Commentary for Yevamot 161:10

אמר ליה והלא אני שונה חתיכה בחתיכות עולה מי סברת כל שדרכו לימנות שנינו את שדרכו לימנות שנינו

is neutralized";<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And is permitted to be eaten. As a piece of meat which is Pentateuchally forbidden (v. supra n. 5) may be neutralized, even though its importance, owing to its commercial value, may be as high as that of a cake of figs, so may any food be neutralized even though its prohibition is Pentateuchal. ');">⁴¹</span> you obviously believe that the reading<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. the Mishnah cited infra. ');">⁴²</span> is, "Whatsoever<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Any objects which any person whatsoever sells by counting the units. V. infra n. 11. ');">⁴³</span> one is wont to count",<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cannot be neutralized. ');">⁴⁴</span> the reading in fact is, "That which one is wont to count"'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Whatsoever' is more comprehensive than 'that'. According to the former reading, neutralization is not permitted in the case of any objects which are regarded as of sufficiently high commercial value to be sold not in bulk but in units. According to the latter reading, neutralization is permitted in all cases except those where the units are of such a high value that they are not sold save by counting single units. Now, since cakes of figs are not invariably sold in units they may of course be neutralized even though they consist of Pentateuchal terumah (cf. supra n. 7). Resh Lakish, therefore, remains with no proof whatsoever that terumah at the present time is a mere Rabbinical ordinance. [This interpretation which follows Rashi does not account for the phrase 'one is wont etc', mentioned also with the latter reading. Me'iri explains the former as including whatever is being sold as a rule by counting among the poor, whereas the latter requires the sale by counting to be the general practice among the rich as well as the poor. On either reading it is the general practice rather than the invariable rule which is the determining factor]. ');">⁴⁵</span>

Explore commentary for Yevamot 161:10. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.