|  |  | Previous folio / Tohoroth Contents / Tractate List / Navigate Site # Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Tohoroth ### Folio 4 ## CHAPTER IV MISHNAH 1. IF AN UNCLEAN1 OBJECT WAS THROWN FROM ONE PLACE TO ANOTHER:2 A LOAF3 AMONG KEYS4 OR A KEY5 AMONG LOAVES,6 [THAT WHICH WAS CLEAN REMAINS] CLEAN.7 R. JUDAH8 RULED: IF A LOAF3 WAS THROWN AMONG KEYS4 THE FORMER BECOMES UNCLEAN, BUT IF A KEY5 WAS THROWN AMONG LOAVES6 THE LATTER REMAIN CLEAN. MISHNAH 2. IF A DEAD CREEPING THING WAS HELD IN THE MOUTH OF A WEASEL THAT WAS PASSING OVER LOAVES OF TERUMAH AND IT IS DOUBTFUL WHETHER THE CREEPING THING DID OR DID NOT TOUCH THEM, SUCH CONDITION OF DOUBT IS DEEMED CLEAN.9 MISHNAH 3. IF A WEASEL HELD IN ITS MOUTH A [DEAD] CREEPING THING OR IF A DOG HAD CARRION IN ITS MOUTH AND THEY PASSED BETWEEN CLEAN [PERSONS] OR IF CLEAN PERSONS PASSED BETWEEN THEM,10 THEIR CONDITION OF DOUBT IS DEEMED CLEAN, SINCE THE UNCLEANNESS,11 HAD NO RESTING PLACE.12 IF THEY13 WERE PICKING AT THEM14 WHILE THESE15 LAY ON THE GROUND,16 AND A PERSON STATED, 'I WENT TO THAT PLACE BUT I DO NOT KNOW WHETHER I DID OR DID NOT TOUCH IT',15 HIS CONDITION OF DOUBT IS DEEMED UNCLEAN, SINCE THE UNCLEANNESS HAD A RESTING PLACE. MISHNAH 4. IF AN OLIVE'S BULK OF CORPSE WAS HELD IN A RAVEN'S MOUTH AND IT IS DOUBTFUL WHETHER IT OVERSHADOWED A MAN OR VESSELS IN A PRIVATE DOMAIN, THE MAN'S CONDITION OF DOUBT IS DEEMED TO BE UNCLEAN17 BUT THE VESSELS' CONDITION OF DOUBT IS DEEMED CLEAN.18 IF A MAN DREW WATER IN TEN BUCKETS19 AND A DEAD CREEPING THING WAS FOUND IN ONE OF THEM,20 IT ALONE IS DEEMED UNCLEAN BUT ALL THE OTHERS REMAIN CLEAN.21 IF ONE POURED OUT FROM ONE VESSEL INTO ANOTHER AND A DEAD CREEPING THING WAS FOUND IN THE LOWER VESSEL, THE UPPER ONE REMAINS CLEAN.22 MISHNAH 5. ON ACCOUNT OF SIX DOUBTFUL CASES OF UNCLEANNESS IS TERUMAH BURNT:23 ON ACCOUNT OF THE DOUBT OF A BETH HA-PERAS [GRAVE AREA],24 ON ACCOUNT OF EARTH25 ABOUT WHICH THERE IS DOUBT WHETHER IT CAME FROM THE LAND OF THE GENTILES,26 ON ACCOUNT OF A DOUBT ABOUT THE GARMENTS OF AN 'AM HA-AREZ,27 ON ACCOUNT OF A DOUBT ABOUT VESSELS FOUND BY CHANCE,28 ON ACCOUNT OF SPITTLE ENCOUNTERED BY CHANCE,29 ON ACCOUNT OF A DOUBT ABOUT HUMAN URINE29 THAT WAS NEAR THE URINE OF A BEAST.30 ON ACCOUNT OF A CERTAINTY OF HAVING TOUCHED THESE, WHICH GIVES RISE TO THE DOUBTFUL UNCLEANNESS,31 TERUMAH IS BURNT. R. JOSE RULED: ALSO ON ACCOUNT OF THEIR DOUBTFUL CONTACT32 IN A PRIVATE DOMAIN;33 BUT THE SAGES RULED: IN A PRIVATE DOMAIN THE TERUMAH IS ONLY HELD IN SUSPENSE34 AND IN A PUBLIC DOMAIN IT IS DEEMED CLEAN.35 MISHNAH 6. IN THE CASE OF TWO KINDS OF SPITTLE, ONE OF WHICH WAS [POSSIBLY] UNCLEAN36 AND THE OTHER WAS DECIDEDLY CLEAN, [ANY 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 IRRESPECTIVE OF WHETHER IT WAS MOIST OR DRY. IF THERE WAS BUT ONE [KIND OF POSSIBLY] UNCLEAN SPITTLE AND A MAN TOUCHED, CARRIED OR SHIFTED IT IN A PUBLIC DOMAIN, TERUMAH 37 IS BURNT ON ACCOUNT OF IT; AND IT IS STILL MORE EVIDENT THAT THIS IS THE CASE IF IT WAS38 IN A PRIVATE DOMAIN. MISHNAH 7. THE FOLLOWING CASES OF DOUBTFUL UNCLEANNESS THE SAGES DECLARED TO BE CLEAN:39 A CONDITION OF DOUBT CONCERNING DRAWN WATER IN RESPECT OF A RITUAL BATH,40 AND A CONDITION OF DOUBT CONCERNING AN OBJECT OF UNCLEANNESS THAT FLOATED UPON THE WATER.41 IN THE CASE OF A CONDITION OF 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. IF THERE IS DOUBT CONCERNING THE HANDS AS TO WHETHER THEY HAVE CONTRACTED UNCLEANNESS, HAVE CONVEYED UNCLEANNESS OR42 HAVE ATTAINED CLEANNESS, THEY ARE DEEMED CLEAN. [THE SAGES, MOREOVER, DECLARED AS CLEAN] A CONDITION OF DOUBT THAT AROSE IN A PUBLIC DOMAIN;43 A CONDITION OF DOUBT CONCERNING AN ORDINANCE OF THE SCRIBES; A CONDITION OF DOUBT CONCERNING COMMON FOODSTUFFS;41 A CONDITION OF DOUBT CONCERNING CREEPING THINGS; A CONDITION OF DOUBT CONCERNING LEPROSY SIGNS; A CONDITION OF DOUBT CONCERNING A NAZIRITE VOW; A CONDITION OF DOUBT CONCERNING FIRSTLINGS; AND A CONDITION OF DOUBT CONCERNING SACRIFICES. MISHNAH 8. 'A CONDITION OF DOUBT CONCERNING AN OBJECT OF UNCLEANNESS THAT FLOATED UPON THE WATER'44 [IS DEEMED CLEAN] WHETHER45 THE WATER WAS IN VESSELS OR IN THE GROUND. R. SIMEON RULED: IF IN VESSELS IT IS DEEMED UNCLEAN46 BUT IF IN THE GROUND IT IS DEEMED CLEAN.47 R. JUDAH RULED: IF THE DOUBT48 AROSE WHEN THE MAN WENT DOWN INTO THE WATER HE IS DEEMED UNCLEAN,49 BUT IF WHEN HE CAME UP50 HE IS DEEMED CLEAN. R. JOSE RULED: EVEN IF THE ROOM AVAILABLE51 WAS NO MORE THAN WHAT SUFFICED FOR THE MAN AND THE UNCLEANNESS THE FORMER REMAINS CLEAN. MISHNAH 9. 'IN THE CASE OF A CONDITION OF DOUBT CONCERNING LIQUIDS AS TO WHETHER THEY HAVE CONTRACTED UNCLEANNESS IT IS DEEMED UNCLEAN'.52 IN WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES? 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 OUT53 BETWEEN CLEAN LIQUIDS, AND THERE IS DOUBT WHETHER IT TOUCHED THEM OR NOT, SUCH A CONDITION OF DOUBT IS DEEMED TO BE UNCLEAN. 'BUT IF IT WAS WHETHER UNCLEANNESS HAS BEEN CONVEYED, IT IS DEEMED CLEAN'.52 IN WHAT CIRCUMSTANCE? 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 THEM54 OR NOT, SUCH A CONDITION OF DOUBT IS DEEMED CLEAN. MISHNAH 10. R. JOSE RULED: A CONDITION OF DOUBT55 IN THE CASE OF LIQUIDS IS DEEMED UNCLEAN IN RESPECT OF FOODSTUFFS56 AND CLEAN IN RESPECT OF VESSELS.57 HOW SO? IF THERE WERE TWO JARS,58 THE ONE UNCLEAN AND THE OTHER CLEAN, AND A DOUGH WAS PREPARED WITH THE CONTENTS OF ONE OF THEM AND A DOUBT AROSE AS TO WHETHER IT WAS PREPARED 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 FOODSTUFFS AND CLEAN IN RESPECT OF VESSELS'. MISHNAH 11. 'IF THERE IS DOUBT CONCERNING THE HANDS AS TO WHETHER THEY HAVE CONTRACTED UNCLEANNESS,59 HAVE CONVEYED UNCLEANNESS60 OR HAVE ATTAINED CLEANNESS, THEY ARE DEEMED CLEAN'.61 'ANY CONDITION OF DOUBT62 THAT AROSE IN A PUBLIC DOMAIN'61 IS DEEMED CLEAN' 'A CONDITION OF DOUBT CONCERNING AN ORDINANCE OF THE SCRIBES'61 [NAMELY, IF A MAN IS UNCERTAIN WHETHER] HE ATE UNCLEAN FOODSTUFFS OR DRANK UNCLEAN LIQUIDS, WHETHER HE IMMERSED HIS HEAD AND THE GREATER PART OF HIS BODY IN DRAWN WATER,63 OR WHETHER THERE FELL ON HIS HEAD AND THE GREATER PART OF HIS BODY THREE LOG OF DRAWN WATER,64 SUCH A CONDITION OF DOUBT65 IS DEEMED CLEAN. IF, HOWEVER, A CONDITION OF DOUBT AROSE CONCERNING A FATHER OF UNCLEANNESS EVEN THOUGH IT WAS ONLY RABBINICAL, IT IS DEEMED UNCLEAN. MISHNAH 12. 'A CONDITION OF DOUBT CONCERNING COMMON FOODSTUFFS'61 REFERS TO THE CLEANNESS PRACTICED BY PHARISEES.66 'A CONDITION OF DOUBT CONCERNING CREEPING THING'67 — [THIS IS DETERMINED] ACCORDING [TO THEIR CONDITION AT] THE TIME THEY ARE FOUND.68 'A CONDITION OF DOUBT CONCERNING LEPROSY SIGNS'67 — [A LEPROSY SIGN]69 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 DOUBT70 IS DEEMED UNCLEAN. 'A CONDITION OF DOUBT CONCERNING A NAZIRITE VOW'67 — [IN SUCH A CONDITION OF DOUBT71 THE MAN] IS PERMITTED [ALL THAT IS FORBIDDEN TO A NAZIRITE].72 'A CONDITION OF DOUBT CONCERNING FIRSTLINGS'69 — [IN SUCH A CASE ONE IS EXEMPT FROM GIVING THE FIRSTLINGS TO THE PRIEST] IRRESPECTIVE OF WHETHER THEY ARE FIRSTBORN OF MEN73 OR FIRSTLINGS OF CATTLE,74 WHETHER THE FIRSTLINGS OF AN UNCLEAN BEAST75 OR A CLEAN ONE, FOR IT IS THE MAN WHO ADVANCES THE CLAIM76 AGAINST HIS FELLOW THAT MUST PRODUCE THE PROOF.77 MISHNAH 13. 'AND A CONDITION OF DOUBT CONCERNING SACRIFICES'67 — IF A WOMAN HAS EXPERIENCED FIVE DOUBTFUL CASES OF MISCARRIAGE OR FIVE DISCHARGES OF DOUBTFUL ZIBAH SHE BRINGS ONLY ONE SACRIFICE78 AND MAY THEN EAT OF THE SLAIN SACRIFICES, SHE BEING UNDER NO OBLIGATION TO BRING THE REMAINDER.79 - Next folio - Original footnotes renumbered. See Structure of the Talmud Files Or clean (cf. foll. n.). So that a doubt arose whether it touched anything clean or whether the clean object (cf. prev. n.) touched anything unclean. That was clean (cf. prev. n. but one). That were unclean. That was unclean. That were clean. The assumption being that there was no contact after the haphazard throw between the clean and the unclean objects, and furthermore because the clean object under consideration lacks understanding, v. supra III, 6. Drawing a distinction between an uncleanness at rest and one on the move. Because the uncleanness was on the move, and because the bread lacks understanding, v. Shek. II, 7. It being doubtful whether there was contact between the clean and the unclean. Which was on the move. This principle applying even to persons, though these do not lack understanding. Sc. the weasel or the dog. The creeping thing or the carrion. V. p. 378, n. 14. In a private domain. For overshadowing, which reaches to the ground, is on a par with a resting uncleanness, and the man affected is capable of answering an enquiry (cf. supra III, 6). Since vessels are not capable of answering an enquiry (cf. prev. n.). One after the other. A doubt thus arising whether the creeping thing was in the well and thus conveyed uncleanness to all the buckets. It being assumed that where the uncleanness was found there it was all the time; and, though it came in contact with the water in the well, it conveyed no uncleanness to it, since the latter is regarded as attached to the ground which is not susceptible to uncleanness. It is not assumed that the creeping thing was first in the upper vessel from which it subsequently dropped into the lower one. In all other cases of doubtful uncleanness terumah may not be burnt. Into which terumah was carried; on Beth ha-Peras, v. Glos. Which came in contact with terumah. In which case it would be unclean. It being uncertain whether he did or did not touch them. If he did, uncleanness would have been conveyed to them. Which might possibly be unclean ones. Which might be that of a zab or a menstruant and which would, therefore, convey uncleanness. And thus distinguishable from it. If one kind alone is encountered a double doubt arises: Whether (a) it is that of a man or a beast and, if it is that of a man, whether (b) that man was unclean or clean. Owing, as stated supra, to the doubtful nature of their uncleanness. With terumah; though in such a case a double doubt arises. Is terumah burnt. Owing to the double doubt involved (cf. prev. n. but one). For further notes on this Mishnah v. Shab. (Sonc. ed.) p. 156 notes. In the case of certain uncleanness the terumah, touched in a private domain by one who came in contact with the spittle, would have had to be definitely burnt. That the man subsequently touched. Lit., 'and there is no need to say' that the terumah is to be burnt. Irrespective of whether they occurred in a private or in a public domain. It being doubtful whether the drawn water had fallen into the ritual bath that contained less than the prescribed minimum of valid water or, if it was certain that it fell into it, whether its quantity was as much as three logs which constitute the minimum for invalidating a ritual bath. This and the following cases are explained infra. Having been unclean. Even concerning a Pentateuchally ordained uncleanness. Cf. prev. Mishnah. It being uncertain whether a man had touched the uncleanness. Sc. the man concerning whom a doubt arose as to whether he touched the unclean object is deemed unclean. Cf. p. 381, n. 8 mut. mut. Whether the man has touched the unclean object. Since it is in the nature of a floating object to be drawn towards one descending into the water. When the floating object naturally recedes from him. In the water. Supra IV, 7. Var. lec. 'threw it' (cf. foll. n.). After it had come to a rest. As to their uncleanness. Because, in his opinion, liquids convey uncleanness to foodstuffs according to a Pentateuchal law. Whose contraction of uncleanness from liquids is but a Rabbinical ordinance. Containing water. From unclean foodstuffs or liquids. To foodstuffs. Supra IV, 7. Of uncleanness. Which renders the immersion invalid. Which cause a clean person to become unclean. As to whether he subsequently performed immersion and much more so if there is doubt as to whether uncleanness had at all been contracted. Lit., 'the cleanness of separation'. To keep away from the clothes of those who are not so meticulous as oneself in the observance of the laws of cleanness and uncleanness. If a Pharisee is in doubt whether he came in contact with such cloths he may regard himself as clean and continue to eat his usual food that he keeps under conditions of cleanness. Supra IV, 7. Sc. if a creeping thing was thrown among clean foodstuffs but was not found touching any of them, they are deemed to be clean. It is not assumed that before it came to rest it touched them. Concerning which there is doubt whether it increased in size. Sc. whether it had diminished in size. Where, for instance, a man made his vow dependent on an assertion that a heap of wheat contained a certain number of measures, and the heap was lost before the assertion could be checked. The drinking of wine and shaving for instance. Who are redeemed with five shekels which are given to the priest. Which are the priest's due. An ass. The priest who claims the firstling or the redemption of the firstborn. As there is doubt no proof is possible, and the father of the firstborn and the owner of the firstling are exempt. A sin-offering of a bird, brought as doubtful offering. V. Ker. 8a. Tractate List / Glossary / / Bible Reference |  |  |