ומאי מדבריהם מדברי רבי חנינא סגן הכהנים
And what did Rabbi Meir mean when he said: From their statements? He meant: From the statement of Rabbi Ḥanina the deputy High Priest.
אמר ריש לקיש משום בר קפרא מתניתין באב הטומאה דאורייתא וולד הטומאה דאורייתא ומאי מדבריהם מדברי רבי אליעזר ורבי יהושע
Reish Lakish said another explanation of the mishna in the name of bar Kappara: The case in the mishna is one involving a primary source of ritual impurity by Torah law and a secondary source of impurity by Torah law. And what did Rabbi Meir mean by the phrase: From their statements? He was not referring to the tanna’im in this mishna, but rather: From the statements of Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua cited elsewhere.
הי רבי יהושע אילימא הא רבי יהושע דתנן חבית של תרומה שנולד לה ספק טומאה רבי אליעזר אומר אם היתה מונחת במקום התורפה יניחנה במקום המוצנע ואם היתה מגולה יכסנה
The Gemara asks: To which statement of Rabbi Yehoshua is Rabbi Meir referring? If you say he is referring to this statement of Rabbi Yehoshua, as we learned in a mishna: In the case of a barrel of teruma produce with regard to which uncertainty developed with regard to its impurity, and which therefore may not be eaten, Rabbi Eliezer says that one must nevertheless safeguard the teruma from ritual impurity. Therefore, he maintains: If the barrel was resting in a vulnerable place, where it may come into contact with impurity, one should place it in a concealed place, and if it was exposed, he should cover it.
רבי יהושע אומר אם היתה מונחת במקום המוצנע יניחנה במקום התורפה ואם היתה מכוסה יגלנה
Rabbi Yehoshua says: That is not necessary. Rather, even if it was placed in a concealed place, he may place it in a vulnerable place if he chooses. And if it was covered, he may expose it, as he need no longer safeguard this teruma from impurity. According to Rabbi Yehoshua, as teruma whose impurity status is uncertain, may be used only for lighting a fire, there is no requirement to prevent it from contact with ritual impurity. The same reasoning applies to pure leaven: One is not required to safeguard it from impurity in the process of its removal.
מי דמי התם גרמא בעלמא הכא בידים
The Gemara rejects the comparison: Is this dispute with regard to the placement of doubtfully impure teruma comparable to the case of burning ritually pure and impure items together? There, Rabbi Yehoshua permits mere passive causation of impurity; however, he does not permit one to actively render teruma whose impurity status is uncertain, impure. Here, however, in the statement of Rabbi Meir, he actively renders leavened teruma impure with his hands.
אלא הא רבי יהושע דתנן חבית של תרומה שנשברה בגת העליונה ותחתונה חולין טמאין
Rather, Rabbi Meir did not infer his opinion from that statement; instead, he inferred it from this other statement of Rabbi Yehoshua. As we learned in a mishna: With regard to a barrel of teruma wine that broke in the upper area of a winepress, where grapes are pressed, and there is impure, non-sacred wine in the lower area of the press, where the wine flows from the upper area, the following dilemma arises: If the teruma wine flows into the non-sacred wine, the teruma will be rendered ritually impure. The result will be significant financial loss, as the legal status of all the wine in the lower press will be that of impure teruma, which is prohibited even for priests to drink.
מודה רבי אליעזר ורבי יהושע שאם יכול להציל ממנה רביעית בטהרה יציל ואם לאו רבי אליעזר אומר תרד ותטמא ואל יטמאנה ביד רבי יהושע אומר אף יטמאנה ביד
In that case, Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua concede that if one is able to rescue even a quarter-log from the barrel that broke by receiving the teruma wine in a vessel before it becomes impure, and thereby keep the wine in a state of ritual purity, he should rescue it. And if one cannot receive the wine in a pure vessel, as only impure vessels are available, such that if he uses them to receive the wine or to seal the upper press he will render the teruma impure, Rabbi Eliezer says: The teruma wine should be allowed to descend and become impure on its own, but one should not actively render it impure with his hand. Rabbi Yehoshua says: One may even render it impure with his hand. Since it will become impure on its own regardless of his actions, there is no objection to rendering the teruma impure preemptively in order to prevent greater financial loss. Apparently, according to Rabbi Yehoshua, it is permitted to render an item impure if it will be lost in any case.
אי הכי האי מדבריהם מדבריו מיבעי ליה
The Gemara raises a difficulty: If so, that Rabbi Meir is referring to the above dispute, this expression: From their statements, is imprecise, as his ruling is not based on Rabbi Eliezer’s opinion at all. Instead, Rabbi Meir should have said: From his statement, as he learns his ruling solely from the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua.
הכי קאמר ממחלוקתן של רבי אליעזר ורבי יהושע למדנו דיקא נמי דקתני מודה רבי אליעזר ורבי יהושע שמע מינה
The Gemara answers that this is what Rabbi Meir is saying: We learned this ruling from the dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua. Since the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, this is a substantive source. The Gemara comments: The language of the mishna is also precise, as the continuation of the mishna teaches: Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua concede. This indicates that Rabbi Meir is referring to their opinions. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, learn from it that this is the correct interpretation of Rabbi Meir’s statement.
וכן אמר רב נחמן אמר רבה בר אבוה מתניתין באב הטומאה דאורייתא וולד הטומאה דאורייתא ומאי מדבריהם מדברי רבי אליעזר ורבי יהושע
And likewise, Rav Naḥman said that Rabba bar Avuh said: The case in the mishna is one involving a primary source of ritual impurity by Torah law and a secondary source of impurity by Torah law. And what is the meaning of the phrase: From their statements? It means from the statements of Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua in the dispute cited above.
איתיביה רבא לרב נחמן אמר רבי יוסי אין הנדון דומה לראיה שכשהעידו רבותינו על מה העידו אם על הבשר שנטמא בוולד הטומאה ששורפין אותו עם הבשר שנטמא באב הטומאה זה טמא וזה טמא
Rava raised an objection to the opinion of Rav Naḥman from the Tosefta that elaborates on the mishna. Rabbi Yosei said to Rabbi Meir: The inferred conclusion of burning pure and impure leaven together is not similar to the case from which you cited proof. When the Sages testified, about what did they testify? If your source is the testimony of Rabbi Ḥanina, the deputy High Priest, he testified about the meat that became ritually impure through contact with a secondary source of impurity, saying that one may burn it together with the meat that became impure through contact with a primary source of impurity. In that case, this meat is impure and that meat is similarly impure.
אם על השמן שנפסל בטבול יום שמדליקין אותו בנר שנטמא בטמא מת זה פסול וזה טמא אף אנו מודים בתרומה שנטמאת בוולד הטומאה ששורפין אותה עם התרומה שנטמאת באב הטומאה
If your source is the testimony of Rabbi Akiva, he testified about teruma oil that was ritually disqualified by coming into contact with one who immersed himself during that day, saying that one may kindle it in a lamp that became ritually impure with first-degree impurity through contact with one who became ritually impure with impurity imparted by a corpse. That is a case where this oil is disqualified and that lamp is impure. We also concede with regard to teruma that became impure through contact with a secondary source of impurity that one may burn it with teruma that became impure through contact with a primary source of impurity.
אבל היאך נשרף התלויה עם הטמאה שמא יבא אליהו ויטהרנה
However, how will we burn teruma in abeyance, whose impurity status is uncertain, together with ritually impure teruma? Perhaps Elijah the Prophet will come and establish prophetically that the teruma is not ritually impure, and he will render it ritually pure. The legal status of teruma in abeyance is uncertain. How can one actively render it impure when it might ultimately be determined that it is pure?