Menachot 54b — the Talmud in English

It is when they disagree -

for example, when it originally had

at the beginning

the measure, and it shrank

to less than the measure,

and then swelled again

to the measure, and this is what they disagreed about:

the one who said,

Shmuel, Rabbi Shimon son of Rabbi, and Resh Lakish, who hold that they assess according to the quantity that they had been,

held that there is displacement in a prohibition

and in impurity. Since it was displaced when it shrank to less than the measure, it is no longer considered to have the measure by Torah law when it swells again; for if it is prohibited, one is not liable for eating a prohibited item on account of it, and likewise it will not again become impure. And similarly, if it is pure, it will not receive impurity, for the volume to which it returned and swelled is not considered the volume of the measure, and it is assessed according to the quantity that it had when it was shrunken.

And the one who said,

Rav, Rabbi Hiyya, and Rabbi Yohanan,

held that there is no displacement in a prohibition

and in impurity. Since at the outset it had the measure for prohibition and impurity, therefore, although when it shrank it lacked the measure, once it swelled again it is considered to have returned to its original state, in which it had the measure; and therefore it is assessed according to the quantity that it is now.

And we raise an objection:

Is there indeed one who says that there is displacement

in prohibitions?

And we learned in the Mishna: Food the size of an egg that one placed in the sun -

and it diminished

from the size of an egg.

And likewise an olive-sized piece from a corpse

or

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

those foods that diminished, and likewise that olive-sized piece from a corpse or from an animal carcass, because they diminished from the measure of impurity; and likewise

they are not liable for them

for those prohibitions mentioned in the Mishna

on account of piggul, notar, or forbidden fat.

And if

he placed them

after they shrank

in the rain, and they swelled,

and returned to their original measure, then they are

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

And we conclude:

A refutation of the one who says that there is displacement in prohibitions; a refutation.

Come and hear: One separates [

tithes

from figs

fresh

for dried figs,

which are figs that dried and shrank,

by count,

for from every ninety dried figs he separates ten fresh figs; but he does not tithe by measure. For if he measures the dried figs and the fresh figs in a measuring vessel and tithes one tenth of the measure of fresh figs against nine tenths of the measure of dried figs, he will separate less than the quantity of fresh figs that he would separate by count.

For the volume of the fresh figs is greater than the volume of the dried figs. It follows that if he measures the fresh figs by the tenth of the measure in which he measured the dried figs, he will separate one tenth of the volume of the dried figs, which is much less than the volume of fresh figs. But if he separates by count ten fresh figs corresponding to ninety dried figs—that is, if he considers the dried figs as though they were fresh—then he will tithe much more than he would tithe according to one tenth of the measure of the dried figs.

And now we analyze:

Granted, if you say that they assess according to the quantity that they had been, it is well

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

But if you say that they assess according to the quantity that they are

now, how do they require him to tithe according to count? Since the figs are greater in volume than the dried figs, if he separates ten figs for ninety dried figs,

it is “increasing in tithes,”

for he separates more than ten percent.

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

who separates more than a tenth,

his produce is rectified

and is not tevel,

but his tithes are defective,

for since the designation of tithe takes effect only upon one tenth of the produce, the rest of the produce that he separated is tevel [for he did not separate tithe for them, but only designated them themselves as tithe in order to rectify other produce, and the designation of tithe cannot take effect upon more than a tenth of the produce; it follows that they remained tevel]. And since that tenth which became tithe cannot be identified within the mixture of the tithe and the tevel, therefore his tithes are defective and he cannot eat them.

And we reject this:

But what

did you

say

they assess according to the quantity that they are

now?

Say the latter clause: If he comes to tithe

dried figs for fresh figs,

then he is required to tithe them

by measure,

measuring by a measure in which ninety percent of the measure is fresh figs and ten percent of the measure is dried figs; and he should not separate by count ten dried figs for ninety fresh figs, because he would diminish his tithes, for if he measures dried figs by one tenth of the measure of the fresh figs, it will contain more than ten dried figs!

Granted, if you say that they assess according to the quantity that they are

now,

it is well

that he must separate the dried figs by measure, for this is the ratio of one tenth dried figs to nine tenths fresh figs, according to the state of the dried figs now.

But if you say that they assess according to the quantity that they had been,

they assess, then when he separates by measure

he is one who increases in tithes,

for if we consider the dried figs as they were when they were fresh figs, he must separate ten dried figs for ninety fresh figs, whereas when he measures by measure he separates more than ten dried figs for ninety fresh figs!?

Rather,

you cannot prove anything from this Mishna, for here

we are dealing with the great teruma

which is taken by estimation, and it is possible to add to it as much as he wishes.

And the first clause,

when he separates from the fresh figs for the dried figs, he separates by count because of the mitzva to contribute

generously, and the latter clause,

when he comes to separate from the dried figs for the fresh figs, he separates by measure because of the mitzva to contribute

generously.

And we raise an objection:

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

which was the vessel in which they placed the dried figs and in which they stuck them together into large circles

for ninety

fresh figs

in the basket [

the vessel in which they placed the fresh figs when they picked them].

And if it is with regard to the great teruma

we are speaking -

ten

for ninety

what is its function?!

For they do not separate ten percent as great teruma.

Rather, here we are dealing with the terumat maaser,

which is taken from the tithe,

we are dealing,

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.

For 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”

And it shall be reckoned for you

for the Levites

your offering,

which you have raised, a tithe from the tithe [like the great teruma, which is called the first of the grain, which was raised from the produce of the threshing floor]”.

The verse, “And it shall be reckoned,” speaks of two offerings.

“And it shall be reckoned for you,”

one is the great teruma, and one is the terumat maaser.

To teach us:

Just as the great teruma is taken by estimation,

for it is not necessary to measure the produce, but he takes by estimation one from fifty and makes it great teruma,