Menachot 54a (נד.) — the Talmud in English

The Sages taught: One may not cause the two loaves

the two loaves and the leavened loaves of the thanksgiving offering

to leaven with apples.

Since apples do not properly leaven dough.

They said in the name of Rabbi Hanina ben Gamliel: One may cause it to leaven

with apples.

Rav Kahana taught it,

the view that one may cause it to leaven with apples,

in the name of Rabbi Hanina ben Teradion,

in the name of Rabbi Hanina ben Teradion [rather than in the name of Rabbi Hanina ben Gamliel].

And we raised the following question:

In accordance with whose view 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 caused it to leaven

the dough with the apple—

that

dough

is prohibited

due to teruma, since teruma is not nullified in a majority of non-sacred produce because the leaven is intended to impart flavor, and its potency is therefore not nullified?

In accordance with whose view?

Should

we say

that this Mishna

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

who said that apples do not cause leavening because they do not leaven properly?

And we answer:

You may even say

that this Mishna

is the opinion of the Rabbis.

Although

it is indeed not fully leavened dough

when leavened by an apple, it is at least

imperfect leaven,

and such leavening is sufficient to prohibit the non-sacred dough on account of the teruma prohibition of the apple.

Rabbi Ila said: There is no

meal offering

more difficult to scoop than the meal offering of a sinner,

as it is dry, and it is difficult to scoop from it the precise measure. When he levels the handful from above with his thumb and levels it from below with his little finger, more flour than necessary falls away, and the handful is consequently left lacking the required measure.

Rav Yitzḥak bar Avdimi said: The meal offering of a sinner may be kneaded with water, and is valid

when kneaded with water, since the Torah prohibited adding oil to it, but not water. Therefore, there is no difficulty in scooping it.

And we raised the following question:

Should we say

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

it is with regard to this that they disagree:

One master,

Rav Yitzḥak bar Avdimi,

holds—

we measure it as it is

now,

we determine

the measure of the handful according to its present state. Therefore, one can scoop the handful easily after kneading the dough with water.

And the other master,

Rabbi Ila,

holds—

we measure it according to the amount it was

as flour alone,

we determine

the measure accordingly. Therefore, if he kneads the dough with a small amount of water and it becomes thick, reducing its volume, or if he adds a great deal of water and it becomes soft, increasing its volume, the measure of a handful of flour that was not mixed with water will not be present in the scoop. Consequently, he can scoop it only when he adds no water to the dough; in that case, however, scooping is difficult because it is completely dry.

And we reject this:

No,

they did not disagree about this. Rather,

everyone

agrees that

we measure it as it is

now,

we determine its measure accordingly.

They disagree about the following:

One master,

Rav Yitzḥak bar Avdimi,

holds that the meaning of

“

dry

” stated with regard to the meal offering of a sinner is

dry of oil.

But one may add water to it. Therefore, it is easy to scoop it according to the measure of a handful as it is now.

And the other master,

Rabbi Ila,

holds that it must be dry of everything,

as one may not add even water to it. Therefore, it is difficult to scoop it.

We learned there

in tractate Uktzin:

The meat of a calf

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

that swelled,

as it is the nature of calf meat to expand in a pot, and reached the measure of an egg; and likewise

the meat

of

an old animal,

which normally shrinks,

that was crushed—

we measure them according to the amount they are.

The amoraim disagreed concerning the interpretation of “according to the amount they are” stated in this Mishna.

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

now.

That is, if the calf meat now contains the measure of an egg, it becomes impure and renders other food impure with food impurity, even though its measure of an egg resulted from its swelling. Similarly, if the meat of the old animal had contained the measure of an egg and shrank to less than the measure of an egg, it does not render food impure now, because it now lacks the requisite measure for imparting impurity.

Whereas

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

before they swelled or shrank.

Consequently, calf meat that did not contain the measure of an egg and swelled to the measure of an egg does not become susceptible to impurity and does not render other food impure. And the meat of the old animal that shrank from the measure of an egg can still become impure and render others impure.

Meytivi

an objection from that which was taught in a beraita:

The meat of a calf that did not contain the requisite measure

of an

egg, and it swelled and reached the requisite measure

of an egg—is

pure with regard to the past.

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

And impure from this point forward,

as it can become impure and render others impure, since after swelling it is the size of an egg. This is difficult for all those amoraim who said that “we measure according to the amount they were,” rather than “according to the amount they are now”! And we answer: That impurity is only

by rabbinic decree.

By Torah law, we measure according to the amount they were, and before it swelled it did not contain the measure of an egg.

And we ask:

If so,

that its impurity is only by rabbinic decree,

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

If at the outset, when they became notar or piggul, they did not contain the measure of an olive-bulk, and they swelled to the measure of an olive-bulk, their law is like that of the calf meat that swelled, mentioned in the first clause. The Gemara understood that this refers to liability for karet for one who eats the piggul and notar after they swelled.

Granted, if you say

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

by Torah law, that is why there is

also

piggul and notar

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

But if you say

that the law of the calf meat that swelled applies only

by rabbinic decree,

this is difficult: Is there

karet for piggul and notar by rabbinic decree!?

And we answer: This Mishna is not speaking of eating piggul and notar. Rather,

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

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

And 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 impurity

by rabbinic decree,

then

to such an extent,

when it initially lacked the requisite measure and afterward swelled to the requisite measure,

the Sages did not institute a decree in the case of a rabbinic law

that it should render the hands impure by being measured according to its present state;

it teaches us

that even with regard to impurity by rabbinic decree, we measure it according to its present state.

Ta shma

from that which we learned:

The meat

of

an old animal that contained the requisite measure

of an egg and became impure,

and shrank to less than the requisite measure,

is

“impure with regard to the past, and pure from this point forward.”

This proves that we measure according to its present state.

Rabba said: Whenever initially it contained

the requisite

measure, but now it does not contain

the requisite measure—

it does not contain it.

It is therefore evident that we measure according to the amount they are.

And whenever initially it did not contain

the requisite

measure, but now it contains

the requisite measure, that measure is not considered valid by Torah law, because the swelling that increased its volume resulted only from water that entered it; only

by rabbinic decree

did they deem it as though it contains the requisite measure.