Menachot 108

כי פליגי כגון שהיה בו כשיעור וצמק וחזר ותפח דמר סבר יש דיחוי באיסורא ומר סבר אין דיחוי באיסורא

They differ only in the case where it was at first of the prescribed size but it shrivelled up and then it swelled up again. One is of the opinion that with forbidden things there can be an absolute rejection of the prohibition,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Resh Lakish and his colleagues maintain that when the forbidden thing shrivelled up to less than the prescribed quantity the prohibition thereof vanished completely, and, by the law of the Torah, cannot return even though the substance later swelled up to the prescribed size.');">¹</span> but the other maintains that there can be no such absolute rejection.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Johanan and his colleagues hold that the prohibition has only been suspended temporarily.');">²</span>

ומי איכא למ"ד דיש דיחוי באיסורין והתנן כביצה אוכלין שהניחה בחמה ונתמעטו וכן כזית מן המת כזית מן הנבלה וכעדשה מן השרץ וכזית פיגול וכזית נותר וכזית חלב טהורין ואין חייבין עליהן משום פיגול ונותר וחלב

Is there anyone who maintains that with forbidden things there can be an absolute rejection of the prohibition? But we have learnt:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Toh. III, 4.');">³</span> If an egg's bulk of foodstuff was left in the sun and shrank, likewise if an olive's bulk of a corpse, an olive's bulk of nebelah,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos.');">⁴</span>

הניחן בגשמים ותפחו טמאין וחייבין עליהם משום פיגול ונותר וחלב תיובתא למ"ד יש דיחוי באיסורין תיובתא

a lentil's bulk of a [dead] reptile, an olive's bulk of [consecrated flesh that was] piggul<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos.');">⁴</span> or nothar,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos.');">⁴</span> and an olive's bulk of forbidden fat [shrank], they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The first four cases mentioned which relate to uncleanness.');">⁵</span>

תא שמע תורמין תאנים על הגרוגרות במנין

are now clean, and one is not liable thereby<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If one ate this shrunken olive's bulk of piggul or nothar or of forbidden fat.');">⁶</span> [to the penalties] for [eating] piggul or nothar or forbidden fat. If lat they were left in the rain and swelled, they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The first four cases mentioned which relate to uncleanness.');">⁵</span>

אי אמרת בשלמא לכמות שהן משערינן שפיר אלא אי אמרת כמות שהן הוה ליה מרבה במעשרות

become unclean and one is liable thereby<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If one ate this shrunken olive's bulk of piggul or nothar or of forbidden fat.');">⁶</span> [to the penalties] for [eating] piggul or nothor or forbidden fat. This clearly refutes the view of him who says that with forbidden things there can be an absolute rejection of the prohibition! It is indeed a refutation.

(ותנן) המרבה במעשרות פירותיו מתוקנים ומעשרותיו מקולקלין

Come and hear: One may give by number fresh figs [as tithe] in respect of pressed figs.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus ten fresh figs may be given as tithe in respect of ninety pressed figs.');">⁷</span> Now if you hold that we measure a thing in the condition in which it was before, it is well;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Accordingly the pressed figs are considered in the condition in which they were before, namely fresh; and therefore ten fresh figs would be the exact quantity for the tithe, whether we reckon the tithe by number or by capacity.');">⁸</span> but if you hold that we measure in the condition in which it is now, then too much is given as tithe,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For reckoning by capacity ten fresh figs would probably take up as much as one fifth of the capacity of ninety pressed figs.');">⁹</span>

אלא מאי לכמות שהן אימא סיפא גרוגרות על התאנים במדה

and it has been taught: If one gave too much tithe the produce is duly tithed but the tithe is unfit!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the tenth part only is the tithe, the excess being untithed produce (tebel) , and as the two are inextricably mixed up the whole is forbidden, even to Levite or priest, until it has been made fit by the proper separation.');">¹⁰</span> - What then shall we say? That we measure in the condition in which it was before?

אי אמרת בשלמא כמות שהן שפיר אלא אי אמרת לכמות שהן מרבה במעשרות הוא

But read the next clause: And [one may give] pressed figs by measure [as tithe] in respect of fresh figs.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus one kab of pressed figs may be given as tithe in respect of nine kabs of fresh figs.');">¹¹</span> Now if you hold that we measure In the condition in which it is now, then it is well;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For reckoning by capacity or weight one measure of dried figs is given in respect of the remaining nine measures of fresh figs.');">¹²</span> but if you hold that we measure in the condition in which it was before, then too much is given as tithe?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For one kab of dried figs would very likely be as much as two kabs when fresh.');">¹³</span>

אלא הכא בתרומה גדולה עסקינן ורישא בעין יפה וסיפא בעין יפה היא

- We are dealing here with the 'great terumah',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The first levy of the produce of the field given to the priest. V. Glos.');">¹⁴</span> and the first clause as well as the second deals with the case of a man that is liberal.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit. 'with a kindly eye'. A generous owner would give one-fortieth, one less generous one-fiftieth, and a mean person one-sixtieth of his produce as terumah. The clauses of the Baraitha apply to a generous owner, accordingly the objection that too much is given cannot stand.');">¹⁵</span> If so, read the final clause: R'Eleazar son of R'Jose said, My father used to take ten pressed figs from the cake in respect of the ninety [fresh figs] in the basket.

אי הכי אימא סיפא א"ר אלעזר בר' יוסי אבא היה נוטל עשר גרוגרות שבמקצוע על תשעים שבכלכלה ואי בתרומה גדולה עשר מאי עבידתיה

Now if we are dealing with the 'great terumah', why is 'ten' mentioned?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The use of the numbers ten and ninety suggests that the offering is the tithe and not the terumah.');">¹⁶</span> - We are really dealing here with the terumah of the tithe,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The heave-offering of one tenth given to the priest by the Levite form the tithe he receives. V. Num. XVIII, 25ff.');">¹⁷</span> and it is in accordance with the teaching of Abba Eleazar B'Gomel.

אלא הכא בתרומת מעשר עסקינן ואבא אלעזר בן גומל הוא דתניא אבא אלעזר בן גומל אומר (במדבר יח, כז) ונחשב לכם תרומתכם בשתי תרומות הכתוב מדבר אחת תרומה גדולה ואחת תרומת מעשר

For it was taught: Abba Eleazar B'Gomel<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Var. lec. 'Gimel', 'Gamala' (so Git. 30b) , and 'Gamaliel' (Aruch) .');">¹⁸</span> says, It is written, And your heave-offering shall be reckoned unto you.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XVIII, 27.');">¹⁹</span> Scripture speaks of two heave-offerings,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the verse continues, As though it (the terumah of the tithe) were the corn of the threshing-floor (the 'great terumah') ; thus the verse speaks of two terumoth. ,kyhb');">²⁰</span>

כשם שתרומה גדולה ניטלת באומד ובמחשבה כך תרומת מעשר ניטלת באומד

one the 'great terumah' and the other the terumah from the tithe. Just as the 'great terumah' is set aside by estimate<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It was not necessary to measure out exactly the fiftieth part usually given for the terumah (Rashi) . According to Tosaf. (s.v.) it was not right to measure out the terumah but it should be given by estimate only.');">²¹</span> and by intention,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A man could mentally set aside one portion of a heap of produce as terumah and immediately eat of the rest.');">²²</span> so the terumah of the tithe is set aside by estimate