Rambam - 1 Chapter a Day - Daily Torah Study

She'ar Avot haTum'ah - Chapter 19

1The following rules apply when there are two paths,1 one impure2 and one pure, and a person walked down one of them, but he did not know which one he walked down.3 Afterwards, he came in contact with pure foods and they were eaten.4 He then had the ashes of the red heifer sprinkled upon himself on the third and seventh days, and then, immersed to purify himself.5 He then walked down the other path and came in contact with pure foods. Those foods are considered as pure.6אשְׁנֵי שְׁבִילִין אֶחָד טָמֵא וְאֶחָד טָהוֹר, הָלַךְ בְּאֶחָד מֵהֶן וְאֵין יָדוּעַ בְּאֵי זֶה מֵהֶן הָלַךְ, וְעָשָׂה טְהָרוֹת וְנֶאֶכְלוּ, וְהִזָּה שְׁלִישִׁי וּשְׁבִיעִי וְטָבַל וְטָהַר, וְהָלַךְ בַּשֵּׁנִי וְעָשָׂה טְהָרוֹת - הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ טְהוֹרוֹת.

If the foods he touched first still exist, the status of both is held in abeyance.7 The rationale is that one of the sets of pure food is definitely impure.8וְאִם קַיָּמוֹת הָרִאשׁוֹנוֹת - אֵלּוּ וְאֵלּוּ תְּלוּיוֹת, שֶׁבְּוַדַּאי שֶׁאֶחָד מִן הַטְּהָרוֹת טָמֵא.

If the person did not purify himself in the interim, the status of the first set is held in abeyance,9 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.וְאִם לֹא טָהַר בֵּנְתַיִם, הָרִאשׁוֹנוֹת תְּלוּיוֹת, וְהַשְּׁנִיּוֹת יִשָּׂרְפוּ - שֶׁהֲרֵי הֵן טְמֵאוֹת בְּוַדַּאי, שֶׁזֶּה טָמֵא הוּא מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהָלַךְ בִּשְׁנֵי הַשְּׁבִילִין.

Similar laws apply if there was a carcass of both a crawling animal and a frog in the public domain and their form was no longer recognizable and it was impossible to determine which was the crawling animal. If one touched one of the carcasses and then came in contact with pure foods which were eaten, immersed himself,10 touched the other one and then came in contact with pure foods, they are pure.וְכֵן הַשֶּׁרֶץ וְהַצְּפַרְדֵּעַ בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים, וְאֵין צוּרָתָן נִכֶּרֶת וְאֵין יָדוּעַ אֵי זֶהוּ הַשֶּׁרֶץ, וְנָגַע בְּאֶחָד מֵהֶן וְעָשָׂה טְהָרוֹת וְנֶאֶכְלוּ, וְטָבַל וְנָגַע בַּשֵּׁנִי וְעָשָׂה טְהָרוֹת - הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ טְהוֹרוֹת.

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.וְאִם קַיָּמוֹת הָרִאשׁוֹנוֹת, אֵלּוּ וְאֵלּוּ תְּלוּיוֹת. וְאִם לֹא טָבַל בֵּנְתַיִם - הָרִאשׁוֹנוֹת תְּלוּיוֹת, וְהַשְּׁנִיּוֹת יִשָּׂרְפוּ.

2Different 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.11 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.12בשְׁנֵי שְׁבִילִין אֶחָד טָמֵא וְאֶחָד טָהוֹר, הָלַךְ בְּאֶחָד מֵהֶן וְעָשָׂה טְהָרוֹת, וּבָא חֲבֵרוֹ, וְהָלַךְ בַּשֵּׁנִי וְעָשָׂה טְהָרוֹת: אִם בָּאוּ וְנִשְׁאֲלוּ זֶה אַחַר זֶה, מוֹרִין לְכָל אֶחָד מֵהֶן בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ שֶׁהוּא טָהוֹר; בָּאוּ שְׁנֵיהֶן כְּאֶחָד, אוֹ שֶׁבָּא הָאֶחָד וְשָׁאַל עָלָיו וְעַל חֲבֵרוֹ וְאָמַר "שְׁנַיִם הָיִינוּ וּבִשְׁנֵי הַשְּׁבִילִים הָלַכְנוּ וּשְׁתֵּי טְהָרוֹת עָשִׂינוּ" - הֲרֵי שְׁנֵיהֶן טְמֵאִין, וּטְהָרוֹת שֶׁעָשׂוּ נִשְׂרָפוֹת.

Similar principles apply if they contracted impurity from a lesser source.וְכֵן אִם נִטְמְאוּ בְּטֻמְאָה קַלָּה.

What is implied? There were two loaves of bread, one pure and one impure. A person ate one of them13 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.14כֵּיצַד? שְׁנֵי כִכָּרִים אֶחָד טָמֵא וְאֶחָד טָהוֹר, אָכַל אֶת אֶחָד מֵהֶם וְעָשָׂה טְהָרוֹת, וּבָא חֲבֵרוֹ, וְאָכַל אֶת הַשֵּׁנִי וְעָשָׂה טְהָרוֹת: אִם נִשְׁאֲלוּ זֶה אַחַר זֶה, שְׁנֵיהֶן טְהוֹרִין; מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן סְפֵק דִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים שֶׁהוּא מִכְּלַל הַסְּפֵקוֹת שֶׁטִּהֲרוּ חֲכָמִים, כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ.

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.15נִשְׁאֲלוּ שְׁנֵיהֶן כְּאַחַת, אוֹ שֶׁנִּשְׁאַל עָלָיו וְעַל חֲבֵרוֹ - שְׁנֵיהֶן טְמֵאִין מִסָּפֵק, וְטָהֳרוֹתָם נִשְׂרָפוֹת; שֶׁהֲרֵי וַדַּאי אַחַת מֵהֶן טְמֵאָה.

Even if there is one impure loaf mixed with 100 pure loaves, they are all impure and must be burnt.וַאֲפִלּוּ כִּכָּר אֶחָד טָמֵא שֶׁנִּתְעָרֵב בְּמֵאָה כִּכָּרוֹת טְהוֹרִין - כֻּלָּן טְמֵאִין, וְיִשָּׂרְפוּ.

3When 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.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.

4When 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.18 This applies even if they inquired about their status at the same time.דשְׁנֵי שְׁבִילִין אֶחָד טָמֵא וְאֶחָד טָהוֹר, וְהָלְכוּ בָהֶן שְׁנֵי אֲנָשִׁים אִישׁ אֶחָד טָהוֹר וְאִישׁ אֶחָד טָמֵא, אֲפִלּוּ הָיָה הָאֶחָד תָּלוּי - הֲרֵי זֶה הַטָּהוֹר תּוֹלֶה בַּתָּלוּי; וְאוֹמְרִין: זֶה הַטָּהוֹר הָלַךְ בַּשְּׁבִיל הַטָּהוֹר וַהֲרֵי הוּא בְּטָהֳרָתוֹ, וְזֶה הַתָּלוּי הָלַךְ בַּשְּׁבִיל הַטָּמֵא - וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנִּשְׁאֲלוּ שְׁנֵיהֶן כְּאֶחָד.

Footnotes

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.

10.

Thus regaining a state of purity.

11.

As would be the case with regard to all questions of impurity that arise in the public domain.

12.

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.

13.

Which would render him impure due to a Rabbinic decree, as stated in Chapter 8, Halachah 10.

14.

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.

15.

Since we do not know which one, they are both considered impure.

16.

I.e., the impure loaf was certainly among the loaves at the time they partook of them.

17.

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.

18.

Since he is already deemed impure or at least questionably so, we assume that he was the one who contracted impurity.

She'ar Avot haTum'ah - Chapter 19

Quiz Yourself on She'ar Avot haTum'ah Chapter 19