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 . . .
It doesn't rise to the level of theory. It is a bald assertion put forward without evidence to support a preconceived conclusion. If evidence and truth were important it would have been abandoned centuries ago.
The Noda' BiYhudoh bases his claim on the 'inyon of yeridas hadoros and extrapolates from this (see Norm's reference to R' Dr. Slifkin's monograph on olives and its citation of Sotah, which may serve as the basis for such an argument)
“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?
You have exactly two "proofs" - the 1 cited above and the 2nd is the existence of ancient fruit-bearing trees, and you say it is exceedingly unlikely from a botanical perspective to claim that a 3,000-year old tree produces smaller fruit than a young tree. Very scientific! Common sense and basic botanical knowledge would argue the opposite. Even with young trees you typically get more olives as the tree gets older, not bigger olives.
We have ample real world evidence including the eggs of Red Jungle Fowl, the wild ancestors of chickens. You are not interested in the truth, simply defending a closed world view which requires rejection of any inconvenient fact in favor of the comfort of the familiar.
We have ancient olives with their flesh - they are the same size as today. The beis hamikdash is irrelevant - R. Yochanan lived after the Beis Hamikdash and the Gemara assumes that a medium sized olive in his time was a kezayis for bracha acharona purposes.
Olives with their flesh from 1300-1500 years ago were discovered in a shipwreck off the coast of Israel. They had been preserved in sea water and some are still edible! These olives are from the Nabali and Suri varieties commonly found in Israel, and they are the same size as contemporary olives. See here:
Don't confuse cultural habits with "Halachic Canonization". There have always been an elite level of rabbonim who never accepted it (Reb Chaim Volozhin, the Chazon Ish, The Steipler, etc.), even though it caught on with the masses.
It has long been known that the red jungle fowl is the wild ancestor of domestic chickens and that domestic chickens have been bred to produce larger eggs.
It's true it has no relevance to the size of kezayit, but it has a lot of relevance for the size of a revi'it and this is an important issue too. Most frum people today try to down each of the 4 cups in one or two gulps, and if you are doing so with 150 ml then what you end up doing is more akin to hazing ritual at a frat party than anything Hazal envisioned. It's important people understand that 86 ml is the lechumrah shiur, that 75 ml is the default, and you can go down to around 60 ml in extenuating circumstances.
You claim the Ashkenazi Rishonim had no access to olives. You make a similar claim re elephants, viz, that the Rishonim never saw one. Such arguments are very tenuous. The concept of "Ashkenaz" covers tens of thousands of square miles, in diverse climates and countries. And people did travel in those days also, and also hosted other travelers. It may not have been today's Internet age, but the Medieval period (lasting hundreds of years) was very far from the walled-off world of ignorance you portray it as.
What relevance do the smaller eggs of previous doros have, when we use our contemporary eggs and olives as references for kebeitzim, login, and kezeisim ?
Given this, we need: two kezeisim matzoh (hamotzi/achilas matzoh), one kezayis morror, and potentially another kezayis of each for koreich.
The better question to ask is what to do when the average olive and egg have grown gargantuan, due to modern breeding and horticultural preferences ? That won't be a fun seder
Was wondering, after seeing your elephant egg there as to what egg Chazal are even referring to. While they had chickens, pigeons were also very common. Also, egg size is apparently Sinaitic, where do we get the assumption that it's chicken eggs, whatever their size was. No , I'm not trying to push in elephant bird eggs (!) just wondering
לא יהיה בכיסך זית וזית גדולה וקטנה. לא יהיה לך בביתך ביצה וביצה גדולה וקטנה. זית שלמה וצדק יהיה לך ביצה שלמה וצדק יהיה לך למען יאריכו ימיך על האדמה אשר ה אלהיך נותן לך. כי תועבת ה כל עושה אלה כל עושה עול.
In one of your Kezayit blogposts a few years ago, I asked how these size reevaluations affect beitzah measurements. I don't believe I ever received a reply.
Now, what's the real minimal amount of dough that's obligated in Mitzvat Hafrashat Challah - with a bracha?
Thanks to several rabbis, including Rabbi Slifkin, we switched over to real olive sizes several years ago, starting at that year's Seder. To quote Maxwell Smart: "... and loving it!"
Love that dig at the beginning - the frum press. Of course, the Jewish Press is hardly representative of the 'frum press', and it is certainly no source to what is happening in the Halachic world.
The Halachic world is slightly more progressive and advanced than the academic one, and they have figured out how pointless archaeology is.
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 . . .
It doesn't rise to the level of theory. It is a bald assertion put forward without evidence to support a preconceived conclusion. If evidence and truth were important it would have been abandoned centuries ago.
I think the real problem stems form the fact that the Mishna Berura wrote that the Noda BeYehuda "proved" his theory.
The Noda' BiYhudoh bases his claim on the 'inyon of yeridas hadoros and extrapolates from this (see Norm's reference to R' Dr. Slifkin's monograph on olives and its citation of Sotah, which may serve as the basis for such an argument)
“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?
Yes, I do believe in canonization (which is why you can kill lice on Shabbos). But this was never canonized.
And I have indeed proved why it is extremely difficult to claim that the flesh to pit ratio claimed.
I just showed how you didn't prove anything. I quoted exactly what you wrote
You ignored all the other material in my monograph which shows that olives were always the same size!
You have exactly two "proofs" - the 1 cited above and the 2nd is the existence of ancient fruit-bearing trees, and you say it is exceedingly unlikely from a botanical perspective to claim that a 3,000-year old tree produces smaller fruit than a young tree. Very scientific! Common sense and basic botanical knowledge would argue the opposite. Even with young trees you typically get more olives as the tree gets older, not bigger olives.
No, I also have testimony from Rishonim that the olives were the same size as today. And there is no reason whatsoever to think that they were wrong.
We have ample real world evidence including the eggs of Red Jungle Fowl, the wild ancestors of chickens. You are not interested in the truth, simply defending a closed world view which requires rejection of any inconvenient fact in favor of the comfort of the familiar.
Where do you draw the line?
We have ancient olives with their flesh - they are the same size as today. The beis hamikdash is irrelevant - R. Yochanan lived after the Beis Hamikdash and the Gemara assumes that a medium sized olive in his time was a kezayis for bracha acharona purposes.
Olives with their flesh from 1300-1500 years ago were discovered in a shipwreck off the coast of Israel. They had been preserved in sea water and some are still edible! These olives are from the Nabali and Suri varieties commonly found in Israel, and they are the same size as contemporary olives. See here:
https://forum.otzar.org/download/file.php?id=73343&sid=d267591ba51be9aacd26dc740ba057b7
See here for more details regarding the shipwreck and its discovery:
https://forum.otzar.org/download/file.php?id=73342&sid=d267591ba51be9aacd26dc740ba057b7
Don't confuse cultural habits with "Halachic Canonization". There have always been an elite level of rabbonim who never accepted it (Reb Chaim Volozhin, the Chazon Ish, The Steipler, etc.), even though it caught on with the masses.
When I saw that first picture, I thought for sure this was a day-early April Fool's post
It has long been known that the red jungle fowl is the wild ancestor of domestic chickens and that domestic chickens have been bred to produce larger eggs.
https://besgroup.org/2011/03/06/eggs-of-the-red-junglefowl/
It's true it has no relevance to the size of kezayit, but it has a lot of relevance for the size of a revi'it and this is an important issue too. Most frum people today try to down each of the 4 cups in one or two gulps, and if you are doing so with 150 ml then what you end up doing is more akin to hazing ritual at a frat party than anything Hazal envisioned. It's important people understand that 86 ml is the lechumrah shiur, that 75 ml is the default, and you can go down to around 60 ml in extenuating circumstances.
You claim the Ashkenazi Rishonim had no access to olives. You make a similar claim re elephants, viz, that the Rishonim never saw one. Such arguments are very tenuous. The concept of "Ashkenaz" covers tens of thousands of square miles, in diverse climates and countries. And people did travel in those days also, and also hosted other travelers. It may not have been today's Internet age, but the Medieval period (lasting hundreds of years) was very far from the walled-off world of ignorance you portray it as.
Yes... and the Ashkenaz rishonim who DID travel, noted that the kezayis was much smaller than people in Ashkenaz believed!
I never read monograms of more than three letters.
Which explains a lot. Start reading.
What relevance do the smaller eggs of previous doros have, when we use our contemporary eggs and olives as references for kebeitzim, login, and kezeisim ?
Given this, we need: two kezeisim matzoh (hamotzi/achilas matzoh), one kezayis morror, and potentially another kezayis of each for koreich.
The better question to ask is what to do when the average olive and egg have grown gargantuan, due to modern breeding and horticultural preferences ? That won't be a fun seder
Was wondering, after seeing your elephant egg there as to what egg Chazal are even referring to. While they had chickens, pigeons were also very common. Also, egg size is apparently Sinaitic, where do we get the assumption that it's chicken eggs, whatever their size was. No , I'm not trying to push in elephant bird eggs (!) just wondering
לא יהיה בכיסך זית וזית גדולה וקטנה. לא יהיה לך בביתך ביצה וביצה גדולה וקטנה. זית שלמה וצדק יהיה לך ביצה שלמה וצדק יהיה לך למען יאריכו ימיך על האדמה אשר ה אלהיך נותן לך. כי תועבת ה כל עושה אלה כל עושה עול.
In one of your Kezayit blogposts a few years ago, I asked how these size reevaluations affect beitzah measurements. I don't believe I ever received a reply.
Now, what's the real minimal amount of dough that's obligated in Mitzvat Hafrashat Challah - with a bracha?
Thanks to several rabbis, including Rabbi Slifkin, we switched over to real olive sizes several years ago, starting at that year's Seder. To quote Maxwell Smart: "... and loving it!"
Love that dig at the beginning - the frum press. Of course, the Jewish Press is hardly representative of the 'frum press', and it is certainly no source to what is happening in the Halachic world.
The Halachic world is slightly more progressive and advanced than the academic one, and they have figured out how pointless archaeology is.
Just like the antivax crowd is more progressive and advanced and figured out how pointless medicine is.