Taharos, Chapter 5, Mishnah 6. A word of orientation first. This group of mishnayos in our chapter is one of the classic addresses in all of halachah for the treatment of safek, doubt. Anyone with a background in Yoreh De'ah knows how much weight is placed on the conclusions reached here when questions of uncertainty arise in food and in everyday kitchen practice. We will not open all of those discussions now, that is not our purpose, but it is worth appreciating that whole worlds of lomdus have been built on these few lines.
Our chapter has been moving through parallel scenarios. It began with two paths, one tamei and one tahor. Then it moved to cases of two things that a person touched. Now it moves again, this time to two loaves of bread. The upshot, and it is worth knowing in advance, is that uncertain tumah in food is handled exactly the way uncertain tumah is handled with people walking on paths. Very little will turn out to be different.
The Case
"Shnei kikarin, echad tamei ve'echad tahor": there are two loaves of bread, one of them tamei and one of them tahor, and it is unknown which is which. These loaves are not terumah; they are ordinary loaves.
"Achal es echad mehen ve'asa taharos": a man ate one of the two loaves. If he happened to eat the tamei loaf, he is now tamei; if he happened to eat the tahor loaf, he is perfectly fine. After eating that loaf of uncertain status, he went and prepared taharos, terumah food.
"Uva chavero ve'achal es hasheni ve'asa taharos": his fellow then came, ate the second loaf, and he too prepared taharos, terumah delicacies. So one of these two men certainly ate the tamei loaf, but we cannot identify which one, and therefore we cannot identify whose terumah food is in fact tamei.
Rabbi Yehudah's Ruling
The first view is that of Rabbi Yehudah. Should each man present his question separately, this one on his own, "zeh bifnei atzmo," and the other likewise on his own, "vezeh bifnei atzmo," the ruling for both of them is "tehorin," pure. But when the pair arrive and pose their question jointly, "sheneihem ke'echad," the answer changes and both are declared "temei'in."
Rabbi Yose's Ruling
Rabbi Yose takes the opposite line: "bein kach uvein kach temei'in," in either situation the ruling is tumah. Where do the two Tannaim actually divide? In the middle possibility, where one man arrives and lays out the question concerning himself together with the question concerning his companion. In Rabbi Yehudah's view such a case leans toward purity, since it resembles the two separate inquiries more than the joint one. Rabbi Yose reads the very same case from the other side: it amounts to the two of them presenting the matter together, so his verdict is tumah.
The Halachah
The halachah follows Rabbi Yose. That is where we leave off for today, and I look forward to learning together with you tomorrow.