## Menachot Daf 23a

###### Menachot 23a:1
[Menachot 23a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/23a:1)

אָמַר רָבָא: קָסָבַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, כׇּל שֶׁהוּא מִין בְּמִינוֹ וְדָבָר אַחֵר – סַלֵּק אֶת מִינוֹ כְּמִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ, וְשֶׁאֵינוֹ מִינוֹ רָבֶה עָלָיו וּמְבַטְּלוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Menachot 23a:2
[Menachot 23a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/23a:2)

אִיתְּמַר: קוֹמֶץ דְּמִנְחַת חוֹטֵא שֶׁשִּׁמְּנוֹ, רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אוֹמֵר: פָּסוּל, וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר: הוּא עַצְמוֹ מְשַׁכְשְׁכוֹ בִּשְׁיָרֵי הַלּוֹג וּמַעֲלֵהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **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.


###### Menachot 23a:3
[Menachot 23a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/23a:3)

וְהָכְתִיב: ״לֹא יָשִׂים עָלֶיהָ שֶׁמֶן וְלֹא יִתֵּן עָלֶיהָ לְבוֹנָה״? הַהוּא שֶׁלֹּא יִקְבַּע לָהּ שֶׁמֶן כְּחַבְרוֹתֶיהָ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Menachot 23a:4
[Menachot 23a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/23a:4)

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן לְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: חָרֵב שֶׁנִּתְעָרֵב בְּבָלוּל – יַקְרִיב, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: לֹא יַקְרִיב. מַאי לָאו, קוֹמֶץ דְּמִנְחַת חוֹטֵא דְּאִיעָרַב בְּקוֹמֶץ דְּמִנְחַת נְדָבָה?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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?


###### Menachot 23a:5
[Menachot 23a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/23a:5)

לֹא, מִנְחַת פָּרִים וְאֵילִים בְּמִנְחַת כְּבָשִׂים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Menachot 23a:6
[Menachot 23a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/23a:6)

וְהָא בְּהֶדְיָא קָתָנֵי לַהּ: מִנְחַת פָּרִים וְאֵילִים בְּמִנְחַת כְּבָשִׂים, וְחָרֵב שֶׁנִּתְעָרֵב בְּבָלוּל – יִקְרַב, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: לֹא יִקְרַב. פָּרוּשֵׁי קָמְפָרֵשׁ לַהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Menachot 23a:7
[Menachot 23a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/23a:7)

בָּעֵי רָבָא: קוֹמֶץ שֶׁמִּיצָּה שַׁמְנוֹ עַל גַּבֵּי עֵצִים, מַהוּ? חִיבּוּרֵי עוֹלִין כְּעוֹלִין דָּמוּ, אוֹ לָאו כְּעוֹלִין דָּמוּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבִינָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: לָאו הַיְינוּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **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?**


###### Menachot 23a:8
[Menachot 23a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/23a:8)

דְּאִיתְּמַר: הַמַּעֲלֶה אֵבֶר שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ כְּזַיִת, וְעֶצֶם מַשְׁלִימוֹ לִכְזַיִת – רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: חַיָּיב, רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר: פָּטוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.**


###### Menachot 23a:9
[Menachot 23a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/23a:9)

רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר חַיָּיב, חִיבּוּרֵי עוֹלִין כְּעוֹלִין דָּמוּ, וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר פָּטוּר, חִיבּוּרֵי עוֹלִין לָאו כְּעוֹלִין דָּמוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Menachot 23a:10
[Menachot 23a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/23a:10)

תִּיבְּעֵי לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, וְתִיבְּעֵי לְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ. תִּיבְּעֵי לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: עַד כָּאן לָא קָא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן הָתָם, אֶלָּא בְּעֶצֶם, דְּמִינָא דְּבָשָׂר הוּא, אֲבָל הַאי דְּלָאו דְּמִינָא דְּקוֹמֶץ הוּא – לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Menachot 23a:11
[Menachot 23a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/23a:11)

אוֹ דִלְמָא, אֲפִילּוּ לְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ לָא קָא אָמַר אֶלָּא בְּעֶצֶם, דְּבַר מִפְרַשׁ הוּא, וְאִי פָּרֵישׁ – לָאו מִצְוָה לְאַהְדּוֹרֵי, אֲבָל שֶׁמֶן דְּלָאו בַּר מִפְרַשׁ הוּא – לָא, אוֹ דִּלְמָא לָא שְׁנָא. תֵּיקוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Menachot 23a:12
[Menachot 23a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/23a:12)

**מַתְנִי׳** שְׁתֵּי מְנָחוֹת שֶׁלֹּא נִקְמְצוּ וְנִתְעָרְבוּ זוֹ בָּזוֹ, אִם יָכוֹל לִקְמוֹץ מִזּוֹ בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָהּ וּמִזּוֹ בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָהּ – כְּשֵׁירוֹת, וְאִם לָאו – פְּסוּלוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Menachot 23a:13
[Menachot 23a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/23a:13)

קוֹמֶץ שֶׁנִּתְעָרֵב בְּמִנְחָה שֶׁלֹּא נִקְמְצָה – לֹא יַקְטִיר, וְאִם הִקְטִיר – זוֹ שֶׁנִּקְמְצָה עָלַת לַבְּעָלִים, וְזוֹ שֶׁלֹּא נִקְמְצָה לֹא עָלַת לַבְּעָלִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Menachot 23a:14
[Menachot 23a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/23a:14)

נִתְעָרֵב קוּמְצָהּ בִּשְׁיָרֶיהָ, אוֹ בִּשְׁיָרֶיהָ שֶׁל חֲבֶירְתָּהּ – לֹא יַקְטִיר, וְאִם הִקְטִיר – עָלַת לַבְּעָלִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Menachot 23a:15
[Menachot 23a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/23a:15)

**גְּמָ׳** אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: נְבֵילָה בְּטֵילָה בִּשְׁחוּטָה, שֶׁאִי אֶפְשָׁר לִשְׁחוּטָה שֶׁתֵּעָשֶׂה נְבֵילָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Menachot 23a:16
[Menachot 23a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/23a:16)

וּשְׁחוּטָה אֵינָהּ בְּטֵילָה בִּנְבֵילָה, שֶׁאֶפְשָׁר לִנְבֵילָה שֶׁתֵּעָשֶׂה שְׁחוּטָה, דִּלְכִי מַסְרְחָה פָּרְחָה טוּמְאָתָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Menachot 23a:17
[Menachot 23a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/23a:17)

וְרַבִּי חֲנִינָא אָמַר: כׇּל שֶׁאֶפְשָׁר לוֹ לִהְיוֹת כָּמוֹהוּ – אֵינוֹ בָּטֵל, וְכֹל שֶׁאִי אֶפְשָׁר לוֹ לִהְיוֹת כָּמוֹהוּ – בָּטֵל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Menachot 23a:18
[Menachot 23a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/23a:18)

אַלִּיבָּא דְּמַאן? אִי אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבָּנַן, הָא אָמְרִי: עוֹלִין הוּא דְּלָא מְבַטְּלִי אַהֲדָדֵי, אֲבָל מִין בְּמִינוֹ – בָּטֵל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Menachot 23a:19
[Menachot 23a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/23a:19)

אִי אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, וְהָא

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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**