1)

(a)The Mishnah discusses a Sheretz and a frog that are lying in the street. The Tana picks specifically a frog - because it is similar to a toad (which is one of the Tamei Sheratzim), and it is therefore easy to confuse the two.

(b)R. Akiva rules that someone who touched one of the two, and does not know which one he touched, he is Tamei. He reconciles this with the principle 'Safek Tum'ah bi'Reshus ha'Rabim, Tahor' - by establishing the latter specifically to someone who is working with Taharos (since once food is declared Tamei, it is not subject to Tevilah), as opposed to a person, who can Tovel (see Tos. Yom-Tov).

(c)The Chachamim rule - Tahor, and the Halachah them.

(d)And the same Machlokes pertains to a Safek whether one touched a k'Zayis of Meis or of Neveilah, a bone of a Meis or of a Neveilah and a clod of earth from a Beis ha'Peras or from Chutz la'Aretz on the one hand and a clod of earth from Eretz Yisrael on the other. The difference between ...

1. ... a k'Zayis of Meis and a k'Zayis of Neveilah is - that the former is Metamei be'Ohel, the latter is not.

2. ... a bone of a Meis and a bone of a Neveilah is - that the former is Metamei be'Heset (by moving without direct contact), the latter is not.

3. ... a clod of earth from a Beis ha'Peras or from Chutz la'Aretz on the one hand and a clod of earth from Eretz Yisrael on the other is - that the former are Metamei through touching and carrying (but not be'Ohel), the latter is not.

2)

(a)The next case concerns a person who walked along one of two paths - under one of which a Meis was buried right across the path (see Tiferes Yisrael), and he does not know along which one he walked.

(b)One of the last set of cases concerns someone who was Ma'ahil over one of the pieces, mentioned in one of the earlier cases - i.e. 'Safek k'Zayis min ha'Meis. u'k'Zayis min ha'Neveilah'.

(c)The final case is - where he moved one of the pieces (Heset) but does not know which one ...

(d)... pertaining to 'Safek Gush me'Eretz Tehorah ve'Gush mi'Beis ha'Peras ve'Gush me'Eretz ha'Amim'.

3)

(a)In an extension of the previous Mishnah, the Tana discusses two cases of someone who is not sure whether he touched Tum'ah or not. The second case concerns somebody who claims that he touched one of two pieces and he does not know which piece he touched. He is referring to the case of a Sheretz and a frog.

(b)The first case listed in this Mishnah is - where he says that he does not know whether the piece that he touched was Tamei or Tahor.

(c)Here too, R. Akiva rules 'Tamei', and the Chachamim - Tahor.

4)

(a)R. Yossi disagrees with all the above rulings except for one - i.e. the case of the two paths ...

(b)... where he rules Tahor - because a person needs to walk in the street, but in all the other cases, he can refrain from touching (see Tos. Yom-Tov).

(c)The Halachah - is like the Chachamim (as we learned in the previous Mishnah).

5)

(a)The Mishnah now discusses a person who walked along one of the two above-mentioned paths (see Tos. Yom-Tov), and then, after working with Taharos, he performed the entire ritual of Haza'ah, Tevilah and Ha'arev-Shemesh (see Tos. Yom-Tov), he walked along the second path, performed the ritual once again and worked on Taharos. In the event that ...

1. ... he had already eaten the first set of Taharos, the Tana rules - that the second set is Tahor.

2. ... both sets are still intact - he rules that they are both Teluyos (Safek Tamei).

(b)The reason for this is because - whereas in the former case, the Taharos that he ate may have been the ones that are Tamei, in which case, there is no problem in declaring the second ones Tahor, in the latter case it is not possible to declare both sets of Taharos Tahor, since one of them is definitely Tamei.

(c)In a case where he worked on Taharos after walking first along one of the paths, and then again, after walking along the second path, but without performing Haza'ah and Tevilah in between, and both sets of Taharos are still intact - the Tana declares both sets Teluyos.

6)

(a)The Mishnah rules in a case where a Sheretz and a frog are lying in the street (see Tos. Yom-Tov), and a person touches one of them, works with Taharos and eats them, Tovels, touches the other one, and works with Taharos again, that the status of the second set of Taharos - is Tahor, but if ...

(b)... both sets of Taharos are still intact - they are Teluyos.

7)

(a)The Mishnah now discusses two people, each of whom walked along one of the paths and worked with Taharos (see Tiferes Yisrael), and they both come to ask a Rav regarding the status of their respective Taharos. The Rav will rule (if they come to ask ...

1. ... simultaneously) - Tamei (see Tos. Yom-Tov).

2. ... one after the other) - Tahor (see Tos. Yom-Tov).

(b)R. Yehudah and R. Yossi argue - in a case where one of them comes to ask on behalf of them both.

(c)R. Yossi rules that their Taharos are Tamei, R. Yehudah - Tahor ...

(d)... because he considers it as if they had come to ask one after the other.

8)

(a)R. Yehudah and R. Yossi hold exactly the same opinions with regard to two people and two loaves, one Tamei and one, Tahor. The Tana sees fit to repeat the Machlokes - because whereas the first case concerns Tum'ah d'Oraysa, the second case concerns Tum'ah de'Rabbanan.

9)

(a)In a case where Reuven is sitting in the street and Shimon comes and either treads on his clothes or spits on the ground and Reuven touches the spit, the problem is - that Shimon might be a Zav, in which case the clothes and Reuven (respectively) will be Tamei.

(b)In the latter case, the Tana requires Terumah that Reuven subsequently touches to be burned; whereas in the former case - he goes after the majority of the residents of the town (i.e. if they are Zavim, then the garment is Tamei Mishkav (Teferes Yisrael. See also Tos. Yom-Tov).

(c)The reason for the first ruling is - because of the principle 'Safek Rukin ... Sorfin es ha'Terumah' (as we learned in the previous Perek).

(d)If Reuven slept in the street, the Chachamim declare his clothes Tahor. Despite the second ruling (Tahor) in the previous case, R. Meir declare them Tamei - because of the possibility that most of the residents of the town, one of whom was a Zav, trod on his clothes.

10)

(a)If somebody touches someone during the night and, in the morning, he discovers that the person is dead, R. Meir declares him Tahor. The Chachamim declare him Tamei, based on the principle do - that all (Safek) Tum'os go according the time that they are found (see Tos. Yom-Tov).

(b)They concede that he is Tahor - if one actually saw him alive the night before.

11)

(a)Besides a Shotah - either a Nochris or a Kutis needs to live in a town for all gathering of spit to be Tamei (see Tos. Yom-Tov).

(b)The Mishnah lists specifically women ...

1. ... regarding a Shotah - because Nidus is common among women, whereas Zivus by a man is not.

2. ... regarding a Nochris or a Kutis - because it did so by Shotah.

(c)The Tana inserts Kutis in this ruling - because Chazal decreed on the Kutim, giving them a Din of Nochrim in all regards.

12)

(a)A person's clothes automatically remain Tahor, if a woman sat on them - provided he knows that her husband is a Kohen who eats Terumah ...

(b)... because she would therefore be careful in matters concerning Tum'ah, and would not tread on people's clothes (and enter boats with them) when she is Tamei.

(c)If he does not know her husband - he is obligated to ask her whether he eats Terumah or not (see Mishnah Achronah).

(d)The Tana issues exactly the same ruling with regards to someone who sat on the same bench in a boat as a woman, even though she did not actually sit on his clothes (since she is Metamei Medras by moving the boat).

13)

(a)If one witness testifies that a person is Tamei, whereas he himself claims that he is Tahor - he is believed.

(b)According to R. Meir, he is not believed against two witnesses. According to the Chachamim - he is believed.

(c)What they really mean is - we interpret his words to mean that he has not remained Tamei (i.e. he Toveled [see Tos. Yom-Tov]).

14)

(a)The Mishnah rules in a case where ...

1. ... one witness says that he is Tamei and two, that he is Tahor - he is Tahor (even in a Reshus ha'Yachid).

2. ... two witnessess says that he is Tamei and two, that he is Tahor - he is Tamei (even in a Reshus ha'Rabim).

(b)Finally, the Tana rules that if one ...

1. ... witness declares him Tamei, and one, Tahor, or if ...

2. ... woman declares him Tamei, and one, Tahor - if he is in a Reshus ha'Yachid, he is Tamei, in a Reshus ha'Rabim, he is Tahor (like the Din of Safek Tum'ah [see Tos. Yom-Tov]).