כל שפסולו בגופו ישרף מיד בדם ובבעלים תעובר צורתן ויוצאין לבית השריפה אמר ליה האי תנא תנא דבי רבה בר אבוה הוא דאמר אפילו פיגול טעון עיבור צורה
Any offering that has a disqualification in the body of the animal, i.e., it has a definite disqualification with regard to the meat itself, should be burned immediately. If it is has a disqualification in the blood of the animal, e.g., if the blood was spilled, or a disqualification of its owner, e.g., if the owner became impure, then it should be left until its form is decayed and taken out to the place designated for burning. Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said to him: This tanna, Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka, is of the same opinion as the tanna who taught in the school of Rabba bar Avuh, who said: Even piggul, an offering that was invalidated due to inappropriate intent while being offered, requires decay of form. Even with regard to an inherent disqualification in the meat of the offering, where the Torah says explicitly that the offering should be burned, as is the case with regard to piggul, the animal should be set aside until the next day, when its form has decayed.
איתיביה נטמא או שנפסל הבשר או שיצא חוץ לקלעים רבי אליעזר אומר יזרוק רבי יהושע אומר לא יזרוק ומודה רבי יהושע שאם זרק הורצה
Rabbi Yoḥanan raised a further objection to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish based on another baraita, where it is taught: If the meat became impure or disqualified, or if it was taken out of the walls that delineate its permitted area, Rabbi Eliezer says: He sprinkles the blood of these offerings nonetheless, as in his opinion the blood may be sprinkled regardless of the status of the meat of the offering. Rabbi Yehoshua says: He does not sprinkle the blood unless the meat is fit to be brought as an offering. And Rabbi Yehoshua concedes that if the blood was sprinkled, the offering is accepted.
מאי נפסל לאו בהיסח הדעת אי אמרת בשלמא פסולי טומאה הוי היינו דמשכחת לה דמרצי ציץ אלא אי אמרת פסול הגוף הוי אמאי הורצה (ציץ)
The Gemara clarifies: To what type of disqualification is the baraita referring? Is it not disqualification on account of a diversion of attention? It cannot be a case where it was disqualified due to impurity or being taken outside of the walls, since these are mentioned explicitly. Granted, if you say that a diversion of attention is a disqualification based on a concern about ritual impurity, this is how you can find a case that the offering is accepted because the frontplate atones for cases where there is a disqualification related to ritual impurity. But if you say that it is an inherent disqualification, why is the offering accepted according to Rabbi Yehoshua, given that it is a disqualified offering?
מאי נפסל נפסל בטבול יום אי הכי היינו טמא תרי גווני טמא
Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish rejects this interpretation of the baraita: No, this is not a case where the offering was disqualified due to a diversion of attention. In what way was the offering disqualified? It was disqualified due to contact with one who immersed himself during the day. One who immersed himself during the day invalidates items due to ritual impurity. Although these items themselves are invalidated, they cannot in turn render other items ritually impure. The Gemara asks: If that is so, this is the same as the disqualification of ritual impurity. What, then, is the difference between this disqualification and that of ritual impurity previously mentioned by the baraita? The Gemara answers that two types of ritual impurity are mentioned here: One type of impurity can also impart impurity to other objects, and a second type can invalidate another object but will not impart impurity.
כי סליק רבין אמרה לשמעתיה קמיה דרבי ירמיה ואמר בבלאי טפשאי משום דיתבי בארעא דחשוכא אמריתון שמעתתא דמחשכו לא שמיע לכו הא דרבי שמעון בן לקיש משמיה דרבי אושעיא
When Ravin ascended to Eretz Yisrael, he stated this halakha of Rav Sheshet before Rabbi Yirmeya. And Rabbi Yirmeya said: Foolish Babylonians! Because you dwell in a dark land, you state halakhot that are dim. Have you not heard this statement of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish in the name of Rabbi Oshaya?
מי החג שנטמאו השיקן ואחר כך הקדישן טהורין הקדישן ואחר כך השיקן טמאים
Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said in the name of Rabbi Oshaya: With regard to the water used for the water libation during the festival of Sukkot which was drawn over the course of the day in order to be poured the next day and consequently became impure, the following distinction applies: If it was brought into contact with a ritual bath of pure water and was then consecrated, it is ritually pure. However, if it was consecrated and was then brought into contact with the ritual bath, it is ritually impure.
מכדי זריעה נינהו מה לי השיקן ואחר כך הקדישן מה לי הקדישן ואחר כך השיקן אלמא אין זריעה להקדש הכא נמי אין זריעה לתרומה
The question arises: Since this type of purification is similar to planting, as when the impure water came in contact with the water of the ritual bath, it is considered as though the water was planted in the ground and thereby purified, what does it matter if it was brought into contact and then consecrated or consecrated and then brought into contact? Apparently planting is not effective with regard to consecrated items, i.e., such items are not purified through this process. Therefore, here too, planting is not effective with regard to teruma. Despite the fact that planting is generally effective in removing the impure status of the water, the Sages imposed higher standards with regard to consecrated items. Similarly, the Sages imposed higher standards for removing the teruma status of the plants. One can explain that the produce grown from teruma mentioned in the baraita remains prohibited for non-priests because it is still considered teruma.
יתיב רב דימי וקאמר לה להא שמעתא אמר ליה אביי הקדישן בכלי קאמר אבל בפה לא עבוד רבנן מעלה או דילמא בפה נמי עבוד רבנן מעלה
Rav Dimi sat and said this halakha that was stated by Rav Oshaya with regard to principle of bringing liquid into contact with a ritual bath. Abaye said to him: Did Rav Oshaya state his ruling that bringing a liquid into contact with a ritual bath is not effective for consecrated items with regard to a case where he consecrated the water by placing it in a sacred vessel, but if he consecrated it through speech then the Sages did not impose a higher standard, in which case the water can be purified by being brought into contact with a ritual bath? Or perhaps the Sages imposed a higher standard in a case where one consecrates it through speech as well?
אמר ליה זו לא שמעתי כיוצא בה שמעתי דאמר רבי אבהו אמר רבי יוחנן ענבים שנטמאו דרכן ואחר כך הקדישן טהורים הקדישן ואחר כך דרכן טמאין והא ענבים דקדושת פה נינהו ואפילו הכי עבוד רבנן מעלה
Rav Dimi said to him: I did not hear the halakha with regard to this case; however, I heard the halakha with regard to a similar case. As Rabbi Abbahu said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: With regard to grapes that became ritually impure, if one trod on them and afterward consecrated them, they are pure. According to this opinion, the wine inside the grape does not become impure from the grape itself. However, if he consecrated the grapes and afterward pressed them, they are impure, because the halakha is especially stringent with regard consecrated items. And yet with regard to grapes which are only consecrated through speech, as the wine/grapes offered on the altar are not brought in a sacred vessel, even so, the Sages imposed a higher standard such that these grapes become impure after they have been consecrated.
אמר רב יוסף ענבים קאמרת הכא בענבים של תרומה עסקינן דקדושת פה דידהו כקדושת כלי דמיא אבל הני דבעי כלי בפה לא עבוד רבנן מעלה
Rav Yosef said: This case does not serve as a proof since you spoke of grapes, and here we are dealing with grapes of teruma, whose consecration through speech is comparable to consecration in a sacred vessel, as teruma cannot be consecrated by being placed in a sacred vessel. However, with regard to those items that require a sacred vessel in order to be fully consecrated, such as water used for a libation, the Sages did not impose a higher standard in a case where one consecrated it through speech. Therefore, this case cannot be used to resolve Abaye’s question.
דרכן ואפילו טובא ומי אמר רבי יוחנן הכי והאמר רבי יוחנן ענבים שנטמאו דורכן פחות פחות מכביצה
The Gemara asks about Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement with regard to wine pressed from impure grapes: The phrase if one tread upon them is stated without qualification, indicating that the wine is ritually pure even if he pressed many grapes at once. And did Rabbi Yoḥanan actually say this? Didn’t Rabbi Yoḥanan say: With regard to grapes that became ritually impure grapes, one should tread on them less than an egg-bulk at a time. When there is less than an egg-bulk of grapes, they do not impart ritual impurity.
איבעית אימא הכא נמי פחות פחות מכביצה ואיבעית אימא התם דנגעו להו בראשון דהוו להו אינהו שני הכא דנגעו בשני דהוו להו שלישי
The Gemara answers: If you wish, say this answer: Here, too, it is to be understood that one must tread on less than an egg-bulk at a time. And if you wish, say this answer instead: There, where the Gemara requires less than an egg-bulk, it is a case where the grapes came into contact with an item that was impure with first-degree ritual impurity, such that they became impure with second-degree ritual impurity. When a liquid touches an object that is impure with second-degree ritual impurity, it becomes impure by rabbinic decree with first-degree ritual impurity. Therefore, in that case one must be careful to tread only on less than an egg-bulk at a time. Here, it is speaking of a case where they came into contact with an item that was impure with second-degree ritual impurity, such that they became impure with third-degree ritual impurity. In that case, the liquid that comes out of the grapes would not become ritually impure at all.
אמר רבא אף אנן נמי תנינא ונתן עליו מים חיים אל כלי שתהא חיותן בכלי ונתן אלמא תלושין נינהו והא מחוברין נינהו
Rava said: We, too, have learned that the Sages created higher standards with regard to consecrated items. As it was taught that the verse says with regard to the red heifer: “And for the impure they shall take the ashes of the burning of the sin-offering, and he shall put flowing water into a vessel” (Numbers 19:17), which teaches that the flowing water from the spring should flow directly into the vessel in which it will be sanctified. On the other hand, the verse says “and he shall put,” meaning that the water should be poured into the vessel. Apparently the water is detached, but it is clearly attached to the spring, as it was previously stated that the water must flow directly into the vessel.