## Menachot Daf 54a

###### Menachot 54a:1
[Menachot 54a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/54a:1)

בְּתַפּוּחִים. מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אָמְרוּ: מַחְמִיצִין. רַב כָּהֲנָא מַתְנֵי לַהּ בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶּן תְּרַדְיוֹן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Menachot 54a:2
[Menachot 54a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/54a:2)

כְּמַאן אָזְלָא הָא דִּתְנַן: תַּפּוּחַ שֶׁרִיסְּקוֹ, וּנְתָנוֹ בְּתוֹךְ הָעִיסָּה, וְחִימְּצָה – הֲרֵי זוֹ אֲסוּרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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*.


###### Menachot 54a:3
[Menachot 54a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/54a:3)

כְּמַאן? לֵימָא רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל הִיא, וְלָא רַבָּנַן? אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא רַבָּנַן, נְהִי דְּחָמֵץ גָּמוּר לָא הָוֵי, נוּקְשֶׁה מִיהָא הָוֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Menachot 54a:4
[Menachot 54a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/54a:4)

אָמַר רַבִּי אִילָא: אֵין לְךָ הַקָּשָׁה לִקְמִיצָה יוֹתֵר מִמִּנְחַת חוֹטֵא. רַב יִצְחָק בַּר אַבְדִּימִי אָמַר: מִנְחַת חוֹטֵא מְגַבְּלָהּ בַּמַּיִם, וּכְשֵׁרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ 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.


###### Menachot 54a:5
[Menachot 54a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/54a:5)

לֵימָא בְּהָא קָא מִיפַּלְגִי, דְּמָר סָבַר: כְּמוֹת שֶׁהֵן מְשַׁעֲרִינַן, וּמָר סָבַר: לִכְמוֹת שֶׁהָיוּ מְשַׁעֲרִינַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Menachot 54a:6
[Menachot 54a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/54a:6)

לָא, דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא כְּמוֹת שֶׁהֵן מְשַׁעֲרִינַן, וּבְהָא קָא מִיפַּלְגִי: דְּמָר סָבַר מַאי ״חֲרֵיבָה״? חֲרֵיבָה מִשֶּׁמֶן, וּמָר סָבַר חֲרֵיבָה מִכׇּל דָּבָר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Menachot 54a:7
[Menachot 54a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/54a:7)

תְּנַן הָתָם: בְּשַׂר הָעֵגֶל שֶׁנִּתְפַּח, וּבְשַׂר זְקֵנָה שֶׁנִּתְמַעֵךְ, מִשְׁתַּעֲרִין לִכְמוֹת שֶׁהֵן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ 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.


###### Menachot 54a:8
[Menachot 54a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/54a:8)

רַב וְרַבִּי חִיָּיא וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמְרִי: מִשְׁתַּעֲרִין כְּמוֹת שֶׁהֵן, שְׁמוּאֵל וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בַּר רַבִּי וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמְרִי: מִשְׁתַּעֲרִין לִכְמוֹת שֶׁהֵן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Menachot 54a:9
[Menachot 54a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/54a:9)

מֵיתִיבִי: בְּשַׂר הָעֵגֶל שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה בּוֹ כְּשִׁיעוּר, וְתָפַח וְעָמַד עַל כְּשִׁיעוּר – טָהוֹר לְשֶׁעָבַר, וְטָמֵא מִיכָּן וּלְהַבָּא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Menachot 54a:10
[Menachot 54a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/54a:10)

מִדְּרַבָּנַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Menachot 54a:11
[Menachot 54a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/54a:11)

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?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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?**


###### Menachot 54a:12
[Menachot 54a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/54a:12)

אֵימָא: וְכֵן בְּטוּמְאַת פִּיגּוּל, וְכֵן בְּטוּמְאַת נוֹתָר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Menachot 54a:13
[Menachot 54a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/54a:13)

סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: הוֹאִיל וְטוּמְאַת פִּיגּוּל וְטוּמְאַת נוֹתָר דְּרַבָּנַן הִיא, כּוּלֵּי הַאי בִּדְרַבָּנַן לָא עֲבוּד רַבָּנַן, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Menachot 54a:14
[Menachot 54a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/54a:14)

תָּא שְׁמַע: בְּשַׂר זְקֵנָה שֶׁהָיָה בּוֹ כְּשִׁיעוּר, וְצָמַק פָּחוֹת מִכְּשִׁיעוּר – טָמֵא לְשֶׁעָבַר, וְטָהוֹר מִיכָּן וּלְהַבָּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Menachot 54a:15
[Menachot 54a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/54a:15)

אָמַר רַבָּה: כֹּל הֵיכָא דְּמֵעִיקָּרָא הֲוָה בֵּיהּ, וְהַשְׁתָּא לֵית בֵּיהּ – הָא לֵית בֵּיהּ, וְכֹל הֵיכָא דְּמֵעִיקָּרָא לָא הֲוָה בֵּיהּ וְהַשְׁתָּא הֲוָה בֵּיהּ – מִדְּרַבָּנַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.**