מֵאִיר הָיָה אוֹמֵר מַטְבִּיל בָּעֶלְיוֹנָה וַאֲנִי אוֹמֵר בַּתַּחְתּוֹנָה וְלֹא בָּעֶלְיוֹנָה אֲמַר לֵיהּ אִי תַּנְיָא תַּנְיָא: Rabbi Meir would say: One may immerse in the upper one, and I say: In the lower one but not in the upper one. This demonstrates that Rabbi Yehuda does not accept the principle of raising the partition. Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: If this baraita is taught, it is taught, and I cannot take issue with it. Therefore, it is clear that the matter is held in dispute between tanna’im and that Rabbi Yehuda does not accept the principle of raising the partition.
הַטּוֹבֵל לַחוּלִּין וְהוּחְזַק לַחוּלִּין כּוּ׳ מַנִּי מַתְנִיתִין רַבָּנַן הִיא דְּשָׁנֵי לְהוּ בֵּין חוּלִּין לְמַעֲשֵׂר § It is taught in the mishna: One who immersed for the purpose of eating non-sacred food with the intention of assuming a presumptive status of ritual purity for non-sacred food it is prohibited for him to eat tithes. The Gemara comments: Whose opinion is expressed in the mishna? It is that of the Rabbis, who differentiate between non-sacred produce and tithes, since they maintain the following: If one who is required by rabbinic law to immerse touches non-sacred food, it remains pure, but if he comes into contact with tithes they are rendered ritually impure.
אֵימָא סֵיפָא בִּגְדֵי עַם הָאָרֶץ מִדְרָס לִפְרוּשִׁין בִּגְדֵי פְרוּשִׁין מִדְרָס לְאוֹכְלֵי תְרוּמָה However, in that case, say the latter clause of the mishna, which states that the garments of an am ha’aretz, who is not careful with regard to the halakhot of ritual purity, are considered to be rendered ritually impure by the impurity imparted by the treading of a zav, which is considered a primary source of ritual impurity, for perushin, individuals who are careful to eat even non-sacred food in a state of purity. The garments of perushin, although they are careful to remain ritually pure, are nevertheless considered to be rendered impure by the treading of a zav for priests who partake of teruma. Consequently, the latter clause differs from the opinion of the Rabbis in the earlier clause.
אֲתָאן לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר דְּאָמַר חוּלִּין וּמַעֲשֵׂר כַּהֲדָדֵי נִינְהוּ רֵישָׁא רַבָּנַן וְסֵיפָא רַבִּי מֵאִיר אִין רֵישָׁא רַבָּנַן וְסֵיפָא רַבִּי מֵאִיר Therefore, we have arrived at the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who said: Non-sacred produce and tithes are similar to one another, as this clause of the mishna does not distinguish between those eating non-sacred food and those eating tithes. Is the earlier clause the opinion of the Rabbis and the latter clause the opinion of Rabbi Meir? The Gemara answers: Yes; although it is unusual, in this instance we must explain that the earlier clause was said by the Rabbis and the latter clause by Rabbi Meir.
רַב אַחָא בַּר אַדָּא מַתְנֵי לַהּ בְּסֵיפָא חָמֵשׁ מַעֲלוֹת וּמוֹקֵי לַהּ כּוּלָּהּ כְּרַבָּנַן However, Rav Aḥa bar Adda would teach that five levels of ritual purity are listed in the latter clause of the mishna, by counting the clause that states that the clothes of those who eat non-sacred produce in a state of purity are ritually impure for tithes, and in this way he establishes the entire mishna in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis.
אָמַר רַב מָרִי שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ חוּלִּין שֶׁנַּעֲשׂוּ עַל טׇהֳרַת הַקּוֹדֶשׁ כְּקוֹדֶשׁ דָּמוּ מִמַּאי § Rav Mari said: They learn from the mishna that non-sacred produce that was prepared according to the level of ritual purity required for sacrificial food, i.e., with the same stringencies as required for sacrificial food, is like sacrificial food. From where is this deduced?