She'ar Avot haTum'ah - Chapter 18

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.