Menachos 54 - Cycle 14
Summary
- Today's שיעור in מסכת מנחות דף נ"ד begins from דף נ"ג עמוד ב' at תנו רבנן and moves from the הלכות of making the שתי הלחם and לחמי תודה into a broader inquiry about how halacha evaluates change in an object’s status and שיעור over time. The text frames a מחלוקת about whether מי פירות can be מחמיץ, applies that to תרומה mixed into dough, and then shifts to practical difficulty in קמיצה by מנחת חוטא and whether water may be added. The core sugya then analyzes whether we measure items “as they are now” or “as they were,” bringing proofs from טומאת אוכלין, פיגול ונותר, and a range of שיעורים, and concludes with applications raised by later אחרונים to ברכה אחרונה, חמץ that becomes edible again, gelatin, and soaked מצה.
- The ברייתא states that the שתי הלחם and לחמי תודה are not made חמץ by kneading them with fruit juice, because leavening through fruit juice is not considered proper leavening. A tradition in the name of רבן גמליאל allows making them חמץ with fruit juice, and רב כהנא transmits a version attributing this to רבי חנינא בן תרדיון. The גמרא links this to a משנה about a תרומה apple that is grated into חולין dough and causes it to become חמץ, making the dough forbidden to זרים, and initially suggests this fits רבן גמליאל because it treats מי פירות as מחמיצין. The text explains that the case is not based on *noten ta’am* and not on ordinary ביטול of תרומה in one hundred, but on the rule that something that is מחמיץ has the same halachic force as *noten ta’am* in not becoming בטל.
- The גמרא raises the related issue of fruit juice mixed with water, where some opinions say the mixture does not leaven and other opinions say it leavens faster, and this affects whether the apple case includes water as a factor. The גמרא answers that the תרומה-apple משנה can follow even the רבנן, because although they deny that מי פירות produce חמץ גמור, they agree that it can create חמץ נוקשה. The text states that this level of חמץ is sufficient to render the dough אסור to זרים when תרומה is involved.
- רב אילא states that no מנחה is as difficult for קמיצה as מנחת חוטא because it has only flour and no oil, making it brittle and clumpy and requiring special precision to avoid taking too much or too little. רבי יצחק בר אבדימי rules that מנחת חוטא may be kneaded with water and remains כשרה. The גמרא rejects explaining their dispute as whether we evaluate the מנחה as it is now or as it was originally, and instead grounds it in the definition of “מנחה חריבה.” רבי יצחק בר אבדימי defines חריבה as lacking oil but not excluding water, while רב אילא defines חריבה as dry from everything, excluding water as well.
- A משנה in מסכת עוקצין about טומאת אוכלין states that meat that expands when cooked or shrinks when cooked is evaluated “משערים למה שהן,” in the context that food transmits טומאה only with a שיעור of כביצה. רב, רבי חייא, and רבי יוחנן interpret this as measuring by current size, while שמואל, רבי שמעון ברבי, and ריש לקיש interpret it as measuring by original size. A ברייתא teaches that calf meat that lacked the שיעור and later expanded to the שיעור is טהור לשעבר and טמא מכאן ולהבא, and the גמרא explains a דרבנן decree because people might see a present כביצה and mistakenly think it still is not מקבל טומאה.
- The ברייתא extends the rule to פיגול and נותר, and the גמרא rejects understanding this as creating פיגול ונותר דרבנן. The גמרא reinterprets it as referring to טומאת פיגול and טומאת נותר, a rabbinic enactment taught in מסכת פסחים דף פה עמוד א, instituted because some כהנים were lax about פיגול ונותר but were careful about טומאה, so טומאה was imposed to deter those עבירות. The גמרא states that one might have thought חז"ל would not be this stringent within a purely דרבנן טומאה regime, and it teaches that the stringency still applies.
- A further ברייתא about flesh of the dead that had a שיעור and later shrank rules טמא לשעבר and טהור מכאן ולהבא, and the גמרא reframes the earlier dispute through רבא בשם רב. Rav states that if it originally had the שיעור and now lacks it, it is not treated as טמא because the present שיעור is missing, while if it originally lacked the שיעור and now has it, it becomes טמא מדרבנן. The central מחלוקת is a case where it began with the שיעור, shrank below it, and later expanded back, where one side holds *yesh dichuy ba’isurin* so the return is only effective מדרבנן, and the other side holds *ein dichuy ba’isura* so the restored שיעור returns it to טומאה מדאורייתא. The text cites the מנחת חינוך’s analysis that דיחוי may depend on whether returning to the שיעור is normal and reversible, cites רב שמואל רוזובסקי’s question about כזית as a דין in שיעורים rather than merely a דין in אכילה, and cites the קרן אורה’s approach that the question is whether the return proves there was never a meaningful דיחוי.
- A משנה in מסכת טהרות פרק ג משנה ד lists multiple שיעורים that shrink and become טהורים and not subject to חיובים, and then if they later swell in rain they again become subject to liability for פיגול, נותר, and חלב. The גמרא treats this as תיובתא to the view that *yesh dichuy ba’isurin* in this context. The text applies this to contemporary questions, including the זרע אמת’s suggestion about a porous piece of cake or bread that appears to have a כזית but would lose volume when squeezed and whether a ברכה אחרונה should be recited, and it states that the sugya teaches *ein dichuy ba’isurin* so a temporary loss of שיעור is ignored once qualification returns.
- The text raises a major halachic dispute about חמץ that becomes inedible and later becomes edible again, where the חוות דעת holds that *dichuy* applies and the item remains permanently outside the category, while שאלות ותשובות בית יצחק, חלקת יעקב, and other אחרונים disagree and treat it as חמץ once it becomes edible again, with the same position attributed to the נודע ביהודה and the כרתי ופלתי. The discussion is presented as most relevant to gelatin derived from non-kosher hides that are rendered totally inedible by acid and later made edible again, with the question whether inedibility removes its איסור status or whether present edibility restores it. The text attributes to רב משה זצ''ל and רב אהרן קוטלר זצ''ל, and also to the מנחת יצחק, that even after a period of inedibility it remains considered non-kosher. The text also records that רב משה limits swelling-based שיעור calculations to moisture that is part of the food itself and does not combine other added ingredients to create a כזית, and it cites the משנה ברורה that לכתחילה one should not recite ברכת המזון or על המחיה unless there is a כזית of flour, or perhaps flour and water, rather than a כזית achieved through other ingredients.
- A ברייתא about separating from fresh figs (תאנה) for dried figs (גרוגרת) is used to test whether valuation follows current state or original state, because dried figs are smaller than fresh figs in number and volume. The text explains that if one measures by original state, taking תאנים for גרוגרות is coherent because the גרוגרות were originally תאנים, while measuring by current state would create the problem of *marbeh b’ma’asros*, where giving extra מעשר does not properly fix the produce. The גמרא ultimately frames the case as one of תרומה גדולה and then of תרומת מעשר, invoking אבא אלעזר בן גומל’s דרשה on “ונחשב לכם תרומתכם,” that the פסוק speaks of תרומה גדולה and תרומת מעשר, and that just as תרומה גדולה can be taken by estimation and even by מחשבה and can be given בעין יפה, so too תרומת מעשר may be taken באומד ובמחשבה and given בעין יפה. רב דימי בשם רב אלעזר distinguishes גרוגרות because they can be restored by cooking, and the text states that where reversal is easy, halacha treats the dried item as tied to its original form.
- The text ends by applying the שיעור framework to פסח, asking whether someone who lacks enough מצה or has difficulty eating it can dip מצה in water or wine and still be considered to have eaten a כזית of מצה. The narrative states that water is preferable to wine because wine creates an additional issue of removing the taste of the מצה. The concluding question is whether halacha counts only the מצה itself for כזית or whether the soaked state can count toward the שיעור.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions