Menachot 23aמנחות כ״ג א
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Save "Menachot 23a"
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
23aכ״ג א
1 א

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.

2 ב

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.

3 ג

והכתיב (ויקרא ה, יא) 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.

4 ד

איתיביה ר' 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?

5 ה

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.

6 ו

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.

7 ז

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?

8 ח

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.

9 ט

רבי יוחנן אמר חייב חיבורי עולין כעולין דמו ור"ל 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.

10 י

תיבעי לר' יוחנן ותיבעי לריש לקיש תיבעי לר' יוחנן עד כאן לא קא אמר ר' 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.

11 יא

או דלמא אפי' 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.

12 יב

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.

13 יג

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.

14 יד

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.

15 טו

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.

16 טז

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.

17 יז

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.

18 יח

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.

19 יט

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