Menachot Daf 54 (מנחות דף נ״ד)
Daf: 54 | Amudim: 54a – 54b | Date: 1 Adar I 5786
📖 Breakdown
Amud Aleph (54a)
Segment 1
TYPE: גמרא
Dispute about leavening with apple juice — R. Ḥanina ben Gamliel vs. the Rabbis
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בְּתַפּוּחִים. מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אָמְרוּ: מַחְמִיצִין. רַב כָּהֲנָא מַתְנֵי לַהּ בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶּן תְּרַדְיוֹן.
English Translation:
with the juice of apples, as the dough will not leaven properly. It was said in the name of Rabbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel that one may leaven these meal offerings with juice from apples, as this is considered proper leavening. The Gemara notes that Rav Kahana would teach this halakha in the name of Rabbi Ḥanina ben Teradyon, not in the name of Rabbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel.
קלאוד על הדף:
This segment continues from the previous daf’s baraita about what substances may be used to leaven meal offerings that must be chametz. The majority opinion (the Rabbis) holds that fruit juice does not produce proper leavening, while Rabbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel disagrees and permits it. The textual note about Rav Kahana attributing this to a different Tanna (Rabbi Ḥanina ben Teradyon) highlights the care with which transmission of traditions was tracked.
Key Terms:
- תַפּוּחִים (tapuḥim) = Apples (or possibly another fruit); their juice is debated as a leavening agent
- מַחְמִיצִין (maḥmitzin) = One may leaven — indicating that this constitutes proper leavening
Segment 2
TYPE: גמרא
Analyzing a mishna in Terumot about teruma apple juice leavening dough
Hebrew/Aramaic:
כְּמַאן אָזְלָא הָא דִּתְנַן: תַּפּוּחַ שֶׁרִיסְּקוֹ, וּנְתָנוֹ בְּתוֹךְ הָעִיסָּה, וְחִימְּצָה – הֲרֵי זוֹ אֲסוּרָה.
English Translation:
The Gemara analyzes this dispute. In accordance with whose opinion is that which we learned in a mishna (Terumot 10:2): In the case of an apple of teruma that one mashed and placed in non-sacred dough, and the juice of the apple leavened the dough, this dough is prohibited to be consumed by anyone who may not partake of teruma.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara connects the dispute about apple juice leavening to a mishna in Terumot. If teruma apple juice leavens dough, the dough becomes prohibited to non-priests — implying that the apple juice is considered a significant leavening agent. The question is whether this mishna follows Rabbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel (who considers it full leavening) or can also work according to the Rabbis.
Key Terms:
- תְּרוּמָה (teruma) = The priestly portion of produce, forbidden to non-priests
- רִיסְּקוֹ (risko) = Mashed it — physically breaking the apple to extract juice
Segment 3
TYPE: תירוץ
Resolution — even the Rabbis agree it creates “hardened” leaven (nukshe)
Hebrew/Aramaic:
כְּמַאן? לֵימָא רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל הִיא, וְלָא רַבָּנַן? אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא רַבָּנַן, נְהִי דְּחָמֵץ גָּמוּר לָא הָוֵי, נוּקְשֶׁה מִיהָא הָוֵי.
English Translation:
The Gemara reiterates the question: In accordance with whose opinion is this mishna? Shall we say that it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel, who maintains that the juice of apples causes the dough to leaven properly, and not in accordance with the ruling of the Rabbis, the majority opinion that disputes this ruling? The Gemara refutes this suggestion: You may even say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. Granted, the Rabbis hold that dough leavened by the juice of apples does not become full-fledged leavened bread, but in any event it becomes hardened [nukshe] leaven. Consequently, dough leavened by the juice of teruma apples is prohibited to non-priests.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara resolves the question elegantly: even the Rabbis who deny that apple juice creates “full chametz” acknowledge it creates nukshe — a hardened or stiffened form of dough. While this is insufficient for the Temple leavening requirement (where full chametz is needed), it is enough to make the dough prohibited if the apple was teruma. The distinction between chametz gamur (full leavening) and nukshe (partial hardening) is critical for both teruma and Passover law.
Key Terms:
- נוּקְשֶׁה (nukshe) = Hardened leaven — dough that has been stiffened by fruit juice, neither full matza nor full chametz
- חָמֵץ גָּמוּר (chametz gamur) = Full-fledged leavened bread
Segment 4
TYPE: מחלוקת
Dispute about the sinner’s meal offering — can water be added?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַבִּי אִילָא: אֵין לְךָ הַקָּשָׁה לִקְמִיצָה יוֹתֵר מִמִּנְחַת חוֹטֵא. רַב יִצְחָק בַּר אַבְדִּימִי אָמַר: מִנְחַת חוֹטֵא מְגַבְּלָהּ בַּמַּיִם, וּכְשֵׁרָה.
English Translation:
§ On the previous amud the Gemara cited the opinion of Rabba and Rav Yosef that measuring the flour in the leavening dough must be performed before water is added. The Gemara discusses this matter further. Rabbi Ila says: Of all the meal offerings, you do not have a meal offering whose removal of the handful is more difficult than that of the meal offering of a sinner. This particular meal offering is dry, as no oil is added to it. Therefore, it is very difficult to remove precisely a handful, as when the priest takes a handful with his thumb and little finger, a large amount of flour is apt to fall out. Rav Yitzḥak bar Avdimi says: The removal of the handful in the case of the meal offering of a sinner is no more difficult than its removal in other meal offerings. The reason is that although the Torah prohibited the addition of oil to the meal offering of a sinner, nevertheless the priest may knead it in water, and it is fit to be offered.
קלאוד על הדף:
This dispute has practical implications for the priestly service. The sinner’s meal offering (minḥat ḥoté) uniquely has no oil added — it symbolizes the sinner’s humility. Rabbi Ila argues this makes kemitza (the handful removal) extremely difficult, as dry flour spills easily. Rav Yitzḥak bar Avdimi counters that the prohibition is only against oil, not water — so water can be added to make a workable dough. This connects back to the measurement discussion on the previous daf.
Key Terms:
- מִנְחַת חוֹטֵא (minḥat ḥoté) = The sinner’s meal offering — brought without oil or frankincense
- קְמִיצָה (kemitza) = The handful removal — the priest scoops a three-finger portion from the offering
Segment 5
TYPE: גמרא
Analyzing the dispute — does it reflect the measurement disagreement?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
לֵימָא בְּהָא קָא מִיפַּלְגִי, דְּמָר סָבַר: כְּמוֹת שֶׁהֵן מְשַׁעֲרִינַן, וּמָר סָבַר: לִכְמוֹת שֶׁהָיוּ מְשַׁעֲרִינַן.
English Translation:
The Gemara analyzes this dispute. Let us say that these amora’im disagree about this: As one Sage, Rav Yitzḥak bar Avdimi, holds that one measures meal offerings as they are, in their current state, after they have been mixed into a dough. Therefore it is permitted to perform the removal of the handful after water has been added, at which point it is not a particularly difficult rite to perform. And one Sage, Rabbi Ila, holds that one measures meal offerings as they were before they were mixed with water, when they were still flour. Therefore, if one were to add water before measuring he might add too much, which would cause the dough to be too soft and the measure of the offering too large, or conversely, if he were to add too little water the dough would be stiff and too small in volume. Either way, the handful will not contain the correct amount of flour, and therefore no water may be added.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara attempts to connect this practical dispute to a theoretical one from the previous daf: whether food items are measured in their current state or their original state. If we measure “as they are” (current state), adding water is fine — the whole dough, water included, is measured. If we measure “as they were” (original flour weight), adding water creates an imprecise measure. The Gemara explores whether this conceptual disagreement underlies the practical dispute about adding water.
Key Terms:
- כְּמוֹת שֶׁהֵן (kemot shehen) = As they currently are — measuring in the present state
- לִכְמוֹת שֶׁהָיוּ (likhmot shehayu) = As they were — measuring according to the original state
Segment 6
TYPE: דחייה
Rejection — both agree on measurement; the dispute is about the meaning of “dry”
Hebrew/Aramaic:
לָא, דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא כְּמוֹת שֶׁהֵן מְשַׁעֲרִינַן, וּבְהָא קָא מִיפַּלְגִי: דְּמָר סָבַר מַאי ״חֲרֵיבָה״? חֲרֵיבָה מִשֶּׁמֶן, וּמָר סָבַר חֲרֵיבָה מִכׇּל דָּבָר.
English Translation:
The Gemara responds: No, as everyone agrees that one measures meal offerings as they currently are. And it is with regard to this that they disagree: As one Sage, Rav Yitzḥak bar Avdimi, holds: What is the meaning of “dry” written in the verse discussing a meal offering: “And every meal offering, mixed with oil, or dry” (Leviticus 7:10)? It means dry of oil, but one may add water. And one Sage, Rabbi Ila, holds that the meal offering of a sinner must be dry of all substances, i.e., it may not contain even water.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara rejects the proposed connection and reframes the dispute as purely about scriptural interpretation. Both amora’im agree that measurement is done in the current state. Their disagreement is about the verse “dry” (ḥarevah) in Leviticus 7:10: does it mean dry of oil specifically (so water is permitted), or dry of everything (so even water is prohibited)? This localized exegetical disagreement replaces the broader theoretical one.
Key Terms:
- חֲרֵיבָה (ḥarevah) = Dry — the Torah’s description of certain meal offerings
- חֲרֵיבָה מִשֶּׁמֶן = Dry of oil specifically — allowing water
- חֲרֵיבָה מִכׇּל דָּבָר = Dry of everything — prohibiting even water
Segment 7
TYPE: משנה
Mishna from Okatzin — measuring swelled/shrunken meat for impurity
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תְּנַן הָתָם: בְּשַׂר הָעֵגֶל שֶׁנִּתְפַּח, וּבְשַׂר זְקֵנָה שֶׁנִּתְמַעֵךְ, מִשְׁתַּעֲרִין לִכְמוֹת שֶׁהֵן.
English Translation:
§ The question concerning whether a meal offering is to be measured in its current, mixed state or as it was before it was mixed relates to a fundamental issue that also arises in other areas of halakha. We learned in a mishna there (Okatzin 2:8): Meat of a calf that swelled due to cooking, as the volume of calf flesh increases when it is cooked in water, or meat of an old animal that shrank due to cooking, which is what happens to meat of this type, are to be measured as they are in order to determine if they are the volume of an egg-bulk, in which case they can contract ritual impurity and transfer impurity of food to other items.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara broadens the discussion from meal offerings to a fundamental principle in halacha: when an item changes volume, do we measure it in its current or original state? The mishna from Okatzin provides the test case: calf meat swells when cooked, while old animal meat shrinks. The phrase “measured as they are” (mishtarin likhmot shehen) is ambiguous — it could mean either their current state or their original state, leading to the dispute in the next segment.
Key Terms:
- כְּבֵיצָה (ke’beitza) = The volume of an egg-bulk — the minimum size for food to contract and transmit impurity
- נִתְפַּח (nitpaḥ) = Swelled — as calf meat does when cooked
- נִתְמַעֵךְ (nitma’ekh) = Shrank — as old animal meat does when cooked
Segment 8
TYPE: מחלוקת
Major dispute between two groups of Amoraim on measuring current vs. original volume
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַב וְרַבִּי חִיָּיא וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמְרִי: מִשְׁתַּעֲרִין כְּמוֹת שֶׁהֵן, שְׁמוּאֵל וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בַּר רַבִּי וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמְרִי: מִשְׁתַּעֲרִין לִכְמוֹת שֶׁהֵן.
English Translation:
The Sages disagree as to the meaning of: Measured as they are. Rav, Rabbi Ḥiyya, and Rabbi Yoḥanan all say that it means the items are to be measured as they are currently, after having been cooked. Shmuel, Rabbi Shimon bar Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and Reish Lakish all say it means they are to be measured according to their volume as they are, before having been cooked. In other words, even if the meat of a calf is the volume of an egg-bulk after it was cooked, if it was less than this before cooking it cannot contract ritual impurity. Conversely, even if the meat of an old animal was less than an egg-bulk after cooking, if it was an egg-bulk before it was cooked it can contract ritual impurity.
קלאוד על הדף:
This is a major Amoraic dispute involving six prominent sages. On one side: Rav, Rabbi Ḥiyya, and Rabbi Yoḥanan hold that the current state determines the legal measure. On the other: Shmuel, Rabbi Shimon bar Rabbi, and Reish Lakish hold that the original state is determinative. The dispute has far-reaching implications — not just for ritual impurity of food, but for any halachic measure that depends on volume when items can expand or contract.
Key Terms:
- מִשְׁתַּעֲרִין כְּמוֹת שֶׁהֵן = Measured as they currently are — the present state determines
- מִשְׁתַּעֲרִין לִכְמוֹת שֶׁהֵן = Measured according to what they are — the original state determines
Segment 9
TYPE: קושיא
Challenge from a baraita — calf meat that swelled to the requisite measure is impure going forward
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מֵיתִיבִי: בְּשַׂר הָעֵגֶל שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה בּוֹ כְּשִׁיעוּר, וְתָפַח וְעָמַד עַל כְּשִׁיעוּר – טָהוֹר לְשֶׁעָבַר, וְטָמֵא מִיכָּן וּלְהַבָּא!
English Translation:
The Gemara raises an objection to the opinion of Shmuel, Rabbi Shimon bar Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and Reish Lakish from a baraita: With regard to meat of a calf that came into contact with a source of ritual impurity but that was not of a volume equivalent to the minimum measure for contracting impurity, i.e., an egg-bulk, if it was then cooked, and as a result it swelled until it stood at the requisite measure for ritual impurity, this meat is pure with regard to the past, but can become impure and render other items impure from here on. In other words, the previous contact with a source of impurity did not render the meat impure, as it was of insufficient volume at the time. This indicates that the status of an item with regard to ritual impurity depends on its volume at the current moment.
קלאוד על הדף:
This baraita poses a direct challenge to Shmuel’s group. It states that meat that was initially below the requisite volume but then swelled to the minimum size can now contract impurity. This seems to prove that the current state is what matters — supporting Rav’s position. If the original state were determinative (as Shmuel holds), the meat should remain immune to impurity regardless of subsequent swelling.
Key Terms:
- טָהוֹר לְשֶׁעָבַר = Pure retroactively — the past contact did not confer impurity
- טָמֵא מִיכָּן וּלְהַבָּא = Impure from here on — now susceptible to future impurity
Segment 10
TYPE: תירוץ
Defense — the baraita’s impurity is only rabbinic
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מִדְּרַבָּנַן.
English Translation:
The Gemara answers: It is possible that by Torah law this meat is in fact not susceptible to ritual impurity even from here on, as the halakha defines it by its volume prior to cooking. Nevertheless, the baraita teaches that it is impure by rabbinic law.
קלאוד על הדף:
The defense is remarkably terse — just one word: “mi’deRabbanan” (by rabbinic law). Shmuel’s camp argues that by Torah law, this swelled meat cannot contract impurity since it was originally too small. The baraita’s ruling that it is impure “from here on” is merely a rabbinic stringency. This distinction between Torah and rabbinic law becomes the key to reconciling the baraita with Shmuel’s position.
Key Terms:
- מִדְּרַבָּנַן (mi’deRabbanan) = By rabbinic law — as opposed to Torah law (de’Oraita)
Segment 11
TYPE: קושיא
Challenge from piggul and notar — these are Torah-level concepts
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִי הָכִי, אֵימָא סֵיפָא: וְכֵן בְּפִיגּוּל, וְכֵן בְּנוֹתָר. אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא, הַיְינוּ דְּאִיכָּא פִּיגּוּל וְנוֹתָר, אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ דְּרַבָּנַן, פִּיגּוּל וְנוֹתָר בִּדְרַבָּנַן מִי אִיכָּא?
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: If so, say the latter clause of that baraita: And similarly, the same principle applies to an offering that was sacrificed with the intent to consume it after its designated time [piggul], and similarly with regard to food left over from an offering after the time allotted for its consumption [notar]. The Gemara analyzes this statement: Granted, if you say that the baraita is discussing halakhot that apply by Torah law, this is why the cases of piggul and notar are included in the baraita, as they also apply by Torah law. But if you say that the halakhot in the baraita apply by rabbinic law, are there piggul and notar by rabbinic law?
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara attacks the “rabbinic law” defense by pointing to the baraita’s continuation. It mentions piggul (sacrificial meat intended to be eaten beyond its time limit) and notar (leftover sacrificial meat) — both Torah-level prohibitions. If the baraita is merely rabbinic, how can it mention these intrinsically Torah-level categories? Piggul and notar don’t exist as rabbinic concepts — they are inherently biblical.
Key Terms:
- פִּיגּוּל (piggul) = An offering rendered invalid by improper intent regarding time of consumption
- נוֹתָר (notar) = Sacrificial meat left over beyond its permitted consumption period
Segment 12
TYPE: תירוץ
Reinterpretation — referring to impurity caused by piggul/notar, which is rabbinic
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֵימָא: וְכֵן בְּטוּמְאַת פִּיגּוּל, וְכֵן בְּטוּמְאַת נוֹתָר.
English Translation:
The Gemara answers: Say that the baraita is not referring to the prohibitions of piggul and notar. Rather, it means the following: And similarly, the same principle applies with regard to ritual impurity imparted by piggul, and similarly with regard to ritual impurity imparted by notar. There is a rabbinic decree that meat which is piggul or notar imparts impurity to one’s hands even if the meat itself was not impure. The baraita teaches that if the meat is at least the volume of an egg-bulk after it was cooked, it renders the hands impure in this manner.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara reinterprets the baraita: it doesn’t refer to the piggul/notar prohibitions themselves (which are Torah law) but to the rabbinic decree that piggul and notar meat renders hands impure (tumah of piggul/notar). This is a distinct rabbinic institution — the Sages decreed that piggul and notar meat transmits a form of impurity to the hands. Since this impurity is rabbinic, it can apply even to meat that only reached the requisite measure through swelling.
Key Terms:
- טוּמְאַת פִּיגּוּל = Impurity of piggul — a rabbinic decree that piggul meat renders hands impure
- טוּמְאַת נוֹתָר = Impurity of notar — similarly a rabbinic decree
Segment 13
TYPE: גמרא
Explaining why the baraita needed to mention piggul/notar impurity
Hebrew/Aramaic:
סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: הוֹאִיל וְטוּמְאַת פִּיגּוּל וְטוּמְאַת נוֹתָר דְּרַבָּנַן הִיא, כּוּלֵּי הַאי בִּדְרַבָּנַן לָא עֲבוּד רַבָּנַן, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
English Translation:
The Gemara explains that this statement is necessary, as it might enter your mind to say: Since the concepts of impurity imparted by piggul and impurity imparted by notar apply by rabbinic law, the Sages did not institute a stringency to such an extent, making items that were less than the requisite volume until they were cooked contract and impart forms of impurity that apply by rabbinic law. Therefore, the baraita teaches us that this halakha does apply to those forms of ritual impurity.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara justifies why the baraita needed to explicitly include piggul and notar impurity. One might have reasoned that the Rabbis wouldn’t “pile on” rabbinic stringencies — applying a rabbinic impurity rule (piggul/notar impurity) to a rabbinic volume standard (swelled-to-size meat). The baraita teaches that even this double layer of rabbinic law applies. This reflects the principle that rabbinic decrees, once established, are applied consistently.
Key Terms:
- כּוּלֵּי הַאי (kulei hai) = To such an extent — expressing the idea of compounding stringencies
Segment 14
TYPE: קושיא
Challenge from old animal meat that shrank — supports current-state measurement
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּא שְׁמַע: בְּשַׂר זְקֵנָה שֶׁהָיָה בּוֹ כְּשִׁיעוּר, וְצָמַק פָּחוֹת מִכְּשִׁיעוּר – טָמֵא לְשֶׁעָבַר, וְטָהוֹר מִיכָּן וּלְהַבָּא.
English Translation:
The Gemara continues to analyze this dispute. Come and hear a baraita: With regard to meat of an old animal that initially was of a volume equivalent to the requisite measure for contracting ritual impurity and became impure, after which it was cooked and as a result shrank until it was less than the requisite measure for contracting impurity, it is considered impure with regard to items that touched it in the past, when it was large enough, and it is pure with regard to items that it may touch from here on. This baraita indicates that the current state of the item is decisive.
קלאוד על הדף:
This second baraita challenges Shmuel from the opposite direction. Here, meat that was originally large enough for impurity shrank below the threshold after cooking. The baraita rules it is pure “from here on” — indicating that the current (post-cooking) volume determines the status. If the original volume were determinative (as Shmuel holds), the meat should remain impure regardless of subsequent shrinking.
Key Terms:
- צָמַק (tzamak) = Shrank — the opposite of swelling
- טָמֵא לְשֶׁעָבַר = Impure retroactively — what it touched before remains impure
Segment 15
TYPE: תירוץ
Rabba’s compromise — distinguishing expansion from contraction
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַבָּה: כֹּל הֵיכָא דְּמֵעִיקָּרָא הֲוָה בֵּיהּ, וְהַשְׁתָּא לֵית בֵּיהּ – הָא לֵית בֵּיהּ, וְכֹל הֵיכָא דְּמֵעִיקָּרָא לָא הֲוָה בֵּיהּ וְהַשְׁתָּא הֲוָה בֵּיהּ – מִדְּרַבָּנַן.
English Translation:
Rabba said, in explanation of the dispute between the amora’im: Anywhere, i.e., with regard to any item, that was initially of a volume equivalent to the requisite measure, but now it is not of such a volume, the halakha is determined according to the item’s current volume, and it is not of the requisite volume. Conversely, anywhere, i.e., with regard to any item, that initially was not of the requisite measure but now it is of sufficient volume, the item contracts impurity by rabbinic law.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabba offers an elegant compromise that reconciles all the sources. He distinguishes between two scenarios: (1) Something that shrank — here, both sides agree the current (reduced) volume is determinative and the item is pure. (2) Something that swelled — here, the item contracts impurity only by rabbinic law, not by Torah law. This framework explains all the baraitot while narrowing the actual dispute to a specific case introduced on the next amud.
Key Terms:
- מֵעִיקָּרָא הֲוָה בֵּיהּ = Originally it had the requisite measure — the shrinking scenario
- מֵעִיקָּרָא לָא הֲוָה בֵּיהּ = Originally it didn’t have the measure — the swelling scenario
Amud Bet (54b)
Segment 1
TYPE: גמרא
The real dispute — shrunk and re-swelled: is there “diḥuy” in ritual matters?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
כִּי פְּלִיגִי, כְּגוֹן שֶׁהָיָה בּוֹ כְּשִׁיעוּר וְצָמַק וְחָזַר וְתָפַח, דְּמָר סָבַר: יֵשׁ דִּיחוּי בְּאִיסּוּרָא, וּמַר סָבַר: אֵין דִּיחוּי בְּאִיסּוּרָא.
English Translation:
When they disagree is in a case where the food initially had the requisite measure for ritual impurity, and it shrank until it was less than this measure, and subsequently it again swelled to the requisite measure for contracting impurity. The dispute is that one Sage, i.e., Shmuel, Rabbi Shimon, and Reish Lakish, holds: There is disqualification with regard to a ritual matter, including impurity. In other words, if at a certain point the food was less than the requisite measure it becomes entirely disqualified from contracting ritual impurity, even if it subsequently swells again. And one Sage, i.e., Rav, Rav Ḥiyya, and Rabbi Yoḥanan, holds: There is no disqualification with regard to a ritual matter. Even if at a certain stage the food lost its ability to contract impurity, if it later swells it can once again become impure.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabba now pinpoints the precise case of disagreement: food that originally had the requisite measure, then shrank below it, then swelled back again. The fundamental question is whether there is “diḥuy” (disqualification/rejection) in ritual matters. Shmuel’s camp says yes — once the food loses its status by shrinking below the threshold, that loss is permanent even if it later re-expands. Rav’s camp says no — the food can regain its status. This principle of diḥuy has parallels in many areas of halacha.
Key Terms:
- דִּיחוּי (diḥuy) = Disqualification/rejection — the principle that once an item loses its legal status, it cannot regain it
- יֵשׁ דִּיחוּי בְּאִיסּוּרָא = There is diḥuy in ritual matters — once disqualified, permanently disqualified
Segment 2
TYPE: קושיא
Conclusive refutation from a mishna — shrunken items that re-swell regain their status
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּמִי אִיכָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר דְּיֵשׁ דִּיחוּי בְּאִיסּוּרִין? וְהָתְנַן: כְּבֵיצָה אֳכָלִין שֶׁהִנִּיחָן בַּחַמָּה וְנִתְמַעֲטוּ, וְכֵן כְּזַיִת מִן הַמֵּת, כְּזַיִת מִן הַנְּבֵלָה, וְכַעֲדָשָׁה מִן הַשֶּׁרֶץ, וּכְזַיִת פִּיגּוּל, וּכְזַיִת נוֹתָר, וּכְזַיִת חֵלֶב – טְהוֹרִין, וְאֵין חַיָּיבִין עֲלֵיהֶן מִשּׁוּם פִּיגּוּל וְנוֹתָר וָחֵלֶב.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: And is there one who says that there is disqualification with regard to ritual matters? But didn’t we learn in a mishna (Teharot 3:6): In the case of an egg-bulk of a ritually impure food that one placed in the sun and that therefore shrank to less than an egg-bulk; and similarly in the case of an olive-bulk of flesh of a corpse, or an olive-bulk of an animal carcass, or a lentil-bulk of a creeping animal, all of which impart impurity; or an olive-bulk of piggul, or an olive-bulk of notar, or an olive-bulk of forbidden fat, if any of these were placed in the sun and shrank, they are pure, i.e., they do not impart impurity to other items, and one is not liable to receive karet for them due to the prohibitions of piggul, notar, or forbidden fat.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara introduces a devastating challenge to Shmuel’s position from a mishna in Teharot. The mishna catalogs various items that shrunk below their required measures (egg-bulk, olive-bulk, lentil-bulk) and rules that once shrunk, they lose their impurity status and their associated prohibitions. So far, this supports Shmuel. But the critical continuation is in the next segment.
Key Terms:
- כְּזַיִת (ke’zayit) = An olive-bulk — the minimum measure for many Torah prohibitions
- כַּעֲדָשָׁה (ka’adasha) = A lentil-bulk — the minimum measure for impurity from a creeping animal
- חֵלֶב (ḥelev) = Forbidden fat — eating an olive-bulk carries the penalty of karet
Segment 3
TYPE: מסקנא
Conclusive refutation — re-swelled items regain their status; no diḥuy
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הִנִּיחָן בַּגְּשָׁמִים וְתָפְחוּ – טְמֵאִין, וְחַיָּיבִין עֲלֵיהֶם מִשּׁוּם פִּיגּוּל וְנוֹתָר וָחֵלֶב. תְּיוּבְתָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר יֵשׁ דִּיחוּי בְּאִיסּוּרִין! תְּיוּבְתָּא.
English Translation:
The mishna continues: If, after they shrank in the sun, one took these foods and placed them in the rain, as a result of which they again swelled to the minimum volume for ritual impurity, they are impure, as was the case before they shrank. This applies to the impurity of a corpse, the impurity of an animal carcass, and the impurity of foods, and one is also liable to receive karet for them due to piggul, notar, or forbidden fat. This demonstrates that the food is not permanently disqualified. Therefore, the refutation of the opinion of the one who says that there is disqualification with regard to ritual matters is a conclusive refutation.
קלאוד על הדף:
This is the decisive blow. The mishna explicitly states that items that shrank and then re-swelled regain all their previous legal statuses — both for impurity and for Torah-level prohibitions like piggul, notar, and forbidden fat. If diḥuy applied, these items could never regain their status. The Gemara declares this a “teyuvta” — a conclusive refutation of Shmuel, Rabbi Shimon bar Rabbi, and Reish Lakish. The principle of “ein diḥuy be’issurin” (no permanent disqualification in ritual matters) is established.
Key Terms:
- תְּיוּבְתָּא (teyuvta) = A conclusive refutation — the strongest form of rejection in Talmudic argumentation
- אֵין דִּיחוּי בְּאִיסּוּרָא = There is no diḥuy in ritual matters — the established principle
Segment 4
TYPE: גמרא
New topic — separating teruma from fresh figs for dried figs
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּא שְׁמַע: תּוֹרְמִין תְּאֵנִים עַל הַגְּרוֹגְרוֹת, בְּמִנְיָן.
English Translation:
§ The Gemara returns to the dispute over whether food is to be measured in its current volume or according to its initial volume. Come and hear a baraita: (Tosefta, Terumot 4:2): One may separate teruma and tithes from fresh figs for dried figs, which have shrunk and are now smaller than they were when they were fresh. In other words, one may designate fresh figs as teruma and tithe to exempt the dried figs, despite the difference between these two types of figs. This separation may be performed only by number, e.g., ten fresh figs for ninety dried figs. One may not set aside this teruma by volume, i.e., by separating fresh figs with a volume of one-tenth of the measure of dried figs. The reason is that the volume of the fresh figs is greater than that of the dried figs, so he would set aside fewer fresh figs than he would if he calculated by number.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara shifts to a practical application of the measurement dispute in the area of teruma and tithes. Fresh figs are larger than dried figs — the same fruit at different stages. When separating teruma from fresh figs for dried figs, the baraita requires counting by number (not measuring by volume) to ensure the correct proportion. This introduces a new angle on whether we measure items in their current state or their original state.
Key Terms:
- תְּאֵנִים (te’enim) = Fresh figs
- גְּרוֹגְרוֹת (gerogrot) = Dried figs — smaller than fresh figs due to moisture loss
- תּוֹרְמִין (tormin) = One may separate teruma
Segment 5
TYPE: גמרא
Analysis — this supports “original state” measurement
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא לִכְמוֹת שֶׁהֵן מְשַׁעֲרִינַן – שַׁפִּיר, אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ כְּמוֹת שֶׁהֵן – הָוֵה לֵיהּ מַרְבֶּה בְּמַעַשְׂרוֹת.
English Translation:
The Gemara analyzes this halakha. Granted, if you say that one measures food items as they were initially, then since when the obligation to separate teruma began, the volume of the dried figs was the same as the fresh ones, then it is well; the amount of figs to be separated as teruma should be calculated based on number, disregarding their current volume. But if you say that foods are to be measured as they currently are, then since the volume of the dried figs is smaller than that of the fresh figs, he will separate a larger amount than necessary, and this case is an example of one who increases his tithes.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara reasons: if we measure by current state, then ten fresh figs (which are large) would be more than 10% of ninety dried figs (which are small), resulting in excessive teruma. But if we measure by original state (when the dried figs were also fresh and large), then ten-for-ninety is the correct proportion. This would support the “original state” position — but the Gemara is about to show that the opposite clause of the baraita contradicts this.
Key Terms:
- מַרְבֶּה בְּמַעַשְׂרוֹת = One who increases his tithes — separating more than the required amount
Segment 6
TYPE: גמרא
The problem with excessive tithes
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּתְנַן: הַמַּרְבֶּה בְּמַעַשְׂרוֹת – פֵּירוֹתָיו מְתוּקָּנִים, ומַעְשְׂרוֹתָיו מְקוּלְקָלִין.
English Translation:
And we learned in a baraita (Tosefta, Demai 8:10): In the case of one who increases his tithes, i.e., he designates more than one-tenth of the produce as tithe, the remainder of his produce is rendered fit for consumption, as it has been properly tithed. But his tithes are ruined, as the amount over one-tenth is not tithe, and it was not itself tithed, so it remains untithed produce. If so, how can the fresh figs be considered proper teruma and tithes in this case?
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara highlights a practical problem with over-tithing. When someone separates more than the required amount, the excess is neither valid tithe nor properly tithed produce — it becomes “ruined tithes.” This is why precise measurement matters: if the measurement method leads to excessive separation, the tithes themselves are partially invalid, creating a halachic mess.
Key Terms:
- מְתוּקָּנִים (metukkanim) = Rendered fit — the remaining produce is properly tithed
- מְקוּלְקָלִין (mekkulkalin) = Ruined — the excess tithes are invalid
Segment 7
TYPE: קושיא
Contradiction from the second clause — dried figs for fresh by volume
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא מַאי לִכְמוֹת שֶׁהֵן? אֵימָא סֵיפָא: גְּרוֹגְרוֹת עַל הַתְּאֵנִים בְּמִדָּה.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: Rather, what will you claim; that one measures foods as they were initially? If so, say the latter clause of that same baraita: One may separate tithes from dried figs for fresh figs only by measure of volume, i.e., dried figs that are one-tenth of the volume of the fresh figs. One may not separate by number, as this would result in fewer dried figs than separation by volume.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara now shows that the baraita’s second clause contradicts the first interpretation. When separating dried figs (small) for fresh figs (large), the baraita requires volume measurement — not counting. If we measured by original state, the dried figs’ original (fresh) volume would be larger, and counting ten-for-ninety would suffice. But the baraita insists on volume measure, which makes sense only if current volume matters. The two clauses seem to support opposite positions.
Key Terms:
- בְּמִדָּה (be’midda) = By measure/volume — as opposed to by number
Segment 8
TYPE: גמרא
Analyzing the contradiction — supports current-state measurement
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא כְּמוֹת שֶׁהֵן – שַׁפִּיר, אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ לִכְמוֹת שֶׁהֵן – מַרְבֶּה בְּמַעַשְׂרוֹת הוּא.
English Translation:
The Gemara analyzes this halakha. Granted, if you say that one measures foods as they are currently, it is well. But if you say that one measures foods as they were initially, when the dried figs were fresh, it should be enough to set aside a smaller number of dried figs corresponding to the fresh ones. Since the baraita instructs him to separate a larger number of dried figs than required, this too is an example of one who increases his tithes.
קלאוד על הדף:
The analysis confirms the contradiction: the first clause of the baraita seems to support “original state” measurement, while the second clause supports “current state” measurement. Since both clauses deal with the same types of produce (fresh and dried figs), the baraita appears self-contradictory. This means the baraita cannot serve as proof for either side of the debate, and the Gemara must find an alternative explanation.
Key Terms:
- שַׁפִּיר (shappir) = It is well — the logic works out
Segment 9
TYPE: תירוץ
Resolution — the baraita discusses standard teruma (no fixed measure), not tithes
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא, הָכָא בִּתְרוּמָה גְּדוֹלָה עָסְקִינַן, וְרֵישָׁא בְּעַיִן יָפָה, וְסֵיפָא בְּעַיִן יָפָה הִיא.
English Translation:
Therefore, this baraita cannot serve as proof for either opinion. Since the two statements of the baraita appear contradictory, it must be that this baraita is actually not discussing tithes, which must be separated according to a precise measure. Rather, here we are dealing with standard teruma. By Torah law there is no fixed measure for standard teruma; a single kernel of grain exempts the entire crop. The Sages established a range of measures: One-fortieth for a generous gift, one-fiftieth for an average gift, and one-sixtieth for a miserly gift. Accordingly, one who wishes to give generously should give slightly more than the exact measure. And therefore, the first clause of the baraita is speaking of one who wishes to separate teruma generously, and in the latter clause, where he also gives more than necessary, it is also referring to one who wishes to separate his teruma generously.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara resolves the apparent contradiction by reinterpreting the baraita entirely. It is not about tithes (ma’aser), which require an exact 10%, but about standard teruma (teruma gedola), which has no fixed Torah measure. The Sages recommended generous (1/40), average (1/50), or modest (1/60) amounts. Both clauses describe generous separation — slightly more than technically necessary. Since teruma has no fixed proportion, the “excess” is simply generosity, not over-tithing.
Key Terms:
- תְּרוּמָה גְּדוֹלָה (teruma gedola) = Standard teruma — the first priestly gift, with no fixed Torah measure
- עַיִן יָפָה (ayin yafa) = A generous eye — one who gives generously (1/40 of the crop)
Segment 10
TYPE: קושיא
Challenge — Rabbi Yosei’s practice of separating ten for ninety
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִי הָכִי, אֵימָא סֵיפָא: אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי: אַבָּא הָיָה נוֹטֵל עֶשֶׂר גְּרוֹגְרוֹת שֶׁבַּמַּקְצוּעַ עַל תִּשְׁעִים שֶׁבַּכַּלְכַּלָּה, וְאִי בִּתְרוּמָה גְּדוֹלָה, עֶשֶׂר מַאי עֲבִידְתֵּיהּ?
English Translation:
The Gemara challenges: If so, say the last clause: Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Yosei, said: Father, i.e., Rabbi Yosei, would set aside ten dried figs that were in a vessel for ninety fresh figs that were in a basket. And if this baraita is referring to standard teruma, then with regard to this mention of ten dried figs, what is its purpose? This proportion was greater by orders of magnitude than even the amount of a generous gift established by the Sages.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara challenges the teruma gedola interpretation. Rabbi Yosei’s practice of separating ten out of ninety (roughly 11%) far exceeds even the most generous teruma measure (1/40 = 2.5%). If this were teruma gedola, such an enormous proportion would be meaningless — nobody separates 11% for standard teruma. This ratio only makes sense if exact proportions matter, as in tithes.
Key Terms:
- מַקְצוּעַ (maktzua) = A cutting vessel — where dried figs were stored
- כַּלְכַּלָּה (kalkala) = A basket — where fresh figs were placed
Segment 11
TYPE: תירוץ
Resolution — the baraita discusses teruma of the tithe, following Abba Elazar ben Gomel
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא הָכָא בִּתְרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר עָסְקִינַן, וְאַבָּא אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן גּוֹמֵל הוּא. דְּתַנְיָא: אַבָּא אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן גּוֹמֵל אוֹמֵר: ״וְנֶחְשַׁב לָכֶם תְּרוּמַתְכֶם״ – בִּשְׁתֵּי תְּרוּמוֹת הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר, אַחַת תְּרוּמָה גְּדוֹלָה וְאַחַת תְּרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר.
English Translation:
Rather, here we are dealing with teruma of the tithe, which the Levite separates from his tithe and gives to a priest. This teruma is one-tenth of the first tithe. And this ruling is in accordance with the opinion of Abba Elazar ben Gomel. As it is taught in a baraita: Abba Elazar ben Gomel says with regard to the verse: “And your teruma [terumatkhem] shall be reckoned to you as though it were the grain of the threshing floor” (Numbers 18:27), that in using a plural term of the word “your,” the verse speaks about two terumot. One is standard teruma, i.e., the grain of the threshing floor, and the other one is teruma of the tithe. The verse equates these two terumot.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara arrives at the final resolution: the baraita discusses teruma of the tithe (terumat ma’aser), which is exactly 10% of the first tithe — explaining the ten-for-ninety ratio. This follows Abba Elazar ben Gomel, who derives from Numbers 18:27 that the plural “terumatkhem” refers to two types of teruma. He equates them: just as standard teruma can be separated by estimate (without precise measurement), so too can teruma of the tithe.
Key Terms:
- תְּרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר (terumat ma’aser) = Teruma of the tithe — the 10% that the Levite gives the priest from his first tithe
- אַבָּא אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן גּוֹמֵל = A Tanna who equates the rules of teruma gedola and terumat ma’aser
Segment 12
TYPE: גמרא
Abba Elazar ben Gomel’s principle — teruma of the tithe may be taken by estimate
Hebrew/Aramaic:
כְּשֵׁם שֶׁתְּרוּמָה גְּדוֹלָה נִיטֶּלֶת בְּאוֹמֶד וּבְמַחְשָׁבָה, כָּךְ תְּרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר נִיטֶּלֶת בְּאוֹמֶד
English Translation:
Abba Elazar ben Gomel explains: Just as standard teruma is taken by estimate, as there is no requirement for the amount separated to be measured precisely; and it can be taken by thought, as one is not required to physically separate it before consuming the remaining produce, so too, teruma of the tithe may be taken by estimate
קלאוד על הדף:
This final segment on the daf presents Abba Elazar ben Gomel’s innovative halachic principle. Standard teruma has two leniencies: it can be separated by estimate (aomed) rather than exact measurement, and it can be separated by mental designation (maḥshava) without physical removal. He extends both leniencies to terumat ma’aser, which is normally required to be exact. According to this view, Rabbi Yosei’s practice of separating ten dried figs for ninety fresh figs is valid because exact measurement is not required. The passage continues on the next daf.
Key Terms:
- אוֹמֶד (omed) = By estimate — separation without precise measurement
- מַחְשָׁבָה (maḥshava) = By thought — mental designation without physical separation