Menachot Daf 22 (מנחות דף כ״ב)
Daf: 22 | Amudim: 22a – 22b | Date: February 4, 2026
📖 Breakdown
Amud Aleph (22a)
Segment 1
TYPE: גמרא – מסקנה
Concluding the discussion from daf 21 about priestly rights to communal salt
Hebrew/Aramaic:
כִּי זַכִּי לְהוּ רַחֲמָנָא – לְיִשְׂרָאֵל, דְּאִית לְהוּ לִשְׁכָּה. לְכֹהֲנִים, דְּלֵית לְהוּ לִשְׁכָּה – לָא זַכִּי לְהוּ רַחֲמָנָא, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
English Translation:
When the Merciful One granted the Jewish people the right to use the salt when eating their offerings, He granted this to Israelites, who have an obligation to donate their half-shekels to the chamber, as this fund supplies the salt. With regard to the priests, who do not have an obligation to donate to the chamber according to ben Bukhri’s view, the Merciful One did not grant them the right to make use of the salt. Therefore, the Beit Din’s enactment was necessary to permit priests to use communal salt.
קלאוד על הדף:
This segment concludes the extended discussion from daf 21b about ben Bukhri’s view that priests don’t contribute the half-shekel. The implication is significant: since priests (according to ben Bukhri) have no share in the communal fund, they would have no automatic right to use communal property like salt. The Beit Din’s explicit enactment permitting priests to use salt for eating their sacrificial portions was therefore necessary—it wasn’t an obvious entitlement but a special dispensation.
Key Terms:
- זכי להו רחמנא = The Merciful One granted them; divine entitlement
- לשכה = Chamber; where half-shekel funds were collected
- קא משמע לן = It teaches us; the significance of the ruling
Segment 2
TYPE: גמרא – סוגיא חדשה
New topic: Source for communal wood
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְעֵצִים, דִּפְשִׁיטָא לֵיהּ לְתַנָּא דְּמִשֶּׁל צִיבּוּר, מְנָלַן? דְּתַנְיָא: יָכוֹל הָאוֹמֵר ״הֲרֵי עָלַי עוֹלָה״ יָבִיא עֵצִים מִתּוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ, כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁמֵּבִיא נְסָכִים מִתּוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״עַל הָעֵצִים אֲשֶׁר עַל הָאֵשׁ אֲשֶׁר עַל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ״ – מָה מִזְבֵּחַ מִשֶּׁל צִיבּוּר, אַף עֵצִים וָאֵשׁ מִשֶּׁל צִיבּוּר, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בַּר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן.
English Translation:
And with regard to the wood, from where do we derive that it comes from communal supplies, as it was obvious to the tanna? As it is taught in a baraita: One might have thought that one who says “It is incumbent upon me to bring a burnt offering” must bring wood from his home, just as he brings libations from his home. Therefore, the verse states: “On the wood that is on the fire which is upon the altar” (Leviticus 1:8)—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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara transitions to discuss wood for the altar. Unlike salt (which required an enactment), wood’s communal status is derived directly from Scripture. Rabbi Elazar bar Rabbi Shimon draws an analogy: the verse links wood to the altar, and just as the altar was built from communal funds (the half-shekel collection), so too the wood must come from the community. This is a classic hekesh (scriptural comparison) where one element in a verse teaches about another.
Key Terms:
- משל ציבור = From communal supplies
- נסכים = Libations; which individuals do bring from home
- הקש = Scriptural comparison; deriving law from textual juxtaposition
Segment 3
TYPE: גמרא – מחלוקת
Rabbi Elazar ben Shammua’s alternative derivation
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן שַׁמּוּעַ אוֹמֵר: מָה מִזְבֵּחַ – שֶׁלֹּא נִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בּוֹ הֶדְיוֹט, אַף עֵצִים וָאֵשׁ – שֶׁלֹּא נִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בָּהֶן הֶדְיוֹט. מַאי בֵּינַיְיהוּ? אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ חַדְתֵי.
English Translation:
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. What is the practical difference between the two opinions? The difference is whether there is a requirement that the wood be new.
קלאוד על הדף:
A second Tanna, Rabbi Elazar ben Shammua, derives a different lesson from the same verse. He focuses not on the source of the wood (communal vs. private) but on its prior usage. Just as the altar was never used for mundane purposes, so the wood must never have been used by a common person—it must be new and dedicated. The Gemara identifies the practical difference: Rabbi Elazar bar Rabbi Shimon permits previously-used communal wood; Rabbi Elazar ben Shammua requires fresh, unused wood.
Key Terms:
- הדיוט = Ordinary person; non-sacred usage
- חדתי = New; previously unused
- מאי בינייהו = What is between them; the practical difference
Segment 4
TYPE: גמרא – קושיא
Challenge from David and Araunah’s threshing floor
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְעַתִּיקֵי לָא? וְהָכְתִיב: ״וַיֹּאמֶר אֲרַוְנָה אֶל דָּוִד יִקַּח וְיַעַל אֲדֹנִי הַמֶּלֶךְ הַטּוֹב בְּעֵינָיו רְאֵה הַבָּקָר לָעֹלָה וְהַמֹּרִגִּים וּכְלֵי הַבָּקָר לְעֵצִים״! הָכָא נָמֵי בְּחַדְתֵי.
English Translation:
And is old, previously-used wood not fit for the altar? 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)! The threshing instruments were certainly used previously! The Gemara answers: Here too, the verse is speaking of new instruments and equipment that had never been used.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara challenges Rabbi Elazar ben Shammua’s view with a famous biblical story. When David purchased Araunah’s threshing floor (the future Temple site), Araunah offered his threshing equipment for wood—equipment that had presumably been used for threshing. This suggests used wood IS acceptable! The Gemara responds that even Araunah’s equipment was actually new—never used. This resolution maintains Rabbi Elazar ben Shammua’s stringent position.
Key Terms:
- ארונה = Araunah (also Ornan); the Jebusite who owned the threshing floor
- מוריגים = Threshing instruments; the equipment offered as wood
- עתיקי = Old; previously used
Segment 5
TYPE: גמרא – הסבר
Defining “morigim” - the threshing instruments
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַאי ״מוֹרִיגִּים״? אָמַר עוּלָּא: מִטָּה שֶׁל טַרְבֵּל. מַאי מִטָּה שֶׁל טַרְבֵּל? אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: עִיזָּא דְּקוּרְקְסָא דְּדָשׁוּ בַּהּ דִּשְׁתָּאֵי. אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: מַאי קְרָאָה? ״הִנֵּה שַׂמְתִּיךְ לְמוֹרַג חָרוּץ חָדָשׁ בַּעַל פִּיפִיּוֹת תָּדוּשׁ הָרִים״.
English Translation:
What is the meaning of the term morigim? Ulla said: It is a turbal bed. What is a turbal bed? Rav Yehuda said: It is a serrated board that the threshers use for threshing grain. Rav Yosef said: What is the verse from which the meaning of morigim is derived? “Behold, I have made you a new threshing sledge having sharp teeth; you shall thresh the mountains” (Isaiah 41:15).
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara digresses to define the biblical term “morigim.” Ulla identifies it as a “turbal bed,” which Rav Yehuda explains is a serrated board (with sharp edges) dragged over grain to separate it from the chaff. Rav Yosef supports this with Isaiah’s poetic verse about a “threshing sledge with sharp teeth.” This agricultural digression provides context for understanding what Araunah offered David—practical threshing equipment that could be burned as wood.
Key Terms:
- מטה של טרבל = Turbal bed; a threshing sledge
- קורקסא = Serrated board; threshing implement
- דשתאי = Threshers; agricultural workers
Segment 6
TYPE: משנה
Mishnah about intermingled handfuls of meal offerings
Hebrew/Aramaic:
נִתְעָרֵב קוּמְצָהּ בְּקוֹמֶץ חֲבֶירְתָּהּ, בְּמִנְחַת כֹּהֲנִים, בְּמִנְחַת כֹּהֵן מָשִׁיחַ, בְּמִנְחַת נְסָכִים – כְּשֵׁרָה.
English Translation:
If a handful (kometz) of one meal offering was intermingled with a handful of another meal offering, or with the meal offering of priests, or with the meal offering of the anointed priest (High Priest), or with the meal offering that accompanies libations—the mixture is fit for sacrifice.
קלאוד על הדף:
A new Mishnah begins a major new topic: what happens when sacrificial items become mixed together? The Mishnah’s first case involves meal offering handfuls. The anonymous first opinion rules that such mixtures remain valid—the intermingling doesn’t disqualify the offerings. This permissive ruling applies even when different types of meal offerings mix (regular, priestly, High Priest’s, libation-accompanying).
Key Terms:
- קומץ = Handful; the portion of a meal offering burned on the altar
- מנחת כהנים = Meal offering of priests; entirely burned
- מנחת כהן משיח = Meal offering of the anointed High Priest
- מנחת נסכים = Meal offering accompanying libations
Segment 7
TYPE: משנה (continued)
Rabbi Yehuda’s dissenting view
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: בְּמִנְחַת כֹּהֵן מָשִׁיחַ, בְּמִנְחַת נְסָכִים – פְּסוּלָה, שֶׁזּוֹ בְּלִילָתָהּ עָבָה, וְזוֹ בְּלִילָתָהּ רַכָּה, וְהֵן בּוֹלְעוֹת זוֹ מִזּוֹ.
English Translation:
Rabbi Yehuda says: If the handful was intermingled with the meal offering of the anointed priest, or with the meal offering of libations, the mixture is unfit for sacrifice, because this one’s mixture is thick and that one’s mixture is loose, and they absorb from each other.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Yehuda disagrees with the anonymous first view. His concern is physical: different meal offerings have different consistencies. Regular meal offerings have a thick batter (more flour, less oil), while the High Priest’s offering and libation meal offerings are more liquid (more oil relative to flour). When these mix, they absorb from each other—the thick one becomes looser, the loose one thicker. This physical alteration, Rabbi Yehuda argues, invalidates both.
Key Terms:
- בלילתה עבה = Its mixture is thick
- בלילתה רכה = Its mixture is loose/thin
- בולעות זו מזו = They absorb from each other
Segment 8
TYPE: גמרא – ראיה מברייתא
Gemara brings a parallel case from Zevachim about mixed blood
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תְּנַן הָתָם: דָּם שֶׁנִּתְעָרֵב בְּמַיִם, אִם יֵשׁ בּוֹ מַרְאִית דָּם – כָּשֵׁר. נִתְעָרֵב בְּיַיִן – רוֹאִין אוֹתוֹ כְּאִילּוּ הוּא מַיִם. נִתְעָרֵב בְּדַם בְּהֵמָה אוֹ בְּדַם חַיָּה – רוֹאִין אוֹתוֹ כְּאִילּוּ הוּא מַיִם. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אֵין דָּם מְבַטֵּל דָּם.
English Translation:
We learned in a mishnah elsewhere (Zevachim 78a): In the case of blood of an offering fit for sacrifice that was mixed with water, if the mixture retains the appearance of blood, it is fit for sprinkling on the altar. If the blood was mixed with red wine, one views the wine as though it were water—if the mixture still looks like blood, it’s valid. If the blood was mixed with the blood of a non-sacred domesticated animal or undomesticated animal (which cannot be offered), one considers that blood as though it were water. Rabbi Yehuda says: Blood does not nullify blood.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara draws a connection to a related dispute in tractate Zevachim about mixed blood. The anonymous opinion there treats non-sacrificial blood like water—if there’s enough sacrificial blood that the mixture still looks like blood, it’s valid. Rabbi Yehuda disagrees: “blood does not nullify blood.” When blood mixes with blood, neither can nullify the other. This will be the springboard for a major halachic principle about nullification.
Key Terms:
- מראית דם = Appearance of blood
- דם בהמה = Blood of a domesticated animal (non-sacrificial)
- דם חיה = Blood of an undomesticated animal (deer, etc.)
- אין דם מבטל דם = Blood does not nullify blood
Segment 9
TYPE: גמרא – מימרא
Rabbi Yochanan identifies the shared verse
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: וּשְׁנֵיהֶם מִקְרָא אֶחָד דָּרְשׁוּ, ״וְלָקַח מִדַּם הַפָּר וּמִדַּם הַשָּׂעִיר״. הַדָּבָר יָדוּעַ שֶׁדָּמוֹ שֶׁל פַּר מְרוּבֶּה מִדָּמוֹ שֶׁל שָׂעִיר. רַבָּנַן סָבְרִי:
English Translation:
Rabbi Yochanan 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” (Leviticus 16:18). It is a known matter that the blood of the bull is more than the blood of a goat. The Rabbis hold:
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Yochanan identifies the scriptural source for this dispute: the Yom Kippur service, where blood from both a bull and a goat are mixed together and applied to the altar (Leviticus 16:18). The bull is larger, so its blood is more abundant. Yet the verse commands mixing them—the more-abundant bull blood doesn’t nullify the goat blood. Both disputants derive from this verse, but reach opposite conclusions about what principle it teaches.
Key Terms:
- דם הפר = Blood of the bull (Yom Kippur)
- דם השעיר = Blood of the goat (Yom Kippur)
- מרובה = More abundant; greater quantity
Amud Bet (22b)
Segment 1
TYPE: גמרא – מחלוקת
The Rabbis’ and Rabbi Yehuda’s divergent interpretations
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מִכָּאן לָעוֹלִין שֶׁאֵין מְבַטְּלִין זֶה אֶת זֶה, וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה סָבַר: מִכָּאן לְמִין בְּמִינוֹ שֶׁאֵינוֹ בָּטֵל.
English Translation:
The Rabbis conclude: From here it is learned that with regard to a mixture of items that ascend to the altar (olin), the different components 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 (min b’mino) is not nullified.
קלאוד על הדף:
This is the crux of the dispute. Both agree that the bull blood doesn’t nullify the goat blood in the Yom Kippur mixture. But WHY?
The Rabbis’ principle: Items destined for the altar (עולין) never nullify each other. This is specific to Temple service—sacrificial items have a special status that prevents nullification.
Rabbi Yehuda’s principle: Like substances (מין במינו) never nullify each other. This is a general principle—blood cannot nullify blood, flour cannot nullify flour, regardless of Temple context.
This dispute has massive implications beyond the Temple.
Key Terms:
- עולין = Items that ascend; sacrificial offerings
- מין במינו = A substance with its same type
- אינו בטל = Is not nullified
Segment 2
TYPE: גמרא – קושיא
Challenging the Rabbis’ derivation
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַבָּנַן סָבְרִי מִכָּאן לָעוֹלִין שֶׁאֵין מְבַטְּלִין זֶה אֶת זֶה, וְדִלְמָא מִשּׁוּם דְּמִין בְּמִינוֹ הוּא!
English Translation:
The Rabbis hold: From here it is learned that with regard to a mixture of items that ascend to the altar, the different components do not nullify one another. But perhaps the blood of the goat is not nullified when mixed with the blood of the bull due to the fact that it is a substance in contact with the same type of substance, and it has nothing to do with their status as altar items!
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara challenges the Rabbis: Maybe the verse teaches about “like substances” (Rabbi Yehuda’s view), not about “altar items” (the Rabbis’ view). Both characteristics are present in the Yom Kippur blood mixture: it’s both (1) min b’mino (blood with blood) AND (2) olin (altar items). How do the Rabbis know the key factor is the altar status?
Key Terms:
- דלמא = Perhaps; introducing an alternative interpretation
- משום = Because of; the causal factor
Segment 3
TYPE: גמרא – תירוץ
The Rabbis’ response
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן מִין בְּמִינוֹ, וְלָא אַשְׁמְעִינַן עוֹלִין, כִּדְקָא אָמְרַתְּ. הַשְׁתָּא דְּאַשְׁמְעִינַן עוֹלִין, מִשּׁוּם דְּעוֹלִין.
English Translation:
Had the verse taught us this halacha by using an example of a substance in contact with the same type of substance, and NOT taught us through a case of items that ascend to the altar, the verse would be interpreted as you said. But now that the verse taught us this halacha through a case of items that ascend to the altar, it is understood that the reason it is not nullified is due to the fact that these are items that ascend to the altar.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara answers: The verse specifically chose a case of ALTAR items (bull and goat blood destined for the altar). If the Torah wanted to teach about min b’mino generally, it could have used any example of like substances mixing. By choosing altar items, the Torah signals that the altar status is the relevant factor. The specificity of the example determines the scope of the principle.
Key Terms:
- אי אשמעינן = Had it taught us
- השתא ד = Now that; given the actual teaching
Segment 4
TYPE: גמרא – קושיא נוספת
Perhaps BOTH factors are required?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְדִלְמָא עַד דְּאִיכָּא מִין בְּמִינוֹ וְעוֹלִין? קַשְׁיָא.
English Translation:
But perhaps it is not nullified only when BOTH criteria are met—meaning, only when the mixture is both a substance in contact with the same type of substance AND a mixture of items that ascend to the altar. One without the other would allow nullification. The Gemara concedes: This is difficult.
קלאוד על הדף:
A powerful objection: Maybe the verse requires BOTH conditions—min b’mino AND olin—for the non-nullification rule to apply. Perhaps if only one factor is present, regular nullification rules apply. The Gemara has no refutation and simply says “קשיא” (difficult). This concession is significant—the Rabbis’ view remains halachically authoritative, but its derivation is not airtight.
Key Terms:
- עד דאיכא = Until there is; only when both exist
- קשיא = Difficult; an unresolved challenge
Segment 5
TYPE: גמרא – קושיא לרבי יהודה
Challenging Rabbi Yehuda’s derivation
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה סָבַר מִכָּאן לְמִין בְּמִינוֹ שֶׁאֵינוֹ בָּטֵל, וְדִלְמָא מִשּׁוּם דְּעוֹלִין הוּא!
English Translation:
And with regard to the second part of Rabbi Yochanan’s explanation: Rabbi Yehuda holds from here it is learned that any substance in contact with the same type of substance is not nullified. But perhaps the blood of the goat is not nullified when mixed with the blood of the bull due to the fact that it is a mixture of items that ascend to the altar, not because of the min b’mino principle!
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara now applies the same challenge to Rabbi Yehuda. He derived the min b’mino principle from this verse—but maybe the verse actually teaches about altar items (the Rabbis’ view), and the min b’mino aspect is incidental!
Segment 6
TYPE: גמרא – תירוץ לרבי יהודה
Rabbi Yehuda’s response
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן עוֹלִין מִין בְּשֶׁאֵינוֹ מִינוֹ – כִּדְקָאָמְרַתְּ, הַשְׁתָּא דְּאַשְׁמְעִינַן מִין בְּמִינוֹ – מִשּׁוּם דְּמִין בְּמִינוֹ הוּא.
English Translation:
Had the verse taught us this halacha by using an example of a mixture of items that ascend to the altar where the substance is in contact with a DIFFERENT type of substance, the verse would be interpreted as you say. But now that the verse taught us this halacha in a case of a substance in contact with the SAME type of substance (blood with blood), it is understood that the reason it is not nullified is due to the fact that it is min b’mino.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Yehuda uses the mirror-image argument: If the Torah wanted to teach about altar items, it could have mixed two DIFFERENT substances (e.g., blood with wine, or blood with water destined for the altar). By choosing to mix blood with blood—the same type—the Torah signals that the min b’mino characteristic is the key factor.
Segment 7
TYPE: גמרא – קושיא נוספת
The same “perhaps both” challenge
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְדִילְמָא עַד דְּאִיכָּא מִין בְּמִינוֹ וְעוֹלִין? קַשְׁיָא.
English Translation:
But perhaps it is not nullified only when both criteria are met, and unless the mixture is both a substance in contact with the same type of substance AND a mixture of items that ascend to the altar, one nullifies the other. The Gemara concedes: This is difficult.
קלאוד על הדף:
The same challenge returns: maybe BOTH factors are required. Rabbi Yehuda’s derivation is equally vulnerable. The Gemara again concedes “קשיא”—both derivations have this unresolved difficulty. Neither the Rabbis nor Rabbi Yehuda can definitively prove their interpretation excludes the other factor.
Segment 8
TYPE: גמרא – קושיא ממשנה
Challenge to Rabbi Yehuda from our Mishnah
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תְּנַן: רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: בְּמִנְחַת כֹּהֲנִים, בְּמִנְחַת כֹּהֵן מָשִׁיחַ, וּבְמִנְחַת נְסָכִים – פְּסוּלָה, שֶׁזּוֹ בְּלִילָתָהּ עָבָה וְזוֹ בְּלִילָתָהּ רַכָּה, וְהֵן בּוֹלְעוֹת זוֹ מִזּוֹ. וְכִי בּוֹלְעוֹת זוֹ מִזּוֹ מָה הָוֵי? מִין בְּמִינוֹ הוּא!
English Translation:
We learned in the Mishnah here that 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 one its mixture is thick, and with regard to that one its mixture is loose, and they absorb from each other. 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! According to Rabbi Yehuda, min b’mino is not nullified—so the mixture should be valid!
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara raises an internal contradiction within Rabbi Yehuda’s position. In the Mishnah, Rabbi Yehuda rules that meal offerings with different consistencies that absorb from each other are INVALID. But flour absorbing flour is min b’mino—and Rabbi Yehuda himself says min b’mino is not nullified! If like substances don’t nullify each other, why should the absorption matter?
This powerful challenge reveals that Rabbi Yehuda’s principle of min b’mino may have limitations, or that the absorption issue is conceptually distinct from nullification.
Key Terms:
- וכי… מה הוי = But… what of it?; questioning the relevance
- זו מזו = From each other; mutual absorption