Rambam - 3 Chapters a Day

No matter to what degree doubts and compounded doubts are multiplied in a public domain, the person or object involved is pure. In a private domain, by contrast, he is impure.

What is implied? If one entered an alley and there was impurity in the courtyard to which the alley led. If there was a question whether or not he entered the courtyard, he is impure because of the doubt, because an alley is considered a private domain. This same ruling applies if:

a) there is impurity in a house and there is a doubt whether one entered the house or not, or

b) even if one entered, but there was a doubt whether there was impurity there or not, or

c) even if one would say that impurity was present when one entered, there is a doubt whether it comprises the required measure or not, or

d) even if the substance certainly comprises the required measure, there is a doubt whether it is impure or not, or

e) even if it is certainly impure, there is a doubt whether or not one touched it.

If there are nine carcasses of frogs and one carcass of a creeping animal in a private domain and a person touched one of the carcasses, but did not know which one, he is impure because of the doubt. If there are nine carcasses of creeping animals and one carcass of a frog in a public domain and a person touched one, he is pure despite the doubt.

This is the general principle: Any time there is a question concerning impurity in the public domain, the person is pure unless he says: "I certainly contracted impurity." Any time there is such a question in a private domain, he is impure unless he says: "It is certain that I did not contract impurity."

Accordingly, if there are bones from a human corpse and bones from an animal carcass in the public domain or clods of pure earth and clods of earth from a beit hapras or from the Diaspora and one touched or moved one of them, but does not know what he touched or moved, he is pure. This same ruling applies if there was an olive-sized portion from a human corpse and an olive-sized portion of an animal carcass and one held a portion of his body over one of them, but did not know over which one he held a portion of his body. And it applies if there are two paths, one pure and one impure, one walked down one of them, but did not know which one he walked down, he touched a person on the road, but did not know whether he was pure or impure, or there were two people, one impure and one pure, he touched one, but he did not know which one he touched.

The following laws apply when a person journeyed on a road and found a corpse lying across the width of the road. If it was intact and it extended from one side of the road to the other, he is impure with regard to terumah, for it can be assumed that he touched it. If he had space on either side to pass by or the corpse was dismembered and torn into pieces so that he could have passed between his hips and the other portions of his body, he is pure.

If a grave extended over the entire width of the road, the entire corpse is considered as a single entity because of the grave, and one who passes over it is impure. This instance does not resemble other questionable situations. Instead, it is assumed that he touched the grave.

When the carcass of a creeping animal is found in an alley, it imparts impurity retroactively to all those who passed through until the time that one said: "I checked this alley on this and this day and there was no carcass of a creeping animal there." Even if the alley was swept, if it was not checked, it imparts impurity to those who passed through from before the time it was swept and afterwards.

When does the above apply? When the carcass that was discovered was dry. If it was fresh, it does not impart impurity retroactively for that length of time, only for the length of time in which the animal could have died and remained as fresh as it was found.

The following laws apply when there were two spots of saliva in a private domain. One was pure and one was of unknown origin when discovered and hence, was decreed to be impure, as explained previously. If one touched or moved one of them, but does not know which, the status of terumah which he touches is held in abeyance, because a compounded doubt is involved: Perhaps he touched the saliva that was known to be pure and perhaps he touched the one that was found whose status was unknown. Even if he touched the one that was found, perhaps it was impure, but perhaps it was pure.

Different laws apply if there were two spots of saliva in the public domain. If they were dry and deposited there and a person touched one of them, he is pure, despite the doubt. If he carried one of them, the status of articles he touches is held in abeyance. The rationale is that after he carried it up, it is no longer deposited in the public domain. Similarly, if one of them was moist and the moist saliva became attached to him, the status of articles he touches is held in abeyance, for since it is on his garment, we can no longer apply the principle: when something is deposited in the public domain, it is pure despite the doubt.

We already explained that, in all situations, if one touched, carried, or moved saliva of unknown origin that is discovered, terumah should be burnt because of it, like a beit hapras, and the like, in which instances, terumah is burnt in all situations when one has definitely made contact.

The following laws apply when a person was sitting in the public domain and another person whose status is unknown came and trod on his garments or spat and the saliva touched the person who was sitting. Terumah which he touches is burnt because of the saliva. With regard to the status of his clothes, the determination is made based on the status of the majority of the town's inhabitants. If most are impure, his clothes are considered to have contracted midras impurity. If most are pure, he is pure.

When a person lost a k'li and discovered it in a private domain, it is considered to have contracted midras impurity and the impurity connected with a human corpse. If he found it in the public domain, it is pure, provided he lost it during the day and found it that day. If he lost it during the day and found it at night, lost it at night and found it during the day, or lost it during the day and found it on the following day, it is presumed to be impure.

This is the general principle: Whenever the night - or a portion of it - passed while an article was lost, it is impure.

If a person deposited or forgot a k'li in the public domain, it is pure even when the night passed while it was there. If he deposited or forgot it in a private domain, it is considered to have contracted midras impurity, but not the impurity connected with a human corpse.

Why did the Sages not rule as stringently with regard to one who deposited or forgot an article as they did with regard to one who lost an article? Because depositing or forgetting an article in the public domain is not that common a circumstance. Hence, they did not institute a decree concerning it.

When a person loses an article and finds it at home, it is pure, because it can be assumed to be protected.

When a person spreads utensils out in the public domain, they are pure. In a private domain, they are impure, lest impure people have touched them. If he was watching them, they are pure. If they fell and he went to get them, they are impure, because they went out of his sight. Similarly, if one lost his utensils in a private domain and found them, even that day, they are considered to have contracted midras impurity and the impurity connected with a human corpse, as we explained.

If there is one intellectually or emotionally compromised woman or gentile woman in a town, all of the saliva of unknown origin discovered in any place in the town is always considered as impure.

The following laws apply when a woman trod on the clothes of a person or sat with him on a small boat: If she recognizes him and knows that he partakes of terumah, his clothes are pure. If not, he should ask her concerning her state.

When a person slept in the public domain and arose, his garments are pure.

When a person touched another person in the public domain at night and did not know if he was alive or dead, but when he arose in the morning, he found him dead, he is impure, for the status of all questions of ritual impurity depends on the situation at the time the matter is discovered. If he saw him alive in the evening and, in the morning, discovered that he died, this is considered to be a doubt in the public domain, and he is pure.

The following rules apply when a person in a private domain is dangerously ill, he fainted, and it was not known whether he died or was still living; he was taken to the public domain and then brought back into a private domain. When he is in a private domain, any questionable situations brought about by his condition are considered impure. When he is in a public domain, any questionable situations brought about by his condition are considered pure.

An incident occurred with a person who was sick and was carried from town to town in a bed. The people who carried him took turns. Ultimately, it was discovered that he had died, but the Sages ruled that only the last group of people who carried him was impure.

The following rules apply when an impure person was standing and speaking while at the edge of a cistern, a drop of saliva shot forth from his mouth, and there was a question whether or not it reached the cistern. If the cistern contained oil and was in a private domain, it is impure because of the doubt. If the cistern contained wine, it is pure in all places despite the doubt, because the border of the cistern will prevent it from entering.

The following rules apply when there are two paths, one impure and one pure, and a person walked down one of them, but he did not know which one he walked down. Afterwards, he came in contact with pure foods and they were eaten. He then had the ashes of the red heifer sprinkled upon himself on the third and seventh days, and then, immersed to purify himself. He then walked down the other path and came in contact with pure foods. Those foods are considered as pure.

If the foods he touched first still exist, the status of both is held in abeyance. The rationale is that one of the sets of pure food is definitely impure. If the person did not purify himself in the interim, the status of the first set is held in abeyance, while the second set should be burnt. The rationale is that these foods are certainly impure, since the person is impure because he walked down both paths.

Similar laws apply if there was a carcass of both a creeping animal and a frog in the public domain and their form was no longer recognizable and it was impossible to determine which was the creeping animal. If one touched one of the carcasses and then came in contact with pure foods which were eaten, immersed himself, touched the other one and then came in contact with pure foods, they are pure. If the foods he touched first still exist, the status of both is held in abeyance. If he did not immerse himself, the status of the first set is held in abeyance, while the second set should be burnt.

Different rules apply when there are two paths, one impure and one pure, a person walked down one of them and came in contact with pure foods and another person walked down the other and came in contact with pure foods. If they came and inquired about their status one after the other, a ruling is given to each one that he is pure. If they both came together or one came and asked about his status and that of his friend, saying: "We were two people. We walked down the two paths and we both came in contact with pure foods," they are both deemed impure and the pure foods with which they came in contact should be burnt.

Similar principles apply if they contracted impurity from a lesser source. What is implied? There were two loaves of bread, one pure and one impure. A person ate one of them and came in contact with pure foods. Another person came and ate the second and came in contact with pure foods. If they inquired about their status one after the other, they are both pure, because this is a doubt involving a question of Rabbinic Law which is one of the doubtful situations that our Sages ruled were pure, as we explained. If they both asked together or one asked about his status and that of his friend, they are both considered impure because of the doubt and the pure foods should be burnt, for certainly, one of them is impure. Even if there is one impure loaf mixed with 100 pure loaves, they are all impure and must be burnt.

When an impure loaf of bread became mixed with nine pure loaves and five people came and ate five loaves and five others came and ate the five remaining, the ones who came first are deemed impure, because they have no one else to hold accountable. The five last men are pure, because they can hold the first five accountable.

When there are two paths, one impure and one pure, and each of two people, one pure and one impure - or even one whose status was being held in abeyance - walked down one of these paths, the one who is pure can place the onus on the one who is impure or whose status is held in abeyance. We say: The person who was pure walked down the pure path and his status is still considered as pure and the one whose status was held in abeyance walked down the impure path. This applies even if they inquired about their status at the same time.

Any place designated as a public domain with regard to the Sabbath is also considered as a public domain with regard to the laws of impurity.

The four cubits that are adjacent to the public domain are considered as a public domain with regard to the laws of impurity. Similarly, a karmelit, e.g., the sea or a covered walkway, is considered as a public domain with regard to the laws of impurity.

There are places which, though they are considered as private domains with regard to the Sabbath, are considered as public domains with regard to the laws of impurity. They are the paths leading to storage caverns, cisterns, and wine presses, an enclosed valley in the summer, a basilica of kings, i.e., a building that is very wide with space for the king's carriage drivers to stay; it has many openings to the public domain, and a poren, i.e., a large building with two openings, one opposite the other, and a courtyard to which many people would enter through one opening and depart through the other. Also, the lanes leading to a sea or a river, although they are fenced in from either side, are considered as a public domain with regard to the laws of impurity if people can climb over the fences. Pillars and bathhouses are also placed in this category. Similarly, the entire Temple Courtyard is considered as a public domain with regard to the laws of impurity.

Gardens in a city over which the thoroughfare of a city pass are considered as a public domain with regard to the concept of impurity.

When a garden is guarded, it is a private domain. When it is not protected, it is a public domain with regard to impurity. Similarly, a large basilica, when its gates are opened, is a public domain with regard to impurity. When it is closed, it is a private domain in all aspects.

When a valley is enclosed with a fence, in the winter, it is a private domain with regard to the Sabbath and ritual impurity. If it was not enclosed, it is a private domain with regard to impurity alone. When, however, the winter passed after a valley was fenced in, it is considered as a private domain with regard to impurity even in the summer.

This is what is meant by "the summer": When the grain is harvested from the valley. This is what is meant by "the winter": When the second rain begins. The area between the round barrel of grapes and the pile of grape pomace is considered a public domain with regard to impurity.

With regard to ritual impurity, a vineyard in front of the harvesters is considered as a private domain; the portion behind the harvesters, as a public domain. When does the above apply? When many people enter from one direction and leave from the opposite direction. The law pertaining to other places aside from those which we mentioned is: Just as they are a private domain with regard to the laws of the Sabbath, so too, they are a private domain with regard to the laws of impurity.

There are places that are not considered as a private domain with regard to the Sabbath laws, but are, nevertheless, considered as a private domain with regard to the laws of impurity, because the people do not use them. They are: trees and holes in the walls of the public domain even if they are not four handbreadths by four handbreadths. What is implied? There was a tree standing in the public domain with impurity in it. One climbed to the top of the tree and he is in doubt whether or not he touched the impurity, he is impure because of the doubt. One inserted his hand into a hole in which impurity is situated and he is in doubt whether or not he touched it, he is impure because of the doubt.

When there is a store that is impure which is open to the public domain, and a person is in doubt whether or not he entered, he is pure despite the doubt. For the entire store is considered as the carcass of a creeping animal lying in the public domain in which instance, if a question arose whether one touched it, he is pure. If there are two stores, one pure and one impure, in the public domain, and a person entered one, but he is in doubt whether or not he entered the impure store or the pure store, he is impure because of the doubt. This is considered as a doubt that arose in a private domain, because a store is considered as a private domain. Similarly, if in the winter there is a valley that contains many fields with at least one field known to be impure and one pure, and a person said: "I entered this valley and I do not know if I entered that field or not," he is impure because of the doubt. The rationale is that when a doubt arises in a private domain - even a doubt whether one entered - the person is impure.

When a place was considered a private domain, it then became a public domain, and then it became a private domain, the ruling depends on its immediate status. While it is a private domain, when there is a doubt, the person is impure. While it is a public domain, when there is a doubt, the person is pure.

Entities that are situated in the public domain are considered as the public domain. What is implied? There was a container ten handbreadths high in the public domain in which was situated a source of impurity. If one is in doubt whether he touched the container, he is pure despite the doubt. If he inserted his hand into the container, but he was in doubt whether he touched the impurity, he is impure because of the doubt. If there was a stone container resting on his shoulder and a loaf of bread that was terumah wrapped in tree bast or paper contained within it and there was a doubt whether or not another person touched it, it is impure because of the doubt.

When there is a donkey in the public domain that was ten handbreadths high, impurity was placed on it and a doubt arose whether a person touched the donkey's back, he is pure despite the doubt. If he extended his hand above the donkey and he was in doubt whether or not he touched the impurity, he is impure because of the doubt. Similarly, if there was a rock that was ten handbreadths high placed in the public domain and impurity was placed on it, if there was a doubt whether or not one touched the top of the rock, he is pure despite the doubt. If he climbed on top of the rock, but he was in doubt whether or not he touched the impurity, he is impure because of the doubt.

In all of the following situations: a) a zav was riding on his donkey; another person was riding on another donkey and they were riding on the way and the person was in doubt whether or not he touched the zav; b) an impure child was being carried on his father's shoulder and a pure child was being carried on his father's shoulder, the fathers were walking next to each other and a doubt arose whether one child touched the other; c) a person was carrying a package on his shoulder; there was unidentified saliva stuck to the wall and a doubt arose whether or not it touched it; d) utensils were spread out on a surface more than ten handbreadths high in the public domain; an impure person passed by and a doubt arose whether he moved them or not. In all these instances, the person or the article is pure.

Blessed be God who grants assistance.