The EVOLUTION\u00a0of the OLIVE<\/p>\n
The Halachic History of the Expanding Kezayis<\/p>\n
Rabbi Natan Slifkin<\/p>\n
Copyright \u00a9 2010 by Natan Slifkin<\/p>\n
Version 1.1<\/p>\n
http:\/\/www.ZooTorah.com<\/p>\n
http:\/\/www.RationalistJudaism.com<\/p>\n
This essay was written as part of the course requirements for a Master\u2019s<\/p>\n
Degree in Jewish Studies at the Lander Institute (Jerusalem).<\/p>\n
This document may be freely distributed as long as it is distributed<\/p>\n
complete and intact.<\/p>\n
3<\/p>\n
The Evolution of the Olive<\/p>\n
Introduction<\/p>\n
R. Moshe Sofer (Chasam Sofer, 1762-1839) notes that today, when there is no Temple,<\/p>\n
there is only one Biblically-ordained mitzvah involving eating: that of eating matzah on the<\/p>\n
first night of Pesach.1 Accordingly, he stresses that one must be careful to be punctilious in<\/p>\n
the fulfillment of this mitzvah. Aside from the mitzvah requiring a certain type of food, there<\/p>\n
is also a requirement of a sufficient minimum quantity to qualify as \u201ceating.\u201d This quantity is<\/p>\n
defined in the Midrash:<\/p>\n
There is no \u201ceating\u201d with less than a kezayis (equivalent to an olive). (Toras Kohanim, Acharei<\/p>\n
12:2; Emor 4:16)<\/p>\n
How much is this quantity? R. Chaim of Volozhin (1749-1821) is widely revered as the<\/p>\n
father of the yeshivah world. Less known and certainly less popular in the yeshivah world is<\/p>\n
his view as to the size of the matzah that one is obligated to eat on Pesach. R. Chaim was of<\/p>\n
the view that this kezayis is actually the size of an olive \u2013 around three or four cubic<\/p>\n
centimeters.2 This results in a piece of matzah about half the size of a credit card.<\/p>\n
Yet this is in sharp contrast to common custom today. The widespread policy is to<\/p>\n
quantify a kezayis as 28.8 cubic centimeters. The Mishnah Berurah states that one should eat<\/p>\n
a volume equal to an egg, which is about 55cc. And there are boxes of machine matzot which<\/p>\n
state on the packaging that one whole matzah equals a kezayis! The greatest irony is that, in<\/p>\n
the effort to perform the mitzvah as scrupulously as possible, some might engage in achilah<\/p>\n
gasah (gorging oneself), which surely could not be the intent of the mitzvah and which might<\/p>\n
prevent a person from fulfilling his obligation.<\/p>\n
Recently, there have been efforts by some individuals to prove that the kezayis should be<\/p>\n
scaled down, but they have met with little success and much opposition. In this study, while<\/p>\n
proving that the kezayis is the size of a regular olive, the focus will be on exploring how it<\/p>\n
happened that so many authorities ruled it to be far bigger, and why it is difficult to<\/p>\n
overcome this view.<\/p>\n
Logically, in order to reach the conclusion that a kezayis is much larger than olives are<\/p>\n
today, two separate positions must both be taken: First, that olives of ancient times were<\/p>\n
much larger, and second, that we are obligated to follow the size of ancient olives rather than<\/p>\n
1 Responsa Chasam Sofer, Choshen Mishpat 196.<\/p>\n
2 R. Yisrael Yaakov Kanievsky, Kehillas Yaakov, Pesachim 38. See too A. Z. Katzenallenbogen, Shaarei<\/p>\n
Rachamim (Vilna 1871) p. 19, #165 note 3.<\/p>\n
4<\/p>\n
the olives of today. Neither one of these positions on their own is sufficient to require a<\/p>\n
larger measurement; they must both be adopted. Let us begin by evaluating both of these<\/p>\n
positions in turn.<\/p>\n
Were Olives Bigger in Ancient Times?<\/p>\n
Were olives of the Biblical or Talmudic era larger than those of today? From the<\/p>\n
standpoint of archeology, there is clear evidence the olives of ancient times were not any<\/p>\n
bigger than those of today. Many olive pits from ancient times have been discovered,<\/p>\n
including a huge number in the remains of the settlement at Masada and in caves in the<\/p>\n
Judean Desert dating from the Bar-Kochba revolt. These pits were mostly from the Nabali<\/p>\n
strain of olives, but also included the local Suri and Melisi varieties, as well as the large Shami<\/p>\n
and Tohaffi olives that were imported as luxuries from other countries. All these pits are not<\/p>\n
significantly different in size from the pits of those olive strains today.3 One could claim that<\/p>\n
the flesh-to-pit ratio used to be greater, but this is unlikely, and should not be accepted<\/p>\n
without good reason.<\/p>\n
Furthermore, there are dozens of olive trees alive today of the Suri variety, in Israel and<\/p>\n
elsewhere, which are around two thousand years old, and seven in Israel that are over three<\/p>\n
thousand years old. These trees even still produce fruit, which are no different in size from<\/p>\n
the fruit produced by young olive trees.4 One could claim that they used to produce larger<\/p>\n
fruit, but there would have to be strong grounds not to presume that they always produced<\/p>\n
the same size fruit.<\/p>\n
All the empirical evidence, then, indicates that in Talmudic and even Biblical times, olives<\/p>\n
were no larger than those found today. The Mishnah specifies which of the various strains is<\/p>\n
intended when the olive is given as a halachic measurement:<\/p>\n
The kezayis of which they spoke is neither a large one nor a small one, but rather a mediumsized<\/p>\n
one, which is the egori. (Mishnah Keilim 17:8)<\/p>\n
The large olive mentioned in the Mishnah would correlate with the Shami, which<\/p>\n
measures around 12-13cc, and the small olive would correlate with the Melisi, which<\/p>\n
measures around 0.5-1cc. The medium-sized olive would be the prevalent Suri and\/or the<\/p>\n
slightly larger Nabali strains. The Suri ranges from 2.5-3.5cc, while the Nabali ranges from<\/p>\n
4-6cc.5 The kezayis of the Talmud, which would be the same as the kezayis of today, would<\/p>\n
range from 2.5-6cc with an average of around 4cc.<\/p>\n
3 Mordechai Kislev, \u201cKezayis \u2013 The Fruit of the Olive as a Measure of Volume\u201d (Hebrew), Techumin 10 pp.<\/p>\n
427-437; \u201cEverything is According to the Opinion of the Observer \u2013 A New Evaluation of the Measurement of<\/p>\n
a Kezayis,\u201d (Hebrew) BDD vol. 16 pp. 77-90.<\/p>\n
4 M. Kislev, Y. Tabak & O. Simhoni, Identifying the Names of Fruits in Ancient Rabbinic Literature, (Hebrew)<\/p>\n
Leshonenu, vol. 69, p.279.<\/p>\n
5 Kislev, ibid.<\/p>\n
5<\/p>\n
The Geonim: Following the Observer<\/p>\n
Already, then, we see that there appears to be no reason to ever assume that an olive was<\/p>\n
any larger than olives today. But what if, for whatever reason, someone were to believe that<\/p>\n
perhaps olives of ancient times were larger \u2013 would they be obligated to replicate that<\/p>\n
quantity? The Geonim rule that this is not the case. Around 130 years ago, three responsa on<\/p>\n
this topic from the Geonic period were discovered. The first is from Rav Sherira Gaon<\/p>\n
(Babylonia, c.900-c.1000):<\/p>\n
You asked me to explain if there is a weight given for the fig, olive, date and other<\/p>\n
measurements, in the weight of Arabic coins, and you explained that Rav Hilai Gaon clarified<\/p>\n
that the weight of an egg is 16 2\/3 silver pieces. [You wondered,] if the others do not have an<\/p>\n
ascribed weight, why is the egg given one?<\/p>\n
It is known that these other measurements are not given any equivalent weight in silver, not in<\/p>\n
the Mishnah nor the Talmud. If [the Sages] had wished to give a measurement in terms of the<\/p>\n
weight in dinarim, they would have done so originally. Rather, they give the measurements in<\/p>\n
terms of grains and fruit, which are always available, and one is not to say that they have<\/p>\n
changed.<\/p>\n
\u2026We practice according to the Mishnah: Everything goes according to the observer\u2026 And<\/p>\n
likewise with regard to the olive and date, it is explained in this Mishnah that it is not referring<\/p>\n
to a large one, or a small one, but rather an average one \u2013 and it is also according to the view of<\/p>\n
the observer. The reason why some rabbis gave their view as the size of an egg, and did not do<\/p>\n
the same with an olive, date or fig, is that there are many things that are dependent upon the<\/p>\n
size of an egg \u2013 the kab, the sa\u2019ah, the efoh, the omer; all are evaluated in terms of eggs, and<\/p>\n
therefore they estimated it according to their views, but these other measurements are left to<\/p>\n
the opinion of the observer\u2026 (Cited in Sefer Ha-Eshkol vol. II, Hilchos Challah 13 p. 52)<\/p>\n
The intent may be that since the kab, sa\u2019ah etc. are multiples of eggs (a kab is 24 eggs, a<\/p>\n
sa\u2019ah is 144 eggs), it is difficult to visualize this in terms of eggs, and it is easier to visualize it<\/p>\n
in terms of silver.6 However, with measurements given as a kezayis, there is no reason or basis<\/p>\n
for giving an alternate measurement.<\/p>\n
Rav Sherira Gaon\u2019s son, Rav Hai Gaon (Babylonia 939-1038), writes as follows:<\/p>\n
\u2026And therefore the Torah gave measurements in terms of eggs and fruits \u2013 for divrei sofrim<\/p>\n
were given at Sinai\u2026 \u2013 because eggs and fruit are found in every place. For it is known and<\/p>\n
revealed before the One Who spoke and brought the universe into existence, that Israel is<\/p>\n
destined to be scattered amongst the nations, and that the weights and measures that were in<\/p>\n
the days of Moses and that which were added to in the Land of Israel would not be preserved,<\/p>\n
and that the measurements change in different times and places\u2026 Therefore the Sages related<\/p>\n
the quantities to fruit and eggs, which always exist and never change. They made the quantity<\/p>\n
of an egg depend upon the view of the observer. (Ibid. pp. 56-57)<\/p>\n
A final responsum, from an unknown Geonic author, states:<\/p>\n
6 R. Chaim Beinish, Midot VeShiurei Torah, pp. 522-523.<\/p>\n
6<\/p>\n
And that which you wrote regarding the size of a large fig and a medium fig, and likewise a<\/p>\n
large olive and a small and medium olive \u2013 surely these are shiurim, and how can there be a<\/p>\n
shiur for a shiur? And should you say that it is [a matter of ascribing] a weight \u2013 our rabbis did<\/p>\n
not specify a weight, and the Holy One was not particular with us regarding the weight. Every<\/p>\n
person, in acting according to his own assessment, has fulfilled his obligation, and there is no<\/p>\n
need to learn the quantity from another\u2026 (Teshuvos HaGeonim 268, Harkavey ed.)<\/p>\n
In all these responsa, we see that the kezayis is intended to be assessed, very simply, by each<\/p>\n
person looking at an olive. Even if one were to believe that the olives of the Talmudic era<\/p>\n
were larger than those of today, there would be no need to attempt to replicate that<\/p>\n
quantity.7 With the Geonim, we see a presumption that the size of olives does not change,<\/p>\n
and that in any case each person is supposed to follow his own assessment of an olive. This<\/p>\n
was seen to be the underlying rationale of the Torah prescribing quantities in terms of<\/p>\n
familiar fruit rather than by some independent system of measurement.<\/p>\n
The Rishonim of Sefarad<\/p>\n
Let us now turn to the era of the Rishonim, and we shall begin with the Rishonim of<\/p>\n
Spain and comparable regions. Rambam (Spain\/Egypt 1135-1204) makes no statement<\/p>\n
regarding the size of a kezayis. But an inference regarding its maximum size can be drawn<\/p>\n
from his statement that a dried fig is 1\/3 of an egg.8 Since the Talmud notes that a kezayis is<\/p>\n
smaller than a dried fig,9 this would result in a kezayis being less than 1\/3 of an egg.10<\/p>\n
7 There is a statement in the Talmud which might seem to show that we are supposed to replicate the<\/p>\n
measurements of the Talmud rather than to use the measurements of our own era: \u201cRabbi Elazar said: One<\/p>\n
who eats chelev nowadays must record for himself the quantity, in case a future Beis Din will increase the<\/p>\n
measurements (for which one is liable)\u201d (Talmud, Yoma 80a). A similar ruling is found in the Yerushalmi:<\/p>\n
\u201cRabbi Hoshea said: One who eats a forbidden food in our day must record the quantity, in case a later Beis<\/p>\n
Din will arise and change the quantity (for which one is liable), and he will know how much he ate\u201d<\/p>\n
(Yerushalmi, Pe\u2019ah 2a). This sounds like there is an absolute measurement of a kezayis, valid for all times and<\/p>\n
places. Each Beis Din does its best to assess what this measurement is, but because it is possible that they are<\/p>\n
mistaken, one must record the amount eaten in case a future Beis Din assesses matters more correctly.<\/p>\n
Accordingly, it seems that the objective is to figure out the quantity used in the Talmud, not to follow the size<\/p>\n
of olives in one\u2019s own era! However, further analysis shows that this could not be the intent of the Talmud.<\/p>\n
How is the person going to be recording the amount that he ate? There was no possibility of a person recording<\/p>\n
it in terms of cubic centimeters or some other such absolute unchanging standard; and if such a standard had<\/p>\n
existed, surely the Sages would have used it for their measurements! Instead, the intent of the Talmud is that he<\/p>\n
is recording whether, for example, he ate the volume of a big olive, a medium olive, or a small olive. The<\/p>\n
concern is not that the size of olives will change, but rather that the quantity for which one is liable will change<\/p>\n
\u2013 is one liable for a big olive, a medium olive or a small olive. See Sdei Chemed, Ma\u2019areches HaAlef, 34, s.v.<\/p>\n
velashon.<\/p>\n
8 Mishneh Torah, Hilchos Eruvin 1:9.<\/p>\n
9 Talmud, Shabbos 91a.<\/p>\n
10 There is a potential difficulty with this inference, in reconciling it with an inference from two statements in<\/p>\n
the Talmud. As we shall see later, the Talmud in one place states that a person can swallow food up to the size<\/p>\n
of two olives, while elsewhere it states that a person can swallow food up to the size of an egg. These passages<\/p>\n
7<\/p>\n
It is important to note that our inference of Rambam\u2019s view regarding olives does not tell<\/p>\n
us anything as to the absolute size of a kezayis, only that it must be less than 1\/3 of an egg<\/p>\n
(which is, of course, true of a regular olive). However, this inference was later apparently<\/p>\n
later interpreted to mean that Rambam was of the view that a kezayis is actually equal to<\/p>\n
slightly less than 1\/3 of an egg, and then to mean that he was of the view that a kezayis is equal<\/p>\n
to about 1\/3 of an egg.11 One can propose how this happened; since it was not known how<\/p>\n
much less than 1\/3 of an egg it was,12 nor is it convenient to quantify \u201cless than 1\/3 of an<\/p>\n
egg,\u201d the upper limit was taken as the bottom line and simplified to 1\/3 of an egg. The<\/p>\n
problem with this result is that when the process itself is forgotten, it is assumed that<\/p>\n
Rambam\u2019s position opposes the idea that a kezayis is much smaller than 1\/3 of an egg,13<\/p>\n
whereas the truth is that he does not oppose it at all.<\/p>\n
Furthermore, from the fact that Rambam does not specify the size of a kezayis \u2013 whereas<\/p>\n
he does specify the size of other quantities14 \u2013 one can presumably infer that his position was<\/p>\n
that a kezayis is the size of an ordinary olive, and\/or that it is up to each person to assess it on<\/p>\n
their own, rather than to attempt to calculate the size of a Talmudic olive.15<\/p>\n
indicate that an olive is half the size of an egg. How can this be reconciled with our inference that Rambam\u2019s<\/p>\n
position is that an olive is less than 1\/3 of an egg? The Vilna Gaon (1720-1797) claims that the inference in the<\/p>\n
Talmud that an olive is half the size of an egg is referring to a person swallowing an egg without its shell, but an<\/p>\n
egg with its shell is three times the size of an olive (Biyur HaGra to Orach Chaim 486:1). This does not<\/p>\n
necessarily mean that a shell changes an egg from being twice the size of an olive to being more than three times<\/p>\n
its size (which is clearly not the case!). Rather, the point is that a hard-boiled egg without the shell is sufficiently<\/p>\n
pliable that a person can swallow a whole one, just as a person can swallow two olives. But the olive is less than<\/p>\n
a third the size of an egg with its shell. R. Chizkiya ben David DiSilva (1659-1698, author of Pri Chadash)<\/p>\n
writes that the Talmud\u2019s statement that the throat cannot hold more than two olives is imprecisely written, and<\/p>\n
actually refers to an olive and a date (Pri Chadash, Orach Chaim 486:1). R. Yaakov Orenstein (author of<\/p>\n
Yeshuas Yaakov) states that Rambam simply considers the Talmud\u2019s statement to be disputed by the other<\/p>\n
statement about the throat being able to hold an egg, and Rambam does not follow that view (Yeshuas Yaakov,<\/p>\n
Orach Chaim 301). According to both these approaches, Rambam is indeed of the view that a kezayis is less<\/p>\n
than 1\/3 of an egg. R. Avraham Gombiner (c.1633-c.1683, author of Magen Avraham) suggests that according<\/p>\n
to Rambam, when the Talmud rated an olive as being smaller than a dried fig, it was only referring to a small<\/p>\n
olive, but an average olive is larger than a dried fig. It seems that R. Gombiner interpreted Rambam\u2019s view as<\/p>\n
being than an average olive is equal to half an egg. However, it does not seem that anyone else adopted this<\/p>\n
understanding of Rambam.<\/p>\n
11 See Mishnah Berurah 486:1 and R. Pinchas Bodner, The Halachos of K\u2019zayis p. 25 note 27. R. Yaakov Yisrael<\/p>\n
Kanievsky, in Shiurin Shel Torah 11 p. 70 notes that Rambam should not be misinterpreted in this regard.<\/p>\n
12 R. Yosef Kotkovski argues that an olive must be significantly smaller than a dried fig; see Darkei HaChaim<\/p>\n
(Petrikow 1884), Hilchos Borei Minei Mezonos 4, Chelki b\u2019Chaim 3. However, R. Chaim Na\u2019eh, Shiruin Shel<\/p>\n
Torah p. 190 n. 24 disagrees.<\/p>\n
13 See Rabbi Moshe Petrover, \u201cThe Size of the Kezayis for Eating Matzah: A Clarification of the View of the<\/p>\n
Chazon Ish\u201d (Hebrew), Moriah 5754, p. 106.<\/p>\n
14 Commentary to the Mishnah, Eduyos 1:2, Keilim 2:2; Mishneh Torah, Eruvin 1:12.<\/p>\n
15 R. Hadar Margolin, \u201cA Clarification of the View of the Chazon Ish,\u201d (Hebrew) Moriah 3-4 (5753) p. 100.<\/p>\n
8<\/p>\n
For a long time, it was thought that Rambam is the only authority from Sepharad whose<\/p>\n
view regarding the size of an olive can be assessed. Recently, however, two more sources came<\/p>\n
to light. Rashba (R. Shlomo ben Aderes, Spain, 1235-1310), in discussing a different topic,<\/p>\n
mentions that fifteen eggs are \u201cmuch\u201d more than sixty olives; hence, an olive is much less<\/p>\n
than \u00bc the size of an egg.16 Ritva (R. Yom Tov ben Avraham Asevilli, Spain, 1250-1330), in<\/p>\n
a newly published manuscript, states that a dried fig is the volume of \u201cseveral\u201d olives.17 Since<\/p>\n
he is also of the view that a dried fig is 1\/3 the size of an egg, this means that an olive is<\/p>\n
around 1\/9 the size of an egg.<\/p>\n
It is important to note that none of these authorities set out to specify the size of an olive,<\/p>\n
or grappled with statements concerning its size (as we shall see to have been the case with the<\/p>\n
Rishonim of Ashkenaz). Our knowledge of their position regarding the size of an olive, or<\/p>\n
the upper limit of the size of an olive, is inferred from statements of theirs made in a<\/p>\n
different context. The clear implication is that they took it for granted that a kezayis is the<\/p>\n
size of an ordinary olive.<\/p>\n
By the same token, the fact that most authorities of this period did not make any<\/p>\n
statement relating to the size of an olive does not mean that we have no idea as to what their<\/p>\n
view was. For someone for whom a kezayis is obviously an olive, there is no need to make any<\/p>\n
comment about it. One can assume that the reason why they did not comment on the size of<\/p>\n
a kezayis is that it was obvious to them that a kezayis is kezayis.<\/p>\n
The Rishonim of Ashkenaz<\/p>\n
It is in Ashkenaz that we find the olive beginning to evolve with the statements of the<\/p>\n
Rishonim themselves (as opposed to with later mistaken inferences regarding the Rishonim).<\/p>\n
The Rishonim of Ashkenaz translated the size of an olive into a proportion of an egg, but<\/p>\n
they gave different quantities. This was based on differing resolutions of various passages in<\/p>\n
the Talmud. In one place, the Talmud states that a person can swallow food up to the size of<\/p>\n
two olives:<\/p>\n
The Sages evaluated that the throat cannot hold more than two olives. (Talmud, Krisus 14a)<\/p>\n
Elsewhere, the Talmud states that a person can swallow food up to the size of an egg:<\/p>\n
The Sages evaluated that the throat cannot hold more than a chicken\u2019s egg. (Talmud, Yoma<\/p>\n
80a)<\/p>\n
These passages indicate that an olive is half the size of an egg. However, in a third place, a<\/p>\n
different conclusion emerges. The Talmud (Eruvin 82b) discusses the amount of food<\/p>\n
required for an eruv. Two of the views cited express their opinion in terms of kabin, which in<\/p>\n
turn can be expressed in quantities of eggs (since 1 kav is 24 eggs):<\/p>\n
16 Rashba, Mishmeres HaBayis 4:1.<\/p>\n
17 Ritva to Shabbos 76b; printed at the back of the Mossad HaRav Kook edition.<\/p>\n
9<\/p>\n
\uf0b7 Rabbi Shimon: Two meals are 2\/9 of a kav, which is 5 1\/3 eggs.<\/p>\n
\uf0b7 Rabbi Yochanan ben Beruka: Two meals are \u00bc of a kav, which is 6 eggs.<\/p>\n
Elsewhere, the Talmud states that two meals are equal to 18 dried figs.18 Now, as we saw<\/p>\n
earlier, an olive is known to be smaller than a dried fig.19 This results in the following<\/p>\n
calculation:<\/p>\n
\uf0b7 Rabbi Shimon: Two meals = 5 1\/3 eggs = 18 dried figs; thus 1 olive is less than 3\/10<\/p>\n
of an egg<\/p>\n
\uf0b7 Rabbi Yochanan ben Beruka: Two meals = 6 eggs = 18 dried figs; thus 1 olive is less<\/p>\n
than 1\/3 of an egg<\/p>\n
How are all these sources to be reconciled?<\/p>\n
Ri (R. Yitzchak ben Shmuel the Elder of Dampierre, 12th century) concludes from the<\/p>\n
passages concerning swallowing that an olive is half the size of an egg.20 As for the passage in<\/p>\n
Eruvin, he states that we do not follow the views of either Rabbi Shimon or Rabbi Yochanan<\/p>\n
ben Beruka; thus that discussion has no inferences for the size of an olive. Ri\u2019s view that an<\/p>\n
olive is half the size of an egg was adopted by R. Mordechai b. Hillel (Germany, 1240-<\/p>\n
1298),21 R. Alexander Zusslein HaKohen (France\/Germany, d. 1348)22 and R. Yaakov Weil<\/p>\n
(Germany, 15th century).23<\/p>\n
Rabbeinu Tam (Yaakov ben Meir Tam, France, c. 1100\u2013c. 1171), on the other hand,<\/p>\n
states that we rule in accordance with Rabbi Shimon, an olive must be less than 3\/10 of an<\/p>\n
egg (although he does not propose how much less). Regarding the statements concerning<\/p>\n
swallowing which indicate that an olive is half the size of an egg, Rabbeinu Tam suggests that<\/p>\n
the foods are in different states, which affects the volume that can be swallowed. An egg is<\/p>\n
much easier to swallow than an equivalent volume of olives. Because olives are hard and<\/p>\n
contain pits, only two can be swallowed at a time, even though they are much smaller than a<\/p>\n
single whole egg, which can be swallowed in one gulp.<\/p>\n
In a variant of this approach, Tosafos Yeshanim reconciles it by suggesting that they are<\/p>\n
descriptions of different types of swallowing. When the Talmud spoke of a person being able<\/p>\n
to swallow two olives, it was referring to what a person can swallow in the course of ordinary<\/p>\n
18 Talmud, Eruvin 80b.<\/p>\n
19 Talmud, Shabbos 91a.<\/p>\n
20 Tosafos to Yoma 80a s.v. Veshiaru. (The same inference is apparently made by Sefer HaChinnuch, mitzvah<\/p>\n
313.) R. Chaim Na\u2019eh argues that Ri must mean that an olive is slightly less than half the size of an egg; see<\/p>\n
Shiurei Torah, p. 192.<\/p>\n
21 Mordechai, End of Pesachim, Seder Leil Pesach.<\/p>\n
22 Sefer Ha-Agudah, Eruvin 82b.<\/p>\n
23 Mahari Weil 193.<\/p>\n
10<\/p>\n
eating. However, when it spoke of a person being able to swallow a whole egg, it was<\/p>\n
referring to the maximum that a person can force themselves to swallow.<\/p>\n
Rabbeinu Tam\u2019s approach does not draw any conclusions as to the absolute size of an<\/p>\n
olive, only that it must be less than 3\/10 of an egg (which is, of course, true). However, this<\/p>\n
view was later apparently interpreted to mean that it equals slightly less than 3\/10 of an egg.<\/p>\n
(The ratio of 3\/10 was later slightly expanded to 1\/3, for reasons that are unclear; perhaps as<\/p>\n
it is a simpler quantity to assess.)<\/p>\n
Reasons for the Ashkenazi Expansion<\/p>\n
Why did the Ashkenazi authorities relate the size of an olive to the size of an egg, especially<\/p>\n
since, according to Ri, this results in the error of considering an olive to be half the size of an<\/p>\n
egg? Why did they not follow the position of the Sephardic authorities, that a kezayis is the<\/p>\n
size of an olive?<\/p>\n
The answer is that the Ashkenazic authorities never saw an olive. Olives do not grow that<\/p>\n
far north; they only grow in the Mediterranean region. In medieval Europe, transporting<\/p>\n
commodities was expensive, and was only done with foodstuffs for which there was high<\/p>\n
demand. Many food items were simply unknown in some regions. In an early 15th century<\/p>\n
Bavarian translation of an Arabic pharmacopoeia, the German translator has to explain to his<\/p>\n
readers what various foodstuffs (such as sesame seeds and pistachio nuts) actually are.24 In<\/p>\n
northern Europe, unlike with the Mediterranean region, olives were not part of the menu<\/p>\n
and they were virtually unheard of.25 Only olive oil was imported, and even that was very<\/p>\n
expensive and only used by the wealthy. In the oldest German cookbook entered in a<\/p>\n
parchment codex in Wuerzburg around 1350, no olives are mentioned, and oil (which may<\/p>\n
not even be olive oil) appears only once.26<\/p>\n
Thus, the reason why the Rishonim of Ashkenaz greatly increased the size of a kezayis is<\/p>\n
simply due to the fact that they were unfamiliar with olives. They were forced to attempt to<\/p>\n
calculate the olive\u2019s size based on deductions from various statements in the Talmud. R.<\/p>\n
Eliezer b. Yoel HaLevi (Germany, c.1140-c.1225) explicitly acknowledges that they knew<\/p>\n
that they were missing direct observation, and that they therefore decided to err on the side<\/p>\n
of caution:<\/p>\n
And wherever a kezayis is required, the food should be measured generously, since we are not<\/p>\n
familiar with the measurement of an olive, and so that the blessing should not be in vain.<\/p>\n
(Ravyah, Berachos 107)<\/p>\n
24 Prof. Melitta Weiss Adamson of the University of Western Ontario, personal communication.<\/p>\n
25 Melitta Weiss Adamson, Food in Medieval Times, pp. 29-30; John Ayto, The Glutton\u2019s Glossary: A Dictionary<\/p>\n
of Food and Drink Terms, p. 198.<\/p>\n
26 Melitta Weiss Adamson, personal communication.<\/p>\n
11<\/p>\n
Another revealing statement comes from one of the Rishonim from the generation of the<\/p>\n
Rosh. He was addressing a question that arises from Hillel having eaten a kezayis each of<\/p>\n
matzah, maror and charoses simultaneously, which was problematic for those who believed<\/p>\n
that two olives was the maximum that the throat can hold. This rabbi pointed out that based<\/p>\n
on what he had seen on his travels to Israel, there is no difficulty in this:<\/p>\n
To me there is no difficulty, for I saw olives in Israel and Jerusalem, and even six were not as<\/p>\n
large as an egg. (Piskei Rabboseinu SheBeAshkenaz, Moriah2:3)<\/p>\n
We thus see that the Rishonim of Ashkenaz themselves acknowledged that, living in<\/p>\n
Ashkenaz, they had not seen olives.<\/p>\n
This in turn answers the following question. Even given the view of Ri that the Talmud<\/p>\n
dictates that an olive is half the size of an egg, why assume that this means that olives back<\/p>\n
then were larger? Why not explain instead that eggs back then were smaller? This question is<\/p>\n
especially potent since the fundamental measurement for the mitzvos of eating is in terms of<\/p>\n
olives, not in term of eggs.27 So why pick a different unit of measurement as the barometer?<\/p>\n
The answer is that for Ri, and many others after him, there was no first-hand experience<\/p>\n
with olives. On the other hand, they were familiar with eggs. Since the olive was the food<\/p>\n
whose size they didn\u2019t know and were trying to determine, it was natural to assume that the<\/p>\n
egg of the Talmud was the same as their egg, and the olive was half that size. There was no<\/p>\n
reason to assume otherwise. Today, however, when we know that olives are not and were not<\/p>\n
that big, and we also know that eggs were formerly smaller (as we shall later discuss), there is<\/p>\n
no reason why, even if we are reconciling the Talmudic statements about olives and eggs, this<\/p>\n
should lead us to the conclusion that olives must have been bigger.<\/p>\n
There is a further point to consider in evaluating the adoption of the view of the Rishonim<\/p>\n
of Ashkenaz. Ri and Rabbeinu Tam did not deliberate over the size of a kezayis in the context<\/p>\n
of issuing a practical ruling, but rather as part of an attempt to resolve a conflict in the<\/p>\n
Talmud. It is far from clear that they were of the view that for one\u2019s own obligation, one<\/p>\n
always needs to replicate the size of a Talmudic olive. They may well have adopted the view<\/p>\n
of the Geonim, that if one has access to olives, one should follow the size of an olive in one\u2019s<\/p>\n
own time and place. Perhaps initially the rulings of the Ashkenazi Rishonim were adopted<\/p>\n
because nobody had anything better to go with. And even later when people did have<\/p>\n
alternatives, the statements of these authorities had already been accepted as formal rulings<\/p>\n
regarding what size a kezayis should be.<\/p>\n
27 See Moshe Koppel, \u201cThe Sages Evaluated\u201d (Hebrew), Higayon 5 pp. 55-62 for a valuable discussion of the<\/p>\n
concept of primary and secondary units of measurement.<\/p>\n
12<\/p>\n
The Shulchan Aruch\u2019s Ambiguous Ruling<\/p>\n
In the Shulchan Aruch of R. Yosef Karo (Spain\/Israel, 1488-1575), the chapter concerning<\/p>\n
the size of a kezayis contains only one section, and it is probably the shortest chapter in the<\/p>\n
entire work. Its wording is intriguing:<\/p>\n
The amount of a kezayis \u2013 some say that it is around half of an egg. (Shulchan Aruch, Orach<\/p>\n
Chaim 486:1)<\/p>\n
This ruling is surprising in that R. Karo does not rule what a kezayis is; he just notes what<\/p>\n
\u201csome say\u201d it is. This is widely understood to mean that he is citing this view as a stringency,<\/p>\n
but that he himself is of the view that it is smaller.28 But how much smaller? An inference can<\/p>\n
be drawn from a ruling elsewhere,29 where in discussing the quantity of two meals for an<\/p>\n
eruv, he follows the ruling of Rabbi Yochanan ben Beruka in quantifying this as being the<\/p>\n
size of six eggs, and equates this with 18 dried figs. The inference is that a kezayis, which is<\/p>\n
smaller than a dried fig, must be less than 1\/3 of an egg.<\/p>\n
Many therefore state that while the Shulchan Aruch records the stringent view of a kezayis<\/p>\n
being \u00bd an egg, it rules a kezayis to be slightly less than 1\/3 of an egg. However, a careful<\/p>\n
analysis shows that this is not the case. All we can derive from the discussion regarding eruv is<\/p>\n
that the maximum size must be somewhat less than 1\/3 of an egg; we still have no inference<\/p>\n
as to how much less it is. In theory it is still entirely possible that the view of R. Yosef Karo<\/p>\n
was that a kezayis is the size of a regular olive. One might claim that since he quotes the view<\/p>\n
of Ri, this indicates that he was working within the Ashkenazi approach, which therefore<\/p>\n
makes it unlikely that he himself viewed it as being a much smaller quantity. But on the<\/p>\n
other hand, the fact that he does not specify what he considers to be the normative view<\/p>\n
(only quoting what \u201csome say\u201d it to be) could indicate that he considered the normative view<\/p>\n
to be obvious \u2013 namely, that a kezayis is the size of an olive. This is especially likely in light of<\/p>\n
the fact that R. Yosef Karo himself, unlike Ri and Rabbeinu Tam, would have been familiar<\/p>\n
with olives.<\/p>\n
Whichever way one understands R. Karo, it seems that the Shulchan Aruch denotes a<\/p>\n
critical point of transition; in recording the explicit view of the Ashkenazi Rishonim and<\/p>\n
being silent about the silent Sefardic Rishonim, it thereby strengthens the impression that Ri<\/p>\n
was the mainstream view and Rabbeinu Tam, interpreted maximally, was the alternative.<\/p>\n
Reasons for the Ashkenazi Adoption<\/p>\n
When later authorities who were familiar with normal olives nevertheless followed the<\/p>\n
positions of the Ashkenazi Rishonim, they were implicitly adopting the notion that olives of<\/p>\n
28 Responsa Vayomer Yitzchak, Orach Chaim 8. See too Ner Mitzvah 17 and Benish, Middos VeShiurei Torah<\/p>\n
p.254 note 111 and p.527.<\/p>\n
29 Orach Chaim, 368:3; 409:7.<\/p>\n
13<\/p>\n
ancient times were larger. Some were explicit about this. For example, in adopting the view<\/p>\n
of Ri that an olive is half the size of an egg, Rabbi Shlomo Luria (Poland, 1510-1574) writes<\/p>\n
as follows:<\/p>\n
It is a received tradition in our hands from the Tosafists that an olive is half the size of an egg.<\/p>\n
And even though in our time we see with our eyes that the size of an olive is much smaller<\/p>\n
than half of an egg, this is not surprising, for in the days of the Sages the fruit of the Seven<\/p>\n
Species were unusual in their size, and they have since changed. (Yam Shel Shlomo, Chullin<\/p>\n
3:86, also cited in Taz, Yoreh De\u2019ah 44:12)<\/p>\n
R. Yaakov Yisrael Kanievsky (1899-1985) similarly writes that although the strain of olives<\/p>\n
found today is the same as that mentioned in the Mishnah, \u201cit has become weak and the<\/p>\n
fruit have become smaller\u201d30 (however, as we shall see, he was not of the view that the earlier<\/p>\n
larger size is to be replicated).<\/p>\n
We have seen that the botanical and archeological evidence shows that olives were always<\/p>\n
the same size as they are today. But the belief that they used to be larger was consistent with<\/p>\n
a general worldview of the \u201cdecline of generations\u201d \u2013 that the world used to have a golden<\/p>\n
age in which people, animals and plants were superior in every way to those of today. The<\/p>\n
most radical application of this concept to the size of the kezayis was that of R. Yechezkel<\/p>\n
Landau, which we shall now explore.<\/p>\n
The Alleged Egg Shrinkage<\/p>\n
R. Yechezkel Landau (Poland\/Bohemia, author of Noda B\u2019Yehudah, 1713-1793) created a<\/p>\n
famous revolution in the determination of halachic quantities.<\/p>\n
Since a mitzvah performed at a designated time is precious, and on this night we are required<\/p>\n
to eat a kezayis of matzah and maror and to drink a Torah-determined revi\u2019is of the four cups, I<\/p>\n
need to clarify my view concerning the size of a kezayis and a revi\u2019is, which I concluded by way<\/p>\n
of proofs is not in accordance with the words of the Shulchan Aruch. For in truth it is clear in<\/p>\n
the Shulchan Aruch, chapter 486, that the size of a kezayis is half the size of an egg. However, it<\/p>\n
is clear to me by way of measurement that with the eggs that we have in our day, a whole egg<\/p>\n
of our day is only half the size of an egg that was used for the Torah quantities\u2026 (Tzlach,<\/p>\n
Pesachim 120a)<\/p>\n
R. Landau proceeds to describe his measurements which resulted in a ratio of thumbs to<\/p>\n
eggs that differed from the ratio that results from the Talmud. He continues:<\/p>\n
And against our will we see that things have changed in our time; either thumbs have grown,<\/p>\n
and they are bigger than the thumbs of the days of the Tannaim, or the eggs have shrunk and<\/p>\n
in our day they are smaller than the eggs of the era of the Tannaim. And it is known that the<\/p>\n
generations progressively decline, and it is therefore impossible that our thumbs should be<\/p>\n
larger than the thumbs in the day of the Sages of the Mishnah. (Ibid.)<\/p>\n
30 Shiurin Shel Torah p. 8.<\/p>\n
14<\/p>\n
R. Landau therefore concludes that the eggs mentioned in the Talmud were larger, and his<\/p>\n
calculations enable him to conclude that they were twice as large:<\/p>\n
It is therefore necessarily the case that the eggs of our day are smaller\u2026 and since it has<\/p>\n
become clear that our eggs are smaller by half, therefore the size of a kezayis, which is<\/p>\n
(originally) half an egg, is as the size of a whole egg of today. And thus I evaluate the eating of<\/p>\n
matzah and maror\u2026 (Ibid.)<\/p>\n
Many authorities adopted the view of R. Landau.31 In some cases, they only did so vis-\u00e0-vis<\/p>\n
measurements dependent on thumbs, such as challah and revi\u2019is, but not vis-\u00e0-vis<\/p>\n
measurements dependent on eggs, such as a kezayis.32 But others adopted it for eggs (and<\/p>\n
calculated the volume of today\u2019s eggs as being 50cc and that of eggs in ancient times as being<\/p>\n
100cc) and thus for the kezayis too, such as R. Yisrael Meir Kagan (Poland, 1838-1933) in<\/p>\n
the Mishnah Berurah:<\/p>\n
\u2026And with regard to the ruling, with a Biblical mitzvah, such as the positive commandment<\/p>\n
of eating matzah, one should be stringent and eat at least the volume of half an egg\u2026 and<\/p>\n
know that what the Shulchan Aruch wrote about a kezayis being half an egg is not a final<\/p>\n
statement in our day, for some of the Acharonim proved that the eggs found in our day are<\/p>\n
much smaller, as much as half, of the eggs that were in ancient times, with which the Sages<\/p>\n
gave their measurements. Accordingly, wherever the required quantity is half an egg, one needs<\/p>\n
to measure this as a whole egg of our day\u2026. According to this, in our day a person is obligated<\/p>\n
to eat matzah of the size of an egg\u2026 (Mishnah Berurah, 486:1)<\/p>\n
Note the three steps taken in the Mishnah Berurah which result in this gigantic<\/p>\n
measurement of 50-60cc for a kezayis.33 First is that, again, we have a presumption that the<\/p>\n
obligation is to consume the presumed size of an olive of ancient times, not an olive of today<\/p>\n
\u2013 which is in contrast to the view of the Geonim. Second is that he states that one should<\/p>\n
follow the stringent view that a kezayis is half an egg \u2013 which we have seen to based on the<\/p>\n
Ashkenazi Rishonim not being familiar with olives. Third is that he claims that the<\/p>\n
Acharonim proved that eggs have shrunk \u2013 which we shall now demonstrate to be incorrect.<\/p>\n
Evaluating the Alleged Egg Shrinkage<\/p>\n
From a rationalist perspective, Rabbi Landau\u2019s claim that the relative sizes of thumbs and<\/p>\n
eggs has changed, and that it must be that eggs have shrunk rather than that thumbs have<\/p>\n
grown, is problematic on several counts. First, we know that thumbs have indeed grown;<\/p>\n
second, we know that eggs have not shrunk. As for his difficulty regarding the apparently<\/p>\n
changed ratio, there are other solutions. Let us explore these three points in turn.<\/p>\n
31 Vilna Gaon, Maaseh Rav 105; R. Akiva Eiger, Responsa R. Akiva Eiger HaChadashos 39; Beis Ephraim, Rosh<\/p>\n
Ephraim, Kuntrus HaTeshuvos 16.<\/p>\n
32 Chasam Sofer, Responsa Chasam Sofer Orach Chaim 127, 181; Responsa Gidulei Taharah 1; R. Chaim of<\/p>\n
Volozhin, as per Shaarei Rachamim 165 and at the end in Minhagei HaGraCh 51.<\/p>\n
33 The range of 50-60cc is due to the different assessments of the volume of a contemporary egg.<\/p>\n
15<\/p>\n
R. Landau\u2019s belief that people could not have grown larger was based on his understanding<\/p>\n
of the decline of generations. The concept of a \u201cdecline of generations\u201d sets traditionalists<\/p>\n
squarely against rationalists, depending on how it is defined.34 But even if one accepts the<\/p>\n
notion of a general spiritual and\/or intellectual decline, R. Landau\u2019s extrapolation to a<\/p>\n
physical decline is quite a leap. Furthermore, evidence from archeology shows that between<\/p>\n
the Talmudic era and the era of R. Landau, mankind did not become any shorter; in fact,<\/p>\n
beginning in the 18th century, people began to grow taller.<\/p>\n
With regard to eggs, empirical research shows that eggs in ancient times were far from<\/p>\n
twice the size of today, which measure 50-60cc. In fact, eggs in ancient times were actually<\/p>\n
smaller than those of today. There are several independent lines of evidence for this.<\/p>\n
One argument, concerning the size of eggs in Rambam\u2019s era, is based on his relating the<\/p>\n
size of an egg to certain Arab coins. R. Chaim Na\u2019eh (1890-1954) used this technique to<\/p>\n
calculate the size of eggs in Rambam\u2019s day as being 57.6cc.35 However, R. Chaim Beinish<\/p>\n
states that the coin of Rambam\u2019s era was of a different weight than that known to R. Chaim<\/p>\n
Na\u2019eh, and it results in an egg size of 49cc.36 The fact is that the size of Arab coins varied<\/p>\n
tremendously in different places and eras, which makes any such calculation questionable,37<\/p>\n
but there are many other more reliable forms of evidence.<\/p>\n
The Talmud records that R. Yehudah HaNasi measured a vessel called the modia as<\/p>\n
containing the volume of 217 eggs.38 We know that the modia was one-third the size of a<\/p>\n
standard Roman measuring vessel called the amphora, and we are able to measure extant<\/p>\n
amphoras at one cubic Roman foot, which equals 25.79 liters.39 This means that the eggs of<\/p>\n
R. Yehuda HaNasi\u2019s era measured 39.6cc.40<\/p>\n
34 Menachem Kellner, in Maimonides on the Decline of Generations, argues that Maimonides did not subscribe<\/p>\n
to this doctrine as a general pattern.<\/p>\n
35 Shiurei Torah (Jerusalem 1947) pp. 111-120.<\/p>\n
36 Middos VeShiurei Torah 13:7 and 30:6.<\/p>\n
37 See, for example, Stefan Heidemann, \u201cThe Merger of Two Currency Zones in Early Islam. The Byzantine<\/p>\n
and Sasanian Impact on the Circulation in Former Byzantine Syria and Northern Mesopotamia,\u201d Iran 36<\/p>\n
(1998) pp.95-112.<\/p>\n
38 Eruvin 83a. The Talmud further states that R. Yehudah HaNasi had a tradition that this vessel held the<\/p>\n
volume of 207 eggs of the size that existed at the time of the Revelation at Sinai, and attributed the slight<\/p>\n
difference of about 5% to the natural change in egg size over so many years.<\/p>\n
39 Lesley Adkins, Roy A. Adkins, Handbook to Life in Ancient Rome (Oxford University Press 1998), p. 314.<\/p>\n
40 Greenfield, \u201cHas the Egg Volume Really Decreased in the Thousands of Years since Matan Torah?\u201d<\/p>\n
(Hebrew) BDD 16 pp. 91-94 uses the argument from the amphora to produce a volume of 43cc; I am unclear<\/p>\n
as to how he arrived at this result.<\/p>\n
16<\/p>\n
Professor Yehudah Feliks examined eggs that were preserved whole in the volcanic<\/p>\n
destruction of Pompeii two thousand years ago, and states that they were \u201caround the size of<\/p>\n
the small Arab eggs of our time,\u201d which he defines as 41.4cc.41<\/p>\n
My own research indicates that the eggs of ancient times were considerably smaller than<\/p>\n
those of today. Domestic fowl have been selectively bred for larger eggs, which would mean<\/p>\n
that eggs used to be smaller. Furthermore, we know that the domestic chicken was<\/p>\n
domesticated from the red junglefowl several thousand years ago, and its eggs are very small,<\/p>\n
only 32.1cc.42 Assuming a gradual increase to the size of today\u2019s eggs, this would indicate<\/p>\n
that two thousand years ago, eggs were around 40cc. In addition, records show that the<\/p>\n
chickens used in Roman Italy were able to incubate twice as many eggs at a time than<\/p>\n
chickens of today are able to do, which shows that their eggs were much smaller.43<\/p>\n
We thus see that, contrary to R. Landau\u2019s assertions, neither thumbs nor eggs are smaller<\/p>\n
than those of ancient times. As for R. Landau\u2019s question regarding the apparently changed<\/p>\n
ratio of eggs to thumbs, other solutions have been presented.44 In fact, the eggs of ancient<\/p>\n
times were slightly smaller than those of today; according to my research, around 40cc. This<\/p>\n
may also assist in solving the difficulty in the olive-egg ratio implied by the Talmud\u2019s<\/p>\n
statement regarding a person being able to swallow a whole egg or two olives.<\/p>\n
Recent and Contemporary Poskim<\/p>\n
The Mishnah Berurah, as noted above, rules that for Biblically-ordained mitzvot one<\/p>\n
should follow R. Landau\u2019s conclusion that the eggs of ancient times were twice the size of<\/p>\n
today\u2019s eggs. But most authorities rejected the notion that one should double the size of the<\/p>\n
measurements. R. Elchanan Wasserman (1875-1941) noted that based on the words of R.<\/p>\n
Hai Gaon (that we cited early in this study), the size of eggs and olives does not change.45 R.<\/p>\n
Chaim Na\u2019eh, a prominent rabbinic authority in Jerusalem, compiled an extensive study of<\/p>\n
halachic weights and measures. As noted above, he concluded that R. Landau had erred<\/p>\n
about eggs in ancient times being larger than those of today. On the other hand, R. Avraham<\/p>\n
Yeshayah Karelitz (the \u201cChazon Ish,\u201d 1878-1953) wrote that regardless of whether it is<\/p>\n
41 Feliks, Kelai Zera\u2019im VeHarkavah, p. 184 note 5.<\/p>\n
42 Gardiner Bump, Special Scientific Report 62: Red Junglefowl and Kalij Pheasants (Washington DC: U.S. Fish<\/p>\n
& Wildlife 1962), gives the dimensions of the egg as 4.53×3.44cm (compare large chicken eggs at around<\/p>\n
5.7×4.4cm). Using the calculation V = (0.6057-0.0018B)LB2 in which L is the egg length, and B is the egg<\/p>\n
maximum breadth, the volume is 32.14cc. The calculation is from V.G. Narushin, \u201cEgg Geometry Calculation<\/p>\n
Using the Measurements of Length and Breadth,\u201d Poultry Science 84:3 (March 2005) pp. 482-484.<\/p>\n
43 George Jennison, Animals for Show and Pleasure in Ancient Rome (Manchester University Press 1937), p. 106,<\/p>\n
citing Pliny, Varro and Columella.<\/p>\n
44 Avraham Greenfeld, \u201cMiddah Kenegged Middah,\u2019 Moriah 10 (5742). This provoked heated responses; see, for<\/p>\n
example, R. Kalman Kahana, \u201cLo Zu HaMiddah,\u201d Moriah 11 (5743) 11-12 pp. 67-76.<\/p>\n
45 Kobetz Shiurim 2:46.<\/p>\n
17<\/p>\n
factually true that eggs have halved in size, since this was the assessment of R. Landau and<\/p>\n
others, and it has become widely accepted, it is as though it has been established by a Beis<\/p>\n
Din for all Israel and is binding.46<\/p>\n
Putting aside the issue of whether one assumes that eggs used to be twice the size, what<\/p>\n
proportion of an egg is a kezayis? R. Avraham Danzig (Chayei Adam, 1748\u20131820)47 rules that<\/p>\n
a kezayis is half an egg, as does R. Yechiel Michel Epstein (Aruch HaShulchan, 1829-1908).48<\/p>\n
R. Yisrael Meir Kagan (Mishnah Berurah, 1838-1933) rules that when following the<\/p>\n
stringent view (e.g. for Biblically-ordained mitzvos such as eating matzah at the seder) one<\/p>\n
should follow the stringent view of Ri cited in the Shulchan Aruch that a kezayis is half an<\/p>\n
egg. R. Chaim Na\u2019eh also states that for such mitzvos one should follow the view that a<\/p>\n
kezayis is half an egg and specifies this as being 28.8cc.49<\/p>\n
Partly because R. Chaim Na\u2019eh was the first to address the topic comprehensively, and<\/p>\n
partly due to his stature, many of his conclusions became widely accepted. Thus, the most<\/p>\n
widespread view today concerning a kezayis is that it measures 28.8cc. This is based on<\/p>\n
following the stringent view of Ri along with the egg calculation of R. Chaim Na\u2019eh. This<\/p>\n
view has been advanced by authorities such as R. Shlomo Zalman Auerbach50 (1910-1995)<\/p>\n
and R. Yosef Shalom Elyashiv.51 It is also the standard adopted for R. Pinchas Bodner\u2019s<\/p>\n
popular work The Halachos of Kezayis.<\/p>\n
A less widespread view is that a kezayis is 17cc. This is based on following what is<\/p>\n
presumed to be the Shulchan Aruch\u2019s own view, following Rabbeinu Tam and Rambam, that<\/p>\n
a kezayis is slightly less than 1\/3 of an egg. The aforementioned recent and contemporary<\/p>\n
authorities also propose that one may rely on this \u201cleniency\u201d for rabbinically-mandated<\/p>\n
requirements, especially when it is difficult to rely on the larger quantity, such as when eating<\/p>\n
maror at the seder.<\/p>\n
Yet even in recent times there were still those who maintained that a kezayis is the size of<\/p>\n
an ordinary olive. As noted at the beginning of this study, R. Chaim of Volozhin is one such<\/p>\n
example. When the manuscripts of the Geonim came to light around 130 years ago,<\/p>\n
revealing their view that one is to follow the size of the fruit of one\u2019s own era, some adopted<\/p>\n
this position. Rabbi Akiva Yosef Schlesinger (1835-1922) writes:<\/p>\n
46 Chazon Ish, Kuntrus HaShiurim 39:6. However, as we shall soon see, this was far from R. Karelitz\u2019s last word<\/p>\n
on the topic.<\/p>\n
47 Chayei Adam 50:12<\/p>\n
48 Aruch HaShulchan 202:5 and 486:1.<\/p>\n
49 See R. Chaim Na\u2019eh, Shiurei Torah, 3:12 p. 193.<\/p>\n
50 Halichos Shlomo vol. II p. 90.<\/p>\n
51 Kobetz Teshuvos II:30.<\/p>\n
18<\/p>\n
The measurement of an egg is not found in the Torah; rather, it says, \u201ca land of\u2026 olives\u201d etc.,<\/p>\n
that all its measurements are like olives, and this olive was only rated by the measurement of<\/p>\n
an egg for those who did not have olives. But not for us, who see the olive in front of us \u2013<\/p>\n
there is no need to push aside the ikkar for the tafel. (Tel Talpios, Shevat 5661 p. 103)<\/p>\n
R. Yitzchak Elchanan Spektor (1817-1896) likewise stated that the Geonic view is the<\/p>\n
fundamentally correct approach.52 Apparently following the same approach, R. Avraham<\/p>\n
Bornstein (1838-1910, author of Avnei Nezer) maintained that the kezayis is the size of an<\/p>\n
ordinary olive and did not see any basis for expanding it to half the size of an egg, even as a<\/p>\n
stringency.53 R. Yaakov Yisrael Kanievsky (1899-1985) states that we follow the size of<\/p>\n
today\u2019s olives regardless of the presumed greater size of olives in ancient times.54<\/p>\n
The same was stated by R. Avraham Yeshayah Karelitz (the \u201cChazon Ish,\u201d 1878-1953),<\/p>\n
but there is much confusion and dispute with regard to his ultimate ruling. At one extreme,<\/p>\n
in some editions of his chart for the measurements of shiurim, he gives a measurement of<\/p>\n
50cc for a kezayis. This view reflects his acceptance of R. Landau\u2019s radical expansion of the<\/p>\n
kezayis, based on the assumption that eggs have halved in size. Elsewhere he states that if one<\/p>\n
wishes to be stringent, one can follow the view of the Ri that a kezayis is half the volume of<\/p>\n
an egg.55 The combination of these positions results in a kezayis measuring 50cc \u2013 half the<\/p>\n
presumed volume of an egg in ancient times. But at the other extreme, Chazon Ish writes<\/p>\n
that the essential concept of kezayis is that one follows the dimensions of olives that one<\/p>\n
observes and one does not need to concern oneself with calculating if olives in an earlier era<\/p>\n
were larger.56 An intermediate position emerges from an account by R. Chaim Kanievsky<\/p>\n
that at the seder of the Chazon Ish, he allocated portions that were 17cc in size.57 Reconciling<\/p>\n
all these conflicting statements and accounts is difficult, and varying conclusions have been<\/p>\n
drawn.58 Suffice it to say that while it is \u201ccommon knowledge\u201d that a \u201cChazon Ish shiur\u201d is<\/p>\n
the largest measurement for a kezayis, the truth is far more complex and it seems that he<\/p>\n
acknowledged that fundamentally a kezayis is the size of an ordinary olive.<\/p>\n
52 Quoted by R. Dov Aryeh Rotter, Tel Talpios, 5661 p. 71.<\/p>\n
53 Testimony recorded in Middos VeShiurei Torah, p. 510 note 111.<\/p>\n
54 Shiurin Shel Torah 11 p. 71. Puzzlingly, however, he rates the size of a contemporary kezayis as being slightly<\/p>\n
less than a third of the size of an egg (17-19cc).<\/p>\n
55 Ibid. 39:17.<\/p>\n
56 Chazon Ish, Shiurin Shel Torah 11; Letters, 194.<\/p>\n
57 Related by R. Hadar Margolin, \u201cA Clarification of the View of the Chazon Ish,\u201d Moriah 3-4 (5753) p. 102.<\/p>\n
58 See R. Hadar Margolin, \u201cA Clarification of the View of the Chazon Ish,\u201d Moriah 3-4 (5753) pp. 99-103 and<\/p>\n
R. Moshe Petrover, \u201cThe Volume of a Kezayis for Eating Matzah \u2013 A Clarification of the View of the Chazon<\/p>\n
Ish,\u201d Moriah 7-9 (5754) pp. 106-109. See too Menachem Friedman, \u201cThe Lost Kiddush Cup: Changes in<\/p>\n
Ashkenazi Haredi Culture – A Tradition in Crisis,\u201d in Jack Wertheimer, ed., The Uses of Tradition: Jewish<\/p>\n
Continuity in the Modern Era, (New York: JTS\/Harvard University Press 1992), pp. 175-186.<\/p>\n
19<\/p>\n
The Canonization and Conservatism of Halacha<\/p>\n
Given the botanical\/archeological evidence and the discovery of the Geonic manuscripts,<\/p>\n
both of which independently show that there is no reason to exceed the size of a<\/p>\n
contemporary olive, why is it that there are so many who rule otherwise? Of course, in the<\/p>\n
Charedi world, it is common to treat scientific evidence with suspicion. But there is another<\/p>\n
reason why many adopt the position that a kezayis is much larger than olives are today: the<\/p>\n
nature of the halachic process in general. The question of whether halachic practice should<\/p>\n
be changed in light of new empirical data or newly discovered manuscripts is complex. There<\/p>\n
is a strong case to be made for saying that halachah follows its own protocols and should not<\/p>\n
be re-evaluated in light of new data, even if it seems clear that the halachah is in opposition<\/p>\n
to objective facts.59 A fundamental value in halachah is creating and preserving stability. If a<\/p>\n
halachah has become canonized, then it ought not to be changed.<\/p>\n
However, this case has two factors that make it easier to rely on the new data if one wishes<\/p>\n
to do so. One is that upon closer inspection, the halachah is not at all canonized in the way<\/p>\n
that it is commonly assumed. The primary authorities who are assumed to have ruled that a<\/p>\n
kezayis is 1\/3 of an egg, Rambam and Rabbeinu Tam, in fact did not say any such thing; it is<\/p>\n
only the upper limit of a kezayis that can be inferred from them. The same may well also be<\/p>\n
true of the Shulchan Aruch.<\/p>\n
The second factor is that this is not a case where the halachah was ruled unequivocally in<\/p>\n
one direction. There have always been those, such as Rabbi Chaim of Volozhin, the Avnei<\/p>\n
Nezer and others who maintained that the kezayis is the size of an ordinary olive. Even the<\/p>\n
Chazon Ish acknowledged that this is the fundamentally correct position. It is thus an<\/p>\n
established halachic view, which is merely being given greater weight in light of new<\/p>\n
discoveries of manuscripts and new data concerning olives and eggs.<\/p>\n
Yet while this justifies someone who wishes to evaluate a kezayis as being the size of a<\/p>\n
regular olive, we can still understand why others do not take this approach. Even if a<\/p>\n
halachah has not been unequivocally canonized, it can still be sufficiently entrenched that it<\/p>\n
becomes problematic to change. Judaism is a traditionalist way of life, and traditionalist<\/p>\n
religions are inherently and neccessarily conservative.<\/p>\n
Further Growth \u2013 Weight Replaces Volume<\/p>\n
Another factor that is sometimes involved in the expansion of the kezayis is the change<\/p>\n
from measuring volume to measuring weight. There is no doubt that the kezayis is supposed<\/p>\n
to be a measure of volume, and there are several independent lines of evidence for this. First<\/p>\n
is a Mishnah which appears in a chapter discussing how to evaluate the quantity of a food:<\/p>\n
59 See Natan Slifkin, Sacred Monsters, pp. 362-367.<\/p>\n
20<\/p>\n
An airy loaf is evaluated as it is. If there is a hollow inside, it is compressed. (Mishnah, Uktzin<\/p>\n
2:8)<\/p>\n
The Mishnah tells us that an airy loaf, which is much less dense than other foods, is<\/p>\n
nevertheless evaluated as it is, and not compressed into a density comparable to other foods.<\/p>\n
Only if there is actually a distinct large single pocket of air is it to be removed from the<\/p>\n
equation. This clearly means that it is volume being measured rather than weight. This<\/p>\n
position, emerging from this Mishnah, is found in a number of halachic authorities.60<\/p>\n
We also have an explicit statement from the Geonim that kezayis is a measure of volume<\/p>\n
rather than weight:<\/p>\n
And that which you asked regarding the measure of\u2026 a kezayis etc., surely these are shiurim<\/p>\n
(designated quantities), and how can there be a designated quantity for a designated quantity?<\/p>\n
And if you suggest to give a weight, our rabbis did not explain things in terms of their weight,<\/p>\n
and the Holy One does not exact with us in weight. (Teshuvos HaGeonim 268)<\/p>\n
Finally, the discussions of Rabbeinu Tam, Ri and others regarding the calculation of a<\/p>\n
kezayis, which were based on reconciling various statements in the Talmud concerning how<\/p>\n
much a person can hold in his throat, only make sense if the discussion is regarding volume.<\/p>\n
Yet we do find several later halachic authorities stating a weight measure for an egg, a kezayis,<\/p>\n
and so on. R. Yaakov Chaim Sofer (1870-1939) cites several such authorities, and affirms<\/p>\n
that this is widespread custom amongst all God-fearing Jews.61 He concludes that since an<\/p>\n
egg weighs 18 drahms and a kezayis should be half an egg, a kezayis is 9 drahms. But how are<\/p>\n
we to understand these halachic authorities in light of the clear positions in the Mishnah,<\/p>\n
Geonim and Rishonim that we cited above?<\/p>\n
There are two reasons why we nevertheless find some halachic authorities prescribing<\/p>\n
measures of weight rather than volume. One is that it is sometimes more convenient to<\/p>\n
prescribe quantities in terms of weight, especially since it is less likely to cause measuring<\/p>\n
errors. For this reason, some halachic authorities converted measures of volume to measures<\/p>\n
of weight. But this does not mean that they considered the halachic requirement to be<\/p>\n
essentially one of weight. In fact, it is pointed out that R. Yaakov Chaim Sofer, as well as all<\/p>\n
the halachic authorities that he cites, themselves make it clear elsewhere that halachic<\/p>\n
measures are all volume rather than weight.62<\/p>\n
The second reason why some convert the measurement to weight is that, as we have seen<\/p>\n
in the Mishnah, large air pockets are not to be included in the calculation. However it is<\/p>\n
60 Rama, Orach Chaim 486:1; Magen Avraham 486:1; Chida, Machzik Berachah 486:2; Mishnah Berurah 486:3.<\/p>\n
See too Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim 456:1; Chazon Ish, Orach Chaim 39:17.<\/p>\n
61 Kaf HaChaim 168:46, citing Bnei David, and Pesach HaDvir, who in turns cites several others.<\/p>\n
62 R. Eliyahu Topik, Responsa Kol Eliyahu, Orach Chaim 30, p. 137, pointing to Kaf HaChaim 456:10, Pesach<\/p>\n
DaDvir, Kisei D\u2019Chayay 196a, and others; Chida, Machzik Berachah 486:2. A similar point is made by R.<\/p>\n
Chaim Na\u2019eh, in Shiurei Torah 1:1, pp. 71-72.<\/p>\n
21<\/p>\n
difficult to draw the line between a large air pocket and a small one. R. Chaim Na\u2019eh<\/p>\n
therefore rules that any visible air pocket is not to be included in a volume measurement.63<\/p>\n
Since it is difficult to calculate the volume of a food item without any air pockets, a weight<\/p>\n
measure was sometimes substituted. It should be stressed, though, that R. Chaim Na\u2019eh<\/p>\n
himself explicitly stated that the essential definition is one of volume, and that he was only<\/p>\n
converting it to weight due to this uncertainty and subsequent stringency.64<\/p>\n
However, R. Chaim Na\u2019eh\u2019s stringency in this regard was widely rejected. Contemporary<\/p>\n
halachic authorities are emphatic that the kezayis is to be measured by volume, not weight.65<\/p>\n
Nevertheless, in popular discourse, a kezayis is often defined in terms of weight \u2013 specifically,<\/p>\n
30 grams. It is this that leads to the greatest quantity of matzah designated as a kezayis: the<\/p>\n
labeling on certain machine-made matzah stating that one whole matzah equals a kezayis.<\/p>\n
Conclusion<\/p>\n
At the beginning of this study, it was noted that logically, in order to reach the conclusion<\/p>\n
that a kezayis is much larger than olives are today, two separate positions must both be taken:<\/p>\n
First, that olives of ancient times were much larger, and second, that we are obligated to<\/p>\n
follow the size of ancient olives rather than the olives of today.<\/p>\n
The first is refuted by empirical evidence. We have living trees from the Talmudic era,<\/p>\n
which produce olives that are exactly the same size as olives from the trees of our own era,<\/p>\n
and we have olive pits from ancient times that are similar to those of today. Furthermore,<\/p>\n
there is no testimony otherwise in any source in the Talmud or Rishonim (contrary to<\/p>\n
popular belief). In fact, there is testimony from some of the Rishonim that olives were the<\/p>\n
same size as those of today. Alleged indications from inferences regarding eggs having been<\/p>\n
larger are likewise disproved by evidence that eggs of ancient times were actually smaller.<\/p>\n
The second position, that we are obligated to follow the size of ancient olives, was assumed<\/p>\n
by many authorities, but it is explicit in the Geonim, implicit amongst many Rishonim and<\/p>\n
acknowledged by several recent authorities that there is no such obligation.<\/p>\n
An olive measures 4-6cc. How did it arise that virtually all halachic authorities are ruling<\/p>\n
that a kezayis is at the very least 17cc, and most are ruling that it is in the region of 28cc or<\/p>\n
even 50cc and more? We have seen that a combination of seven factors was involved:<\/p>\n
\uf0b7 As some of them explicitly admit, the Rishonim of Ashkenaz were working with the<\/p>\n
basic disability of not being familiar with olives. In one case this led to mistakenly<\/p>\n
63 Shiurei Torah pp. 182-184.<\/p>\n
64 Shiurei Torah, 1:1, pp. 71-72. In a subsequent work, Shiurei Tziyon p. 18, he himself expressed reservations<\/p>\n
about his innovation.<\/p>\n
65 R. Avraham Yeshaya Karelitz, Chazon Ish, Orach Chaim 39:17; R. Tzvi Pesach Frank, Chag Ha-Asif p. 316;<\/p>\n
R. BenZion Abba-Shaul, Responsa Ohr LeTziyon p. 124; R. Ovadiah Yosef, Chazon Ovadiah, vol. II p. 518.<\/p>\n
22<\/p>\n
interpreting the Talmud to mean that an olive is half the size of an egg, and in<\/p>\n
another case, it led to only being able to calculate an upper limit for an olive\u2019s<\/p>\n
possible size.<\/p>\n
\uf0b7 The Rishonim of Sefarad, who were familiar with olives, never saw a need to discuss<\/p>\n
their size. Their silence on the matter led to a fundamentally misleading situation:<\/p>\n
from the discussion in the period of the Rishonim, the impression arises that there is<\/p>\n
a divide between those who rate it as measuring 1\/3 of an egg and those who rate it<\/p>\n
as \u00bd an egg. Thus it was those who were not familiar with olives, and thereby<\/p>\n
increased its size, who formed the framework for subsequent halachic discussion.<\/p>\n
\uf0b7 The view that an olive must be less than 1\/3 of an egg, which was explicit in<\/p>\n
Rabbeinu Tam and inferred from Rambam, was simplified\/misunderstood to mean<\/p>\n
that an olive is equal to slightly less than 1\/3 of an egg.<\/p>\n
\uf0b7 Difficulties with resolving various questions led to the belief that eggs and\/or olives<\/p>\n
of ancient times were vastly larger than those of today. Given the lack of scientific<\/p>\n
knowledge, the understanding of the decline of generations from a golden age, as<\/p>\n
well as the intellectual climate that was pervasive at the time, this was seen as a<\/p>\n
reasonable position.<\/p>\n
\uf0b7 The manuscripts from the Geonim stating that one need only follow the size of olives<\/p>\n
of one\u2019s era were only discovered and published relatively recently, as was also the<\/p>\n
case with the statements of Rashba and Ritva that olives are very small.<\/p>\n
\uf0b7 The substitution of measuring by weight rather than volume, initially instituted for<\/p>\n
convenience, led some to believe that matzah ought to be measured this way. Since<\/p>\n
matzah is very lightweight, this resulted in a huge increase in volume.<\/p>\n
\uf0b7 Finally, the process of halachic tradition, with its canonization and conservatism,<\/p>\n
meant that even when the above factors came to light, it was too late for the rulings<\/p>\n
to be adjusted.<\/p>\n
Those who have attempted to prove that a kezayis is the size of a regular olive have<\/p>\n
encountered strong opposition. Understanding how the alternate views arose is the key to<\/p>\n
both understanding the cause of this opposition and to overcoming it.<\/p>\n
______________________<\/p>\n
Rabbi Natan Slifkin teaches at Yeshivat Lev HaTorah and is the author of numerous books<\/p>\n
and articles. His work can be found at www.zootorah.com and www.rationalistjudaism.com.<\/p>\n
23<\/p>\n
Bibliography<\/p>\n
\u05d0\u05dc\u05d1\u05e7, \u05e9\u05dc\u05d5\u05dd \u05d1\u05df \u05d9\u05d7\u05d6\u05e7\u05d0\u05dc. \u05e1\u05e4\u05e8 \u05d4\u05d0\u05e9\u05db\u05d5\u05dc (\u05d5\u05e8\u05e9\u05d4 \u05ea\u05e8\u05e6”\u05d0).<\/p>\n
\u05d1\u05e0\u05d9\u05e9, \u05d7\u05d9\u05d9\u05dd. “\u05e9\u05d9\u05e2\u05d5\u05e8 \u05db\u05d6\u05d9\u05ea – \u05d1\u05d9\u05d0\u05d5\u05e8 \u05d3\u05e2\u05ea \u05d4\u05e8\u05d0\u05e9\u05d5\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd \u05d5\u05d4\u05d0\u05d7\u05e8\u05d5\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd,” \u05e7\u05d5\u05d1\u05e5 \u05d1\u05d9\u05ea \u05d0\u05d4\u05e8\u05d5\u05df \u05d5\u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc \u05d1 (\u05db\u05e1\u05dc\u05d5-\u05d8\u05d1\u05ea<\/p>\n
\u05ea\u05e9\u05e0”\u05d3).<\/p>\n
\u05d1\u05e0\u05d9\u05e9, \u05d7\u05d9\u05d9\u05dd. \u05de\u05d3\u05d5\u05ea \u05d5\u05e9\u05d9\u05e2\u05d5\u05e8\u05d9 \u05ea\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4 (\u05d1\u05e0\u05d9 \u05d1\u05e8\u05e7 \u05ea\u05e9”\u05e1).<\/p>\n
. \u05d2\u05d9\u05dc\u05ea \u05d9\u05e6\u05d7\u05e7 \u05d3. “\u05e4\u05e8\u05e7\u05d9\u05dd \u05d4\u05d4\u05e9\u05ea\u05dc\u05e9\u05dc\u05d5\u05ea \u05d4\u05d4\u05dc\u05db\u05d4,” \u05d1\u05e8-\u05d0\u05d9\u05dc\u05df (\u05ea\u05e9\u05e0”\u05d1) \u05e2\u05de’ 63-71<\/p>\n
. \u05d2\u05e8\u05d9\u05e0\u05e4\u05d9\u05dc\u05d3, \u05d0\u05d1\u05e8\u05d4\u05dd. “\u05d4\u05e7\u05e9\u05e8 \u05d1\u05d9\u05df \u05e9\u05d9\u05e2\u05d5\u05e8\u05d9 \u05db\u05d6\u05d9\u05ea \u05d5\u05db\u05d1\u05d9\u05e6\u05d4” \u05ea\u05d7\u05d5\u05de\u05d9\u05df \u05d9\u05d3 (\u05ea\u05e9\u05e0”\u05d3) 411-396<\/p>\n
. \u2014. “\u05d4\u05d0\u05de\u05e0\u05dd \u05e0\u05ea\u05e7\u05d8\u05df \u05e0\u05e4\u05d7 \u05d4\u05d1\u05d9\u05e6\u05d4 \u05d1\u05de\u05e9\u05da \u05d0\u05dc\u05e4\u05d9 \u05d4\u05e9\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd \u05de\u05d6\u05de\u05df \u05de\u05ea\u05df \u05ea\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4?” \u05d1\u05d3”\u05d3 16 (\u05ea\u05de\u05d5\u05d6 \u05ea\u05e9\u05e1”\u05d4) \u05e2\u05de’ 91-94<\/p>\n
\u2014. “\u05de\u05d3\u05d4 \u05db\u05e0\u05d2\u05d3 \u05de\u05d3\u05d4”, \u05de\u05d5\u05e8\u05d9\u05d4 \u05d9 (\u05ea\u05e9\u05de”\u05d1).<\/p>\n
. \u2014. “\u05e2\u05dc \u05e9\u05d9\u05e2\u05d5\u05e8 \u05d4\u05d1\u05d9\u05e6\u05d4” \u05d4\u05de\u05e2\u05d9\u05df \u05db\u05e8\u05da \u05dc\u05d4 \u05d2\u05dc’ \u05d1 (\u05d8\u05d1\u05ea \u05ea\u05e9\u05e0”\u05d4) \u05e2\u05de’ 60-70<\/p>\n
\u05d5\u05d9\u05d9\u05e1, \u05d9\u05e2\u05e7\u05d1 \u05d2\u05e8\u05e9\u05d5\u05df \u05d1\u05df \u05d7\u05d9\u05d9\u05dd. \u05de\u05d3\u05d5\u05ea \u05d5\u05de\u05e9\u05e7\u05dc\u05d5\u05ea \u05e9\u05dc \u05d4\u05ea\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4 (\u05d9\u05e8\u05d5\u05e9\u05dc\u05d9\u05dd \u05ea\u05e9\u05de”\u05d4).<\/p>\n
\u05d6\u05d9\u05dc\u05d1\u05e8\u05d2, \u05de\u05e9\u05d4. \u05db\u05da \u05d3\u05e8\u05db\u05d5 \u05e9\u05dc \u05ea\u05dc\u05de\u05d5\u05d3 (\u05d9\u05e8\u05d5\u05e9\u05dc\u05d9\u05dd \u05ea\u05e9\u05db”\u05d1).<\/p>\n
. \u05db\u05d4\u05df \u05d7\u05d9\u05d9\u05dd “\u05e2\u05dc \u05d4\u05de\u05d9\u05d3\u05d5\u05ea \u05d5\u05d4\u05e9\u05d9\u05e2\u05d5\u05e8\u05d9\u05df”, \u05e9\u05e0\u05ea\u05d5\u05df \u05d4\u05de\u05e9\u05e4\u05d8 \u05d4\u05e2\u05d1\u05e8\u05d9 \u05d2-\u05d3 (\u05ea\u05e9\u05dc”\u05d5-\u05ea\u05e9\u05dc”\u05d6), 223-232<\/p>\n
\u05db\u05d4\u05e0\u05d0, \u05e7\u05dc\u05de\u05df. “\u05dc\u05d0 \u05d6\u05d5 \u05d4\u05de\u05d9\u05d3\u05d4”, \u05de\u05d5\u05e8\u05d9\u05d4 \u05e1\u05d8 (\u05e9\u05e0\u05d4 \u05d9\u05d0 \u05d7\u05d5\u05d1’ \u05d9\u05d0-\u05d9\u05d1 \u05d7\u05e9\u05d5\u05df \u05ea\u05e9\u05de”\u05d2) \u05e2\u05de’ \u05e1\u05d6-\u05e2\u05d3.<\/p>\n
. \u05db\u05e1\u05dc\u05d5, \u05de\u05e8\u05d3\u05db\u05d9. “\u05db\u05d6\u05d9\u05ea – \u05e4\u05e8\u05d9 \u05d4\u05d6\u05d9\u05ea \u05db\u05de\u05d9\u05d3\u05ea \u05e0\u05e4\u05d7”, \u05ea\u05d7\u05d5\u05de\u05d9\u05df \u05d9 (\u05ea\u05e9\u05de”\u05d8) \u05e2\u05de’ 427-437<\/p>\n
. \u2014. “\u05d4\u05db\u05dc \u05dc\u05e4\u05d9 \u05d3\u05e2\u05ea\u05d5 \u05e9\u05dc \u05e8\u05d5\u05d0\u05d4 \u2013 \u05d4\u05e2\u05e8\u05db\u05d4 \u05de\u05d7\u05d5\u05d3\u05e9\u05ea \u05e9\u05dc \u05e9\u05d9\u05e2\u05d5\u05e8 \u05db\u05d6\u05d9\u05ea”, \u05d1\u05d3”\u05d3 16 (\u05ea\u05de\u05d5\u05d6 \u05ea\u05e9\u05e1”\u05d4) \u05e2\u05de’ 77-90<\/p>\n
\u05db\u05e1\u05dc\u05d5, \u05de\u05e8\u05d3\u05db\u05d9, \u05d9\u05d5\u05e0\u05d9\u05ea \u05ea\u05d1\u05e7 \u05d5\u05d0\u05d5\u05e8\u05d9\u05ea \u05e9\u05de\u05d7\u05d5\u05e0\u05d9 \u2013 “\u05dc\u05d6\u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d9 \u05e9\u05de\u05d5\u05ea\u05d9\u05d4\u05dd \u05e9\u05dc \u05d6\u05e0\u05d9 \u05e4\u05bc \u05e8\u05b5\u05d5\u05ea \u05d1\u05dc\u05e9\u05d5\u05df \u05d7\u05db\u05de\u05d9\u05dd,” \u05dc\u05e9\u05d5\u05e0\u05e0\u05d5 69 – \u05d7\u05d5\u05d1\u05e8\u05ea<\/p>\n
\u05d2-\u05d3 (\u05ea\u05e9\u05e1”\u05d6).<\/p>\n
\u05de\u05de\u05ea, \u05d9\u05d3\u05d9\u05d3\u05d9\u05d4. “\u05e4\u05d9\u05e8\u05d5\u05e9 \u05e8\u05d5\u05d7\u05d1 \u05d0\u05d2\u05d5\u05d3\u05dc”, \u05de\u05d5\u05e8\u05d9\u05d4, (\u05e9\u05e0\u05d4 \u05d9\u05d0 \u05d7\u05d5\u05d1’ \u05d9\u05d0-\u05d9\u05d1 \u05d7\u05e9\u05d5\u05df \u05ea\u05e9\u05de”\u05d2) \u05e2\u05de’ \u05e2\u05d4-\u05e2\u05d7.<\/p>\n
\u05de\u05e8\u05d2\u05d5\u05dc\u05d9\u05df, \u05d4\u05d3\u05e8 \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d3\u05d4. “\u05d1\u05d9\u05e8\u05d5\u05e8 \u05e9\u05d9\u05d8\u05ea \u05d4\u05d7\u05d6\u05d5”\u05d0 \u05d1\u05e9\u05d9\u05e2\u05d5\u05e8 \u05db\u05d6\u05d9\u05ea”, \u05de\u05d5\u05e8\u05d9\u05d4 \u05e7\u05d6 (\u05e9\u05e0\u05d4 \u05d9\u05d8 \u05d7\u05d1’ \u05d2-\u05d3 \u05d0\u05dc\u05d5\u05dc \u05ea\u05e9\u05e0”\u05d2) \u05e2\u05de’ \u05e6\u05d8-<\/p>\n
\u05e7\u05d2.<\/p>\n
\u2014. “\u05e9\u05d9\u05e2\u05d5\u05e8 \u05d4\u05db\u05d6\u05d9\u05ea \u05d5\u05d4\u05e8\u05d1\u05d9\u05e2\u05d9\u05ea \u05d1\u05d9\u05d7\u05e1 \u05dc\u05de\u05de\u05e6\u05d0\u05d9\u05dd”, \u05de\u05d5\u05e8\u05d9\u05d4 (\u05e9\u05e0\u05d4 \u05db\u05d0 \u05d7\u05d5\u05d1’ \u05d2-\u05d3 \u05d8\u05d1\u05ea \u05ea\u05e9\u05e0”\u05d6) \u05e2\u05de’ \u05e4-\u05e6\u05d1.<\/p>\n
\u05e0\u05d0\u05d4, \u05d7\u05d9\u05d9\u05dd. \u05e9\u05d9\u05e2\u05d5\u05e8\u05d9 \u05ea\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4 (\u05d9\u05e8\u05d5\u05e9\u05dc\u05d9\u05dd \u05ea\u05e9”\u05d6).<\/p>\n
\u05e1\u05d5\u05e4\u05e8, \u05d9\u05e2\u05e7\u05d1 \u05d7\u05d9\u05d9\u05dd. \u05db\u05e3 \u05d4\u05d7\u05d9\u05d9\u05dd (\u05d9\u05e8\u05d5\u05e9\u05dc\u05d9\u05dd \u05ea\u05e8\u05e1”\u05d4).<\/p>\n
\u05e4\u05d8\u05e8\u05d5\u05d1\u05e8, \u05de\u05e9\u05d4. “\u05e9\u05d9\u05e2\u05d5\u05e8 \u05db\u05d6\u05d9\u05ea \u05d0\u05db\u05d9\u05dc\u05ea \u05de\u05e6\u05d4 – \u05d1\u05d9\u05d0\u05d5\u05e8 \u05e9\u05d9\u05d8\u05ea \u05d4\u05d7\u05d6\u05d5”\u05d0”, \u05de\u05d5\u05e8\u05d9\u05d4 \u05e7\u05d8 (\u05e9\u05e0\u05d4 \u05d9\u05d8 \u05d7\u05d5\u05d1’ \u05d6-\u05d8 \u05e0\u05d9\u05e1\u05df \u05ea\u05e9\u05e0”\u05d3)<\/p>\n
\u05e2\u05de’ \u05e8\u05db\u05d2-\u05e8\u05db\u05d4.<\/p>\n
\u05e4\u05dc\u05d9\u05e7\u05e1, \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d3\u05d4. \u05db\u05dc\u05d0\u05d9 \u05d6\u05e8\u05e2\u05d9\u05dd \u05d5\u05d4\u05e8\u05db\u05d1\u05d4 (\u05ea\u05dc-\u05d0\u05d1\u05d9\u05d1 \u05ea\u05e9\u05db”\u05d6).<\/p>\n
\u05e7\u05d5\u05d8\u05e7\u05d5\u05d1\u05e1\u05e7\u05d9, \u05d9\u05d5\u05e1\u05e3 \u05d1\u05df \u05d6\u05d0\u05d1 \u05d4\u05dc\u05d5\u05d9. \u05d3\u05e8\u05db\u05d9 \u05d4\u05d7\u05d9\u05d9\u05dd (\u05e4\u05d9\u05d5\u05d8\u05e8\u05e7\u05d5\u05d1 \u05ea\u05e8\u05de”\u05d3).<\/p>\n
.( \u05e7\u05d5\u05e4\u05dc, \u05de\u05e9\u05d4. “\u05e9\u05d9\u05e2\u05e8\u05d5 \u05d7\u05db\u05de\u05d9\u05dd,” \u05d4\u05d2\u05d9\u05d5\u05df \u05d4 ( 55-62<\/p>\n
\u05e7\u05e0\u05d9\u05d9\u05d1\u05e1\u05e7\u05d9, \u05d9\u05e2\u05e7\u05d1 \u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc. \u05e9\u05d9\u05e2\u05d5\u05e8\u05d9\u05df \u05e9\u05dc \u05ea\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4 (\u05d1\u05e0\u05d9 \u05d1\u05e8\u05e7 \u05ea\u05e9”\u05e0).<\/p>\n
\u2014. \u05e7\u05d4\u05d9\u05dc\u05ea \u05d9\u05e2\u05e7\u05d1 (\u05d1\u05e0\u05d9 \u05d1\u05e8\u05e7 \u05ea\u05e9”\u05df).<\/p>\n
\u05e7\u05e6\u05e0\u05dc\u05d1\u05d5\u05d2\u05df, \u05d0\u05d1\u05e8\u05d4\u05dd \u05e6\u05d1\u05d9. \u05e1\u05d3\u05e8 \u05e9\u05e2\u05e8\u05d9 \u05d4\u05e8\u05d7\u05de\u05d9\u05dd (\u05d5\u05d5\u05d9\u05dc\u05e0\u05d0 \u05ea\u05e8\u05dc”\u05d0).<\/p>\n
24<\/p>\n
Adamson, Melitta Weiss. Food in Medieval Times (Greenwood Press 2004).<\/p>\n
Adkins, Lesley and Adkins, Roy A. Handbook to Life in Ancient Rome (Oxford University Press<\/p>\n
1998).<\/p>\n
Ayto, John. The Glutton\u2019s Glossary: A Dictionary of Food and Drink Terms (Routledge 1991).<\/p>\n
Bodner, Pinchos. The Halachos of K\u2019zayis (Jerusalem: Feldheim 2001).<\/p>\n
Bump, Gardiner. Red Junglefowl and Kalij Pheasants (U.S. Fish & Wildlife, Washington, DC, Special<\/p>\n
Scientific Report 62, 1962).<\/p>\n
Friedman, Menachem. \u201cThe Lost Kiddush Cup: Changes in Ashkenazi Haredi Culture – A Tradition<\/p>\n
in Crisis,\u201d in Jack Wertheimer, ed., The Uses of Tradition: Jewish Continuity in the Modern Era,<\/p>\n
(New York: JTS\/Harvar8d University Press 1992), pp. 175-186.<\/p>\n
Heidemann, Stefan. \u201cThe Merger of Two Currency Zones in Early Islam. The Byzantine and<\/p>\n
Sasanian Impact on the Circulation in Former Byzantine Syria and Northern Mesopotamia,\u201d<\/p>\n
Iran 36 (1998) pp. 95-112.<\/p>\n
Jennison, George. Animals for Show and Pleasure in Ancient Rome (Manchester University Press<\/p>\n
1937), p. 106, citing Pliny, Varro and Columella.<\/p>\n
Kellner, Menachem. Maimonides on the Decline of Generations (New York: State University of New<\/p>\n
York Press 1996).<\/p>\n
Narushin, V.G. \u201cEgg Geometry Calculation Using the Measurements of Length and Breadth,\u201d<\/p>\n
Poultry Science 84:3 (March 2005) pp. 482-484.<\/p>\n
Slifkin, Natan. Sacred Monsters. (Jerusalem\/New York: Zoo Torah\/Yashar Books 2007).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The EVOLUTION\u00a0of the OLIVE The Halachic History of the Expanding Kezayis Rabbi Natan Slifkin Copyright \u00a9 2010 by Natan Slifkin Version 1.1 http:\/\/www.ZooTorah.com http:\/\/www.RationalistJudaism.com This essay was written as part of the course requirements for a Master\u2019s Degree in Jewish Studies at the Lander Institute (Jerusalem). This document may be freely distributed as long as […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-357","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.dovweinstock.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/357","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.dovweinstock.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.dovweinstock.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.dovweinstock.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.dovweinstock.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=357"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.dovweinstock.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/357\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":358,"href":"https:\/\/www.dovweinstock.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/357\/revisions\/358"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.dovweinstock.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=357"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}