(Mishnah): If a doubtful Tumah arose in a barrel of Terumah - R. Eliezer says that if it had been in an ownerless place, it should now be put in a hidden place (to prevent it from contracting any further Tumah). If it had been uncovered, it should now be covered.

(R. Yehoshua): If it had been resting in a hidden place, it should be placed in an ownerless place. If it had been covered, it should be uncovered.

(Rabban Gamliel): Nothing should be changed.

If a barrel of Terumah broke into the upper level of a winepress and the lower level was Tamei, R. Eliezer and R. Yehoshua agree that if he can save at least a Revi'is of it from becoming Tamei, he should save it. If not, R. Eliezer says that he should leave it to become Tamei rather than actively cause it Tumah.

Similarly, if the oil of a barrel was leaking out, R. Eliezer and R. Yehoshua agree that if he can save at least a Revi'is of it from becoming Tamei, he should save it. If not, R. Eliezer says that he should leave it to flow down and become collected (in the vessel which has doubtful Tumah); but he shouldn't actively make it Tamei.

(R. Yehoshua): These are not cases of Terumah that a person is warned to guard from Tumah, but rather from eating it. What is the case of Tumah?

If a person is travelling from place to place carrying Terumah loaves and a gentile told him, "Give me one load and I will make it Tamei and if not, I will make all of the loaves Tamei'' - R. Eliezer says that he should allow the gentile to make all of them Tamei rather than put forward one of them. R. Yehoshua says that he should place that loaf on a rock in front of him.

And similarly for women - if gentiles said, "Give us one of you and we will violate her and if not, we will violate all of you''; they should allow them all to be violated rather than actively give over one single Jew.

(Gemara) (R. Yosi b'R. Bun): The opinion of all three of them shows that one may not burn Terumah Teluyah (Terumah that is doubtfully Tamei).

(Chevraya citing R. Elazar): (The Mishnah taught about a Terumah barrel, that R. Yehoshua said that if it had been resting in a hidden place, it should be placed in an ownerless place. The Mishnah later taught that R. Yehoshua said - "These are not cases of Terumah that a person is warned to guard from Tumah, but rather from eating it. What is the case of Tumah?...'' There is a Mishnah in Maseches Pesachim that teaches - R. Meir says that we learn from their words that one may burn Tahor Chametz with Tamei Terumah before Pesach, even though they will touch when they are burned and the Tamei will cause Tumah to the Tahor, it is permitted. R. Yosi prohibits actively making Terumah Tamei.) The first barrel of our Mishnah follows R. Yosi and the second barrel follows R. Meir.

(Chevraya): The first barrel follows R. Yosi, but R. Meir does not agree. The second barrel follows R. Meir, but R. Yosi does not agree.

Question (R. Yosi to them): Let's see if your suggestion is correct - according to you, the case of the first barrel is like R. Yosi, but according to R. Meir, R. Yehoshua permits burning. R. Shimon also has this opinion. If so, R. Meir and R. Shimon's opinion outweigh R. Yosi and they should be burned. So when a case came before the Rabbanan, why did they rule that its status is hanging (and may not be burned)?

Question: And where do we find that R. Shimon says that they should be burned?

Answer (Mishnah in Maseches Pesachim): R. Eliezer and R. Yehoshua agree that each is burned separately.

(R. Yochanan): R. Shimon taught that statement.

Question: How could you say that according to R. Meir, it is permitted to burn Teluyah? A Baraisa there teaches that according to R. Meir, when Erev Pesach occurs of Shabbos, one may burn Teluyah together with certainly Tamei Terumah just before Shabbos. The Chachamim disagree, requiring the Chametz to be crumbled or thrown into the wind at the correct time (i.e. Shabbos morning). Why not burn it on Erev Shabbos in the morning? (It must be that since it is only doubtfully Tamei, he must wait until the last possible moment to burn it!)

Answer (R. Zeira to R. Mana): It's a case of Terumah where the owner is going to consult a Chacham about it (and he might rule that it is Tahor).

(R. Mana to R. Zeira): Our teacher R. Yosi said, "R. Meir permits burning Teluyah when he doesn't intend to consult a Chacham (since it is considered to be certainly Tamei), but if he intends to consult a Chacham, it is (potentially) Tahor (and he may not burn it).''

Support (Tosefta): Teluyah about which the owner was doubtful whether it had become Tamei, it is viewed as Tamei. If he said, "I will consult a Chacham about it'', it is Tahor. (This is like the ruling of R. Yosi.)

(R. Yosi b'R. Bun): (Disagreeing with R. Zeira - When R. Meir taught in the Baraisa that one burns the Chametz on Erev Pesach) it's when the doubt didn't occur until Erev Shabbos at the end of the day, so nothing can be proven from here.

Furthermore, you (Chevraya) said that the first barrel follows R. Yosi, but R. Meir does not agree. But a Baraisa taught - (According to R. Yehoshua,) when is it (permitted to receive Terumah in Tamei vessels)? When there aren't 100 parts of Tamei Chulin in the pit to annul Terumah (that falls and the mixture would become Meduma - so in order to save the Chulin, R. Yehoshua allowed the collection of the Terumah in Tamei vessels). But if there are 100 parts of Tamei Chulin, (so that if one part of Terumah falls, it would be annulled), one may not make Tamei even a small quantity of Terumah.

But according to R. Meir, since the Terumah is going to become Tamei either way, one may bring it to Tumah, even when there is no loss to Chulin? (This is a question against Chevraya.)

And furthermore, the Mishnah (in Maseches Pesachim) taught - (see above (j)) that R. Yosi disagrees and prohibits actively making Terumah Tamei (saying that the case of Erev Pesach is not the same as R. Yehoshua's case. This certainly shows that R. Yosi agrees to R. Yehoshua's permission to actively make Terumah Tamei. This is a question against Chevraya!)

What's the difference between the two cases? There (in our Mishnah), the Torah is concerned about the loss of Jews' property; here (on Erev Pesach), what can you say (where anyway nothing can be saved since all Chametz must be destroyed)?

Rebuttal: Here, (Chametz) does burning the Tahor and Tamei Terumah separately not financial loss? He requires extra wood in order to burn each one separately?!

Answer: They were only concerned for a large financial loss.

Answer (R. Yosi b'R. Bun): (Really R. Yosi reasons that according to R. Yehoshua, one may not actively make Terumah Tamei, even it is anyway going to be destroyed. In fact, he says that when the Mishnah said, "from their words we learn''), it was referring to the words of R. Akiva and R. Chanina Sgan HaKohanim there, (that is permitted to burn Rishon L'Tumah meat with Av HaTumah meat). But there's no proof from there (that R. Yosi understands that R. Yehoshua permits actively making Terumah Tamei).