מנחות 54:1 — Soncino English Talmud

with 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.