Menachot 23b

רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בָּתַר חֲזוּתָא אָזֵיל, וְאִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי מִין בְּמִינוֹ הוּא.

Rabbi Yehuda follows the appearance of the item in determining whether the two items are the same type of substance. And therefore, this meat of a slaughtered animal and that meat of an unslaughtered carcass are viewed as a substance in contact with the same type of substance, since their appearances are identical, and neither one nullifies the other.

אֶלָּא, אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי חִיָּיא, דְּתָנֵי רַבִּי חִיָּיא: נְבֵילָה וּשְׁחוּטָה בְּטֵילוֹת זוֹ בָּזוֹ.

Rather, it must be explained that the opinions of Rav Ḥisda and Rabbi Ḥanina are in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ḥiyya. As Rabbi Ḥiyya teaches: The meat of an unslaughtered animal carcass and the meat of a slaughtered animal are nullified one in the other. Rav Ḥisda understands this statement to mean that the meat of an animal carcass is nullified in a larger quantity of meat of a slaughtered animal, whereas Rabbi Ḥanina understands the statement to be referring to meat of a slaughtered animal that is nullified in a larger quantity of meat of an unslaughtered animal carcass.

רַבִּי חִיָּיא אַלִּיבָּא דְּמַאן? אִי אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבָּנַן – הָא אָמְרִי: עוֹלִין הוּא דְּלָא מְבַטְּלִי אַהֲדָדֵי, הָא מִין בְּמִינוֹ בָּטֵיל! וְאִי אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה – כׇּל מִין בְּמִינוֹ לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה לֹא בָּטֵיל!

The Gemara asks: But then in accordance with whose opinion did Rabbi Ḥiyya himself state his opinion? If his opinion is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, that is difficult: Didn’t the Rabbis say that it is in the case of a mixture of items that ascend to the altar that the different components of the mixture do not nullify one another, but in general, a substance in contact with the same type of substance is nullified? And if his statement is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, that is difficult: According to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda any substance in contact with the same type of substance is not nullified.

לְעוֹלָם אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, וְכִי קָא אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: מִין בְּמִינוֹ לֹא בָּטֵל – הָנֵי מִילֵּי הֵיכָא דְּאֶפְשָׁר לֵיהּ לְמִיהְוֵי כְּוָותֵיהּ, אֲבָל הֵיכָא דְּלָא אֶפְשָׁר לֵיהּ לְמִיהְוֵי כְּוָותֵיהּ – בָּטֵל.

The Gemara answers: Actually, the statement of Rabbi Ḥiyya is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, and Rabbi Ḥiyya holds that when Rabbi Yehuda says that a substance in contact with the same type of substance is not nullified, this statement applies only where it is possible for one to become like the other. But where it is not possible for one to become like the other, it is nullified, since the two are not considered the same substance.

וּבְהָא קָא מִיפַּלְגִי, דְּרַב חִסְדָּא סָבַר: בָּתַר מְבַטֵּל אָזְלִינַן.

And Rav Ḥisda and Rabbi Ḥanina disagree with regard to this, as Rav Ḥisda holds that we follow the potentially nullifying substance, i.e., the larger quantity, and if it can attain the status of the smaller quantity, the two are considered identical substances and the smaller quantity is not nullified in the larger quantity. Therefore, if meat of a slaughtered animal became mingled with a larger quantity of meat of an animal carcass, the meat of the slaughtered animal is not nullified, as it is possible for a carcass to attain the status of a slaughtered animal with regard to ritual impurity, as when a carcass rots it loses its impure status.

וְרַבִּי חֲנִינָא סָבַר: בָּתַר בָּטֵל אָזְלִינַן.

And Rabbi Ḥanina holds that we follow the potentially nullified substance, i.e., the smaller quantity, and only if it can attain the status of the larger quantity, e.g., in the case of meat of an animal carcass that was intermingled with a larger quantity of meat of a slaughtered animal, the two are considered identical substances and the smaller quantity is not nullified in the larger quantity.

תְּנַן: שְׁתֵּי מְנָחוֹת שֶׁלֹּא נִקְמְצוּ וְנִתְעָרְבוּ זוֹ בְּזוֹ, אִם יָכוֹל לִקְמוֹץ מִזּוֹ בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָהּ וּמִזּוֹ בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָהּ – כְּשֵׁרוֹת, וְאִם לָאו – פְּסוּלוֹת. וְהָא הָכָא, כֵּיוָן דְּקָמֵיץ לֵיהּ מֵחֲדָא – אִידַּךְ הֲוָה לֵיהּ שִׁירַיִם, וְלָא קָא מְבַטְּלִי שִׁירַיִם לְטִיבְלָא.

The Gemara offers support for the opinion of Rabbi Ḥanina: We learned in the mishna: In the case of two meal offerings from which a handful was not removed and which were intermingled with each other, if the priest can remove a handful from this meal offering by itself and from that meal offering by itself, they are fit meal offerings, but if not, they are unfit, as the handful of each meal offering must be taken from its original source. And here, once he removes a handful from one, the rest of it becomes the remainder, which is designated for the priests, and this remainder does not nullify the other meal offering from which a handful has not yet been removed.

מַנִּי? אִי רַבָּנַן – הָא אָמְרִי: עוֹלִין הוּא דְּלָא מְבַטְּלִי הֲדָדֵי, הָא מִין בְּמִינוֹ בָּטֵל! אֶלָּא פְּשִׁיטָא – רַבִּי יְהוּדָה.

In accordance with whose opinion is the mishna? If it is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, that is difficult: Didn’t the Rabbis say that it is in the case of a mixture of items that ascend to the altar that the different components of the mixture do not nullify one another, but in general, a substance in contact with the same type of substance is nullified? Therefore, the remainder of the first meal offering should nullify the second meal offering, as both consist of the same substances, flour and oil. Rather, it is obvious that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who holds that the meal offering is not nullified in the remainder, as any substance in contact with the same type of substance is not nullified.

בִּשְׁלָמָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר: בָּתַר בָּטֵל אָזְלִינַן, בָּטֵל הָוֵי כִּמְבַטֵּל, דִּלְכִי קָמֵיץ מֵאִידַּךְ – הָווּ לְהוּ שִׁירַיִם כִּי הָנֵי.

Now, granted, according to Rabbi Ḥanina, who is the one who says that we follow the potentially nullified substance, in the mishna’s case the potentially nullified substance can become like the potentially nullifying substance, as when the priest removes the handful from the other meal offering, the intermingled offering will become a remainder that is designated for the priests, just like that of the first meal offering. Therefore, the intermingled second meal offering is not nullified in the remainder of the first meal offering.

אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר בָּתַר מְבַטֵּל אָזְלִינַן, שִׁירַיִם מִי קָא הָווּ טִיבְלָא? לֵימָא אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַב חִסְדָּא, דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי חִיָּיא.

But according to Rav Ḥisda, who is the one who says that we follow the potentially nullifying substance, can the remainder of the first meal offering become a meal offering from which a handful has not yet been removed? Therefore, shall we say that according to Rav Ḥisda the mishna here is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ḥiyya with regard to Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion?

הָתָם, כִּדְרַבִּי זֵירָא, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: נֶאֶמְרָה הַקְטָרָה בְּקוֹמֶץ, וְנֶאֶמְרָה הַקְטָרָה בְּשִׁירַיִם.

The Gemara answers: There, the halakha of the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Zeira, as Rabbi Zeira says that the verse teaches that nullification does not take place when remainders are intermingled with handfuls. He explains: The term burning is stated with regard to the handful removed from the meal offering (see Leviticus 2:2), as it is a mitzva to burn the handful, and the term burning is stated with regard to the remainder of the meal offering (see Leviticus 2:11), as it is taught that it is prohibited to burn the remainder.

מָה הַקְטָרָה הָאֲמוּרָה בַּקּוֹמֶץ – אֵין הַקּוֹמֶץ מְבַטֵּל אֶת חֲבֵירוֹ, אַף הַקְטָרָה הָאֲמוּרָה בַּשִּׁירַיִם – אֵין שִׁירַיִם מְבַטְּלִין אֶת הַקּוֹמֶץ.

This verbal analogy teaches that just as in the case of the burning that is stated with regard to the handful, if two handfuls are mixed together one handful does not nullify the other and all agree that the two are burned on the altar, so too, in the case of the burning that is stated with regard to the remainder of the meal offering, if the remainder of one offering is intermingled with another meal offering, the remainder of the meal offering does not nullify the handful or the remainder of the second meal offering.

תָּא שְׁמַע: הַקּוֹמֶץ שֶׁנִּתְעָרֵב בְּמִנְחָה שֶׁלֹּא נִקְמְצָה – לֹא יַקְטִיר, וְאִם הִקְטִיר – זוֹ שֶׁנִּקְמְצָה עָלְתָה לַבְּעָלִים, וְזוֹ שֶׁלֹּא נִקְמְצָה לֹא עָלְתָה לַבְּעָלִים, וְלָא קָא מְבַטֵּיל לֵיהּ טִיבְלָא לְקוֹמֶץ.

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from the mishna here: In the case of the handful that was intermingled with a meal offering from which a handful was not removed, the priest should not burn the mixture on the altar, and if he burned it, this meal offering from which the handful was taken satisfied the obligation of the owner and that meal offering from which the handful was not taken did not satisfy the obligation of the owner. This is a case of a mixture of identical substances, and the meal offering from which a handful has not yet been removed does not nullify the handful, since after the fact if the mixture is burned on the altar the meal offering from which the handful was taken satisfies the obligation of the owner.

מַנִּי? אִי רַבָּנַן – הָא אָמְרִי: עוֹלִין הוּא דְּלָא מְבַטְּלִי הֲדָדֵי, הָא מִין בְּמִינוֹ בְּטִיל! אֶלָּא פְּשִׁיטָא – רַבִּי יְהוּדָה.

The Gemara explains the proof: In accordance with whose opinion is the mishna? If it is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, that is difficult: Didn’t the Rabbis say that it is in the case of a mixture of items that ascend to the altar that the different components of the mixture do not nullify one another, but in general, a substance in contact with the same type of substance is nullified? Rather, it is obvious that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who holds that any substance in contact with the same type of substance is not nullified.

בִּשְׁלָמָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר: בָּתַר מְבַטֵּל אָזְלִינַן, מְבַטֵּל הָוֵי כְּבָטֵל, דְּכֹל פּוּרְתָּא חֲזֵי לְמִקְמַץ מִינֵּיהּ, וְהָוֵי לֵיהּ מִין וּמִינוֹ, וּמִין בְּמִינוֹ לֹא בָּטֵל.

Now, granted, according to Rav Ḥisda, who is the one who says that we follow the potentially nullifying substance, in the mishna’s case the potentially nullifying substance can become like the potentially nullified substance, since every bit of the meal offering is fit to have the handful taken from it. And therefore, the mixture is considered to be one that consists of a substance in contact with the same type of substance, and a substance in contact with the same type of substance is not nullified.

אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר בָּתַר בָּטֵל אָזְלִינַן, קוֹמֶץ מִי קָא הָוֵי טִיבְלָא? לֵימָא דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי חִיָּיא? הָא נָמֵי כִּדְרַבִּי זֵירָא.

But according to Rabbi Ḥanina, who is the one who says that we follow the potentially nullified substance, can the handful become a meal offering from which a handful has not yet been removed, so that it would not be nullified by the other meal offering whose handful was not removed? Therefore, shall we say that according to Rabbi Ḥanina the mishna here is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ḥiyya with regard to Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion? The Gemara answers: This mishna as well is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Zeira, who explains that a Torah edict establishes that the remainder does not nullify the handful, and similarly, a meal offering from which a handful has not yet been removed does not nullify the handful.

תָּא שְׁמַע: נִתְעָרֵב קוּמְצָהּ בְּשִׁירַיִם שֶׁל חֲבֶרְתָּהּ – לֹא יַקְטִיר, וְאִם הִקְטִיר – עָלְתָה לַבְּעָלִים. וְהָא הָכָא דְּלָא הָוֵי מְבַטֵּל כְּבָטֵיל, וְלָא קָא מְבַטְּלִי לֵיהּ שִׁירַיִם לְקוֹמֶץ.

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from the mishna here: If, after it was removed, its handful was intermingled with the remainder of another meal offering, the priest should not burn the mixture on the altar, and if he burned it, it satisfied the obligation of the owner. The Gemara explains the proof: But here, the potentially nullifying substance cannot become like the potentially nullified substance, since the remainder of the meal offering cannot become like the handful, and the potentially nullified substance cannot become like the potentially nullifying substance, since the handful cannot become like the remainder of the meal offering; and the mishna teaches that the remainder of the meal offering does not nullify the handful.

מַנִּי? אִי רַבָּנַן וְכוּ׳.

In accordance with whose opinion is the mishna? If it is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, that is difficult: Didn’t the Rabbis say that it is in the case of a mixture of items that ascend to the altar that the different components of the mixture do not nullify one another, but in general, a substance in contact with the same type of substance is nullified? Rather, it is obvious that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who holds that any substance in contact with the same type of substance is not nullified. But in contrast to Rabbi Ḥiyya’s statement, Rabbi Yehuda apparently holds that nullification takes place even if the nullifying substance cannot become like the nullified substance, or if the nullified substance cannot become like the nullifying substance.

אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: נֶאֶמְרָה הַקְטָרָה בַּקּוֹמֶץ, וְנֶאֶמְרָה הַקְטָרָה בַּשִּׁירַיִם, מָה הַקְטָרָה הָאֲמוּרָה בַּקּוֹמֶץ – אֵין קוֹמֶץ מְבַטֵּל אֶת חֲבֵירוֹ, אַף הַקְטָרָה הָאֲמוּרָה בַּשִּׁירַיִם – אֵין שִׁירַיִם מְבַטְּלִין אֶת הַקּוֹמֶץ.

Rabbi Zeira said: This mishna is an independent halakha , based on a Torah edict that nullification does not take place when remainders are intermingled with handfuls. He explains: The term burning is stated with regard to the handful removed from the meal offering, and the term burning is stated with regard to the remainder of the meal offering. This verbal analogy teaches that just as in the case of the burning that is stated with regard to the handful, if two handfuls are mixed together one handful does not nullify the other and all agree that the two are burned on the altar, so too, in the case of the burning that is stated with regard to the remainder of the meal offering, if the remainder of one offering is intermingled with another meal offering, the remainder of the meal offering does not nullify the handful or the remainder of the second meal offering.

תָּא שְׁמַע: תִּיבְּלָהּ בְּקֶצַח, בְּשׁוּמְשְׁמִין, וּבְכׇל מִינֵי תַּבְלִין – כְּשֵׁרָה. מַצָּה הִיא, אֶלָּא שֶׁנִּקְרֵאת מַצָּה מְתוּבֶּלֶת. קָא סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ דְּאַפֵּישׁ לַהּ תַּבְלִין טְפֵי מִמַּצָּה.

The Gemara suggests another proof from a baraita ( Tosefta , Pesaḥim 2:21): Come and hear: In the case of matza that one seasoned with black cumin, with sesame, or with any type of spice, it is fit to be eaten during the festival of Passover, as it is considered matza , but it is called seasoned matza . The Gemara comments: It enters your mind to explain that this is a case where there were more spices than the matza itself.

בִּשְׁלָמָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר בָּתַר בָּטֵל אָזְלִינַן, בָּטֵיל הָוֵי כִּמְבַטֵּל, דִּלְכִי מִעַפְּשָׁא (הוי) [הָוְיָא] לַהּ כְּתַבְלִין. אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר בָּתַר מְבַטֵּל אָזְלִינַן, תַּבְלִין מִי קָא הֲווֹ מַצָּה?

Now, granted, according to Rabbi Ḥanina, who is the one who says that we follow the potentially nullified substance, in the case here the potentially nullified substance can become like the potentially nullifying substance, as when the matza becomes moldy it becomes like the spices, as it is no longer fit to be used to fulfill the mitzva of eating matza . Therefore, the smaller quantity of matza is not nullified by the larger quantity of spices. But according to Rav Ḥisda, who is the one who says that we follow the potentially nullifying substance, can the spices become like the matza ?

הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן? דְּלָא אַפִּישׁ לַהּ תַּבְלִין, דְּרוּבַּהּ מַצָּה הִיא, וְלָא בָּטְלָה. דַּיְקָא נָמֵי, דְּקָתָנֵי: מַצָּה הִיא, אֶלָּא שֶׁנִּקְרֵאת מַצָּה מְתוּבֶּלֶת, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.

The Gemara answers: What are we dealing with here? We are dealing with a case where there are not more spices than matza , but rather the majority is matza and therefore the matza is not nullified. The Gemara notes: According to this explanation, the language of the baraita is also precise, as it teaches: It is considered matza , but it is called seasoned matza . Learn from here that the baraita is referring to an entity whose majority is matza , and therefore it is referred to as seasoned matza .

כִּי סְלֵיק רַב כָּהֲנָא, אַשְׁכְּחִינְהוּ לִבְנֵי רַבִּי חִיָּיא דְּיָתְבִי וְקָאָמְרִי: עִשָּׂרוֹן שֶׁחִלְּקוֹ

§ The Gemara relates: When Rav Kahana ascended from Babylonia to Eretz Yisrael, he found the sons of Rabbi Ḥiyya, who were sitting and saying the following: In the case of a tenth of an ephah of a meal offering that one divided