מנחות 54 — Soncino English Talmud

¹with apples. In the name of R. Hanina b. Gamaliel they said, One may do so. R. Kahana reports this in the name of R. Hanina b. Teradion. With whom will the following agree? For we have learnt: If an apple [of terumah] was chopped up and put into dough so that it leavened it, the dough is forbidden. Now with whom does this agree? Shall we say with R. Hanina b. Gamaliel and not with the Rabbis? — You may even say that this agrees with the Rabbis too, for although it is not the finest leaven it is, however, an inferior leaven. R. Ela said, From no meal-offering is it more difficult to take out the handful than from the sinner's meal-offering. R. Isaac b. Abdimi said, The sinner's meal-offering may be mixed with water and it is valid. Shall we say that they differ in this: one holds that we must measure [the handful] according to its present state, and the other holds that we must measure it according to its former state? — No, both agree that we must measure it according to its present state, but they differ in this: one’ holds that dry means, dry without oil, and the other holds that dry means, dry without any kind [of liquid]. We have learnt there: Calf's flesh that had swelled and the flesh of an old beast that had shrivelled, must be measured according to their present state. Rab, R. Hiyya and R. Johanan read: ‘according to their present state’; whereas Samuel, R. Simeon b. Rabbi and Resh Lakish read: ‘according to their former state’. An objection was raised: If a piece of calf's flesh which was not of the prescribed size swelled so that it is now of the prescribed size until now it has been clean but from now onwards it is unclean! — It is only so Rabbinically. If so, consider the next clause: And so it is, too, with regard to the flesh of an offering that was piggul or nothur. Now if you hold that this rule is Scriptural then it can well apply to piggul and to nothar; but if you hold that it is only Rabbinical, it will be asked: Is one liable [to kareth] for [eating] what is regarded as piggul or nothar Rabbinically? — Render: And so it is, too, with regard to the uncleanness of what is piggul or nothar. For I might have said that since the uncleanness attaching to what is piggul or nothar is only a Rabbinic ordinance, the Rabbis would certainly not apply this rule to that which is only a Rabbinic ordinance; we are therefore taught [otherwise]. Come and hear: If the flesh of an old beast which was of the prescribed size had shrivelled up so that it is now less than the prescribed size, until now it could have been unclean but from now onwards it remains clean! — Rabbah explained the position thus: If a [forbidden] thing was of the prescribed size but now it is not so, then it is not so; and if at first it was not of the prescribed size and now it is, then it is so Rabbinically.26^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ

^ᵃnote:Ter. X, 2.
^ᵇnote:To be eaten by any but a priest, since the dough which was hullin and not terumah was leavened by an apple which was of terumah.
^ᶜnote:For the Rabbis, i.e., the first Tanna of the Baraitha, hold that apples cannot leaven.
^ᵈnote:It is spoilt or hard leaven, and although it is not the best thing to use for leavening the meal-offering, it certainly has a leavening effect upon the substance into which it has been put.
^ᵉnote:Since it was without oil, the taking of the handful was a difficult operation indeed, for when taking out the handful of dry flour and then smoothing away the flour that is bursting between the fingers, much skill would be required in preventing the flour from slipping out of the hand.
^ᶠnote:So as to make the taking out of the handful easier. The Torah prohibited only the application of oil.
^ᵍnote:R. Isaac.
^ʰnote:The handful is to be taken out after the flour has been mixed with water, when it is easy to do so.
^ⁱnote:R. Ela.
^ʲnote:The measure is to be a handful of flour only, and therefore if taken out after the flour has been mixed with water, it would contain either too much or too little flour according to the consistency of the mixture.
^ᵏnote:Lev. VII, 10.
^ˡnote:‘Uk. II, 8.
^ᵐnote:Less than an egg's bulk.
^ⁿnote:To an egg's bulk.
^ᵒnote:An egg's bulk.
^ᵖnote:To less than an egg's bulk.
^ᵠnote:With regard to the laws of uncleanness. Foodstuffs, if of an egg's bulk in quantity, can become unclean and can convey uncleanness.
^ʳnote:I.e., it can become unclean since it is now the size of an egg; contra Resh Lakish and the others.
^ˢnote:This means, presumably, that if a piece of flesh that was piggul or nothar, and which was less than an olive's bulk (which is the minimum in regard to forbidden food), had swelled to the size of an olive's bulk and one ate it, the penalty of kareth would thereby be incurred, for we estimate a thing according to its present size. For piggul and nothar v. Glos.
^ᵗnote:That we must consider everything according to its present size.
^ᵘnote:Surely there is no penalty incurred, since by the law of the Torah there was not the prescribed bulk.
^ᵛnote:It is a Rabbinical ordinance that consecrated flesh that was rendered piggul or nothar is unclean and conveys uncleanness to the hands; v. Pes. 85a. We are now taught that if piggul or nothar less than an egg's bulk had swelled to the size of an egg, it will render the hands unclean.
^ʷnote:V. p. 324, n. 14.
^ˣnote:Thus contrary to Resh Lakish and the others who maintain that we must measure everything in the condition in which it was before.
^ʸnote:I.e., it is no longer a forbidden thing since it is not of the prescribed size. The term ‘forbidden’ is used here in an extended sense to include ‘defilement’.
^ᶻnote:By Rabbinical ordinance it is regarded as a forbidden thing.

²They differ only in the case where it was at first of the prescribed size but it shrivelled up and then it swelled up again. One is of the opinion that with forbidden things there can be an absolute rejection of the prohibition, but the other maintains that there can be no such absolute rejection. Is there anyone who maintains that with forbidden things there can be an absolute rejection of the prohibition? But we have learnt: If an egg's bulk of foodstuff was left in the sun and shrank, likewise if an olive's bulk of a corpse, an olive's bulk of nebelah, a lentil's bulk of a [dead] reptile, an olive's bulk of [consecrated flesh that was] piggul or nothar, and an olive's bulk of forbidden fat [shrank], they are now clean, and one is not liable thereby [to the penalties] for [eating] piggul or nothar or forbidden fat. If later they were left in the rain and swelled, they become unclean and one is liable thereby [to the penalties] for [eating] piggul or nothor or forbidden fat. This clearly refutes the view of him who says that with forbidden things there can be an absolute rejection of the prohibition! It is indeed a refutation. Come and hear: One may give by number fresh figs [as tithe] in respect of pressed figs. Now if you hold that we measure a thing in the condition in which it was before, it is well; but if you hold that we measure in the condition in which it is now, then too much is given as tithe, and it has been taught: If one gave too much tithe the produce is duly tithed but the tithe is unfit! — What then shall we say? That we measure in the condition in which it was before? But read the next clause: And [one may give] pressed figs by measure [as tithe] in respect of fresh figs. Now if you hold that we measure In the condition in which it is now, then it is well; but if you hold that we measure in the condition in which it was before, then too much is given as tithe? — We are dealing here with the ‘great terumah’, and the first clause as well as the second deals with the case of a man that is liberal. If so, read the final clause: R. Eleazar son of R. Jose said, My father used to take ten pressed figs from the cake in respect of the ninety [fresh figs] in the basket. Now if we are dealing with the ‘great terumah’, why is ‘ten’ mentioned? — We are really dealing here with the terumah of the tithe, and it is in accordance with the teaching of Abba Eleazar b. Gomel. For it was taught: Abba Eleazar b. Gomel says, It is written, And your heave-offering shall be reckoned unto you. Scripture speaks of two heave-offerings, one the ‘great terumah’ and the other the terumah from the tithe. Just as the ‘great terumah’ is set aside by estimate and by intention, so the terumah of the tithe is set aside by estimate^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ^ᵃᵠ^ᵃʳ^ᵃˢ^ᵃᵗ^ᵃᵘ^ᵃᵛ

^ᵃᵃnote:Resh Lakish and his colleagues maintain that when the forbidden thing shrivelled up to less than the prescribed quantity the prohibition thereof vanished completely, and, by the law of the Torah, cannot return even though the substance later swelled up to the prescribed size.
^ᵃᵇnote:R. Johanan and his colleagues hold that the prohibition has only been suspended temporarily.
^ᵃᶜnote:Toh. III, 4.
^ᵃᵈnote:V. Glos.
^ᵃᵉnote:The first four cases mentioned which relate to uncleanness.
^ᵃᶠnote:If one ate this shrunken olive's bulk of piggul or nothar or of forbidden fat.
^ᵃᵍnote:Thus ten fresh figs may be given as tithe in respect of ninety pressed figs.
^ᵃʰnote:Accordingly the pressed figs are considered in the condition in which they were before, namely fresh; and therefore ten fresh figs would be the exact quantity for the tithe, whether we reckon the tithe by number or by capacity.
^ᵃⁱnote:For reckoning by capacity ten fresh figs would probably take up as much as one fifth of the capacity of ninety pressed figs.
^ᵃʲnote:For the tenth part only is the tithe, the excess being untithed produce (tebel), and as the two are inextricably mixed up the whole is forbidden, even to Levite or priest, until it has been made fit by the proper separation.
^ᵃᵏnote:Thus one kab of pressed figs may be given as tithe in respect of nine kabs of fresh figs.
^ᵃˡnote:For reckoning by capacity or weight one measure of dried figs is given in respect of the remaining nine measures of fresh figs.
^ᵃᵐnote:For one kab of dried figs would very likely be as much as two kabs when fresh.
^ᵃⁿnote:The first levy of the produce of the field given to the priest. V. Glos.
^ᵃᵒnote:Lit. ‘with a kindly eye’. A generous owner would give one-fortieth, one less generous one-fiftieth, and a mean person one-sixtieth of his produce as terumah. The clauses of the Baraitha apply to a generous owner, accordingly the objection that too much is given cannot stand.
^ᵃᵖnote:The use of the numbers ten and ninety suggests that the offering is the tithe and not the terumah.
^ᵃᵠnote:The heave-offering of one tenth given to the priest by the Levite form the tithe he receives. V. Num. XVIII, 25ff.
^ᵃʳnote:Var. lec. ‘Gimel’, ‘Gamala’ (so Git. 30b), and ‘Gamaliel’ (Aruch).
^ᵃˢnote:Num. XVIII, 27.
^ᵃᵗnote:For the verse continues, As though it (the terumah of the tithe) were the corn of the threshing-floor (the ‘great terumah’); thus the verse speaks of two terumoth.
^ᵃᵘnote:It was not necessary to measure out exactly the fiftieth part usually given for the terumah (Rashi). According to Tosaf. (s.v. ,kyhb) it was not right to measure out the terumah but it should be given by estimate only.
^ᵃᵛnote:A man could mentally set aside one portion of a heap of produce as terumah and immediately eat of the rest.