ate the five remaining, the ones who came first are deemed impure, because they have no one else to hold accountable.16 The five last men are pure, because they can hold the first five accountable.17גכִּכָּר טָמֵא שֶׁנִּתְעָרֵב בְּתִשְׁעָה כִּכָּרוֹת טְהוֹרִין, וּבָאוּ חֲמִשָּׁה בְּנֵי אָדָם וְאָכְלוּ חֲמִשָּׁה כִּכָּרוֹת מֵהֶן, וּבָאוּ חֲמִשָּׁה בְּנֵי אָדָם אֲחֵרִים וְאָכְלוּ הַחֲמִשָּׁה הַנִּשְׁאָרִים - הָרִאשׁוֹנִים טְמֵאִים, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵין לָהֶן אֲנָשִׁים אֲחֵרִים שֶׁיִּתְלוּ בָּהֶן; וְהַחֲמִשָּׁה הָאֲנָשִׁים הָאַחֲרוֹנִים טְהוֹרִין, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן תּוֹלִין בָּרִאשׁוֹנִים.
ate the five remaining, the ones who came first are deemed impure, because they have no one else to hold accountable.16 The five last men are pure, because they can hold the first five accountable.17גכִּכָּר טָמֵא שֶׁנִּתְעָרֵב בְּתִשְׁעָה כִּכָּרוֹת טְהוֹרִין, וּבָאוּ חֲמִשָּׁה בְּנֵי אָדָם וְאָכְלוּ חֲמִשָּׁה כִּכָּרוֹת מֵהֶן, וּבָאוּ חֲמִשָּׁה בְּנֵי אָדָם אֲחֵרִים וְאָכְלוּ הַחֲמִשָּׁה הַנִּשְׁאָרִים - הָרִאשׁוֹנִים טְמֵאִים, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵין לָהֶן אֲנָשִׁים אֲחֵרִים שֶׁיִּתְלוּ בָּהֶן; וְהַחֲמִשָּׁה הָאֲנָשִׁים הָאַחֲרוֹנִים טְהוֹרִין, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן תּוֹלִין בָּרִאשׁוֹנִים.
In the public domain. If such a situation occurred in a private domain, the person would be deemed impure in all instances.
I.e., there was a grave in the middle of the path.
I.e., it could not be determined whether the path he walked down was pure or impure. He was, however, aware which of the two paths he walked down.
I.e., since the doubt arose in the public domain, the status of the pure foods does not change and it is permitted to partake of them.
I.e., because of the doubt, he purified himself as a safeguard, as is desirable (see Chapter 15, Halachah 9).
Since the foods that he originally touched no longer exist, the question focuses only on the foods touched afterwards. The question is thus one concerning a doubt that arose in the public domain and they are considered as pure.
These foods are not burnt, as is produce that is considered as impure, nor may they be used. Instead, they are left until they definitely contract impurity or they are disqualified because they were kept beyond the time in which they should be eaten.
Because one of them was touched after he walked down the impure path. Since we do not know which one is impure and the ruling concerning them both must be given at the same time, neither can be considered as pure, nor deemed as impure. This ruling applies even if the person does not inquire about the status of both sets of food at the same time. Moreover, even if the ruling concerning the first set had already been given, if it still exists when the second set is brought, it is rescinded and the set is deemed impure.
It is not considered pure (as it would be were its status judged alone), because the determination of its status is being made at the same time as the determination of the second set.
Thus regaining a state of purity.
As would be the case with regard to all questions of impurity that arise in the public domain.
Although in such a situation that involves one person, the status of the pure foods is held in abeyance, as stated in the previous halachah, when two people are involved, greater stringency is shown. The reason for this greater stringency is, apparently, that the judge will have to render a ruling about both individuals at the same time. Since there is no way he can consider one impure and the other pure, they are both considered as impure.
Which would render him impure due to a Rabbinic decree, as stated in Chapter 8, Halachah 10.
Chapter 15, Halachah 1. The Mishneh LeMelech explains that the Rambam's wording requires interpretation, for the same leniency is applied with regard to questions of Scriptural Law. He explains that with regard to questions of Rabbinic Law, leniency would be granted even in a private domain.
Since we do not know which one, they are both considered impure.
I.e., the impure loaf was certainly among the loaves at the time they partook of them.
I.e., they can maintain that the impure loaf was eaten by the first group and no longer existed at the time they partook of the loaves.
Since he is already deemed impure or at least questionably so, we assume that he was the one who contracted impurity.
