Menachot 23a — the Talmud in English

And we answer:

Rava said: Rabbi Yehuda holds: Anything that is

a mixture of

a kind with its own kind and

also

another thing,

which is not its kind, is mixed into it, we say:

Remove its kind as though it were not present, and that which is not its kind

mixed with it

predominates over it and nullifies it!

And this is the case here as well: the oil indeed does not nullify the oil because it is its kind, but the fine flour of the kometz nullifies the oil absorbed into it from the meal-offering of libations. And from this point one cannot say that this oil still exists in the meal-offering of libations; rather, it belongs to the kometz, and it is therefore “increased in its oil” with regard to the kometz, and “decreased in its oil” with regard to the meal-offerings. [And the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Yehuda of the Mishna and deem valid a kometz that became mixed with a meal-offering of libations, follow their own position that olah offerings do not nullify one another, even a kind in that which is not its kind — explanation of the passage according to the Rashash and the explanation of Rabbi Akiva Eiger in the Mishnayot.]

It was stated: A kometz of

taken from

a sin-offering meal-offering

[and the law of a sin-offering meal-offering is that no oil is placed in it at all]

whose oil was added,

that is, oil was placed on the kometz,

Rabbi Yohanan said: It is invalid! And Reish Lakish said: It itself

—the kometz—has this as the beginning of its mitzva:

he swishes it

the kometz of the sin-offering meal-offering

in the remnants of the log

of oil of another meal-offering that contains oil

! And

only after he rubs the kometz with oil

he brings it up

onto the altar ; and all the more so where he added oil to the kometz, for it is valid to bring it up.

And we raise an objection to Reish Lakish:

But it is written

in the sin-offering meal-offering:

“He shall not place oil upon it, nor put frankincense upon it”?

And we answer:

That

verse says this:

that he shall not establish oil for it

for the sin-offering meal-offering before the kemitza

like its fellows,

like the other meal-offerings, for which one establishes the oil even before their kemitza. But after kemitza, if he adds oil to the kometz, it is valid 80 .

Rabbi Yohanan raised an objection to Reish Lakish:

It was taught: A kometz

dry

that contains no oil

that became mixed with a mixed one,

with the kometz of a meal-offering mixed with oil

—he shall offer

everything on the altar

! Rabbi Yehuda says: He shall not offer!

[The Rabbis and Rabbi Yehuda follow their positions, as they disputed in the Mishna.]

Is it not so

that the beraita apparently speaks of

the kometz of a sin-offering meal-offering

which is dry

that became mixed

which was mixed

with the kometz of a voluntary meal-offering

which is mixed with oil ? And specifically because it became mixed with another kometz, both of them being olah offerings, the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Yehuda and hold “he shall offer”; but if one simply put oil [which is not an olah offering on the altar] on the kometz of a sin-offering meal-offering, the Rabbis agree that it is invalid for offering. And this is difficult for Reish Lakish?

And we answer:

No,

the beraita is not speaking of a mixture of kometzim of a voluntary meal-offering and a sin-offering meal-offering; rather, it is speaking of a mixture of

the meal-offering of bulls and rams

which are relatively “dry,” since they contain only two logs of oil per isaron of fine flour,

with the meal-offering of sheep

which is relatively “mixed,” since it contains three logs of oil per isaron of fine flour. And since the meal-offering of bulls and rams is also mixed with oil, but is dry relative to the meal-offering of sheep, the beraita therefore used the expression “a dry one that became mixed with a mixed one.” Only concerning this did the Rabbis and Rabbi Yehuda dispute, and Rabbi Yehuda’s reason for declaring it invalid is that its mixture changed—from a thick mixture to a thin mixture. But concerning the kometz of a sin-offering meal-offering, which contains no oil at all, everyone agrees that it is not invalidated when oil is placed upon it after it was taken by kemitza!

And we object:

But it explicitly teaches it

concerning the meal-offering of bulls and rams at the beginning of that same beraita. For it was taught:

The meal-offering of bulls and rams

that became mixed

with the meal-offering of sheep, and

so too

a dry one that became mixed with a mixed one—

he shall offer. Rabbi Yehuda says—

he shall not offer!

And if so, necessarily what is written, “a dry one that became mixed with a mixed one,” does not refer to the meal-offering of bulls and rams, but rather to the kometz of a sin-offering meal-offering that became mixed with a voluntary meal-offering?

And we answer: The beraita is indeed speaking of a meal-offering of bulls that became mixed with a meal-offering of sheep, and what is written, “a dry one that became mixed with a mixed one,”

he is explaining it,

it is an explanation of what he said at the beginning, “the meal-offering of bulls,” and so he says: The meal-offering of bulls, and so on—that is, a dry one that became mixed with a mixed one!

Rava asked: A kometz whose oil was extracted

absorbed within it

onto the wood

of the arrangement upon the altar, and he placed the kometz as well upon those woods and burned it upon them,

what is

its law, to invalidate it because the kometz was decreased?

Do we say

“the attachments of olah offerings

—the oil in the wood, which is attached to the kometz when he again placed the kometz upon the wood containing the oil—

are considered like olah offerings,

as though the oil were absorbed in the kometz, and the kometz was not decreased, and it is valid;

or are they not considered like olah offerings

and it is invalid? [Another explanation:

“the attachments of olah offerings

that is, the oil attached to the kometz

are considered like olah offerings

and he is obligated to burn it, for if he does not burn it, it is like burning a deficient kometz; and if it was extracted onto the wood, he should burn the kometz together with the wood,

or they are not considered like olah offerings

and it is not considered like a kometz that was decreased.]

Ravina said to Rav Ashi:

And is it not so that this is

the very same as

the dispute

between Rabbi Yohanan and Reish Lakish? For it was stated: One who brings up

outside the Temple courtyard

a limb

from the offering

that does not contain an olive-bulk, and a bone completes it to an olive-bulk

[and an olive-bulk is the measure for liability to excision for bringing up outside]—

Rabbi Yohanan said: He is liable

according to the law of one who brings up an olive-bulk of sacrificial flesh outside.

Reish Lakish said: He is exempt!

And we explain their reasons:

Rabbi Yohanan said: He is liable

because he holds that

“the attachments of olah offerings

that is, the bone attached to the flesh, which is an “olah offering,”

are considered like olah offerings; and Reish Lakish said: He is exempt

because he holds that

“the attachments of olah offerings are not considered like olah offerings.”

And we reject this: Our question is not similar to their dispute; rather,

it is a question according to Rabbi Yohanan, and it is a question

also

according to Reish Lakish.

The question according to Rabbi Yohanan: Rabbi Yohanan said only there

that the attachments of olah offerings are considered like olah offerings

concerning a bone, which is of the kind

of the kind

of flesh, but here,

oil

is not of the kind of the kometz,

for this is fine flour and that is oil; perhaps

not

do we say that the attachments of olah offerings are considered like olah offerings.

Or perhaps

it can be said in the opposite manner:

even Reish

Lakish said only

that the attachments of olah offerings are not considered like olah offerings

concerning a bone, since it is a separable thing,

which can be separated from the flesh,

and if it separated

from the arrangement and fell,

it is not a mitzva to return it; but oil, which is not a separable thing,

from the fine flour

not

do we say that it is not considered like an olah offering,

or perhaps there is no difference?

And we conclude:

Let it stand!

Mishna:

Two meal-offerings that had not yet been taken by kemitza

still

and became mixed with one another, if

they became mixed in such a way that a small amount of fine flour remained from each meal-offering, sufficient for the measure of a kometz, not mixed with the other meal-offering but recognizable by itself, and

he can take by kemitza from

one meal-offering

by itself, and from

one meal-offering

by itself,

the meal-offerings

are valid. But if not,

that all the flour of the two meal-offerings became mixed with one another, then both of them are

invalid,

for a meal-offering is valid only when the entire kometz is from the meal-offering itself, and not when fine flour from another meal-offering became mixed into it.

A kometz that became mixed with another meal-offering

of another offering

that had not been taken by kemitza—

he shall not burn

the entire mixture, for one may not burn together with the kometz something that is not subject to burning! And it is also impossible now to take by kemitza from the mixture at the place where the kometz became mixed, two kemitzot for the two meal-offerings, lest each kometz contain some of the fine flour of the other meal-offering.

And if he burned

the entire mixture

the one that was taken by kemitza has been accepted for its owners

and they have fulfilled their vow, since its kometz, which was in the mixture, was burned upon the altar;

but the one that had not been taken by kemitza has not been accepted for its owners

because it is not permitted without kemitza.

If its kometz became mixed

of a meal-offering

with its remnants

of that same meal-offering

or with the remnants of its fellow —

he shall not burn

the mixture, for the remnants of a meal-offering are forbidden for burning, because everything from which a part goes up upon the altar to the fire, its remaining parts are forbidden for burning by Torah law 85 .

And if

he transgressed and

burned it, it has been accepted for its owners,

for the kometz of their meal-offering was burned upon the altar.

Gemara:

Rav Hisda said:

A piece of flesh

of an unslaughtered carcass

that became mixed with two pieces of flesh from a slaughtered animal

is nullified

the unslaughtered carcass [among the majority]

among the slaughtered flesh,

and if a person touched one of the pieces, he is not impure, for this mixture is considered a mixture of a kind with that which is not its kind, in which the law of nullification by the majority applies,

because it is impossible

ever

for the slaughtered flesh to become an unslaughtered carcass

and become impure; therefore, with regard to the slaughtered flesh, the unslaughtered carcass is like another kind 86 .

And slaughtered flesh

that became mixed with two pieces of unslaughtered carcass

is not nullified among the unslaughtered carcass

and if teruma touched one of the pieces, it is not certainly impure; rather, it is possibly impure, and one does not burn it , because

it is possible for the unslaughtered carcass to become slaughtered flesh

that is, it is possible that the unslaughtered carcass should have the status of slaughtered flesh in this respect, that it does not convey impurity, namely,

when it becomes putrid

when the flesh of the unslaughtered carcass putrefies and is no longer fit for eating,

its impurity departs,

and therefore it is considered a kind with its own kind, which is not nullified. Thus, according to Rav Hisda, one follows the majority that nullifies: if it can become like the minority, it is considered a kind with its own kind; and if not, it is considered a kind with that which is not its kind.

And Rabbi Hanina said:

One follows the item that is nullified. Therefore

everything that can

cause the minority that is nullified

to become like it,

like the majority that nullifies it—for example, a minority of carrion that became mixed with a majority of slaughtered meat—is like kind with its kind, and

is not

nullified; and everything that cannot

be nullified

become like it,

like the item that nullifies it—for example, a minority of slaughtered meat that became mixed with a majority of carrion—is a kind with that which is not its kind, and

is nullified;

and all the pieces are considered according to the law certainly impure, and teruma that touched one of them is burned.

And we raised it:

According to whom

did Rav Hisda and Rabbi Hanina disagree?