MENACHOS 55 (5 CHESHVAN) - Dedicated in honor of the Yahrzeit of Reb Naftali (Tuli) ben Reb Menachem Mendel Bodner Z"L, Niftar on 5 Cheshvan 5765. Tuli was an Ish Chesed and Ish Ma'aseh radiating joy, and his Ahavas Yisrael knew no bounds. Dedicated by his son, Mordechai Bodner of Givat Mordechai, of Yerushalayim.
1) RETURNING DRIED FIGS TO THEIR ORIGINAL SIZE
OPINION: Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Yosi said that his father's practice was to separate 10 dried figs as Ma'aser for 90 regular figs. The Gemara says that this practice is no proof for the view of Shmuel, who says that we follow the original volume (and thus 10 of the presently dried figs were originally an exact tenth of the original 100 figs), and it does not refute the view of Rav, who says that we follow the present volume (and, apparently, 10 dried figs are less than a tenth of the total amount of figs). The Gemara explains that dried figs differ from meat in that they can be returned to their original size through cooking.
Does this Halachah -- that dried figs can be returned to their original size -- apply to laws other than Ma'aser?
(a) The CHAZON ISH (as cited by the YOSEF DA'AS) maintains that this Halachah applies even to Isurim. For example, a person is Chayav Malkus for eating a fig of Orlah that decreased in size to less than a k'Zayis and can be returned to its original size. The Yosef Da'as notes that this Halachah might also require a person to recite a Berachah Acharonah for eating a fig that can be returned to its original size of a k'Zayis.
(b) The CHIDUSHIM U'VI'URIM, however, maintains that this Halachah applies only to the laws of Terumos and Ma'aseros, where the object in question must be a certain percentage of the rest of the produce. In such a case, since the essence of the fruit still exists in the shrunken fig (that is, the fig did not lose any of its flesh as a result of becoming dried), it is still possible to determine a comparative relationship between the dried figs and the ordinary figs. That is, one does not need to separate exactly one out of every ten fruits, but rather one may separate one tenth of the essence of the fruits. In this way, the ratio of the dried figs to the ordinary figs is still one to one. In contrast, for other Isurim, exactly a Shi'ur of a k'Zayis is needed, and the fact that the essence of the fruit still exists (in a decreased size) does not matter. With regard to Ma'aser, the Shi'ur is not the primary concern; rather, the primary concern is the ability to compare the dried fig to the original fruit to arrive at a percentage of the original fruit.
Similarly, the YAD DAVID (on the previous Sugya) cites the SHA'AR EFRAIM who questions the Gemara earlier. The Gemara earlier says that according to the opinion that one measures based on the present volume, if one separates ordinary figs as Ma'aser for dried figs by count (as opposed to volume), then one will be separating too much Ma'aser, since ordinary figs are much larger than dried figs. The Sha'ar Efraim questions this Gemara from the Mishnah in Terumos (4:6) that discusses three ways of designating the correct percentage for separating Ma'aser: it may be done by count, by size, or by weight. The Mishnah says that all three ways are legitimate, but it is better to measure by size over count, and the best way is to measure by weight. It seems clear that the true percentage of foodstuff will be determined by measuring weight, as size is difficult to measure accurately, and measuring by count does not take into account the subtle differences between the different fruits. Nevertheless, the Mishnah says that one may measure by count. Why may one measure by count if doing so will be not be entirely accurate? It must be, as mentioned above, that with regard to Ma'aser we are not concerned with the exact size of each fruit as much as we are concerned with having some good basis for comparison (such as weight or size). Even if the comparison is not exactly accurate, it is valid as long as some basis for comparing exists.
Nevertheless, the Sha'ar Efraim asks why one cannot separate ordinary figs as Ma'aser for dried figs by count even though their sizes are not the same. As long as there is some basis (such as their count) for establishing the percentage that needs to be separated, that should suffice, as the Mishnah in Terumos says.
The Yad David answers that only when the fruit was not altered or tampered with is count considered a legitimate basis for comparison. However, in the case of the Gemara here, something was done to the dried figs in order to make them smaller. Here, count cannot be used to determine a percentage between the dried figs and ordinary figs.
The reason why Rebbi Yosi (Rebbi Elazar's father) would separate dried figs as Ma'aser for ordinary figs by count, even though the dried figs clearly were made smaller, is his logic that dried figs are different since they can be cooked and returned to their original size. That is, since the entire fruit is still present in the dried fig, count may be used as a common denominator between the dried figs and the ordinary figs, and the count may be used to determine the desired percentage. As explained above, this is permitted because the primary factor when separating Ma'aser is that there be some way to compare the fruits, and it does not have to be the exact size of each fruit. (Mordechai Zvi Dicker)
2) SEPARATE LIABILITY FOR EACH ACT PERFORMED WITH A MINCHAH OF CHAMETZ
OPINIONS: The Gemara teaches that one is punished with a separate set of Malkus for each act that he does with a Minchah offering that has become Chametz. The Gemara derives this through the principle of "Kol Davar she'Yatza Min ha'Klal...": just as the verse teaches that one is Chayav Malkus for baking a Minchah that became Chametz, and baking is a significant act, one is Chayav Malkus for doing any other significant act with the Minchah that became Chametz, such as kneading it (Lishah), arranging it (Arichah), and smoothing its surface (Kituf).
The BRISKER RAV points out that the Rishonim and Acharonim teach a number of ways to learn this Sugya.
(a) The most straightforward way of understanding the Sugya is that the verse is teaching that one is Chayav Malkus for performing even one of the Avodos of the Minchah, and it is not necessary to perform all of the Avodos in order to be Chayav Malkus.
The SEFAS EMES asserts that this is the way the Rambam learns the Gemara. The Rambam (Hilchos Ma'aseh ha'Korbanos 12:1) writes, "Malkus are given for each and every act performed with it. If one kneads the Minchah when it has become Chametz, or arranges it when it is Chametz, or smoothes its surface when it is Chametz, or bakes it when it is Chametz, he receives Malkus, as the verse teaches...." It is clear from the Rambam that the verse is teaching that one is Chayav Malkus even if he does only one of the Avodos.
(b) The Brisker Rav understands that RASHI explains the Gemara differently. The Gemara later (56a) says that one who bakes a Minchah that is Chametz is Chayav for two sets of Malkus. Rashi explains that this is because every act of baking (Afiyah) includes an act of arranging (Arichah) as well, since "baking is the final part of Arichah." When one bakes the dough, he performs the acts of Arichah and Afiyah in a single action.
Based on Rashi's explanation there, the Derashah of the Gemara here is exactly like a Derashah in Makos (20b). The Gemara in Makos discusses the case of one who is warned with Hasra'ah not to transgress the Isur of Korchah, making part of the head bald. He then touches his head with his five fingers smeared with a depilatory agent, and thereby simultaneously removes hair from five parts of his head. The Gemara states that he is punished with five sets of Malkus. This is derived from the verse, "Lo Yikrechu Korchah b'Rosham" (Vayikra 21:5), which teaches that one is Chayav for each and every Korchah. The Rishonim (RAMBAN and RITVA) there explain that the Derashah is teaching that each Korchah is considered a separate act, and the act of placing his fingers on his head is not considered like one long act of Korchah. This is in contrast to one who swallows five k'Zeisim of Chelev after a single Hasra'ah, who is punished with only one set of Malkus, because his act is considered one long transgression and not five separate transgressions (even if he swallows each k'Zayis one after the other and not all at one time).
Similarly, the verse here is teaching that each Avodah performed with a Minchah that is Chametz is considered a separate transgression. Therefore, when one is warned with Hasra'ah not to make the Minchah become Chametz, and then he makes it Chametz and performs all of the Avodos of the Minchah, he receives Malkus for each Avodah that he does.
Rashi understands that even if in one act there are two transgressions, it is considered as though two acts of Aveirah were done, and the person is given two sets of Malkus.
(c) TOSFOS (DH Af Ani) learns differently. Tosfos questions why a special Derashah is needed to teach that one is Chayav Malkus for each Avodah. Tosfos seems to understand that it is logical that one should be Chayav Malkus for each Avodah, and the verse is not necessary to teach this (in contrast to the Rambam's understanding of the Gemara). It is clear from Tosfos later (56a) that he does not learn like Rashi there, and thus he has no source that one is Chayav two sets of Malkus for performing one act that constitutes two Aveiros. Tosfos says that if there was no Hasra'ah for each individual Aveirah, one should be Chayav only one set of Malkus, like a Nazir who drinks many cups of wine after one Hasra'ah. On the other hand, if the Hasra'ah explicitly warns not to do the separate Avodos, then it is obvious that the sinner is Chayav for multiple sets of Malkus even without the verse.
Therefore, Tosfos learns that the verse is teaching that one is Chayav for each Avodah, even though the Minchah had already become Chametz beforehand, and the person who does the Avodos did not personally make the Minchah become Chametz.
(d) The TAHARAS HA'KODESH offers a fourth possible way to understand the Gemara. The Gemara in Shabbos (70a) derives from a verse that one is obligated to bring a Korban Chatas for each Melachah that one does on Shabbos in one moment of forgetfulness, and not merely one Chatas for all of the Melachos that he does. This is because each Av Melachah is considered a separate Isur, like Chelev and Dam, so that the Melachos that he does are separate Isurim. Similarly, the Gemara here may be teaching that each Avodah performed with the Minchah is a separate Aveirah for which one is Chayav a separate set of Malkus.
The difference between the second and fourth explanations seems to be whether the differentiation of the Avodos is because they are considered separate acts of transgressions, or because they are considered separate Isurim.
It seems that the fourth explanation is more consistent with the view of Rashi, because Rashi says that one receives two sets of Malkus for baking the Minchah that is Chametz since he simultaneously bakes the Chametz and performs the final part of Arichah. It is understandable that when one performs all of the Avodos with the Minchah -- Lishah, Arichah, Kituf, and Afiyah -- consecutively, they are considered separate acts and not one long, single act. Similarly, it is understandable that, in the case in Makos, when causes himself to be bald in five different places at one time, he receives five sets of Malkus, since each finger is considered to be performing a separate act. However, why should one action (Afiyah) be considered two separate acts of Aveirah, such that the person should receive two sets of Malkus? Therefore, it seems more reasonable to learn like the Taharas ha'Kodesh, who says that each act is considered a separate Aveirah, and, therefore, even if they are done simultaneously, one is Chayav for two sets of Malkus for both Isurim. (Mordechai Zvi Dicker)