מנחות נד

מנחות נד

בְּתַפּוּחִים. מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אָמְרוּ: מַחְמִיצִין. רַב כָּהֲנָא מַתְנֵי לַהּ בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶּן תְּרַדְיוֹן.

with the juice of apples, as the dough will not leaven properly. It was said in the name of Rabbi Ḥanina 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 Ḥanina ben Teradyon, not in the name of Rabbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel.

כְּמַאן אָזְלָא הָא דִּתְנַן: תַּפּוּחַ שֶׁרִיסְּקוֹ, וּנְתָנוֹ בְּתוֹךְ הָעִיסָּה, וְחִימְּצָה – הֲרֵי זוֹ אֲסוּרָה.

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.

כְּמַאן? לֵימָא רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל הִיא, וְלָא רַבָּנַן? אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא רַבָּנַן, נְהִי דְּחָמֵץ גָּמוּר לָא הָוֵי, נוּקְשֶׁה מִיהָא הָוֵי.

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 Ḥanina 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.

אָמַר רַבִּי אִילָא: אֵין לְךָ הַקָּשָׁה לִקְמִיצָה יוֹתֵר מִמִּנְחַת חוֹטֵא. רַב יִצְחָק בַּר אַבְדִּימִי אָמַר: מִנְחַת חוֹטֵא מְגַבְּלָהּ בַּמַּיִם, וּכְשֵׁרָה.

§ 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 Yitzḥak 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.

לֵימָא בְּהָא קָא מִיפַּלְגִי, דְּמָר סָבַר: כְּמוֹת שֶׁהֵן מְשַׁעֲרִינַן, וּמָר סָבַר: לִכְמוֹת שֶׁהָיוּ מְשַׁעֲרִינַן.

The Gemara analyzes this dispute. Let us say that these amora’im disagree about this: As one Sage, Rav Yitzḥak 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.

לָא, דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא כְּמוֹת שֶׁהֵן מְשַׁעֲרִינַן, וּבְהָא קָא מִיפַּלְגִי: דְּמָר סָבַר מַאי ״חֲרֵיבָה״? חֲרֵיבָה מִשֶּׁמֶן, וּמָר סָבַר חֲרֵיבָה מִכׇּל דָּבָר.

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 Yitzḥak bar Avdimi, holds: What is the meaning of “dry” written in the verse discussing a meal offering: “And every meal offering, mixed with oil, or dry” (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.

תְּנַן הָתָם: בְּשַׂר הָעֵגֶל שֶׁנִּתְפַּח, וּבְשַׂר זְקֵנָה שֶׁנִּתְמַעֵךְ, מִשְׁתַּעֲרִין לִכְמוֹת שֶׁהֵן.

§ 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.

רַב וְרַבִּי חִיָּיא וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמְרִי: מִשְׁתַּעֲרִין כְּמוֹת שֶׁהֵן, שְׁמוּאֵל וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בַּר רַבִּי וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמְרִי: מִשְׁתַּעֲרִין לִכְמוֹת שֶׁהֵן.

The Sages disagree as to the meaning of: Measured as they are. Rav, Rabbi Ḥiyya, and Rabbi Yoḥanan 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.

מֵיתִיבִי: בְּשַׂר הָעֵגֶל שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה בּוֹ כְּשִׁיעוּר, וְתָפַח וְעָמַד עַל כְּשִׁיעוּר – טָהוֹר לְשֶׁעָבַר, וְטָמֵא מִיכָּן וּלְהַבָּא!

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.

מִדְּרַבָּנַן.

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.

אִי הָכִי, אֵימָא סֵיפָא: וְכֵן בְּפִיגּוּל, וְכֵן בְּנוֹתָר. אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא, הַיְינוּ דְּאִיכָּא פִּיגּוּל וְנוֹתָר, אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ דְּרַבָּנַן, פִּיגּוּל וְנוֹתָר בִּדְרַבָּנַן מִי אִיכָּא?

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?

אֵימָא: וְכֵן בְּטוּמְאַת פִּיגּוּל, וְכֵן בְּטוּמְאַת נוֹתָר.

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’s 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.

סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: הוֹאִיל וְטוּמְאַת פִּיגּוּל וְטוּמְאַת נוֹתָר דְּרַבָּנַן הִיא, כּוּלֵּי הַאי בִּדְרַבָּנַן לָא עֲבוּד רַבָּנַן, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

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.

תָּא שְׁמַע: בְּשַׂר זְקֵנָה שֶׁהָיָה בּוֹ כְּשִׁיעוּר, וְצָמַק פָּחוֹת מִכְּשִׁיעוּר – טָמֵא לְשֶׁעָבַר, וְטָהוֹר מִיכָּן וּלְהַבָּא.

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.

אָמַר רַבָּה: כֹּל הֵיכָא דְּמֵעִיקָּרָא הֲוָה בֵּיהּ, וְהַשְׁתָּא לֵית בֵּיהּ – הָא לֵית בֵּיהּ, וְכֹל הֵיכָא דְּמֵעִיקָּרָא לָא הֲוָה בֵּיהּ וְהַשְׁתָּא הֲוָה בֵּיהּ – מִדְּרַבָּנַן.

Rabba said, in explanation of the dispute between the amora’im: 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’s 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.

כִּי פְּלִיגִי, כְּגוֹן שֶׁהָיָה בּוֹ כְּשִׁיעוּר וְצָמַק וְחָזַר וְתָפַח, דְּמָר סָבַר: יֵשׁ דִּיחוּי בְּאִיסּוּרָא, וּמַר סָבַר: אֵין דִּיחוּי בְּאִיסּוּרָא.

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 Ḥiyya, and Rabbi Yoḥanan, 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.

וּמִי אִיכָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר דְּיֵשׁ דִּיחוּי בְּאִיסּוּרִין? וְהָתְנַן: כְּבֵיצָה אֳכָלִין שֶׁהִנִּיחָן בַּחַמָּה וְנִתְמַעֲטוּ, וְכֵן כְּזַיִת מִן הַמֵּת, כְּזַיִת מִן הַנְּבֵלָה, וְכַעֲדָשָׁה מִן הַשֶּׁרֶץ, וּכְזַיִת פִּיגּוּל, וּכְזַיִת נוֹתָר, וּכְזַיִת חֵלֶב – טְהוֹרִין, וְאֵין חַיָּיבִין עֲלֵיהֶן מִשּׁוּם פִּיגּוּל וְנוֹתָר וָחֵלֶב.

The Gemara asks: And is there one who says that there is disqualification with regard to ritual matters? But didn’t 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.

הִנִּיחָן בַּגְּשָׁמִים וְתָפְחוּ – טְמֵאִין, וְחַיָּיבִין עֲלֵיהֶם מִשּׁוּם פִּיגּוּל וְנוֹתָר וָחֵלֶב. תְּיוּבְתָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר יֵשׁ דִּיחוּי בְּאִיסּוּרִין! תְּיוּבְתָּא.

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.

תָּא שְׁמַע: תּוֹרְמִין תְּאֵנִים עַל הַגְּרוֹגְרוֹת, בְּמִנְיָן.

§ 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.

אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא לִכְמוֹת שֶׁהֵן מְשַׁעֲרִינַן – שַׁפִּיר, אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ כְּמוֹת שֶׁהֵן – הָוֵה לֵיהּ מַרְבֶּה בְּמַעַשְׂרוֹת.

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.

וּתְנַן: הַמַּרְבֶּה בְּמַעַשְׂרוֹת – פֵּירוֹתָיו מְתוּקָּנִים, ומַעְשְׂרוֹתָיו מְקוּלְקָלִין.

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?

אֶלָּא מַאי לִכְמוֹת שֶׁהֵן? אֵימָא סֵיפָא: גְּרוֹגְרוֹת עַל הַתְּאֵנִים בְּמִדָּה.

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.

אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא כְּמוֹת שֶׁהֵן – שַׁפִּיר, אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ לִכְמוֹת שֶׁהֵן – מַרְבֶּה בְּמַעַשְׂרוֹת הוּא.

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.

אֶלָּא, הָכָא בִּתְרוּמָה גְּדוֹלָה עָסְקִינַן, וְרֵישָׁא בְּעַיִן יָפָה, וְסֵיפָא בְּעַיִן יָפָה הִיא.

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.

אִי הָכִי, אֵימָא סֵיפָא: אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי: אַבָּא הָיָה נוֹטֵל עֶשֶׂר גְּרוֹגְרוֹת שֶׁבַּמַּקְצוּעַ עַל תִּשְׁעִים שֶׁבַּכַּלְכַּלָּה, וְאִי בִּתְרוּמָה גְּדוֹלָה, עֶשֶׂר מַאי עֲבִידְתֵּיהּ?

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.

אֶלָּא הָכָא בִּתְרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר עָסְקִינַן, וְאַבָּא אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן גּוֹמֵל הוּא. דְּתַנְיָא: אַבָּא אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן גּוֹמֵל אוֹמֵר: ״וְנֶחְשַׁב לָכֶם תְּרוּמַתְכֶם״ – בִּשְׁתֵּי תְּרוּמוֹת הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר, אַחַת תְּרוּמָה גְּדוֹלָה וְאַחַת תְּרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר.

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: “And your teruma [terumatkhem] shall be reckoned to you as though it were the grain of the threshing floor” (Numbers 18:27), that in using a plural term of the word “your,” 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.

כְּשֵׁם שֶׁתְּרוּמָה גְּדוֹלָה נִיטֶּלֶת בְּאוֹמֶד וּבְמַחְשָׁבָה, כָּךְ תְּרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר נִיטֶּלֶת בְּאוֹמֶד

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