Menachot 22
Share this shiur:
This month’s learning is sponsored by Adam, Carolyn, Michal, Josh, Benny, Izzy, Gali, Shim, Zoe, Zachy and Yehuda in loving memory of Judith Rosenfeld Hochstadter, Gittel bat Kreindel v’Binyamin BenZion on her second yahrzeit. “Her curiosity, humor, intellect and devout nature continues to inspire and hold us accountable. We miss her and think of her in all our pursuits, especially in our Hadran learning, where she would be glad to know that she didn’t have to boil more than 1 egg at a time!!”
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Summary
Rav Mordechai reinstates the original interpretation of Shmuel’s limitation on the Mishna in Shekalim 7:7 – namely, that the court permitted the kohanim to use Temple salt for salting their sacrifices (for burning on the altar) but not for salting the meat of the sacrifices for consumption. This ruling of the court follows Ben Buchri’s opinion that kohanim are not obligated to pay the half-shekel (machatzit hashekel) used to fund communal items in the Temple. Since they did not contribute to the fund, one might have assumed they were ineligible to benefit from Temple salt; therefore, the court issued a specific stipulation to permit it.
The Mishna in Shekalim also mentions that the kohanim could use wood from the Temple for their private sacrifices. The source for this is derived from Vayikra 1:8, which mentions the wood “which is on the fire on the altar.” The phrase “on the altar” is considered superfluous, indicating that the wood shares the same status as the altar itself; just as the altar is built from communal property, so too the wood must be communal. This teaching establishes that individuals are not required to bring wood from their own homes for their voluntary offerings. Rabbi Elazar ben Shamua defines the altar differently positing that the altar must be built using stones that have never been used. This requirement would also preclude individuals from bringing wood from their own homes. Consequently, the Gemara asks: what is the practical difference between these two opinions? The answer is that the latter opinion requires the wood to be brand new and never previously used, whereas the former does not.
If a kometz, which contains one log of oil, is mixed with the mincha of a kohen or a mincha of libations, which contains three log of oil, there is a debate between the rabbis and Rabbi Yehuda. They disagree on whether the mixture may be burned on the altar or if the blending disqualifies both offerings. The concern is that the oil from the mincha becomes added to the kometz, potentially disqualifying both; the kometz would then contain an excessive amount of oil, while the mincha would be left with an insufficient amount.
The Gemara cites a Mishna in Zevachim 77b featuring a debate between the rabbis and Rabbi Yehuda regarding whether two similar substances (min be’mino) can nullify one another. Rabbi Yochanan explains that both parties derive their respective positions from the Yom Kippur service, during which the blood of the bull and the blood of the goat are mixed together. Despite the volume of the bull’s blood being significantly greater than that of the goat, the Torah continues to refer to the mixture as both “the blood of the bull” and “the blood of the goat”—indicating that the goat’s blood remains distinct and is not nullified. The rabbis derive a broad principle from this: items designated for the altar never nullify one another, regardless of their type. Conversely, Rabbi Yehuda derives a different principle: blood does not nullify blood because they are the same type of substance (min be’mino). The Gemara raises challenges against both derivations, and they are left unresolved.
Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion in our Mishna appears to contradict his ruling in the Mishna in Zevachim; if two similar substances (min be’mino) do not nullify each other, then the oil of the mincha should not be nullified by (or absorbed into) the kometz. Rava resolves this contradiction by explaining that this case is an exception, as it is considered a situation where one substance “adds to” the other rather than merely mixing with it.
Today’s daily daf tools:
This month’s learning is sponsored by Adam, Carolyn, Michal, Josh, Benny, Izzy, Gali, Shim, Zoe, Zachy and Yehuda in loving memory of Judith Rosenfeld Hochstadter, Gittel bat Kreindel v’Binyamin BenZion on her second yahrzeit. “Her curiosity, humor, intellect and devout nature continues to inspire and hold us accountable. We miss her and think of her in all our pursuits, especially in our Hadran learning, where she would be glad to know that she didn’t have to boil more than 1 egg at a time!!”
Today’s daf is sponsored by David and Mitzi Geffen in loving memory of David’s grandmother, Sara Hene Rabinowitz Geffen, on her 65th yahrzeit. “She and her husband Rav Tuvia Geffen, Rabbi of Sherith Israel Synagogue, brought up their eight children with love and learning. Seven of their grandchildren made Aliyah and many great grandchildren live in Israel.”
Menachot 22
כִּי זַכִּי לְהוּ רַחֲמָנָא – לְיִשְׂרָאֵל, דְּאִית לְהוּ לִשְׁכָּה. לְכֹהֲנִים, דְּלֵית לְהוּ לִשְׁכָּה – לָא זַכִּי לְהוּ רַחֲמָנָא, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
when the Merciful One granted the Jewish people the right to use the salt when eating their offerings, he granted this to Israelites, who have an obligation to donate their half-shekels to the chamber, as this fund supplies the salt that is applied to the offerings. With regard to the priests, who do not have an obligation to donate their half-shekels to the chamber, the Merciful One did not grant them the right to make use of the salt. To counter this, the mishna in tractate Shekalim teaches us that the court granted to the priests the right to use the salt when eating their offerings.
וְעֵצִים, דִּפְשִׁיטָא לֵיהּ לְתַנָּא דְּמִשֶּׁל צִיבּוּר, מְנָלַן? דְּתַנְיָא: יָכוֹל הָאוֹמֵר ״הֲרֵי עָלַי עוֹלָה״ יָבִיא עֵצִים מִתּוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ, כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁמֵּבִיא נְסָכִים מִתּוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״עַל הָעֵצִים אֲשֶׁר עַל הָאֵשׁ אֲשֶׁר עַל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ״ – מָה מִזְבֵּחַ מִשֶּׁל צִיבּוּר, אַף עֵצִים וָאֵשׁ מִשֶּׁל צִיבּוּר, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בַּר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן.
The Gemara asks: And with regard to the wood, concerning which it is obvious to the tanna of the baraita that it is brought from communal supplies, from where do we derive this halakha? The Gemara answers: As it is taught in a baraita: One might have thought that one who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a burnt offering, must bring wood from his home on which the burnt offering will be sacrificed, just as he brings libations from his home along with a burnt offering (see Numbers, chapter 15). Therefore, the verse states with regard to the burnt offering: “On the wood that is on the fire which is upon the altar” (Leviticus 1:12); the Torah juxtaposes the wood to the altar, teaching that just as the altar was built from communal funds, so too, the wood and fire are brought from communal supplies. This is the statement of Rabbi Elazar bar Rabbi Shimon.
רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן שַׁמּוּעַ אוֹמֵר: מָה מִזְבֵּחַ – שֶׁלֹּא נִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בּוֹ הֶדְיוֹט, אַף עֵצִים וָאֵשׁ – שֶׁלֹּא נִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בָּהֶן הֶדְיוֹט. מַאי בֵּינַיְיהוּ? אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ חַדְתֵי.
The baraita continues: Rabbi Elazar ben Shammua says: Just as the altar was not used by an ordinary person, as it was built for the purpose of serving as an altar for God, so too, the wood and fire should not have been used previously by an ordinary person, so one does not bring the wood from his home. The Gemara asks: What is the difference between the two opinions? The Gemara answers: The difference between the two is whether there is a requirement that the wood be new, i.e., that it had never been used. According to the opinion of Rabbi Elazar bar Rabbi Shimon, the wood is fit provided that it comes from communal supplies, even if it is not new wood, whereas according to Rabbi Elazar ben Shammua it must be new wood.
וְעַתִּיקֵי לָא? וְהָכְתִיב: ״וַיֹּאמֶר אֲרַוְנָה אֶל דָּוִד יִקַּח וְיַעַל אֲדֹנִי הַמֶּלֶךְ הַטּוֹב בְּעֵינָיו רְאֵה הַבָּקָר לָעֹלָה וְהַמֹּרִגִּים וּכְלֵי הַבָּקָר לְעֵצִים״! הָכָא נָמֵי בְּחַדְתֵי.
The Gemara asks: And is it in fact the halakha that old, i.e., previously used, wood is not fit to be burned on the altar? But isn’t it written: “And Araunah said to David: Let my lord the king take and offer up what seems good to him; behold the oxen for the burnt offering, and the threshing instruments [morigim] and the equipment of the oxen for the wood” (II Samuel 24:22)? Despite the fact that the threshing instruments and equipment of the oxen have been used previously, apparently they are fit to be used when offering a burnt offering. The Gemara answers: Here too, the verse is speaking of new instruments and equipment that had not been previously used.
מַאי ״מוֹרִיגִּים״? אָמַר עוּלָּא: מִטָּה שֶׁל טַרְבֵּל. מַאי מִטָּה שֶׁל טַרְבֵּל? אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: עִיזָּא דְּקוּרְקְסָא דְּדָשׁוּ בַּהּ דִּשְׁתָּאֵי. אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: מַאי קְרָאָה? ״הִנֵּה שַׂמְתִּיךְ לְמוֹרַג חָרוּץ חָדָשׁ בַּעַל פִּיפִיּוֹת תָּדוּשׁ הָרִים״.
Tangentially, the Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the term morigim mentioned in this verse? Ulla said: It is a turbal bed. This was not a known expression in Babylonia, so the Gemara asks: What is a turbal bed? Rav Yehuda said: It is referring to a serrated [dekurkesa] board that the threshers use for threshing, which is dragged over the grain by an animal in order to separate the kernels from the stalks. Rav Yosef said: What is the verse from which the meaning of morigim is derived? It is the verse that states: “Behold, I have made you a new threshing sledge [morag] having sharp teeth; you shall thresh the mountains” (Isaiah 41:15).
מַתְנִי׳ נִתְעָרֵב קוּמְצָהּ בְּקוֹמֶץ חֲבֶירְתָּהּ, בְּמִנְחַת כֹּהֲנִים, בְּמִנְחַת כֹּהֵן מָשִׁיחַ, בְּמִנְחַת נְסָכִים – כְּשֵׁרָה.
MISHNA: If a handful of one meal offering, which is to be burned on the altar, was intermingled with a handful of another meal offering, or with the meal offering of priests, or with the meal offering of the anointed priest, i.e., the High Priest, or with the meal offering of libations accompanying burnt offerings and peace offerings, all of which are burned in their entirety on the altar, it is fit for sacrifice, and the mixture is burned on the altar.
רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: בְּמִנְחַת כֹּהֵן מָשִׁיחַ, בְּמִנְחַת נְסָכִים – פְּסוּלָה, שֶׁזּוֹ בְּלִילָתָהּ עָבָה, וְזוֹ בְּלִילָתָהּ רַכָּה, וְהֵן בּוֹלְעוֹת זוֹ מִזּוֹ.
Rabbi Yehuda says: If the handful was intermingled with the meal offering of the anointed priest, or with the meal offering of libations, the mixture is unfit because with regard to this, the handful from the standard meal offering, its mixture is thick, one log of oil mixed with a tenth of an ephah of flour, and with regard to that, the meal offering of the anointed priest and the meal offering of libations, its mixture is loose, three log of oil mixed with a tenth of an ephah of flour. And the mixtures, which are not identical, absorb from each other, increasing the amount of oil in the handful and decreasing the amount of oil in the meal offering of the anointed priest or the meal offering of libations, thereby invalidating both.
גְּמָ׳ תְּנַן הָתָם: דָּם שֶׁנִּתְעָרֵב בְּמַיִם, אִם יֵשׁ בּוֹ מַרְאִית דָּם – כָּשֵׁר. נִתְעָרֵב בְּיַיִן – רוֹאִין אוֹתוֹ כְּאִילּוּ הוּא מַיִם. נִתְעָרֵב בְּדַם בְּהֵמָה אוֹ בְּדַם חַיָּה – רוֹאִין אוֹתוֹ כְּאִילּוּ הוּא מַיִם. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אֵין דָּם מְבַטֵּל דָּם.
GEMARA: We learned in a mishna there (Zevaḥim 77b): In the case of blood of an offering fit for sacrifice that was mixed with water, if the mixture has the appearance of blood, it is fit for presenting on the altar, even though the majority of the mixture is water. If the blood was mixed with red wine, one views the wine as though it were water. If that amount of water would leave the mixture with the appearance of blood, it is fit for presentation. Likewise, if the blood was mixed with the blood of a non-sacred domesticated animal or the blood of a non-sacred undomesticated animal, one considers the blood as though it were water. Rabbi Yehuda says: Blood does not nullify blood. Therefore, the priest presents the blood of the mixture on the altar regardless of the ratio of sacred to non-sacred blood.
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: וּשְׁנֵיהֶם מִקְרָא אֶחָד דָּרְשׁוּ, ״וְלָקַח מִדַּם הַפָּר וּמִדַּם הַשָּׂעִיר״. הַדָּבָר יָדוּעַ שֶׁדָּמוֹ שֶׁל פַּר מְרוּבֶּה מִדָּמוֹ שֶׁל שָׂעִיר. רַבָּנַן סָבְרִי:
Rabbi Yoḥanan says: And both the first tanna and Rabbi Yehuda derived their opinions from one verse. With regard to the sacrificial rites performed by the High Priest on Yom Kippur, the Torah teaches that after sprinkling of the blood of the bull and of the goat separately between the staves of the Ark and on the Curtain, the blood of the two animals is mixed together and presented on the golden altar inside the Sanctuary. The verse states: “And he shall take of the blood of the bull and of the blood of the goat and put it on the corners of the altar” (Leviticus 16:18). It is a known matter that the blood of the bull is more than the blood of a goat. Why then is the blood of the goat not nullified? Rabbi Yoḥanan explains: The Rabbis, i.e, the first tanna, hold:
מִכָּאן לָעוֹלִין שֶׁאֵין מְבַטְּלִין זֶה אֶת זֶה, וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה סָבַר: מִכָּאן לְמִין בְּמִינוֹ שֶׁאֵינוֹ בָּטֵל.
From here it is learned that with regard to a mixture of items that ascend to the altar, e.g., the blood of the bull and the goat, the different components of the mixture do not nullify one another. And Rabbi Yehuda holds: From here it is learned that any substance in contact with the same type of substance is not nullified.
רַבָּנַן סָבְרִי מִכָּאן לָעוֹלִין שֶׁאֵין מְבַטְּלִין זֶה אֶת זֶה, וְדִלְמָא מִשּׁוּם דְּמִין בְּמִינוֹ הוּא!
The Gemara examines Rabbi Yoḥanan’s explanation of the dispute between the Rabbis and Rabbi Yehuda. With regard to the first part of his explanation, that the Rabbis hold: From here it is learned that with regard to a mixture of items that ascend to the altar the different components of the mixture do not nullify one another, the Gemara suggests: But perhaps the blood of the goat is not nullified when mixed with the blood of the bull due to the fact that it is a substance in contact with the same type of substance.
אִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן מִין בְּמִינוֹ, וְלָא אַשְׁמְעִינַן עוֹלִין, כִּדְקָא אָמְרַתְּ. הַשְׁתָּא דְּאַשְׁמְעִינַן עוֹלִין, מִשּׁוּם דְּעוֹלִין.
The Gemara answers: Had the verse taught us this halakha by using an example of a substance in contact with the same type of substance, and not taught us a case of a mixture of items that ascend to the altar, the verse would be interpreted as you said. But now that the verse taught us this halakha through a case of a mixture of items that ascend to the altar, it is understood that the reason it is not nullified is due to the fact that it is part of a mixture of items that ascend to the altar, not because the substances are of the same type.
וְדִלְמָא עַד דְּאִיכָּא מִין בְּמִינוֹ וְעוֹלִין? קַשְׁיָא.
The Gemara suggests: But perhaps it is not nullified until both criteria are met, and unless the mixture is both a substance in contact with the same type of substance and a mixture of items that ascend to the altar, one nullifies the other. The Gemara concedes: This is difficult.
וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה סָבַר מִכָּאן לְמִין בְּמִינוֹ שֶׁאֵינוֹ בָּטֵל, וְדִלְמָא מִשּׁוּם דְּעוֹלִין הוּא!
With regard to the second part of Rabbi Yoḥanan’s explanation: And Rabbi Yehuda holds: From here it is learned that any substance in contact with the same type of substance is not nullified, the Gemara suggests: But perhaps the blood of the goat is not nullified when mixed with the blood of the bull due to the fact that it is a mixture of items that ascend to the altar.
אִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן עוֹלִין מִין בְּשֶׁאֵינוֹ מִינוֹ – כִּדְקָאָמְרַתְּ, הַשְׁתָּא דְּאַשְׁמְעִינַן מִין בְּמִינוֹ – מִשּׁוּם דְּמִין בְּמִינוֹ הוּא.
The Gemara answers: Had the verse taught us this halakha by using an example of a mixture of items that ascend to the altar where the substance is in contact with a different type of substance, the verse would be interpreted as you say. But now that the verse taught us this halakha in a case of a substance in contact with the same type of substance, it is understood that the reason it is not nullified is due to the fact that it is a substance in contact with the same type of substance.
וְדִילְמָא עַד דְּאִיכָּא מִין בְּמִינוֹ וְעוֹלִין? קַשְׁיָא.
The Gemara suggests: But perhaps it is not nullified until both criteria are met, and unless the mixture is both a substance in contact with the same type of substance and a mixture of items that ascend to the altar, one nullifies the other. The Gemara concedes: This is difficult.
תְּנַן: רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: בְּמִנְחַת כֹּהֲנִים, בְּמִנְחַת כֹּהֵן מָשִׁיחַ, וּבְמִנְחַת נְסָכִים – פְּסוּלָה, שֶׁזּוֹ בְּלִילָתָהּ עָבָה וְזוֹ בְּלִילָתָהּ רַכָּה, וְהֵן בּוֹלְעוֹת זוֹ מִזּוֹ. וְכִי בּוֹלְעוֹת זוֹ מִזּוֹ מָה הָוֵי? מִין בְּמִינוֹ הוּא!
The Gemara raises another objection to the explanation of Rabbi Yoḥanan: We learned in the mishna here that Rabbi Yehuda says: If the handful was intermingled with the meal offering of priests, with the meal offering of the anointed priest, or with the meal offering of libations, the mixture is unfit because with regard to this, the handful from the standard meal offering, its mixture is thick, and with regard to that, the meal offering of the anointed priest and the meal offering of libations, its mixture is loose. And the mixtures, which are not identical, absorb from each other, invalidating both. The Gemara asks: But when the mixtures absorb from each other, what of it? This is a case of a substance in contact with the same type of substance, and therefore neither oil nullifies the other and both should be sacrificed on the altar.
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
Menachot Daf 17-23- Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time
Menahot 22: They Go Together Like… Things That Go Together
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
Minneapolis, MN, United States
I learned daf more off than on 40 years ago. At the beginning of the current cycle, I decided to commit to learning daf regularly. Having Rabanit Michelle available as a learning partner has been amazing. Sometimes I learn with Hadran, sometimes with my husband, and sometimes on my own. It’s been fun to be part of an extended learning community.
Honolulu, Hawaii, United States
I started Daf during the pandemic. I listened to a number of podcasts by various Rebbeim until one day, I discovered Rabbanit Farbers podcast. Subsequently I joined the Hadran family in Eruvin. Not the easiest place to begin, Rabbanit Farber made it all understandable and fun. The online live group has bonded together and have really become a supportive, encouraging family.
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
In early 2020, I began the process of a stem cell transplant. The required extreme isolation forced me to leave work and normal life but gave me time to delve into Jewish text study. I did not feel isolated. I began Daf Yomi at the start of this cycle, with family members joining me online from my hospital room. I’ve used my newly granted time to to engage, grow and connect through this learning.
Worcester, United States
Jerusalem, Israel
Ontario, Canada
I started learning after the siyum hashas for women and my daily learning has been a constant over the last two years. It grounded me during the chaos of Corona while providing me with a community of fellow learners. The Daf can be challenging but it’s filled with life’s lessons, struggles and hope for a better world. It’s not about the destination but rather about the journey. Thank you Hadran!
אפרת, Israel
I started learning at the start of this cycle, and quickly fell in love. It has become such an important part of my day, enriching every part of my life.
Toronto, Canada
I began my journey two years ago at the beginning of this cycle of the daf yomi. It has been an incredible, challenging experience and has given me a new perspective of Torah Sh’baal Peh and the role it plays in our lives
Efrat, Israel
It happened without intent (so am I yotzei?!) – I watched the women’s siyum live and was so moved by it that the next morning, I tuned in to Rabbanit Michelle’s shiur, and here I am, still learning every day, over 2 years later. Some days it all goes over my head, but others I grasp onto an idea or a story, and I ‘get it’ and that’s the best feeling in the world. So proud to be a Hadran learner.
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
Blacksburg, United States
I started learning after the siyum hashas for women and my daily learning has been a constant over the last two years. It grounded me during the chaos of Corona while providing me with a community of fellow learners. The Daf can be challenging but it’s filled with life’s lessons, struggles and hope for a better world. It’s not about the destination but rather about the journey. Thank you Hadran!
אפרת, Israel
The first month I learned Daf Yomi by myself in secret, because I wasn’t sure how my husband would react, but after the siyyum on Masechet Brachot I discovered Hadran and now sometimes my husband listens to the daf with me. He and I also learn mishnayot together and are constantly finding connections between the different masechtot.
Silver Spring, Maryland, United States
After enthusing to my friend Ruth Kahan about how much I had enjoyed remote Jewish learning during the earlier part of the pandemic, she challenged me to join her in learning the daf yomi cycle. I had always wanted to do daf yomi but now had no excuse. The beginning was particularly hard as I had never studied Talmud but has become easier, as I have gained some familiarity with it.
Brookline, United States
Last cycle, I listened to parts of various מסכתות. When the הדרן סיום was advertised, I listened to Michelle on נידה. I knew that בע”ה with the next cycle I was in (ב”נ). As I entered the סיום (early), I saw the signs and was overcome with emotion. I was randomly seated in the front row, and I cried many times that night. My choice to learn דף יומי was affirmed. It is one of the best I have made!
אפרת, Israel
Minnesota, United States
Philadelphia, United States
I decided to learn one masechet, Brachot, but quickly fell in love and never stopped! It has been great, everyone is always asking how it’s going and chering me on, and my students are always making sure I did the day’s daf.
Memphis, Tennessee, United States
Bronx, United States
I started the daf at the beginning of this cycle in January 2020. My husband, my children, grandchildren and siblings have been very supportive. As someone who learned and taught Tanach and mefarshim for many years, it has been an amazing adventure to complete the six sedarim of Mishnah, and now to study Talmud on a daily basis along with Rabbanit Michelle and the wonderful women of Hadran.
Jerusalem, Israel
Menachot 22
כִּי זַכִּי לְהוּ רַחֲמָנָא – לְיִשְׂרָאֵל, דְּאִית לְהוּ לִשְׁכָּה. לְכֹהֲנִים, דְּלֵית לְהוּ לִשְׁכָּה – לָא זַכִּי לְהוּ רַחֲמָנָא, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
when the Merciful One granted the Jewish people the right to use the salt when eating their offerings, he granted this to Israelites, who have an obligation to donate their half-shekels to the chamber, as this fund supplies the salt that is applied to the offerings. With regard to the priests, who do not have an obligation to donate their half-shekels to the chamber, the Merciful One did not grant them the right to make use of the salt. To counter this, the mishna in tractate Shekalim teaches us that the court granted to the priests the right to use the salt when eating their offerings.
וְעֵצִים, דִּפְשִׁיטָא לֵיהּ לְתַנָּא דְּמִשֶּׁל צִיבּוּר, מְנָלַן? דְּתַנְיָא: יָכוֹל הָאוֹמֵר ״הֲרֵי עָלַי עוֹלָה״ יָבִיא עֵצִים מִתּוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ, כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁמֵּבִיא נְסָכִים מִתּוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״עַל הָעֵצִים אֲשֶׁר עַל הָאֵשׁ אֲשֶׁר עַל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ״ – מָה מִזְבֵּחַ מִשֶּׁל צִיבּוּר, אַף עֵצִים וָאֵשׁ מִשֶּׁל צִיבּוּר, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בַּר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן.
The Gemara asks: And with regard to the wood, concerning which it is obvious to the tanna of the baraita that it is brought from communal supplies, from where do we derive this halakha? The Gemara answers: As it is taught in a baraita: One might have thought that one who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a burnt offering, must bring wood from his home on which the burnt offering will be sacrificed, just as he brings libations from his home along with a burnt offering (see Numbers, chapter 15). Therefore, the verse states with regard to the burnt offering: “On the wood that is on the fire which is upon the altar” (Leviticus 1:12); the Torah juxtaposes the wood to the altar, teaching that just as the altar was built from communal funds, so too, the wood and fire are brought from communal supplies. This is the statement of Rabbi Elazar bar Rabbi Shimon.
רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן שַׁמּוּעַ אוֹמֵר: מָה מִזְבֵּחַ – שֶׁלֹּא נִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בּוֹ הֶדְיוֹט, אַף עֵצִים וָאֵשׁ – שֶׁלֹּא נִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בָּהֶן הֶדְיוֹט. מַאי בֵּינַיְיהוּ? אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ חַדְתֵי.
The baraita continues: Rabbi Elazar ben Shammua says: Just as the altar was not used by an ordinary person, as it was built for the purpose of serving as an altar for God, so too, the wood and fire should not have been used previously by an ordinary person, so one does not bring the wood from his home. The Gemara asks: What is the difference between the two opinions? The Gemara answers: The difference between the two is whether there is a requirement that the wood be new, i.e., that it had never been used. According to the opinion of Rabbi Elazar bar Rabbi Shimon, the wood is fit provided that it comes from communal supplies, even if it is not new wood, whereas according to Rabbi Elazar ben Shammua it must be new wood.
וְעַתִּיקֵי לָא? וְהָכְתִיב: ״וַיֹּאמֶר אֲרַוְנָה אֶל דָּוִד יִקַּח וְיַעַל אֲדֹנִי הַמֶּלֶךְ הַטּוֹב בְּעֵינָיו רְאֵה הַבָּקָר לָעֹלָה וְהַמֹּרִגִּים וּכְלֵי הַבָּקָר לְעֵצִים״! הָכָא נָמֵי בְּחַדְתֵי.
The Gemara asks: And is it in fact the halakha that old, i.e., previously used, wood is not fit to be burned on the altar? But isn’t it written: “And Araunah said to David: Let my lord the king take and offer up what seems good to him; behold the oxen for the burnt offering, and the threshing instruments [morigim] and the equipment of the oxen for the wood” (II Samuel 24:22)? Despite the fact that the threshing instruments and equipment of the oxen have been used previously, apparently they are fit to be used when offering a burnt offering. The Gemara answers: Here too, the verse is speaking of new instruments and equipment that had not been previously used.
מַאי ״מוֹרִיגִּים״? אָמַר עוּלָּא: מִטָּה שֶׁל טַרְבֵּל. מַאי מִטָּה שֶׁל טַרְבֵּל? אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: עִיזָּא דְּקוּרְקְסָא דְּדָשׁוּ בַּהּ דִּשְׁתָּאֵי. אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: מַאי קְרָאָה? ״הִנֵּה שַׂמְתִּיךְ לְמוֹרַג חָרוּץ חָדָשׁ בַּעַל פִּיפִיּוֹת תָּדוּשׁ הָרִים״.
Tangentially, the Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the term morigim mentioned in this verse? Ulla said: It is a turbal bed. This was not a known expression in Babylonia, so the Gemara asks: What is a turbal bed? Rav Yehuda said: It is referring to a serrated [dekurkesa] board that the threshers use for threshing, which is dragged over the grain by an animal in order to separate the kernels from the stalks. Rav Yosef said: What is the verse from which the meaning of morigim is derived? It is the verse that states: “Behold, I have made you a new threshing sledge [morag] having sharp teeth; you shall thresh the mountains” (Isaiah 41:15).
מַתְנִי׳ נִתְעָרֵב קוּמְצָהּ בְּקוֹמֶץ חֲבֶירְתָּהּ, בְּמִנְחַת כֹּהֲנִים, בְּמִנְחַת כֹּהֵן מָשִׁיחַ, בְּמִנְחַת נְסָכִים – כְּשֵׁרָה.
MISHNA: If a handful of one meal offering, which is to be burned on the altar, was intermingled with a handful of another meal offering, or with the meal offering of priests, or with the meal offering of the anointed priest, i.e., the High Priest, or with the meal offering of libations accompanying burnt offerings and peace offerings, all of which are burned in their entirety on the altar, it is fit for sacrifice, and the mixture is burned on the altar.
רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: בְּמִנְחַת כֹּהֵן מָשִׁיחַ, בְּמִנְחַת נְסָכִים – פְּסוּלָה, שֶׁזּוֹ בְּלִילָתָהּ עָבָה, וְזוֹ בְּלִילָתָהּ רַכָּה, וְהֵן בּוֹלְעוֹת זוֹ מִזּוֹ.
Rabbi Yehuda says: If the handful was intermingled with the meal offering of the anointed priest, or with the meal offering of libations, the mixture is unfit because with regard to this, the handful from the standard meal offering, its mixture is thick, one log of oil mixed with a tenth of an ephah of flour, and with regard to that, the meal offering of the anointed priest and the meal offering of libations, its mixture is loose, three log of oil mixed with a tenth of an ephah of flour. And the mixtures, which are not identical, absorb from each other, increasing the amount of oil in the handful and decreasing the amount of oil in the meal offering of the anointed priest or the meal offering of libations, thereby invalidating both.
גְּמָ׳ תְּנַן הָתָם: דָּם שֶׁנִּתְעָרֵב בְּמַיִם, אִם יֵשׁ בּוֹ מַרְאִית דָּם – כָּשֵׁר. נִתְעָרֵב בְּיַיִן – רוֹאִין אוֹתוֹ כְּאִילּוּ הוּא מַיִם. נִתְעָרֵב בְּדַם בְּהֵמָה אוֹ בְּדַם חַיָּה – רוֹאִין אוֹתוֹ כְּאִילּוּ הוּא מַיִם. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אֵין דָּם מְבַטֵּל דָּם.
GEMARA: We learned in a mishna there (Zevaḥim 77b): In the case of blood of an offering fit for sacrifice that was mixed with water, if the mixture has the appearance of blood, it is fit for presenting on the altar, even though the majority of the mixture is water. If the blood was mixed with red wine, one views the wine as though it were water. If that amount of water would leave the mixture with the appearance of blood, it is fit for presentation. Likewise, if the blood was mixed with the blood of a non-sacred domesticated animal or the blood of a non-sacred undomesticated animal, one considers the blood as though it were water. Rabbi Yehuda says: Blood does not nullify blood. Therefore, the priest presents the blood of the mixture on the altar regardless of the ratio of sacred to non-sacred blood.
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: וּשְׁנֵיהֶם מִקְרָא אֶחָד דָּרְשׁוּ, ״וְלָקַח מִדַּם הַפָּר וּמִדַּם הַשָּׂעִיר״. הַדָּבָר יָדוּעַ שֶׁדָּמוֹ שֶׁל פַּר מְרוּבֶּה מִדָּמוֹ שֶׁל שָׂעִיר. רַבָּנַן סָבְרִי:
Rabbi Yoḥanan says: And both the first tanna and Rabbi Yehuda derived their opinions from one verse. With regard to the sacrificial rites performed by the High Priest on Yom Kippur, the Torah teaches that after sprinkling of the blood of the bull and of the goat separately between the staves of the Ark and on the Curtain, the blood of the two animals is mixed together and presented on the golden altar inside the Sanctuary. The verse states: “And he shall take of the blood of the bull and of the blood of the goat and put it on the corners of the altar” (Leviticus 16:18). It is a known matter that the blood of the bull is more than the blood of a goat. Why then is the blood of the goat not nullified? Rabbi Yoḥanan explains: The Rabbis, i.e, the first tanna, hold:
מִכָּאן לָעוֹלִין שֶׁאֵין מְבַטְּלִין זֶה אֶת זֶה, וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה סָבַר: מִכָּאן לְמִין בְּמִינוֹ שֶׁאֵינוֹ בָּטֵל.
From here it is learned that with regard to a mixture of items that ascend to the altar, e.g., the blood of the bull and the goat, the different components of the mixture do not nullify one another. And Rabbi Yehuda holds: From here it is learned that any substance in contact with the same type of substance is not nullified.
רַבָּנַן סָבְרִי מִכָּאן לָעוֹלִין שֶׁאֵין מְבַטְּלִין זֶה אֶת זֶה, וְדִלְמָא מִשּׁוּם דְּמִין בְּמִינוֹ הוּא!
The Gemara examines Rabbi Yoḥanan’s explanation of the dispute between the Rabbis and Rabbi Yehuda. With regard to the first part of his explanation, that the Rabbis hold: From here it is learned that with regard to a mixture of items that ascend to the altar the different components of the mixture do not nullify one another, the Gemara suggests: But perhaps the blood of the goat is not nullified when mixed with the blood of the bull due to the fact that it is a substance in contact with the same type of substance.
אִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן מִין בְּמִינוֹ, וְלָא אַשְׁמְעִינַן עוֹלִין, כִּדְקָא אָמְרַתְּ. הַשְׁתָּא דְּאַשְׁמְעִינַן עוֹלִין, מִשּׁוּם דְּעוֹלִין.
The Gemara answers: Had the verse taught us this halakha by using an example of a substance in contact with the same type of substance, and not taught us a case of a mixture of items that ascend to the altar, the verse would be interpreted as you said. But now that the verse taught us this halakha through a case of a mixture of items that ascend to the altar, it is understood that the reason it is not nullified is due to the fact that it is part of a mixture of items that ascend to the altar, not because the substances are of the same type.
וְדִלְמָא עַד דְּאִיכָּא מִין בְּמִינוֹ וְעוֹלִין? קַשְׁיָא.
The Gemara suggests: But perhaps it is not nullified until both criteria are met, and unless the mixture is both a substance in contact with the same type of substance and a mixture of items that ascend to the altar, one nullifies the other. The Gemara concedes: This is difficult.
וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה סָבַר מִכָּאן לְמִין בְּמִינוֹ שֶׁאֵינוֹ בָּטֵל, וְדִלְמָא מִשּׁוּם דְּעוֹלִין הוּא!
With regard to the second part of Rabbi Yoḥanan’s explanation: And Rabbi Yehuda holds: From here it is learned that any substance in contact with the same type of substance is not nullified, the Gemara suggests: But perhaps the blood of the goat is not nullified when mixed with the blood of the bull due to the fact that it is a mixture of items that ascend to the altar.
אִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן עוֹלִין מִין בְּשֶׁאֵינוֹ מִינוֹ – כִּדְקָאָמְרַתְּ, הַשְׁתָּא דְּאַשְׁמְעִינַן מִין בְּמִינוֹ – מִשּׁוּם דְּמִין בְּמִינוֹ הוּא.
The Gemara answers: Had the verse taught us this halakha by using an example of a mixture of items that ascend to the altar where the substance is in contact with a different type of substance, the verse would be interpreted as you say. But now that the verse taught us this halakha in a case of a substance in contact with the same type of substance, it is understood that the reason it is not nullified is due to the fact that it is a substance in contact with the same type of substance.
וְדִילְמָא עַד דְּאִיכָּא מִין בְּמִינוֹ וְעוֹלִין? קַשְׁיָא.
The Gemara suggests: But perhaps it is not nullified until both criteria are met, and unless the mixture is both a substance in contact with the same type of substance and a mixture of items that ascend to the altar, one nullifies the other. The Gemara concedes: This is difficult.
תְּנַן: רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: בְּמִנְחַת כֹּהֲנִים, בְּמִנְחַת כֹּהֵן מָשִׁיחַ, וּבְמִנְחַת נְסָכִים – פְּסוּלָה, שֶׁזּוֹ בְּלִילָתָהּ עָבָה וְזוֹ בְּלִילָתָהּ רַכָּה, וְהֵן בּוֹלְעוֹת זוֹ מִזּוֹ. וְכִי בּוֹלְעוֹת זוֹ מִזּוֹ מָה הָוֵי? מִין בְּמִינוֹ הוּא!
The Gemara raises another objection to the explanation of Rabbi Yoḥanan: We learned in the mishna here that Rabbi Yehuda says: If the handful was intermingled with the meal offering of priests, with the meal offering of the anointed priest, or with the meal offering of libations, the mixture is unfit because with regard to this, the handful from the standard meal offering, its mixture is thick, and with regard to that, the meal offering of the anointed priest and the meal offering of libations, its mixture is loose. And the mixtures, which are not identical, absorb from each other, invalidating both. The Gemara asks: But when the mixtures absorb from each other, what of it? This is a case of a substance in contact with the same type of substance, and therefore neither oil nullifies the other and both should be sacrificed on the altar.
