כָּל הַטָּעוּן בִּיאַת מַיִם מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים מְטַמֵּא אֶת הַקֹּדֶשׁ וּפוֹסֵל אֶת הַתְּרוּמָה, וּמוּתָּר בְּחוּלִּין וּבְמַעֲשֵׂר, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר,

With regard to anything that by rabbinic law requires entry into water, i.e., either immersion or ritual washing of the hands, although it is pure by Torah law, it is accorded second-degree impurity. Therefore, such an item renders sacrificial food impure, meaning that the sacrificial food becomes impure and transmits impurity to other sacrificial food, and disqualifies teruma , meaning that it renders the teruma itself impure, but not to the extent that the teruma can render other teruma impure. And it is permitted for non-sacred food and for second- tithe produce to come in contact with such an item, and no impurity is thereby transmitted. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir.

וַחֲכָמִים אוֹסְרִים בְּמַעֲשֵׂר.

And the Rabbis prohibit items that require entry into water from coming in contact with second- tithe produce, as they hold that the produce is thereby rendered impure. According to the Rabbis, the status of second-tithe produce is more stringent than that of non-sacred food, and second-tithe produce assumes third-degree impurity upon contact with an item of second-degree impurity, which is in accordance with the opinion of the mishna.

מַתְקִיף לָהּ רַב שִׁימִי בַּר אַשִׁי: מִמַּאי? דִּלְמָא עַד כָּאן לָא פְּלִיגִי רַבָּנַן עֲלֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר אֶלָּא בַּאֲכִילַת מַעֲשֵׂר, אֲבָל בִּנְגִיעָה דְּמַעֲשֵׂר וַאֲכִילָה דְּחוּלִּין לָא פְּלִיגִי;

Rav Shimi bar Ashi objects to this interpretation of that mishna. From where is it clear that it is contact that the Rabbis prohibit? Perhaps the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Meir only with regard to a person with second-degree impurity partaking of second- tithe produce. But with regard to contact of an individual with second-degree impurity with second- tithe produce or his eating non-sacred food, they do not disagree.

וְהָא נְגִיעָה הִיא, מִדְּקָתָנֵי: נֶאֱכָלִין בְּיָדַיִם מְסוֹאָבוֹת, מִי לָא עָסְקִינַן דְּקָא סָפֵי לֵיהּ חַבְרֵיהּ?

And this case in the mishna is a case involving contact with the flesh of the slaughtered animal, from the fact that it teaches: They may be eaten with ritually impure hands, in the passive form, and not: One may eat them with impure hands. Are we not dealing with a case where another with impure hands fed him, but the one eating it was ritually pure and did not touch it? Therefore, the case in the mishna here, which indicates that it is forbidden for one with impure hands to touch the flesh if it has come in contact with the blood, cannot be referring to an animal purchased in Jerusalem with second-tithe money. The reason is that in that case, the Rabbis concede that contact with second-tithe produce, even produce rendered susceptible to ritual impurity by the blood, is permitted for one whose hands are impure with second-degree ritual impurity.

אֶלָּא אֲמַר רַב פַּפָּא: הָכָא בְּיָדַיִם תְּחִלּוֹת עָסְקִינַן, וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר הִיא; דְּתַנְיָא: אֵין יָדַיִם תְּחִלּוֹת לְחוּלִּין, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי מֵאִיר: יָדַיִם תְּחִלּוֹת לְחוּלִּין וּשְׁנִיּוֹת לִתְרוּמָה.

Rather Rav Pappa said: Here, in the mishna, we are dealing with hands that are impure with first-degree ritual impurity, which render even non-sacred food impure. And the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, as it is taught in a baraita : In those cases where hands have first-degree impurity, it is not that they render non-sacred food impure; rather, it means that they impart to teruma and sacrificial food second-degree impurity rather than third-degree impurity. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says in the name of Rabbi Meir: In those cases where hands have first-degree impurity, it means that they render non-sacred food impure. And in those cases where hands have second-degree impurity it means that they invalidate teruma and impart to it third-degree impurity.

תְּחִלּוֹת לְחוּלִּין אִין, לִתְרוּמָה לָא?! הָכִי קָאָמַר: תְּחִלּוֹת – אַף לְחוּלִּין, שְׁנִיּוֹת – לִתְרוּמָה אִין, לְחוּלִּין לָא.

The Gemara asks: Did Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar say that in those cases where hands have first-degree impurity, with regard to non-sacred food, yes, they render it impure, but with regard to teruma , hands do not render it impure? The Gemara answers: This is what Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar is saying: In those cases where hands have first-degree impurity, it means that they render even non-sacred food impure, and all the more so they render teruma impure. But in those cases where hands have second-degree impurity, it means that with regard to teruma , yes, the hands invalidate teruma and impart third-degree impurity, but with regard to non-sacred food, hands do not render it impure.

וּמִי אִיכָּא יָדַיִם תְּחִלּוֹת? אִין, דְּתַנְיָא: הִכְנִיס יָדָיו לְבַיִת הַמְנוּגָּע – יָדָיו תְּחִלּוֹת, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: יָדָיו שְׁנִיּוֹת.

The Gemara asks: And are there cases where hands assume first-degree impurity? The Gemara answers: Yes, as it is taught in a mishna ( Yadayim 3:1): If one inserts his hands into a leprous house (see Leviticus 14:33–53) his hands assume first-degree impurity as though his entire body entered the house; this is the statement of Rabbi Akiva. And the Rabbis say: His hands assume second-degree impurity.

דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא בִּיאָה בְּמִקְצָת לָא שְׁמָהּ בִּיאָה, וְהָכָא בִּגְזֵירָה יָדָיו אַטּוּ גּוּפוֹ קָא מִיפַּלְגִי,

The Gemara elaborates: Everyone agrees that in principle, partial entry into a leprous house is not characterized as entry in terms of rendering one who enters impure. Therefore, one who inserted his hands into the house is not impure by Torah law. And here, it is with regard to a rabbinic decree that renders his hands impure that they disagree: The Sages issued a decree that if one inserted his hands into a leprous house, his hands are impure due to the impurity by Torah law that one assumes when he enters the house with his entire body. The objective of the decree is to prevent him from entering the leprous house.

מָר סָבַר: יָדָיו כְּגוּפוֹ שָׁוִינְהוּ רַבָּנַן, וּמָר סָבַר: יָדַיִם כְּיָדַיִם דְּעָלְמָא שָׁוִינְהוּ רַבָּנַן.

One Sage, Rabbi Akiva, holds that when the Sages issued the decree they determined that the status of his hands inserted into the house is like the status of his body that enters the house, first-degree impurity. And one Sage, the Rabbis, holds that the Sages rendered the status of hands inserted into the house like the status of hands in general, with regard to which they issued a decree of second-degree impurity, even if they had been washed.

וְלוֹקְמָהּ כְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, דְּאָמַר: יָדָיו תְּחִלּוֹת הָוְיָין! דִּלְמָא כִּי קָאָמַר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא – הָנֵי מִילֵּי בִּתְרוּמָה וְקָדָשִׁים דַּחֲמִירִי, אֲבָל לְחוּלִּין שְׁנִיּוֹת הָוְיָין.

The Gemara asks: And why did Rav Pappa interpret the mishna in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar? Let Rav Pappa interpret the mishna in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who says: If one inserts his hands into a leprous house, his hands assume first-degree impurity. The Gemara answers: Perhaps when Rabbi Akiva says that one’s hands assume first-degree impurity, that statement applies only in cases of teruma and sacrificial food, which are stringent. But with regard to non-sacred food, perhaps hands are impure only with second-degree impurity.

וְלֶיהֶוְיָין נַמִי שְׁנִיּוֹת, דְּהָא שָׁמְעִינַן לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא דְּאָמַר: שֵׁנִי עוֹשֶׂה שְׁלִישִׁי בְּחוּלִּין!

The Gemara objects: And let hands also be impure only with second-degree impurity and the mishna could still be in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva. As we heard that Rabbi Akiva says: An item of second-degree impurity imparts third-degree impurity to non-sacred items.

דִּתְנַן, בּוֹ בַּיּוֹם דָּרַשׁ רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא: ״וְכָל כְּלִי חֶרֶשׂ וגו׳ יִטְמָא״, – טָמֵא לֹא נֶאֱמַר, אֶלָּא ״יִטְמָא״ – לְטַמֵּא אֲחֵרִים, לִימֵּד עַל כִּכָּר שֵׁנִי שֶׁהוּא עוֹשֶׂה שְׁלִישִׁי בְּחוּלִּין!

As we learned in a mishna ( Sota 27b): On that day, when Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya was appointed Nasi in Yavne, Rabbi Akiva taught: “And every earthenware vessel into which any of them falls, whatever is in it shall be impure, and you shall break it” (Leviticus 11:33). With regard to the item rendered impure in the vessel, it is not stated: It is impure [ tameh ]; rather, the term “it shall be impure [ yitma ]” is stated, indicating that the item has the capacity to transmit impurity to other items. This verse teaches about a loaf with second-degree impurity that had been rendered impure in the airspace of an earthenware vessel in which there was a creeping animal, that through contact it renders non-sacred food impure with third-degree ritual impurity.

דִּלְמָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי בְּטוּמְאָה דְּאוֹרַיְיתָא, אֲבָל בִּדְרַבָּנַן לָא.

The Gemara explains: Perhaps this statement, that non-sacred food becomes impure with third-degree ritual impurity, applies only with regard to impurity by Torah law, e.g., a creeping animal; but with regard to impurity by rabbinic law, e.g., impurity of hands, that is not the halakha .

אֲמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אֲמַר רַבִּי הוֹשַׁעֲיָא: הָכָא בְּחוּלִּין שֶׁנַּעֲשׂוּ עַל טָהֳרַת הַקֹּדֶשׁ עָסְקִינַן, וּדְלָא כְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ; דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: הָאוֹכֵל אוֹכֶל רִאשׁוֹן – רִאשׁוֹן, שֵׁנִי – שֵׁנִי, שְׁלִישִׁי – שְׁלִישִׁי.

Rabbi Elazar said that Rabbi Hoshaya said a third explanation of the mishna: Here we are dealing with a case of non-sacred food items that were prepared on the level of purity of sacrificial food. And the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, as it is taught in a mishna ( Teharot 2:2): Rabbi Eliezer says: One who eats food with first-degree ritual impurity first-degree impurity. One who eats food with second-degree ritual impurity assumes second-degree impurity. One who eats food with third-degree impurity assumes third-degree impurity.

רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר: הָאוֹכֵל אוֹכֶל רִאשׁוֹן וְשֵׁנִי – שֵׁנִי, שְׁלִישִׁי – שֵׁנִי לְקֹדֶשׁ וְאֵין שֵׁנִי לִתְרוּמָה,

The mishna continues: Rabbi Yehoshua says: One who eats food with first-degree or second-degree impurity second-degree impurity. One with second-degree impurity who comes into contact with teruma disqualifies it, but does not render it impure. One who eats food with third-degree impurity assumes second-degree impurity vis-à-vis sacrificial food, but does not assume second-degree impurity vis-à-vis teruma , and his contact with teruma does not disqualify it.

בְּחוּלִּין שֶׁנַּעֲשׂוּ עַל טָהֳרַת תְּרוּמָה;

Eating an item that has third-degree impurity is feasible only in the case of non-sacred food, as partaking of impure teruma or sacrificial food is prohibited. Generic non-sacred food cannot contract third-degree impurity at all. Therefore, the case of one who eats food that has third-degree impurity is referring specifically to non-sacred food items that were prepared on the level of purity of teruma .

עַל טָהֳרַת תְּרוּמָה – אִין, עַל טָהֳרַת הַקֹּדֶשׁ – לָא, קָסָבַר: חוּלִּין שֶׁנַּעֲשׂוּ עַל טָהֳרַת הַקֹּדֶשׁ לֵית בְּהוּ שְׁלִישִׁי.

The Gemara infers from Rabbi Yehoshua’s statement that if one prepares items as if their level of purity were on the level of purity of teruma , then yes, they have the status like teruma , but if one prepares items as if their level of purity were on the level of purity of sacrificial food, they do not have the status like sacrificial food, and such items would not contract third-degree impurity. This indicates that Rabbi Yehoshua holds that non-sacred food items that were prepared on the level of purity of sacrificial food do not assume third-degree impurity.

וְלוֹקְמָהּ

The Gemara objects: Let us interpret the mishna