Menachot 54

Sugya Map

The sugya on Menachot 54a navigates several distinct yet interconnected halachic principles, primarily revolving around the determination of shiurim (requisite measures) and the concept of chazaka (established status) in halacha.

• Issue 1: Chimutz with fruit juice.
  • Does apple juice cause proper leavening (chimutz) for korbanot?
  • Nafka Mina: The halachic validity of minchot prepared with apple juice, and the tumah status of teruma dough leavened by apple juice.
  • Primary Sources: Menachot 54a (our sugya), Terumot 10:2.
• Issue 2: Measuring minchot – K'shehem vs. K'shehayu.
  • How is the kometz (handful) of a mincha (meal offering) measured, especially the minchat choteh (sinner's meal offering) which lacks oil? Is it measured in its dry flour state, or after water is added and it becomes dough?
  • Nafka Mina: The proper preparation and validity of minchot.
  • Primary Sources: Menachot 54a.
• Issue 3: Determining shiurim for tumah – K'shehem vs. K'shehayu.
  • When an item changes volume (e.g., meat swelling or shrinking), is its shiur for tumah determined by its current state (k'shehem) or its original state (k'shehayu)?
  • Nafka Mina: The tumah status of food, its ability to contract and transmit tumah.
  • Primary Sources: Menachot 54a, Okatzin 2:8, Teharot 3:6.
• Issue 4: Pasul B'davar Sheb'kedusha.
  • Does an item that temporarily loses its shiur become permanently disqualified from a kedusha-related status, even if it later regains the shiur?
  • Nafka Mina: The re-acquisition of tumah susceptibility or liability for piggul/notar.
  • Primary Sources: Menachot 54a, Teharot 3:6.
• Issue 5: Separating terumot u'ma'asrot with changing volumes.
  • How does one separate teruma from fresh figs for dried figs, or vice-versa, when their volumes differ due to drying? Is it by number or by measure?
  • Nafka Mina: The validity of teruma separation and the prohibitions of tevel or yoter al hamidda.
  • Primary Sources: Menachot 54a, Tosefta Terumot 4:2, Tosefta Demai 8:10, Numbers 18:27.

Text Snapshot

The sugya on Menachot 54a presents a fascinating methodological tension, oscillating between various shiurim and their temporal definitions. Let's hone in on the core machloket regarding k'shehem vs. k'shehayu as it unfolds in the context of tumah.

The Gemara introduces the machloket of k'shehem vs. k'shehayu via a Mishna in Okatzin:

"בשר עגל שתפח, ובשר זקנים שנתמעט — נמדד כמות שהוא." (Menachot 54a)¹ "Meat of a calf that swelled, or meat of an old animal that shrank — is measured as it is."

This Mishna itself is subject to divergent interpretations:

"רב ורבי חייא ורבי יוחנן כולהו אמרי: נמדד כמות שהוא – כמות שהוא עכשיו. ושמואל ורבי שמעון בר רבי וריש לקיש כולהו אמרי: נמדד כמות שהוא – כמות שהיה." (Menachot 54a)² "Rav, Rabbi Ḥiyya, and Rabbi Yoḥanan all say: 'Measured as it is' means as it is now. And Shmuel, Rabbi Shimon bar Rabbi, and Reish Lakish all say: 'Measured as it is' means as it was."

The Gemara then challenges Shmuel et al. with a baraita:

"בשר עגל שלא היה בו שיעור, ותפח ועמד על שיעור – טהור מן העבר, וטמא מכאן ואילך." (Menachot 54a)³ "Meat of a calf that was not of the requisite measure, and swelled and reached the requisite measure – is pure concerning the past, and impure from here on."

The phrase "מכאן ואילך" (from here on) is critical. It implies that the current state determines tumah, seemingly contradicting Shmuel's view that the original state is determinative. The Gemara's initial terutz is that this baraita refers to d'rabanan impurity. This move, however, creates a deeper kushya when applied to piggul and notar later in the baraita, as piggul and notar are d'oraita prohibitions with karet for consumption, not mere d'rabanan tumah.

Readings

Rashi: The Nature of Piggul and Notar in the Baraita

Rashi's commentary is indispensable for unraveling the Gemara's complex interaction with the baraita concerning piggul and notar. The Gemara initially suggests that if the baraita on meat swelling is d'rabanan, then the subsequent clauses regarding piggul and notar cannot be d'oraita prohibitions of consumption (which carry karet), because "פיגול ונותר בדרבנן מי איכא?" - "Are there piggul and notar by rabbinic law?"⁴

Rashi explains the Gemara's initial understanding:

"קס"ד דהכי משמע שאם נותר או פיגול הוא ולא היה בו כזית ועכשיו יש כזית חייב כרת האוכלו ואי מדרבנן ליכא כרת הואיל ומדאורייתא לאו שיעורא הוא." (Rashi Menachot 54a s.v. וכן בפיגול)⁵ "It entered our mind that this means that if it is notar or piggul and did not have a k'zayit (olive-bulk) and now it has a k'zayit, one who eats it is liable for karet. But if it is d'rabanan, there is no karet, since mid'oraita it is not the requisite measure."

Rashi clarifies that the baraita is not discussing the d'oraita prohibitions of consuming piggul or notar. Rather, the Gemara reinterprets the baraita to refer to the tumah imparted by piggul and notar to the hands, which is a d'rabanan decree.

"אלא אימא טומאת פיגול וטומאת נותר. דתניא: פיגול ונותר מטמאין את הידיים. וסלקא דעתך אמינא: הואיל וטומאת פיגול וטומאת נותר דרבנן — לא גזרו רבנן כולי האי, קא משמע לן." (Menachot 54a)⁶ "Rather, say: the impurity of piggul and the impurity of notar. As it is taught: Piggul and notar impart impurity to the hands. And it might enter your mind to say: Since the impurity of piggul and notar are d'rabanan, the Rabbis would not have instituted such a stringency. It comes to teach us."

Rashi's explanation highlights the Gemara's meticulous approach to reconciling seemingly contradictory statements. The initial interpretation, which would lead to karet for d'rabanan piggul/notar, is rejected as fundamentally unsound. The Gemara must therefore re-contextualize the baraita's scope, shifting from d'oraita prohibitions to d'rabanan tumah. This shows how the Gemara prioritizes the integrity of d'oraita law, pushing back against any suggestion of karet for something not meeting d'oraita shiurim.

Rabbeinu Gershom: Emphasizing the Karet Implication

Rabbeinu Gershom, in his commentary, also addresses the piggul/notar conundrum. He directly points to the karet liability as the key issue if these were considered d'oraita despite lacking the original shiur:

"וכן בפיגול ונותר שלא היה בו שיעור בתחילה ותפח ועמד על כשיעור חייב כרת האוכלו." (Rabbeinu Gershom Menachot 54a s.v. וכן בפיגול ונותר)⁷ "And similarly concerning piggul and notar that initially did not have the requisite measure, and swelled and reached the requisite measure, one who eats it is liable for karet."

He then poses the Gemara's question:

"פיגול ונותר מדרבנן מי חייב כרת מדרבנן." (Rabbeinu Gershom Menachot 54a s.v. פיגול ונותר מדרבנן)⁸ "Are piggul and notar by rabbinic law, where one is liable for karet by rabbinic law?"

Rabbeinu Gershom's brevity here underscores the axiomatic nature of the principle: karet is a divine punishment, intrinsically linked to d'oraita transgressions that meet d'oraita shiurim. To suggest a d'rabanan karet for a shiur not met mid'oraita would be a fundamental distortion of the halachic system. His reading aligns with Rashi's, emphasizing the Gemara's necessary re-interpretation of the baraita to preserve the sanctity and precise definitions of d'oraita shiurim and their associated punishments. This reflects a broader lomdus principle that Chazal would not institute a d'rabanan decree that mimics or implies a d'oraita punishment without the underlying d'oraita conditions being fully met.

Steinsaltz: A Concise Summary of the Machloket

Steinsaltz provides a clear, modern articulation of the core machloket regarding k'shehem vs. k'shehayu and the subsequent derabanan clarification. On the baraita challenging Shmuel et al. ("Meat of a calf... impure from here on"), Steinsaltz clarifies the terutz:

"מכאן אין להקשות, שכן אפשר לומר שמדין תורה אכן אין בשר זה בדין טומאה אף מכאן ולהבא, כיון שנמדד שיעורו כפי שהיה קודם הבישול, וטומאה זו אינה אלא מדרבנן." (Steinsaltz Menachot 54a)⁹ "From here one cannot object, for it is possible to say that mid'oraita this meat is indeed not subject to impurity even from here on, since its measure is determined as it was before cooking, and this impurity is only mid'rabanan."

This concise summary highlights the Gemara's initial strategy: preserve Shmuel's d'oraita position by reclassifying the baraita's ruling as d'rabanan. This move, while initially solving the contradiction, sets the stage for the next kushya about piggul and notar, forcing a further re-interpretation. Steinsaltz's contribution here is clarity, making the complex back-and-forth accessible and underscoring the Gemara's rigorous pursuit of consistency within the halachic framework.

Friction

The most forceful kushya in the sugya, leading to a definitive refutation, comes from the Mishna in Teharot (3:6) against the opinion that "יש פסול בדבר שבקדושה" (there is disqualification concerning a ritual matter).

The Kushya: The Mishna in Teharot

The Gemara introduces the machloket between Rav/Rabbi Ḥiyya/Rabbi Yoḥanan (who hold "אין פסול בדבר שבקדושה") and Shmuel/Rabbi Shimon bar Rabbi/Reish Lakish (who hold "יש פסול בדבר שבקדושה") in a specific scenario: food that initially had the requisite shiur, shrank, and then swelled again. The latter group argues that once it shrank below the shiur, it became permanently disqualified.

The Gemara then challenges this position directly:

"ואיכא מאן דאמר יש פסול בדבר שבקדושה? והתנן: כזית אוכל שנתנו בחמה ונתמעט, וכן כזית מן המת, וכן כזית מן הנבלה, וכן כעדשה מן השרץ, וכן כזית פיגול, וכן כזית נותר, וכן כזית חלב – טהורין, ואין חייבין עליהם משום פיגול, ומשום נותר, ומשום חלב." (Menachot 54a)¹⁰ "And is there one who says there is disqualification concerning ritual matters? But didn't we learn in a Mishna: An egg-bulk of food that one placed in the sun and shrank; and similarly an olive-bulk of a corpse, or an olive-bulk of an animal carcass, or a lentil-bulk of a creeping animal; or an olive-bulk of piggul, or an olive-bulk of notar, or an olive-bulk of forbidden fat – are pure, and one is not liable for them due to piggul, notar, or forbidden fat."

This first part of the Mishna aligns with the idea that when it shrinks, it loses its tumah or liability. So far, so good for "יש פסול." However, the Mishna continues:

"נתנן בגשמים ותפחו – טמאין, וחייבין עליהן משום פיגול, ומשום נותר, ומשום חלב." (Menachot 54a)¹¹ "If one placed them in the rain and they swelled – they are impure, and one is liable for them due to piggul, notar, or forbidden fat."

This latter clause is a direct refutation. It explicitly states that after shrinking and then swelling again to the requisite shiur, the items regain their tumah status and their associated liabilities. This demonstrates that there was no permanent disqualification due to the intermediate shrinkage. The Mishna in Teharot thus directly contradicts the opinion that "יש פסול בדבר שבקדושה."

The Terutz: "תיובתא דמאן דאמר יש פסול בדבר שבקדושה תיובתא"

The Gemara offers no terutz in the conventional sense of reconciling the conflicting opinions. Instead, it concludes with a definitive declaration:

"תיובתא דמאן דאמר יש פסול בדבר שבקדושה תיובתא." (Menachot 54a)¹² "The refutation of the one who says there is disqualification concerning ritual matters is a conclusive refutation."

This is a powerful and rare form of terutz – not a conciliation, but an outright rejection. When the Gemara states "תיובתא" (a refutation) without qualification, it means the kushya is unanswerable and the challenged opinion is conclusively rejected. The repetition "תיובתא תיובתא" further emphasizes the finality of this refutation.

This terutz establishes a fundamental principle: a temporary loss of shiur does not create a permanent pasul (disqualification) in matters of kedusha. As long as the item regains its shiur, its halachic status is restored. This has profound implications for understanding the nature of shiurim and the resilience of kedusha in objects. It implies that kedusha and tumah are often linked to the physical state and measure of an item at the time of evaluation, rather than an unchangeable historical status if the physical reality shifts and then reverts.

Intertext

The sugya's exploration of k'shehem vs. k'shehayu and the nature of shiurim resonates throughout Shas and beyond.

1. Shiurim in Tumah and Kashrut

The fundamental question of whether shiurim are measured by current state or initial state is not unique to Menachot. This machloket (or similar conceptual tensions) appears in various contexts:

• Kelim: The shiur for a vessel to become mekabel tumah (susceptible to impurity) is sometimes debated based on whether it refers to its original capacity or current capacity after damage. For example, a vessel that was whole but then broken, or vice versa.
• Kashrut - Basar b'Chalav: The shiur of k'zayit for basar b'chalav is a d'oraita prohibition. If a piece of meat cooked in milk shrinks below a k'zayit, is it still forbidden? The ruling of "אין ביטול איסור לחמרה" (there is no nullification for a chumra) in some cases suggests that a shiur once attained, might maintain its issur even if it later shrinks, if the issur is already inherent in the substance. However, our sugya's conclusion of "אין פסול בדבר שבקדושה" for tumah and karet liabilities suggests that for many shiurim, the current state is critical. The Sefer HaChinuch (Mitzvah 105) discusses the shiur k'zayit for eating forbidden fats (chelev) and meat from korbanot, implying that the shiur is necessary for liability. If it shrinks, liability ceases. This aligns with the Teharot Mishna's conclusion.
• Pesach - Chametz: The shiur of k'zayit for chametz on Pesach is a classic example. If one has chametz that was a k'zayit but then dried out and is less than a k'zayit, is one still liable? The general understanding is that the shiur is dynamic, and if it's less than a k'zayit now, there's no karet liability for eating it. This further reinforces the "אין פסול בדבר שבקדושה" principle from our sugya.

2. The Nature of Terumat Ma'aser – Umed and Machshava

The sugya's final turn to terumat ma'aser offers another fascinating parallel, specifically the concept of separating teruma "by estimate" (b'umed) and "by thought" (b'machshava). The Gemara cites Abba Elazar ben Gomel, who derives from the plural "תרומתכם" (Numbers 18:27) that terumat ma'aser is equated to teruma gedola.

"מה תרומה גדולה ניטלת באומדן וניטלת במחשבה, אף תרומת מעשר ניטלת באומדן וניטלת במחשבה." (Menachot 54a)¹³ "Just as standard teruma is taken by estimate and taken by thought, so too, teruma of the tithe may be taken by estimate and taken by thought."

This concept, that certain terumot do not require precise measurement or physical separation at the outset, stands in contrast to the meticulous shiurim discussions earlier in the sugya. It highlights that while many mitzvot demand precise physical measures (e.g., k'zayit, kometz), others, particularly those involving charitable or priestly gifts, allow for flexibility and even mental designation. This distinction between shiurim chiyuviim (requisite measures for liability/status) and shiurim l'mitzvah (measures for fulfilling a mitzvah) is a crucial intertextual theme. The Sefer HaChinuch (Mitzvah 395) emphasizes the d'oraita nature of terumat ma'aser and its precise one-tenth requirement, yet Chazal allowed for umed and machshava, demonstrating a rabbinic leniency within a d'oraita framework, perhaps to facilitate compliance.

Psak/Practice

The sugya provides several crucial insights that inform halachic practice and meta-psak heuristics.

1. Ein Pasul B'davar Sheb'kedusha

The conclusive refutation of "יש פסול בדבר שבקדושה" by the Mishna in Teharot is a foundational principle. It means that if a sacred item or an item subject to tumah temporarily loses its requisite shiur and then regains it, its prior status (of kedusha, tumah susceptibility, or liability) is restored. This applies to tumah of foods, corpses, nevelot, sheratzim, and even liabilities for piggul, notar, and chelev. This principle suggests a resilience in halachic status, where temporary physical changes do not permanently "disqualify" an item, provided the necessary physical criteria are subsequently met. This is generally accepted in halacha. For example, chametz that was a k'zayit and then dried and crumbled, if rehydrated to a k'zayit, would once again be subject to chametz prohibitions.

2. Shiurim are Generally Dynamic

The prevailing view (Rav, Rabbi Ḥiyya, Rabbi Yoḥanan, and the final conclusion against Shmuel et al.) is that shiurim are determined k'shehem, "as they are" currently. While there might be d'rabanan stringencies where a prior state is considered (as in the Gemara's initial terutz to the baraita on meat swelling), the d'oraita baseline, especially for tumah and karet liabilities, defaults to the item's current physical state. This has broad implications for kashrut, tumah v'taharah, and other areas where shiurim are critical. If a food item shrinks below its k'zayit shiur, it typically loses its ability to impart tumah or its liability for consumption.

3. Umed and Machshava for Terumot

The discussion on terumat ma'aser being taken "by estimate" and "by thought" highlights a unique flexibility in certain mitzvot. While ma'aser rishon is a precise one-tenth, the terumat ma'aser given from it to the Kohen, by rabbinic decree (based on the derivation of Abba Elazar ben Gomel), allows for less precision. This is a practical kula (leniency) that eases the burden of tithing, recognizing that not all shiurim require the same rigorous measurement. This meta-psak heuristic distinguishes between shiurim that define the very existence of a prohibition or obligation (where precision is paramount) and those that pertain to the execution of a mitzvah (where some flexibility might be allowed for practical reasons).

Takeaway

The sugya on Menachot 54a rigorously establishes that halachic shiurim are generally dynamic, determined by an item's current state, and that temporary loss of a shiur does not create a permanent disqualification in matters of kedusha. This reflects a nuanced approach to the interplay between physical reality, temporal changes, and enduring halachic status.

---

¹ Menachot 54a. ² Menachot 54a. ³ Menachot 54a. ⁴ Menachot 54a. ⁵ Rashi Menachot 54a s.v. וכן בפיגול ונותר. ⁶ Menachot 54a. ⁷ Rabbeinu Gershom Menachot 54a s.v. וכן בפיגול ונותר שלא היה בו שיעור בתחילה. ⁸ Rabbeinu Gershom Menachot 54a s.v. פיגול ונותר מדרבנן. ⁹ Steinsaltz Menachot 54a. ¹⁰ Menachot 54a; Teharot 3:6. ¹¹ Menachot 54a; Teharot 3:6. ¹² Menachot 54a. ¹³ Menachot 54a; Numbers 18:27.