Menachot — Daf 23b

רבי יהודה בתר חזותא אזיל ואידי ואידי מין במינו הוא

אלא אליבא דרבי חייא דתני רבי חייא נבילה ושחוטה בטילות זו בזו

רבי חייא אליבא דמאן אי אליבא דרבנן הא אמרי עולין הוא דלא מבטלי אהדדי הא מין במינו בטיל ואי אליבא דר' יהודה כל מין במינו לר' יהודה לא בטיל

לעולם אליבא דר' יהודה וכי קא אמר ר' יהודה מין במינו לא בטל ה"מ היכא דאפשר ליה למיהוי כוותיה אבל היכא דלא אפשר ליה למיהוי כוותיה בטל

ובהא קא מיפלגי דרב חסדא סבר בתר מבטל אזלינן

ור' חנינא סבר בתר בטל אזלינן

תנן שתי מנחות שלא נקמצו ונתערבו זו בזו אם יכול לקמוץ מזו בפני עצמה ומזו בפני עצמה כשרות ואם לאו פסולות והא הכא כיון דקמיץ ליה מחדא אידך הוה ליה שירים ולא קא מבטלי שירים לטיבלא

מני אי רבנן הא אמרי עולין הוא דלא מבטלי הדדי הא מין במינו בטל אלא פשיטא רבי יהודה

בשלמא למ"ד בתר בטל אזלינן בטל הוי כמבטל דלכי קמיץ מאידך הוו להו שירים כי הני

אלא למ"ד בתר מבטל אזלינן שירים מי קא הוו טיבלא לימא (אליבא דרב חסדא) דלא כרבי חייא

התם כדר' זירא דא"ר זירא נאמרה הקטרה בקומץ ונאמרה הקטרה בשירים

מה הקטרה האמורה בקומץ אין הקומץ מבטל את חבירו אף הקטרה האמורה בשירים אין שירים מבטלין את הקומץ

ת"ש הקומץ שנתערב במנחה שלא נקמצה לא יקטיר ואם הקטיר זו שנקמצה עלתה לבעלים וזו שלא נקמצה לא עלתה לבעלים ולא קא מבטיל ליה טיבלא לקומץ

מני אי רבנן הא אמרי עולין הוא דלא מבטלי הדדי הא מין במינו בטיל אלא פשיטא ר' יהודה

בשלמא למ"ד בתר מבטל אזלינן מבטל הוי כבטל דכל פורתא חזי למקמץ מיניה והוי ליה מין ומינו ומין במינו לא בטל

אלא למ"ד בתר בטל אזלינן קומץ מי קא הוי טיבלא לימא דלא כרבי חייא הא נמי כדרבי זירא

ת"ש נתערב קומצה בשירים של חברתה לא יקטיר ואם הקטיר עלתה לבעלים והא הכא דלא הוי מבטל כבטיל ולא קא מבטלי ליה שירים לקומץ

מני אי רבנן וכו'

א"ר זירא נאמרה הקטרה בקומץ ונאמרה הקטרה בשירים מה הקטרה האמורה בקומץ אין קומץ מבטל את חבירו אף הקטרה האמורה בשירים אין שירים מבטלין את הקומץ

ת"ש תיבלה בקצח בשומשמין ובכל מיני תבלין כשרה מצה היא אלא שנקראת מצה מתובלת קא סלקא דעתך דאפיש לה תבלין טפי ממצה

בשלמא למאן דאמר בתר בטל אזלינן בטיל הוי כמבטל דלכי מעפשא הוי לה כתבלין אלא למאן דאמר בתר מבטל אזלינן תבלין מי קא הוו מצה

הכא במאי עסקינן דלא אפיש לה תבלין דרובה מצה היא ולא בטלה דיקא נמי דקתני מצה היא אלא שנקראת מצה מתובלת ש"מ

כי סליק רב כהנא אשכחינהו לבני רבי חייא דיתבי וקאמרי עשרון שחלקו

R. Judah adopts the criterion of appearance,1 and [by that criterion] in either case it would be a mixture of like kinds! — Rather it is according to R. Hiyya's view, for R. Hiyya taught: In a mixture of nebelah meat and ritually slaughtered meat neutralization takes place.2 And whose view does R. Hiyya follow? It cannot be that of the Rabbis, for they have said that only things which are offered up do not neutralize one another, but in a mixture of like kinds neutralization takes effect.3 Neither can it be that of R. Judah, for according to R. Judah in any mixture of like kinds neutralization does not take effect! — In fact he follows the opinion of R. Judah, for R. Judah laid down the rule that in a mixture of like kinds neutralization does not take effect only in that case where it is possible for one kind to become like the other, but where it is not possible for one kind to become like the other, there neutralization does take effect. And they differ in this point: R. Hisda holds that we must consider the neutralizer,4 but R. Hanina holds that we must consider what is to be neutralized. 5 We have learnt: IF TWO MEAL-OFFERINGS FROM WHICH THE HANDFULS HAD NOT YET BEEN TAKEN WERE MIXED TOGETHER, BUT IT IS STILL POSSIBLE TO TAKE THE HANDFUL FROM EACH SEPARATELY, THEY ARE VALID; OTHERWISE THEY ARE INVALID, Now in this case we see that when the handful is taken from one, whereby the rest becomes the remainder, this remainder does not neutralize the other meal-offering from which the handful has not yet been taken.6 Whose view is represented here? It cannot be that of the Rabbis, for they have said that only things which are offered up do not neutralize one another;7 but in a mixture of like kinds neutralization takes effect. Obviously it is the view of R. Judah. Now this is well according to him who holds that we must consider what is to be neutralized, for here what is to be neutralized8 can become like the neutralizer,9 seeing that when the handful will have been taken from the other meal-offering there will be a remainder like that of the first meal-offering.10 But according to him who holds that we must consider the neutralizer, [it will be asked here,] Can the remainder ever become like that from which the handful has not yet been taken?11 Are we to say then that our Mishnah is not in accordance with R. Hiyya [as interpreted by R. Hisda]? — It is to be explained there according to R. Zera's dictum; for R. Zera said,12 ‘Burning’ is stated with regard to the handful,13 and ‘burning’ is also stated with regard to the remainder;14 therefore as in the case of the handful, concerning which the expression ‘burning’ is used, [it is established that] one handful cannot neutralize the other,15 so too in the case of the remainder, concerning which the expression ‘burning’ is also used, the remainder cannot neutralize the handful. 16 Come and hear: IF THE HANDFUL [OF A MEAL-OFFERING] WAS MIXED WITH A MEAL-OFFERING FROM WHICH THE HANDFUL HAD NOT BEEN TAKEN, IT MUST NOT BE OFFERED. IF, HOWEVER, IT WAS OFFERED, THEN THE MEAL-OFFERING FROM WHICH THE HANDFUL HAD BEEN TAKEN DISCHARGES THE OWNER'S OBLIGATION, WHILST THE OTHER FROM WHICH THE HANDFUL HAD NOT BEEN TAKEN DOES NOT DISCHARGE THE OWNER'S OBLIGATION. We see then that the meal-offering from which the handful had not been taken does not neutralize the handful. Whose view is this? It cannot be that of the Rabbis, for they have said that only things which are offered up do not neutralize one another; but in a mixture of like kinds neutralization takes effect. Obviously it is the view of R. Judah. Now it is well according to him who holds that we must consider the neutralizer, for here the neutralizer17 can become like that which is to be neutralized, seeing that every particle thereof is appropriate to be taken up in the handful.18 But according to him who holds that we must consider what is to be neutralized, [it will be asked,] Can the handful ever become like the meal-offering from which the handful has not yet been taken? Are we to say then that our Mishnah is not in accordance with R. Hiyya [as interpreted by R. Hanina]?19 — This too must be explained in accordance with R. Zera's dictum. Come and hear: IF THE HANDFUL WAS MIXED WITH THE REMAINDER OF THE MEAL-OFFERING OR WITH THE REMAINDER OF ANOTHER MEAL-OFFERING, IT MUST NOT BE OFFERED; BUT IF IT WAS OFFERED IT DISCHARGES THE OWNER'S OBLIGATION. Now here the neutralizer cannot become like that which is to be neutralized, nor can what is to be neutralized become like the neutralizer,20 nevertheless the remainder does not neutralize the handful. Whose view is this? It cannot be that of the Rabbis, for etc.! — R. Zera answered, ‘Burning’ is stated with regard to the handful, and ‘burning’ is also stated with regard to the remainder; as in the case of the handful, concerning which the expression ‘burning’ is used, [it is established that] one handful cannot neutralize the other, so too in the case of the remainder, concerning which the expression ‘burning’ is also used, the remainder cannot neutralize the handful.21 Come and hear: If one seasoned it22 with cumin or with sesame seed or with any other kind of spice, it is fit;23 for it is unleavened bread, only that it is called seasoned unleavened bread. Now it was assumed that there were more spices than unleavened dough. According to him, then, who holds that we must consider what is to be neutralized, it is well, for what is to be neutralized24 can become like the neutralizer, seeing that when it becomes mouldy it is like the spices.25 But according to him who holds that we must consider the neutralizer, [it will be asked,] Can the spices become like the unleavened bread?26 — We are dealing here with the case where there was not so much spices; indeed the larger part was the unleavened bread, and therefore it is not neutralized. This too is to be inferred [from the words of the Baraitha], for it reads, ‘It is unleavened bread, only that it is called seasoned unleavened bread’27 This is conclusive. When R. Kahana went up [to Palestine] he found the sons of R. Hiyya sitting and discoursing as follows: If one divided a tenth28 meat would always be considered as of like kind, so that neutralization would not take effect. would have it, or where slaughtered meat was confused with a larger quantity of nebelah meat as R. Hanina would have it. though only in one case, v. prec. n. the minority, the mixture is deemed to be one of like kinds, and neutralization will not take place. the Mishnah) to take the handful from the second meal-offering. even though the mixture is of like kinds. should not be permitted subsequently to take the handful from the second meal-offering. burn’. handfuls in any circumstances. edd. this is added in the text. It is omitted in MS.M. all.