But isn’t it taught in a baraita: With regard to one whose donkey drivers and workers, who were amei ha’aretz, were bearing pure food, without touching the pure food itself but only the earthenware vessels containing them, even if he distanced himself from them as they walked by more than a mil, his pure foods are pure. Since the workers are unaware of his departure, he is still considered to be guarding the food in their possession and need not be concerned that they may have touched the pure foods. But if he said to them: Go, and I will follow behind you, then once they are no longer within his eyesight, his pure foods are impure.

The Gemara asks: What is different in the first clause of the baraita, where the food remains pure, and what is different in the latter clause, where the food is impure? Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa said: The first clause is referring to one who purifies his donkey drivers and workers for this purpose, meaning that he ensured that they immersed and purified themselves beforehand, so that concern for impurity was removed.

The Gemara questions this: If so, in the latter clause they should also be pure. The Gemara responds: An am ha’aretz is not particular about the contact of his colleague, and therefore there is concern that they might have encountered another am ha’aretz on the way, who touched the produce and thereby rendered it impure.

The Gemara counters: If so, in the first clause of the baraita there should also be concern that they might have met an am ha’aretz, and despite the employer’s warning to his workers to stay ritually pure, they are not careful with regard to the impurity of another am ha’aretz. The Gemara answers: The first clause is referring to a situation when he comes across them via a circuitous path. Since he is not walking directly behind them but can appear from the sides, they cannot always see him. Consequently, they are concerned that he may return at any moment. Therefore, they are careful not to render themselves ritually impure, and they are also wary of the contact of other amei ha’aretz, although they are not usually particular about the contact of their colleagues.

The Gemara raises a difficulty: If so, in the latter clause, too, since he can arrive from around a corner at any given moment, they should certainly be cautious. The Gemara responds: Since he said to them: Go and I will follow behind you, they rely on this, and they do not consider themselves to be under observation. Consequently, they are not particular about the contact of another am ha’aretz.

MISHNA: Concerning several matters there is greater stringency with regard to sacrificial food than with regard to teruma, a portion of the produce designated for the priest. This expresses itself in many ways, the first being that one may immerse vessels inside other vessels to purify them for teruma; but not for sacrificial food, for which one must immerse each vessel separately. Another difference is that the halakhot of the back of a vessel and its inside and its place for gripping apply to vessels used for teruma, meaning that each part of the vessel has its own use and is considered a separate vessel in that it does not convey impurity to the other parts of the vessel when it contracts impurity; but not to sacrificial food, for which an impure section of the vessel does convey impurity to all the other sections.

Likewise, one who carries an object trodden on by a zav, a man suffering from gonorrhea, may carry teruma at the same time, if he is careful that neither he nor the impure object should come into contact with the teruma, but this may not be done with sacrificial food. The garments of those who eat teruma are like an object trodden on by a zav with regard to sacrificial food.

The mishna lists other stringencies that apply to sacrificial foods but not to teruma: The characteristics of teruma are not like the characteristics of sacrificial food, as in the case of vessels that are used with sacrificial food, if one has a garment or vessel that is tied up he must untie it and dry it if there was any moisture on it, as both a knot and absorbed moisture are considered interpositions that prevent the water of the ritual bath from reaching the entire garment. And he may then immerse them, and afterward he may tie them up again if he wishes. But with regard to teruma he may, if he so desires, tie up the garment and then immerse it without any concern that the knot might be considered an interposition.

Vessels that were fashioned and completed in purity nevertheless require immersion to be considered pure for sacrificial foods, but not for teruma. A vessel combines all the food that is in it with regard to sacrificial food, meaning that if one piece of food becomes impure all the other pieces become impure as well; but not with regard to teruma, concerning which each piece is treated independently.

The mishna continues the list of differences between sacrificial food and teruma. Sacrificial food that is impure with fourth-degree impurity is disqualified, meaning that the sacrificial food is rendered impure but it does not impart impurity to other items. Teruma is disqualified when it is impure with third-degree impurity; it is not susceptible to fourth-degree impurity at all. And with regard to teruma, if one of one’s hands became impure by rabbinic law that renders only the hands impure, its counterpart, i.e., the other hand, remains pure. But with regard to sacrificial food, if one hand becomes impure he must immerse them both, as one hand renders its counterpart impure with regard to sacrificial food but not with regard to teruma. One may eat dry foods, i.e., foods that have never come into contact with liquid and are therefore not susceptible to impurity, with impure hands when it is teruma, but not when it is sacrificial food.