Menachot 23b — the Talmud in English

But ![](pamud.bmp "

Exact page location")

Rabbi Yehuda follows appearance ,

that is, after the substance of the thing itself, and the matter does not depend on whether the law of this one can be like the law of that one, for in the Mishna Rabbi Yehuda said that unconsecrated blood does not nullify sacrificial blood, even though this one cannot become like that one. And if so, according to Rabbi Yehuda, concerning what did Rav Hisda and Rav Hanina disagree regarding a carcass that became mixed with a slaughtered animal,

and

indeed

this and that are the same kind as each other:

both of them are a kind of flesh, and neither can nullify the other in any manner in which they became mixed?

And we answer:

rather,

the disagreement of Rav Hisda and Rav Hanina is

according to Rabbi Hiyya.

For Rabbi Hiyya taught: A carcass and a slaughtered animal nullify one another!

And they disagreed concerning the words of Rabbi Hiyya: whether a carcass is nullified by a slaughtered animal, or whether a slaughtered animal is nullified by a carcass.

And we raise the difficulty:

Rabbi Hiyya

himself

according to whom

did he state his words

? If according to the Rabbis, they say: It is only olim that do not nullify one another; but a kind with its own kind is nullified,

whereas from Rabbi Hiyya’s words it appears that he holds that a kind with its own kind is not nullified, and specifically a carcass and a slaughtered animal nullify one another because they are considered a kind with a different kind. For if Rav Hiyya held like the Rabbis, he should have simply said: A kind with its own kind is nullified by one another. Why, then, did he specifically state the example of a carcass and a slaughtered animal

? And if according to Rabbi Yehuda,

then

every kind with its own kind, according to Rabbi Yehuda, is not nullified

and a carcass and a slaughtered animal are a kind with their own kind according to Rabbi Yehuda

And we answer:

Actually,

Rabbi Hiyya stated his words

according to Rabbi Yehuda ,

and

Rabbi Hiyya holds that

when Rabbi Yehuda says that a kind with its own kind is not nullified, this applies where it is possible

for one

to become like the other

one;

but where it is not possible

for one

to become like the other

one—

it is nullified!

For it is considered a kind with a different kind, and it is therefore nullified. 92 .

And in this they disagree

Rav Hisda and Rabbi Hanina concerning the words of Rabbi Hiyya

For Rav Hisda holds: We follow the nullifying substance

for if the nullifying substance can become like the nullified substance, this is a kind with its own kind.

And Rabbi Hanina holds: We follow the nullified substance

for only if the nullified substance can become like the nullifying substance is it considered a kind with its own kind. [Regarding the sacrificial and unconsecrated blood that Rabbi Yehuda says in the Mishna do not nullify one another: according to Rav Hanina this is understandable, since sacrificial blood can become like unconsecrated blood; if it remains overnight, it leaves its sanctity and there is no misuse of consecrated property with it, and it is therefore like unconsecrated blood. But according to Rav Hisda, who follows the nullifying substance, this is apparently difficult, for unconsecrated blood cannot become like sacrificial blood. According to Rav Hisda, it must be said that the Mishna according to Rabbi Yehuda holds unlike Rabbi Hiyya. Rashi, based on the words of Tosafot above, 22b, beginning “Rabbi Yehuda”].

We learned

in the Mishna:

Two meal-offerings from which the handfuls were not taken, and they became mixed with one another—

if he can take a handful from this one separately and from that one separately—

they are fit; and if not—

they are disqualified.

And we raise the difficulty:

But here, since he takes a handful from one

meal-offering, then indeed

the other one,

what remains from the meal-offering after the taking of the handful,

becomes “remainders”

of a meal-offering from which the handful was taken,

and these do not nullify

these “

remainders” the “tevella”

for the second meal-offering [and it is called “tevella” because a handful has not yet been taken from it, for it is like tevel from which terumot have not been separated] 93 .

'And there was room to say that part of the “tevel” of the second meal-offering should be nullified in the “remainders” of the first meal-offering, for it is clear that there is one place within the mixture where a majority of remainders is mixed with a minority of tevel. If that small amount of tevel were nullified, this meal-offering would be disqualified, for it would be like a meal-offering that became deficient before the taking of the handful, for which a further taking of a handful is of no avail. [According to the Shita Mekubetzet, letter b].

Who is it

who is the tanna of the Mishna who holds that the tevel is not nullified in the remainders?

If the Rabbis, they say: It is only olim that do not nullify one another; but a kind with its own kind is nullified!

And the remainders are not olim; why should they not nullify the tevel?

Rather, it is obvious

that the tanna of the Mishna

is Rabbi Yehuda

and therefore the tevel is not nullified, because the remainders and the tevel are a kind with their own kind.

And now we ask:

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

and then it is considered a kind with its own kind; accordingly, in the case of the Mishna, the tevel, which is the

nullified substance, is

able to be

like the nullifying substance

that is, like the remainders,

for when he takes a handful from the other one,

from the tevel,

the nullified tevel becomes

for the nullified tevel

remainders—

like these

remainders, which are the nullifying substance! [Apparently, this is also difficult according to this opinion: why should the tevel not nullify the remainders, since the remainders cannot become tevel, and the meal-offering, which is tevel, should be disqualified on account of “an excess of its flour,” since the minority of remainders that is nullified in it is added beyond its measure; see what Rashi answered].

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

the remainders

which are the nullifying substance,

can they become tevel

like the nullified substance!? But the remainders will never return and become tevel. And if so, it is a kind with a different kind; why should the remainders not nullify the tevel?

Let us say

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

the Mishna is not like Rabbi Hiyya

who says, according to Rabbi Yehuda, that it is considered a kind with its own kind only when this can become like that, whereas in the Mishna it is explained that according to Rabbi Yehuda everything that is intrinsically similar is a kind with its own kind

And we answer:

There

what is explained in the Mishna, that the remainders do not nullify the tevel, is for another reason—

as Rabbi Zeira said. For Rabbi Zeira said: Burning was stated concerning the handful, and burning was stated concerning the remainders

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

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

for they are exactly equal in their law,

so too concerning the burning stated with regard to the remainders

not to burn them,

the remainders do not nullify the handful,

and likewise the remainders do not nullify the tevel, for there is also a handful within it. 94 .

Come and hear:

it is written in the Mishna:

A handful that became mixed with a meal-offering from which a handful was not taken—

he shall not burn it, but if he burned it

then

this one, from which the handful was taken, has fulfilled its obligation for the owners, but this one, from which the handful was not taken, has not fulfilled its obligation for the owners!

And do we not

say

that the tevel nullifies the handful

so that it is as though the handful were lost and was not burned on the altar, and even this one, from which the handful was taken, should not fulfill the owners’ obligation?

Who

is the tanna of the Mishna

If it is the Sages—

If the Rabbis— they say: It is only olim that do not nullify one another; but a kind with its own kind is nullified,

so why should the handful not be nullified?

Rather, it is obvious: it is Rabbi Yehuda

it is.

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

what is written in the Mishna, that the handful is not nullified, is understandable: the meal-offering from which a handful was not taken, which is the

nullifying substance, is

able to be

like

the handful, which is the

nullified substance, for every small portion

every portion of the meal-offering from which a handful was not taken

is fit for taking a handful from it

and becoming a handful [had the handful not become mixed into it]

and it is a kind with its own kind, and a kind with its own kind is not nullified.

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

then it is difficult: why was the handful not nullified? For a handful that became mixed with a meal-offering is considered a kind with a different kind, since

can a handful become

become

tevel?

And we answer:

This too is in accordance with Rabbi Zeira

for just as one handful does not nullify another handful, so the tevel that contains a handful does not nullify the handful.

Come and hear:

we learned in the Mishna

If its handful became mixed with its remainders, or with the remainders of another one, he shall not burn it, but if he burned it, it has fulfilled the owners’ obligation!

But here, where the nullifying substance

which is the remainders, can become

like

the handful, which is the

nullified substance,

for after a handful has been taken from it and it has become remainders, it is impossible to take another handful from it,

and the nullified substance

can become

like the nullifying substance,

for the handful cannot become remainders,

and do we not

say that

the remainders nullify the handful

and it should not fulfill the owners’ obligation even if he burned the entire mixture?

Who is it? If the Rabbis, and so on [and as above]

[and as above] Rather, it is obvious that it is Rabbi Yehuda, and it 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 nullified substance

And we answer:

Rabbi Zeira said [and here Rabbi Zeira stated his words—Shita Mekubetzet 11]:

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

Burning was stated concerning the handful, and burning was stated concerning the remainders—

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

Come and hear:

we learned in a beraita: dough of a mitzva matza that

he seasoned with black cumin

a kind of spice, or

with sesame,

or

with all kinds of spices ,

is fit

to fulfill with it the obligation of matza, because

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

It enters your mind that he increased

that he added

more spices to it

more

than matza

than flour and water, and nevertheless the matza was not nullified by the spices.

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

it is like a kind with its own kind, for the matza, which is the

nullified substance, is

able to be

like

the spices, which are the

nullifying substance,

because

when it becomes moldy

when the matza becomes moldy, it leaves the status of matza and

becomes like spices

with which one does not fulfill his obligation.

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

and if so it is a kind with a different kind; why should the matza not be nullified

And we answer:

With what are we dealing here? With a case where he did not add many spices to it,

rather, it means

that it is mostly matza, and it is not nullified.

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

and it implies that it is mostly matza.

Learn from it! [And see the novellae of Rabbi Haim Halevi in the laws of Hametz u-Matza and the glosses of the Hazon Ish there].