Menachot 22b — the Talmud in English

The Rabbis

who say that sacrificial blood that became mixed with unconsecrated blood is nullified where they do not have the appearance of blood,

hold: ![](pamud.bmp "

precise page location")

from here

this verse teaches

for

all the

things that ascend

upon the altar that became mixed with one another

do not nullify one another,

as with the blood of the bull and the goat, both of which ascend to the altar, and they do not nullify one another! But when sacrificial blood became mixed with unconsecrated blood, which does not ascend to the altar, the unconsecrated blood nullifies the sacrificial blood.

And Rabbi Yehuda holds: from here it is derived that a species

that became mixed

with its own species is not nullified!

For this is the reason that the blood of the goat was not nullified in the blood of the bull; therefore, even when a small amount of sacrificial blood became mixed with a large amount of unconsecrated blood, the sacrificial blood is not nullified in the unconsecrated blood, because it is a species with its own species. 77 .

And we raised an objection concerning this: and

the Rabbis

who

hold that from here it is derived that things that ascend do not nullify one another

from where do they derive this interpretation?

And perhaps

perhaps the reason that the blood of the goat was not nullified in the blood of the bull is

because it is a species with its own species,

as Rabbi Yehuda holds?

And we answer:

if it had informed us

if the Torah had stated this law of non-nullification with regard to a situation in which the mixture was only

a species with its own species, and it had not informed us

and had not spoken of a situation in which the mixture consisted of two things that

“ascend”

upon the altar, I would say

as you have said

that from here one should derive that a species with its own species is not nullified.

Now that it has informed us

that the verse speaks of a situation in which the mixture consists of things that

ascend

upon the altar, we say that the reason this is not nullified is

because “things that ascend”

do not nullify one another! And we challenge this:

and perhaps

perhaps we do not say that they do not nullify one another

until there is

also

a species with its own species and

also

things that ascend,

that is, let us learn from the verse that two conditions are required for there to be no nullification: both that the two ascend and that they be a species with its own species. For the verse speaks of the blood of the bull and the goat, which are both a species with its own species and things that ascend; and from where is it known that things that ascend by themselves do not nullify one another?

And we conclude:

it is difficult!

And furthermore, we raised an objection concerning this:

Rabbi Yehuda

who

holds that from here it is derived that a species with its own species is not nullified:

from where does he derive this interpretation?

And perhaps

perhaps the reason that the blood of the goat was not nullified in the blood of the bull is

because they are things that ascend

as the Rabbis hold?

And we answer:

if it had informed us

if the Torah had stated the law of non-nullification with regard to a situation in which the mixture consisted only of two things that

ascend,

and they were not one species but

a species with a different species,

we would derive that things that ascend do not nullify one another

as you have said; now that it has informed us

that the verse speaks of a situation in which the mixture is

a species with its own species,

we say that the reason this is not nullified is

because it is a species with its own species!

And we challenge this:

perhaps it is only when there are

both of them—

a species with its own species and things that ascend

[as we challenged according to the Rabbis]? And we conclude:

it is difficult!

We learned: Rabbi Yehuda says:

the handful of a voluntary meal-offering became mixed

with the meal-offering of the anointed priest and with the libation meal-offering

the entire mixture is

invalid, for this one has a thick mixture and that one has a thin mixture, and they absorb from one another,

and the handful became invalid because he increased its oil, while the meal-offerings became invalid because he diminished their oil.

And we raised an objection concerning this:

And what if they absorb from one another?

What difference does it make to me that they absorb, for the oil of the meal-offerings absorbed into the handful is not nullified in the oil of the handful, since

it is a species with its own species

and a species with its own species is not nullified according to Rabbi Yehuda? If so, one should say that the excess oil found inside the handful is as though it still exists in the libation meal-offering found inside the mixture, and consequently the handful is not “one whose oil was increased,” nor are the meal-offerings “ones whose oil was diminished”?