Reference for Yevamot 161:9

ור' יוחנן אמר אף מאכילה בחזה ושוק א"ל ר' יוחנן לר"ל מי סברת תרומה בזה"ז דרבנן א"ל אין שאני שונה עיגול בעגולים עולה

maintain that <i>terumah</i> at the present time is only a Rabbinical ordinance? — 'Yes', the other replied, 'for I read:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In a Baraitha. Cf. the Mishnah cited infra and note 11. ');">³⁶</span> A cake of figs<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A number of figs pressed together. ');">³⁷</span> among cakes of figs is neutralised'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If such a cake of terumah was mixed up with a hundred non-consecrated cakes of the same size, or if a cake of terumah that was levitically unclean was mixed up with a hundred such cakes of clean terumah, the entire quantity is permitted. in the latter case, to clean priests and, in the former case, to Israelites also. This proves that terumah at the present time is only a Rabbinical ordinance, since such neutralization, had the ordinance been Pentateuchal, would not, owing to its comparative importance (its high commercial value, v. infra), have been permitted. Though the terumah of figs, like that of all other fruit of trees, is at all times a Rabbinical ordinance only, its neutralization would not have been permitted at the present time had there been any Pentateuchal terumah in existence at the same time. The neutralization of the former would have been forbidden as a preventive measure against the possible assumption that the 'latter also might be neutralized. ');">³⁸</span> 'But I', said the first, 'read, "A piece<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of an unclean sin-offering which is Pentateuchally forbidden. V. the Baraitha infra 81b. ');">³⁹</span> among pieces<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of clean meat. ');">⁴⁰</span>

Explore reference for Yevamot 161:9. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.