Taharos, Chapter 5, Mishnah 5. Before we open the words of the Mishnah, a note on where we are standing. Anyone who has spent time in Yoreh De'ah will recognize this cluster of mishnayos in our chapter as a classic address for the whole subject of safek, doubt, in halachah. When later authorities work through questions of doubt in food, in the kitchen, in everyday practice, they lean heavily on the rulings recorded right here. We are not going to open all of those worlds now, that is not the purpose of this shiur, but it is worth knowing that a great deal of lomdus has been drawn out of the few lines we are about to learn.
We return to the familiar setting of the chapter: two paths. "Shnei shevilin, echad tamei ve'echad tahor": there are two paths, one of them is tamei and one of them is tahor. One of them has a corpse buried somewhere along its length, so that whoever walks it contracts tumah, and the other is perfectly clean. Which is which is unknown.
"Halach be'echad mehen ve'asa taharos": a man walked down one of the two paths, and afterwards he prepared taharos, foods of terumah, delicacies for his friends. That much sounds familiar from earlier in the chapter. But now comes the new element: "vachavero halach basheni ve'asa taharos," his fellow walked down the second path and he too prepared taharos.
Notice the shift. This is not one person who walked both paths at two different times. Here we have two different people, each one taking a different path, and each one ending up producing terumah food that he intends to eat. Since one path was definitely tamei, one of these two men definitely contracted tumah and one of them definitely did not. Nobody knows which. So what is the status of the first man's terumah? What is the status of the second man's terumah? And what happens when we look at the two of them together?
Rabbi Yehudah's Ruling
Rabbi Yehudah's position comes first. When the two men bring their questions to the rav separately, "zeh bifnei atzmo" (this one by himself) and then "vezeh bifnei atzmo" (and that one by himself), the verdict in each case is "tehorin," pure. Picture the scene: each neighbor turns to the rav of his own shul, lays out only his own story of walking a path he cannot identify, and hears back that no tumah attaches either to him or to the food he handled.
"Ve'im nish'alu sheneihem ke'echad, temei'in." But if the two of them came and asked as one, the answer must be tamei, and both of them are ruled impure. Asked one at a time, each man in his own right comes out pure; brought before the rav as a pair, we rule tamei.
Rabbi Yose's Ruling
"Rabbi Yose omer: bein kach uvein kach temei'in." Rabbi Yose says that either way they are temei'in. What exactly is he arguing about? The Bartenura explains that there is no dispute at the two ends of the spectrum. Where each man asked entirely on his own, both Tannaim agree; where the two of them presented themselves together, both Tannaim agree as well. The machlokes is in the middle case: one man comes to the rav and asks not only about himself but also about his friend, or the friend comes and asks about himself and about the other.
Rabbi Yehudah looks at that middle case and sees it as essentially resembling two people who asked one after the other, and therefore both of them are ruled pure. Rabbi Yose looks at the same case and sees it as resembling two people who came and asked as one, and therefore both of them are ruled impure.
The Halachah
The halachah here follows Rabbi Yose. So the practical summary is this: if each man asks purely about himself, he is tahor. If the two come and ask together, both are tamei. And if one man asks about himself and about his friend at the same time, we pasken like Rabbi Yose, and the rav answers tamei for both of them.