Menachot 54b (נד:) — the Talmud in English

When they disagree -

this is referring to a case in which it initially had

at the outset

the requisite measure, but shrank

to less than the requisite measure,

and then swelled again

to the requisite measure, and this is the subject of their dispute:

one master,

Shmuel, Rabbi Shimon bar Rabbi, and Reish Lakish, who maintain that we assess it according to the measure it had previously,

held that the law of deferral applies to prohibitions

and impurity. Since it was deferred when it shrank to less than the requisite measure, when it later swells again it is no longer considered to have the requisite measure by Torah law. If it is prohibited, one is therefore not liable for consuming a prohibited substance, and likewise it does not become impure again; and if it is pure, it does not contract impurity. The volume to which it swelled again is not considered a volume constituting the requisite measure; rather, it is assessed according to the measure it had when it was shrunken.

And the other master,

Rav, Rabbi Hiyya, and Rabbi Yohanan,

held that the law of deferral does not apply to prohibitions

or impurity. Since initially it had the requisite measure for purposes of prohibition and impurity, although it lacked the requisite measure when it shrank, once it swells again it is considered to have returned to its original state, in which it had the requisite measure. Therefore, it is assessed according to the measure it has now.

And we raise an objection:

Is there in fact one who says that the law of deferral applies

to prohibitions?

But didn’t we learn in the Mishna: Food the size of an egg that was placed in the sun -

and diminished

to less than the size of an egg;

and likewise an olive-bulk of a corpse

or

an olive-bulk of an unslaughtered animal carcass, a lentil-bulk of a creeping creature, an olive-bulk of piggul, an olive-bulk of notar, and an olive-bulk of forbidden fat that shrank are pure

those foods that diminished, and likewise that olive-bulk of a corpse or of an unslaughtered animal carcass, because they diminished below the measure that conveys impurity; and likewise

one is not liable for them

for those prohibited substances mentioned in the Mishna

on account of piggul, notar, or forbidden fat.

But if

one placed them

after they had shrunk

in the rain, and they swelled,

and returned to their original measure, they are

impure, and one is liable for them on account of piggul, notar, and forbidden fat?!

And we conclude:

A refutation of the one who says that the law of deferral applies to prohibitions; it is a conclusive refutation.

Come and hear: One may designate tithes [

one tithes]

fresh figs

as tithes

for dried figs,

which are figs that dried and shrank,

by count,

so that for every ninety dried figs one designates ten fresh figs, but one may not tithe by measure. If one measures the dried figs and the fresh figs in a measuring vessel and designates one-tenth of the measure of fresh figs for nine-tenths of the measure of dried figs, one will designate less fresh produce than he would have designated by count.

For the volume of the fresh figs is greater than the volume of the dried figs. Consequently, if he measures the fresh figs using the tenth of the measure with which he measured the dried figs, he will designate one-tenth of the volume of the dried figs, which is considerably less than the volume of fresh figs. But if he designates by count ten fresh figs corresponding to ninety dried figs—that is, if he treats the dried figs as though they were fresh—he will tithe considerably more than he would by designating one-tenth of the measure of the dried figs.

And now we analyze this:

Granted, if you say that we assess them according to the measure they had previously, it works out well

that he is required to tithe by count, treating the dried figs as though they were fresh figs, as they had been before they dried and shrank.

But if you say that we assess them according to the measure they have

now, how can he be required to tithe by count? Since the fresh figs are greater in volume than the dried figs, if he designates ten fresh figs for ninety dried figs,

it is considered that he is “increasing the tithes,”

as he is designating more than ten percent.

And it was taught in a beraita: One who increases the tithes,

by designating more than one-tenth,

his produce is rendered fit

and is no longer tevel,

but his tithes are rendered defective,

because since the designation as tithe takes effect only upon one-tenth of the produce, the remainder of the produce that he designated is tevel [for he did not designate it as a tithe; rather, he merely assigned it the status of tithe in order to render other produce fit, and the status of tithe cannot take effect upon more than one-tenth of the produce, with the result that it remained tevel]. And since the one-tenth that became tithe cannot be identified within the mixture of the tithe and the tevel, consequently his tithes are defective, and he cannot eat them.

And we reject this:

Rather, what

did you

say

they are assessed according to the measure they have

now?

If one comes to tithe

dried figs for fresh figs,

he is required to tithe them

by measure,

measuring a quantity consisting of ninety percent fresh figs and ten percent dried figs, rather than designating by count ten dried figs for ninety fresh figs, because that would diminish his tithes: If he measures dried figs as one-tenth of the measure of the fresh figs, the quantity will contain more than ten dried figs!

Granted, if you say that they are assessed according to the measure they have

now,

it works out well

that he must designate the dried figs by measure, as this is the ratio of one-tenth dried figs to nine-tenths fresh figs, according to the current state of the dried figs.

But if you say that we assess them according to the measure they

had previously, when he designates by measure

he is increasing the tithes,

because if we consider the dried figs as they were when they were fresh figs, he should designate ten dried figs for ninety fresh figs, whereas when he measures by volume he designates more than ten dried figs for ninety fresh figs!?

Rather,

you cannot prove anything from this Mishna, because here

we are dealing with teruma gedola,

which is taken by estimation, and one may add to it as he wishes.

And the first clause,

which deals with designating from fresh figs for dried figs, states that he designates by count because of the mitzva to designate

generously; and the latter clause,

which deals with one who comes to designate from dried figs for fresh figs, states that he designates by measure because of the mitzva to designate

generously.

And we raise an objection:

If so, say the latter clause: Rabbi Elazar bar Rabbi Yosei said: My father would take ten dried figs from the mold [

the utensil in which the dried figs were placed and pressed into large circles]

for ninety

fresh figs

in the basket [

the utensil in which the fresh figs were placed when they were picked].

And if it is referring to teruma gedola

as you said,

ten

for ninety

what purpose would that serve?!

For one does not designate ten percent as teruma gedola.

Rather, here we are dealing with the terumat maaser,

which is taken from the tithe,

and

terumat maaser, which is one-tenth of the tithe, is taken by estimation and generously,

and it was Abba Elazar ben Gamlah

who stated this Mishna.

As it was taught in a beraita,

Abba Elazar ben Gamlah says: With regard to terumat maaser it is stated: “And it shall be reckoned for you”

“for you”

for the Levites

“your teruma,”

which you raised as a tithe from the tithe [like teruma gedola, which is called “the first of your grain,” having been raised from the produce of the threshing floor]”.

The verse, “And it shall be reckoned for you,” speaks of two terumot.

“And it shall be reckoned for you,”

one is teruma gedola, and one is terumat maaser.

This teaches us:

Just as teruma gedola is taken by estimation,

as it is unnecessary to measure the produce; rather, one estimates one-fiftieth and designates it as teruma gedola,