|  |  | Previous folio / Tohoroth Contents / Tractate List / Navigate Site # Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Tohoroth ### Folio 5 ## CHAPTER V MISHNAH 1. IF IN A PUBLIC DOMAIN THERE WAS A [DEAD] CREEPING THING1 AND A FROG,2 AND SO ALSO [IF THERE WAS THERE] AN OLIVE'S BULK OF A CORPSE3 AND AN OLIVE'S BULK OF CARRION,4 A BONE OF A CORPSE5 AND A BONE OF CARRION,2 A CLOD OF CLEAN EARTH2 AND A CLOD FROM A GRAVE AREA6 OR A CLOD OF CLEAN EARTH2 AND A CLOD FROM THE LAND OF THE GENTILES,4 OR IF THERE WERE TWO PATHS, THE ONE UNCLEAN7 AND THE OTHER CLEAN, AND A MAN WALKED THROUGH ONE OF THEM BUT IT IS NOT KNOWN WHICH,8 OR OVERSHADOWED ONE OF THEM BUT IT IS NOT KNOWN WHICH,9 OR HE SHIFTED10 ONE OF THEM BUT IT IS NOT KNOWN WHICH,11 R. AKIBA RULED THAT HE IS UNCLEAN,12 BUT THE SAGES RULE THAT HE IS CLEAN.13 MISHNAH 2. WHETHER14 THE MAN SAID,15 'I TOUCHED AN OBJECT ON THIS SPOT BUT I DO NOT KNOW16 WHETHER IT WAS UNCLEAN OR CLEAN', OR 'I TOUCHED ONE BUT I DO NOT KNOW WHICH OF THE TWO I TOUCHED', R. AKIBA RULES THAT HE IS UNCLEAN,17 BUT THE SAGES RULE THAT HE IS CLEAN.18 R. JOSE RULES THAT HE IS UNCLEAN IN EVERY CASE19 AND CLEAN ONLY IN THAT OF THE PATH,20 SINCE IT IS THE USUAL PRACTICE FOR MEN TO GO21 BUT IT IS NOT THEIR USUAL PRACTICE TO TOUCH.22 MISHNAH 3. IF THERE WERE TWO PATHS,23 THE ONE UNCLEAN24 AND THE OTHER CLEAN,25 AND A MAN WALKED BY ONE OF THEM AND THEN PREPARED CLEAN FOODSTUFFS26 WHICH WERE SUBSEQUENTLY CONSUMED AND, HAVING BEEN SPRINKLED UPON ONCE AND A SECOND TIME27 AND HAVING PERFORMED IMMERSION AND ATTAINED CLEANNESS, HE WALKED BY THE SECOND PATH AND THEN PREPARED CLEAN FOODSTUFFS,26 THE LATTER ARE DEEMED CLEAN.28 IF THE FIRST FOODSTUFFS WERE STILL IN EXISTENCE BOTH MUST BE HELD IN SUSPENSE.29 IF HE HAD NOT ATTAINED CLEANNESS IN THE MEANTIME,30 THE FIRST ARE HELD IN SUSPENSE31 AND THE SECOND MUST BE BURNT.32 MISHNAH 4. IF THERE WAS A DEAD CREEPING THING AND A FROG IN A PUBLIC DOMAIN AND A MAN TOUCHED ONE OF THEM33 AND THEN PREPARED CLEAN FOODSTUFFS34 WHICH WERE SUBSEQUENTLY CONSUMED; AND THEN HE PERFORMED IMMERSION, TOUCHED THE OTHER AND THEN PREPARED CLEAN FOODSTUFFS,34 THE LATTER ARE DEEMED CLEAN.35 IF THE FIRST FOODSTUFFS WERE STILL IN EXISTENCE BOTH MUST BE HELD IN SUSPENSE.36 IF HE DID NOT PERFORM IMMERSION IN THE MEANTIME,37 THE FIRST ARE HELD IN SUSPENSE38 AND THE SECOND MUST BE BURNT.39 MISHNAH 5. IF THERE WERE TWO PATHS, THE ONE UNCLEAN AND THE OTHER CLEAN, AND A MAN WALKED BY ONE OF THEM AND THEN PREPARED CLEAN FOODSTUFFS,34 AND SUBSEQUENTLY ANOTHER MAN CAME AND WALKED BY THE SECOND PATH AND THEN PREPARED CLEAN FOODSTUFFS,34 R. JUDAH RULED: IF EACH BY HIMSELF ASKED FOR A RULING THEY ARE BOTH TO BE DECLARED CLEAN;40 BUT IF THEY ASKED FOR A RULING SIMULTANEOUSLY,41 BOTH ARE TO BE DECLARED UNCLEAN. R. JOSE RULED: IN EITHER CASE THEY ARE BOTH UNCLEAN. MISHNAH 6. IF THERE WERE TWO LOAVES, THE ONE UNCLEAN AND THE OTHER CLEAN, AND A MAN ATE ONE OF THEM AND THEN PREPARED CLEAN FOODSTUFFS, AND AFTERWARDS ANOTHER MAN CAME AND ATE THE SECOND LOAF AND THEN PREPARED CLEAN FOODSTUFFS, R. JUDAH RULED: IF EACH BY HIMSELF ASKED FOR A RULING THEY ARE BOTH TO BE DECLARED CLEAN,40 BUT IF THEY ASKED FOR ONE SIMULTANEOUSLY41 BOTH ARE TO BE DECLARED UNCLEAN. R. JOSE RULED: IN EITHER CASE THEY ARE BOTH UNCLEAN. MISHNAH 7. IF A MAN SAT IN A PUBLIC DOMAIN AND SOMEONE42 CAME AND TROD ON HIS CLOTHES, OR SPAT AND THE FORMER TOUCHED THE SPITTLE, ON ACCOUNT OF THE SPITTLE TERUMAH 43 MUST BE BURNT,44 BUT ON ACCOUNT OF THE CLOTHES THE MAJORITY PRINCIPLE IS FOLLOWED.45 IF A MAN SLEPT IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN, WHEN HE RISES HIS GARMENTS SUFFER MIDRAS UNCLEANNESS;46 SO R. MEIR. BUT THE SAGES47 RULE THAT THEY ARE CLEAN. 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, R. MEIR RULES THAT HE48 IS CLEAN, BUT THE SAGES RULE THAT HE IS UNCLEAN,49 SINCE ALL DOUBTFUL CONDITIONS OF UNCLEANNESS ARE [DETERMINED] IN ACCORDANCE WITH [THEIR APPEARANCE AT] THE TIME THEY ARE DISCOVERED. MISHNAH 8. IF THERE WAS IN THE TOWN AN IMBECILE, A HEATHEN, OR A SAMARITAN WOMAN, ALL SPITTLE ENCOUNTERED IN THE TOWN IS DEEMED UNCLEAN.50 IF A WOMAN TROD ON A MANS CLOTHES OR SAT WITH HIM IN A BOAT,51 HIS CLOTHES REMAIN CLEAN IF SHE KNEW HIM TO BE EATING TERUMAH;52 BUT IF NOT, HE MUST ASK HER. MISHNAH 9. IF A WITNESS SAYS,53 'YOU HAVE CONTRACTED UNCLEANNESS', BUT HE SAYS, 'I HAVE NOT CONTRACTED ANY UNCLEANNESS', HE IS REGARDED AS CLEAN. IF TWO WITNESSES SAY,53 'YOU HAVE CONTRACTED UNCLEANNESS', AND HE SAYS, 'I HAVE NOT CONTRACTED ANY UNCLEANNESS', R. MEIR RULES THAT HE IS UNCLEAN,54 BUT THE SAGES RULE: HE MAY BE BELIEVED ON HIS OWN EVIDENCE.55 IF A WITNESS SAYS,53 'YOU HAVE CONTRACTED UNCLEANNESS', BUT TWO WITNESSES SAY, HE HAS NOT CONTRACTED ANY UNCLEANNESS, WHETHER IN A PRIVATE DOMAIN OR IN A PUBLIC DOMAIN, HE IS REGARDED AS CLEAN. IF TWO WITNESSES SAY, 'HE HAS CONTRACTED UNCLEANNESS', AND ONE WITNESS SAYS, 'HE HAS NOT CONTRACTED ANY UNCLEANNESS', WHETHER IN A PRIVATE DOMAIN OR IN A PUBLIC DOMAIN, HE IS REGARDED AS UNCLEAN. IF ONE WITNESS SAYS, 'HE HAS CONTRACTED UNCLEANNESS', AND ANOTHER SAYS, 'HE HAS NOT CONTRACTED ANY UNCLEANNESS', OR IF ONE WOMAN SAYS, 'HE HAS CONTRACTED UNCLEANNESS', AND ANOTHER WOMAN SAYS, 'HE HAS NOT CONTRACTED ANY UNCLEANNESS', HE IS REGARDED AS UNCLEAN IF THE EVIDENCE RELATES TO A PRIVATE DOMAIN,56 BUT IF IT RELATED TO A PUBLIC DOMAIN HE IS REGARDED AS CLEAN.57 - Next folio - Original footnotes renumbered. See Structure of the Talmud Files One of the eight enumerated in Lev. XI, 29, which are 'fathers of uncleanness' and convey uncleanness by contact. Which conveys no uncleanness whatsoever. Which conveys uncleanness (cf. prev. n. but one) by overshadowing also. That conveys uncleanness by contact and carrying only. Which conveys uncleanness by hesset (v. Glos.). Beth ha-Peras (v. Glos.). This conveys uncleanness by contact and carrying only. There having been a grave across its breadth which any one going through the path must pass over and thus overshadow it and contract uncleanness. Of the two paths. Whether the olive's bulk of corpse or that of the carrion. Or carried. Whether it was the bone of the corpse or that of the carrion. Because, in his opinion, only food which, if once unclean, cannot any more be rendered clean, is deemed to be clean in a case of doubt in a public domain, but not men and vessels which may attain cleanness through immersion and sprinkling. Aliter: A doubtful case of uncleanness is deemed clean, according to R. Akiba, in a public domain only when a number of people are involved but not, as in this case, where only an individual is concerned (Wilna Gaon). Cf. prev. n. mut. mut. This is a continuation of the previous rulings. In the case where there was in the public domain a creeping thing and a frog. Owing to the similarity of the frog and the creeping thing. V. p. 385, n. 12. V. p. 385, n. 13. Enumerated in this and in the preceding Mishnah. Supra V, 1. And the imposition of uncleanness in such a case would involve undue hardship. Hence the relaxation of the restriction. As uncleanness could, therefore, be avoided the restriction could well be maintained. In a public domain. V. supra p. 385, n. 7. But it was not known which was which. Of terumah which must be kept in conditions of cleanness. On the third and the seventh day respectively. Because the doubt occurred in a public domain. Since both have to be considered simultaneously and one at least is obviously unclean. Between the preparation of the first and the second foodstuffs. Neither eaten nor burnt. Var. lec., 'are clean'. Since they are unclean in any case. But did not know whether it was the clean or the unclean. Of terumah which must be kept in conditions of cleanness. Because the doubt occurred in a public domain. Since both have to be considered simultaneously and one at least is obviously unclean. Between the preparation of the first and the second foodstuffs. Neither eaten nor burnt. Var. lec., 'are clean'. Being unclean in any case. Since neither can be declared unclean when his uncleanness is only a matter of doubt in a public domain. When it is impossible to declare them both clean since one at least must be unclean. Who could possibly be suspected of uncleanness. Which the first man touched. As a preventive measure against contact with spittle that was known to be unclean. Sc. only if the greater number of people in the place were zabs is midras uncleanness (v. Glos.) imposed. Since it is possible that most of the people have trodden on them and that among these was a zab. Holding that even in a case like this a condition of doubt in a public domain is deemed clean. The live man. Provided the dead man was not seen alive in the previous evening. Since the class of women mentioned do not exercise the necessary care when they are in their menstruation periods. Where, if she was a menstruant, she would convey to him midras uncleanness (cf. Zab. III, 1). Since in that case she would keep away from his clothes and would not enter the same boat when in her menstruation. To any man. Since two witnesses on whose evidence a man may be sent to death may well be relied upon in subjecting one to uncleanness which involves no greater liability than that of a sacrifice for entering the Sanctuary in an unclean state. Because he could well claim, even if the witnesses' evidence is accepted, that he has subsequently attained cleanness through immersion. As is the rule with any condition of doubtful uncleanness in such a domain. Cf. prev. n. mut. mut. Tractate List / Glossary / / Bible Reference |  |  |