Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

September 2, 2018 | 讻状讘 讘讗诇讜诇 转砖注状讞

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Menachot 23

Laws regarding mixtures of meal offerings are discussed and vertious issues are raised.


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

讗诪专 专讘讗 拽住讘专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 诪讬谉 讘诪讬谞讜 讜讚讘专 讗讞专 住诇拽 讗转 诪讬谞讜 讻诪讬 砖讗讬谞讜 讜砖讗讬谞讜 诪讬谞讜 专讘讛 注诇讬讜 讜诪讘讟诇讜

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.

讗讬转诪专 拽讜诪抓 讚诪谞讞转 讞讜讟讗 砖砖诪谞讜 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讜诪专 驻住讜诇 讜专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 讛讜讗 注爪诪讜 诪砖讻砖讻讜 讘砖讬专讬 讛诇讜讙 讜诪注诇讛讜

It was stated that the amora鈥檌m 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 Yo岣nan 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.

讜讛讻转讬讘 诇讗 讬砖讬诐 注诇讬讛 砖诪谉 讜诇讗 讬转谉 注诇讬讛 诇讘讜谞讛 讛讛讜讗 砖诇讗 讬拽讘注 诇讛 砖诪谉 讻讞讘专讜转讬讛

The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 it written with regard to the meal offering of a sinner: 鈥淗e shall put no oil upon it, neither shall he put any frankincense on it鈥 (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.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讞专讘 砖谞转注专讘 讘讘诇讜诇 讬拽专讬讘 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讬拽专讬讘 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 拽讜诪抓 讚诪谞讞转 讞讜讟讗 讚讗讬注专讘 讘拽讜诪抓 讚诪谞讞转 谞讚讘讛

Rabbi Yo岣nan 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?

诇讗 诪谞讞转 驻专讬诐 讜讗讬诇讬诐 讘诪谞讞转 讻讘砖讬诐

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.

讜讛讗 讘讛讚讬讗 拽转谞讬 诇讛 诪谞讞转 驻专讬诐 讜讗讬诇讬诐 讘诪谞讞转 讻讘砖讬诐 讜讞专讘 砖谞转注专讘 讘讘诇讜诇 讬拽专讘 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讬拽专讘 驻讬专讜砖讬 拽诪驻专砖 诇讛

Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

讘注讬 专讘讗 拽讜诪抓 砖诪讬爪讛 砖诪谞讜 注诇 讙讘讬 注爪讬诐 诪讛讜 讞讬讘讜专讬 注讜诇讬谉 讻注讜诇讬谉 讚诪讜 讗讜 诇讗讜 讻注讜诇讬谉 讚诪讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 诇讗讜 讛讬讬谞讜 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜专讬砖 诇拽讬砖

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 Yo岣nan and Reish Lakish?

讚讗讬转诪专 讛诪注诇讛 讗讘专 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 讻讝讬转 讜注爪诐 诪砖诇讬诪讜 诇讻讝讬转 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讞讬讬讘 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 驻讟讜专

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鈥檚 bone completes the measure of the offering to an olive-bulk, Rabbi Yo岣nan says: He is liable, and Reish Lakish says: He is exempt.

专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讞讬讬讘 讞讬讘讜专讬 注讜诇讬谉 讻注讜诇讬谉 讚诪讜 讜专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 驻讟讜专 讞讬讘讜专讬 注讜诇讬谉 诇讗讜 讻注讜诇讬谉 讚诪讜

Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

转讬讘注讬 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜转讬讘注讬 诇专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 转讬讘注讬 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛转诐 讗诇讗 讘注爪诐 讚诪讬谞讗 讚讘砖专 讛讜讗 讗讘诇 讛讗讬 讚诇讗讜 讚诪讬谞讗 讚拽讜诪抓 讛讜讗 诇讗

Rav Ashi responded: Rava鈥檚 dilemma can be raised according to Rabbi Yo岣nan, and Rava鈥檚 dilemma can be raised according to Reish Lakish. The circumstances in their dispute are not the same as in Rava鈥檚 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 Yo岣nan, 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 Yo岣nan 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.

讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讗驻讬诇讜 诇专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诇讗 拽讗 讗诪专 讗诇讗 讘注爪诐 讚讘专 诪驻专砖 讛讜讗 讜讗讬 驻专讬砖 诇讗讜 诪爪讜讛 诇讗讛讚讜专讬 讗讘诇 砖诪谉 讚诇讗讜 讘专 诪驻专砖 讛讜讗 诇讗 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 诇讗 砖谞讗 转讬拽讜

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 Yo岣nan and Reish Lakish would have the same opinions, respectively, in both cases. The Gemara comments: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.

诪转谞讬壮 砖转讬 诪谞讞讜转 砖诇讗 谞拽诪爪讜 讜谞转注专讘讜 讝讜 讘讝讜 讗诐 讬讻讜诇 诇拽诪讜抓 诪讝讜 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讛 讜诪讝讜 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讛 讻砖讬专讜转 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 驻住讜诇讜转

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.

拽讜诪抓 砖谞转注专讘 讘诪谞讞讛 砖诇讗 谞拽诪爪讛 诇讗 讬拽讟讬专 讜讗诐 讛拽讟讬专 讝讜 砖谞拽诪爪讛 注讜诇讛 诇讘注诇讬诐 讜讝讜 砖诇讗 谞拽诪爪讛 诇讗 注讜诇讛 诇讘注诇讬诐

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.

谞转注专讘 拽讜诪爪讛 讘砖讬专讬讛 讗讜 讘砖讬专讬讛 砖诇 讞讘讬专转讛 诇讗 讬拽讟讬专 讜讗诐 讛拽讟讬专 注讜诇讛 诇讘注诇讬诐

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.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 谞讘讬诇讛 讘讟讬诇讛 讘砖讞讜讟讛 砖讗讬 讗驻砖专 诇砖讞讜讟讛 砖转注砖讛 谞讘讬诇讛

GEMARA: Rav 岣sda 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.

讜砖讞讜讟讛 讗讬谞讛 讘讟讬诇讛 讘谞讘讬诇讛 砖讗驻砖专 诇谞讘讬诇讛 砖转注砖讛 砖讞讜讟讛 讚诇讻讬 诪住专讞讛 驻专讞讛 讟讜诪讗转讛

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.

讜专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讗诪专 讻诇 砖讗驻砖专 诇讜 诇讛讬讜转 讻诪讜讛讜 讗讬谞讜 讘讟诇 讜讻诇 砖讗讬 讗驻砖专 诇讜 诇讛讬讜转 讻诪讜讛讜 讘讟诇

And Rabbi 岣nina 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.

讗诇讬讘讗 讚诪讗谉 讗讬 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘谞谉 讛讗 讗诪专讬 注讜诇讬谉 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 诪讘讟诇讬 讗讛讚讚讬 讗讘诇 诪讬谉 讘诪讬谞讜 讘讟诇

The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion do Rabbi 岣nina and Rav 岣sda state their opinions? If their opinions are in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, this is difficult: Didn鈥檛 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.

讗讬 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讛讗

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

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘转专 讞讝讜转讗 讗讝讬诇 讜讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 诪讬谉 讘诪讬谞讜 讛讜讗

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.

讗诇讗 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讚转谞讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 谞讘讬诇讛 讜砖讞讜讟讛 讘讟讬诇讜转 讝讜 讘讝讜

Rather, it must be explained that the opinions of Rav 岣sda and Rabbi 岣nina are in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi 岣yya. As Rabbi 岣yya teaches: The meat of an unslaughtered animal carcass and the meat of a slaughtered animal are nullified one in the other. Rav 岣sda 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 岣nina 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.

专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讗诇讬讘讗 讚诪讗谉 讗讬 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘谞谉 讛讗 讗诪专讬 注讜诇讬谉 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 诪讘讟诇讬 讗讛讚讚讬 讛讗 诪讬谉 讘诪讬谞讜 讘讟讬诇 讜讗讬 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讻诇 诪讬谉 讘诪讬谞讜 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讗 讘讟讬诇

The Gemara asks: But then in accordance with whose opinion did Rabbi 岣yya himself state his opinion? If his opinion is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, that is difficult: Didn鈥檛 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.

诇注讜诇诐 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讻讬 拽讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讬谉 讘诪讬谞讜 诇讗 讘讟诇 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讬讻讗 讚讗驻砖专 诇讬讛 诇诪讬讛讜讬 讻讜讜转讬讛 讗讘诇 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讗 讗驻砖专 诇讬讛 诇诪讬讛讜讬 讻讜讜转讬讛 讘讟诇

The Gemara answers: Actually, the statement of Rabbi 岣yya is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, and Rabbi 岣yya 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.

讜讘讛讗 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚专讘 讞住讚讗 住讘专 讘转专 诪讘讟诇 讗讝诇讬谞谉

And Rav 岣sda and Rabbi 岣nina disagree with regard to this, as Rav 岣sda 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.

讜专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 住讘专 讘转专 讘讟诇 讗讝诇讬谞谉

And Rabbi 岣nina 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.

转谞谉 砖转讬 诪谞讞讜转 砖诇讗 谞拽诪爪讜 讜谞转注专讘讜 讝讜 讘讝讜 讗诐 讬讻讜诇 诇拽诪讜抓 诪讝讜 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讛 讜诪讝讜 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讛 讻砖专讜转 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 驻住讜诇讜转 讜讛讗 讛讻讗 讻讬讜谉 讚拽诪讬抓 诇讬讛 诪讞讚讗 讗讬讚讱 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 砖讬专讬诐 讜诇讗 拽讗 诪讘讟诇讬 砖讬专讬诐 诇讟讬讘诇讗

The Gemara offers support for the opinion of Rabbi 岣nina: 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.

诪谞讬 讗讬 专讘谞谉 讛讗 讗诪专讬 注讜诇讬谉 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 诪讘讟诇讬 讛讚讚讬 讛讗 诪讬谉 讘诪讬谞讜 讘讟诇 讗诇讗 驻砖讬讟讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

In accordance with whose opinion is the mishna? If it is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, that is difficult: Didn鈥檛 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.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讘转专 讘讟诇 讗讝诇讬谞谉 讘讟诇 讛讜讬 讻诪讘讟诇 讚诇讻讬 拽诪讬抓 诪讗讬讚讱 讛讜讜 诇讛讜 砖讬专讬诐 讻讬 讛谞讬

Now, granted, according to Rabbi 岣nina, who is the one who says that we follow the potentially nullified substance, in the mishna鈥檚 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.

讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讘转专 诪讘讟诇 讗讝诇讬谞谉 砖讬专讬诐 诪讬 拽讗 讛讜讜 讟讬讘诇讗 诇讬诪讗 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘 讞住讚讗 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 讞讬讬讗

But according to Rav 岣sda, 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 岣sda the mishna here is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi 岣yya with regard to Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 opinion?

讛转诐 讻讚专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 谞讗诪专讛 讛拽讟专讛 讘拽讜诪抓 讜谞讗诪专讛 讛拽讟专讛 讘砖讬专讬诐

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.

诪讛 讛拽讟专讛 讛讗诪讜专讛 讘拽讜诪抓 讗讬谉 讛拽讜诪抓 诪讘讟诇 讗转 讞讘讬专讜 讗祝 讛拽讟专讛 讛讗诪讜专讛 讘砖讬专讬诐 讗讬谉 砖讬专讬诐 诪讘讟诇讬谉 讗转 讛拽讜诪抓

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.

转讗 砖诪注 讛拽讜诪抓 砖谞转注专讘 讘诪谞讞讛 砖诇讗 谞拽诪爪讛 诇讗 讬拽讟讬专 讜讗诐 讛拽讟讬专 讝讜 砖谞拽诪爪讛 注诇转讛 诇讘注诇讬诐 讜讝讜 砖诇讗 谞拽诪爪讛 诇讗 注诇转讛 诇讘注诇讬诐 讜诇讗 拽讗 诪讘讟讬诇 诇讬讛 讟讬讘诇讗 诇拽讜诪抓

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.

诪谞讬 讗讬 专讘谞谉 讛讗 讗诪专讬 注讜诇讬谉 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 诪讘讟诇讬 讛讚讚讬 讛讗 诪讬谉 讘诪讬谞讜 讘讟讬诇 讗诇讗 驻砖讬讟讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

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鈥檛 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.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讘转专 诪讘讟诇 讗讝诇讬谞谉 诪讘讟诇 讛讜讬 讻讘讟诇 讚讻诇 驻讜专转讗 讞讝讬 诇诪拽诪抓 诪讬谞讬讛 讜讛讜讬 诇讬讛 诪讬谉 讜诪讬谞讜 讜诪讬谉 讘诪讬谞讜 诇讗 讘讟诇

Now, granted, according to Rav 岣sda, who is the one who says that we follow the potentially nullifying substance, in the mishna鈥檚 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.

讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讘转专 讘讟诇 讗讝诇讬谞谉 拽讜诪抓 诪讬 拽讗 讛讜讬 讟讬讘诇讗 诇讬诪讗 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讛讗 谞诪讬 讻讚专讘讬 讝讬专讗

But according to Rabbi 岣nina, 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 岣nina the mishna here is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi 岣yya with regard to Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 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.

转讗 砖诪注 谞转注专讘 拽讜诪爪讛 讘砖讬专讬诐 砖诇 讞讘专转讛 诇讗 讬拽讟讬专 讜讗诐 讛拽讟讬专 注诇转讛 诇讘注诇讬诐 讜讛讗 讛讻讗 讚诇讗 讛讜讬 诪讘讟诇 讻讘讟讬诇 讜诇讗 拽讗 诪讘讟诇讬 诇讬讛 砖讬专讬诐 诇拽讜诪抓

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.

诪谞讬 讗讬 专讘谞谉 讜讻讜壮

In accordance with whose opinion is the mishna? If it is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, that is difficult: Didn鈥檛 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 岣yya鈥檚 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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 谞讗诪专讛 讛拽讟专讛 讘拽讜诪抓 讜谞讗诪专讛 讛拽讟专讛 讘砖讬专讬诐 诪讛 讛拽讟专讛 讛讗诪讜专讛 讘拽讜诪抓 讗讬谉 拽讜诪抓 诪讘讟诇 讗转 讞讘讬专讜 讗祝 讛拽讟专讛 讛讗诪讜专讛 讘砖讬专讬诐 讗讬谉 砖讬专讬诐 诪讘讟诇讬谉 讗转 讛拽讜诪抓

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.

转讗 砖诪注 转讬讘诇讛 讘拽爪讞 讘砖讜诪砖诪讬谉 讜讘讻诇 诪讬谞讬 转讘诇讬谉 讻砖专讛 诪爪讛 讛讬讗 讗诇讗 砖谞拽专讗转 诪爪讛 诪转讜讘诇转 拽讗 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讚讗驻讬砖 诇讛 转讘诇讬谉 讟驻讬 诪诪爪讛

The Gemara suggests another proof from a baraita (Tosefta, Pesa岣m 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.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讘转专 讘讟诇 讗讝诇讬谞谉 讘讟讬诇 讛讜讬 讻诪讘讟诇 讚诇讻讬 诪注驻砖讗 讛讜讬 诇讛 讻转讘诇讬谉 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讘转专 诪讘讟诇 讗讝诇讬谞谉 转讘诇讬谉 诪讬 拽讗 讛讜讜 诪爪讛

Now, granted, according to Rabbi 岣nina, 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 岣sda, who is the one who says that we follow the potentially nullifying substance, can the spices become like the matza?

讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讚诇讗 讗驻讬砖 诇讛 转讘诇讬谉 讚专讜讘讛 诪爪讛 讛讬讗 讜诇讗 讘讟诇讛 讚讬拽讗 谞诪讬 讚拽转谞讬 诪爪讛 讛讬讗 讗诇讗 砖谞拽专讗转 诪爪讛 诪转讜讘诇转 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

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.

讻讬 住诇讬拽 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讗砖讻讞讬谞讛讜 诇讘谞讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讚讬转讘讬 讜拽讗诪专讬 注砖专讜谉 砖讞诇拽讜

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

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Menachot 23

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Menachot 23

讗诪专 专讘讗 拽住讘专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 诪讬谉 讘诪讬谞讜 讜讚讘专 讗讞专 住诇拽 讗转 诪讬谞讜 讻诪讬 砖讗讬谞讜 讜砖讗讬谞讜 诪讬谞讜 专讘讛 注诇讬讜 讜诪讘讟诇讜

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.

讗讬转诪专 拽讜诪抓 讚诪谞讞转 讞讜讟讗 砖砖诪谞讜 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讜诪专 驻住讜诇 讜专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 讛讜讗 注爪诪讜 诪砖讻砖讻讜 讘砖讬专讬 讛诇讜讙 讜诪注诇讛讜

It was stated that the amora鈥檌m 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 Yo岣nan 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.

讜讛讻转讬讘 诇讗 讬砖讬诐 注诇讬讛 砖诪谉 讜诇讗 讬转谉 注诇讬讛 诇讘讜谞讛 讛讛讜讗 砖诇讗 讬拽讘注 诇讛 砖诪谉 讻讞讘专讜转讬讛

The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 it written with regard to the meal offering of a sinner: 鈥淗e shall put no oil upon it, neither shall he put any frankincense on it鈥 (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.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讞专讘 砖谞转注专讘 讘讘诇讜诇 讬拽专讬讘 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讬拽专讬讘 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 拽讜诪抓 讚诪谞讞转 讞讜讟讗 讚讗讬注专讘 讘拽讜诪抓 讚诪谞讞转 谞讚讘讛

Rabbi Yo岣nan 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?

诇讗 诪谞讞转 驻专讬诐 讜讗讬诇讬诐 讘诪谞讞转 讻讘砖讬诐

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.

讜讛讗 讘讛讚讬讗 拽转谞讬 诇讛 诪谞讞转 驻专讬诐 讜讗讬诇讬诐 讘诪谞讞转 讻讘砖讬诐 讜讞专讘 砖谞转注专讘 讘讘诇讜诇 讬拽专讘 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讬拽专讘 驻讬专讜砖讬 拽诪驻专砖 诇讛

Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

讘注讬 专讘讗 拽讜诪抓 砖诪讬爪讛 砖诪谞讜 注诇 讙讘讬 注爪讬诐 诪讛讜 讞讬讘讜专讬 注讜诇讬谉 讻注讜诇讬谉 讚诪讜 讗讜 诇讗讜 讻注讜诇讬谉 讚诪讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 诇讗讜 讛讬讬谞讜 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜专讬砖 诇拽讬砖

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 Yo岣nan and Reish Lakish?

讚讗讬转诪专 讛诪注诇讛 讗讘专 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 讻讝讬转 讜注爪诐 诪砖诇讬诪讜 诇讻讝讬转 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讞讬讬讘 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 驻讟讜专

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鈥檚 bone completes the measure of the offering to an olive-bulk, Rabbi Yo岣nan says: He is liable, and Reish Lakish says: He is exempt.

专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讞讬讬讘 讞讬讘讜专讬 注讜诇讬谉 讻注讜诇讬谉 讚诪讜 讜专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 驻讟讜专 讞讬讘讜专讬 注讜诇讬谉 诇讗讜 讻注讜诇讬谉 讚诪讜

Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

转讬讘注讬 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜转讬讘注讬 诇专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 转讬讘注讬 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛转诐 讗诇讗 讘注爪诐 讚诪讬谞讗 讚讘砖专 讛讜讗 讗讘诇 讛讗讬 讚诇讗讜 讚诪讬谞讗 讚拽讜诪抓 讛讜讗 诇讗

Rav Ashi responded: Rava鈥檚 dilemma can be raised according to Rabbi Yo岣nan, and Rava鈥檚 dilemma can be raised according to Reish Lakish. The circumstances in their dispute are not the same as in Rava鈥檚 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 Yo岣nan, 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 Yo岣nan 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.

讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讗驻讬诇讜 诇专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诇讗 拽讗 讗诪专 讗诇讗 讘注爪诐 讚讘专 诪驻专砖 讛讜讗 讜讗讬 驻专讬砖 诇讗讜 诪爪讜讛 诇讗讛讚讜专讬 讗讘诇 砖诪谉 讚诇讗讜 讘专 诪驻专砖 讛讜讗 诇讗 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 诇讗 砖谞讗 转讬拽讜

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 Yo岣nan and Reish Lakish would have the same opinions, respectively, in both cases. The Gemara comments: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.

诪转谞讬壮 砖转讬 诪谞讞讜转 砖诇讗 谞拽诪爪讜 讜谞转注专讘讜 讝讜 讘讝讜 讗诐 讬讻讜诇 诇拽诪讜抓 诪讝讜 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讛 讜诪讝讜 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讛 讻砖讬专讜转 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 驻住讜诇讜转

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.

拽讜诪抓 砖谞转注专讘 讘诪谞讞讛 砖诇讗 谞拽诪爪讛 诇讗 讬拽讟讬专 讜讗诐 讛拽讟讬专 讝讜 砖谞拽诪爪讛 注讜诇讛 诇讘注诇讬诐 讜讝讜 砖诇讗 谞拽诪爪讛 诇讗 注讜诇讛 诇讘注诇讬诐

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.

谞转注专讘 拽讜诪爪讛 讘砖讬专讬讛 讗讜 讘砖讬专讬讛 砖诇 讞讘讬专转讛 诇讗 讬拽讟讬专 讜讗诐 讛拽讟讬专 注讜诇讛 诇讘注诇讬诐

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.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 谞讘讬诇讛 讘讟讬诇讛 讘砖讞讜讟讛 砖讗讬 讗驻砖专 诇砖讞讜讟讛 砖转注砖讛 谞讘讬诇讛

GEMARA: Rav 岣sda 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.

讜砖讞讜讟讛 讗讬谞讛 讘讟讬诇讛 讘谞讘讬诇讛 砖讗驻砖专 诇谞讘讬诇讛 砖转注砖讛 砖讞讜讟讛 讚诇讻讬 诪住专讞讛 驻专讞讛 讟讜诪讗转讛

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.

讜专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讗诪专 讻诇 砖讗驻砖专 诇讜 诇讛讬讜转 讻诪讜讛讜 讗讬谞讜 讘讟诇 讜讻诇 砖讗讬 讗驻砖专 诇讜 诇讛讬讜转 讻诪讜讛讜 讘讟诇

And Rabbi 岣nina 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.

讗诇讬讘讗 讚诪讗谉 讗讬 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘谞谉 讛讗 讗诪专讬 注讜诇讬谉 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 诪讘讟诇讬 讗讛讚讚讬 讗讘诇 诪讬谉 讘诪讬谞讜 讘讟诇

The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion do Rabbi 岣nina and Rav 岣sda state their opinions? If their opinions are in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, this is difficult: Didn鈥檛 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.

讗讬 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讛讗

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

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘转专 讞讝讜转讗 讗讝讬诇 讜讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 诪讬谉 讘诪讬谞讜 讛讜讗

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.

讗诇讗 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讚转谞讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 谞讘讬诇讛 讜砖讞讜讟讛 讘讟讬诇讜转 讝讜 讘讝讜

Rather, it must be explained that the opinions of Rav 岣sda and Rabbi 岣nina are in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi 岣yya. As Rabbi 岣yya teaches: The meat of an unslaughtered animal carcass and the meat of a slaughtered animal are nullified one in the other. Rav 岣sda 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 岣nina 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.

专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讗诇讬讘讗 讚诪讗谉 讗讬 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘谞谉 讛讗 讗诪专讬 注讜诇讬谉 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 诪讘讟诇讬 讗讛讚讚讬 讛讗 诪讬谉 讘诪讬谞讜 讘讟讬诇 讜讗讬 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讻诇 诪讬谉 讘诪讬谞讜 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讗 讘讟讬诇

The Gemara asks: But then in accordance with whose opinion did Rabbi 岣yya himself state his opinion? If his opinion is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, that is difficult: Didn鈥檛 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.

诇注讜诇诐 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讻讬 拽讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讬谉 讘诪讬谞讜 诇讗 讘讟诇 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讬讻讗 讚讗驻砖专 诇讬讛 诇诪讬讛讜讬 讻讜讜转讬讛 讗讘诇 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讗 讗驻砖专 诇讬讛 诇诪讬讛讜讬 讻讜讜转讬讛 讘讟诇

The Gemara answers: Actually, the statement of Rabbi 岣yya is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, and Rabbi 岣yya 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.

讜讘讛讗 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚专讘 讞住讚讗 住讘专 讘转专 诪讘讟诇 讗讝诇讬谞谉

And Rav 岣sda and Rabbi 岣nina disagree with regard to this, as Rav 岣sda 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.

讜专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 住讘专 讘转专 讘讟诇 讗讝诇讬谞谉

And Rabbi 岣nina 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.

转谞谉 砖转讬 诪谞讞讜转 砖诇讗 谞拽诪爪讜 讜谞转注专讘讜 讝讜 讘讝讜 讗诐 讬讻讜诇 诇拽诪讜抓 诪讝讜 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讛 讜诪讝讜 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讛 讻砖专讜转 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 驻住讜诇讜转 讜讛讗 讛讻讗 讻讬讜谉 讚拽诪讬抓 诇讬讛 诪讞讚讗 讗讬讚讱 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 砖讬专讬诐 讜诇讗 拽讗 诪讘讟诇讬 砖讬专讬诐 诇讟讬讘诇讗

The Gemara offers support for the opinion of Rabbi 岣nina: 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.

诪谞讬 讗讬 专讘谞谉 讛讗 讗诪专讬 注讜诇讬谉 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 诪讘讟诇讬 讛讚讚讬 讛讗 诪讬谉 讘诪讬谞讜 讘讟诇 讗诇讗 驻砖讬讟讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

In accordance with whose opinion is the mishna? If it is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, that is difficult: Didn鈥檛 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.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讘转专 讘讟诇 讗讝诇讬谞谉 讘讟诇 讛讜讬 讻诪讘讟诇 讚诇讻讬 拽诪讬抓 诪讗讬讚讱 讛讜讜 诇讛讜 砖讬专讬诐 讻讬 讛谞讬

Now, granted, according to Rabbi 岣nina, who is the one who says that we follow the potentially nullified substance, in the mishna鈥檚 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.

讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讘转专 诪讘讟诇 讗讝诇讬谞谉 砖讬专讬诐 诪讬 拽讗 讛讜讜 讟讬讘诇讗 诇讬诪讗 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘 讞住讚讗 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 讞讬讬讗

But according to Rav 岣sda, 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 岣sda the mishna here is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi 岣yya with regard to Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 opinion?

讛转诐 讻讚专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 谞讗诪专讛 讛拽讟专讛 讘拽讜诪抓 讜谞讗诪专讛 讛拽讟专讛 讘砖讬专讬诐

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.

诪讛 讛拽讟专讛 讛讗诪讜专讛 讘拽讜诪抓 讗讬谉 讛拽讜诪抓 诪讘讟诇 讗转 讞讘讬专讜 讗祝 讛拽讟专讛 讛讗诪讜专讛 讘砖讬专讬诐 讗讬谉 砖讬专讬诐 诪讘讟诇讬谉 讗转 讛拽讜诪抓

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.

转讗 砖诪注 讛拽讜诪抓 砖谞转注专讘 讘诪谞讞讛 砖诇讗 谞拽诪爪讛 诇讗 讬拽讟讬专 讜讗诐 讛拽讟讬专 讝讜 砖谞拽诪爪讛 注诇转讛 诇讘注诇讬诐 讜讝讜 砖诇讗 谞拽诪爪讛 诇讗 注诇转讛 诇讘注诇讬诐 讜诇讗 拽讗 诪讘讟讬诇 诇讬讛 讟讬讘诇讗 诇拽讜诪抓

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.

诪谞讬 讗讬 专讘谞谉 讛讗 讗诪专讬 注讜诇讬谉 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 诪讘讟诇讬 讛讚讚讬 讛讗 诪讬谉 讘诪讬谞讜 讘讟讬诇 讗诇讗 驻砖讬讟讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

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鈥檛 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.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讘转专 诪讘讟诇 讗讝诇讬谞谉 诪讘讟诇 讛讜讬 讻讘讟诇 讚讻诇 驻讜专转讗 讞讝讬 诇诪拽诪抓 诪讬谞讬讛 讜讛讜讬 诇讬讛 诪讬谉 讜诪讬谞讜 讜诪讬谉 讘诪讬谞讜 诇讗 讘讟诇

Now, granted, according to Rav 岣sda, who is the one who says that we follow the potentially nullifying substance, in the mishna鈥檚 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.

讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讘转专 讘讟诇 讗讝诇讬谞谉 拽讜诪抓 诪讬 拽讗 讛讜讬 讟讬讘诇讗 诇讬诪讗 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讛讗 谞诪讬 讻讚专讘讬 讝讬专讗

But according to Rabbi 岣nina, 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 岣nina the mishna here is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi 岣yya with regard to Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 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.

转讗 砖诪注 谞转注专讘 拽讜诪爪讛 讘砖讬专讬诐 砖诇 讞讘专转讛 诇讗 讬拽讟讬专 讜讗诐 讛拽讟讬专 注诇转讛 诇讘注诇讬诐 讜讛讗 讛讻讗 讚诇讗 讛讜讬 诪讘讟诇 讻讘讟讬诇 讜诇讗 拽讗 诪讘讟诇讬 诇讬讛 砖讬专讬诐 诇拽讜诪抓

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.

诪谞讬 讗讬 专讘谞谉 讜讻讜壮

In accordance with whose opinion is the mishna? If it is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, that is difficult: Didn鈥檛 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 岣yya鈥檚 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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 谞讗诪专讛 讛拽讟专讛 讘拽讜诪抓 讜谞讗诪专讛 讛拽讟专讛 讘砖讬专讬诐 诪讛 讛拽讟专讛 讛讗诪讜专讛 讘拽讜诪抓 讗讬谉 拽讜诪抓 诪讘讟诇 讗转 讞讘讬专讜 讗祝 讛拽讟专讛 讛讗诪讜专讛 讘砖讬专讬诐 讗讬谉 砖讬专讬诐 诪讘讟诇讬谉 讗转 讛拽讜诪抓

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.

转讗 砖诪注 转讬讘诇讛 讘拽爪讞 讘砖讜诪砖诪讬谉 讜讘讻诇 诪讬谞讬 转讘诇讬谉 讻砖专讛 诪爪讛 讛讬讗 讗诇讗 砖谞拽专讗转 诪爪讛 诪转讜讘诇转 拽讗 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讚讗驻讬砖 诇讛 转讘诇讬谉 讟驻讬 诪诪爪讛

The Gemara suggests another proof from a baraita (Tosefta, Pesa岣m 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.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讘转专 讘讟诇 讗讝诇讬谞谉 讘讟讬诇 讛讜讬 讻诪讘讟诇 讚诇讻讬 诪注驻砖讗 讛讜讬 诇讛 讻转讘诇讬谉 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讘转专 诪讘讟诇 讗讝诇讬谞谉 转讘诇讬谉 诪讬 拽讗 讛讜讜 诪爪讛

Now, granted, according to Rabbi 岣nina, 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 岣sda, who is the one who says that we follow the potentially nullifying substance, can the spices become like the matza?

讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讚诇讗 讗驻讬砖 诇讛 转讘诇讬谉 讚专讜讘讛 诪爪讛 讛讬讗 讜诇讗 讘讟诇讛 讚讬拽讗 谞诪讬 讚拽转谞讬 诪爪讛 讛讬讗 讗诇讗 砖谞拽专讗转 诪爪讛 诪转讜讘诇转 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

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.

讻讬 住诇讬拽 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讗砖讻讞讬谞讛讜 诇讘谞讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讚讬转讘讬 讜拽讗诪专讬 注砖专讜谉 砖讞诇拽讜

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

Scroll To Top