חולין לג

חולין לג

מִי מִצְטָרֵף סִימָן רִאשׁוֹן לְסִימָן שֵׁנִי לְטַהֲרָהּ מִידֵי נְבֵלָה, אוֹ לָא?

The Gemara clarifies this dilemma: Does the first siman join together with the second siman to purify the animal from the impurity of an unslaughtered carcass or not? In both cases the dilemma is: Does the cutting of the first siman, which serves the dual purpose of being a component of permitting consumption and preventing impurity of the animal, join together with the cutting of the second siman, which serves only the purpose of preventing impurity, in order to constitute a single act of slaughter and thereby prevent the animal from assuming the impurity of an unslaughtered carcass? Or perhaps because the cutting of each siman is performed for a different purpose they do not join together?

עַד כָּאן לָא אִיבַּעְיָא לַן, אֶלָּא לְטַהֲרָהּ מִידֵי נְבֵלָה, אֲבָל בַּאֲכִילָה – אֲסוּרָה.

In any event, we raise the dilemma only in order to purify the foreleg from the impurity of an unslaughtered carcass. But with regard to eating the slaughtered animal, all agree that it is forbidden, as even Rabbi Zeira concedes that the animal is a tereifa and retracts his objection to the distinction that Rava proposed between the lungs and the innards.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַחָא בַּר רַב לְרָבִינָא: דִּלְמָא לְעוֹלָם לָא הֲדַר בֵּיהּ, וְרַבִּי זֵירָא לִדְבָרָיו דְּרָבָא קָאָמַר, וְלֵיהּ לָא סְבִירָא לֵיהּ.

Rav Aḥa bar Rav said to Ravina: Perhaps Rabbi Zeira actually did not retract his opinion, as even initially he held that there is no distinction between lungs and innards. If either is perforated after one siman was cut, the animal is a tereifa. And Rabbi Zeira stated his objection to the distinction of Rava in accordance with the statement of Rava, but he himself does not hold accordingly.

אָמַר רַב אַחָא בַּר יַעֲקֹב: שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ מִדְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ, מְזַמְּנִין יִשְׂרָאֵל עַל בְּנֵי מֵעַיִין, וְאֵין מְזַמְּנִין גּוֹי עַל בְּנֵי מֵעַיִין.

The Gemara continues its analysis of the statement of Reish Lakish, who said that after the windpipe is cut, the lung is considered as though it was placed in a basket, and if it is perforated before the slaughter is completed, the animal does not become a tereifa. Rav Aḥa bar Yaakov said: Learn from the statement of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish that one may invite Jews to eat the innards of an animal that was slaughtered, but one may not invite gentiles to eat the innards of an animal that was slaughtered, because they are forbidden to gentiles.

מַאי טַעְמָא? יִשְׂרָאֵל דְּבִשְׁחִיטָה תַּלְיָא מִילְּתָא, כֵּיוָן דְּאִיכָּא שְׁחִיטָה מְעַלַּיְיתָא – אִישְׁתְּרִי לְהוּ; גּוֹיִם דְּבִנְחִירָה סַגִּי לְהוּ וּבְמִיתָה תַּלְיָא מִילְּתָא, הָנֵי – כְּאֵבֶר מִן הַחַי דָּמוּ.

What is the reason? For Jews the matter of rendering the meat of the animal fit for consumption is dependent upon the performance of a valid act of slaughter. Once there is full-fledged slaughter and both simanim are cut, the innards are permitted to them even if the animal is convulsing. But with regard to gentiles, for whom stabbing is sufficient and slaughter is not required, the innards are permitted only after the animal is completely dead, since the matter of rendering the meat of the animal fit for consumption is dependent upon its death. Therefore, if the animal is still convulsing, these innards, which are considered to be outside the body after the cutting of the two simanim, are considered like a limb from a living animal and it is forbidden for gentiles to eat them.

אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: הֲוָה יָתֵיבְנָא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב אַחָא בַּר יַעֲקֹב, וּבְעַי דְּאֵימָא לֵיהּ, מִי אִיכָּא מִידֵּי דִּלְיִשְׂרָאֵל שְׁרֵי וּלְגוֹיִם אָסוּר? וְלָא אֲמַרִי לֵיהּ, דְּאָמֵינָא: הָא טַעְמָא קָאָמַר.

Rav Pappa said: I was sitting before Rav Aḥa bar Yaakov and I sought to say to him that his statement is difficult: Is there anything that is permitted for a Jew but prohibited for a gentile? But I did not say that to him, as I said to myself: Didn’t he say a reason for his ruling? Therefore, there is no reason to ask the question.

תַּנְיָא דְּלָא כְּרַב אַחָא בַּר יַעֲקֹב: הָרוֹצֶה לֶאֱכוֹל מִבְּהֵמָה קוֹדֶם שֶׁתֵּצֵא נַפְשָׁהּ – חוֹתֵךְ כְּזַיִת בָּשָׂר מִבֵּית הַשְּׁחִיטָה, וּמוֹלְחוֹ יָפֶה יָפֶה, וּמְדִיחוֹ יָפֶה יָפֶה, וּמַמְתִּין לָהּ עַד שֶׁתֵּצֵא נַפְשָׁהּ, וְאוֹכְלוֹ, אֶחָד גּוֹי וְאֶחָד יִשְׂרָאֵל מוּתָּרִין בּוֹ.

The Gemara notes: It is taught in a baraita not in accordance with the opinion of Rav Aḥa bar Yaakov: One who seeks to eat from the meat of an animal before its soul departs may cut an olive-bulk of meat from the area of the slaughter, the neck, and salt it very well, i.e., more than is normally required, and rinse it very well in water to remove the salt and the blood, and wait until the animal’s soul departs, and eat it. It is permitted for both a gentile and a Jew to eat it. Contrary to the statement of Rav Aḥa bar Yaakov, there is no distinction between Jew and gentile.

מְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ לְרַב אִידִי בַּר אָבִין, דְּאָמַר רַב אִידִי בַּר אָבִין אָמַר רַב יִצְחָק בַּר אַשְׁיָאן: הָרוֹצֶה שֶׁיַּבְרִיא, חוֹתֵךְ כְּזַיִת בָּשָׂר מִבֵּית שְׁחִיטָתָהּ שֶׁל בְּהֵמָה, וּמוֹלְחוֹ יָפֶה יָפֶה, וּמְדִיחוֹ יָפֶה יָפֶה, וּמַמְתִּין לָהּ עַד שֶׁתֵּצֵא נַפְשָׁהּ, אֶחָד גּוֹי וְאֶחָד יִשְׂרָאֵל מוּתָּרִין בּוֹ.

This baraita supports the statement of Rav Idi bar Avin, as Rav Idi bar Avin says that Rav Yitzḥak bar Ashyan says: One who seeks to recuperate from an illness should cut an olive-bulk of meat from the area of slaughter, i.e., the neck, of an animal, and salt it very well, and rinse it very well, and wait until the animal’s soul departs, and eat it. It is permitted for both a gentile and a Jew to eat it.

מַתְנִי׳ הַשּׁוֹחֵט בְּהֵמָה חַיָּה וָעוֹף וְלֹא יָצָא מֵהֶן דָּם – כְּשֵׁרִים, וְנֶאֱכָלִין בְּיָדַיִם מְסוֹאָבוֹת, לְפִי שֶׁלֹּא הוּכְשְׁרוּ בַּדָּם. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: הוּכְשְׁרוּ בַּשְּׁחִיטָה.

MISHNA: In the case of one who slaughters a domesticated animal, an undomesticated animal, or a bird, and blood did not emerge from them during the slaughter, all of these are permitted for consumption and do not require the ritual washing of the hands as they may be eaten with ritually impure [mesoavot] hands, because they were not rendered susceptible to ritual impurity through contact with blood, which is one of the seven liquids that render food susceptible to impurity. Rabbi Shimon says: They were rendered susceptible to ritual impurity by means of the slaughter itself.

גְּמָ׳ טַעְמָא דְּלֹא יָצָא מֵהֶן דָּם, הָא יָצָא מֵהֶן דָּם – אֵין נֶאֱכָלִים בְּיָדַיִם מְסוֹאָבוֹת. אַמַּאי? יָדַיִם שְׁנִיּוֹת הֵן, וְאֵין שֵׁנִי עוֹשֶׂה שְׁלִישִׁי בְּחוּלִּין!

GEMARA: The reason that they may be eaten with ritually impure hands is that blood did not emerge from the animals or birds during the slaughter; but if blood emerged from them during slaughter, they may not be eaten with ritually impure hands. The Gemara asks: Why not? Ordinary hands are impure with second-degree ritual impurity and an item of second-degree impurity cannot impart third-degree impurity to non-sacred items with which it comes into contact.

וּמִמַּאי דִּבְחוּלִּין עָסְקִינַן? דְּקָתָנֵי חַיָּה, דְּאִילּוּ קָדָשִׁים – חַיָּה בְּקָדָשִׁים מִי אִיכָּא? וְתוּ, אִי בְּקָדָשִׁים, כִּי לֹא יָצָא מֵהֶן דָּם – כְּשֵׁרָה? הוּא עַצְמוֹ לַדָּם הוּא צָרִיךְ!

The Gemara clarifies: From where is it ascertained that we are dealing in the mishna with non-sacred food, and not with the slaughter of an offering? That is clear, as the tanna teaches in the list of those slaughtered: An undomesticated animal. As, if the tanna is referring to the slaughter of sacrificial animals and birds, is there any undomesticated animal included in the framework of sacrificial animals? And furthermore, if the tanna is referring to sacrificial animals, when no blood emerges from them are the offerings valid? The offering itself requires blood, as it is only through the presenting of the blood upon the altar that the offering is accepted.

וְתוּ, אִי בְּקָדָשִׁים, כִּי יָצָא מֵהֶן דָּם מִי מַכְשִׁיר? וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מִנַּיִן לְדַם קָדָשִׁים שֶׁאֵינוֹ מַכְשִׁיר? שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״עַל הָאָרֶץ תִּשְׁפְּכֶנּוּ כַּמָּיִם״, דָּם שֶׁנִּשְׁפָּךְ כַּמַּיִם מַכְשִׁיר, שֶׁאֵינוֹ נִשְׁפָּךְ כַּמַּיִם אֵינוֹ מַכְשִׁיר!

And furthermore, if the tanna is referring to sacrificial animals, when blood emerges from them, does it render them susceptible to ritual impurity? But doesn’t Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba say that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: From where is it derived that the blood of sacrificial animals does not render food susceptible to ritual impurity? It is derived from a verse, as it is stated: “You shall not eat it; you shall pour it upon the earth like water” (Deuteronomy 12:24). Blood of a non-sacred animal, which is poured like water when it is slaughtered, renders food susceptible to ritual impurity. By contrast, blood of a sacrificial animal, which is not poured like water but is presented on the altar, does not render food susceptible to ritual impurity.

וְתוּ, אִי בְּקָדָשִׁים, כִּי לֹא יָצָא מֵהֶם דָּם לָא מִתַּכְשְׁרִי, (לִיתַּכְשְׁרִי) [לִיתַּכְשְׁרוּ] בְּחִיבַּת הַקֹּדֶשׁ! דְּקַיְימָא לַן חִיבַּת הַקֹּדֶשׁ מַכְשַׁרְתָּן.

And furthermore, if the tanna is referring to sacrificial animals, when blood does not emerge from them are they not nevertheless rendered susceptible to ritual impurity? Let them be rendered susceptible to ritual impurity by means of regard for sanctity, as we maintain that regard for sanctity renders food suceptible to ritual impurity even in the absence of contact with any of the seven liquids.

אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ: הָכָא בְּחוּלִּין שֶׁלְּקָחָן בְּכֶסֶף מַעֲשֵׂר עָסְקִינַן, וּדְלָא כְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר, דִּתְנַן:

Rav Naḥman said that Rabba bar Avuh said: Here we are dealing with non-sacred food that one purchased in Jerusalem with second-tithe money, which assumes the status of the second-tithe produce. This produce, in turn, assumes third-degree impurity through contact with hands that have second-degree impurity. And this mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, as we learned in a mishna (Para 11:5):

כׇּל הַטָּעוּן בִּיאַת מַיִם מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים מְטַמֵּא אֶת הַקֹּדֶשׁ, וּפוֹסֵל אֶת הַתְּרוּמָה, וּמוּתָּר בַּחוּלִּין וּבַמַּעֲשֵׂר, 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 בַּמַּעֲשֵׂר.

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.

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב שִׁימִי בַּר אָשֵׁי: מִמַּאי? דִּלְמָא עַד כָּאן לָא פְּלִיגִי רַבָּנַן עֲלֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר, אֶלָּא בַּאֲכִילַת מַעֲשֵׂר, אֲבָל בִּנְגִיעָה דְּמַעֲשֵׂר וַאֲכִילָה דְחוּלִּין – 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 אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: הָכָא בְּיָדַיִם תְּחִלּוֹת עָסְקִינַן, וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר הִיא, דְּתַנְיָא: אֵין יָדַיִם תְּחִלּוֹת לַחוּלִּין, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי מֵאִיר: יָדַיִם תְּחִלּוֹת לַחוּלִּין, וּשְׁנִיּוֹת לַתְּרוּמָה.

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 לֹא 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 שַׁוִּינְהוּ רַבָּנַן, וּמָר סָבַר: יָדַיִם – כְּיָדַיִם דְּעָלְמָא שַׁוִּינְהוּ 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.

וְלוֹקְמַהּ 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.

וְלִיהֶוְיָין נָמֵי 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 בְּיוֹם דָּרַשׁ רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא: ״וְכׇל כְּלִי חֶרֶשׂ וְגוֹ׳ 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 דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא, 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.

אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אָמַר רַבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָא: הָכָא בְּחוּלִּין שֶׁנַּעֲשׂוּ עַל טׇהֳרַת 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 assumes 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 לַקֹּדֶשׁ, וְאֵין שֵׁנִי לַתְּרוּמָה.

The mishna continues: Rabbi Yehoshua says: One who eats food with first-degree or second-degree impurity assumes 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, i.e., his contact with sacrificial food renders it impure with the capacity to transmit impurity to other 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 טׇהֳרַת 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 טׇהֳרַת תְּרוּמָה – אִין, עַל טׇהֳרַת הַקֹּדֶשׁ – לָא, קָסָבַר: חוּלִּין שֶׁנַּעֲשׂוּ עַל טׇהֳרַת 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.

וְלוֹקְמַהּ

The Gemara objects: Let us interpret the mishna