Yerushalmi Chagigah 3:2 ירושלמי חגיגה ג׳:ב׳

MISHNAH: Implements manufactured in purity need immersion for sancta but not for heave. A vessel combines its contents for sancta but not for heave⁵¹A vessel contains disjoint morsels of food. If one piece becomes impure, this in general has no influence of the other pieces since derivative impurity of food cannot make the vessel impure and even rabbinically the other pieces are two touchings distant from the impure piece. The only exception are sancta for which there exists a fourth degree of impurity. Therefore morsels of sancta in the same vessel as a second degree impure piece of food are disqualified even if they are all physically separated.. For sancta the fourth degree is disqualified and the third for heave⁵²Chapter 2, Note 162.. For heave, if one of his hands became impure the other remains pure, but for sancta he immerses both. One hand makes the other impure for sancta but not for heave⁵³Since the impurity of hands is rabbinic of the second degree, the prior argument applies..

HALAKHAH: It was stated⁵⁴Tosephta Kelim Bava Batra 1:2–3; Babli 20a.: “It happened that a woman was weaving cloth in purity and came to Rebbi Ismael to ask him about it. She told him, I am sure that it did not become impure, only I did not concentrate to watch it. While he was interrogating her, she said to him, a menstruating woman came and helped me stretching the rope⁵⁵If the menstruating woman alone had stretched the warp, it would certainly be impure because moved by a person whose impurity is from her own body. Since it was a joint effort, it is possible that the warp, and therefore the cloth, was impure, but it cannot be determined whether it is. In order to be sure it is pure it has to be immersed.. At that moment Rebbi Ismael said, great are the words of the Sages who said, ‘implements manufactured in purity need immersion for sancta but not for heave.’ Another happening: a woman was weaving a shawl in purity and came to Rebbi Ismael to ask him about it. She told him, I am sure that it did not become impure, only I did not concentrate to watch it. While he was interrogating him, she said to him, a thread broke and I tied it with my mouth⁵⁶Chapter 2, Notes 231–232.. At that moment Rebbi Ismael said, great are the words of the Sages who said, ‘implements manufactured in purity need immersion for sancta but not for heave.’ ”

⁵⁶Chapter 2, Notes 231–232. If one cuts a tube for sancta, he who cuts it and he who immerses it need immersion. One understands he who cuts. He who immerses? Could he not bind it with a (sit) [fiber] and immerse it? But explain it that he cut it in order to immerse it. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, up to here about sanctified Temple sancta. From here on, about profane food prepared in the purity of sacrifices⁵⁷Mishnah 1 and the first statement of Mishnah 2 apply only to actual Temple sancta and therefore are inoperative after the destruction of the Temple. The later distinctions between sancta and heave also apply to profane food prepared in the purity of sancta..

Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is from Rebbi Aqiba’s testimony⁵⁷Mishnah 1 and the first statement of Mishnah 2 apply only to actual Temple sancta and therefore are inoperative after the destruction of the Temple. The later distinctions between sancta and heave also apply to profane food prepared in the purity of sancta.. As we have stated there⁵⁷Mishnah 1 and the first statement of Mishnah 2 apply only to actual Temple sancta and therefore are inoperative after the destruction of the Temple. The later distinctions between sancta and heave also apply to profane food prepared in the purity of sancta., “Rebbi Aqiba added that fine flour, and incense, frankincense, and coals, part of which were touched by a Tevul Yom are all disqualified⁵⁸This statement is implied by the statement of our Mishnah that vessels do combine for sancta. Therefore Mishnah 2 must have been formulated posterior to R. Aqiba..” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, they knew that vessels of Servive do combine. About what comes he to testify? About the leftovers of flour-offerings that they do combine together. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Zamina in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Why did they say, leftovers of flour-offerings do combine together? Because they need their vessel⁵⁹Since the leftovers of flour offerings have to be eaten by priests, they have to be taken from the vessel in which they were presented to the altar. Since the vessel is not needed after presentation and burning of a fistful on the altar, one might think that then the vessel acts like a profane vessel and does not imply disqualification of the entire content composed of disjoint pieces if one piece became disqualified. As long as the vessel is actually used it transmits disqualification. Babli 23b.. Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Yasa: they knew that vessels of Service do combine. About what comes he to testify? About fine flour, and incense, and frankincense, and coals⁶⁰These are not foods and not subject to the rules of impurity of foodstuffs up to the fourth degree.. One understands fine flour, and incense, and frankincense. Coals⁶¹They should be impervious to impurity.? Rebbi Abun bar Cahana said, explain it about coals on the Day of Atonement which he has to carry inside in the vessel which he used to scoop up⁶²The coals which the High Priest on the Day of Atonement has to scoop up with a fire-pan and carry into the holiest of holies with the incense (Lev. 16:12). These are the only coals which become disqualified if outside a dedicated Vessel of Service.. But [not]⁶³Corrector’s addition, making explicit the text’s meaning. about every day’s coals. As we have stated there⁶⁴Mishnah Tamid 5:5., “If a qab of coals were dispersed, one sweeps them into the water canal, but on the Sabbath one covers it with a wine-cooler⁶⁵Greek ψυκτήρ, a big metal vessel.. Rebbi Mattania said, do fine flour, and incense, frankincense, and coals, need a minimum volume in this respect? Not because they have to be in their vessel? Here also because they have to be in their vessel⁶⁶He holds that the Mishnah in Idiut applies to all coals removed from the altar. The rule is that the burned-out charcoal remainders have to be removed in dedicated fire-pans. Even if the later are spilled and swiped into the water canal crossing the inner courtyard, they were removed in a dedicated vessel, and in this case the vessel combines all its contents. The same holds for a large private flour offering, not subject to the amounts prescribed for public offerings, and which might be presented in two or more vessels. In that case, each vessel separately transmits disqualification from a part of its contents to all of it..

Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked: may a fistful be offered from two vessels⁶⁷The regular discipline of flour offerings is that flour and oil are mixed in one sanctified vessel, then the priest takes a fistful, deposits it into a second vessel which he carries to the altar and empties into the flames. Since in any case a second vessel is involved, may the offering be brought from the start in two vessels, and the fistful taken from one and deposited into a third permits the contents of both original vessels to be consumed by the priests?? Rebbi Ḥanin objected, did we not state, “the vessel combines”? If you would say that a fistful can be offered from two vessels, for which purpose did we state “the vessel combines”? Rebbi Eleazar the Southerner said, did not Rebbi Yose bar Zamina say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, why did they say, leftovers of flour-offerings do combine together? Because they need their vessel⁵⁹Since the leftovers of flour offerings have to be eaten by priests, they have to be taken from the vessel in which they were presented to the altar. Since the vessel is not needed after presentation and burning of a fistful on the altar, one might think that then the vessel acts like a profane vessel and does not imply disqualification of the entire content composed of disjoint pieces if one piece became disqualified. As long as the vessel is actually used it transmits disqualification. Babli 23b.. Here also because they have to be in their vessel⁶⁸If the offering from the start is in two separate vessels, where is the one vessel which combines the contents such that if part becomes disqualified everything is disqualified? As before the answer is that since no offering may be presented without being in a vessel, that vessel is a necessity of the service and the multitude of original vessels is irrelevant.. Rebbi Mattaniah said, are not fine flour, and incense, and frankincense, and coals offered in many vessels? Nevertheless you are saying, “the vessel combines”; and here “the vessel combines”⁶⁹The previous argument is extended from flour offering to incense, which at least for the shewbreads always is in multiple containers, and the other offerings.. Cahana asked the rabbis there, a flour-offering split in the mixing bowl⁷⁰The scribe’s text is the correct one, confirmed by the Babli (Menaḥot 7a,24a/b). The corrector’s change is erroneous., if one became impure did the other become impure⁷¹While an argument may be made that if part of a flour-offering becomes disqualified the whole becomes disqualified, does the argument extend to actual impurity (or order <4), so that the contents of a vessel can cause impurity or disqualification to anything it comes in contact with, without ever having been touched by anything impure?? They said to him, if one became impure the other became impure. Did impurity jump⁷²From one vessel to another with which it is not in contact.? They said to him, impurity did jump. Even if another {vessel} was in between? They said to him, even if another {vessel} was in between. Taking a fistful from one on the other⁷³Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya’s question.? They said to him, we did not hear any tradition, we studied a Mishnah, as what we did state there⁷⁴Mishnah Menaḥot 3:3., “if two flour offerings from which no fistfuls were taken were combined together, if he is able to take a fistful from one separately and from the other separately⁷⁵If the materials of the two offerings are recognizable as distinct. they are qualified, otherwise disqualified.” Do not the remainders of one interrupt between one and the other⁷⁶One has to say that the statement that the vessel combines is a biblical one; therefore on the one hand the vessel transmits disqualification from one piece to a disjoint one, and on the other hand permits to take a fistful from the offering although certainly parts of the offering are mixed with another, which without the combining action of the vessel would disqualify.? There came Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If a fistful was taken from one for the other⁷⁷Of a flour-offering presented in two or more vessels., if one became impure he other became impure. Anything in-between did not become impure. Was it not stated, “one cup⁷⁷Of a flour-offering presented in two or more vessels.? Which makes its contents one.⁷⁸Sifry Num. 49, Babli 23b. The reference is to the offerings of the heads of tribes for the inauguration of the Tabernacle (Num.7:14, 20, 26, 32, 38, 44, 50, 56, 62, 68, 74, 80). It would have been sufficient to state that each of them brought “a cup full of incense”. The emphasis 12 times on “one cup full of incense” is explained by that the cup makes the offering an indivisible entity.” Rebbi Ḥinena said, a vessel combines only what is tied to it⁷⁹He denies that impurity may be transferred by action at a distance..

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked: Does a dry piece of flour-offering start a count⁸⁰A flour offering in general needs to be mixed with oil. As noted later, food becomes susceptible to impurity only by contact with water or one of the fluids compared to water in a biblical verse, including olive oil. This contact is called “preparation for impurity”, cf. Demay 2:3, Note 141. The question now is whether flour never in contact with a fluid, which becomes disqualified by being in a combining vessel, also becomes impure to count derivative impurity of degrees 1,2,3,4 or not. Babli Ḥulin 36a.? Rebbi Eleazar objected: Is it not written⁸¹Lev. 11:34., of all foodstuff which is edible on which comes water is susceptible to impurity. Any whose impurity is caused by water starts a count, nothing whose impurity is not caused by water starts a count. Rebbi Yose objected: Is there not a carcass of a kosher bird which causes impurity of foodstuff without preparation and without impurity, because it ends up causing severe impurity⁸²The meat of a kosher bird which was not slaughtered once it is in the mouth makes not only the eater but also his garments causes of original biblical impurity. The garments cause impurity to anything potentially susceptible to impurity, without “preparation.”? What about this? Of all foodstuff which is edible, any whose impurity is caused by the category of edibles⁸³Even if the particular item is not kosher to eat. starts a count, nothing whose impurity is not caused by edibles the category of starts a count.

Rebbi Jonathan in the name of Rebbi: If somebody eats food which is third degree impure for heave, his body is disqualified from eating heave⁸⁴Babli Ḥulin 35a. Since the third degree of impurity disqualifies but does not induce impurity for heave, the person is permitted in principle to touch heave but not to eat it.. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac asked, how? Rebbi follows Rebbi Eliezer? As we have stated there⁸⁵Mishnah Taharot 2:2., “He who eats food impure in the first degree is impure in the first degree. He who eats food impure in the second degree is impure in the second degree. He who eats food impure in the third degree is impure in the third degree.⁸⁶R. Eliezer holds that a person eating impure food subject to higher orders of derivative impurity becomes impure in the same degree as his food, whereas R. Joshua holds that impure food of the first two degrees make the body impure in the second degree, and that third degree impurity (disqualification) for heave equals second degree (impurity) for sancta. Since in general we are following R. Joshua against R. Eliezer, it would be astonishing to find an anonymous Mishnah following R. Eliezer against R. Joshua. Cf. Babli Ḥulin 33b.” It is everybody’s opinion, so he should stay away from heave⁸⁷While in theory he could touch heave without bad effects, since touching could lead to eating we tell him to stay away from heave in all respects. This is not a biblical rule.. And similarly, if somebody eats food which is second degree impure for tithe, is his body disqualified from eating tithe? Let us hear from the following⁸⁸Mishnah Parah 11:5.: “But the Sages forbid for tithe.⁸⁹The Mishnah states that anybody needing immersion in water for rabbinic impurity may without immersion eat profane food and Second Tithe according to R. Meïr, but the majority forbids him Second Tithe.” They had not heard that Rebbi Samuel said in the name of Rebbi Ze`ira, what means “but the Sages forbid for tithe”? His body is disqualified from eating tithe<sup>90</sup>There should not have been any question since the problem already was solved in a Mishnah known to all.. And similarly, if somebody eats food which is fourth degree impure for sancta, is his body disqualified from eating sancta? Let us hear from the following, as Rebbi Jeremiah said in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal, they made him like one eating fourth degree impure food for sancta<sup>91</sup>A quote from Halakhah 3, Note 136. The reference is to a deep mourner who is obligated to see to the burial of a close relative and is forbidden any sacral act. As stated here, it implies that the person eating disqualified sancta is forbidden any sacral act.. This implies, if somebody eats food which is fourth degree impure for sancta, his body is disqualified from eating sancta. So far in Temple sancta which were sanctified. Or also for profane food prepared in the standards of sancta? Let us hear from the following, [as we stated there]<sup>92</sup>Mishnah Ḥulin 2:5.: “If somebody slaughters domestic animals, wild animals, or birds, and no blood came out from them, they are qualified and may be eaten with unclean hands, since they were not prepared by blood. Rebbi Simeon says, they were prepared by slaughter<sup>93</sup>For the majority, slaughtered meat is prepared for impurity (Note 80) either by the blood spilled in the act of slaughter or by cutting the animal into pieces, or by later contact with water. Since meat eaten otherwise than raw must be kashered in water, the Mishnah implies that meat not prepared by blood may be eaten raw with unwashed hands and remain untouched by impurity..” Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: The Mishnah is about profane food prepared in the standards of sancta following Rebbi Joshua<sup>86</sup>R. Eliezer holds that a person eating impure food subject to higher orders of derivative impurity becomes impure in the same degree as his food, whereas R. Joshua holds that impure food of the first two degrees make the body impure in the second degree, and that third degree impurity (disqualification) for heave equals second degree (impurity) for sancta. Since in general we are following R. Joshua against R. Eliezer, it would be astonishing to find an anonymous Mishnah following R. Eliezer against R. Joshua. Cf. Babli Ḥulin 33b.. Rebbi Ze`ira, Rebbi Yasa, Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Yannai in the name of Rebbi: If somebody eats food which is third degree impure for heave, his body is disqualified from eating heave. Is that not a Mishnah that third degree impurity is second degree impurity for sancta⁸⁶R. Eliezer holds that a person eating impure food subject to higher orders of derivative impurity becomes impure in the same degree as his food, whereas R. Joshua holds that impure food of the first two degrees make the body impure in the second degree, and that third degree impurity (disqualification) for heave equals second degree (impurity) for sancta. Since in general we are following R. Joshua against R. Eliezer, it would be astonishing to find an anonymous Mishnah following R. Eliezer against R. Joshua. Cf. Babli Ḥulin 33b.? The Mishnah is about Temple sancta which were sanctified. He⁹⁴Rebbi in the baraita. tells you in addition, even for profane food prepared in the standards of sancta. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said before Rebbi Ze`ira: The Mishnah says so, “loaves of sancta bread; the water in their cavities is sanctified.<sup>95</sup>Mishnah Taharot 1:9. Bread baked to accompany sancta is prepared for impurity both by the water used in making the dough and by the fact that it is used in the Temple. If the bread is leavened, as required for thanksgiving offerings (Lev. 7:13), and some moisture remains in bubbles inside the loaves, it is considered as if outside. If the loaf is touched by disqualified (4th order impure) food, the moisture becomes impure in the first degree and the loaf actually impure; while totally dry food is not impacted by the touch of disqualified food.” Does it displease you that it comes to tell you that he makes fluid by your pronouncement like sanctified fluid<sup>96</sup>“Fluid by his pronouncement” is profane food intentionally prepared by the standards of sancta. “Sanctified fluid” is fluid actually used in the Temple.? Rebbi Ze`ira said, as you are saying there⁹⁷In Mishnah Parah Chapter 10., one made one pure for the ashes of the Red Cow equal to the water for the ashes of the Red Cow and to the ashes of the Red Cow, and here one made fluid by your pronouncement like sanctified fluid. Rebbi Ze`ira, Rebbi Yasa, Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Yannai, and it is unknown whether this is in the name of Rebbi: There is a Mishnah⁸⁵Mishnah Taharot 2:2. which is both confirmation and disproof. From it confirmation: “For third degree impurity is second degree impurity for sancta, but not second degree impurity for heave, if it was prepared by the standards of heave.” But if it was prepared in the standards of sancta, his body is second degree impure for sancta⁹⁸The Mishnah text is R. Joshua’s. Since he formulates it for profane food prepared in the standards of heave, it is clear that he excludes profane food prepared in the standards of sancta; his statement requires equal treatment for actual sancta, possible only in the Temple, and food prepared in the standards of sancta, possible everywhere in the Holy Land at all times (subject to the availability of ashes of the Red Cow.). From it disproof: For third degree impurity is second degree impurity for sancta, but not second degree impurity for heave, if it was prepared by the standards of sancta⁹⁹As stated in the Mishnah there.. But if it was prepared in the standards of heave, his body is second degree impure for heave and a fortiori for sancta¹⁰⁰But nothing implies that this also is valid for profane food prepared in the standards of sancta..

¹⁰¹This is copied from Soṭah 5:2 (Notes 93–106, ס). In this paragraph, the corrector’s changes are copied from Soṭah and have to be accepted.“Rebbi Yose stated, from where that the fourth degree is disqualified in sanctified food? It is an argument. Since one who lacks expiation¹⁰²If a person is healed whose body was an original source of impurity, he needs immersion in water to be pure and also a ceremony of expiation to be admitted to the Sanctuary and sacrifices (for the person afflicted with skin disease, Lev, 14:32; for the persons healed from genital discharges 15:14–15, 29–30 for the woman after childbirth 12:6–8). After immersion in water, the person is totally pure (after the following sundown) at any place other than the Sanctuary. is not disqualified for heave¹⁰³Tosephta 3:17. but disqualified for sanctified food, it is only logical that third degree¹⁰⁴In the text here “fourth order,” not corrected by the corrector. The translated text here is from Soṭah. [impurity] which is disabled for heave should disqualify for sanctified food. That means, we learned third degree from a verse¹⁰⁵Mishnah Sotah 5:3 following R. Aqiba. and fourth degree from an argument de minore ad majus.” Rebbi Joḥanan objected: Food that was touched by a Tevul Yom¹⁰⁶Cf. Chapter 1, Note 168. is a counter-example, because he disqualifies in the case of heave but does not disqualify in the case of sanctified food¹⁰⁷Tosephta 3:16; Sifra Emor Pereq 4(8). It is proved that sacra are not in all respects more restrictive than heave. It is remarkable that the Babli does not argue against the thesis of R. Yose since it clearly violates the rule “it is enough if inference drawn from an argument be equal to the premise ” (Babli Bava qamma 25a). According to this rule, a passive impurity in the minor cannot become an active one in the major. The Yerushalmi knows no such rule; it needs the counter-example of R. Joḥanan. The difference between the Talmudim is that for the Yerushalmi, de minore ad majus is a rhetorical device but for the Babli it is part of a meta-logical system (cf. the author’s Logical Problems in Jewish Tradition, in: Confrontations with Judaism, Ph. Longworth, ed., London 1966 pp. 171–196.). Rebbi Ḥananiah¹⁰⁸In Sotah: R. Ḥiyya, the only possible reading since R. Ḥananiah was a teacher, not a student, of R. Joḥanan. in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi Yose argues the method of his teacher Rebbi Aqiba. Just as Rebbi Aqiba says impure, impure by the words of the Torah, so Rebbi Yose says it will be impure, it makes impure by the words of the Torah. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: Rebbi Yose does not need that argument de minore ad majus. Rebbi Yose explains the verse¹⁰⁹Lev. 7:19; Sifra Ṣaw Parasha 9. A similar interpretation is given as an additional baraita in the Babli 24a, Pesaḥim 18b/19a, Sotah 29b.: Any meat which would touch, that is second degree food because it touched primary impurity; anything impure, that is third degree food because it touched second degree impurity; shall not be eaten, the endstage of impurity may not be eaten. So far about solid food that became impure in the air space of a clay vessel which had become impure by a reptile¹¹⁰A dead reptile from the kinds enumerated in Lev. 11:29–30.. What about solid food that became impure directly from a reptile? Is that not an argument? Since vessels, which cannot become impure in the air space of a clay vessel that became impure by a reptile, become impure by contact with a reptile¹¹¹Vessels can become impure only from original impurity (a “father” or “grand-father” of impurity, never from derivative impurity.) There is no verse which would indicate otherwise (but in Pesaḥim 1:7, R. Ismael is quoted to the effect that Lev. 11:33 also applies to vessels. It may be a veiled reference to the argument presented here.) to defile solid food, is it not logical that solid food itself which became impure by a reptile should become impure by contact with a reptile to defile solid food. So far, following Rebbi Aqiba. Following Rebbi Ismael? Rebbi Ismael stated: ¹¹²Lev. 7:19.Any meat which would touch anything impure, that is first degree food which touched any impurity, shall not be eaten, to add a second degree of impurity. The third degree from where? It is an argument. Since a tevul yom who is not disqualified for profane food disqualifies heave, it is only logical that a person secondarily impure, who disables profane food should disable heave. The fourth degree for sacrifices from where? It is an argument. Since one who lacks expiation who does not disable heave disables sanctified food, it is only logical that third degree [impurity] which disqualifies heave should disable sanctified food. That means, we learned first and second degrees from a verse, the third from an argument and the fourth from an argument de minore ad majus. Can one pile argument on argument¹¹³It is a principle accepted in both Talmudim that at least for any rules of sacrifices and connected matters, most hermeneutical rules cannot be used one after the other; cf. Yebamot 8:1, Note 19. A detailed table of legal and illegal combinations, derived from Babli Zevaḥim Chapter 5, appears in the author’s paper Über ein bemerkenswertes logisches System aus der Antike, Methodos 1951, pp. 150–164.? Everything is subject to practice, i. e., that third degree disables heave and fourth degree disables sacrifices¹¹⁴Tosephta 3:8. “Practice” here corresponds to “Practice of Moses from Mount Sinai” in the Babli, generally accepted practice whose roots can no longer be ascertained. The status of such practice is more than rabbinic and less than biblical..

“For heave, if one of his hands became impure the other remains pure.” “To make sancta impure, the words of Rebbi. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah says, to disqualify sancta.¹¹⁵Tosephta 3:10; Babli 24a. The text of the Tosephta is: A person who immerses one hand and prepares food in purity, any food prepared until he immerses the other hand is impure since one hand makes the other impure to make sancta impure …” The Tosephta implies that if one hand is impure, in preparation of sancta the other is impure in the second degree for Rebbi, in the third for R. Yose ben R. Jehudah.” How? Following Rebbi Joshua? As we have stated there¹¹⁶Mishnah Yadaim 3:2., “anything which disqualifies heave makes hands impure in the second degree, and one hand makes the other one impure, the words of Rebbi Joshua.” And Rebbi Joshua says more than Rebbi, since what Rebbi said refers to sancta, but Rebbi Joshua refers to heave¹¹⁷Therefore the Mishnah here which treats heave (disqualified by second degree impurity) more leniently than sancta (disqualified by third degree impurity) cannot be R. Joshua’s..

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, they only stated “the other”, not a stranger’s¹¹⁸This refers to the statement that for sancta both hands have to be washed since otherwise one impure hand causes the other hand also to be impure. The problem is whether the other hand, which was not exposed to impurity, is impure in the second degree as impure hand, or of the third as derivative of second degree impurity. R. Simeon ben Laqish holds that it is impure in the third degree, R. Joḥanan that it is second.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, even a stranger’s. Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, even a loaf. They said, Rebbi Joḥanan retracted this; when he said so it was before he changed his mind. He only said to make a loaf impure, because of “anything which disqualifies heave makes hands impure in the second degree.” Therefore to make a loaf impure everybody agrees that it does not make impure¹¹⁹For anything but the other hand of the person one follows the rule that induced impurity is one degree more than the inducing one. Therefore the second hand may disqualify a loaf of sancta but cannot possibly make it impure., since “no second degree creates second degree.¹¹⁶Mishnah Yadaim 3:2.”