א בטומאה ישנה מאי שנא חלבין וביאת מקדש דמודו ליה דאם רצה יאמר מזיד הייתי טומאה ישנה נמי מתרץ דיבוריה דאם רצה יאמר לא עמדתי בטומאתי אלא טבלתי
1 [it refers] to old uncleanness, why do the Rabbis agree with R'Judah only with regard to heleb and the entering of the Temple precincts because he might have said, I did it wilfully? Also in the instance of old uncleanness he could have interpreted his words and say, if he wanted, I did not remain unclean but immersed!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' We must therefore assume that the Baraitha refers to fresh uncleanness, in which case there is no miggo. It seems at all events to be implicitly accepted that the reason of the Sages' view is based upon the conclusion of miggo, while R. Judah who holds that even in the case of fresh uncleanness he is exempted, bases his view obviously upon the rule that regarding oneself a man is at all events believed more than a hundred witnesses. The query set forth at the outset of the discussion is thus resolved: R. Judah, who as the opponent of R. Meir is often quoted anonymously, bases his view upon the first argument of the query, the Sages upon the second.');"><sup>1</sup></span> - Said Rabina: It refers in fact to old uncleanness,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And both R. Judah and the Sages may base their arguments in the instance of heleb upon the rule of miggo, but this case is such that the Sages hold miggo is not applicable to it.');"><sup>2</sup></span> but to a case where the witnesses said to him, Thou hast eaten sacred food while thy body was unclean,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This statement contains a twofold assertion: That he was unclean and that he ate sacred things. Were his contradiction, I did not eat, we might have understood it in the sense, I did not transgress for I had immersed before. His reply, I am not unclean, is taken to imply, I did not come into contact with an unclean object, and this is in open contradiction to the evidence of the witnesses, wherefore his statement is not accepted and he is liable to an offering.');"><sup>3</sup></span> and his reply was, I was not unclean; his words are then not open to an explanation, for we cannot say he meant, I did not remain unclean but immersed, for this would convey, I immersed and indeed did eat, which statement would contradict the first assertion<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the assertion of the witnesses.');"><sup>4</sup></span>