do not render it impure; in other words, they do not render the teruma capable of transmitting impurity to other items? Rabba bar bar Ḥana said: It is the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua. As we learned in a mishna: Rabbi Eliezer says: One who eats food with first degree ritual impurity status assumes first degree ritual impurity status, and anything with first degree ritual impurity status renders teruma impure. And one who eats food with second degree ritual impurity status assumes second degree ritual impurity status. One who eats food with third degree ritual impurity status assumes third degree ritual impurity status. Rabbi Yehoshua says: One who eats food with first degree ritual impurity status and one who eats food with second degree ritual impurity status assume second degree ritual impurity status. One with second degree ritual impurity status who comes into contact with teruma disqualifies it and does not render it impure. One who eats food with third degree ritual impurity status assumes second degree ritual impurity status vis-à-vis consecrated items, and he does not assume second degree ritual impurity status vis-à-vis teruma. Eating an item with third degree ritual impurity status is only feasible in the case of non-sacred items, as eating impure teruma is prohibited. It is only possible in the case of non-sacred food items that were prepared as if their level of purity were on the level of the purity of teruma.

With regard to the decree itself, the Gemara asks: One who eats food with first degree ritual impurity status and one who eats food with second degree ritual impurity status; what is the reason the Sages decreed impurity upon him, rendering him impure? The Gemara answers: Because at times one eats impure food, and takes liquids of teruma, and casts them into his mouth and disqualifies the liquids, as the impure food comes into contact with the liquid in his mouth and disqualifies it. To prevent this, the Sages decreed that one who eats impure food becomes impure and must refrain from touching teruma at all.

Similarly, the Gemara asks: One who drinks impure liquids; what is the reason the Sages decreed impurity upon him? The Gemara answers: Because at times one drinks impure liquids, and takes teruma foods, and casts them in his mouth, and disqualifies them. The Gemara asks: This decree is the same as that decree as they were issued for one reason. Why did the mishna list them separately and consider them two different decrees? The Gemara answers: Lest you say that this, people who eat impure food, is common; as it is common for one eating to drink. Consequently, one who eats impure food is likely to drink teruma liquid. And, however, that, one drinking impure liquids who would put food in his mouth while drinking is uncommon. As a result, it is conceivable to say that the Sages did not issue a decree in an uncommon case. Therefore, the mishna teaches us that even in that instance the Sages decreed impurity.

Among the eighteen decrees that the Sages issued on that day, we also learned: And one whose head and most of his body come into drawn water is impure by rabbinic decree. The Gemara asks: What is the reason the Sages decreed impurity upon him? Rav Beivai said that Rav Asi said: The reason for this is that originally they would immerse to become purified in cave water that was collected, still, and foul. Although this water purified them, due to its stench, the people immersing themselves would pour on themselves drawn water in order to clean themselves. Once they began this custom and transformed it into an established part of the ritual, the Sages issued a decree on the drawn water, rendering it impure, to prevent them from washing with it after immersion.

The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of this, that they transformed it into an established part of the ritual? Abaye said that they would say: The cave water is not what purifies; rather this, the cave water, and that, the drawn water, together purify. Rava said to him: What difference does it make if they say that? Ultimately, aren’t they immersing in the cave water? As long as they immersed themselves properly, it matters not if they misunderstand the reason. Rather, Rava said: The problem is that eventually they would say: This, the cave water, is not what purifies; rather, that, the drawn water, purifies. Therefore, the Sages issued a decree prohibiting the use of drawn water after purification.

And the Sages decreed impurity upon a ritually pure person that three log of drawn water fell on his head and most of his body. The Gemara explains: What is the reason that the Sages decreed impurity upon him? The reason for the decree is that if it were not for this decree that a ritually pure person, who does not require immersion, becomes impure when drawn water falls on him, then that, the first decree, would not stand. People would not distinguish between a person who was pure from the start and one who was just purified upon emerging from immersion.

The Gemara explains the next case in the mishna: And a Torah scroll; what is the reason the Sages decreed impurity upon it? Rav Mesharshiya said: Since at first, ignorant priests would conceal teruma foods alongside the Torah scroll, and they said in explaining that method of storage: This is sacred and that is sacred, and it is appropriate that they be stored together. Since the Sages saw that they were coming to ruin, as the mice who were attracted to the teruma foods would also gnaw at the Torah scrolls, the Sages decreed impurity upon it. Once they issued the decree of impurity on the Torah scroll, the priests no longer placed teruma near it.

The Gemara explains the next case in the mishna: And the hands; the reason that the Sages decreed impurity upon them is because hands are busy. A person’s hands tend to touch dirty or impure objects. Since one does not always pay attention to what his hands touch, and it is inappropriate for holy food to be touched by dirty hands, the Sages decreed impurity. It was taught in a baraita: Even hands that come to be impure due to contact with a Torah scroll disqualify the teruma. The reason for this decree is because of the statement of Rabbi Parnakh, as Rabbi Parnakh said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: One who holds a Torah scroll in a manner that the scroll is exposed without a covering; his punishment is that he is buried naked. The Gemara wonders: Does it enter your mind to say that he will actually be buried naked? Why should he suffer such ignominy for this sin? Rather, Rabbi Zeira said: He is buried naked, i.e., without mitzvot. And the Gemara wonders further: Does it enter your mind to say that he should be buried naked in the sense of without mitzvot? Will he be stripped of all his merit due to that sin? Rather, say he is buried naked, i.e., without that mitzva. If he touches an uncovered Torah scroll, even for the purpose of performing a mitzva, he is not credited with that mitzva because he performed it inappropriately.

The Gemara asks: Which of these decrees did the Sages issue first? If you say that they issued this decree, impurity of hands in general, first,