This is referring to boiled and repulsive wheat, i.e., wheat that one boiled and then placed in a repulsive area, in which case he need not be concerned that this wheat will accidentally be eaten; so too here, it is referring to boiled and repulsive wheat. The Gemara asks: Where was Rav Ashi’s explanation stated? It was stated with regard to this: As Rabbi Avin bar Rav Aḥa said that Rabbi Yitzḥak said: Abba Shaul was the dough kneader of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s house, and they would heat water for him, to make dough, with wheat of ritually impure teruma, which was purchased from priests at a low price, in order to knead dough in ritual purity. The Gemara asks: Why did they do this? Let us be concerned lest they encounter a stumbling block by accidentally eating this wheat. With regard to this Rav Ashi said that it was only done when the wheat was boiled and repulsive and could only be used for lighting a fire.

After mentioning ways in which impure teruma was used, the Gemara mentions other halakhot pertaining to this issue. Abaye bar Avin and Rav Ḥananya bar Avin taught the tractate of Terumot in the school of Rabba. Rava bar Mattana met them and said to them: What novel idea can you say has been taught with regard to Terumot in the school of our Master, Rabba? They said to him: What is difficult for you? There must be some issue troubling you that has caused you to ask this question. He said to them: The following statement that we learned in the mishna in Terumot is unclear: Saplings of teruma that became ritually impure and were planted are pure such that they do not impart ritual impurity once they have been planted, but they are prohibited to be eaten as teruma. The question arises: If they do not impart ritual impurity, why is it prohibited to eat them? If their impurity has been eliminated then it should be permitted to eat them, like other ritually pure teruma.

Abaye bar Avin and Rav Ḥananya bar Avin said to Rava bar Mattana: This is what Rabba said in explaining this mishna: What does it mean that they are prohibited to be eaten? It means that they are prohibited to be eaten by non-priests, but a priest may eat them. Once these saplings are planted, they lose their ritual impurity but retain their status as teruma. Rava bar Mattana challenged this answer: If this is the case, what is the mishna teaching us with this statement? Is it teaching us that growths of teruma are considered teruma? It is unnecessary to teach this principle, as we already learned: Growths of teruma, i.e., produce that grows from teruma that was planted in the ground, are considered teruma. Why, then, is it necessary to teach this principle again?

And if you say as follows: This case is referring to the growths of growths of teruma, i.e., plants that grew from the original growths of teruma, and what is it teaching us? It is teaching that an item whose seed does not disintegrate when planted in the ground maintains its teruma status. While most seeds will disintegrate, other plants, such as onions and garlic, merely continue growing when planted. In that case, this mishna would be informing us that even the growths of growths of such plants retain their teruma status. However, we already learned that as well. As the mishna states: With regard to untithed produce [tevel], its growths, the produce that grows from it, are permitted in the case of items whose seed disintegrates; however, in the case of items where the seed does not disintegrate, it is prohibited to eat even the growths of growths unless they are tithed. There would be no need for the mishna to teach us this halakha a second time. They were silent and did not have an answer to this question.

They said to Rava bar Mattana: Have you heard something in this regard? He said to them: This is what Rav Sheshet said: What is the meaning of the word prohibited in this context? It means that it is prohibited for priests, since it has been disqualified for them due to the diversion of attention. Teruma and other consecrated property must be guarded, and when one fails to do so, it is treated as though it were impure. Therefore, these teruma saplings are treated as though they have become impure once the priest diverts attention from them, and they remain prohibited to him even after another generation grows from them.

The Gemara asks: Granted, according to the one who says that a diversion of attention constitutes an inherent disqualification, it works out well. According to this opinion, a diversion of attention does not disqualify teruma due to a concern that it became impure. Instead, there is an independent rabbinic decree rendering teruma that has not been watched impure even when this teruma could not possibly have become impure. According to this opinion, one can understand why this growth may not be eaten by a priest. But according to the one who says that a diversion of attention is a disqualification due to a concern about ritual impurity, what is there to say? It is stated in the mishna that by planting these saplings they become pure, even if they were certainly ritually impure prior to being planted. If this is the case with regard to teruma that is certainly impure, all the more so should it apply to a case where there is only a chance that the teruma is ritually impure.

Apropos the discussion of diversion of attention, the Gemara cites a dispute between amora’im with regard to this issue, as it was stated: What is the nature of the disqualification of diversion of attention? Rabbi Yoḥanan said: It is a disqualification due to a concern about ritual impurity that may have been contracted while one’s attention was diverted. And Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: It is an inherent disqualification.

The Gemara discusses the ramifications of this dispute: According to Rabbi Yoḥanan, who said it is a disqualification due to a concern about ritual impurity, if Elijah comes and renders it ritually pure then we will listen to him, because it was treated as impure only due to a doubt with regard to its actual status. However, according to Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, who said that it is an inherent disqualification, even if Elijah comes and renders it pure we will not listen to him. The reason for this is that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish believes that this decree is unrelated to the question of whether the object actually became impure.

Rabbi Yoḥanan raised an objection to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish based on what is taught in the Tosefta: Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka, says: There was a small gap between the ramp and the altar on the western side of the ramp, where they would throw disqualified birds that had been designated as sin-offerings. If birds became disqualified for any reason, such as a diversion of attention, they were left there until their form decayed, i.e., until the next morning, at which point they would be definitively disqualified due to remaining in the Temple overnight and could be taken out to the place designated for burning. Granted, if you say that a diversion of attention is a disqualification due to a concern for ritual impurity, for this reason it requires decay of form to ensure that the bird is certainly disqualified. Currently the bird is disqualified only due to uncertainty, and Elijah may come and render it ritually pure. However, if you say that it is an inherent disqualification, then why do I need to leave it until it has decay of form? It should be definitively disqualified once there has been a diversion of attention. But didn’t we learn in the mishna that this is the principle: