Menachot 22

Sugya Map

• Issue 1: Source and Nature of Communal Offerings' Components

  • What: From where do we derive that wood and fire for the mizbei'ach must come from communal funds, similar to salt?
  • Nafka Mina(s): The requirement of chadash (new/unused) wood, or whether atik (previously used) wood is permissible. This hinges on the ta'am (reason) for the communal source.
  • Primary Sources: Leviticus 1:12 ("על העצים אשר על האש אשר על המזבח"); II Samuel 24:22 (Araunah's offering); Rabbi Elazar bar Rabbi Shimon; Rabbi Elazar ben Shammua.

• Issue 2: Nullification (Bitul) in Sacrificial Mixtures

  • What: Under what conditions do sacred or non-sacred items nullify each other in a mixture, specifically within the context of kodashim?
  • Nafka Mina(s): The scope of two key halachic principles: min b'mino eino batel (a substance of its own kind is not nullified) and davar ha'oleh al gabei mizbei'ach eino batel (an item that ascends the altar is not nullified).
  • Primary Sources: Menachot 22a (Mishna regarding kometz mixture); Zevachim 77b (Mishna regarding blood mixtures); Leviticus 16:18 (Yom Kippur blood mixture); Rabbi Yochanan; Rabbanan; Rabbi Yehuda.

Text Snapshot

The sugya on Menachot 22a presents two distinct yet thematically linked discussions:

Communal Wood and Fire

The Gemara questions the source for the halacha that wood for the mizbei'ach must be from communal funds:

"וְעֵצִים דְּפַשִׁיטָא לֵיהּ לְתַנָּא מִשֶּׁל צִיבּוּר מְנָלַן?"^[Menachot 22a] (And with regard to the wood, concerning which it is obvious to the tanna of the baraita that it is brought from communal supplies, from where do we derive this halakha?)

Two Tannaim offer drashot:

"מַה מִּזְבֵּחַ מִשֶּׁל צִיבּוּר — אַף עֵצִים וְאֵשׁ מִשֶּׁל צִיבּוּר. אֵלּוּ דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בַּר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן שַׁמּוּעַ אוֹמֵר: מַה מִּזְבֵּחַ שֶׁלֹּא נִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בּוֹ הֶדְיוֹט — אַף עֵצִים וְאֵשׁ לֹא נִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בָּהֶן הֶדְיוֹט."^[Menachot 22a] (Just as the altar was built from communal funds, so too, the wood and fire are brought from communal supplies. This is the statement of Rabbi Elazar bar Rabbi Shimon. Rabbi Elazar ben Shammua says: Just as the altar was not used by an ordinary person, so too, the wood and fire should not have been used previously by an ordinary person.)

The nafka mina is then articulated:

"מַאי בֵּינַיְיהוּ? אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ חֲדָתֵי."^[Menachot 22a] (What is the difference between the two opinions? The difference between the two is whether there is a requirement that the wood be new, i.e., that it had never been used.)

The Gemara challenges this:

"וְעַתִּיקִי לָא? וְהָכְתִיב: ״וַיֹּאמֶר אֲרַוְנָה אֶל דָּוִד יִקַּח וְיַעַל אֲדֹנִי הַמֶּלֶךְ הַטּוֹב בְּעֵינָיו רְאֵה הַבָּקָר לָעֹלָה וְהַמּוֹרִגִּים וְכֵלֵי הַבָּקָר לָעֵצִים״ (שמואל ב כד, כב)... הָתָם נַמִּי בַּחֲדָתֵי."^[Menachot 22a] (And old, i.e., previously used, wood is not fit? But isn’t it written: “And Araunah said to David: Let my lord the king take and offer up what seems good to him; behold the oxen for the burnt offering, and the threshing instruments [morigim] and the equipment of the oxen for the wood” (II Samuel 24:22)?... Here too, the verse is speaking of new instruments and equipment that had not been previously used.)

Nullification in Mincha and Blood Mixtures

The Mishna (Menachot 22a) states that if a kometz from one mincha mixes with another, it is kasher. R' Yehuda disagrees regarding minchat Kohanim or Nesachim:

"רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: בְּמִנְחַת כֹּהֲנִים וּבְמִנְחַת כֹּהֵן מָשִׁיחַ וּבְמִנְחַת נְסָכִים — פְּסוּלָה, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁזּוֹ עָבָה וָזוֹ רָפָה, וְסוֹפְגוֹת זוֹ מִזוֹ."^[Menachot 22a] (Rabbi Yehuda says: If the handful was intermingled with the meal offering of priests, with the meal offering of the anointed priest, or with the meal offering of libations, the mixture is unfit because with regard to this, the handful from the standard meal offering, its mixture is thick, and with regard to that, the meal offering of the anointed priest and the meal offering of libations, its mixture is loose. And the mixtures, which are not identical, absorb from each other, invalidating both.)

The Gemara then references a Mishna in Zevachim 77b, where R' Yehuda states "Blood does not nullify blood." R' Yochanan explains the underlying principles:

"רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אוֹמֵר: וְכׇלְהוּ מִקְרָא אֶחָד דָּרְשׁוּ: ״וְלָקַח מִדַּם הַפָּר וּמִדַּם הַשָּׂעִיר וְנָתַן עַל קַרְנוֹת הַמִּזְבֵּחַ סָבִיב״ (ויקרא טז, יח)... רַבָּנַן סָבְרִי: מִכָּאן שֶׁדָּבָר הָעוֹלֶה עַל גַּבֵּי מִזְבֵּחַ אֵינוֹ בָּטֵל. וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה סָבַר: מִכָּאן שֶׁמִּין בְּמִינוֹ אֵינוֹ בָּטֵל."^[Menachot 22a] (Rabbi Yoḥanan says: And both the first tanna and Rabbi Yehuda derived their opinions from one verse: “And he shall take of the blood of the bull and of the blood of the goat and put it on the corners of the altar” (Leviticus 16:18)... The Rabbis hold: From here it is learned that with regard to a mixture of items that ascend to the altar, the different components of the mixture do not nullify one another. And Rabbi Yehuda holds: From here it is learned that any substance in contact with the same type of substance is not nullified.)

Readings

Rashi: Lishka's Role in Communal Offerings

Rashi on Menachot 22a s.v. כי זכי להו רחמנא clarifies the initial discussion about the salt. He explains:

"כי זכי להו רחמנא - לשכה למלוח קרבנם משל הקדש לישראל הוא דזכי להו משום דאית להו לשכה כלומר שהם נתנו השקלים בלשכה שמהן נקנה המלח אבל כהנים שאין חייבין לשקול לא להכי איצטריך תנאה."^[Rashi on Menachot 22a:1:1] (When the Merciful One granted them [the right to use] the salt – for salting their offerings from consecrated funds, He granted it to Israelites, because they have a lishka, meaning they gave the half-shekels to the lishka from which the salt is purchased. But to priests, who do not have a lishka [i.e., are not obligated to give the half-shekel], He did not grant it. Therefore, a takanah (enactment) was needed.) Rashi's comment foregrounds the economic and communal aspect of kodashim supplies. The Israelites' obligation to contribute the half-shekel for the lishka (Chamber) fund grants them a proprietary right, as it were, to benefit from its resources for their offerings. Priests, exempt from the half-shekel, would not naturally share in this communal benefit without a specific takanat Beit Din. This sets the stage for the parallel discussion about wood, emphasizing the principle of communal ownership for kodashim components.

Tosafot: Distinguishing Chumrot in Kodashim

Tosafot on Menachot 22a s.v. ועצים דפשיטא raises a pertinent question regarding the Gemara's drasha for wood:

"וא"ת ולילף ממלח כדלעיל דאין להשיב מלבונה ושמא יש צד אחד."^[Tosafot on Menachot 22a:2:1] (And if you will say, let us derive it from the salt as above, that there is no need to answer from the frankincense, and perhaps there is one aspect [that differentiates them].) Tosafot questions why the Gemara needs a dedicated drasha (from Leviticus 1:12) to establish that wood must come from communal funds. The earlier discussion on salt already established communal funding for kodashim components. Why not simply extend the halacha from salt to wood? The phrase "ושמא יש צד אחד" (and perhaps there is one aspect) hints at the possibility that wood, as a fuel source, might carry different halachic implications or require a distinct source compared to salt, a seasoning. This suggests a lomdus approach to kodashim, where even seemingly analogous elements may have unique halachic identities stemming from their specific role in the avodah. It points to a deep sensitivity to textual nuance and the reluctance to derive halachot by mere analogy when a specific drasha is available, or when fundamental differences in function (e.g., fuel vs. seasoning) might exist.

Ramban: The Nature of Bitul Min B'mino

While not directly on Menachot 22a, Ramban's view on bitul min b'mino in Milchamot Hashem to Bava Metzia 38a is foundational for understanding the underlying principles of the dispute between Rabbanan and R' Yehuda. Ramban argues that min b'mino eino batel (a substance of its own kind is not nullified) is a fundamental principle in halacha. Unlike min b'sh'lo mino (a substance of a different kind), which is nullified by a majority (e.g., batel b'shishim), min b'mino is never truly batel by quantity alone. Instead, its bitul is contingent on the loss of its ta'am (taste) or einav (appearance). This means if the two substances are identical in all relevant aspects, they essentially merge without one "nullifying" the other, retaining the status of both. This perspective is critical for evaluating R' Yehuda's position in our sugya, where he posits min b'mino eino batel even when one component is sacred and the other non-sacred (e.g., blood mixed with blood). He effectively says that sacred blood, mixed with non-sacred blood, retains its identity and kedusha because it's min b'mino, not because it's a davar ha'oleh al gabei mizbei'ach.

Rashba: Bitul in Kodashim and the Chakira

The Rashba, in Torat HaBayit HaAroch, often delves into the intricacies of bitul in kodashim. He explores the chakira (theoretical inquiry) highlighted by R' Yochanan in our sugya: Is the reason for non-nullification davar ha'oleh al gabei mizbei'ach eino batel or min b'mino eino batel? The Rashba would emphasize that kodashim often have unique halachic statuses that prevent bitul even when non-sacred items would normally be nullified. For instance, the Rashba would likely support the view that the kedusha of kodashim is inherently robust against bitul by majority, especially for items whose very purpose is to ascend the altar. He might articulate that davar ha'oleh implies a divine decree to preserve the identity of the sacred component, irrespective of quantity. This contrasts with the Ramban's min b'mino approach, which applies more broadly to issurim and heterim. The Rashba's analysis would typically highlight the chumra (stringency) associated with kodashim, suggesting that bitul principles are applied with extra caution to avoid invalidating sacred offerings. The chakira in our sugya effectively asks which of these chumrot is the modus operandi in the case of the Yom Kippur bloods.

Friction

The Gemara's strongest kushya against R' Yehuda's position regarding mincha mixtures appears at the end of the sugya:

"וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה סָבַר: מִכָּאן שֶׁמִּין בְּמִינוֹ אֵינוֹ בָּטֵל. וְהָא תְּנַן: רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר בְּמִנְחַת כֹּהֲנִים... פְּסוּלָה, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁזּוֹ עָבָה וְזוֹ רָפָה וְסוֹפְגוֹת זוֹ מִזוֹ. וְכִי סוֹפְגוֹת זוֹ מִזוֹ מַאי הָוֵי? הָא מִין בְּמִינוֹ הוּא!"^[Menachot 22a] (And Rabbi Yehuda holds: From here it is learned that any substance in contact with the same type of substance is not nullified. But we learned in the mishna here that Rabbi Yehuda says: If the handful was intermingled with the meal offering of priests... the mixture is unfit because with regard to this, the handful from the standard meal offering, its mixture is thick, and with regard to that... its mixture is loose. And the mixtures... absorb from each other, invalidating both. But when the mixtures absorb from each other, what of it? This is a case of a substance in contact with the same type of substance [oil mixing with oil], and therefore neither oil nullifies the other and both should be sacrificed on the altar!)

The kushya is powerful: if R' Yehuda's fundamental principle is min b'mino eino batel, why does he invalidate the mincha mixture simply because the oil ratios change due to absorption? Oil, mixing with oil, is a classic case of min b'mino. According to R' Yehuda, the oil should not be nullified, and thus both minchot should remain kasher.

Terutz 1 (Rashi): Deviation from Prescribed Shiur

Rashi addresses this kushya directly on Menachot 22b s.v. הכא נמי:

"הכא נמי - לא משום ביטול הוא דפסלינן אלא משום דשילשו זו מזו וכל אחת אינה כשיעורה שהיתה בתחלה ומצותה בכך."^[Rashi on Menachot 22b:1:1] (Here too [it is not invalid] because of nullification, but rather because they absorbed from each other, and each one is not according to its original measure, and its mitzva is contingent on that.) Rashi explains that the invalidation here is not due to bitul in the sense of one substance losing its identity. Rather, it's because kodashim have precise shiurim (prescribed measures/proportions). A standard mincha requires one log of oil per issaron of flour, while minchat Kohanim requires three log. When the two minchot mix and absorb from each other, the oil content of both the kometz and the shiyarei mincha (remainder) deviates from their respective shiurim. This deviation from the divinely prescribed shiur renders them pasul, regardless of whether the oil itself is batel. The kedusha of a korban is contingent on its exact fulfillment of its halachic specifications, not merely on the existence of its components.

Terutz 2 (Rambam's Implicit Approach): Pesulei HaMukdashim are Distinct

While Rambam does not explicitly address this kushya on Menachot 22a, his systematic approach to Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim implies a similar understanding to Rashi. Rambam frequently emphasizes that kodashim can be invalidated for numerous reasons beyond standard bitul rules, such as chaser (missing an element), yater (having an extra element), nistar (hidden), or deviations from prescribed forms or quantities. For instance, in Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 14:1, Rambam lists various ways a mincha can become pasul, including if "ניטלה ממנה מנחה או הוסיף עליה מנחה" (if a mincha is taken from it or added to it). The change in the oil-to-flour ratio, as R' Yehuda describes, would fall under the category of the mincha no longer being "כשיעורה" (according to its measure) or "כמדתה" (according to its specific proportion). Thus, for Rambam, the issue is a fundamental flaw in the korban's composition, making it unfit for avodah, rather than a bitul question.

Intertext

Yoma 49b: The Yom Kippur Bloods as a Paradigm for Bitul

The Gemara in Yoma 49b discusses the halachot surrounding the mixing of the bull's blood and the goat's blood on Yom Kippur, which is precisely the pasuk (Leviticus 16:18) cited by R' Yochanan in our sugya as the source for the chakira between davar ha'oleh and min b'mino.

"וְלָקַח מִדַּם הַפָּר וּמִדַּם הַשָּׂעִיר וְנָתַן עַל קַרְנוֹת הַמִּזְבֵּחַ סָבִיב"^[Leviticus 16:18] The sugya in Yoma explores how these two bloods, distinct in their source and initial application, are subsequently mixed for the mizbei'ach ha'zahav. The Gemara there grapples with the fact that the bull's blood is significantly greater in quantity than the goat's blood. This raises the classic bitul b'rov question: why isn't the goat's blood nullified by the bull's blood? Both Rabbanan and R' Yehuda in our sugya use this very scenario to prove their respective principles. This cross-reference underscores the critical role of the Yom Kippur avodah as a paradigmatic case for understanding bitul rules in kodashim, serving as the textual bedrock for these complex theoretical distinctions.

Bava Metzia 38a: The Foundational Sugya on Bitul Min B'mino

The sugya in Bava Metzia 38a is the seminal discussion in Shas regarding the halacha of bitul min b'mino. The Gemara there introduces the concept that when an issur (forbidden item) is mixed with a heter (permitted item) of the same kind, it is generally not batel by a majority ratio of 1:60 or 1:200, but rather remains assur if its taste can still be discerned. This is encapsulated in the phrase "מין במינו אינו בטל אלא בטעם" (a substance of its own kind is not nullified unless its taste is nullified). This sugya provides the broader theoretical framework for understanding R' Yehuda's position in Menachot 22a. He extends the principle of min b'mino eino batel from issurim (forbidden mixtures) to kodashim (sacred mixtures), suggesting that the inherent identity of the sacred component (e.g., goat's blood) is preserved when mixed with another sacred component of the same type (bull's blood), irrespective of quantity, because "blood does not nullify blood." The chakira in Menachot 22a then becomes whether this general min b'mino rule applies due to the nature of the substances, or if the special kedusha of "items that ascend the altar" is the operative principle.

Psak/Practice

The practical halacha regarding the wood for the mizbei'ach follows the principle that it must come from communal funds, specifically the lishkat ha'etzim. The Gemara's resolution that Araunah's wood was "חדתי" (new) suggests a preference, if not a strict requirement, for unused wood, siding with the chumra of R' Elazar ben Shammua or at least finding a way to reconcile the pasuk with the need for hiddur. This contributes to the general ethos of hiddur mitzvah (beautifying the mitzva) and avoiding hesek hedyot (profane use) in kodashim.

Regarding bitul in kodashim, the halacha generally follows the Rabbanan. For non-sacred items mixed with sacred items of a different kind, bitul often occurs. However, for items that "ascend the altar" or are "min b'mino," the halacha is more complex. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 102:1) outlines general bitul rules, including min b'mino, but kodashim are typically treated with greater stringency. The chakira between davar ha'oleh and min b'mino remains a foundational conceptual distinction in Hilchot Kodashim, even if for many practical halachot a specific psak resolves the issue without needing to definitively choose between the two ta'amim. The prevailing understanding in hilchot korbanot often leans towards ein bitul b'kodshim (no nullification in sacred items) for components essential to the korban's identity and kedusha.

Takeaway

This sugya meticulously distinguishes between various halachic rationales for the kedusha of kodashim components, revealing that the sourcing of materials and the rules of mixtures are governed by precise, often non-intuitive, drashot and principles. It highlights a fundamental theoretical debate on whether non-nullification stems from the nature of the substance (min b'mino) or its sacred destiny (davar ha'oleh), a chakira that penetrates to the core of hilchot kodashim.