and the strap of his sandal, which had been rendered ritually impure by being trodden by a zav, broke off, and he picked up the strap and placed it on top of the mouth of the barrel, and it fell into the airspace of the barrel, thereby rendering the entire barrel impure. At that time the Sages said and issued a permanent decree that one who carries an object that is impure by having been trodden by a zav may carry teruma at the same time, but not sacrificial food.

The Gemara asks: If so, if they prohibited doing so due to that incident, they should have made the same decree with regard to teruma also, because if the same incident would occur with teruma it would defile the teruma as well. The Gemara answers: In accordance with whose opinion is this stated? It is that of Rabbi Ḥananya ben Akavya, who said concerning a similar issue: They prohibited it only in the Jordan River, and only in a boat, in a situation similar to the incident that occurred, which triggered the enactment. In his opinion, whenever the Sages enacted a decree prohibiting something due to a particular incident, they did not extend the prohibition to related cases, but only to the same set of circumstances that pertained to that specific incident.

The Gemara presents the background to Rabbi Ḥananya ben Akavya’s statement: What is that enactment that Rabbi Ḥananya ben Akavya was referring to? As it is taught in a baraita: A person may not carry the water of purification and the ashes of purification and transport them across the Jordan River, and this is if he is on a boat. Nor may he stand on one side of the river and throw them to the other side. Nor may he float them across the river. Nor may he ford the river riding on an animal or on his friend and carrying the water or ashes of purification, unless his feet are touching the ground as he fords the river. But he may transfer them across the river over a bridge without concern about transferring them improperly. This decree applies both to the Jordan and to other rivers. Rabbi Ḥananya ben Akavya says: The Sages prohibited these acts only in the Jordan River, and only if he transports them in a boat, and in circumstances exactly like those of the incident that occurred.

The Gemara inquires: What was the incident that occurred? Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: There was once an incident involving a person who was transferring water of purification and ashes of purification in the Jordan, and he was on a boat, and an olive-bulk from a corpse was discovered stuck in the floor of the boat, over which the water of purification had passed, thereby rendering them impure and invalid. At that time the Sages said: A person may not carry water of purification and ashes of purification and transport them across the Jordan, and this is if he is on a boat. Just as in that case, Rabbi Ḥananya ben Akavya stated that the decree was limited to the specific circumstances of the original incident, here too, he would say that since the original incident involved sacrificial food and not teruma the Sages did not apply the decree to teruma.

Several dilemmas were raised before the scholars: It is clear that this halakha, like the incident itself, applies to an object that has actually contracted impurity by being trodden by a zav, such as an impure sandal. But if it is a pure sandal, what is the halakha? Is the decree so far-reaching as to include a prohibition against carrying even a pure sandal together with sacrificial food? Similarly, the halakha certainly applies to an open barrel, where there is a danger that the sandal may enter the airspace of the barrel, as in the original incident, but if it was a closed barrel, where there is no such danger, what is the halakha? Does the decree apply in this case as well? Another question: If someone transgressed this decree and carried an impure sandal together with sacrificial food, what is the halakha? Did the Sages decree that the sacrificial food would become defiled because their decree was transgressed or not?

The Gemara presents a conclusion for the last dilemma. Rabbi Ila said: If one transgressed and carried sacrificial food together with an impure sandal, it is indeed rendered impure. Rabbi Zeira said: If he transgressed and carried sacrificial food in this manner, it is still pure.

§ The mishna states: Vessels that were fashioned and completed in purity require immersion for sacrificial food but not for teruma. The Gemara asks: Who completed the work of these vessels? If we say that it was a ḥaver, an individual who is meticulous about the halakhot of ritual purity, who completed them, why should they require immersion, given that he is meticulous about the halakhot of purity?

Rather, it must mean that an am ha’aretz completed them. But can one call these vessels completed in purity? The very touch of an am ha’aretz renders them impure. Rabba bar Sheila said that Rav Mattana said that Shmuel said: Actually, the mishna is dealing with vessels that a ḥaver completed, and the Sages declared them impure for sacrificial food due to a concern that the spittle of an am ha’aretz might have fallen on them, which would render them impure if he were a zav.

The Gemara asks: When did this hypothetical spittle fall on the vessel? If we say it was before he completed the vessel, in that case it is not yet a vessel, and therefore cannot contract impurity at that stage at all. Rather, it must have sprayed onto the vessel after he completed it. But at that point, since he is a ḥaver, he is careful about it. He would ensure that no spittle would fall on it, so there is no danger that it might have become defiled. The Gemara responds: Actually, we must explain that the spittle fell before he completed it, when the ḥaver was not yet guarding it against impurity, and the Sages were concerned that perhaps at the moment when he completed the vessel the spittle was still moist, and thus still capable of defiling the finished vessel, for the continued presence of the spittle on the vessel might have escaped the attention of the ḥaver craftsman.

The Gemara comments: The mishna states that the vessel requires immersion, implying: Immersion, yes, but the setting of the sun after immersion, not, i.e., it is considered pure immediately after immersion, even though generally the purification engendered by immersion does not take effect until sunset.

The Gemara asks: If so, the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer. As we learned in a mishna (Para 5:4): Regarding a tube of reed, which one cut for storing ashes of purification, Rabbi Eliezer says: He should immerse it immediately; Rabbi Yehoshua says: He should first render it impure by touching it to an actual source of impurity and only after that immerse it. And we discussed the mishna’s case, asking: Who cut this tube? If we say a ḥaver cut it, why do I need immersion? The ḥaver prepared it with the strictest adherence to the halakhot of purity. Rather, it must be that an am ha’aretz cut it. But in that case, would Rabbi Yehoshua say that he should first render it impure and only then immerse it? Isn’t it already impure, due to the handling of the am ha’aretz?

And in response to this question, Rabba bar Sheila said that Rav Mattana said that Shmuel said: Actually, the case is that a ḥaver cut it, and the reason it requires immersion is because the Sages were concerned that the spittle of an am ha’aretz might have touched it. The Gemara asks: When did this hypothetical spittle fall on the tube? If we say it was before he cut the tube, in that case it is not yet a vessel and therefore cannot contract impurity at that stage. Rather, it must have sprayed onto the vessel after he completed it. But at that point, since he is a ḥaver, he is careful about it and would ensure that no spittle would fall on it, so there is no danger that it might have become impure. The Gemara responds: Actually we must explain that the spittle fell before he cut it, and the Sages were concerned that perhaps at the moment when he cut the tube the spittle was still moist, and thus still capable of rendering the finished tube impure.

The Gemara continues: Granted, according to Rabbi Yehoshua it is found that there is an act of recognition performed in opposition to the Sadducees, in order to demonstrate that the Sages do not take their opinions into account.

As we learned in a mishna (Para 3:7): They would render impure the priest who burns the red heifer, in order to counter the opinion of the Sadducees, who used to say: The ritual of the red heifer was to be performed by those who had experienced sunset after their immersion. The Sadducee opinion was that all those involved in the preparation of the red heifer must be completely pure, having undergone immersion as well as having waited until after sunset, when the purification takes full effect. The Sages, however, maintain that the red heifer may be prepared by people immediately after immersion, without waiting for sunset. In order to clearly demonstrate their rejection of the Sadducee opinion they would deliberately defile the people involved with preparing the red heifer and then immerse them. It is for this reason as well that Rabbi Yehoshua ruled that the tube must be rendered impure before it is immersed.

But according to Rabbi Eliezer, granted, if you say that generally, the setting of the sun is required after a vessel is completed, it is found that there is some act of recognition in opposition to the Sadducees, as according to him, the tube used for the red heifer ashes, which should normally have required the setting of the sun, is used without waiting for sunset. But if you say that generally the setting of the sun is not required to remove the impurity caused by the touch of an am ha’aretz, and immersion alone is sufficient, what act of recognition in opposition to the Sadducees is there here? It must be, therefore, that Rabbi Eliezer requires the setting of the sun for purification from the impurity imparted by an am ha’aretz. Therefore, the mishna, which implies that immersion alone is sufficient, does not accord with Rabbi Eliezer’s opinion.

Rav said: Indeed, Rabbi Eliezer does not require the setting of the sun for vessels that have been completed in purity, but there is nevertheless a demonstrative sign that the opinion of the Sadducees is rejected,