ב"ה

Rambam - 3 Chapters a Day

She'ar Avot haTum'ah - Chapter 15, She'ar Avot haTum'ah - Chapter 16, She'ar Avot haTum'ah - Chapter 17

Show content in:

She'ar Avot haTum'ah - Chapter 15

1

What is meant by a doubt concerning a point of Rabbinic Law? For example, if there is a doubt whether or not a person ate impure foods or drank impure liquids, or there is a doubt whether or not a person inserted his head and the majority of his body in drawn water or three lugim of drawn water fell upon him, he is pure. Similarly, if a person ate impure foods or drank impure liquids or inserted his head and the majority of his body in drawn water or had three lugim of drawn water fall upon him and then a question arose whether or not he touched particular pure entities, those pure entities remain pure. Similarly, if he ate foods that are questionably impure or drank liquids that are questionably impure, he is deemed pure. Similarly, one who partakes of terumah whose status is held in abeyance, is pure. Similarly, in all analogous situations where there is a question regarding the status of derivatives of impurity, the person or the object is deemed pure.

If, however, there is a question regarding a source of impurity, even one of Rabbinic origin, the person or the object is deemed impure unless the source of impurity was itself of doubtful status, e.g., a beit hapras or the earth of the Diaspora. Terumah is not burned because of a doubt whether it touched such substances, as was explained.

א

סְפֵק דִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים כֵּיצַד. סָפֵק אָכַל אֳכָלִין טְמֵאִין וְשָׁתָה מַשְׁקִין טְמֵאִין סָפֵק שֶׁלֹּא אָכַל וְשֶׁלֹּא שָׁתָה. סָפֵק שֶׁבָּא רֹאשׁוֹ וְרֻבּוֹ בְּמַיִם שְׁאוּבִין אוֹ שֶׁנָּפְלוּ עָלָיו שְׁלֹשָׁה לוֹגִין מַיִם שְׁאוּבִין סָפֵק שֶׁלֹּא בָּא וְשֶׁלֹּא נָפְלוּ הֲרֵי זֶה טָהוֹר. וְכֵן אִם אָכַל אֳכָלִין טְמֵאִין אוֹ שָׁתָה מַשְׁקִין טְמֵאִין אוֹ בָּא בְּמַיִם שְׁאוּבִין אוֹ נָפְלוּ עָלָיו שְׁלֹשָׁה לוֹגִין מַיִם שְׁאוּבִין וְסָפֵק נָגַע בְּטָהֳרוֹת אֵלּוּ סָפֵק לֹא נָגַע הֲרֵי טָהֳרוֹת אֵלּוּ טְהוֹרוֹת. וְכֵן הָאוֹכֵל סְפֵק אֳכָלִין טְמֵאִים וְהַשּׁוֹתֶה מַשְׁקִין שֶׁהֵן טְמֵאִים בְּסָפֵק הֲרֵי זֶה טָהוֹר. וְכֵן הָאוֹכֵל תְּרוּמָה תְּלוּיָה טָהוֹר. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בְּאֵלּוּ מִוַּלְדֵי טֻמְאוֹת שֶׁהֵן מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים סְפֵקָן טָהוֹר. אֲבָל אַב [הַטֻּמְאָה] שֶׁהוּא מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים סְפֵקוֹ טָמֵא אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן הָיָה הָאָב עַצְמוֹ טָמֵא בְּסָפֵק כְּגוֹן בֵּית הַפְּרָס וְאֶרֶץ הָעַמִּים שֶׁאֵין שׂוֹרְפִין עַל סְפֵק מַגָּעָן כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ:

2

What is meant by the principle: a doubt that arises regarding ordinary food, i.e., the purity of the food prepared by those who partake of ordinary foods in a state of purity, the people called perushim?

When a question arises regarding the purity of the ordinary food that is treated as pure by people who partake of ordinary foods in a state of purity, the objects are deemed pure. This applies with regard to all questions that arise. Only when impurity is definite is it of consequence in such instances.

ב

סְפֵק הַחֻלִּין הִיא טָהֳרַת אוֹכְלֵי חֻלֵּיהֶן בְּטָהֳרָה וְהֵן הַנִּקְרָאִים פְּרוּשִׁים. כֵּיצַד. אוֹכְלֵי חֻלֵּיהֶן בְּטָהֳרָה שֶׁנּוֹלַד לָהֶן סְפֵק טֻמְאָה בְּטָהֳרוֹתֵיהֶן הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ טְהוֹרִים כְּכָל הַסְּפֵקוֹת כֻּלָּן. וְאֵין לָהֶן טֻמְאָה אֶלָּא טֻמְאָה וַדָּאִית:

3

What is meant by the principle: a doubt that arises concerning sacrifices? If a person lacking atonement was in doubt regarding an obligation to bring five sacrifices, e.g., a woman who was in doubt regarding five situations that could have rendered her impure due to zivah or due to childbirth, she may bring only one sacrifice. Afterwards, she is pure with regard to partaking of sacrificial foods. The remainder of the offerings are not considered as obligations that must be fulfilled, as explained in Hilchot Mechusrei Kapparah.

ג

סְפֵק הַקָּרְבָּנוֹת כֵּיצַד. מְחֻסַּר כִּפּוּרִים שֶׁיֵּשׁ עָלָיו סְפֵק חֲמִשָּׁה קָרְבָּנוֹת. כְּגוֹן הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁיֵּשׁ עָלֶיהָ סְפֵק חָמֵשׁ זִיבוֹת אוֹ סְפֵק חָמֵשׁ לֵידוֹת. מְבִיאִין קָרְבָּן אֶחָד וְטָהוֹר לֶאֱכל בְּקָדָשִׁים וְאֵין הַשְּׁאָר עָלָיו חוֹבָה כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ בְּהִלְכוֹת מְחֻסְּרֵי כַּפָּרָה:

4

What is meant by a doubt concerning tzara'at blemishes? Until a person is categorized as impure, with regard to all questions concerning his status, he is considered as pure, as explained in Hilchot Negayim, ch. 6.

ד

סְפֵק נְגָעִים כֵּיצַד. עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִזְקַק לְטֻמְאָה סְפֵקוֹ טָהוֹר כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ בְּפֶרֶק שִׁשִּׁי מֵהִלְכוֹת נְגָעִים:

5

What is meant by a doubt when a person afflicted with tzara'at stood still or passed? When a person afflicted with tzara'at was sitting under a tree, a person who was ritually pure passed by, and there was a question whether or not he passed under the tree, he is pure. This ruling also applies if a person who was ritually pure was sitting under a tree, a person afflicted with tzara'at passed under the tree, and there was a question whether or not he stood still.

ה

סָפֵק עוֹמֵד וְעוֹבֵר כֵּיצַד. מְצֹרָע שֶׁיּוֹשֵׁב תַּחַת הָאִילָן וְהַטָּהוֹר עוֹבֵר סָפֵק הֶאֱהִיל עָלָיו הָאִילָן וְטָמֵא סָפֵק לֹא הֶאֱהִיל עָלָיו וְכֵן אִם הָיָה הַטָּהוֹר יוֹשֵׁב תַּחַת הָאִילָן וְהַמְצֹרָע עוֹבֵר תַּחְתָּיו סָפֵק עָמַד הַמְצֹרָע וְנִטְמָא הַטָּהוֹר סָפֵק לֹא עָמַד סְפֵקוֹ טָהוֹר:

6

What is meant by a doubt concerning the carcass of a creeping animal, i.e., a creeping animal that was thrown? One threw the carcass of a creeping animal or another impure entity among loaves of bread and, in both instances, when there is a question whether or not the pure loaf was touched by impurity, they are considered as pure. The rationale is that the status of all questions of ritual impurity depends on the situation at the time the matter is discovered. We do not say: Maybe it touched the pure or impure object and then fell to its side? Instead, the ruling is given according to its state when it was discovered.

ו

סְפֵק שְׁרָצִים זֶה סְפֵק הַנִּזְרָקִין. כֵּיצַד. זָרַק שֶׁרֶץ אוֹ דָּבָר טָמֵא לְבֵין הַכִּכָּרוֹת אוֹ שֶׁזָּרַק כִּכָּר לְבֵין הַטְּמֵאוֹת וְסָפֵק נָגַע סָפֵק לֹא נָגַע הֲרֵי זֶה טָהוֹר הוֹאִיל וּמָצָא הַכִּכָּר הַטָּהוֹר שֶׁאֵינוֹ נוֹגֵעַ בַּטֻּמְאָה שֶׁכָּל הַטֻּמְאוֹת כִּשְׁעַת מְצִיאָתָן. וְאֵין אוֹמְרִין שֶׁמָּא נָגַע בּוֹ וְאַחַר כָּךְ נָפַל בְּצִדּוֹ אֶלָּא הֲרֵי הֵן כִּשְׁעַת מְצִיאָתָן:

7

When there was a carcass of a creeping animal in the mouth of a mole that was walking over loaves of bread that were terumah and there was a question whether or not the carcass touched the loaves, it is pure, because the impurity did not come to rest. If the mole was walking on the loaves and touching them with the teeming animal, but there was a question whether or not it was alive, the loaves are pure.

When does the above apply? When the mole seized the creeping animal when it was alive and then departed. If, however, the creeping animal was discovered dead in the mole's mouth, the loaves are impure. If, however, it was seen to be alive while it was in the mole's mouth even though it was discovered dead in front of it afterwards, the loaves are pure.

Similarly, when there is a carcass of a creeping animal in the mouth of a mole and the carcass of an animal in the mouth of a dog and they passed between pure substances or pure substances passed between them, the status of the pure substances does not change despite the question. This leniency is granted, because the impurity does not have a fixed place. If they were pecking with them on the ground, they are considered to have been placed in a fixed position and they impart impurity retroactively because of the doubt if they were located in a private domain, as will be explained.

ז

הַשֶּׁרֶץ בְּפִי הַחֻלְדָּה וּמְהַלֶּכֶת עַל גַּבֵּי כִּכָּרוֹת שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה סָפֵק נָגַע סָפֵק לֹא נָגַע סְפֵקוֹ טָהוֹר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁלֹּא נָחָה הַטֻּמְאָה. הָיְתָה מְהַלֶּכֶת בּוֹ וְנוֹגַעַת בְּכִכָּרוֹת סָפֵק חַי סָפֵק מֵת הֲרֵי הֵן טְהוֹרוֹת. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בִּזְמַן שֶׁנְּטָלַתּוּ וְהָלְכָה לָהּ. אֲבָל אִם נִמְצָא מֵת בְּפִיהָ הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ טְמֵאוֹת. רָאוּהוּ חַי בְּפִיהָ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁמְּצָאוּהוּ מֵת בְּפִיהָ הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ טְהוֹרוֹת. וְכֵן הַשֶּׁרֶץ בְּפִי הַחֻלְדָּה וְהַנְּבֵלָה בְּפִי הַכֶּלֶב וְעָבְרוּ בֵּין הַטְּהוֹרִים אוֹ שֶׁעָבְרוּ טְהוֹרִים בֵּינֵיהֶן סְפֵקוֹ טָהוֹר. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵין לַטֻּמְאָה מָקוֹם קָבוּעַ. הָיוּ מְנַקְּרִין בָּהֶן עַל הָאָרֶץ הֲרֵי הֵן כְּמֻנָּחִין וּמְטַמְּאִין לְמַפְרֵעַ מִסָּפֵק אִם הָיוּ בִּרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר:

8

What is meant by a doubt that arose in the public domain? When impurity was located in the public domain and there is a doubt whether a person or a substance touched it or not, it is considered to be pure. If such a situation arose in a private domain and there is a doubt whether a person or a substance touched it or not, it is considered to be impure.

All of these questionable situations which the Sages ruled as pure are given that status even if the situation occurs in a private domain, because the objects involved do not have the knowledge to inquire regarding their status, as will be explained.

ח

סָפֵק רְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים כֵּיצַד. טֻמְאָה שֶׁמֻּנַּחַת בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים סָפֵק נָגַע בָּהּ סָפֵק לֹא נָגַע סְפֵקוֹ טָהוֹר. הָיְתָה בִּרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד וְסָפֵק נָגַע בָּהּ סָפֵק לֹא נָגַע סְפֵקוֹ טָמֵא. וְכָל אֵלּוּ הַסְּפֵקוֹת שֶׁטִּהֲרוּ חֲכָמִים אֲפִלּוּ בִּרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵין בָּהֶן דַּעַת לְהִשָּׁאֵל כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר:

9

What is meant by a doubt involving two domains? An impure entity was located in a private domain and there was a pure entity in a public domain or vice versa and a person touched one of them, but did not know which one he touched, he is pure. The same ruling applies if he moved one of them and did not know which one he moved if the impure entity would impart impurity when carried or one of them would impart impurity when one holds a portion of his body over it and he held a portion of his body over one of them, but does not know which one. Even though this involves a doubt in the public domain, he is considered as pure.

When he inquires about his status, we tell him: "If you immerse, you have not lost anything." If he immerses, it is praiseworthy. If he does not immerse and touches entities that are pure, they remain pure, because when there is a doubt in the public domain, the entity is considered as pure.

ט

סָפֵק שְׁתֵּי רְשׁוּיוֹת כֵּיצַד. הָיָה דָּבָר טָמֵא בִּרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד וְדָבָר טָהוֹר בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה הַדָּבָר לְהֵפֶךְ וְנָגַע בְּאֶחָד מֵהֶם וְאֵין יָדוּעַ בְּאֵי זֶה מֵהֶן נָגַע. אוֹ שֶׁהֵסִיט אֶת אֶחָד מֵהֶן וְאֵין יָדוּעַ אֵי זֶה הֵסִיט. אִם הָיָה הַדָּבָר הַטָּמֵא מְטַמֵּא בְּמַשָּׂא אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה אֶחָד מֵהֶן מְטַמֵּא בְּאֹהֶל וְהֶאֱהִיל עַל אֶחָד מֵהֶן וְאֵין יָדוּעַ אֵי זֶה מֵהֶן הֶאֱהִיל הֲרֵי זֶה טָהוֹר אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁסָּפֵק רְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים טָהוֹר. כְּשֶׁיָּבוֹא לִשָּׁאֵל אוֹמְרִין לוֹ אִם טָבַלְתָּ אֵין בְּכָךְ הֶפְסֵד. אִם טָבַל הֲרֵי זֶה מְשֻׁבָּח. וְאִם לֹא טָבַל וְעָשָׂה טָהֳרוֹת הֲרֵי הֵן טְהוֹרוֹת שֶׁסְּפֵק רְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים טָהוֹר:

10

When the carcass of a creeping animal that was burnt was found on food, or a garment that was worn out or a needle that was broken or rusty was found among keilim, the keilim are pure. This applies whether they are found in a public domain or a private domain. We do not say, perhaps the carcass was burnt only after it came into contact with the foods or after the keilim contracted ritual impurity because of contact with the garment or the needle, the needle broke or became rusty and the garment became worn out. For we follow the principle: the status of all questions of ritual impurity depends on the situation at the time the matter is discovered.

י

שֶׁרֶץ שֶׁנִּמְצָא שָׂרוּף וּמֻנָּח עַל גַּבֵּי אֳכָלִין וְכֵן טַלִּית שֶׁנִּמְצֵאת בְּלוּיָה וּמַחַט שֶׁנִּמְצֵאת שְׁבוּרָה אוֹ חֲלוּדָה בֵּין הַכֵּלִים הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ טְהוֹרִין בֵּין בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים בֵּין בִּרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד. וְאֵין אוֹמְרִין שֶׁמָּא אַחַר שֶׁנָּגַע בָּאֳכָלִין נִשְׂרַף וְאַחַר שֶׁנִּטְמְאוּ הַכֵּלִים בְּמַגַּע הַטַּלִּית וְהַמַּחַט נִשְׁבְּרָה אוֹ הֶחְלִידָה וּבָלְתָה הַטַּלִּית עַד שֶׁטָּהֲרָה שֶׁכָּל הַטֻּמְאוֹת כִּשְׁעַת מְצִיאָתָן:

11

The following rules apply when two witnesses tell a person: "You contracted impurity," and he says: "I am pure.' His word is accepted with regard to his own status. Nevertheless, we do not tell him to involve himself with pure articles, but if he did involve himself with pure articles, they are pure, but he should take his own precautions.

If one witness says: "He became impure," and two witnesses state: "He did not become impure," whether this occurred in a public domain or a private domain, he is pure. If two witnesses say: "He became impure," and one witness states: "He did not become impure," whether this occurred in a public domain or a private domain, he is impure. When one witness says: "He became impure," and one witness states: "He did not become impure," if this occurred in a private domain, he is impure. If this occurred in a public domain, he is pure.

יא

שְׁנֵי עֵדִים אוֹמְרִין לוֹ נִטְמָא וְהוּא אוֹמֵר טָהוֹר אֲנִי הוּא נֶאֱמָן עַל יְדֵי עַצְמוֹ. וְאַף עַל פִּי כֵן אֵין אוֹמְרִין לוֹ עֲסֹק בְּטָהֳרוֹת אֶלָּא אִם עָשָׂה טָהֳרוֹת הֲרֵי הֵן טְהוֹרוֹת וְיָחוּשׁ לְעַצְמוֹ. עֵד אוֹמֵר נִטְמָא וּשְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים לֹא נִטְמָא בֵּין בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים בֵּין בִּרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד טָהוֹר. שְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים נִטְמָא וְעֵד אֶחָד אוֹמֵר לֹא נִטְמָא בֵּין בִּרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד בֵּין בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים הֲרֵי זֶה נִטְמָא. עֵד אוֹמֵר נִטְמָא וְעֵד אוֹמֵר לֹא נִטְמָא אִשָּׁה אוֹמֶרֶת נִטְמָא וְאִשָּׁה אוֹמֶרֶת לֹא נִטְמָא בִּרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד טָמֵא בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים טָהוֹר:

She'ar Avot haTum'ah - Chapter 16

1

Why did the Sages rule that when there is a question of impurity in the public domain, the person should be considered pure? Because the community offers the Paschal sacrifice in a state of impurity when the majority of the people are impure. Now, if ritual impurity that was definitely established is superseded by the presence of the community, certainly this would apply to a mere question of the presence of impurity. For all stringencies observed because of doubt were instituted by the Sages, as we explained in Hilchot Bi'ot Assurot.

Why did they rule stringently concerning a doubt in a private domain? For in the instance of a sotah who entered into privacy with the person concerning whom she was warned, even though there is only a doubt that she committed adultery, she is considered as impure with regard to her husband until she drinks the sotah waters.

א

מִפְּנֵּי מָה טִהֲרוּ חֲכָמִים סְפֵק טֻמְאָה בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים. שֶׁהֲרֵי הַצִּבּוּר עוֹשִׂין פֶּסַח בְּטֻמְאָה בִּזְמַן שֶׁהַטְּמֵאִים מְרֻבִּין. אִם טֻמְאָה וַדָּאִית נִדְחֵית מִפְּנֵיהֶן קַל וָחֹמֶר לִסְפֵק טֻמְאָה שֶׁאִסּוּר כָּל הַסְּפֵקוֹת מִדִּבְרֵיהֶן כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ בְּהִלְכוֹת בִּיאוֹת אֲסוּרוֹת. וּמִפְּנֵי מָה הֶחְמִירוּ בִּסְפֵק רְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד. שֶׁהֲרֵי סוֹטָה שֶׁנִּסְתְּרָה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהַדָּבָר סָפֵק הֲרֵי הִיא טְמֵאָה לְבַעְלָהּ עַד שֶׁתִּשְׁתֶּה:

2

Just as a sotah and the person suspected of relations with her are two, so too, when there are questions of impurity that involve two individuals, it is assumed that the person or the article is not pure. If, however, there are three people in a private domain, when there is a question concerning impurity that occurs there, it is assumed that the person or the article is pure, as if the question arose in the public domain.

When does the above apply? When the person who could have contracted impurity has the knowledge to be asked and be examined regarding the details that occurred, as is true with regard to a sotah. When, however, there is a deafmute, an emotionally or intellectually compromised person, or a minor who does not know the details and is unable to respond to questions that are aroused in a private domain, if a doubtful situation arises, it is assumed that the person or the article is pure.

What is implied? When a deafmute, an emotionally or intellectually compromised person, or a minor who does not know how to respond to questions are found in a courtyard or an alley where there is impurity and there is a question whether or not they came in contact with it, they are considered as pure. Similarly, in all instances where no one has the knowledge to respond to questions, even though the question arises in a private domain, they are considered as pure.

ב

וּכְשֵׁם שֶׁהַסּוֹטָה וּבוֹעֲלָהּ שְׁנַיִם כָּךְ סְפֵק טֻמְאָה בִּשְׁנַיִם. אֲבָל אִם הָיוּ שְׁלֹשָׁה בִּרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד הֲרֵי סְפֵק טֻמְאָתָן שָׁם טָהוֹר כִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים כְּשֶׁהָיָה זֶה שֶׁנִּטְמָא בְּסָפֵק יֵשׁ בּוֹ דַּעַת לְהִשָּׁאֵל וְלִדְרשׁ מִמֶּנּוּ מָה אֵרַע לוֹ כְּסוֹטָה. אֲבָל אִם הָיָה חֵרֵשׁ אוֹ שׁוֹטֶה אוֹ קָטָן שֶׁאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ לְהָשִׁיב עַל הָעִנְיָן כְּשֶׁשּׁוֹאֲלִין אוֹתוֹ הֲרֵי סְפֵקוֹ טָהוֹר. כֵּיצַד. חֵרֵשׁ אוֹ שׁוֹטֶה אוֹ קָטָן שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ דַּעַת לְהִשָּׁאֵל שֶׁנִּמְצְאוּ בְּחָצֵר אוֹ בְּמָבוֹי שֶׁיֵּשׁ שָׁם טֻמְאָה וְסָפֵק נָגְעוּ וְסָפֵק לֹא נָגְעוּ הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ טְהוֹרִין. וְכֵן כָּל שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ דַּעַת לְהִשָּׁאֵל אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנּוֹלַד לוֹ הַסָּפֵק בִּרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד סְפֵקוֹ טָהוֹר:

3

When a person is blind, sleeping, or walking at night, if there is a question whether or not they contracted impurity in a private domain, they are impure, because they have the knowledge to respond to questions.

When do we apply the principle that whenever there is a question involving one who does not have the knowledge to respond to questions, it is assumed that the person or the article is pure? When the possibilities are equally balanced and there is no established presumption regarding its status. If, however, it is known that, in a given situation, one could be assumed to have contracted impurity, he is considered impure.

What is implied? An impure child was standing next to some dough and there was also dough on his hand, the dough is deemed impure, for a child's habit is to pat dough and it can be assumed that he did so. Nevertheless, terumah should not be burnt because of this assumption.

ג

הַסּוּמָא וְהַיָּשֵׁן וְהַמְהַלֵּךְ בַּלַּיְלָה סְפֵקָן בִּרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד טָמֵא מִפְּנֵי שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ דַּעַת לְהִשָּׁאֵל. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים שֶׁכָּל שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ דַּעַת לִשָּׁאֵל סְפֵקוֹ טָהוֹר בְּשֶׁהָיָה הַדָּבָר שָׁקוּל וְאֵין שָׁם חֲזָקָה. אֲבָל אִם הָיָה הַדָּבָר יָדוּעַ שֶׁחֶזְקָתוֹ שֶׁנִּטְמָא הֲרֵי זֶה טָמֵא. כֵּיצַד. תִּינוֹק טָמֵא שֶׁנִּמְצָא בְּצַד הָעִסָּה וְהַבָּצֵק בְּיָדוֹ הֲרֵי הָעִסָּה טְמֵאָה שֶׁדֶּרֶךְ הַתִּינוֹק לְטַפֵּחַ וּבְכָךְ הִיא חֶזְקָתוֹ. וְאֵין שׂוֹרְפִין עַל חֲזָקָה זוֹ:

4

When impure liquids, a pure dough that is terumah, and domesticated animals, beasts, or fowl were all located in the same place, and teeth marks were found in the dough, it is presumed that the animals drank the liquids and then bit the dough and thus imparted impurity to it. If a cow was there and the distance between the liquids and the dough was sufficient for the cow to wipe its tongue on its lips, the dough is pure. The same principle applies with regard to other animals if there was enough space for the animals to dry their mouths with their tongues. If there is less space than this, the dough is impure. If a dog was there, the dough is pure even if it is located next to the liquids, for it is not the habit of a dog to leave food and go to water.

The following laws apply if there are signs of chickens pecking at the dough. If there is enough space between the liquids and the dough for them to dry their mouths on the ground, the dough is pure. If not, it is not, for it can be assumed that they drank and pecked at the dough while the liquids were still in their mouths.

When does the above apply? When the water is clear enough for a child's shadow to be recognized in them. If, however, the water was murky, the dough is pure, because if the chickens pecked with the liquids, the marks of the liquid would be observable in the dough. If the liquid was clear, although the dough is assumed to be impure, it should not be burnt due to this assumption. Instead, the determination of its status is held in abeyance.

ד

הָיוּ מַשְׁקִין טְמֵאִין וּבָצֵק טָהוֹר וּבְהֵמָה אוֹ חַיָּה אוֹ עוֹפוֹת בַּבַּיִת וְנִמְצָא בַּבָּצֵק מְקוֹם נְשִׁיכָתָן. חֲזָקָה שֶׁשָּׁתוּ מַשְׁקִין וְנָשְׁכוּ בַּבָּצֵק וְטִמְּאוּהוּ. הָיְתָה שָׁם פָּרָה וּבֵין הַמַּשְׁקִין וְהַבָּצֵק כְּדֵי שֶׁתְּלַחֵךְ אֶת לְשׁוֹנָהּ הֲרֵי הַבָּצֵק טָהוֹר. וּבִשְׁאָר כָּל הַבְּהֵמָה כְּדֵי שֶׁתְּנַגֵּב אֶת פִּיהָ. פָּחוֹת מִזֶּה הַבָּצֵק טָמֵא. וְאִם הָיָה כֶּלֶב אֲפִלּוּ הָיוּ מַשְׁקִין בְּצַד הַבָּצֵק הֲרֵי זֶה טָהוֹר. שֶׁאֵין דַּרְכּוֹ שֶׁל כֶּלֶב לְהַנִּיחַ הַמָּזוֹן וְלֵילֵךְ לוֹ אֶל הַמַּיִם. נִמְצָא בַּבָּצֵק נְקִירַת הַתַּרְנְגוֹלִין אִם יֵשׁ בֵּין הַמַּשְׁקִין וְהַבָּצֵק כְּדֵי שֶׁיְּנַגְּבוּ אֶת פִּיהֶן בָּאָרֶץ הַבָּצֵק טָהוֹר. וְאִם לָאו טָמֵא שֶׁחֶזְקָתָן שֶׁשָּׁתוּ וְנִקְּרוּ בַּבָּצֵק בַּמַּשְׁקִין שֶׁבְּפִיהֶם. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּשֶׁהָיוּ הַמַּשְׁקִין צְלוּלִין שֶׁבָּבוּאָה שֶׁל תִּינוֹק נִכֶּרֶת בָּהֶן. אֲבָל עֲכוּרִים הַבָּצֵק טָהוֹר. שֶׁאִלּוּ נִקְּרוּ בַּמַּשְׁקִין הָיָה מְקוֹם הַמַּשְׁקִין נִכָּר בַּבָּצֵק. אִם הָיוּ צְלוּלִין אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהַבָּצֵק בְּחֶזְקַת טֻמְאָה אֵין שׂוֹרְפִין עַל חֲזָקָה זוֹ אֶלָּא תּוֹלִין:

5

What is an example of a presumption due to which terumah is burnt when a question of impurity arises in a private domain? There is a piece of dough in a house, both creeping animals and frogs are becoming stuck in it, and pieces of their flesh were found in the dough. If most of those becoming stuck in the dough are creeping animals, the dough is deemed impure and should be burnt. If the majority are frogs, it is deemed as pure.

ה

אֵיזוֹ הִיא חֲזָקָה שֶׁשּׂוֹרְפִין עָלֶיהָ בִּרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד. עִסָּה בַּבַּיִת וּשְׁרָצִים וּצְפַרְדְּעִים מְטַפְּלִין שָׁם וְנִמְצְאוּ חֲתִיכוֹת מִבְּשָׂרָן בָּעִסָּה אִם רֹב הַמְטַפְּלִים שְׁרָצִים הָעִסָּה טְמֵאָה וְתִשָּׂרֵף. וְאִם הָרֹב צְפַרְדְּעִים טְהוֹרָה:

6

The following rules apply when there were pure substances next to or above sources of impurity and when a person clothed himself in his garment, a question arose whether it touched the impurity and the pure substances or not. If this took place in a private domain, it is deemed impure because of the doubt, because when there is a question of impurity that arises due to human activity, they can be questioned concerning it. Even if there is a k'li placed on the ground, it is considered as if there is someone to be questioned about it. If the pure substances and the source of impurity were in a public domain and a question arises, the substances are deemed pure. If it is impossible that the garment did not touch both of them, even though there is some doubt, the substances are deemed impure.

ו

הָיוּ טֻמְאוֹת וְטָהֳרוֹת בְּצִדּוֹ אוֹ לְמַעְלָה מִמֶּנּוּ וְנִתְעַטֵּף בְּטַלִּיתוֹ וְסָפֵק נָגְעוּ סָפֵק לֹא נָגְעוּ בְּעֵת שֶׁנִּתְעַטֵּף אִם הָיוּ בִּרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד סְפֵקוֹ טָמֵא. שֶׁסְּפֵק טֻמְאָה הַבָּאָה בִּידֵי אָדָם נִשְׁאָלִין עָלֶיהָ אֲפִלּוּ בִּכְלִי הַמֻּנָּח עַל גַּבֵּי קַרְקַע הֲרֵי הוּא כְּמִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ דַּעַת לִשָּׁאֵל. וְאִם הָיוּ בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים סְפֵקוֹ טָהוֹר וְאִם אִי אֶפְשָׁר שֶׁלֹּא יִגַּע סְפֵקוֹ טָמֵא:

7

When a loaf of bread that is terumah is positioned on a board and a support that contracted impurity from a zav is positioned below it in a manner in which it is impossible for the loaf to fall without touching the support, even though the support is inclined, should one find the loaf in another place, its status of purity remains unchanged, for it is possible to say that another person came, took it, and put it in that place. If one can say: "I am certain that no person came here," it is impure, because it certainly fell and touched the support when it fell.

ז

כִּכָּר שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה שֶׁנָּתוּן עַל גַּבֵּי הַדַּף וּמִדְרָס נָתוּן תַּחְתָּיו וְאִי אֶפְשָׁר לוֹ כְּשֶׁיִּפּל שֶׁלֹּא יִגַּע בַּמִּדְרָס. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא בִּמְקוֹם מִדְרוֹן וּבָא וּמָצָא הַכִּכָּר בְּמָקוֹם אַחֵר הֲרֵי הוּא בְּטָהֳרָתוֹ שֶׁאֲנִי אוֹמֵר אָדָם בָּא וּנְטָלוֹ וּנְתָנוֹ בְּמָקוֹם זֶה. וְאִם אָמַר בָּרִי לִי שֶׁלֹּא בָּא אָדָם לְכָאן טָמֵא שֶׁוַּדַּאי נָפַל וְנָגַע בַּמִּדְרָס כְּשֶׁנָּפַל:

8

When a child is found standing next to a cemetery holding roses, even when there are roses only in the place of impurity, he is pure because there is a doubt; it is possible that another person gathered them and gave them to him.

Similarly, when a donkey is standing in a cemetery, the keilim on him are pure. We do not say that he pressed himself against them when lying on the ground and touched a grave while doing so. The rationale for both instances is that the child and the donkey do not have the knowledge to respond to questions. Hence, we follow the principle that all questions of impurity are judged according to the circumstances at the time that they were discovered.

ח

תִּינוֹק שֶׁנִּמְצָא בְּצַד בֵּית הַקְּבָרוֹת וְהַשּׁוֹשַׁנִּים בְּיָדוֹ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין שָׁם שׁוֹשַׁנִּים אֶלָּא בִּמְקוֹם הַטֻּמְאָה סְפֵקוֹ טָהוֹר שֶׁמָּא אַחֵר לִקְּטָן וּנְתָנָם לוֹ. וְכֵן חֲמוֹר הָעוֹמֵד בְּבֵית הַקְּבָרוֹת כֵּלָיו טְהוֹרִין וְאֵין אוֹמְרִין שֶׁמָּא נִתְמַעֵךְ בָּהֶן וְנָגְעוּ בַּקֶּבֶר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ דַּעַת לִשָּׁאֵל וּכְשֶׁנִּמְצְאוּ לֹא נִמְצְאוּ נוֹגְעִין וְכָל הַטֻּמְאוֹת כִּשְׁעַת מְצִיאָתָן:

9

When a child was holding his father's hand or was riding on his father's shoulders, he is deemed impure with regard to any question concerning ritual impurity that arises in a private domain, for his father could be asked with regard to his status.

ט

תִּינוֹק שֶׁהָיָה תּוֹפֵשׂ בְּיָדוֹ שֶׁל אָבִיו אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה רוֹכֵב עַל גַּבֵּי כְּתֵפוֹ שֶׁל אָבִיו סְפֵקוֹ בִּרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד טָמֵא מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאָבִיו נִשְׁאָל עָלָיו:

10

There are four questionable situations that our Sages discussed with regard to a child:

a) When a child cannot walk and his mother placed him down in one place and found him as he was in that place, he is pure. We do not say that perhaps an impure woman came and kissed him and hugged him.

b) When the child matured to the extent that he began to leave one domain and enter others on his own, his clothes are pure. They are not considered as a midras as are the clothes of unlearned people. Nevertheless, as an initial preference, they should not be brought into contact with pure entities.

c) If he matured to the extent that he has the knowledge to answer questions, in a private domain, whenever there is a doubt whether he contracted impurity, he is considered as impure.

d) If he matured to the extent that he has the knowledge to guard his body from contracting impurity, one may partake of pure foods that touched his body. If he has the knowledge to guard his hands, pure foods that touched them may be eaten.

How do we check him? He is immersed and given ordinary food which he is told to treat as terumah. If he has the knowledge to guard his body, one may partake of pure foods that touched his body. If he has the knowledge to guard his hands, pure foods that touched them may be eaten.

י

וְאַרְבָּעָה סְפֵקוֹת אָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים בְּתִינוֹק. תִּינוֹק שֶׁאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהַלֵּךְ שֶׁהִנִּיחַתּוּ אִמּוֹ וּבָאָה וּמְצָאַתּוּ כְּמוֹ שֶׁהוּא בִּמְקוֹמוֹ טָהוֹר וְאֵין אוֹמְרִין שֶׁמָּא טֻמְאָה בָּאָה וּנְשָׁקַתּוּ וְגִפַּפְתּוֹ. הִתְחִיל הַתִּינוֹק לָצֵאת וּלְהַכְנִיס בְּגָדָיו טְהוֹרִין וְאֵינָן מִדְרָס כִּשְׁאָר בִּגְדֵי עַם הָאָרֶץ. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהֵן טְהוֹרִין אֵין עוֹשִׂין עַל גַּבֵּיהֶן טָהֳרוֹת. הִגְדִּיל עַד שֶׁיִּהְיֶה בּוֹ דַּעַת לִשָּׁאֵל סְפֵקוֹ טָמֵא בִּרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד. הִגְדִּיל עַד שֶׁיִּהְיֶה בּוֹ דַּעַת לִשְׁמֹר אֶת גּוּפוֹ אוֹכְלִין עַל גּוּפוֹ טָהֳרוֹת. יוֹדֵעַ לִשְׁמֹר אֶת יָדָיו אוֹכְלִין עַל גַּבָּן טָהֳרוֹת. כֵּיצַד בּוֹדְקִין אוֹתוֹ. מַטְבִּילִין אוֹתוֹ וְנוֹתְנִין לוֹ חֻלִּין לְשֵׁם תְּרוּמָה אִם יוֹדֵעַ לִשְׁמֹר אֶת גּוּפוֹ אוֹכְלִין אַגַּב גּוּפוֹ טָהֳרוֹת וְאִם יוֹדֵעַ לִשְׁמֹר אֶת יָדָיו אוֹכְלִים אַגַּב יָדוֹ טָהֳרוֹת:

She'ar Avot haTum'ah - Chapter 17

1

When there is an olive-sized portion of a human corpse in the mouth of a raven and there is a doubt whether or not it flew over a person or keilim in a private domain, the person is impure because of the doubt, provided he has the knowledge to respond to questions. The keilim are pure, because they do not have the capacity to respond to questions.

Similarly, when a person was drawing water with one container and pouring it into ten others and the carcass of a creeping animal was found in one of the ten, that container is impure and the others are pure. Although there is a question whether they are all impure, for perhaps the carcass of the creeping animal had been in the container used to draw water, we rule leniently, because keilim are involved and they do not have the capacity to respond to questions. If the container with which he drew the water possessed a rim, since it is possible for the water to have been poured out, but for the carcass of the creeping animal to have remained, they are all impure.

Similarly, when one draws water with ten buckets, one after the other, and pours the water into ten containers, each bucket into a separate container, and it is not known which container was first and which was last, if the carcass of a creeping animal was found in one of them, the other nine containers and the ten buckets are pure, for one could say perhaps the carcass of the creeping animal was in the container originally. If the buckets have rims, all of the buckets and all of the containers are impure.

When one pours from one container to another and the carcass of a creeping animal is found in the lower container, the upper container is pure. We do not say that it fell from the upper container. Instead, it is possible that it had been in the lower container. The rationale for this leniency is that keilim are involved and they do not have the capacity of responding to questions. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.

א

כְּזַיִת מִן הַמֵּת בְּפִי הָעוֹרֵב סָפֵק הֶאֱהִיל עַל הָאָדָם וְעַל הַכֵּלִים בִּרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד סָפֵק שֶׁלֹּא הֶאֱהִיל הֲרֵי הָאָדָם טָמֵא מִסָּפֵק וְהוּא שֶׁיִּהְיֶה בּוֹ דַּעַת לִשָּׁאֵל וְהַכֵּלִים טְהוֹרִים מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵין לָהֶן דַּעַת לִשָּׁאֵל. וְכֵן הַמְמַלֵּא בִּכְלִי וְנָתַן בַּעֲשָׂרָה כֵּלִים וְנִמְצָא הַשֶּׁרֶץ בְּאֶחָד מֵהֶן הוּא טָמֵא וְהַכֵּלִים טְהוֹרִין אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁכֻּלָּן סָפֵק שֶׁמָּא הַשֶּׁרֶץ בַּכְּלִי שֶׁמִּלֵּא בּוֹ הָיָה תְּחִלָּה מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן כֵּלִים וְאֵין בָּהֶן דַּעַת לִשָּׁאֵל. וְאִם הָיָה לַכְּלִי שֶׁמִּלֵּא בּוֹ אָזְנַיִם הוֹאִיל וְאֶפְשָׁר שֶׁיֵּצְאוּ הַמַּיִם וְיִתְאַחֵר בּוֹ הַשֶּׁרֶץ כֻּלָּן טְמֵאִים. וְכֵן הַמְמַלֵּא בַּעֲשָׂרָה דְּלָיִים זֶה אַחַר זֶה וְנָתַן בַּעֲשָׂרָה כֵּלִים מִדְּלִי אֶחָד לִכְלִי אַחֵר וְאֵין יָדוּעַ הָרִאשׁוֹן מִן הָאַחֲרוֹן וְנִמְצָא הַשֶּׁרֶץ בִּכְלִי אֶחָד מֵהֶן הֲרֵי הַתִּשְׁעָה כֵּלִים עִם עֲשֶׂרֶת הַדְּלָיִים טְהוֹרִין שֶׁאֲנִי אוֹמֵר שֶׁמָּא בִּכְלִי זֶה הָיָה הַשֶּׁרֶץ מִתְּחִלָּתוֹ. וְאִם יֵשׁ לַדְּלָיִים אָזְנַיִם הֲרֵי כָּל הַדְּלָיִים עִם כָּל הַכֵּלִים טְמֵאִין. הַמְעָרֶה מִכְּלִי לִכְלִי וְנִמְצָא הַשֶּׁרֶץ בַּתַּחְתּוֹן הָעֶלְיוֹן טָהוֹר. וְאֵין אוֹמְרִין מֵהָעֶלְיוֹן נָפַל אֶלָּא שֶׁמָּא בַּתַּחְתּוֹן הָיָה מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן כֵּלִים וְאֵין לָהֶן דַּעַת לִשָּׁאֵל. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה:

2

The following laws apply when there was a container that was used for pure substances and the carcass of a creeping animal was found in it. If it has a base or it has a rim, even if it does not have a base, all of the pure substances that were contained in it are impure. This applies even if it was checked before the substances were placed in it and covered afterwards, lest the carcass of the creeping animal fell there when he lifted up his hand after checking.

Even if one used it for pure substances in one corner and then moved it to another corner and the carcass of the creeping animal was discovered inside, all the pure substances are impure. For the assumption that impurity was present in an article is not changed when that article is moved from place to place. All the above applies with regard to holding the status of the pure substances in abeyance, but not to burn them.

ב

קֻפָּה שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בָּהּ בְּטָהֳרוֹת וְנִמְצָא בָּהּ שֶׁרֶץ אִם יֵשׁ לָהּ שׁוּלַיִם אוֹ אָזְנַיִם אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין לָהּ שׁוּלַיִם הֲרֵי כָּל הַטָּהֳרוֹת שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּמְּשׁוּ בָּהּ טְמֵאוֹת. אֲפִלּוּ הָיְתָה בְּדוּקָה וּמְכֻסָּה שֶׁמָּא עִם הַגְבָּהַת יָדוֹ מִן הַבְּדִיקָה נָפַל הַשֶּׁרֶץ. וַאֲפִלּוּ נִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בָּהּ בְּטָהֳרוֹת בְּזָוִית זוֹ וְטִלְטְלָהּ לְזָוִית אַחֶרֶת וְנִמְצָא בָּהּ הַשֶּׁרֶץ כֻּלָּן טְמֵאוֹת לְפִי שֶׁמַּחֲזִיקִין טֻמְאָה מִמָּקוֹם לְמָקוֹם לִתְלוֹת אֲבָל לֹא לִשְׂרֹף:

3

The following laws apply when a person draws liquids from a cistern and fills barrels from them. If he would immerse each and every barrel in the cistern to fill them and a carcass of a creeping animal was found in the first one, they are all impure. If it was found in the last one, it alone is impure and all the others are pure. The rationale is that we surmise that the creeping animal fell into the cistern after the first barrels were filled.

If he was drawing the liquids with one container and pouring them into barrels until they were full and a carcass of a creeping animal was found in one of them, it alone is impure and all the others and the cistern are pure. The rationale is that it can be said that the carcass of the creeping animal fell into this one alone or it was there before the liquid was poured into it. Accordingly, if the person checked all the barrels, then poured wine into them, and covered them afterwards and the carcass of a creeping animal was found in one of them, they are all impure. Similarly, if the carcass of a creeping animal was found in the cistern or the container used to draw from it, everything is impure.

ג

הַזּוֹלֵף אֶת הַבּוֹר וּמְמַלֵּא מִמֶּנּוּ חָבִיּוֹת אִם הָיָה מַשְׁקִיעַ כָּל חָבִית וְחָבִית בַּבּוֹר וּמְמַלֵּא אוֹתָן וְנִמְצָא הַשֶּׁרֶץ בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה כֻּלָּן טְמֵאוֹת. נִמְצָא בָּאַחֲרוֹנָה הִיא טְמֵאָה וְכֻלָּן טְהוֹרוֹת שֶׁאֲנִי אוֹמֵר אַחַר שֶׁמִּלֵּא אֶת הָרִאשׁוֹנוֹת נָפַל שֶׁרֶץ לַבּוֹר. הָיָה זוֹלֵף בִּכְלִי וְנוֹתֵן לְתוֹךְ הֶחָבִיּוֹת עַד שֶׁמִּלְּאָן וְנִמְצָא הַשֶּׁרֶץ בְּאַחַת מֵהֶן הִיא בִּלְבַד טְמֵאָה וְכֻלָּן טְהוֹרוֹת שֶׁאֲנִי אוֹמֵר בְּזוֹ בִּלְבַד נָפַל הַשֶּׁרֶץ אוֹ הָיָה בָּהּ עַד שֶׁלֹּא זִלֵּף לְתוֹכָהּ. לְפִיכָךְ אִם הָיָה בּוֹדֵק כָּל חָבִית מֵהֶן וְאַחַר כָּךְ נוֹתֵן בָּהּ הַיַּיִן וּמְכַסֶּה אוֹתָהּ אַחַר שֶׁזּוֹלֵף לְתוֹכָהּ וְנִמְצָא הַשֶּׁרֶץ בְּאַחַת מֵהֶן כֻּלָּן טְמֵאוֹת. וְכֵן אִם נִמְצָא הַשֶּׁרֶץ בַּבּוֹר אוֹ בַּכְּלִי שֶׁזּוֹלֵף בּוֹ הַכּל טָמֵא:

4

When one would gather olives from the pit in which they were stored and bring them up to a roof to dry, if the carcass of a creeping animal was found on the roof, the olives in the pit are pure. If it was found in the pit, the pit and the olives contained there are impure. If the carcass was found in the pit between the wall and the olives, the olives are pure.

The following laws apply if the creeping animal was found in a mound of olives and the mound was on the roof. If this occurred within three days of the olives being placed there, the pit is also impure, for it can be said that the mound was taken from the pit with the creeping animal in it. If the creeping animal was found three days after the mound had been taken to the roof, the pit is pure, because maybe the olives became compressed and formed a mound within these three days.

ד

הָיָה קוֹצֶה זֵיתִים מִן הַמַּעֲטָן וּמַעֲלֶה אוֹתָן לַגַּג וְנִמְצָא הַשֶּׁרֶץ בַּגַּג זֵיתִים שֶׁבַּמַּעֲטָן טְהוֹרִים. נִמְצָא בַּמַּעֲטָן הַמַּעֲטָן טָמֵא. נִמְצָא בֵּין כֹּתֶל לַזֵּיתִים הַזֵּיתִים טְהוֹרִים. נִמְצָא הַשֶּׁרֶץ בְּתוֹךְ גּוּשׁ שֶׁל זֵיתִים וְהַגּוּשׁ בַּגַּג אִם בְּתוֹךְ שְׁלֹשֶׁת יָמִים אַף הַמַּעֲטָן טָמֵא. שֶׁאֲנִי אוֹמֵר גּוּשׁ זֶה מִן הַמַּעֲטָן עָלָה וְהַשֶּׁרֶץ בְּתוֹכוֹ. וְאִם נִמְצָא אַחַר שְׁלֹשָׁה יָמִים מִשֶּׁהֶעֱלָה זֵיתִים לַגַּג הֲרֵי הַמַּעֲטָן טָהוֹר שֶׁמָּא בַּגַּג נִתְקַבְּצוּ וְנַעֲשׂוּ גּוּשׁ בְּתוֹךְ הַשְּׁלֹשָׁה יָמִים:

5

When a person breaks off a piece of dough from a larger quantity and the carcass of a creeping animal was found on the smaller piece, that piece alone is impure. If the carcass was found in the larger dough, only that dough is impure. If it was found in the midst of the smaller portion of dough, even the larger portion is impure.

ה

הַקּוֹרֵץ מִקְרֶצֶת מִן הָעִסָּה וְנִמְצָא שֶׁרֶץ בַּמִּקְרֶצֶת הַמִּקְרֶצֶת לְבַדָּהּ טְמֵאָה. נִמְצָא בָּעִסָּה הָעִסָּה לְבַדָּהּ טְמֵאָה. נִמְצָא בְּתוֹךְ הַמִּקְרֶצֶת אַף הָעִסָּה טְמֵאָה:

6

When the seed of an impure food was found in a loaf [of bread] or on hot food, [the loaf or the food] are impure, even if there is no liquid present on it. [The rationale is that] it can be said that the entire [piece of impure] food fell there, but was dissolved – in the loaf or the food because of the boiling – and only the seed remained.

If the seed was found on top of a loaf or in the midst of cold food, [the loaf or the food] are pure, even if there is liquid present. [The rationale is that] it can be said that the seed alone fell into [the loaf or the food] after the [impure food] was removed from it and [the seed] does not impart impurity.

ו

אֹכֶל טָמֵא שֶׁנִּמְצָא גַּרְעִינָה שֶׁלּוֹ בְּתוֹךְ הַכִּכָּר אוֹ עַל גַּבֵּי תַּבְשִׁיל רוֹתֵחַ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין עָלֶיהָ מַשְׁקֶה טוֹפֵחַ הֲרֵי הֵן טְמֵאִים. שֶׁאֲנִי אוֹמֵר הָאוֹכֵל כֻּלּוֹ נָפַל שָׁם וְנִמּוֹחַ בְּתוֹךְ הַכִּכָּר אוֹ מֵחֲמַת הָרְתִיחָה וְנִשְׁאֲרָה גַּרְעִינָתוֹ. נִמְצֵאת הַגַּרְעִינָה עַל גַּבֵּי הַכִּכָּר אוֹ בְּתוֹךְ תַּבְשִׁיל צוֹנֵן הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ טְהוֹרִין אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁיֵּשׁ עָלֶיהָ מַשְׁקֶה שֶׁאֲנִי אוֹמֵר גַּרְעִינָה זוֹ לְבַדָּהּ נָפְלָה אַחַר שֶׁאָבַד הָאוֹכֵל מֵעָלֶיהָ שֶׁהֲרֵי אֵינָהּ מְטַמְּאָה:

7

If there was pure food and impure food in a home and a seed was found inside a loaf of bread or in boiling food, the determination of its status is made according to the majority. Similarly, if there was pure blood and impure blood in a home and blood was found on food, the determination of its status is made according to the majority. An incident occurred with a loaf of bread that was terumah upon which blood was found. The incident was brought before the Sages and they ruled that the loaf was pure. For even if it could be said that the blood was that of a creeping animal, it is possible to say that it was the blood of a living creeping animal which is pure.

ז

הָיוּ בַּבַּיִת אֳכָלִין טְמֵאִין וָאֳכָלִין טְהוֹרִים וְנִמְצֵאת גַּרְעִינָה בַּבַּיִת הוֹלְכִין אַחַר הָרֹב. וְכֵן אִם הָיוּ דָּמִים טְהוֹרִים וְדָמִים טְמֵאִים בְּתוֹךְ הַבַּיִת וְנִמְצָא דָּם עַל הָאֹכֶל הוֹלְכִים אַחַר הָרֹב. מַעֲשֶׂה הָיָה בְּכִכָּר שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה שֶׁנִּמְצָא עָלָיו דָּם וּבָא מַעֲשֶׂה לִפְנֵי חֲכָמִים וְטִהֲרוּהוּ. שֶׁאֲפִלּוּ נֹאמַר דַּם שֶׁרֶץ הוּא הֲרֵינִי אוֹמֵר דַּם שֶׁרֶץ חַי הוּא שֶׁהוּא טָהוֹר:

8

When there are carcasses of both animals that died without ritual slaughter and slaughtered animals in a city, if meat is found in the streets of the city, the determination of its status is made according to the majority.

Similarly, if the carcass of an animal was found and there is a doubt whether it is a creeping animal or a frog, the determination of its status is made according to the majority of animals in that town at that time. This is the general principle: When a questionable entity is found, the determination of its status is made according to the majority.

ח

עִיר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהּ נְבֵלוֹת וּשְׁחוּטוֹת. בָּשָׂר הַנִּמְצָא בָּהּ הוֹלְכִים אַחַר הָרֹב. וְכֵן אִם הָיָה הַנִּמְצָא בָּהּ סְפֵק שֶׁרֶץ סְפֵק צְפַרְדֵּעַ הוֹלְכִין אַחַר הָרֹב שֶׁיֵּשׁ בְּאוֹתָהּ הָעִיר בְּאוֹתוֹ הַזְּמַן. זֶה הַכְּלָל בְּנִמְצָא הַלֵּךְ אַחַר הָרֹב:

9

When a woman was collecting fertilizer in a courtyard and the carcass of a creeping animal is found in the fertilizer, she is pure, because the carcass of a creeping animal does not impart impurity when carried. If it was found on top of the fertilizer, she is impure, for perhaps she touched it.

If she was sifting kernels of grain with a sieve and the carcass of a creeping animal was found in the kernels in the sieve, she is pure. If it is found on top of the sieve, she is considered impure because of the doubt, for perhaps she touched it. We follow the principle: whenever a question of impurity arises in a private domain, the person or object in question is deemed impure, as we explained.

ט

הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁמְּגַבֶּבֶת גְּבָבָה בֶּחָצֵר וְנִמְצָא שֶׁרֶץ בְּתוֹךְ גְּבָבָה הֲרֵי זוֹ טְהוֹרָה שֶׁאֵין הַשֶּׁרֶץ מְטַמֵּא בְּמַשָּׂא. נִמְצָא עַל גַּבֵּי גְּבָבָה הֲרֵי זוֹ טְמֵאָה שֶׁמָּא נָגְעָה בּוֹ. הָיְתָה כּוֹבֶרֶת בִּכְבָרָה וְנִמְצָא שֶׁרֶץ בְּתוֹךְ הַפֵּרוֹת שֶׁבַּכְּבָרָה הֲרֵי זוֹ טְהוֹרָה. נִמְצָא עַל גַּבֵּי הַכְּבָרָה הֲרֵי זוֹ סָפֵק טְמֵאָה שֶׁמָּא נָגְעָה בּוֹ וְכָל סָפֵק בִּרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד טָמֵא כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ:

Quiz Yourself on She'ar Avot haTum'ah Chapter 15

Quiz Yourself on She'ar Avot haTum'ah Chapter 16

Quiz Yourself on She'ar Avot haTum'ah Chapter 17

The Mishneh Torah was the Rambam's (Rabbi Moses ben Maimon) magnum opus, a work spanning hundreds of chapters and describing all of the laws mentioned in the Torah. To this day it is the only work that details all of Jewish observance, including those laws which are only applicable when the Holy Temple is in place. Participating in one of the annual study cycles of these laws (3 chapters/day, 1 chapter/day, or Sefer Hamitzvot) is a way we can play a small but essential part in rebuilding the final Temple.
Download Rambam Study Schedules: 3 Chapters | 1 Chapter | Daily Mitzvah
Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved.
To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.
The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard.
Vowelized Hebrew text courtesy Torat Emet under CC 2.5 license.
The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard.