We continue with chapter 8 of Tractate Terumos, mishnah 6, on the subject of snake venom. The mishnah deals with fruits and vegetables in which tooth marks were found, and the concern is that a snake may have bitten them. If there is moisture inside the fruit or vegetable, we are concerned that the venom spread throughout it, and the entire fruit or vegetable becomes forbidden on that account.
The fruits and vegetables discussed in the mishnah:
Figs.
Grapes.
Kishuim (cucumbers).
Gourds.
Watermelons and varieties of melon.
In all of these, if a puncture or a bite mark is found on them, they are forbidden, "afilu hen kikar" - even if they are the size of a kikar. The kikar is the largest weight in use in the days of the mishnah, about sixty maneh - roughly sixty pounds, and perhaps a bit more, sixty-four. In other words, even if we are dealing with a fruit of enormous size.
An alternative version cited by the Tosafos Yom Tov:
The Tosafos Yom Tov points out a difficulty in the wording: after the mishnah has said "afilu hen kikar," meaning even if they are especially large, why does it go on to say "echad gadol ve'echad katan" - whether large or small? Because of this redundancy he brings a possible alternative version: instead of "afilu hen kikar" - "afilu hen bichli," meaning that even if they were lying inside a vessel, it makes no difference.
"Echad gadol ve'echad katan, echad talush ve'echad mechubar":
There is no difference between a large fruit and a small one, and no difference between a fruit or vegetable that has been detached from the ground and one still attached to the ground. The determining rule is "kol sheyesh bo leichah - assur" - anything that contains moisture is forbidden: a food that is moist on the inside allows the venom to spread throughout it, by a kind of capillary action, and therefore all of it becomes forbidden.
With a dry item, by contrast, there is no such concern. If bite marks were found in a sack of rice, for example, one may remove only the portion where the bite marks are found, and we are not concerned that the venom spread through the entire sack. But in a cucumber, whose interior is moist, the concern is that if venom entered it, the venom will spread through the whole cucumber.
"Neshuchas nachash":
The mishnah continues with a related matter: an animal that was bitten by a snake. Suppose a cow was bitten, and technically it did not become a tereifah, and afterward it was slaughtered properly. It turns out that there is no tereifah here and no neveilah here, since there was a valid slaughtering, and seemingly its meat would be permitted to eat. Even so, this animal remains forbidden, because the concern is that the snake's venom is still present inside it, in its flesh, and one who eats from it is liable, Heaven forbid, to be harmed.
Here again we see the same principle: something that contains a source of danger is treated with even greater stringency than something that is forbidden by halachah under ordinary circumstances, by a general prohibition.