Menachot 107

בתפוחים משום רבי חנינא בן גמליאל אמרו מחמיצין רב כהנא מתני לה ברבי חנינא בן תרדיון

with apples. In the name of R'Hanina B'Gamaliel they said, One may do so.

כמאן אזלא הא דתנן תפוח שריסקו ונתנו בתוך העיסה וחימצה הרי זו אסורה

R'Kahana reports this in the name of R'Hanina B'Teradion. With whom will the following agree?

כמאן לימא רבי חנינא בן גמליאל היא ולא רבנן אפי' תימא רבנן נהי דחמץ גמור לא הוי נוקשה מיהא הוי

For we have learnt:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ter. X, 2.');">¹</span> If an apple [of terumah] was chopped up and put into dough so that it leavened it, the dough is forbidden.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');">²</span>

א"ר אילא אין לך הקשה לקמיצה יותר ממנחת חוטא רב יצחק בר אבדימי אמר מנחת חוטא מגבלה במים וכשרה

Now with whom does this agree? Shall we say with R'Hanina B'Gamaliel and not with the Rabbis?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the Rabbis, i.e., the first Tanna of the Baraitha, hold that apples cannot leaven.');">³</span>

לימא בהא קא מיפלגי דמר סבר כמות שהן משערינן ומר סבר לכמות שהיו משערינן

- 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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');">⁴</span> R'Ela said, From no meal-offering is it more difficult to take out the handful than from the sinner's meal-offering.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');">⁵</span>

לא דכולי עלמא כמות שהן משערינן ובהא קא מיפלגי דמר סבר מאי חריבה חריבה משמן ומר סבר חריבה מכל דבר

R'Isaac B'Abdimi said, The sinner's meal-offering may be mixed with water<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So as to make the taking out of the handful easier. The Torah prohibited only the application of oil.');">⁶</span> and it is valid.

תנן התם בשר העגל שנתפח ובשר זקנה שנתמעך משתערין לכמות שהן

Shall we say that they differ in this: one<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Isaac.');">⁷</span> holds that we must measure [the handful] according to its present state,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The handful is to be taken out after the flour has been mixed with water, when it is easy to do so.');">⁸</span>

רב ורבי חייא ורבי יוחנן אמרי משתערין כמות שהן שמואל ורבי שמעון בר רבי וריש לקיש אמרי משתערין לכמות שהן

and the other<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Ela.');">⁹</span> holds that we must measure it according to its former state?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');">¹⁰</span>

מיתיבי בשר העגל שלא היה בו כשיעור ותפח ועמד על כשיעור טהור לשעבר וטמא מיכן ולהבא

- No, both agree that we must measure it according to its present state, but they differ in this: one' holds that dry<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. VII, 10.');">¹¹</span> means, dry without oil, and the other<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Ela.');">⁹</span>

מדרבנן

holds that dry means, dry without any kind [of liquid]. We have learnt there:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Uk. II, 8.');">¹²</span>

אי הכי אימא סיפא וכן בפיגול וכן בנותר אי אמרת בשלמא דאורייתא היינו דאיכא פיגול ונותר אלא אי אמרת דרבנן פיגול ונותר בדרבנן מי איכא

Calf's flesh<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Less than an egg's bulk.');">¹³</span> that had swelled<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To an egg's bulk.');">¹⁴</span>

אימא וכן בטומאת פיגול וכן בטומאת נותר

and the flesh<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' An egg's bulk.');">¹⁵</span> of an old beast that had shrivelled,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To less than an egg's bulk.');">¹⁶</span>

סלקא דעתך אמינא הואיל וטומאת פיגול וטומאת נותר דרבנן היא כולי האי בדרבנן לא עבוד רבנן קא משמע לן

must be measured<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' With regard to the laws of uncleanness. Foodstuffs, if of an egg's bulk in quantity, can become unclean and can convey uncleanness.');">¹⁷</span> according to their present state.

ת"ש בשר זקנה שהיה בו כשיעור וצמק פחות מכשיעור טמא לשעבר וטהור מיכן ולהבא

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<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' An egg's bulk.');">¹⁵</span>

אמר רבה כל היכא דמעיקרא הוה ביה והשתא לית ביה הא לית ביה וכל היכא דמעיקרא לא הוה ביה והשתא הוה ביה מדרבנן

swelled so that it is now of the prescribed size until now it has been clean but from now onwards it is unclean!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., it can become unclean since it is now the size of an egg; contra Resh Lakish and the others.');">¹⁸</span> - 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 w piggul or nothur.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');">¹⁹</span> Now if you hold that this rule<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That we must consider everything according to its present size.');">²⁰</span> 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] wha regarded as piggul or nothar Rabbinically?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Surely there is no penalty incurred, since by the law of the Torah there was not the prescribed bulk.');">²¹</span> - Render: And so it is, too, with regard to the uncleanness of what is piggul or nothar.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');">²²</span> 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<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 324, n. 14.');">²³</span> 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!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus contrary to Resh Lakish and the others who maintain that we must measure everything in the condition in which it was before.');">²⁴</span> - 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;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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'.');">²⁵</span> and if at first it was not of the prescribed size and now it is, then it is so Rabbinically.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By Rabbinical ordinance it is regarded as a forbidden thing.');">²⁶</span>