Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

October 3, 2018 | 讻状讚 讘转砖专讬 转砖注状讟

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Menachot 54

Are the measurements of items that have changed in size measured by their size in the present or what their size was in the past?


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

讘转驻讜讞讬诐 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗诪专讜 诪讞诪讬爪讬谉 专讘 讻讛谞讗 诪转谞讬 诇讛 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘谉 转专讚讬讜谉

with the juice of apples, as the dough will not leaven properly. It was said in the name of Rabbi 岣nina ben Gamliel that one may leaven these meal offerings with juice from apples, as this is considered proper leavening. The Gemara notes that Rav Kahana would teach this halakha in the name of Rabbi 岣nina ben Teradyon, not in the name of Rabbi 岣nina ben Gamliel.

讻诪讗谉 讗讝诇讗 讛讗 讚转谞谉 转驻讜讞 砖专讬住拽讜 讜谞转谞讜 讘转讜讱 讛注讬住讛 讜讞讬诪爪讛 讛专讬 讝讜 讗住讜专讛

The Gemara analyzes this dispute. In accordance with whose opinion is that which we learned in a mishna (Terumot 10:2): In the case of an apple of teruma that one mashed and placed in non-sacred dough, and the juice of the apple leavened the dough, this dough is prohibited to be consumed by anyone who may not partake of teruma.

讻诪讗谉 诇讬诪讗 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讛讬讗 讜诇讗 专讘谞谉 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘谞谉 谞讛讬 讚讞诪抓 讙诪讜专 诇讗 讛讜讬 谞讜拽砖讛 诪讬讛讗 讛讜讬

The Gemara reiterates the question: In accordance with whose opinion is this mishna? Shall we say that it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi 岣nina ben Gamliel, who maintains that the juice of apples causes the dough to leaven properly, and not in accordance with the ruling of the Rabbis, the majority opinion that disputes this ruling? The Gemara refutes this suggestion: You may even say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. Granted, the Rabbis hold that dough leavened by the juice of apples does not become full-fledged leavened bread, but in any event it becomes hardened [nukshe] leaven. Consequently, dough leavened by the juice of teruma apples is prohibited to non-priests.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讬诇讗 讗讬谉 诇讱 讛拽砖讛 诇拽诪讬爪讛 讬讜转专 诪诪谞讞转 讞讜讟讗 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专 讗讘讚讬诪讬 讗诪专 诪谞讞转 讞讜讟讗 诪讙讘诇讛 讘诪讬诐 讜讻砖专讛

搂 On the previous amud the Gemara cited the opinion of Rabba and Rav Yosef that measuring the flour in the leavening dough must be performed before water is added. The Gemara discusses this matter further. Rabbi Ila says: Of all the meal offerings, you do not have a meal offering whose removal of the handful is more difficult than that of the meal offering of a sinner. This particular meal offering is dry, as no oil is added to it. Therefore, it is very difficult to remove precisely a handful, as when the priest takes a handful with his thumb and little finger, a large amount of flour is apt to fall out. Rav Yitz岣k bar Avdimi says: The removal of the handful in the case of the meal offering of a sinner is no more difficult than its removal in other meal offerings. The reason is that although the Torah prohibited the addition of oil to the meal offering of a sinner, nevertheless the priest may knead it in water, and it is fit to be offered.

诇讬诪讗 讘讛讗 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚诪专 住讘专 讻诪讜转 砖讛谉 诪砖注专讬谞谉 讜诪专 住讘专 诇讻诪讜转 砖讛讬讜 诪砖注专讬谞谉

The Gemara analyzes this dispute. Let us say that these amora鈥檌m disagree about this: As one Sage, Rav Yitz岣k bar Avdimi, holds that one measures meal offerings as they are, in their current state, after they have been mixed into a dough. Therefore it is permitted to perform the removal of the handful after water has been added, at which point it is not a particularly difficult rite to perform. And one Sage, Rabbi Ila, holds that one measures meal offerings as they were before they were mixed with water, when they were still flour. Therefore, if one were to add water before measuring he might add too much, which would cause the dough to be too soft and the measure of the offering too large, or conversely, if he were to add too little water the dough would be stiff and too small in volume. Either way, the handful will not contain the correct amount of flour, and therefore no water may be added.

诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讻诪讜转 砖讛谉 诪砖注专讬谞谉 讜讘讛讗 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚诪专 住讘专 诪讗讬 讞专讬讘讛 讞专讬讘讛 诪砖诪谉 讜诪专 住讘专 讞专讬讘讛 诪讻诇 讚讘专

The Gemara responds: No, as everyone agrees that one measures meal offerings as they currently are. And it is with regard to this that they disagree: As one Sage, Rav Yitz岣k bar Avdimi, holds: What is the meaning of 鈥渄ry鈥 written in the verse discussing a meal offering: 鈥淎nd every meal offering, mixed with oil, or dry鈥 (Leviticus 7:10)? It means dry of oil, but one may add water. And one Sage, Rabbi Ila, holds that the meal offering of a sinner must be dry of all substances, i.e., it may not contain even water.

转谞谉 讛转诐 讘砖专 讛注讙诇 砖谞转驻讞 讜讘砖专 讝拽谞讛 砖谞转诪注讱 诪砖转注专讬谉 诇讻诪讜转 砖讛谉

搂 The question concerning whether a meal offering is to be measured in its current, mixed state or as it was before it was mixed relates to a fundamental issue that also arises in other areas of halakha. We learned in a mishna there (Okatzin 2:8): Meat of a calf that swelled due to cooking, as the volume of calf flesh increases when it is cooked in water, or meat of an old animal that shrank due to cooking, which is what happens to meat of this type, are to be measured as they are in order to determine if they are the volume of an egg-bulk, in which case they can contract ritual impurity and transfer impurity of food to other items.

专讘 讜专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专讬 诪砖转注专讬谉 讻诪讜转 砖讛谉 砖诪讜讗诇 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘专 专讘讬 讜专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专讬 诪砖转注专讬谉 诇讻诪讜转 砖讛谉

The Sages disagree as to the meaning of: Measured as they are. Rav, Rabbi 岣yya, and Rabbi Yo岣nan all say that it means the items are to be measured as they are currently, after having been cooked. Shmuel, Rabbi Shimon bar Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and Reish Lakish all say it means they are to be measured according to their volume as they are, before having been cooked. In other words, even if the meat of a calf is the volume of an egg-bulk after it was cooked, if it was less than this before cooking it cannot contract ritual impurity. Conversely, even if the meat of an old animal was less than an egg-bulk after cooking, if it was an egg-bulk before it was cooked it can contract ritual impurity.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讘砖专 讛注讙诇 砖诇讗 讛讬讛 讘讜 讻砖讬注讜专 讜转驻讞 讜注诪讚 注诇 讻砖讬注讜专 讟讛讜专 诇砖注讘专 讜讟诪讗 诪讬讻谉 讜诇讛讘讗

The Gemara raises an objection to the opinion of Shmuel, Rabbi Shimon bar Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and Reish Lakish from a baraita: With regard to meat of a calf that came into contact with a source of ritual impurity but that was not of a volume equivalent to the minimum measure for contracting impurity, i.e., an egg-bulk, if it was then cooked, and as a result it swelled until it stood at the requisite measure for ritual impurity, this meat is pure with regard to the past, but can become impure and render other items impure from here on. In other words, the previous contact with a source of impurity did not render the meat impure, as it was of insufficient volume at the time. This indicates that the status of an item with regard to ritual impurity depends on its volume at the current moment.

诪讚专讘谞谉

The Gemara answers: It is possible that by Torah law this meat is in fact not susceptible to ritual impurity even from here on, as the halakha defines it by its volume prior to cooking. Nevertheless, the baraita teaches that it is impure by rabbinic law.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讜讻谉 讘驻讬讙讜诇 讜讻谉 讘谞讜转专 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讗讬讻讗 驻讬讙讜诇 讜谞讜转专 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 讚专讘谞谉 驻讬讙讜诇 讜谞讜转专 讘讚专讘谞谉 诪讬 讗讬讻讗

The Gemara asks: If so, say the latter clause of that baraita: And similarly, the same principle applies to an offering that was sacrificed with the intent to consume it after its designated time [piggul], and similarly with regard to food left over from an offering after the time allotted for its consumption [notar]. The Gemara analyzes this statement: Granted, if you say that the baraita is discussing halakhot that apply by Torah law, this is why the cases of piggul and notar are included in the baraita, as they also apply by Torah law. But if you say that the halakhot in the baraita apply by rabbinic law, are there piggul and notar by rabbinic law?

讗讬诪讗 讜讻谉 讘讟讜诪讗转 驻讬讙讜诇 讜讻谉 讘讟讜诪讗转 谞讜转专

The Gemara answers: Say that the baraita is not referring to the prohibitions of piggul and notar. Rather, it means the following: And similarly, the same principle applies with regard to ritual impurity imparted by piggul, and similarly with regard to ritual impurity imparted by notar. There is a rabbinic decree that meat which is piggul or notar imparts impurity to one鈥檚 hands even if the meat itself was not impure. The baraita teaches that if the meat is at least the volume of an egg-bulk after it was cooked, it renders the hands impure in this manner.

住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讟讜诪讗转 驻讬讙讜诇 讜讟讜诪讗转 谞讜转专 讚专讘谞谉 讛讬讗 讻讜诇讬 讛讗讬 讘讚专讘谞谉 诇讗 注讘讜讚 专讘谞谉 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara explains that this statement is necessary, as it might enter your mind to say: Since the concepts of impurity imparted by piggul and impurity imparted by notar apply by rabbinic law, the Sages did not institute a stringency to such an extent, making items that were less than the requisite volume until they were cooked contract and impart forms of impurity that apply by rabbinic law. Therefore, the baraita teaches us that this halakha does apply to those forms of ritual impurity.

转讗 砖诪注 讘砖专 讝拽谞讛 砖讛讬讛 讘讜 讻砖讬注讜专 讜爪诪拽 驻讞讜转 诪讻砖讬注讜专 讟诪讗 诇砖注讘专 讜讟讛讜专 诪讬讻谉 讜诇讛讘讗

The Gemara continues to analyze this dispute. Come and hear a baraita: With regard to meat of an old animal that initially was of a volume equivalent to the requisite measure for contracting ritual impurity and became impure, after which it was cooked and as a result shrank until it was less than the requisite measure for contracting impurity, it is considered impure with regard to items that touched it in the past, when it was large enough, and it is pure with regard to items that it may touch from here on. This baraita indicates that the current state of the item is decisive.

讗诪专 专讘讛 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚诪注讬拽专讗 讛讜讛 讘讬讛 讜讛砖转讗 诇讬转 讘讬讛 讛讗 诇讬转 讘讬讛 讜讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚诪注讬拽专讗 诇讗 讛讜讛 讘讬讛 讜讛砖转讗 讛讜讛 讘讬讛 诪讚专讘谞谉

Rabba said, in explanation of the dispute between the amora鈥檌m: Anywhere, i.e., with regard to any item, that was initially of a volume equivalent to the requisite measure, but now it is not of such a volume, the halakha is determined according to the item鈥檚 current volume, and it is not of the requisite volume. Conversely, anywhere, i.e., with regard to any item, that initially was not of the requisite measure but now it is of sufficient volume, the item contracts impurity by rabbinic law.

讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讻讙讜谉 砖讛讬讛 讘讜 讻砖讬注讜专 讜爪诪拽 讜讞讝专 讜转驻讞 讚诪专 住讘专 讬砖 讚讬讞讜讬 讘讗讬住讜专讗 讜诪专 住讘专 讗讬谉 讚讬讞讜讬 讘讗讬住讜专讗

When they disagree is in a case where the food initially had the requisite measure for ritual impurity, and it shrank until it was less than this measure, and subsequently it again swelled to the requisite measure for contracting impurity. The dispute is that one Sage, i.e., Shmuel, Rabbi Shimon, and Reish Lakish, holds: There is disqualification with regard to a ritual matter, including impurity. In other words, if at a certain point the food was less than the requisite measure it becomes entirely disqualified from contracting ritual impurity, even if it subsequently swells again. And one Sage, i.e., Rav, Rav 岣yya, and Rabbi Yo岣nan, holds: There is no disqualification with regard to a ritual matter. Even if at a certain stage the food lost its ability to contract impurity, if it later swells it can once again become impure.

讜诪讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讚讬砖 讚讬讞讜讬 讘讗讬住讜专讬谉 讜讛转谞谉 讻讘讬爪讛 讗讜讻诇讬谉 砖讛谞讬讞讛 讘讞诪讛 讜谞转诪注讟讜 讜讻谉 讻讝讬转 诪谉 讛诪转 讻讝讬转 诪谉 讛谞讘诇讛 讜讻注讚砖讛 诪谉 讛砖专抓 讜讻讝讬转 驻讬讙讜诇 讜讻讝讬转 谞讜转专 讜讻讝讬转 讞诇讘 讟讛讜专讬谉 讜讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讛谉 诪砖讜诐 驻讬讙讜诇 讜谞讜转专 讜讞诇讘

The Gemara asks: And is there one who says that there is disqualification with regard to ritual matters? But didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (Teharot 3:6): In the case of an egg-bulk of a ritually impure food that one placed in the sun and that therefore shrank to less than an egg-bulk; and similarly in the case of an olive-bulk of flesh of a corpse, or an olive-bulk of an animal carcass, or a lentil-bulk of a creeping animal, all of which impart impurity; or an olive-bulk of piggul, or an olive-bulk of notar, or an olive-bulk of forbidden fat, if any of these were placed in the sun and shrank, they are pure, i.e., they do not impart impurity to other items, and one is not liable to receive karet for them due to the prohibitions of piggul, notar, or forbidden fat.

讛谞讬讞谉 讘讙砖诪讬诐 讜转驻讞讜 讟诪讗讬谉 讜讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讛诐 诪砖讜诐 驻讬讙讜诇 讜谞讜转专 讜讞诇讘 转讬讜讘转讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讬砖 讚讬讞讜讬 讘讗讬住讜专讬谉 转讬讜讘转讗

The mishna continues: If, after they shrank in the sun, one took these foods and placed them in the rain, as a result of which they again swelled to the minimum volume for ritual impurity, they are impure, as was the case before they shrank. This applies to the impurity of a corpse, the impurity of an animal carcass, and the impurity of foods, and one is also liable to receive karet for them due to piggul, notar, or forbidden fat. This demonstrates that the food is not permanently disqualified. Therefore, the refutation of the opinion of the one who says that there is disqualification with regard to ritual matters is a conclusive refutation.

转讗 砖诪注 转讜专诪讬谉 转讗谞讬诐 注诇 讛讙专讜讙专讜转 讘诪谞讬谉

搂 The Gemara returns to the dispute over whether food is to be measured in its current volume or according to its initial volume. Come and hear a baraita: (Tosefta, Terumot 4:2): One may separate teruma and tithes from fresh figs for dried figs, which have shrunk and are now smaller than they were when they were fresh. In other words, one may designate fresh figs as teruma and tithe to exempt the dried figs, despite the difference between these two types of figs. This separation may be performed only by number, e.g., ten fresh figs for ninety dried figs. One may not set aside this teruma by volume, i.e., by separating fresh figs with a volume of one-tenth of the measure of dried figs. The reason is that the volume of the fresh figs is greater than that of the dried figs, so he would set aside fewer fresh figs than he would if he calculated by number.

讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 诇讻诪讜转 砖讛谉 诪砖注专讬谞谉 砖驻讬专 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 讻诪讜转 砖讛谉 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诪专讘讛 讘诪注砖专讜转

The Gemara analyzes this halakha. Granted, if you say that one measures food items as they were initially, then since when the obligation to separate teruma began, the volume of the dried figs was the same as the fresh ones, then it is well; the amount of figs to be separated as teruma should be calculated based on number, disregarding their current volume. But if you say that foods are to be measured as they currently are, then since the volume of the dried figs is smaller than that of the fresh figs, he will separate a larger amount than necessary, and this case is an example of one who increases his tithes.

讜转谞谉 讛诪专讘讛 讘诪注砖专讜转 驻讬专讜转讬讜 诪转讜拽谞讬诐 讜诪注砖专讜转讬讜 诪拽讜诇拽诇讬谉

And we learned in a baraita (Tosefta, Demai 8:10): In the case of one who increases his tithes, i.e., he designates more than one-tenth of the produce as tithe, the remainder of his produce is rendered fit for consumption, as it has been properly tithed. But his tithes are ruined, as the amount over one-tenth is not tithe, and it was not itself tithed, so it remains untithed produce. If so, how can the fresh figs be considered proper teruma and tithes in this case?

讗诇讗 诪讗讬 诇讻诪讜转 砖讛谉 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讙专讜讙专讜转 注诇 讛转讗谞讬诐 讘诪讚讛

The Gemara asks: Rather, what will you claim; that one measures foods as they were initially? If so, say the latter clause of that same baraita: One may separate tithes from dried figs for fresh figs only by measure of volume, i.e., dried figs that are one-tenth of the volume of the fresh figs. One may not separate by number, as this would result in fewer dried figs than separation by volume.

讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 讻诪讜转 砖讛谉 砖驻讬专 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 诇讻诪讜转 砖讛谉 诪专讘讛 讘诪注砖专讜转 讛讜讗

The Gemara analyzes this halakha. Granted, if you say that one measures foods as they are currently, it is well. But if you say that one measures foods as they were initially, when the dried figs were fresh, it should be enough to set aside a smaller number of dried figs corresponding to the fresh ones. Since the baraita instructs him to separate a larger number of dried figs than required, this too is an example of one who increases his tithes.

讗诇讗 讛讻讗 讘转专讜诪讛 讙讚讜诇讛 注住拽讬谞谉 讜专讬砖讗 讘注讬谉 讬驻讛 讜住讬驻讗 讘注讬谉 讬驻讛 讛讬讗

Therefore, this baraita cannot serve as proof for either opinion. Since the two statements of the baraita appear contradictory, it must be that this baraita is actually not discussing tithes, which must be separated according to a precise measure. Rather, here we are dealing with standard teruma. By Torah law there is no fixed measure for standard teruma; a single kernel of grain exempts the entire crop. The Sages established a range of measures: One-fortieth for a generous gift, one-fiftieth for an average gift, and one-sixtieth for a miserly gift. Accordingly, one who wishes to give generously should give slightly more than the exact measure. And therefore, the first clause of the baraita is speaking of one who wishes to separate teruma generously, and in the latter clause, where he also gives more than necessary, it is also referring to one who wishes to separate his teruma generously.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讘讗 讛讬讛 谞讜讟诇 注砖专 讙专讜讙专讜转 砖讘诪拽爪讜注 注诇 转砖注讬诐 砖讘讻诇讻诇讛 讜讗讬 讘转专讜诪讛 讙讚讜诇讛 注砖专 诪讗讬 注讘讬讚转讬讛

The Gemara challenges: If so, say the last clause: Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Yosei, said: Father, i.e., Rabbi Yosei, would set aside ten dried figs that were in a vessel for ninety fresh figs that were in a basket. And if this baraita is referring to standard teruma, then with regard to this mention of ten dried figs, what is its purpose? This proportion was greater by orders of magnitude than even the amount of a generous gift established by the Sages.

讗诇讗 讛讻讗 讘转专讜诪转 诪注砖专 注住拽讬谞谉 讜讗讘讗 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 讙讜诪诇 讛讜讗 讚转谞讬讗 讗讘讗 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 讙讜诪诇 讗讜诪专 讜谞讞砖讘 诇讻诐 转专讜诪转讻诐 讘砖转讬 转专讜诪讜转 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专 讗讞转 转专讜诪讛 讙讚讜诇讛 讜讗讞转 转专讜诪转 诪注砖专

Rather, here we are dealing with teruma of the tithe, which the Levite separates from his tithe and gives to a priest. This teruma is one-tenth of the first tithe. And this ruling is in accordance with the opinion of Abba Elazar ben Gomel. As it is taught in a baraita: Abba Elazar ben Gomel says with regard to the verse: 鈥淎nd your teruma [terumatkhem] shall be reckoned to you as though it were the grain of the threshing floor鈥 (Numbers 18:27), that in using a plural term of the word 鈥測our,鈥 the verse speaks about two terumot. One is standard teruma, i.e., the grain of the threshing floor, and the other one is teruma of the tithe. The verse equates these two terumot.

讻砖诐 砖转专讜诪讛 讙讚讜诇讛 谞讬讟诇转 讘讗讜诪讚 讜讘诪讞砖讘讛 讻讱 转专讜诪转 诪注砖专 谞讬讟诇转 讘讗讜诪讚

Abba Elazar ben Gomel explains: Just as standard teruma is taken by estimate, as there is no requirement for the amount separated to be measured precisely; and it can be taken by thought, as one is not required to physically separate it before consuming the remaining produce, so too, teruma of the tithe may be taken by estimate

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Menachot 54

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Menachot 54

讘转驻讜讞讬诐 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗诪专讜 诪讞诪讬爪讬谉 专讘 讻讛谞讗 诪转谞讬 诇讛 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘谉 转专讚讬讜谉

with the juice of apples, as the dough will not leaven properly. It was said in the name of Rabbi 岣nina ben Gamliel that one may leaven these meal offerings with juice from apples, as this is considered proper leavening. The Gemara notes that Rav Kahana would teach this halakha in the name of Rabbi 岣nina ben Teradyon, not in the name of Rabbi 岣nina ben Gamliel.

讻诪讗谉 讗讝诇讗 讛讗 讚转谞谉 转驻讜讞 砖专讬住拽讜 讜谞转谞讜 讘转讜讱 讛注讬住讛 讜讞讬诪爪讛 讛专讬 讝讜 讗住讜专讛

The Gemara analyzes this dispute. In accordance with whose opinion is that which we learned in a mishna (Terumot 10:2): In the case of an apple of teruma that one mashed and placed in non-sacred dough, and the juice of the apple leavened the dough, this dough is prohibited to be consumed by anyone who may not partake of teruma.

讻诪讗谉 诇讬诪讗 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讛讬讗 讜诇讗 专讘谞谉 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘谞谉 谞讛讬 讚讞诪抓 讙诪讜专 诇讗 讛讜讬 谞讜拽砖讛 诪讬讛讗 讛讜讬

The Gemara reiterates the question: In accordance with whose opinion is this mishna? Shall we say that it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi 岣nina ben Gamliel, who maintains that the juice of apples causes the dough to leaven properly, and not in accordance with the ruling of the Rabbis, the majority opinion that disputes this ruling? The Gemara refutes this suggestion: You may even say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. Granted, the Rabbis hold that dough leavened by the juice of apples does not become full-fledged leavened bread, but in any event it becomes hardened [nukshe] leaven. Consequently, dough leavened by the juice of teruma apples is prohibited to non-priests.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讬诇讗 讗讬谉 诇讱 讛拽砖讛 诇拽诪讬爪讛 讬讜转专 诪诪谞讞转 讞讜讟讗 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专 讗讘讚讬诪讬 讗诪专 诪谞讞转 讞讜讟讗 诪讙讘诇讛 讘诪讬诐 讜讻砖专讛

搂 On the previous amud the Gemara cited the opinion of Rabba and Rav Yosef that measuring the flour in the leavening dough must be performed before water is added. The Gemara discusses this matter further. Rabbi Ila says: Of all the meal offerings, you do not have a meal offering whose removal of the handful is more difficult than that of the meal offering of a sinner. This particular meal offering is dry, as no oil is added to it. Therefore, it is very difficult to remove precisely a handful, as when the priest takes a handful with his thumb and little finger, a large amount of flour is apt to fall out. Rav Yitz岣k bar Avdimi says: The removal of the handful in the case of the meal offering of a sinner is no more difficult than its removal in other meal offerings. The reason is that although the Torah prohibited the addition of oil to the meal offering of a sinner, nevertheless the priest may knead it in water, and it is fit to be offered.

诇讬诪讗 讘讛讗 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚诪专 住讘专 讻诪讜转 砖讛谉 诪砖注专讬谞谉 讜诪专 住讘专 诇讻诪讜转 砖讛讬讜 诪砖注专讬谞谉

The Gemara analyzes this dispute. Let us say that these amora鈥檌m disagree about this: As one Sage, Rav Yitz岣k bar Avdimi, holds that one measures meal offerings as they are, in their current state, after they have been mixed into a dough. Therefore it is permitted to perform the removal of the handful after water has been added, at which point it is not a particularly difficult rite to perform. And one Sage, Rabbi Ila, holds that one measures meal offerings as they were before they were mixed with water, when they were still flour. Therefore, if one were to add water before measuring he might add too much, which would cause the dough to be too soft and the measure of the offering too large, or conversely, if he were to add too little water the dough would be stiff and too small in volume. Either way, the handful will not contain the correct amount of flour, and therefore no water may be added.

诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讻诪讜转 砖讛谉 诪砖注专讬谞谉 讜讘讛讗 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚诪专 住讘专 诪讗讬 讞专讬讘讛 讞专讬讘讛 诪砖诪谉 讜诪专 住讘专 讞专讬讘讛 诪讻诇 讚讘专

The Gemara responds: No, as everyone agrees that one measures meal offerings as they currently are. And it is with regard to this that they disagree: As one Sage, Rav Yitz岣k bar Avdimi, holds: What is the meaning of 鈥渄ry鈥 written in the verse discussing a meal offering: 鈥淎nd every meal offering, mixed with oil, or dry鈥 (Leviticus 7:10)? It means dry of oil, but one may add water. And one Sage, Rabbi Ila, holds that the meal offering of a sinner must be dry of all substances, i.e., it may not contain even water.

转谞谉 讛转诐 讘砖专 讛注讙诇 砖谞转驻讞 讜讘砖专 讝拽谞讛 砖谞转诪注讱 诪砖转注专讬谉 诇讻诪讜转 砖讛谉

搂 The question concerning whether a meal offering is to be measured in its current, mixed state or as it was before it was mixed relates to a fundamental issue that also arises in other areas of halakha. We learned in a mishna there (Okatzin 2:8): Meat of a calf that swelled due to cooking, as the volume of calf flesh increases when it is cooked in water, or meat of an old animal that shrank due to cooking, which is what happens to meat of this type, are to be measured as they are in order to determine if they are the volume of an egg-bulk, in which case they can contract ritual impurity and transfer impurity of food to other items.

专讘 讜专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专讬 诪砖转注专讬谉 讻诪讜转 砖讛谉 砖诪讜讗诇 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘专 专讘讬 讜专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专讬 诪砖转注专讬谉 诇讻诪讜转 砖讛谉

The Sages disagree as to the meaning of: Measured as they are. Rav, Rabbi 岣yya, and Rabbi Yo岣nan all say that it means the items are to be measured as they are currently, after having been cooked. Shmuel, Rabbi Shimon bar Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and Reish Lakish all say it means they are to be measured according to their volume as they are, before having been cooked. In other words, even if the meat of a calf is the volume of an egg-bulk after it was cooked, if it was less than this before cooking it cannot contract ritual impurity. Conversely, even if the meat of an old animal was less than an egg-bulk after cooking, if it was an egg-bulk before it was cooked it can contract ritual impurity.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讘砖专 讛注讙诇 砖诇讗 讛讬讛 讘讜 讻砖讬注讜专 讜转驻讞 讜注诪讚 注诇 讻砖讬注讜专 讟讛讜专 诇砖注讘专 讜讟诪讗 诪讬讻谉 讜诇讛讘讗

The Gemara raises an objection to the opinion of Shmuel, Rabbi Shimon bar Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and Reish Lakish from a baraita: With regard to meat of a calf that came into contact with a source of ritual impurity but that was not of a volume equivalent to the minimum measure for contracting impurity, i.e., an egg-bulk, if it was then cooked, and as a result it swelled until it stood at the requisite measure for ritual impurity, this meat is pure with regard to the past, but can become impure and render other items impure from here on. In other words, the previous contact with a source of impurity did not render the meat impure, as it was of insufficient volume at the time. This indicates that the status of an item with regard to ritual impurity depends on its volume at the current moment.

诪讚专讘谞谉

The Gemara answers: It is possible that by Torah law this meat is in fact not susceptible to ritual impurity even from here on, as the halakha defines it by its volume prior to cooking. Nevertheless, the baraita teaches that it is impure by rabbinic law.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讜讻谉 讘驻讬讙讜诇 讜讻谉 讘谞讜转专 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讗讬讻讗 驻讬讙讜诇 讜谞讜转专 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 讚专讘谞谉 驻讬讙讜诇 讜谞讜转专 讘讚专讘谞谉 诪讬 讗讬讻讗

The Gemara asks: If so, say the latter clause of that baraita: And similarly, the same principle applies to an offering that was sacrificed with the intent to consume it after its designated time [piggul], and similarly with regard to food left over from an offering after the time allotted for its consumption [notar]. The Gemara analyzes this statement: Granted, if you say that the baraita is discussing halakhot that apply by Torah law, this is why the cases of piggul and notar are included in the baraita, as they also apply by Torah law. But if you say that the halakhot in the baraita apply by rabbinic law, are there piggul and notar by rabbinic law?

讗讬诪讗 讜讻谉 讘讟讜诪讗转 驻讬讙讜诇 讜讻谉 讘讟讜诪讗转 谞讜转专

The Gemara answers: Say that the baraita is not referring to the prohibitions of piggul and notar. Rather, it means the following: And similarly, the same principle applies with regard to ritual impurity imparted by piggul, and similarly with regard to ritual impurity imparted by notar. There is a rabbinic decree that meat which is piggul or notar imparts impurity to one鈥檚 hands even if the meat itself was not impure. The baraita teaches that if the meat is at least the volume of an egg-bulk after it was cooked, it renders the hands impure in this manner.

住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讟讜诪讗转 驻讬讙讜诇 讜讟讜诪讗转 谞讜转专 讚专讘谞谉 讛讬讗 讻讜诇讬 讛讗讬 讘讚专讘谞谉 诇讗 注讘讜讚 专讘谞谉 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara explains that this statement is necessary, as it might enter your mind to say: Since the concepts of impurity imparted by piggul and impurity imparted by notar apply by rabbinic law, the Sages did not institute a stringency to such an extent, making items that were less than the requisite volume until they were cooked contract and impart forms of impurity that apply by rabbinic law. Therefore, the baraita teaches us that this halakha does apply to those forms of ritual impurity.

转讗 砖诪注 讘砖专 讝拽谞讛 砖讛讬讛 讘讜 讻砖讬注讜专 讜爪诪拽 驻讞讜转 诪讻砖讬注讜专 讟诪讗 诇砖注讘专 讜讟讛讜专 诪讬讻谉 讜诇讛讘讗

The Gemara continues to analyze this dispute. Come and hear a baraita: With regard to meat of an old animal that initially was of a volume equivalent to the requisite measure for contracting ritual impurity and became impure, after which it was cooked and as a result shrank until it was less than the requisite measure for contracting impurity, it is considered impure with regard to items that touched it in the past, when it was large enough, and it is pure with regard to items that it may touch from here on. This baraita indicates that the current state of the item is decisive.

讗诪专 专讘讛 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚诪注讬拽专讗 讛讜讛 讘讬讛 讜讛砖转讗 诇讬转 讘讬讛 讛讗 诇讬转 讘讬讛 讜讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚诪注讬拽专讗 诇讗 讛讜讛 讘讬讛 讜讛砖转讗 讛讜讛 讘讬讛 诪讚专讘谞谉

Rabba said, in explanation of the dispute between the amora鈥檌m: Anywhere, i.e., with regard to any item, that was initially of a volume equivalent to the requisite measure, but now it is not of such a volume, the halakha is determined according to the item鈥檚 current volume, and it is not of the requisite volume. Conversely, anywhere, i.e., with regard to any item, that initially was not of the requisite measure but now it is of sufficient volume, the item contracts impurity by rabbinic law.

讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讻讙讜谉 砖讛讬讛 讘讜 讻砖讬注讜专 讜爪诪拽 讜讞讝专 讜转驻讞 讚诪专 住讘专 讬砖 讚讬讞讜讬 讘讗讬住讜专讗 讜诪专 住讘专 讗讬谉 讚讬讞讜讬 讘讗讬住讜专讗

When they disagree is in a case where the food initially had the requisite measure for ritual impurity, and it shrank until it was less than this measure, and subsequently it again swelled to the requisite measure for contracting impurity. The dispute is that one Sage, i.e., Shmuel, Rabbi Shimon, and Reish Lakish, holds: There is disqualification with regard to a ritual matter, including impurity. In other words, if at a certain point the food was less than the requisite measure it becomes entirely disqualified from contracting ritual impurity, even if it subsequently swells again. And one Sage, i.e., Rav, Rav 岣yya, and Rabbi Yo岣nan, holds: There is no disqualification with regard to a ritual matter. Even if at a certain stage the food lost its ability to contract impurity, if it later swells it can once again become impure.

讜诪讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讚讬砖 讚讬讞讜讬 讘讗讬住讜专讬谉 讜讛转谞谉 讻讘讬爪讛 讗讜讻诇讬谉 砖讛谞讬讞讛 讘讞诪讛 讜谞转诪注讟讜 讜讻谉 讻讝讬转 诪谉 讛诪转 讻讝讬转 诪谉 讛谞讘诇讛 讜讻注讚砖讛 诪谉 讛砖专抓 讜讻讝讬转 驻讬讙讜诇 讜讻讝讬转 谞讜转专 讜讻讝讬转 讞诇讘 讟讛讜专讬谉 讜讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讛谉 诪砖讜诐 驻讬讙讜诇 讜谞讜转专 讜讞诇讘

The Gemara asks: And is there one who says that there is disqualification with regard to ritual matters? But didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (Teharot 3:6): In the case of an egg-bulk of a ritually impure food that one placed in the sun and that therefore shrank to less than an egg-bulk; and similarly in the case of an olive-bulk of flesh of a corpse, or an olive-bulk of an animal carcass, or a lentil-bulk of a creeping animal, all of which impart impurity; or an olive-bulk of piggul, or an olive-bulk of notar, or an olive-bulk of forbidden fat, if any of these were placed in the sun and shrank, they are pure, i.e., they do not impart impurity to other items, and one is not liable to receive karet for them due to the prohibitions of piggul, notar, or forbidden fat.

讛谞讬讞谉 讘讙砖诪讬诐 讜转驻讞讜 讟诪讗讬谉 讜讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讛诐 诪砖讜诐 驻讬讙讜诇 讜谞讜转专 讜讞诇讘 转讬讜讘转讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讬砖 讚讬讞讜讬 讘讗讬住讜专讬谉 转讬讜讘转讗

The mishna continues: If, after they shrank in the sun, one took these foods and placed them in the rain, as a result of which they again swelled to the minimum volume for ritual impurity, they are impure, as was the case before they shrank. This applies to the impurity of a corpse, the impurity of an animal carcass, and the impurity of foods, and one is also liable to receive karet for them due to piggul, notar, or forbidden fat. This demonstrates that the food is not permanently disqualified. Therefore, the refutation of the opinion of the one who says that there is disqualification with regard to ritual matters is a conclusive refutation.

转讗 砖诪注 转讜专诪讬谉 转讗谞讬诐 注诇 讛讙专讜讙专讜转 讘诪谞讬谉

搂 The Gemara returns to the dispute over whether food is to be measured in its current volume or according to its initial volume. Come and hear a baraita: (Tosefta, Terumot 4:2): One may separate teruma and tithes from fresh figs for dried figs, which have shrunk and are now smaller than they were when they were fresh. In other words, one may designate fresh figs as teruma and tithe to exempt the dried figs, despite the difference between these two types of figs. This separation may be performed only by number, e.g., ten fresh figs for ninety dried figs. One may not set aside this teruma by volume, i.e., by separating fresh figs with a volume of one-tenth of the measure of dried figs. The reason is that the volume of the fresh figs is greater than that of the dried figs, so he would set aside fewer fresh figs than he would if he calculated by number.

讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 诇讻诪讜转 砖讛谉 诪砖注专讬谞谉 砖驻讬专 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 讻诪讜转 砖讛谉 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诪专讘讛 讘诪注砖专讜转

The Gemara analyzes this halakha. Granted, if you say that one measures food items as they were initially, then since when the obligation to separate teruma began, the volume of the dried figs was the same as the fresh ones, then it is well; the amount of figs to be separated as teruma should be calculated based on number, disregarding their current volume. But if you say that foods are to be measured as they currently are, then since the volume of the dried figs is smaller than that of the fresh figs, he will separate a larger amount than necessary, and this case is an example of one who increases his tithes.

讜转谞谉 讛诪专讘讛 讘诪注砖专讜转 驻讬专讜转讬讜 诪转讜拽谞讬诐 讜诪注砖专讜转讬讜 诪拽讜诇拽诇讬谉

And we learned in a baraita (Tosefta, Demai 8:10): In the case of one who increases his tithes, i.e., he designates more than one-tenth of the produce as tithe, the remainder of his produce is rendered fit for consumption, as it has been properly tithed. But his tithes are ruined, as the amount over one-tenth is not tithe, and it was not itself tithed, so it remains untithed produce. If so, how can the fresh figs be considered proper teruma and tithes in this case?

讗诇讗 诪讗讬 诇讻诪讜转 砖讛谉 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讙专讜讙专讜转 注诇 讛转讗谞讬诐 讘诪讚讛

The Gemara asks: Rather, what will you claim; that one measures foods as they were initially? If so, say the latter clause of that same baraita: One may separate tithes from dried figs for fresh figs only by measure of volume, i.e., dried figs that are one-tenth of the volume of the fresh figs. One may not separate by number, as this would result in fewer dried figs than separation by volume.

讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 讻诪讜转 砖讛谉 砖驻讬专 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 诇讻诪讜转 砖讛谉 诪专讘讛 讘诪注砖专讜转 讛讜讗

The Gemara analyzes this halakha. Granted, if you say that one measures foods as they are currently, it is well. But if you say that one measures foods as they were initially, when the dried figs were fresh, it should be enough to set aside a smaller number of dried figs corresponding to the fresh ones. Since the baraita instructs him to separate a larger number of dried figs than required, this too is an example of one who increases his tithes.

讗诇讗 讛讻讗 讘转专讜诪讛 讙讚讜诇讛 注住拽讬谞谉 讜专讬砖讗 讘注讬谉 讬驻讛 讜住讬驻讗 讘注讬谉 讬驻讛 讛讬讗

Therefore, this baraita cannot serve as proof for either opinion. Since the two statements of the baraita appear contradictory, it must be that this baraita is actually not discussing tithes, which must be separated according to a precise measure. Rather, here we are dealing with standard teruma. By Torah law there is no fixed measure for standard teruma; a single kernel of grain exempts the entire crop. The Sages established a range of measures: One-fortieth for a generous gift, one-fiftieth for an average gift, and one-sixtieth for a miserly gift. Accordingly, one who wishes to give generously should give slightly more than the exact measure. And therefore, the first clause of the baraita is speaking of one who wishes to separate teruma generously, and in the latter clause, where he also gives more than necessary, it is also referring to one who wishes to separate his teruma generously.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讘讗 讛讬讛 谞讜讟诇 注砖专 讙专讜讙专讜转 砖讘诪拽爪讜注 注诇 转砖注讬诐 砖讘讻诇讻诇讛 讜讗讬 讘转专讜诪讛 讙讚讜诇讛 注砖专 诪讗讬 注讘讬讚转讬讛

The Gemara challenges: If so, say the last clause: Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Yosei, said: Father, i.e., Rabbi Yosei, would set aside ten dried figs that were in a vessel for ninety fresh figs that were in a basket. And if this baraita is referring to standard teruma, then with regard to this mention of ten dried figs, what is its purpose? This proportion was greater by orders of magnitude than even the amount of a generous gift established by the Sages.

讗诇讗 讛讻讗 讘转专讜诪转 诪注砖专 注住拽讬谞谉 讜讗讘讗 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 讙讜诪诇 讛讜讗 讚转谞讬讗 讗讘讗 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 讙讜诪诇 讗讜诪专 讜谞讞砖讘 诇讻诐 转专讜诪转讻诐 讘砖转讬 转专讜诪讜转 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专 讗讞转 转专讜诪讛 讙讚讜诇讛 讜讗讞转 转专讜诪转 诪注砖专

Rather, here we are dealing with teruma of the tithe, which the Levite separates from his tithe and gives to a priest. This teruma is one-tenth of the first tithe. And this ruling is in accordance with the opinion of Abba Elazar ben Gomel. As it is taught in a baraita: Abba Elazar ben Gomel says with regard to the verse: 鈥淎nd your teruma [terumatkhem] shall be reckoned to you as though it were the grain of the threshing floor鈥 (Numbers 18:27), that in using a plural term of the word 鈥測our,鈥 the verse speaks about two terumot. One is standard teruma, i.e., the grain of the threshing floor, and the other one is teruma of the tithe. The verse equates these two terumot.

讻砖诐 砖转专讜诪讛 讙讚讜诇讛 谞讬讟诇转 讘讗讜诪讚 讜讘诪讞砖讘讛 讻讱 转专讜诪转 诪注砖专 谞讬讟诇转 讘讗讜诪讚

Abba Elazar ben Gomel explains: Just as standard teruma is taken by estimate, as there is no requirement for the amount separated to be measured precisely; and it can be taken by thought, as one is not required to physically separate it before consuming the remaining produce, so too, teruma of the tithe may be taken by estimate

Scroll To Top