Menachot

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:1 If an apple [of terumah] was chopped up and put into dough so that it leavened it, the dough is forbidden.2 Now with whom does this agree? Shall we say with R. Hanina b. Gamaliel and not with the Rabbis?3 — 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.4 R. Ela said, From no meal-offering is it more difficult to take out the handful than from the sinner's meal-offering.5 R. Isaac b. Abdimi said, The sinner's meal-offering may be mixed with water6 and it is valid. Shall we say that they differ in this: one7 holds that we must measure [the handful] according to its present state,8 and the other9 holds that we must measure it according to its former state?10 — No, both agree that we must measure it according to its present state, but they differ in this: one’ holds that dry11 means, dry without oil, and the other9 holds that dry means, dry without any kind [of liquid]. We have learnt there:12 Calf's flesh13 that had swelled14 and the flesh15 of an old beast that had shrivelled,16 must be measured17 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 size15 swelled so that it is now of the prescribed size until now it has been clean but from now onwards it is unclean!18 — 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.19 Now if you hold that this rule20 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?21 — Render: And so it is, too, with regard to the uncleanness of what is piggul or nothar.22 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 rule23 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!24 — 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;25 and if at first it was not of the prescribed size and now it is, then it is so Rabbinically.26 was of terumah. leavening effect upon the substance into which it has been put. 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. would contain either too much or too little flour according to the consistency of the mixture. convey uncleanness. (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. 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. which it was before. extended sense to include ‘defilement’.