi Yose holds that if there is a case of doubt involving impure liquids that might have defiled food, the food is impure. But if the doubt involves vessels, the vessels remain pure. He illustrates this in section two.

How so? If there were two jars, the one unclean and the other clean, and he made dough with the contents of one of them and a doubt arose as to whether he prepared it with the contents of the unclean, or of the clean one, such is "a condition of doubt in the case of liquids [which] is deemed unclean in respect of food and clean in respect of vessels." In this case, the dough is impure because it might have been made with the water from the impure jar. But the trough in which the dough was kneaded remains pure.

ספק ידים ליטמא - a person whose hands were ritual pure and it was doubtful if they touched ritually impure foods or ritually impure liquids and his hands were defiled, and it is doubtful if he didn’t touch and his hands were not defiled.

"If there is doubt concerning the hands as to whether they have contracted uncleanness, have conveyed uncleanness or have attained cleanness, they are deemed clean." This section is just a quote of mishnah seven without any expansion. It is explained in Yadayim 2:4 (a whole tractate about the impurity of hands!). For now it is enough to note that any case of doubt involving the impurity of hands is ruled leniently.

ולטמא – his hands were ritually impure, it is a matter of doubt if he touched foods and liquids and defiled them, and it is doubtful that he did not touch them.

"Any doubt that arose in a public domain is deemed clean. This clause will be explicated in chapters five and six.

וליטהר- his hands were ritually impure and he purified them, it is doubtful if they were purified properly or not, in all of these matters of doubt, their doubt is deemed ritually pure.

"A condition of doubt concerning an ordinance of the scribes": [For instance, he is uncertain whether] he ate unclean food or drank unclean liquids, whether he immersed his head and the greater part of his body in drawn water, or whether there fell on his head and the greater part of his body three log of drawn water, such a condition of doubt is deemed clean. But if a condition of doubt arose concerning a father of uncleanness even though it was only rabbinical, it is deemed unclean. If there is a doubt and the impurity is only of rabbinic ordinance (derabanan) then the doubt is ruled clean. The mishnah gives a couple of examples of this. The first is when a person ate or drank something and is not sure if it is unclean. A person is only impure "derabanan" if he eats or drinks something impure. The second is concerning drawn water. The rabbis decreed that drawn water defiles if a person immerses his head and most of his body in them or if three log of drawn water falls on him (we shall learn more about this in Tractate Mikvaot). In both of these cases, the doubt is deemed pure. But if the doubt involved a "father of uncleanness" whose provenance is derabanan, then the doubt is unclean. For example, "mixed blood" which is blood that came out of a person, some when he was alive (doesn't defile) and some after his death (does defile). Such blood is a "derabanan father of uncleanness." In this case, although the doubt is only derabanan, it defiles.

ספק רשות הרבים – it is matter of doubt of defilement in the public domain, they are considered ritually pure, for such we found concerning a community that makes the Passover sacrifice in ritual defilement, if it is definitive defilement, it was permissible to the community, as an a fortiori inference it a manner of doubt of defilement.

ספק דברי סופרים - as for example, all of these that are considered, and all of them are from the eight things that they (i.e., the Sages) decreed on that day (i.e., the day when Rabban Gamaliel was deposed as head of the Sanhedrin -see Tractate Berakhot 28a, and they are explained in Tractate Shabbat in the first chapter [Mishnah 4 – see the Bartenura commentary).

אבל דבר שהוא אב הטומאה והוא מדברי סופרים – as for example, דם תבוסה/blood that flows from a person at the time of his death or afterwards (the legal status of this blood is that of a corpse itself and is therefore an ultimate primary source of ritual impurity) and heathens that made themselves like those with gonorrhea, and similar things to this, if there is a doubt if he touched them or did not touch them.

ספיקו טמא – but however a primary source of ritual impurity that is from the words of the Scribes (i.e., Rabbinic) that it itself is from doubt, as for example the בית הפרס/area in which uncertainty exists concerning the location of a grave or corpse (i.e., a field containing a grave that was unintentionally plowed and the bones may have been strewn throughout the field, and a grave containing a grave the location of which is unknown), if there is in it a bone the bulk of a barleycorn or not. In this, it is taught in the Mishnah above (see Mishnah 5) that when their contact is definite, we burn them, but on their doubtful contact we don’t burn them, for this is a ספק ספיקא/compound uncertainty [which is ruled with leniency].

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.

"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.

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.

"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.

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].

"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.

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.

"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.

ספק בכורות – it is doubtful if it (i.e., the child or the animal) is the firstborn [of its mother] or not.

"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.

אחד בכורי אדם – except from giving five Selaim (i.e., coins) to a Kohen.

ואחד בכורי בהמה טמאה – the first born of a donkey

שהמוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה – that he said to the Kohen: “Bring proof that he is a first born and pay the head-tax.

ספק קרבנות – how so? The woman who has a doubt of five miscarriages that were in doubt. מביאה קרבן אחד – a sin-offering of a fowl that comes for a doubt.

"And a condition of doubt concerning sacrifices" if a woman has experienced five doubtful cases of miscarriage or five discharges of doubtful zivah she brings only one sacrifice and may then eat other sacrifices, she being under no obligation to bring the remainder. The final mishnah of our chapter explains the last case of leniency with regard to doubt. The entire mishnah is found in Keritot 1:7. Below is my explanation from there: There are two situations that are described here. 1) A woman had genital discharge for three consecutive days once a month for five months and she doesn’t know if these occurred during her menstrual cycle, in which case she was not a “zavah” and does not need to bring a sacrifice, or not during her menstrual cycle and she is a zavah and does need to bring a sacrifice. 2) She had five miscarriages and she doesn’t know whether what she miscarried counts as a birth and she must bring a sacrifice or doesn’t count as a birth and she does not bring a sacrifice. In both of these cases, the woman might be liable for as many as five sacrifices (each consisting of an olah and a hatat) or she might not be liable at all. The rule in this case is that she needs to bring only one sacrifice and then she can eat any sacrificial meat, as is always the case when a woman brings a sacrifice for being a zavah or for giving birth. While she can, if she wants, bring four more sacrifices, she need not do so.

ואוכלת בזבחים – that this sacrifice comes to compete her ritual purity and it is like ritual immersion, for if the woman was defiled several defilements, one ritual immersion counts for all of them, even this sacrifice as well.

ואין השאר עליה חובה – the Sages did not require her to bring them (the other sacrifices), for even the one, with difficulty, they permitted to bring a doubtfully pinched unconsecrated offering to the Altar, but in order to make for her an ordinance to be ritually pure to eat Holy Things.