הזורק. ככר לבין המטפחות – there is no difference whether he threw a ritually pure loaf among ritually impure keys, or whether he threw impure keys among the [ritually pure] loaves, and it is not known if the loaf came in contact with/touched the ritually impure keys, the loaf is ritually pure, for the [anonymous] Tanna/teacher of this Mishnah holds that someone who throws is like one who lacks the awareness/knowledge to be interrogated.

ר' יהודה אומר ככשר לבין המפתחות טמא – for Rabbi Yehuda holds that a person who throws (whether impure keys or loaves) has awareness/knowledge to be interrogated, and his [status of] doubt makes him ritually impure. However, when he threw [a ritually impure key among the loaves], it (i.e., the loaf) is ritually pure, since the defilement does not come to rest in a place but rather passes over the ritually pure [loaf], its doubt is [presumed to be] ritually pure. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Yehuda. And the [ritually pure] loaf and the [ritually impure] keys that our Mishnah uses, the same law applies for all the rest of the things that are thrown, but because it is the practice of people to throw a loaf and keys one to the other, because of that, [the Mishnah] took this [example].

ספק נגע ספק לא נגע ספיקו טהור – and even in the private domain, and even regarding an individual who has awareness/knowledge to be interrogated who is holding the defilement/defiling object, because the defilement has no place that it rests upon, for all the while that it is in the mouth of the weasel or in the mouth of the dog it is not considered to be resting in any place, but rather it is passing defilement, therefore, its matter of doubt is deemed to be ritually pure, and even if the one who is holding the defilement/defiling object has awareness/knowledge to be interrogated.

היו מנקרין בהן – if the weasel cast off the creeping animal or the dog [cast off] the carrion that is in their mouths onto the ground and they would peck at it, there is a place for the defilement and its manner of doubt is ritually impure.

ספק אדם – there is doubt if it (i.e., the raven with an olive’s bulk of a corpse in its mouth) overshadowed over a person.

טמא – for he has awareness/knowledge to be interrogated, and he is not ritually pure for the reason that the defilement [of the olive’s bulk of a corpse] is in the mouth of the raven and it is passing defilement , and everything that overshadows is considered that there is defilement in the palce, and even that which is thrown.

ספק כלים – there is doubt whether it (i.e., the raven) overshadowed [with the olive’s bulk of a corpse in its mouth] over the vessels.

טהור – for they lack awareness/knowledge to be interrogated.

הממלא בעשה דליים – one after another.

ונמצא שרץ באחד מהן הוא טמא וכלן טהורים – and these words [refer to the situation] where [the bucket] lacks basins, all of them are ritually impure, for perhaps the creeping animal was the first [inside], and that which didn’t fall in with the water, we state that the basins prevented it.

העליון טהור – [but we are not concerned that perhaps it was from the upper one] it (i.e., the creeping animal) fell to the lower one (i.e., vessel).

על ספק בית הפרס - heave offering/priest’s due that entered into an area in which uncertainty exists concerning the location of a grave or a corpse, that this is a field in which a grave was plowed up and it is doubtful if there within a bone a barley-corn’s bulk from the corpse.

ועל ספק עפר הבא מארץ העמים – that dust that comes from the lands of the nations, we have doubts regarding the mass of earth from a grave containing parts of a decayed human body. And it is taught concerning the land of the nations/ארץ העמים and the area in which uncertainty exists concerning the location of a grave or a corpse/בית הפרס, they (i.e., the Rabbis) decreed that they would defile through contact and through lifting.

ועל ספיקן של בגדי עם הארץ – for regarding all of them we are in doubt if his menstruating wife sat upon them.

ועל ספק כלים הנמצאים – for we don’t know if they are ritually impure.

ועל ספק רוקין – for perhaps they are of a person with gonorrhea or a woman with flux, or that of a menstruating woman or someone who just gave birth.

מי רגלי אדם שהן כנגד מי רגלי בהמה – it teaches us a noteworthy point, and we don’t say that since these (i.e. urine) are from beasts, those also are from beasts, and even though there are two doubts (i.e., a compound uncertainty) for a leniency, the doubt regarding beasts [and] the doubt regarding a human being, and even if you can assume that [both] are from a human being, perhaps, the person is pure. And Maimonides explains through reference to the Tosefta (see Tractate Makhshirin, Chapter 3, Halakha 13 and Tractate Taharot, Chapter 5, Halakha 2), as for example, that the urine of a ritually impure man was mixed with the urine of a beast in equal measure, and this is nearby the urine of cattle, and we have a doubt if the appearance of the human urine was nullified and that all of them are ritually pure, or that they weren’t nullified and all of them are ritually impure.

על ודאי מגען שהוא ספק טומאתן (because of certainly touching them which is a manner of doubt in respect to their [imparting] uncleanness)- he knows with certainty that priest’s due/heave offering came in contact with them, but he doesn’t know if they are ritually impure or not, as we have explained the doubt in all of them.

וחכמים אומרים ברשות היחיד תולין – on the doubt of their contact, and we don’t burn them because it is a compound uncertainty which is ruled as a leniency, there is a doubt whether it touched and there is a doubt whether it did not touch, and even if you can assume that it came in contact, there is doubt of whether they are ritually impure or ritually pure. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Yossi who stated that on doubt of their contact we burn them [in the private domain].

אחד טמא – it is not definitively impure that it is known that it (i.e., the two drops of spittle) are from a person with gonorrhea or of a woman with a flux, for if so (i.e., that it is definitely known that it is impure), in the private domain, it is burnt like the other things that are doubtfully impure, but rather, one is ritually impure from mere spittle and one is pure for it is known that it is from a ritually pure person, and since that even if definitely touched the impure [spittle],that which is mere spittle is not [impure] other than according to the Rabbis, here where there is doubt of whether it touched the pure [spittle], we suspend it in the private domain, whether through contact or whether through carrying or whether through movement , whether it is moist or dry. But not so dry that one is not able to return and to permit it as it was, for this is completely pure even if it (i.e., the spittle) is definitely from someone with gonorrhea, but that it is able to be return and to be permitted in the form that it was.

ועל מגען ברה"ר בזמן שהן לחים – it is impossible that something from them would not cleave/attach a little bit on the body of the one who touches them, and it leaves from the status of doubtfully impure in the public domain, and it has the law of the private domain when it is attached a little bit on the body of a person. But dry spittle which is not attached, if he touched it, it is doubtful impurity in the public domain, where his manner of doubt is considered ritually pure.

ועל משאן בין לחין בין יבשין - when the defilement becomes detached in the public domain and is carried by a person, it is not considered any longer as defilement in the public domain, but it is defilement in the private domain as we have stated.

היה רוק יחידי- from the spittle that is found, it is doubtful whether it is of a ritually impure person or of a ritually pure person.

ונגע בו ונשאו והסיטו – even in the public domain, and afterwards it touched heave offering/priest’s-due.

שורפין עליו את התרומה – as is taught in the first clause of the Mishnah, if it had definite contact which is doubtful defilement, we burn the priest’s due/heave-offering.

ספק מים שאובים – it is doubtful if the drawn waters fell into this Mikveh/ritual bath and invalidated it or they didn’t fall, or that we saw that drawn waters fell into it, that there is a doubt if there were three LOG which is the measure to invalidate the Mikveh, or that there weren’t in them according to this measure. And all of the rest of the doubts are explained further in [the Mishnayot] in our chapter.

ספק טמאה צפה על פני המים – there is a doubt if it (i.e., the water) touched the uncleanness floating on the surface of the water or it didn’t touch it.

בין בכלים בין בקרקע – whether the water was in vessels or whether the water was on the ground, it is ritually pure, for it is considered as if there is no place for uncleanness.

בכלים טמא – for they are considered as if there is a place for uncleanness. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Shimon.

ספק ירידתו טמא (if the doubt has to do with his descent into the water) – for it is manner of a person when he descends to a pond of water that everything that is in the water comes upon him, on account of the movement that when he begins to wash himself. But when he ascends from the water, the things that are in the water distance themselves from him and go to the sides of the pond.

אפילו אין שם אלא מלא האדם והטומאה – that the place is narrow in the path for it is impossible for him that he wouldn’t touch it, nevertheless he is ritually pure, for he (i.e., Rabbi Yossi) holds that the uncleanness that floats does not defile. Such is what I found. But Maimonides explains that all the while that he didn’t know with certainty that he touched uncleanness, he is ritually pure. It appears that if he was on the path where it is impossible for him that he doesn’t touch it, he is ritually impure.

ספק משקים ליטמא – ritually pure liquids that a doubt appeared on them if they were susceptible to receive defilement or not, their doubt is ritually impure, as we will explain further on.

לטמא טהור – and if the liquids are ritually impure and we have a doubt if they defiled the ritually pure thing or not, its manner of doubt is that it is ritually pure.

וזרקה לבין הככרות כו' ספיקו טהור – as for example that we had a doubt if after the staff came to rest the liquids touched the loaves [of bread] or didn’t touch them. For if it was at the time of throwing, it had defilement that has no place, and even with a creeping animal according to the Torah, its manner of doubt is ritually pure, since the defilement is thrown. But if you say that yet I will derive (that it is ritually pure) even with a creeping animal because it does not have awareness/knowledge to be interrogated. But one can say, that it is possible to establish that our Mishnah is dealing with a case when a person is holding the loaves.

ספק משקין אוכלין טמא – for Rabbi Yossi holds that defilement of liquids to defile others according to the Torah, for he expounds on the Biblical verse (Leviticus 11:34): “as to any liquid that may be drunk, it shall become impure if it was inside any vessel,” to defile others, therefore, something that is a matter of doubt in respect to liquids, if it has to do with foods, it is impure.

ולכלים טהור – for the defilement of liquids to defile vessels is according to the Rabbis, from the eighteen matters that [the Sages] decreed on that day (when Rabban Gamaliel was removed as head of the Sanhedrin – see Tractate Berakhot 28a – see the Bartenura commentary on Tractate Shabbat, Chapter 1, Mishnah 4). For the first Tanna/teacher that disputes on that of Rabbi Yossi who expounds (Leviticus 11:34): “as to any liquid that may be drunk, it shall become impure if it was inside any vessel” but not to defile others, for the defilement of liquids to defile foods and liquids is according to the Rabbis, therefore a matter of doubt of the defilement of liquids to defile others is ritually pure. And the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Yossi.

ספק ידים ליטמא - a person whose hands were ritual pure and it was doubtful if they touched ritually impure foods or ritually impure liquids and his hands were defiled, and it is doubtful if he didn’t touch and his hands were not defiled.

ולטמא – his hands were ritually impure, it is a matter of doubt if he touched foods and liquids and defiled them, and it is doubtful that he did not touch them.

וליטהר- his hands were ritually impure and he purified them, it is doubtful if they were purified properly or not, in all of these matters of doubt, their doubt is deemed ritually pure.

ספק רשות הרבים – it is matter of doubt of defilement in the public domain, they are considered ritually pure, for such we found concerning a community that makes the Passover sacrifice in ritual defilement, if it is definitive defilement, it was permissible to the community, as an a fortiori inference it a manner of doubt of defilement.

ספק דברי סופרים - as for example, all of these that are considered, and all of them are from the eight things that they (i.e., the Sages) decreed on that day (i.e., the day when Rabban Gamaliel was deposed as head of the Sanhedrin -see Tractate Berakhot 28a, and they are explained in Tractate Shabbat in the first chapter [Mishnah 4 – see the Bartenura commentary).

אבל דבר שהוא אב הטומאה והוא מדברי סופרים – as for example, דם תבוסה/blood that flows from a person at the time of his death or afterwards (the legal status of this blood is that of a corpse itself and is therefore an ultimate primary source of ritual impurity) and heathens that made themselves like those with gonorrhea, and similar things to this, if there is a doubt if he touched them or did not touch them.

ספיקו טמא – but however a primary source of ritual impurity that is from the words of the Scribes (i.e., Rabbinic) that it itself is from doubt, as for example the בית הפרס/area in which uncertainty exists concerning the location of a grave or corpse (i.e., a field containing a grave that was unintentionally plowed and the bones may have been strewn throughout the field, and a grave containing a grave the location of which is unknown), if there is in it a bone the bulk of a barleycorn or not. In this, it is taught in the Mishnah above (see Mishnah 5) that when their contact is definite, we burn them, but on their doubtful contact we don’t burn them, for this is a ספק ספיקא/compound uncertainty [which is ruled with leniency].

זו טהרת פרישות – as it is taught in the Mishnah [Tractate Hagigah, Chapter 2, Mishnah 7]: “The clothing of those who are not careful in their observance of the laws of ritual purity/עם הארץ is in the status of מדרס/Levitical uncleanness arising from a person with gonorrhea immediate contact caused by treading, and the clothing of Pharisees are considered Midras with regard to those who consume heave offering.” But if there is doubt regarding one of the Pharisees who consume [their unconsecrated food] in ritual purity, if he came in contact with the clothes of a person who is not careful in his observance of the laws of ritual purity or didn’t come in contact with it, and similarly, a person who eats heave-offering (i.e., a Kohen) and there is doubt if he had contact with the clothing of the Pharisees and the heave-offering was defiled, their manner of doubt is considered ritually pure.

ספק שרצים – he cast a creeping animal between the loaves [of bread], it is doubtful if it touched the loaves at the time that it passed over them, it is doubtful that it did not touch [them]. If he found it that it didn’t touch [the loaves], behold the loaves are like the time that he found them, and their matter of doubt is ritually pure.

עד שלא נזקק לטומאה (before it had been subjected to a ruling of uncleanness) – In Chapter Five of [Tractate] Negaim (Mishnayot 4-5) it explains how [this is the case].

ספק נזירות – as, for example, that he said: Behold I am a Nazirite if there is in this heap/pile one hundred KOR, if he went and found that it had been stolen or that he lost it, it is doubt that it had it [and it is doubtful that it didn’t have it, it is permitted [for him] to drink wine and to become defiled with corpses.

ספק בכורות – it is doubtful if it (i.e., the child or the animal) is the firstborn [of its mother] or not.

אחד בכורי אדם – except from giving five Selaim (i.e., coins) to a Kohen.

ואחד בכורי בהמה טמאה – the first born of a donkey

שהמוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה – that he said to the Kohen: “Bring proof that he is a first born and pay the head-tax.

ספק קרבנות – how so? The woman who has a doubt of five miscarriages that were in doubt. מביאה קרבן אחד – a sin-offering of a fowl that comes for a doubt.

ואוכלת בזבחים – that this sacrifice comes to compete her ritual purity and it is like ritual immersion, for if the woman was defiled several defilements, one ritual immersion counts for all of them, even this sacrifice as well.

ואין השאר עליה חובה – the Sages did not require her to bring them (the other sacrifices), for even the one, with difficulty, they permitted to bring a doubtfully pinched unconsecrated offering to the Altar, but in order to make for her an ordinance to be ritually pure to eat Holy Things.