Menachot 23

Sugya Map

• Issue: The Gemara on Menachot 23a explores complex principles of nullification (bitul) in mixtures and the concept of contiguity (chibbur) concerning sacrificial items. Central to the discussion are Rabbi Yehuda's unique rules regarding min b'mino v'davar acher (a substance mixed with its own kind and another substance) and the overarching debate about what constitutes a unified entity for sacrificial purposes.
• Nafka Mina(s):
  • The validity of a kometz (handful) from a minchat chotei (sinner's meal offering) to which oil was added.
  • The status of a kometz whose oil was squeezed onto the wood before burning.
  • Liability for offering a k'zayit (olive-bulk) of meat chutz l'azara (outside the Temple courtyard) when a bone completes the measure.
  • The nullification of neveilah (carcass) meat in shechutah (slaughtered) meat, and vice-versa.
  • The validity of intermingled menachot from which kometz had/had not been removed.
  • The kashrut of matza mixed with spices.
• Primary Sources: Menachot 23a-b; Vayikra 5:11 (regarding minchat chotei not having oil); Vayikra 2:2, 2:11 (regarding ketorah for kometz and shirayim).

Text Snapshot

The sugya opens with Rava articulating Rabbi Yehuda's position on mixtures:

אמר רבא קסבר רבי יהודה: כל שהוא מין במינו ודבר אחר – סלק את מינו כמי שאינו, ודבר אחר רבה עליו ומבטלו. Rava said: Rabbi Yehuda holds that in the case of any mixture that consists of a substance in contact with the same type of substance as well as another type of substance, the halakha is to disregard the same substance, considering it as though it were not there, and in the event that the different type of substance is more than the first substance, the different substance nullifies the first substance. Menachot 23a.

This statement sets the stage for a deep dive into bitul principles. The Gemara then introduces a dispute between Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish regarding a minchat chotei to which oil was added:

איתמר: המוסיף שמן לקומץ חוטא. ר' יוחנן אמר: פסול. וריש לקיש אמר: מוחקו בשיירי לוג ומעלה. It was stated that the amora’im disagreed with regard to the halakha where one added oil to the handful that is removed from the meal offering of a sinner, which does not include oil. Rabbi Yoḥanan says: It is unfit, and Reish Lakish says: The halakha of the meal offering itself is to wipe it, ab initio, in the remainder of the log of oil that remains in the vessels that were used previously for other meal offerings, and the priest then brings it up and burns it on the altar. Menachot 23a.

Later, Rava poses a dilemma about chibbur:

בעי רבא: קומץ שמיצה שמנו על גבי עצים מאי? מי אמרינן חבורי עולין כעולין דמו, או לאו כעולין דמו? Rava raises a dilemma: In the case of a handful whose oil the priest squeezed onto the wood and only afterward he placed the handful on the wood to be burned, what is the halakha? Are substances that are contiguous to items that ascend upon the altar considered to be as part of the items that ascend upon the altar, in which case the oil that was absorbed into the wood and is contiguous to the handful of the meal offering is considered part of the handful? Or are they not considered to be as part of the items that ascend upon the altar, and the oil is not viewed as part of the handful, and therefore the handful is missing oil? Menachot 23a.

This dilemma is then linked by Ravina to an earlier dispute between Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish regarding an eiver katan (small limb) and k'zayit measurement:

תניא: המעלה אבר שאין בו כזית – חייב, והעצם משלימו לכזית – ר' יוחנן אמר: חייב. וריש לקיש אמר: פטור. As it was stated: With regard to one who offers up, outside the Temple courtyard, a limb that contains less than an olive-bulk of meat, but the offering’s bone completes the measure of the offering to an olive-bulk, Rabbi Yoḥanan says: He is liable, and Reish Lakish says: He is exempt. Menachot 23a.

Dikduk/Leshon Nuance:

• "סלק את מינו כמי שאינו" (Menachot 23a): Rashi clarifies that this means the "same substance" (e.g., oil of the kometz mixed with other oil) is "disregarded" (סלק), treated as if it doesn't exist. This is key to R' Yehuda's unique bitul mechanism where the "other substance" (e.g., flour) then nullifies the remaining "same substance" (the other oil), leading to the kometz becoming unfit due to excess oil. Rashi Menachot 23a s.v. "סלק את מינו".
• "חבורי עולין כעולין דמו" (Menachot 23a): This phrase defines whether an item physically connected or adjacent to a sacrificial offering on the altar is considered part of the offering itself. The question is whether physical proximity suffices for halachic integration.
• "דבר מפרש הוא" / "לאו בר מפרש הוא" (Menachot 23a): Rav Ashi uses these terms to distinguish between a bone (separable from meat) and oil absorbed into a kometz (not easily separable). This distinction is crucial for differentiating the eiver katan case from Rava's kometz dilemma, even within R' Yochanan's or Reish Lakish's respective frameworks. Steinsaltz Menachot 23a s.v. "תיבעי לדעת ר' יוחנן" and s.v. "אפילו לריש לקיש".

Readings

Rashi's Unpacking of R' Yehuda's Min B'Mino V'Davar Acher

Rashi, in his commentary on Menachot 23a, illuminates Rava's initial statement regarding Rabbi Yehuda's principle of min b'mino v'davar acher. According to Rashi, when a kometz (which contains a small amount of oil) is mixed with other meal offerings that have a larger quantity of oil, the oil of the kometz is first "disregarded" (salek et mino k'mi she'eino). Rashi specifies: "שמן דקמץ משום נדבה כמי שאינו" – "The oil of the kometz (which is for a voluntary offering) is as if it is not there". Rashi Menachot 23a s.v. "סלק את מינו". This means the oil that is min b'mino (i.e., the oil of the kometz and the oil of the other offering) is initially set aside. Then, the "other substance" (davar acher), which is the flour of the kometz, is compared to the remaining "same substance" (the oil of the other offering). If the flour is more, it nullifies that oil. This nullification, paradoxically, causes the kometz's oil component to increase effectively, thereby rendering the kometz unfit (pasul) because it now contains a greater proportion of oil than originally prescribed. Rashi Menachot 23a s.v. "שמן ושמן" and s.v. "סולת". Rashi's chiddush here is to delineate the multi-step process of R' Yehuda's bitul where disregarding one component allows another to effect nullification, leading to an unexpected invalidation.

Tosafot's Contextualization of Rava's Statement

Tosafot (Menachot 23a s.v. "אמר רבא קסבר רבי יהודה") offer a crucial intertextual insight, connecting this sugya to other instances where Rava discusses Rabbi Yehuda's min b'mino v'davar acher principle. They explicitly reference the sugya in Chullin 108a ("בפרק כל הבשר") concerning a drop of milk in meat. Tosafot argue that Rava's specific formulation here – "אמר רבא קסבר רבי יהודה" – indicates that this sugya in Menachot is the ikar milteih (the primary or foundational statement) of Rava regarding Rabbi Yehuda's view. This contrasts with Rashi's commentary in Chullin 108a, which suggests that the statement there refers to Rava from Perek Gid HaNasheh (Chullin 90b). Tosafot's chiddush is that the precise leshon (language) used by an Amora when quoting a Tanna can signal the significance or originality of that quote, implying that the Menachot sugya offers the most authentic or direct insight into Rava's understanding of R' Yehuda's bitul principles. This interpretive move highlights the importance of linguistic precision in rabbinic discourse.

Steinsaltz on Rav Ashi's Differentiation of Chibbur

Steinsaltz, in his elucidations, breaks down Rav Ashi's response to Ravina's attempt to equate Rava's kometz dilemma with the R' Yochanan/Reish Lakish dispute on eiver katan. Rav Ashi argues that the cases are not identical, and the dilemma can be posed even within each Amora's framework.

Regarding Rabbi Yochanan, who holds that the bone completes the k'zayit for liability (chiburei olim k'olim dami), Rav Ashi questions if this applies universally:

עד כאן לא קא אמר ר' יוחנן התם אלא בעצם, משום דמינא דבשר הוא, אבל האי שמן דלאו דמינא דקומץ הוא – לא. Perhaps Rabbi Yochanan says his opinion only there, in the case of a bone, because the bone is the same type as the meat, and is therefore considered to be part of the sacrificial meat. But in this case of oil, which is not the same type as the handful, it is not considered to be a part of the handful even if it is contiguous to it. Steinsaltz Menachot 23a s.v. "תיבעי לדעת ר' יוחנן". Steinsaltz clarifies that R' Yochanan's principle of chibbur might be limited by minut (type). A bone is intrinsically linked to meat, being from the same animal, making its contiguity more significant than oil (a different min) to a kometz (flour). Steinsaltz's chiddush here is to highlight the internal logic that allows for a distinction within R' Yochanan's own shitah regarding the nature of contiguity.

Conversely, for Reish Lakish, who exempts in the eiver katan case because chiburei olim lav k'olim dami, Rav Ashi offers a different distinction:

אפילו לריש לקיש, לא קא אמר אלא בעצם, דבר מפרש הוא, והרי אי פריש לאו מצוה לאהדורי, אבל שמן דלאו בר מפרש הוא מן הקומץ – לא. Or perhaps, even according to Reish Lakish, he says his ruling only in the case of the bone, teaching that it does not add to the quantity of the meat. The reason is that the bone is able to be separated from the meat, and if it separated, there is no mitzva to return it to the fire. Therefore, he views it as distinct from the meat. But in this case of oil, which is not able to be separated from the handful of the meal offering, as it must be burned together with the handful, he will not hold that the oil is viewed as separate from the handful. Steinsaltz Menachot 23a s.v. "אפילו לריש לקיש". Steinsaltz explains that Reish Lakish's distinction hinges on ber m'faresh (ability to be separated). A bone, being detachable, might not be considered an integral part, especially since there's no mitzva to return it if it falls off. Oil, however, is deeply absorbed into the kometz and is inherently part of its composition for burning; it is lo bar m'faresh. Steinsaltz's chiddush shows how Reish Lakish's stance on chibbur could also be nuanced, based on the practical separability of the contiguous element. These distinctions prevent a simplistic equation of the two cases and leave Rava's dilemma unresolved (teiku).

Friction

The most potent kushya arises from the Gemara's attempt to square Rav Hisda and Rabbi Chanina's views on bitul of neveilah and shechutah meat with the established opinions of the Rabbis and Rabbi Yehuda (Menachot 23a). The Gemara initially posits:

מ"ט דרבנן? דאמרי: עולין לא מבטלי זה את זה, אבל מין במינו בטל. ומ"ט דר' יהודה? דאמר: מין במינו לא בטל, דאזיל בתר מראה. If their opinions are in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, this is difficult: Didn’t the Rabbis say that it is in the case of a mixture of items that ascend to the altar that the different components of the mixture do not nullify one another, but otherwise, a substance in contact with the same type of substance is nullified? If their opinions are in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, this is difficult: But Rabbi Yehuda follows the appearance of the item in determining whether the two items are the same type of substance. And therefore, this meat of a slaughtered animal and that meat of an unslaughtered carcass are viewed as a substance in contact with the same type of substance, since their appearances are identical, and neither one nullifies the other. Menachot 23a.

This presents a double-edged sword: If Rav Hisda/Rabbi Chanina follow the Rabbis, their positions (that neveilah is nullified in shechutah, or vice-versa, depending on whose view) contradict the Rabbis' general rule of bitul min b'mino. If they follow Rabbi Yehuda, their positions (where one min does nullify the other) contradict Rabbi Yehuda's general rule that min b'mino ein lo bitul. This kushya lays bare a fundamental tension in understanding the conditions under which min b'mino nullification occurs. The assumption is that min b'mino is either always nullified (Rabbis) or never nullified (R' Yehuda), yet Rav Hisda and Rabbi Chanina present cases where min b'mino sometimes nullifies and sometimes doesn't.

The Gemara's most effective terutz is to introduce a crucial nuance into Rabbi Yehuda's shitah, through the teaching of Rabbi Chiyya:

אלא לעולם כרבי יהודה, וכשרבי יהודה אומר מין במינו לא בטל – ה"מ היכא דאפשר לאחד מהן להעשות כחבירו, אבל היכא דלא אפשר לאחד מהן להעשות כחבירו – בטל. Actually, the statement of Rabbi Ḥiyya is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, and Rabbi Ḥiyya holds that when Rabbi Yehuda says that a substance in contact with the same type of substance is not nullified, this statement applies only where it is possible for one to become like the other. But where it is not possible for one to become like the other, it is nullified, since the two are not considered the same substance. Menachot 23a.

This terutz refines Rabbi Yehuda's principle. It is not merely about identical mar'eh (appearance) or min (type) in a static sense, but about the potential for transformation or assimilation (efshar l'hit'asot k'chaveiro). If the smaller quantity (the mitbatel) or the larger quantity (the mevatel) cannot become like the other, then even min b'mino can be nullified. This allows for the possibility of bitul within R' Yehuda's framework, provided the components lack the potential for mutual transformation.

Rav Hisda and Rabbi Chanina then dispute whose potential for transformation we follow:

• Rav Hisda: "הולכים אחר המבטל" (we follow the nullifying substance). If the larger quantity can become like the smaller, then ein bitul.
• Rabbi Chanina: "הולכים אחר המתבטל" (we follow the nullified substance). If the smaller quantity can become like the larger, then ein bitul. This distinction is then tested against various mishnayot and baraitot, demonstrating the depth of this new, refined understanding of R' Yehuda's bitul principle. The terutz thus resolves the initial kushya by introducing a sophisticated condition for min b'mino nullification.

Intertext

Chullin 108a: Rava and R' Yehuda's Min B'Mino V'Davar Acher

The principle of min b'mino v'davar acher (a substance of its kind and another substance) articulated by Rava in the name of Rabbi Yehuda in Menachot 23a finds a significant parallel in Perek Kol HaBasar (Chullin 108a). There, the Gemara discusses a drop of milk that fell into a pot of meat, and then another type of food (e.g., vegetables) was added. Rava states: "אמר רבא קסבר רבי יהודה כל שהוא מין במינו ודבר אחר, סלק את מינו כמי שאינו, ודבר אחר רבה עליו ומבטלו" — Rava said: Rabbi Yehuda holds that in the case of any mixture that consists of a substance in contact with the same type of substance as well as another type of substance, the halakha is to disregard the same substance, considering it as though it were not there, and in the event that the different type of substance is more than the first substance, the different substance nullifies the first substance. Chullin 108a. This is virtually identical to our text in Menachot 23a. This intertextual reference, as noted by Tosafot, underscores the broad application of Rabbi Yehuda's unique bitul methodology beyond the specific realm of korbanot. In Chullin, it determines the kashrut of a mixture of forbidden and permitted foods, while in Menachot, it governs the validity of a kometz. The consistent phrasing by Rava highlights the fundamental nature of this principle within Rabbi Yehuda's halachic framework, affecting both issurei hana'ah (prohibitions of benefit) and issurei mizbeach (prohibitions related to the altar).

Zevachim 78a-b: Chiburei Olim K'Olim Dami and Sacrificial Integrity

Rava's dilemma regarding the kometz whose oil was squeezed onto the wood — "מי אמרינן חבורי עולין כעולין דמו, או לאו כעולין דמו?" (Menachot 23a) — echoes a broader discussion about the concept of chibbur (contiguity or connection) in the context of sacrificial offerings. The Gemara in Zevachim 78a-b, for instance, delves into the question of whether items physically connected to a korban on the altar are considered part of the korban itself for various halachic purposes, such as piggul (invalidating an offering by improper intent regarding its consumption time) or notar (leftover sacrificial meat). The Gemara there debates whether chibbur is sufficient to extend the sanctity or invalidity of the primary offering to the contiguous element. For example, if a piece of korban meat is attached to a non-sacred item, does the non-sacred item become subject to the laws of piggul if the korban is offered with improper intent? This parallel illustrates that Rava's kometz dilemma is not an isolated question but part of a larger meta-halachic inquiry into the definition of a "sacrificial entity" on the altar. The unresolved teiku in Menachot 23a reflects the inherent complexity and differing perspectives on what constitutes integral unity versus mere proximity for korbanot.

Psak/Practice

The sugya presents foundational principles of bitul and chibbur that resonate throughout halacha l'maaseh, albeit with significant nuances.

1. Bitul Min B'Mino: The Gemara's extensive discussion of R' Yehuda's unique bitul rule (where min b'mino might not be nullified or is nullified under specific conditions of efshar l'hit'asot k'chaveiro) is largely lo halacha l'maaseh. The prevailing halacha generally follows the Rabbanan, who hold that min b'mino (a substance mixed with its own kind) is nullified if the ratio is 1:1, or even if the forbidden item is a minority, unless there's a specific gzeirat haketuv (Torah decree) or a davar sheb'minyan (counted item) involved. Rama, in Yoreh Deah 98:1, notes the basic principle of bitul b'rov (nullification by majority) for min b'sh'eino mino (a substance mixed with a different kind), and for min b'mino, if it's not a davar sheyesh lo matirin (an item that can become permitted later), it's nullified in any amount, though some hold 1:1. The specific mechanism of "סלק את מינו כמי שאינו" is unique to Rabbi Yehuda and typically not adopted. However, the sugya's rigorous analysis of efshar l'hit'asot k'chaveiro (potential for transformation) as a condition for min b'mino bitul serves as a powerful heuristic, reminding us that "type" is not always a static category but can involve dynamic potential.

2. Chiburei Olim K'Olim Dami: Rava's dilemma regarding the oil squeezed onto the wood, and the broader R' Yochanan/Reish Lakish dispute on eiver katan, concludes with a teiku (unresolved). In cases of teiku concerning issurei d'Oraita (Torah prohibitions), the halacha generally leans towards stringency (chumra) as a matter of meta-psak. Therefore, for issurei mizbeach (Temple altar prohibitions), chiburei olim k'olim dami is often treated as a valid principle, meaning items contiguous to the altar sacrifices are considered part of them. This ensures that the k'zayit measure for piggul, notar, or chutz l'azara is calculated comprehensively, avoiding potential desecration of korbanot. For example, the Mishnah Torah, Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 14:1, discusses k'zayit for piggul without explicitly referencing chibbur, but the underlying assumption in many poskim is that such contiguity could be relevant for measurement.

Takeaway

The sugya in Menachot 23a provides a masterclass in the nuanced application of bitul and chibbur principles, demonstrating how subtle distinctions like efshar l'hit'asot k'chaveiro and bar m'faresh can redefine fundamental halachic categories. The Gemara's willingness to leave Rava's dilemma as a teiku underscores the inherent complexities and unresolved tensions in defining "identity" and "unity" within halachic frameworks, particularly concerning the sacred realm of korbanot.

---

Footnotes:

1. Menachot 23a.
2. Menachot 23a.
3. Menachot 23a.
4. Menachot 23a.
5. Rashi Menachot 23a s.v. "סלק את מינו".
6. Rashi Menachot 23a s.v. "שמן ושמן" and s.v. "סולת".
7. Tosafot Menachot 23a s.v. "אמר רבא קסבר רבי יהודה".
8. Chullin 108a.
9. Rashi Chullin 108a s.v. "אמר רבא".
10. Steinsaltz Menachot 23a s.v. "תיבעי לדעת ר' יוחנן".
11. Steinsaltz Menachot 23a s.v. "אפילו לריש לקיש".
12. Menachot 23a.
13. Menachot 23a.
14. Menachot 23a.
15. Chullin 108a.
16. Menachot 23a.
17. Zevachim 78a-b.
18. Yoreh Deah 98:1.
19. Menachot 23a.
20. Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 14:1.