Menachot 23b (כג:) — the Talmud in English

But

Rabbi Yehuda follows the appearance ,

that is, the essence of the matter, and the issue does not depend on whether the status of one can become like the status of the other. For in the Mishna, Rabbi Yehuda said that non-sacred blood does not nullify sacrificial blood, even though the former cannot become like the latter. If so, according to Rabbi Yehuda, it is difficult: in what did Rav Ḥisda and Rav Ḥanina disagree concerning an unslaughtered carcass that became intermingled with an animal that had been slaughtered,

for

after all,

both this and that are the same species

they are both species of flesh, and one cannot nullify the other regardless of how they became intermingled?

And we answer:

Rather,

the disagreement between Rav Ḥisda and Rav Ḥanina is

according to the opinion of Rabbi Ḥiyya.

As Rabbi Ḥiyya taught: An unslaughtered carcass and slaughtered meat become nullified in one another!

And they disagree concerning Rabbi Ḥiyya’s statement: whether the unslaughtered carcass becomes nullified in the slaughtered meat, or whether the slaughtered meat becomes nullified in the unslaughtered carcass.

And we raise a difficulty:

Rabbi Ḥiyya

himself

according to whose opinion

did he state his ruling

? If it is according to the opinion of the Rabbis, they said: It is only consecrated offerings that do not nullify one another; but a mixture of the same species does become nullified,

whereas Rabbi Ḥiyya’s statement indicates that he holds that a mixture of the same species does not become nullified, and that specifically an unslaughtered carcass and slaughtered meat become nullified in one another because they are considered a mixture of unlike species. For if Rav Ḥiyya holds in accordance with the Rabbis, he should have simply said: A mixture of the same species becomes nullified in one another. Why, then, did he specifically mention the example of an unslaughtered carcass and slaughtered meat

? And if it is according to Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion,

then

according to Rabbi Yehuda, no mixture of the same species becomes nullified

and an unslaughtered carcass and slaughtered meat are a mixture of the same species according to Rabbi Yehuda

?

Actually,

Rabbi Ḥiyya stated his ruling

according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda ,

and

Rabbi Ḥiyya holds that

when Rabbi Yehuda says that a mixture of the same species does not become nullified, this applies when it is possible for one of them

to become

like the other

;

but where it is impossible for one of them

to become

like the other

—

it becomes nullified!

For it is considered a mixture of unlike species, and therefore it becomes nullified. 92 .

And it is in this

that Rav Ḥisda and Rabbi Ḥanina disagree concerning Rabbi Ḥiyya’s statement

: Rav Ḥisda holds: We follow the nullifying substance

so that if the nullifying substance can become like the substance being nullified, it is a mixture of the same species.

And Rabbi Ḥanina holds: We follow the substance being nullified

so that only if the substance being nullified can become like the nullifying substance is it considered a mixture of the same species. As for the sacrificial blood and non-sacred blood that Rabbi Yehuda said in the Mishna do not nullify one another: Granted, according to Rav Ḥanina this works well, since sacrificial blood can become like non-sacred blood—if it remains overnight, it loses its sanctity, there is no misuse of consecrated property involving it, and it is like non-sacred blood. But according to Rav Ḥisda, who follows the nullifying substance, this is seemingly difficult, since non-sacred blood cannot become like sacrificial blood. According to Rav Ḥisda, it must be said that the Mishna’s statement concerning Rabbi Yehuda does not follow Rabbi Ḥiyya’s opinion. Rashi, based on the words of Tosafot above, 22b, beginning with the words “Rabbi Yehuda”].

We learned

in the Mishna:

Two meal-offerings that had not yet had their handfuls removed, and that became intermingled with one another—

if one can remove a handful from this one separately and from that one separately—

they are fit; but if not—

they are unfit.

And we raise a difficulty:

But here, once he removes a handful from one

meal-offering,

the other

the portion remaining from the meal-offering after the handful was removed

becomes “remainder”

of a meal-offering from which a handful was removed,

and the

“remainder”

does not nullify the “untithed produce”

of the second meal-offering [and it is called “untithed produce” because its handful has not yet been removed, as it is comparable to untithed produce from which terumot have not yet been separated] 93 .

And one might have said that part of the “untithed produce” of the second meal-offering would become nullified in the “remainder” of the first meal-offering, since it is clear that within the mixture there is a particular area in which a majority of remainder is mixed with a minority of untithed produce. If that small amount of untithed produce became nullified, this meal-offering would become unfit, since it would be like a meal-offering that was deficient before the handful was removed, for which the removal of a handful is no longer effective. [According to the Shita Mekubetzet, letter bet]'.

Whose

is the tanna of the Mishna who holds that the untithed produce does not become nullified in the remainder?

If it is the Rabbis, they said: It is only consecrated offerings that do not nullify one another; but a mixture of the same species does become nullified!

And the remainder is not “consecrated offerings”; why, then, should it not nullify the untithed produce

?

Rather, obviously,

the tanna of the Mishna is

Rabbi Yehuda, and that is why the untithed produce does not become nullified, because the remainder and the untithed produce are a mixture of the same species.

And now we raise a difficulty:

Granted, according to the one who says that we follow the substance being nullified,

and therefore this is considered a mixture of the same species: In the case of the Mishna, the untithed produce, which

is the substance being nullified,

can be

like the nullifying substance,

that is, like the remainder,

for when he removes a handful from the other one,

from the untithed produce,

the untithed produce

that was to be nullified

becomes remainder—

like this

remainder that nullifies it! [Apparently, this too is difficult according to this opinion: Why should the untithed produce not nullify the remainder, since the remainder cannot become untithed produce? The meal-offering, which is untithed produce, should then become unfit because of “an excess of its fine flour,” as that minority of remainder which becomes nullified is added to its prescribed measure. See Rashi’s explanation].

Rather, according to the one who says that we follow the nullifying substance—

the remainder,

which is the nullifying substance,

can it become untithed produce

like the substance being nullified!? The remainder will never revert and become untithed produce. If so, it is a mixture of unlike species, and why should the remainder not nullify the untithed produce

?

Let us say

that according to Rav Ḥisda, who holds that we follow the nullifying substance,

the Mishna is not in accordance with Rabbi Ḥiyya, who says according to Rabbi Yehuda that they are considered a mixture of the same species only when one can become like the other. For the Mishna indicates that according to Rabbi Yehuda, anything that is intrinsically similar is a mixture of the same species

?

And we answer:

There, in the case of the Mishna, where it is established that the remainder does not nullify the untithed produce, this is for a different reason—

and it is in accordance with Rabbi Zeira. As Rabbi Zeira said: Burning is stated with regard to the handful, and burning is stated with regard to the remainder

as it is said concerning them: “You shall not burn,” and we derive:

Just as with regard to the burning stated concerning the handful, one handful does not nullify another,

since they are entirely equal in their legal status,

so too with regard to the burning stated concerning the remainder,

that they must not be burned,

the remainder does not nullify the handful,

and likewise the remainder does not nullify the untithed produce, since it contains a handful as well. 94 .

Come and hear:

It is written in the Mishna:

A handful that became intermingled with a meal-offering from which a handful had not been removed—

he may not burn it, but if he burned it,

then

this one, from which the handful was removed, has fulfilled the obligation of its owners, while that one, from which the handful was not removed, has not fulfilled the obligation of its owners!

And

we do not say:

the untithed produce nullifies the handful,

which would be as though the handful had been lost and was not burned on the altar, so that even this meal-offering from which the handful was removed should not fulfill the obligation of its owners.

Whose

is the tanna of the Mishna

? If it is the Rabbis—

they said: It is only consecrated offerings that do not nullify one another; but a mixture of the same species does become nullified,

so why should the handful not become nullified

?

Rather, obviously, it is Rabbi Yehuda

. Granted, according to the one who says that we follow the nullifying substance,

it is understandable that the Mishna states that the handful does not become nullified: The meal-offering from which a handful had not been removed, which

is the nullifying substance,

can become

like

the handful that is

the substance being nullified, since every small portion

of the meal-offering from which the handful had not been removed

is fit for a handful to be removed from it

and to become a handful [had the handful not become intermingled with it]

and it is therefore a mixture of the same species, and a mixture of the same species does not become nullified.

But according to the one who says that we follow the substance being nullified,

it is difficult: Why does the handful not become nullified? A handful that became intermingled with a meal-offering is considered a mixture of unlike species, since

can a handful

become

untithed produce?

And we answer:

This too is in accordance with Rabbi Zeira,

for just as a handful does not nullify another handful, so too the untithed produce containing a handful does not nullify the handful.

Come and hear:

We learned in the Mishna:

If its handful became intermingled with its remainder, or with the remainder of another meal-offering, he may not burn it; but if he burned it, it fulfilled the obligation of its owners!

But here, the nullifying substance does not become

which is the remainder,

like

the handful, which is the

substance being nullified,

since once the handful has been removed and it has become remainder, it is no longer possible to remove another handful from it,

and the substance being nullified does not become

able to be

like the nullifying substance,

since the handful cannot become remainder,

and

we do not say that

the remainder nullifies the handful,

so that it would not fulfill the obligation of its owners even if he burned the entire mixture.

Whose, if it is the Rabbis, etc. [and as above] Rather, obviously, it is Rabbi Yehuda, and this is difficult both according to the one who says that we follow the nullifying substance and according to the one who says that we follow the substance being nullified

?

And we answer:

Rabbi Zeira said [that is, here Rabbi Zeira stated his principle—Shita Mekubetzet 11]:

Burning is stated with regard to the handful, and burning is stated with regard to the remainder—

just as with regard to the burning stated concerning the handful, one handful does not nullify another, so too with regard to the burning stated concerning the remainder, the remainder does not nullify the handful!

just as with regard to the burning stated concerning the handful, one handful does not nullify another, so too, with regard to the burning stated concerning the remainders, the remainders do not nullify the handful!

Come and hear:

We learned in a beraita: Dough of a mitzva matza that

was seasoned with nigella

a type of spice, or

with sesame,

or

with any type of spice ,

is fit

to fulfill one’s obligation with it as matza, because

it is matza, except that it is called “seasoned matza.”

It might have entered your mind that the spices are abundant

that he added

far more spices

than

matza,

the flour and water, and nevertheless the matza did not become nullified in the spices.

Granted, according to the one who says that we follow the substance being nullified,

it is considered a mixture of the same species, since the matza, which

is the substance being nullified,

can become

like

the spices, which are

the nullifying substance,

because

when it becomes moldy,

the matza loses its status as matza and

becomes like spices,

with which one cannot fulfill one’s obligation.

But according to the one who says that we follow the nullifying substance, can spices become matza,

and if so, it is a mixture of unlike species; why, then, does the matza not become nullified

? And we answer:

Here, with what are we dealing? With a case where he did not add an abundance of spices to it,

but rather, it is referring to a case

where it is mostly matza, and it does not become nullified.

This is also precise, as it teaches: “It is matza, except that it is called seasoned matza,”

which indicates that it is mostly matza.

Conclude from it! [See the novellae of Rabbi Ḥayyim HaLevi in the Laws of Hametz and Matza and the glosses of the Ḥazon Ish there].