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.

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.

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.

§ 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.

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.

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.

§ 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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.