Parallel
עירובין 83:1
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
One taught: And half of the half of its half is the size susceptible to levitical uncleanness of food. But why did not our Tanna mention the levitical uncleanness of food? — Because their prescribed sizes are not in exact proportions. For it was taught: How much is half a peras? The size of two eggs minus a fraction; so R. Judah. R. Jose ruled: Two large sized eggs. This was calculated by Rabbi to be the size of two eggs and a slight surplus. How much was that surplus? — A twentieth part of an egg. In respect of the levitical uncleanness of food, however, it was taught: R. Nathan and R. Dosa explained that the size of the egg of which the Rabbis have spoken includes the egg itself and its shell, but the Sages explained: The egg only, exclusive of its shell. Rafram b. Papa citing R. Hisda stated: This is the ruling of R. Judah and R. Jose, but the Sages ruled: The size is one and a half large sized eggs. But who are the Sages? R. Johanan b. Beroka of course; is not this then obvious? — His purpose was to inform us that the eggs must be large sized. When R. Dimi came he related that Bonios once sent to Rabbi a modius of artichokes that came from Nausa, and Rabbi calculated its capacity to be two hundred and Seventeen eggs. What kind of se'ah, however, was it? If it was the desert se'ah it should have contained a hundred and forty-four eggs, and if it was the Jerusalem se'al it should have contained a hundred and seventy-three eggs, and if again it was the one of Sepphoris It should have contained two hundred and seven eggs. It was in fact a Sepphoris measure but the quantity of the dough-offering was added to them. But how much is the dough-offering? Nine eggs; would not then the number still be less? — The fact is that the surpluses spoken of by Rabbi were added to them. If so, would not the number be greater? — As it does not amount to the size of a whole egg he does not reckon it. Our Rabbis taught: The Jerusalem se'ah exceeds that of the desert one by a sixth, and that of Sepphoris exceeds that of Jerusalem by a sixth. Thus it follows that the measure of Sepphoris exceeds that of the desert by a third. A third of which? Would you suggest: A third of the desert measure? Observe then: How much is a third of the desert measure? Forty-eight eggs; whereas the surplus amounts to sixty-three! If again a third of the Jerusalem measure was meant, how much, [it could be retorted,] is a third of it? Fifty-eight minus one third; whereas the surplus is sixty-three! Is then the reference to the measure of Sepphoris? How much, [it may be asked,] is a third of it? Seventy minus one; whereas the surplus is sixty-three! — Rather, explained R. Jeremiah it is this that was meant: It follows that the se'ah of Sepphoris exceeds that of the desert by nearly a third of itself and that a third of itself is nearly equal to a half of the desert measure. Rabina demurred: Was any mention at all made of approximation? — Rather, explained Rabina, it is this that was meant: It follows that a third of the Sepphoris measure together with the surpluses spoken of by Rabbi exceeds the half of the desert measure by a third of an egg. Our Rabbis taught: Of the first of your dough50
—