## Menachot Daf 23b

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

רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בָּתַר חֲזוּתָא אָזֵיל, וְאִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי מִין בְּמִינוֹ הוּא.

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


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

אֶלָּא, אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי חִיָּיא, דְּתָנֵי רַבִּי חִיָּיא: נְבֵילָה וּשְׁחוּטָה בְּטֵילוֹת זוֹ בָּזוֹ.

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


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

רַבִּי חִיָּיא אַלִּיבָּא דְּמַאן? אִי אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבָּנַן – הָא אָמְרִי: עוֹלִין הוּא דְּלָא מְבַטְּלִי אַהֲדָדֵי, הָא מִין בְּמִינוֹ בָּטֵיל! וְאִי אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה – כׇּל מִין בְּמִינוֹ לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה לֹא בָּטֵיל!

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


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

לְעוֹלָם אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, וְכִי קָא אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: מִין בְּמִינוֹ לֹא בָּטֵל – הָנֵי מִילֵּי הֵיכָא דְּאֶפְשָׁר לֵיהּ לְמִיהְוֵי כְּוָותֵיהּ, אֲבָל הֵיכָא דְּלָא אֶפְשָׁר לֵיהּ לְמִיהְוֵי כְּוָותֵיהּ – בָּטֵל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


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

וּבְהָא קָא מִיפַּלְגִי, דְּרַב חִסְדָּא סָבַר: בָּתַר מְבַטֵּל אָזְלִינַן.

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


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

וְרַבִּי חֲנִינָא סָבַר: בָּתַר בָּטֵל אָזְלִינַן.

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


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

תְּנַן: שְׁתֵּי מְנָחוֹת שֶׁלֹּא נִקְמְצוּ וְנִתְעָרְבוּ זוֹ בְּזוֹ, אִם יָכוֹל לִקְמוֹץ מִזּוֹ בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָהּ וּמִזּוֹ בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָהּ – כְּשֵׁרוֹת, וְאִם לָאו – פְּסוּלוֹת. וְהָא הָכָא, כֵּיוָן דְּקָמֵיץ לֵיהּ מֵחֲדָא – אִידַּךְ הֲוָה לֵיהּ שִׁירַיִם, וְלָא קָא מְבַטְּלִי שִׁירַיִם לְטִיבְלָא.

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


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

מַנִּי? אִי רַבָּנַן – הָא אָמְרִי: עוֹלִין הוּא דְּלָא מְבַטְּלִי הֲדָדֵי, הָא מִין בְּמִינוֹ בָּטֵל! אֶלָּא פְּשִׁיטָא – רַבִּי יְהוּדָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


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

בִּשְׁלָמָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר: בָּתַר בָּטֵל אָזְלִינַן, בָּטֵל הָוֵי כִּמְבַטֵּל, דִּלְכִי קָמֵיץ מֵאִידַּךְ – הָווּ לְהוּ שִׁירַיִם כִּי הָנֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


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

אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר בָּתַר מְבַטֵּל אָזְלִינַן, שִׁירַיִם מִי קָא הָווּ טִיבְלָא? לֵימָא אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַב חִסְדָּא, דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי חִיָּיא.

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


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

הָתָם, כִּדְרַבִּי זֵירָא, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: נֶאֶמְרָה הַקְטָרָה בְּקוֹמֶץ, וְנֶאֶמְרָה הַקְטָרָה בְּשִׁירַיִם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


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

מָה הַקְטָרָה הָאֲמוּרָה בַּקּוֹמֶץ – אֵין הַקּוֹמֶץ מְבַטֵּל אֶת חֲבֵירוֹ, אַף הַקְטָרָה הָאֲמוּרָה בַּשִּׁירַיִם – אֵין שִׁירַיִם מְבַטְּלִין אֶת הַקּוֹמֶץ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


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

תָּא שְׁמַע: הַקּוֹמֶץ שֶׁנִּתְעָרֵב בְּמִנְחָה שֶׁלֹּא נִקְמְצָה – לֹא יַקְטִיר, וְאִם הִקְטִיר – זוֹ שֶׁנִּקְמְצָה עָלְתָה לַבְּעָלִים, וְזוֹ שֶׁלֹּא נִקְמְצָה לֹא עָלְתָה לַבְּעָלִים, וְלָא קָא מְבַטֵּיל לֵיהּ טִיבְלָא לְקוֹמֶץ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


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

מַנִּי? אִי רַבָּנַן – הָא אָמְרִי: עוֹלִין הוּא דְּלָא מְבַטְּלִי הֲדָדֵי, הָא מִין בְּמִינוֹ בְּטִיל! אֶלָּא פְּשִׁיטָא – רַבִּי יְהוּדָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


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

בִּשְׁלָמָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר: בָּתַר מְבַטֵּל אָזְלִינַן, מְבַטֵּל הָוֵי כְּבָטֵל, דְּכֹל פּוּרְתָּא חֲזֵי לְמִקְמַץ מִינֵּיהּ, וְהָוֵי לֵיהּ מִין וּמִינוֹ, וּמִין בְּמִינוֹ לֹא בָּטֵל.

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


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

אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר בָּתַר בָּטֵל אָזְלִינַן, קוֹמֶץ מִי קָא הָוֵי טִיבְלָא? לֵימָא דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי חִיָּיא? הָא נָמֵי כִּדְרַבִּי זֵירָא.

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


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

תָּא שְׁמַע: נִתְעָרֵב קוּמְצָהּ בְּשִׁירַיִם שֶׁל חֲבֶרְתָּהּ – לֹא יַקְטִיר, וְאִם הִקְטִיר – עָלְתָה לַבְּעָלִים. וְהָא הָכָא דְּלָא הָוֵי מְבַטֵּל כְּבָטֵיל, וְלָא קָא מְבַטְּלִי לֵיהּ שִׁירַיִם לְקוֹמֶץ.

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


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

מַנִּי? אִי רַבָּנַן וְכוּ׳.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


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

אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: נֶאֶמְרָה הַקְטָרָה בַּקּוֹמֶץ, וְנֶאֶמְרָה הַקְטָרָה בַּשִּׁירַיִם, מָה הַקְטָרָה הָאֲמוּרָה בַּקּוֹמֶץ – אֵין קוֹמֶץ מְבַטֵּל אֶת חֲבֵירוֹ, אַף הַקְטָרָה הָאֲמוּרָה בַּשִּׁירַיִם – אֵין שִׁירַיִם מְבַטְּלִין אֶת הַקּוֹמֶץ.

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


###### Menachot 23b:20
[Menachot 23b:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/23b:20)

תָּא שְׁמַע: תִּיבְּלָהּ בְּקֶצַח, בְּשׁוּמְשְׁמִין, וּבְכׇל מִינֵי תַּבְלִין – כְּשֵׁרָה. מַצָּה הִיא, אֶלָּא שֶׁנִּקְרֵאת מַצָּה מְתוּבֶּלֶת. קָא סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ דְּאַפֵּישׁ לַהּ תַּבְלִין טְפֵי מִמַּצָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Menachot 23b:21
[Menachot 23b:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/23b:21)

בִּשְׁלָמָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר בָּתַר בָּטֵל אָזְלִינַן, בָּטֵיל הָוֵי כִּמְבַטֵּל, דִּלְכִי מִעַפְּשָׁא (הוי) [הָוְיָא] לַהּ כְּתַבְלִין. אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר בָּתַר מְבַטֵּל אָזְלִינַן, תַּבְלִין מִי קָא הֲווֹ מַצָּה?

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


###### Menachot 23b:22
[Menachot 23b:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/23b:22)

הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן? דְּלָא אַפִּישׁ לַהּ תַּבְלִין, דְּרוּבַּהּ מַצָּה הִיא, וְלָא בָּטְלָה. דַּיְקָא נָמֵי, דְּקָתָנֵי: מַצָּה הִיא, אֶלָּא שֶׁנִּקְרֵאת מַצָּה מְתוּבֶּלֶת, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.

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


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

כִּי סְלֵיק רַב כָּהֲנָא, אַשְׁכְּחִינְהוּ לִבְנֵי רַבִּי חִיָּיא דְּיָתְבִי וְקָאָמְרִי: עִשָּׂרוֹן שֶׁחִלְּקוֹ

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