Menachot 54a — the Talmud in English

The Sages taught: The two loaves and the loaves of the leavened bread of the thanksgiving offering may not be leavened

with apples

because

apples do not leaven dough effectively.

They said in the name of Rabbi Hanina ben Gamliel: It may be leavened

with apples.

Rav Kahana taught it

as referring to the opinion that dough may be leavened with apples,

as the opinion of Rabbi Hanina ben Teradyon,

in the name of Rabbi Hanina ben Teradyon, rather than Rabbi Hanina ben Gamliel.

The Gemara discusses this:

In accordance with whose opinion is that which we learned

in tractate Terumot:

An apple

of teruma

that one crushed and placed into dough

of non-sacred produce,

and it leavened

the dough with the apple—

that

dough

is forbidden

because of teruma, since teruma is not nullified in a majority of non-sacred produce when the leavening agent is intended to impart flavor, and its effect is therefore not nullified?

In accordance with whose opinion?

Is it possible

to say

that this Mishna

is the opinion of Rabbi Hanina ben Gamliel and not that of the Sages,

who said that apples do not leaven because they do not leaven effectively?

The Gemara answers:

Even if you say

that this Mishna

is the opinion of the Sages.

Although

it is true that it is not fully leavened dough

when leavened with an apple, it is nevertheless

at least imperfect leavening,

and such leavening is sufficient to render the non-sacred dough forbidden because of the teruma prohibition of the apple.

Rabbi Ila said: There is no meal-offering

meal offering

more difficult to take a handful from than the sinner’s meal-offering,

because it is dry, and it is difficult to take from it a precise measure. When the priest levels the handful from above with his thumb and from below with his little finger, too much flour falls away, leaving the handful short of the required measure.

Rav Yitzḥak bar Avdimi said: The sinner’s meal-offering may be kneaded with water, and it is valid

when kneaded with water, since the Torah prohibited adding oil to it, but did not prohibit adding water. Therefore, it is not difficult to take a handful from it.

The Gemara discusses this:

Can we say

that everyone agrees that the dough may be kneaded with water, since the Torah prohibited adding only oil? And

this is the point of their dispute:

One master,

Rav Yitzḥak bar Avdimi,

holds—

we measure it as it is

now,

when determining

the measure of the handful. Therefore, one can easily take the required handful after kneading the dough with water.

And the other master,

Rabbi Ila,

holds—

we measure it according to what it was

as flour alone,

when determining

the measure. Therefore, if one kneads the dough with a small amount of water, making a thick dough whose volume decreases, or if one adds a large amount of water, making a soft dough whose volume increases, the handful will not contain the measure of flour that was not mixed with water. Therefore, one can take the handful only when no water is added to the dough; in that case, taking the handful is difficult because the dough is entirely dry.

The Gemara rejects this explanation:

No,

they did not dispute this matter. Rather,

everyone

agrees

that we measure it as it is

now

when determining the measure.

Their dispute is as follows:

One master,

Rav Yitzḥak bar Avdimi,

holds that the meaning of

“

dry”

stated with regard to the sinner’s meal-offering is

dry with regard to oil.

However, water may be added to it. Therefore, it is easy to take a handful from it according to the measure of the handful as it is now.

And the other master,

Rabbi Ila,

holds that it must be dry with regard to everything

and that not even water may be added to it. Therefore, it is difficult to take a handful from it.

We learned there

in tractate Uktzin:

Calf meat

that did not contain an egg-bulk, the measure at which food becomes susceptible to ritual impurity and can render other food impure with food impurity,

that swelled,

as calf meat normally increases in volume in a pot, and reached an egg-bulk, and likewise

meat

of an

old animal,

which normally shrinks,

that was crushed—

we measure them according to what they are.

The amoraim disputed the meaning of “according to what they are” stated in this Mishna.

Rav, Rabbi Ḥiyya, and Rabbi Yoḥanan say: We measure them according to what they are

now.

That is, if the calf meat now contains an egg-bulk, it becomes ritually impure and renders other food impure with food impurity, even though it reached the measure of an egg-bulk only as a result of swelling. Similarly, if the meat of the old animal had contained an egg-bulk and shrank to less than an egg-bulk, it does not render anything impure now, because it no longer contains the required measure.

But

Shmuel, Rabbi Shimon the son of Rabbi, and Reish Lakish say: We measure them according to what they were

before they swelled or shrank.

Therefore, calf meat that did not contain an egg-bulk and swelled to an egg-bulk does not become susceptible to impurity and does not render anything impure. And the meat of the old animal that shrank from an egg-bulk can still become impure and render others impure.

They raise an objection from

a source that was taught in a

baraita:

Calf meat that did not contain an egg-bulk

and swelled and reached an egg-bulk

is

pure with regard to the past.

If impurity touched it before it swelled, it is pure.

And impure from this point onward,

so that it can become impure and render others impure, because after swelling it is an egg-bulk. This is difficult for all those amoraim who said that “we measure according to what they were,” and not “according to what they are now.” The Gemara answers: That impurity is only

by rabbinic decree.

By Torah law, we measure according to what they were, and before the meat swelled it did not contain an egg-bulk.

The Gemara asks:

If so,

if its impurity is only by rabbinic decree,

say the latter clause: And likewise with regard to piggul and notar.

If, when they initially became notar or piggul, they did not contain an olive-bulk and then swelled to an olive-bulk, they have the same law as the calf meat that swelled mentioned in the first clause. The Gemara understands this to refer to the liability for excision for one who eats piggul or notar that swelled.

Granted, if you say

that the law of the calf meat that swelled, mentioned in the first clause, is

by Torah law, then there is

also

piggul and notar

for which one is liable to receive excision by Torah law.

But if you say

that the law of the calf meat that swelled is only

by rabbinic decree,

this is difficult: Is there

a liability for excision for piggul and notar by rabbinic decree?

The Gemara answers: This Mishna is not discussing eating piggul and notar. Rather,

say: And likewise with regard to the impurity of piggul and the impurity of notar.

The Sages decreed that piggul and notar render the hands impure, even when they themselves did not become impure at all. The Mishna teaches us that if a piece of calf meat that was piggul or notar was less than an egg-bulk, and it swelled and reached an egg-bulk, it renders the hands impure from that point onward.

The Mishna needed to state this because

it might enter your mind to say: Since the impurity of piggul and the impurity of notar

are only

by rabbinic decree,

then

in such an extreme case,

where it initially lacked the required measure and later swelled to the required measure,

the Sages did not enact

a decree in a rabbinic matter that it should render the hands impure by being measured according to what it is now.

It teaches us

that even with regard to impurity that is only rabbinic, we measure it according to what it is now.

Come and hear a proof

from what we learned:

The meat

of an

old animal that contained

an egg-bulk and became impure

but shrank to less than the required measure

is

“impure with regard to the past, but pure from this point onward.”

This proves that we measure according to what it is now.

Rabba said: Wherever initially there was

a required

measure, but now there is no

required measure—

it does not have it.

It is clear that we measure according to what they are.

And wherever initially there was not

a required measure

but now there is

a required measure, that measure is not considered present by Torah law, because the swelling that increased its volume resulted only from water that entered it. Only

by rabbinic decree

did they assign it the status as though it contained the required measure.