Menachot 22b (כב:) — the Talmud in English

The Rabbis

who say that sacrificial blood that became mixed with unconsecrated blood is nullified when there is no appearance of blood in it,

hold:

from here

this verse teaches

for

all the

offerings that ascend

onto the altar and became mixed with one another

that they do not nullify one another,

as with the blood of the bull and the goat, both of which are offerings that ascend to the altar and do not nullify one another. But when sacrificial blood becomes 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 substance mixed with another substance of its own kind is not nullified!

that became mixed

with another substance of its own kind and is not nullified!

This is the reason that the blood of the goat was not nullified by the blood of the bull. Therefore, even when a small quantity of sacrificial blood became mixed with a large quantity of unconsecrated blood, the sacrificial blood is not nullified by the unconsecrated blood, because it is a substance mixed with another substance of its own kind 77 .

And we raised this question:

The Rabbis

who

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

from where do they derive this interpretation?

Perhaps

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

because it is a substance mixed with another substance of its own kind,

as Rabbi Yehuda holds?

And we answer:

If it had taught us

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

a substance mixed with another substance of its own kind, and had not taught us

and had not spoken of a case involving two substances that

“ascend”

onto the altar, I would say

exactly as you said,

that one should derive from here that a substance mixed with another substance of its own kind is not nullified.

Now that it has taught us

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

ascend

onto the altar, we say that the reason this mixture is not nullified is

because “offerings that ascend”

do not nullify one another. And we challenge this:

Perhaps

the principle that they do not nullify one another is stated

only when there is also

both

a substance mixed with another substance of its own kind and

also

offerings that ascend,

that is, we should derive from the verse that two conditions are required for the mixture not to be nullified: both that the two substances ascend to the altar and that they be of the same kind. For the verse speaks of the blood of the bull and the goat, which are both of the same kind and offerings that ascend. But from where is it known that offerings that ascend by themselves do not nullify one another?

And we conclude:

The difficulty remains!

And we further raised this question:

Rabbi Yehuda

who

holds that from here it is derived that a substance mixed with another substance of its own kind is not nullified:

from where does he derive this interpretation?

Perhaps

the reason that the blood of the goat was not nullified by the blood of the bull is

because they are offerings that ascend

as the Rabbis hold?

And we answer:

If it had taught us

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

ascend,

but are not of one kind, rather

a substance mixed with another substance not of its kind,

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

exactly as you said. Now that it has taught us

that the verse speaks of a mixture consisting of

a substance mixed with another substance of its own kind,

we say that the reason this mixture is not nullified is

because it is a substance mixed with another substance of its own kind!

And we challenge this:

Perhaps it is only when there are

both

a substance mixed with another substance of its own kind and offerings that ascend [

as we challenged according to the Rabbis]. And we conclude:

The difficulty remains!

We learned in the Mishna: Rabbi Yehuda says:

If the handful of a voluntary meal-offering became mixed

with the meal-offering of a consecrated priest or with a libation-offering,

the entire mixture is

invalid, because the kneading of one is thick and the kneading of the other is loose, and they absorb from one another.

The handful becomes invalid because its oil has been increased, and the meal-offerings become invalid because their oil has been diminished.

And we raised a question about this:

And what if they absorb from one another?

Why should it matter that they absorb from one another? The oil of the meal-offerings that is absorbed into the handful is not nullified by the oil of the handful, since

it is a substance mixed with another substance of its own kind,

and a substance mixed with another substance of its own kind is not nullified according to Rabbi Yehuda. If so, one could say that the excess oil found within the handful is as though it still exists in the libation-offering contained within the mixture, and consequently the handful is not considered to have had its oil increased, nor are the meal-offerings considered to have had their oil diminished