For Tevul Yom there is only 1 extant manuscript and that is the Vienna manuscript. So the other text is the first printed edition from Venice. In the Vienna manuscript the reading is Chiluf Hadevarim. In the printed edition it is Chulin. The texts look as follows. Differences highlighted in yellow. Note that this whole Tosefta is based on the argument in Mishna Taharot 8:7. So take a look there too.
Vienna Manuscript:
אחורי כלים שניטמאו במשקין ר’ אליעזר או’ מטמא את המשקין ואין פוסלין את האוכלין והלכה כדבריו. ר’ יהושע אומ’ מטמאין את המשקין ופוסלין את האוכלין מקל וחומר ומה טבול יום שאינו מטמא משקה חולין פוסל אוכלי תרומה אחורי כלים שמטמאין משקה חולין דין הוא שיפסלו אוכלי תרומה שמע’ אחי עזריה או’ חילוף הדברים ומה טבול יום שהוא פוסל אוכלי תרומה אין מטמא משקה חולין אחורי כלים שאין פוסלין אוכלי תרומה דין הוא שלא יטמאו משקה חולין אמ’ ר’ יוסי ראה הלכה זו היאך נחלקו עליה אבות הראש’ ודנו עליה דברי תורה מדברי סופרים ודברי סופרים מדברי תורה
First printed edition from Venice:
אחורי כלים שנטמאו במשקין רבי אליעזר אומר מטמאין את המשקין ואין פוסלין את האוכלין והלכה כדבריו: רבי יהושע אומר מטמין את המשקי’ ופוסלי’ את האוכלין וקל וחומר ומה אם טבול יום שאינו מטמא משקה חולין פוסל אוכלי תרומה אחרי כלים שהן מטמי’ משקה חולין דין הוא שיפסלו אוכלי תרומה: שמעון אחי עזריא אומר חולין ומה אם טבול יום שהוא פוסל אוכלי תרומה אינו מטמא משקה חולין: אחורי כלים שאינן פוסלין אוכלי תרומה דין הוא שאינן מטמאין משקה חולין: אמר רבי יוסי הלכה היאך נחלקו עליה אבות הראשונים ורבו עליה דברי תורה מדברי סופרים ודברי סופרים מדברי סופרים:
We can figure out which reading is correct if we do a proper translation.
Vienna manuscript:
The outside of vessels that became impure through [touching] an [impure] liquid: Rabbi Eliezer says, “They (i.e. those vessels) make [other] liquids [of Chulin] impure, but do not disqualify the food [of Terumah].” And the law follows his (i.e. Rabbi Eliezer’s) words. Rabbi Yehoshua says, They (i.e. those vessels) make [other] liquids [of Chulin] impure and disqualify the food [of Terumah]. And [we know this] from a Kal Vachomer (Derivation from Minor to Major) [which goes as following]. Just like [a person who is in a state of] Tevul Yom does not make liquid of Chulin impure [if he touches it], but disqualifies food of Terumah [if he touches it]. [But by the logic of the Kal Vachomer] the outside of vessels which makes liquid of Chulin impure [if ti touches it], how much more so will disqualify the food of Terumah [if it touches it].” Shimon, the brother of Azaryah, says [in reply to Rabbi Yehoshua’s logic], “[Really, the logic of the Kal Vachomer should be] the other way around. Just like [a person who is in a state of] Tevul Yom disqualifies the food of Terumah [if he touches it], but [yet] does not make the liquid of Chulin impure [if he touches it]. [So by the logic of the Kal Vachomer] the outside of vessels, which [we know] does not disqualify the food of Terumah [if it touches it], for sure does not does not make liquid of Chulin impure [if it touches it].” Rabbi Yossi said [in response to this argument between Rabbi Yehoshua and Shimon, the brother of Azaryah], “Look at this law! How much the early fathers argued about it! They derived a Torah Law from a Rabbinical Law and a Rabbinical Law from Torah Law.“
First printed edition from Venice:
The outside of vessels that became impure through [touching] an [impure] liquid: Rabbi Eliezer says, “They (i.e. those vessels) make [other] liquids [of Chulin] impure, but do not disqualify the food [of Terumah].” And the law follows his (i.e. Rabbi Eliezer’s) words. Rabbi Yehoshua says, They (i.e. those vessels) make [other] liquids [of Chulin] impure and disqualify the food [of Terumah]. And [we know this] from a Kal Vachomer (Derivation from Minor to Major) [which goes as following]. Just like [a person who is in a state of] Tevul Yom does not make liquid of Chulin impure [if he touches it], but disqualifies food of Terumah [if he touches it]. [But by the logic of the Kal Vachomer] the outside of vessels which makes liquid of Chulin impure [if it touches it], how much more so will disqualify the food of Terumah [if it touches it].” Shimon, the brother of Azaryah, says [in reply to Rabbi Yehoshua’s logic], “Nonsense! Just like [a person who is in a state of] Tevul Yom disqualifies the food of Terumah [if he touches it], but [yet] does not make the liquid of Chulin impure [if he touches it]. [So by the logic of the Kal Vachomer] the outside of vessels, which [we know] does not disqualify the food of Terumah [if it touches it], for sure does not does not make liquid of Chulin impure [if it touches it].” Rabbi Yossi said [in response to this argument between Rabbi Eliezer, Rabbi Yehoshua and Shimon, the brother of Azaryah], “Look at this law! How much the early fathers argued about it! They added a Torah Law from a Rabbinical Law and a Rabbinical Law from a Rabbinical Law.“
As you can clearly see, in the printed edition from Venice (which all future printed editions in the back of Talmud Bavli follow) have 2 issues in it. I highlighted them in red.
a) The word Chulin in the quote of Shimon, the brother of Azaryah, does not make sense if it’s translated as Chulin (i.e. non-holy food) literally. But it can also be translated as Nonsense (i.e. that what was said by Rabbi Yehoshua is not holy, but rather plain, mundane and wrong.) This is much stronger wording by Shimon than in the Vienna manuscript, where he simply says “no, it should be the other way around”. Such a comment would also prompt Rabbi Yossi’s surprise at how strongly they argued about it.
b) The word added (Rabu (i.e. made many)) does not make any sense. The rabbis never referred to themselves as someone who added Torah laws. They believed that all Torah laws came from Sinai. So that expression does not make sense. Tevul Yom is a Torah law. Outside of vessels being impure and making something else impure, which the inside of the vessel stays pure, is a Rabbinical law. Both arguments derived the law of the outside of vessels from a law of Tevul Yom. So in general the Rabbinical law was derived from Torah law. However we need to figure out which detail of each law is a Torah Law or a Rabbincial Law.
We have 4 laws:
1) Tevul Yom does not make liquid of Chulin impure – Torah Law (obviously) and Rabbinical Law (even the Rabbis did not prohibit this). See Mishna Zavim 5:12 and Mishna Tevul Yom 2:2. See Talmud Bavli Nidah 7b, where this Tosefta is partially quoted.
2) Tevul Yom makes Terumah invalidated (but not impure) – Torah Law. See Leviticus 22:6-7 and Mishna Parah 8:7.
3) Outside of vessels makes or does not make liquid of Chulin impure –> Argument – Rabbinical Law. Hence the argument between Rabbi Yehoshua and Shimon, borhter of Azaryah. By Torah Law a vessel can either be fully impure or fully pure. You cannot have the outside be impure, but the inside be pure. This idea of only the outside being impure, while the inside remains pure is a Rabbinical injunction. See Mishna Keilim 25:6 and Mishna Taharot 8:7.
4) Outside of vessels makes Terumah invalidated (but not impure) – Rabbinical law. See Talmud Bavli Bechorot 38a wheer it implies that this is a Rabbinical Law. However, you can also argue that since the Ooutside of Vessels becomes Sheni LeTumah by Rabbinical Law, now it can make Terumah Shlishi LeTumah by Torah Law, since it is a Torah Law that Sheni LeTumah makes Shlishi LeTumah by Terumah.
Rabbi Yehoshua learns Outside of Vessels (Rabbinical Law) from Tevul Yom (Torah law). Rabbi Eliezer says you cannot derive a Kal Vachomer from Torah Law to a Rabbinical Law. You can only derive a a Kal Vachomer from Torah Law to Torah Law See Talmud Bavli Nidah 7b. So we have 3 (Rabbinical) and 4 (Rabbinical) derived from 1 (Rabbinical or Torah) and 2 (Torah). So we see that we have the following derivations:
i) Rabbinical from Torah – 3 and 4 from 2
ii) Rabbinical from Rabbinical – 3 and 4 from 1
iii) Torah from Rabbinical – 4 from 1. This one is the hardest to see, since it is not an obvious thing.
So the bottom line is both versions of the text can be correct. Note that in Talmud Yerushalmi Maaser Sheni Ch. 2 Halacha 2 there is a similar variation where in the printed Yerushalmi it says Rav Yochanan says this law was learned from Rabbinical to Torah law, but in the vatican manuscript it says Rav Yochanan says this law was learned from Rabbinical to Rabbinical law.
Additional Clarifications:
1) Chulin is just an Aramaic form of the Hebrew word Chol (חול). And Chol is used in many places to mean profane or secular. Also the word Chalila (חלילה) is another variation of the word Chol and it’s always used as a common phrase to mean something like “God Forbid”. Also, in modern Yeshivish slang which is based on Talmudic language the word Chulin is used to refer to words as being secular (i.e. not important or wrong). So based on all of this I made a conjecture that in this particular case the word Chulin might mean “Nonsense or Bullshit” as reference to the words that were said and not to the food. I don’t have off the top of my head an example in Talmudic literature where the word Chulin was used in this manner, but that does not mean that it could not be used like that here. Although, I have to admit I like the Vienna reading much better.
2) If after Ravu Aleha there would have been a period and those words would be referring to the Rabbis then yes you could translate it as They Fought referring to the Rabbis who were arguing. But in this situation the period has to be before Ravu Aleha (based on context – it’s not actually in the manuscripts) and this phrase is referring to the words that come after it which are Divrei Torah VeDivrei Sofrim. And so it would not make any sense to translate it as “They fought the words of Torah from the words of the Rabbis”. This is what makes the reading of the First Edition not good. It has to be really forced to make any sense. Hence, the Vienna manuscript reading is most probably the correct one and that’s what I would quote in my book if I would be writing Tevul Yom right now.