THOUGHTS ON THE DAILY DAF
brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Har Nof
Rosh Kollel: Rav Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question about the Daf
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 not a proof to 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 are different than 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 other laws besides Ma'aser?
(a) The CHAZON ISH (as cited by the YOSEF DA'AS) says that this Halachah
applies only 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 then returned
to its original size. The Yosef Da'as notes that this Halachah might also
require a person to recite a Berachah Achronah for eating a fig that
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, we can
say that 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, we do not need to separate
exactly one out of every ten fruits, but rather we can separate one tenth of
the weight of the fruits. In this way, the ratio of the dried figs to the
ordinary figs is still one to one. In contrast, with regard to the laws of
other Isurim, we need exactly a Shi'ur of a k'Zayis, and the fact that the
essence of the fruit still exists (in a decreased size) does not matter.
With regard to Ma'aser, we are not concerned with the Shi'ur, but with 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 says we measure based on the present volume, if we separate
ordinary figs as Ma'aser for dried figs by *count* (as opposed to volume),
then we 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 can 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 by 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 we have explained, 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 we cannot separate ordinary figs as
Ma'aser for dried figs by count even though their sizes are not the same. As
long as we have some basis (such as their count) for establishing the
percentage that needs to be separated, it should suffice, as the Mishnah in
The Yad David answers that only when the fruit was not altered or tampered
with can we say that count is 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, we cannot use count 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 because of 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 can be used as a
common denominator between the dried figs and the ordinary figs, and we can
use the count to determine the desired percentage. As we 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 has does with a Minchah offering that has become
Chametz. The Gemara learns this through the principle of "Kol Davar
she'Yatza Min ha'Kelal...": just as the verse teaches that one is Chayav
Malkus for baking a Minchah that became Chametz, and baking is a significant
act, so, too, 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 us 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) says, "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 us that one is Chayav Malkus even if he does only one of the
(b) The Brisker Rav understands that RASHI is explaining 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, we can learn the Derashah of the Gemara
here exactly like a Derashah in Makos (20b). The Gemara in Makos there says
that one who is warned with Hasra'ah not to transgress the Isur of Korchah,
making part of the head bald, and then he touches his head with his five
fingers smeared with a depilatory agent, thereby simultaneously removing
hair from five parts of his head, he is punished with five sets of Malkus.
This is derived from the verse, "Lo Yikrechu Korchah b'Rosham" (Vayikra
21:5), from which we learn that one is Chayav for each and every Korchah.
The Rishonim (RAMBAN, RITVA) there explain that the Derashah is teaching
that each Korchah is considered a separate act, and we do not view the act
of placing his fingers on his head as 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, we
view it 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 does not understand why we
need a special Derashah 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 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, just like a
Nazir who drinks many cups of wine after one Hasra'ah. On the other hand, if
the Hasra'ah explicitly warned not to do the separate Avodos, then we would
know that one is Chayav for multiple sets of Malkus even without the verse!
Therefore, Tosfos learns that the verse s 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
(d) The Brisker Rav mentions in the name of the TAHARAS HA'KODESH 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 to be a separate Isur, like Chelev and Dam, so
that the Melachos that he does are separate Isurim. Similarly, we can learn
that the Gemara here is teaching each Avodah performed with the Minchah is a
separate Aveirah for which one is Chayav a separate set of Malkus.
(Mordechai Zvi Dicker)