Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Weaver's avatar

This is so silly - the whole "eggs were larger back" idea is a THEORY put forward to resolve a contradiction in kezayis measurements by ONE ACHARON, the Noda Beyehuda. He didn't even claim to have any evidence for it. Everyone has latched on to it as if it was handed down from Har Sinai or something.

So maybe the Noda Beyehuda's theory is wrong - so what?! Much greater people than him have been proven wrong! It's pure sociology at this point . . .

Expand full comment
Norm's avatar

“Likewise, for us today, who have olives (along with various evidence that their size has not decreased over time), we do not need to concern ourselves with the size of eggs.”

As usual your weakest point is put in parenthesis. I read you’re monograph (still available for free on Academia.edu everyone!) and the only thing you say is that that the pit size didn’t change. Then you write this: “One could claim that the flesh-to-pit ratio used to be greater, but this is unlikely, and should not be accepted without good reason.” Ok- If you say so. In the footnote you say “The Talmud (Sotah 48a) does state that since the destruction of the Temple, the shuman of olives was reduced. However, this is never brought up by any Rishon or Acharon in their halachic discussions; perhaps it refers to the nutritional benefit rather than the size of the flesh.” Wow! Now I’m really convinced.

The fact is you have not proven in any meaningful way why it’s “unlikely to say” that the flesh sizes changed. More importantly an olive grower will tell you that the same strain of olive can be grown to different sizes (with the same pit size) depending on the intended use.

What I really don’t understand is if you believe in Halachic Canonization (not just when its convenient) then why hasn’t the larger olive been canonized in and the smaller olive canonized out, at least for Ashkenazim? Do you still believe in canonization?

Expand full comment
27 more comments...

No posts