Menachot 23

אמר רבא קסבר רבי יהודה כל שהוא מין במינו ודבר אחר סלק את מינו כמי שאינו ושאינו מינו רבה עליו ומבטלו

Rava said: Rabbi Yehuda holds that in the case of any mixture that consists of a substance in contact with the same type of substance as well as another type of substance, the halakha is to disregard the same substance, considering it as though it were not there, and in the event that the different type of substance is more than the first substance, the different substance nullifies the first substance. In the case of the mishna here, the handful of the meal offering is mixed with other types of meal offerings that comprise greater quantities of oil. The oil of the handful is disregarded, and the flour of the handful, which is present in greater quantities than the oil of the other meal offering that is absorbed in it, nullifies this oil of the other meal offering. That oil is now considered to be one with the oil of the handful, and therefore the oil of the handful is increased, and the handful is unfit.

איתמר קומץ דמנחת חוטא ששמנו רבי יוחנן אומר פסול וריש לקיש אמר הוא עצמו משכשכו בשירי הלוג ומעלהו

§ It was stated that the amora’im disagreed with regard to the halakha where one added oil to the handful that is removed from the meal offering of a sinner, which does not include oil. Rabbi Yoḥanan says: It is unfit, and Reish Lakish says: The halakha of the meal offering itself is to wipe it, ab initio, in the remainder of the log of oil that remains in the vessels that were used previously for other meal offerings, and the priest then brings it up and burns it on the altar. This is done so that the meal offering will not be completely dry.

והכתיב לא ישים עליה שמן ולא יתן עליה לבונה ההוא שלא יקבע לה שמן כחברותיה

The Gemara asks: But isn’t it written with regard to the meal offering of a sinner: “He shall put no oil upon it, neither shall he put any frankincense on it” (Leviticus 5:11)? How, then, can any oil be added? The Gemara answers: That verse teaches that one should not designate oil for it as one designates oil for the other meal offerings, but the meal offering of a sinner is not rendered unfit by the addition of a small amount of oil.

איתיביה רבי יוחנן לריש לקיש חרב שנתערב בבלול יקריב רבי יהודה אומר לא יקריב מאי לאו קומץ דמנחת חוטא דאיערב בקומץ דמנחת נדבה

Rabbi Yoḥanan raised an objection to Reish Lakish from a baraita (Tosefta 4:4): In the case of a dry meal offering that was intermingled with a meal offering that was mixed with oil, the priest shall sacrifice it. Rabbi Yehuda says: The priest shall not sacrifice it. What, is the baraita not referring to a handful of the meal offering of a sinner that was intermingled with a handful of a voluntary meal offering, demonstrating that the oil invalidates the handful of a meal offering of a sinner?

לא מנחת פרים ואילים במנחת כבשים

Reish Lakish responded: No, the baraita is referring to the meal offering that accompanies the libations brought with the offerings of bulls or rams, for which two log of oil is mixed with a tenth of an ephah of flour, that became intermingled with the meal offering that accompanies the libations brought with the offering of sheep, for which three log of oil is mixed with a tenth of an ephah of flour, as the former is considered dry relative to the latter.

והא בהדיא קתני לה מנחת פרים ואילים במנחת כבשים וחרב שנתערב בבלול יקרב רבי יהודה אומר לא יקרב פירושי קמפרש לה

Rabbi Yoḥanan objected: But another baraita teaches this explicitly as a separate halakha: With regard to the meal offering that accompanies the offerings of bulls or rams that became intermingled with the meal offering that accompanies the offering of sheep, and a dry meal offering that was intermingled with a meal offering that was mixed with oil, the meal offering shall be sacrificed. Rabbi Yehuda says: It shall not be sacrificed. Therefore, the latter case must be referring to other meal offerings. Reish Lakish responded: The latter clause is explaining the first clause of the baraita, teaching that the reason one may not offer a meal offering that accompanies bulls and rams that was intermingled with the meal offering that accompanies sheep is because one may not offer a dry offering that was intermingled with one that is mixed with oil.

בעי רבא קומץ שמיצה שמנו על גבי עצים מהו חיבורי עולין כעולין דמו או לאו כעולין דמו אמר ליה רבינא לרב אשי לאו היינו דרבי יוחנן וריש לקיש

§ Rava raises a dilemma: In the case of a handful whose oil the priest squeezed onto the wood and only afterward he placed the handful on the wood to be burned, what is the halakha? Are substances that are contiguous to items that ascend upon the altar considered to be as part of the items that ascend upon the altar, in which case the oil that was absorbed into the wood and is contiguous to the handful of the meal offering is considered part of the handful? Or are they not considered to be as part of the items that ascend upon the altar, and the oil is not viewed as part of the handful, and therefore the handful is missing oil? Ravina said to Rav Ashi: Is this not the same disagreement as the dispute between Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish?

דאיתמר המעלה אבר שאין בו כזית ועצם משלימו לכזית רבי יוחנן אמר חייב ריש לקיש אמר פטור

As it was stated: With regard to one who offers up, outside the Temple courtyard, a limb that contains less than an olive-bulk of meat, but the offering’s bone completes the measure of the offering to an olive-bulk, Rabbi Yoḥanan says: He is liable, and Reish Lakish says: He is exempt.

רבי יוחנן אמר חייב חיבורי עולין כעולין דמו וריש לקיש אמר פטור חיבורי עולין לאו כעולין דמו

Rabbi Yoḥanan says that one is liable because he holds that substances that are contiguous to items that ascend upon the altar are considered to be as part of the items that ascend upon the altar. Therefore, the measure of the bone is added to the measure of the meat, resulting in a total measure of an olive-bulk, which is the measure that determines liability. And Reish Lakish says that one is exempt because he holds that substances that are contiguous to items that ascend upon the altar are not considered to be as part of the items that ascend upon the altar. Since less than an olive-bulk of meat was sacrificed, he is not liable.

תיבעי לרבי יוחנן ותיבעי לריש לקיש תיבעי לרבי יוחנן עד כאן לא קא אמר רבי יוחנן התם אלא בעצם דמינא דבשר הוא אבל האי דלאו דמינא דקומץ הוא לא

Rav Ashi responded: Rava’s dilemma can be raised according to Rabbi Yoḥanan, and Rava’s dilemma can be raised according to Reish Lakish. The circumstances in their dispute are not the same as in Rava’s dilemma, so their opinions in that case may not be applicable to this one. Rav Ashi elaborates: The dilemma can be raised according to Rabbi Yoḥanan, even though he holds that the bone is considered to be part of the meat to complete the measure of an olive-bulk. Perhaps Rabbi Yoḥanan says his opinion only there, in the case of a bone, because the bone is the same type as the meat, i.e., it is from the same animal, and is therefore considered to be part of the sacrificial meat. But in this case of oil, which is not the same type as the handful, it is not considered to be a part of the handful even if it is contiguous to it.

או דלמא אפילו לריש לקיש לא קא אמר אלא בעצם דבר מפרש הוא ואי פריש לאו מצוה לאהדורי אבל שמן דלאו בר מפרש הוא לא או דלמא לא שנא תיקו

Or perhaps, even according to Reish Lakish, he says his ruling only in the case of the bone, teaching that it does not add to the quantity of the meat. The reason is that the bone is able to be separated from the meat, and if it separated, there is no mitzva to return it to the fire. Therefore, he views it as distinct from the meat. But in this case of oil, which is not able to be separated from the handful of the meal offering, as it must be burned together with the handful, he will not hold that the oil is viewed as separate from the handful. Or perhaps there is no difference between the case of the bone and the case of the oil, and Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish would have the same opinions, respectively, in both cases. The Gemara comments: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.

מתני׳ שתי מנחות שלא נקמצו ונתערבו זו בזו אם יכול לקמוץ מזו בפני עצמה ומזו בפני עצמה כשירות ואם לאו פסולות

MISHNA: In the case of two meal offerings from which a handful was not removed and that 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.

קומץ שנתערב במנחה שלא נקמצה לא יקטיר ואם הקטיר זו שנקמצה עולה לבעלים וזו שלא נקמצה לא עולה לבעלים

In the case of a 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 satisfies the obligation of the owner and that meal offering from which the handful was not taken does not satisfy the obligation of the owner.

נתערב קומצה בשיריה או בשיריה של חבירתה לא יקטיר ואם הקטיר עולה לבעלים

If, after it was removed, its handful was intermingled with its remainder or with the remainder of another meal offering, the priest should not burn the mixture on the altar, but if he burned it, it satisfies the obligation of the owner.

גמ׳ אמר רב חסדא נבילה בטילה בשחוטה שאי אפשר לשחוטה שתעשה נבילה

GEMARA: Rav Ḥisda says: The meat of an unslaughtered animal carcass is nullified in a larger quantity of meat of a slaughtered animal. Although meat from a carcass generally imparts impurity, if one touches the mixture of the two meats he does not become ritually impure, as the carcass meat is considered a different type of substance from the slaughtered animal and is therefore nullified. This is not considered a mixture that comprises a substance in contact with the same type of substance, because meat from a slaughtered animal cannot attain the status of a carcass, and it is therefore viewed as a different type of substance.

ושחוטה אינה בטילה בנבילה שאפשר לנבילה שתעשה שחוטה דלכי מסרחה פרחה טומאתה

By contrast, if meat of a slaughtered animal became intermingled with a larger quantity of meat of animal carcass, the meat of the slaughtered animal is not nullified in the larger quantity of meat of the carcass, as it is possible for a carcass to attain the status of a slaughtered animal with regard to the halakhot of ritual impurity, as it can lose its ability to transmit ritual impurity. This is because when a carcass rots to the extent that it is no longer edible, it loses its impure status. The halakha that the carcass meat has the ability to attain the ritually pure status of meat of a slaughtered animal renders the two meats as the same type of substance, and the mixture retains its status of intermingled carcass meat and meat of a slaughtered animal.

ורבי חנינא אמר כל שאפשר לו להיות כמוהו אינו בטל וכל שאי אפשר לו להיות כמוהו בטל

And Rabbi Ḥanina says the opposite: Any small quantity of an item that can possibly become like the item that is present in larger quantities is not nullified when the two are intermingled, but any small quantity of an item that cannot possibly become like the item that is present in larger quantities is nullified in the larger quantity. Accordingly, a small quantity of meat of a slaughtered animal is nullified in a larger quantity of unslaughtered animal carcass meat, since the meat of a slaughtered animal cannot become like the animal carcass meat; but a small quantity of animal carcass meat is not nullified in a larger quantity of meat of a slaughtered animal, since it can lose its impure status and become akin to the meat of a slaughtered animal.

אליבא דמאן אי אליבא דרבנן הא אמרי עולין הוא דלא מבטלי אהדדי אבל מין במינו בטל

The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion do Rabbi Ḥanina and Rav Ḥisda state their opinions? If their opinions are in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, this 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 otherwise, a substance in contact with the same type of substance is nullified? Therefore, in any case where meat of a slaughtered animal becomes intermingled with unslaughtered animal carcass meat, the smaller quantity is nullified in the larger quantity.

אי אליבא דרבי יהודה והא

If their opinions are in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who holds that the blood of an offering is not nullified in the blood of a non-sacred animal because the two are the same type of substance, this is difficult: But

רבי יהודה בתר חזותא אזיל ואידי ואידי מין במינו הוא

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.

אלא אליבא דרבי חייא דתני רבי חייא נבילה ושחוטה בטילות זו בזו

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.

רבי חייא אליבא דמאן אי אליבא דרבנן הא אמרי עולין הוא דלא מבטלי אהדדי הא מין במינו בטיל ואי אליבא דרבי יהודה כל מין במינו לרבי יהודה לא בטיל

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.

לעולם אליבא דרבי יהודה וכי קא אמר רבי יהודה מין במינו לא בטל הני מילי היכא דאפשר ליה למיהוי כוותיה אבל היכא דלא אפשר ליה למיהוי כוותיה בטל

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.

ובהא קא מיפלגי דרב חסדא סבר בתר מבטל אזלינן

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.

ורבי חנינא סבר בתר בטל אזלינן

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.

תנן שתי מנחות שלא נקמצו ונתערבו זו בזו אם יכול לקמוץ מזו בפני עצמה ומזו בפני עצמה כשרות ואם לאו פסולות והא הכא כיון דקמיץ ליה מחדא אידך הוה ליה שירים ולא קא מבטלי שירים לטיבלא

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.

מני אי רבנן הא אמרי עולין הוא דלא מבטלי הדדי הא מין במינו בטל אלא פשיטא רבי יהודה

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.

בשלמא למאן דאמר בתר בטל אזלינן בטל הוי כמבטל דלכי קמיץ מאידך הוו להו שירים כי הני

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.

אלא למאן דאמר בתר מבטל אזלינן שירים מי קא הוו טיבלא לימא אליבא דרב חסדא דלא כרבי חייא

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?

התם כדרבי זירא דאמר רבי זירא נאמרה הקטרה בקומץ ונאמרה הקטרה בשירים

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.

מה הקטרה האמורה בקומץ אין הקומץ מבטל את חבירו אף הקטרה האמורה בשירים אין שירים מבטלין את הקומץ

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.

תא שמע הקומץ שנתערב במנחה שלא נקמצה לא יקטיר ואם הקטיר זו שנקמצה עלתה לבעלים וזו שלא נקמצה לא עלתה לבעלים ולא קא מבטיל ליה טיבלא לקומץ

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.

מני אי רבנן הא אמרי עולין הוא דלא מבטלי הדדי הא מין במינו בטיל אלא פשיטא רבי יהודה

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.

בשלמא למאן דאמר בתר מבטל אזלינן מבטל הוי כבטל דכל פורתא חזי למקמץ מיניה והוי ליה מין ומינו ומין במינו לא בטל

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.

אלא למאן דאמר בתר בטל אזלינן קומץ מי קא הוי טיבלא לימא דלא כרבי חייא הא נמי כדרבי זירא

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.

תא שמע נתערב קומצה בשירים של חברתה לא יקטיר ואם הקטיר עלתה לבעלים והא הכא דלא הוי מבטל כבטיל ולא קא מבטלי ליה שירים לקומץ

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.

מני אי רבנן וכו׳

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.

אמר רבי זירא נאמרה הקטרה בקומץ ונאמרה הקטרה בשירים מה הקטרה האמורה בקומץ אין קומץ מבטל את חבירו אף הקטרה האמורה בשירים אין שירים מבטלין את הקומץ

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.

תא שמע תיבלה בקצח בשומשמין ובכל מיני תבלין כשרה מצה היא אלא שנקראת מצה מתובלת קא סלקא דעתך דאפיש לה תבלין טפי ממצה

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.

בשלמא למאן דאמר בתר בטל אזלינן בטיל הוי כמבטל דלכי מעפשא הוי לה כתבלין אלא למאן דאמר בתר מבטל אזלינן תבלין מי קא הוו מצה

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?

הכא במאי עסקינן דלא אפיש לה תבלין דרובה מצה היא ולא בטלה דיקא נמי דקתני מצה היא אלא שנקראת מצה מתובלת שמע מינה

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.

כי סליק רב כהנא אשכחינהו לבני רבי חייא דיתבי וקאמרי עשרון שחלקו

§ 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