Menachot Daf 23 (מנחות דף כ״ג)
Daf: 23 | Amudim: 23a – 23b | Date: February 5, 2026
📖 Breakdown
Amud Aleph (23a)
Segment 1
TYPE: גמרא – הסבר
Rava explains Rabbi Yehuda’s position on mixed substances
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רָבָא: קָסָבַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, כׇּל שֶׁהוּא מִין בְּמִינוֹ וְדָבָר אַחֵר — סַלֵּק אֶת מִינוֹ כְּמִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ, וְשֶׁאֵינוֹ מִינוֹ רָבֶה עָלָיו וּמְבַטְּלוֹ.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
This segment opens daf 23 by elaborating on Rabbi Yehuda’s principle from daf 22. Rava explains a sophisticated mechanism: when you have a three-way mixture (A mixed with A and also with B), you first mentally “remove” the like substance (A with A), then ask whether the different substance (B) is large enough to nullify what remains. In the Mishnah’s case of mixed meal offerings, the oil of the handful mixes with oil from other offerings. You disregard that oil-to-oil mixture, then the flour from the other offerings absorbs into and changes the handful’s oil content, rendering it unfit.
Key Terms:
- סלק את מינו = Disregard the like substance
- כמי שאינו = As though it were not there
- רבה עליו ומבטלו = Is more than it and nullifies it
Segment 2
TYPE: גמרא – מחלוקת אמוראים
Dispute about adding oil to a sinner’s meal offering
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִיתְּמַר: קוֹמֶץ דְּמִנְחַת חוֹטֵא שֶׁשִּׁמְּנוֹ, רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אוֹמֵר: פָּסוּל, וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר: הוּא עַצְמוֹ מְשַׁכְשְׁכוֹ בִּשְׁיָרֵי הַלּוֹג וּמַעֲלֵהוּ.
English Translation:
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. 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.
קלאוד על הדף:
A new Amoraic dispute emerges about the sinner’s meal offering (מנחת חוטא), which uniquely has no oil or frankincense (Leviticus 5:11). Rabbi Yochanan rules that any oil addition disqualifies it. Reish Lakish surprisingly permits—even requires—wiping the handful in residual oil from other offerings. His reasoning: a small amount absorbed from vessels is not “adding oil” in the prohibited sense. This dispute reflects a broader question: is the prohibition on oil absolute, or just against designating a formal oil portion?
Key Terms:
- מנחת חוטא = Sinner’s meal offering; brought for certain sins, without oil
- משכשכו = Wipe it; absorb a small amount
- שיירי הלוג = Remainder of the log; residual oil in vessels
Segment 3
TYPE: גמרא – קושיא
Challenge from the verse prohibiting oil
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְהָכְתִיב: ״לֹא יָשִׂים עָלֶיהָ שֶׁמֶן וְלֹא יִתֵּן עָלֶיהָ לְבוֹנָה״? הַהוּא שֶׁלֹּא יִקְבַּע לָהּ שֶׁמֶן כְּחַבְרוֹתֶיהָ.
English Translation:
But isn’t it written with regard to the meal offering of a sinner: “He shall put no oil upon it, neither shall he put any frankincense on it” (Leviticus 5:11)? That verse teaches that one should not designate oil for it as one designates oil for the other meal offerings, but the meal offering of a sinner is not rendered unfit by the addition of a small amount of oil.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara challenges Reish Lakish with the explicit verse: “He shall put no oil upon it.” How can he permit wiping it in residual oil? The answer distinguishes between “designating oil” (formally assigning a log of oil as required for other meal offerings) versus incidental absorption of trace amounts. The verse prohibits the former; Reish Lakish’s leniency applies only to the latter.
Key Terms:
- לא ישים עליה שמן = He shall not put oil upon it (Leviticus 5:11)
- יקבע לה שמן = Designate oil for it; formal assignment
- כחברותיה = Like its counterparts; other meal offerings
Segment 4
TYPE: גמרא – ראיה מברייתא
Rabbi Yochanan’s objection from a baraita
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן לְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: חָרֵב שֶׁנִּתְעָרֵב בְּבָלוּל — יַקְרִיב, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: לֹא יַקְרִיב. מַאי לָאו, קוֹמֶץ דְּמִנְחַת חוֹטֵא דְּאִיעָרַב בְּקוֹמֶץ דְּמִנְחַת נְדָבָה?
English Translation:
Rabbi Yoḥanan raised an objection to Reish Lakish from a baraita: In the case of a dry meal offering that was intermingled with a meal offering that was mixed with oil, the priest shall sacrifice it. Rabbi Yehuda says: The priest shall not sacrifice it. What, is the baraita not referring to a handful of the meal offering of a sinner that was intermingled with a handful of a voluntary meal offering?
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Yochanan brings a baraita about “dry” versus “mixed” offerings. He argues this refers to a sinner’s offering (dry, no oil) mixed with a voluntary offering (contains oil). The first Tanna permits sacrificing it; Rabbi Yehuda forbids. If even the first Tanna only permits b’dieved (after the fact), this suggests oil contamination is problematic—supporting Rabbi Yochanan against Reish Lakish’s l’chatchila permission.
Key Terms:
- חרב = Dry; without oil
- בלול = Mixed; containing oil
- מנחת נדבה = Voluntary meal offering
Segment 5
TYPE: גמרא – תירוץ
Reish Lakish’s response
Hebrew/Aramaic:
לֹא, מִנְחַת פָּרִים וְאֵילִים בְּמִנְחַת כְּבָשִׂים.
English Translation:
No, the baraita is referring to the meal offering that accompanies the libations brought with the offerings of bulls or rams, for which two log of oil is mixed with a tenth of an ephah of flour, that became intermingled with the meal offering that accompanies the libations brought with the offering of sheep, for which three log of oil is mixed with a tenth of an ephah of flour, as the former is considered dry relative to the latter.
קלאוד על הדף:
Reish Lakish deflects: “dry” and “mixed” are relative terms. The baraita compares the libation meal offerings of bulls/rams (2 log oil per tenth ephah) to that of sheep (3 log oil per tenth ephah). The former is “drier” relative to the latter. This isn’t about the sinner’s offering at all—it’s about different oil proportions in libation offerings. Thus, no proof against Reish Lakish’s position.
Key Terms:
- מנחת פרים ואילים = Meal offering of bulls and rams (2 log oil)
- מנחת כבשים = Meal offering of sheep (3 log oil)
- מנחת נסכים = Meal offering accompanying libations
Segment 6
TYPE: גמרא – קושיא נוספת
Rabbi Yochanan’s counter-objection
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְהָא בְּהֶדְיָא קָתָנֵי לַהּ: מִנְחַת פָּרִים וְאֵילִים בְּמִנְחַת כְּבָשִׂים, וְחָרֵב שֶׁנִּתְעָרֵב בְּבָלוּל — יִקְרַב, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: לֹא יִקְרַב. פָּרוּשֵׁי קָמְפָרֵשׁ לַהּ.
English Translation:
Rabbi Yoḥanan objected: But another baraita teaches this explicitly as a separate halakha: With regard to the meal offering that accompanies the offerings of bulls or rams that became intermingled with the meal offering that accompanies the offering of sheep, and a dry meal offering that was intermingled with a meal offering that was mixed with oil, the meal offering shall be sacrificed. Rabbi Yehuda says: It shall not be sacrificed. The latter clause is explaining the first clause of the baraita.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Yochanan counters: another version of the baraita lists BOTH cases separately—the bulls/rams vs. sheep mixture AND a dry-vs.-mixed mixture. This proves “dry” refers to something other than the relative oil proportions! Reish Lakish responds that the second clause merely explains the first—“dry vs. mixed” is a general principle illustrated by the bulls/rams vs. sheep case. The dispute remains unresolved.
Key Terms:
- בהדיא = Explicitly
- פרושי קמפרש = It is explaining; clarifying the principle
Segment 7
TYPE: גמרא – בעיא
Rava’s dilemma about oil squeezed onto wood
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בָּעֵי רָבָא: קוֹמֶץ שֶׁמִּיצָּה שַׁמְנוֹ עַל גַּבֵּי עֵצִים, מַהוּ? חִיבּוּרֵי עוֹלִין כְּעוֹלִין דָּמוּ, אוֹ לָאו כְּעוֹלִין דָּמוּ?
English Translation:
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? Or are they not considered to be as part of the items that ascend upon the altar?
קלאוד על הדף:
Rava poses a fascinating practical question: if a priest squeezes oil from a handful onto the altar wood before placing the handful itself, does that oil still “count” as part of the handful? The principle at stake: do things connected to altar offerings share the offerings’ status (חיבורי עולין כעולין)? This will be compared to a parallel dispute.
Key Terms:
- מיצה שמנו = Squeezed its oil
- חיבורי עולין = Things connected to altar items
- כעולין דמו = Are considered like altar items
Segment 8
TYPE: גמרא – השוואה
Ravina’s comparison to existing dispute
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבִינָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: לָאו הַיְינוּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ?
English Translation:
Ravina said to Rav Ashi: Is this not the same disagreement as the dispute between Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish?
קלאוד על הדף:
Ravina suggests that Rava’s dilemma about oil on wood may already be resolved by looking at an existing Rabbi Yochanan/Reish Lakish dispute. The Gemara will now present that dispute to see if it parallels Rava’s question.
Segment 9
TYPE: גמרא – ראיה מדיון אחר
The parallel dispute about bones completing an olive-bulk
Hebrew/Aramaic:
דְּאִיתְּמַר: הַמַּעֲלֶה אֵבֶר שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ כְּזַיִת, וְעֶצֶם מַשְׁלִימוֹ לִכְזַיִת — רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: חַיָּיב, רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר: פָּטוּר.
English Translation:
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 to an olive-bulk, Rabbi Yoḥanan says: He is liable, and Reish Lakish says: He is exempt.
קלאוד על הדף:
Ravina cites a related dispute: if someone burns an offering outside the Temple (forbidden), they’re liable only for an olive-bulk. What if the meat is less than an olive-bulk but the bone completes the measure? Rabbi Yochanan: liable, because bone is “connected” to the meat and counts toward the measure. Reish Lakish: exempt, because bones are separate from meat.
Key Terms:
- המעלה = One who offers up; burning outside the Temple
- כזית = Olive-bulk; minimum measure for liability
- עצם משלימו = The bone completes the measure
Segment 10
TYPE: גמרא – הסבר המחלוקת
Explanation of the positions
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר חַיָּיב, חִיבּוּרֵי עוֹלִין כְּעוֹלִין דָּמוּ, וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר פָּטוּר, חִיבּוּרֵי עוֹלִין לָאו כְּעוֹלִין דָּמוּ.
English Translation:
Rabbi Yoḥanan says that one is liable because he holds that substances that are contiguous to items that ascend upon the altar are considered to be as part of the items that ascend upon the altar. And Reish Lakish says that one is exempt because he holds that substances that are contiguous to items that ascend upon the altar are not considered to be as part of the items that ascend upon the altar.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara spells out the principle underlying their dispute. Rabbi Yochanan’s position: physical connection creates halachic unity—bones attached to meat share the meat’s status. Reish Lakish disagrees: connection doesn’t transform one substance into another. This principle has broad applications beyond this specific case.
Key Terms:
- חיבורי עולין כעולין דמו = Connected altar items are like altar items
- לאו כעולין דמו = Are not considered like altar items
Segment 11
TYPE: גמרא – חילוק
Rav Ashi distinguishes the cases
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תִּיבְּעֵי לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, וְתִיבְּעֵי לְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ. תִּיבְּעֵי לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: עַד כָּאן לָא קָאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן הָתָם, אֶלָּא בְּעֶצֶם, דְּמִינָא דְּבָשָׂר הוּא, אֲבָל הַאי דְּלָאו דְּמִינָא דְּקוֹמֶץ הוּא — לָא.
English Translation:
Rav Ashi responded: Rava’s dilemma can be raised according to Rabbi Yoḥanan, and Rava’s dilemma can be raised according to Reish Lakish. The dilemma can be raised according to Rabbi Yoḥanan: Perhaps Rabbi Yoḥanan says his opinion only there, in the case of a bone, because the bone is the same type as the 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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Ashi brilliantly shows that Rava’s dilemma cannot be resolved from the Rabbi Yochanan/Reish Lakish dispute. Key distinction: bones are the “same type” (מינא) as meat—both come from the animal. Oil is a DIFFERENT type from flour (the handful). Even Rabbi Yochanan might agree that oil absorbed into wood isn’t “connected” to the handful, because they’re different substances.
Key Terms:
- מינא דבשר = The same type as meat
- לאו דמינא דקומץ = Not the same type as the handful
Segment 12
TYPE: גמרא – צד שני
The alternative distinction
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אוֹ דִלְמָא, אֲפִילּוּ לְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ לָא קָאָמַר אֶלָּא בְּעֶצֶם, דְּבַר מִפְרַשׁ הוּא, וְאִי פָּרֵישׁ — לָאו מִצְוָה לְאַהְדּוֹרֵי, אֲבָל שֶׁמֶן דְּלָאו בַּר מִפְרַשׁ הוּא — לָא, אוֹ דִּלְמָא לָא שְׁנָא. תֵּיקוּ.
English Translation:
Or perhaps, even according to Reish Lakish, he says his ruling only in the case of the bone, because the bone is able to be separated from the meat, and if it separated, there is no mitzva to return it to the fire. But in this case of oil, which is not able to be separated from the handful, he will not hold that the oil is viewed as separate from the handful. Or perhaps there is no difference. The dilemma shall stand unresolved.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara presents another possible distinction, this time potentially favoring oil being part of the handful even according to Reish Lakish. Bones CAN separate from meat—if a bone falls off, we don’t return it. But oil, once absorbed, CANNOT separate—it’s inseparable from the flour. Perhaps even Reish Lakish would consider inseparable oil to be part of the handful. The dilemma remains “Teiku”—unresolved.
Key Terms:
- בר מפרש = Able to be separated
- לאו מצוה לאהדורי = No mitzva to return it
- תיקו = Let it stand; unresolved
Segment 13
TYPE: משנה
New Mishnah about intermingled meal offerings
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַתְנִי׳ שְׁתֵּי מְנָחוֹת שֶׁלֹּא נִקְמְצוּ וְנִתְעָרְבוּ זוֹ בָּזוֹ, אִם יָכוֹל לִקְמוֹץ מִזּוֹ בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָהּ וּמִזּוֹ בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָהּ — כְּשֵׁירוֹת, וְאִם לָאו — פְּסוּלוֹת.
English Translation:
MISHNA: In the case of two meal offerings from which a handful was not removed and that were intermingled with each other, if the priest can remove a handful from this meal offering by itself and from that meal offering by itself, they are fit meal offerings, but if not, they are unfit, as the handful of each meal offering must be taken from its original source.
קלאוד על הדף:
A new Mishnah introduces scenarios of intermingled meal offerings. Case 1: Two complete meal offerings (neither yet had the handful removed) get mixed. If the mixture is such that the priest can still identify and take a handful from each original offering separately, both are valid. If they’re so thoroughly mixed that separation is impossible, both are disqualified. The handful must come from its original offering.
Key Terms:
- לא נקמצו = The handful was not yet removed
- נתערבו = Were intermingled
- בפני עצמה = By itself; separately
Segment 14
TYPE: משנה (continued)
Case of handful mixed with incomplete offering
Hebrew/Aramaic:
קוֹמֶץ שֶׁנִּתְעָרֵב בְּמִנְחָה שֶׁלֹּא נִקְמְצָה — לֹא יַקְטִיר, וְאִם הִקְטִיר — זוֹ שֶׁנִּקְמְצָה עָלְתָה לַבְּעָלִים, וְזוֹ שֶׁלֹּא נִקְמְצָה לֹא עָלְתָה לַבְּעָלִים.
English Translation:
In the case of a handful that was intermingled with a meal offering from which a handful was not removed, the priest should not burn the mixture on the altar. And if he burned it, this meal offering from which the handful was taken satisfies the obligation of the owner and that meal offering from which the handful was not taken does not satisfy the obligation of the owner.
קלאוד על הדף:
Case 2: A handful (already removed, ready for the altar) gets mixed with a complete meal offering (handful not yet removed). L’chatchila, don’t burn this mixture. But b’dieved, if burned: the first offering (whose handful was taken) is valid—the owner fulfilled their obligation. The second offering is not—you can’t fulfill an obligation with a handful taken from a different offering’s flour.
Key Terms:
- לא יקטיר = Should not burn; l’chatchila prohibition
- עלתה לבעלים = Satisfies the owner’s obligation
- לא עלתה לבעלים = Does not satisfy the obligation
Segment 15
TYPE: משנה (continued)
Case of handful mixed with remainder
Hebrew/Aramaic:
נִתְעָרֵב קוּמְצָהּ בְּשִׁירֶיהָ, אוֹ בְּשִׁירֵי חֲבֶרְתָּהּ — לֹא יַקְטִיר, וְאִם הִקְטִיר — עָלְתָה לַבְּעָלִים.
English Translation:
If, after it was removed, its handful was intermingled with its remainder or with the remainder of another meal offering, the priest should not burn the mixture on the altar, but if he burned it, it satisfies the obligation of the owner.
קלאוד על הדף:
Case 3: A handful mixes with remainder (שיריים)—either from the same offering or a different one. The remainder is designated for priests to eat, not for the altar. L’chatchila, don’t burn this mixture (you’d be burning what’s meant for priests). B’dieved, if burned, the offering is valid. Why the leniency? The handful WAS properly taken and is present—burning extra material doesn’t invalidate the core fulfillment.
Key Terms:
- שיריה = Its remainder; portion for priests
- שירי חברתה = Remainder of another offering
Segment 16
TYPE: גמרא – מימרא
Rav Chisda’s principle about nullification
Hebrew/Aramaic:
גְּמָ׳ אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: נְבֵילָה בְּטֵילָה בִּשְׁחוּטָה, שֶׁאִי אֶפְשָׁר לִשְׁחוּטָה שֶׁתֵּעָשֶׂה נְבֵילָה. וּשְׁחוּטָה אֵינָהּ בְּטֵילָה בִּנְבֵילָה, שֶׁאֶפְשָׁר לִנְבֵילָה שֶׁתֵּעָשֶׂה שְׁחוּטָה — דִּלְכִי מַסְרְחָה פָּרְחָה טוּמְאָתָהּ.
English Translation:
GEMARA: Rav Ḥisda says: The meat of an unslaughtered animal carcass is nullified in a larger quantity of meat of a slaughtered animal, because meat from a slaughtered animal cannot attain the status of a carcass. By contrast, meat of a slaughtered animal is not nullified in a larger quantity of meat of an animal carcass, as it is possible for a carcass to attain the status of a slaughtered animal, because when a carcass rots, it loses its impure status.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Chisda introduces a new principle about when min b’mino (like substances) can nullify each other. His criterion: can substance A ever become like substance B? Slaughtered meat can NEVER become neveilah (it’s already properly slaughtered). So neveilah is nullified in slaughtered meat—they’re considered different types. But a carcass CAN “become” like slaughtered meat (when it rots and loses impurity). So slaughtered meat can’t nullify carcass meat—they’re considered the same type.
Key Terms:
- נבילה = Carcass; unslaughtered animal meat (impure)
- שחוטה = Slaughtered; properly killed (pure)
- מסרחה פרחה טומאתה = When it rots, its impurity departs
Segment 17
TYPE: גמרא – מחלוקת
Rabbi Chanina’s opposing view
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְרַבִּי חֲנִינָא אָמַר: כׇּל שֶׁאֶפְשָׁר לוֹ לִהְיוֹת כָּמוֹהוּ — אֵינוֹ בָּטֵל, וְכׇל שֶׁאִי אֶפְשָׁר לוֹ לִהְיוֹת כָּמוֹהוּ — בָּטֵל.
English Translation:
And Rabbi Ḥanina says the opposite: Any small quantity of an item that can possibly become like the item that is present in larger quantities is not nullified when the two are intermingled, but any small quantity of an item that cannot possibly become like the item that is present in larger quantities is nullified in the larger quantity.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Chanina takes the opposite view. His criterion: can the SMALLER quantity become like the LARGER? Slaughtered meat (small) CAN’T become like carcass (large)—so it IS nullified. Carcass (small) CAN become like slaughtered meat (large, when it rots)—so it’s NOT nullified. The key question: do we focus on the מבטל (nullifying/larger) or the בטל (nullified/smaller)?
Key Terms:
- אפשר לו להיות כמוהו = It can possibly become like it
- אי אפשר לו להיות כמוהו = It cannot possibly become like it
Segment 18
TYPE: גמרא – קושיא
Whose opinion do they follow?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אַלִּיבָּא דְּמַאן? אִי אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבָּנַן — הָא אָמְרִי: עוֹלִין הוּא דְּלָא מְבַטְּלִי אַהֲדָדֵי, אֲבָל מִין בְּמִינוֹ — בָּטֵל. אִי אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה —
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion do Rabbi Ḥanina and Rav Ḥisda state their opinions? 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 in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda—
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara asks: Whose view do Rav Chisda and Rabbi Chanina follow? Not the Rabbis—they hold min b’mino IS nullified (except for altar items). Not Rabbi Yehuda simply—he holds min b’mino is NEVER nullified. These Amoraim are introducing a middle position: min b’mino depends on whether one can “become like” the other.
Key Terms:
- אליבא דמאן = According to whom?
- עולין הוא דלא מבטלי = It’s altar items that don’t nullify
Segment 19
TYPE: גמרא – המשך קושיא
Rabbi Yehuda follows appearance
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בָּתַר חֲזוּתָא אָזֵיל, וְאִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי מִין בְּמִינוֹ הוּא!
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara completes the challenge: Rabbi Yehuda determines “same type” by APPEARANCE (חזותא). Slaughtered and unslaughtered meat LOOK identical—both are meat! So according to Rabbi Yehuda, neither nullifies the other, period. This contradicts Rav Chisda and Rabbi Chanina, who distinguish between them based on potential transformation, not appearance.
Key Terms:
- בתר חזותא אזיל = Follows the appearance
- אידי ואידי = This and that; both
Amud Bet (23b)
Segment 1
TYPE: גמרא – תירוץ
Attribution to Rabbi Chiyya
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא, אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי חִיָּיא, דְּתָנֵי רַבִּי חִיָּיא: נְבֵילָה וּשְׁחוּטָה בְּטֵילוֹת זוֹ בָּזוֹ.
English Translation:
Rather, it must be explained that the opinions of Rav Ḥisda and Rabbi Ḥanina are in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ḥiyya. As Rabbi Ḥiyya teaches: The meat of an unslaughtered animal carcass and the meat of a slaughtered animal are nullified one in the other.
קלאוד על הדף:
Solution: Rav Chisda and Rabbi Chanina follow Rabbi Chiyya, who taught that carcass and slaughtered meat CAN nullify each other (under certain conditions). They’re elaborating on what those conditions are—differing on whether we follow the מבטל (Rav Chisda) or the בטל (Rabbi Chanina) in determining if transformation is possible.
Key Terms:
- אליבא דרבי חייא = According to Rabbi Chiyya
- בטילות זו בזו = Are nullified one in the other
Segment 2
TYPE: גמרא – קושיא נוספת
Whose view does Rabbi Chiyya follow?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַבִּי חִיָּיא אַלִּיבָּא דְּמַאן? אִי אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבָּנַן — הָא אָמְרִי: עוֹלִין הוּא דְּלָא מְבַטְּלִי אַהֲדָדֵי, הָא מִין בְּמִינוֹ — בָּטֵל! וְאִי אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה — כׇּל מִין בְּמִינוֹ לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה לָא בָּטֵיל!
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: But then in accordance with whose opinion did Rabbi Ḥiyya himself state his opinion? If his opinion is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis: Didn’t the Rabbis say that it is in the case of altar items that the components do not nullify one another, but in general, a substance in contact with the same type of substance is nullified? And if in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda: According to Rabbi Yehuda any min b’mino is not nullified!
קלאוד על הדף:
The same question applies to Rabbi Chiyya himself! According to the Rabbis, all min b’mino is nullified—no need for his nuanced teaching. According to Rabbi Yehuda, NO min b’mino is nullified—contradicting his teaching. This forces a refined understanding of Rabbi Yehuda’s position.
Segment 3
TYPE: גמרא – תירוץ
Refining Rabbi Yehuda’s position
Hebrew/Aramaic:
לְעוֹלָם אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, וְכִי קָאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה מִין בְּמִינוֹ לָא בָּטֵל — הָנֵי מִילֵּי הֵיכָא דְּאֶפְשָׁר לֵיהּ לְמֶיהְוֵי כְּוָותֵיהּ, אֲבָל הֵיכָא דְּלָא אֶפְשָׁר לֵיהּ לְמֶיהְוֵי כְּוָותֵיהּ — בָּטֵל.
English Translation:
The Gemara answers: Actually, the statement of Rabbi Ḥiyya is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, and 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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Critical refinement: Rabbi Yehuda’s rule that min b’mino isn’t nullified has a condition—it applies only when one CAN become like the other. If transformation is impossible, even identical-looking substances are considered “different types” and CAN nullify. Rabbi Chiyya is explaining Rabbi Yehuda’s position, not contradicting it. This creates the framework for Rav Chisda and Rabbi Chanina’s dispute.
Key Terms:
- הני מילי = This applies only
- אפשר ליה למיהוי כוותיה = It’s possible for it to become like it
Segment 4
TYPE: גמרא – הגדרת המחלוקת
The core of Rav Chisda and Rabbi Chanina’s dispute
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּבְהָא קָמִיפַּלְגִי, דְּרַב חִסְדָּא סָבַר: בָּתַר מְבַטֵּל אָזְלִינַן.
English Translation:
And Rav Ḥisda and Rabbi Ḥanina disagree with regard to this, as Rav Ḥisda holds that we follow the potentially nullifying substance.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara now clarifies their precise disagreement. Both accept Rabbi Chiyya’s framework (and Rabbi Yehuda’s condition). The question: when assessing “can A become like B,” which substance do we examine? Rav Chisda: Look at the LARGER quantity (מבטל, nullifier). If it can become like the smaller, they’re “same type” and no nullification occurs.
Segment 5
TYPE: גמרא – צד שני
Rabbi Chanina’s position
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְרַבִּי חֲנִינָא סָבַר: בָּתַר בָּטֵל אָזְלִינַן.
English Translation:
And Rabbi Ḥanina holds that we follow the potentially nullified substance.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Chanina: Look at the SMALLER quantity (בטל, the nullified). If it can become like the larger, they’re “same type” and no nullification occurs. This seemingly technical distinction has major practical implications, as the Gemara will demonstrate through the Mishnah cases.
Key Terms:
- בתר מבטל אזלינן = We follow the nullifying substance
- בתר בטל אזלינן = We follow the nullified substance
Segment 6
TYPE: גמרא – ראיה ממשנה
Proof from the Mishnah’s first case
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תְּנַן: שְׁתֵּי מְנָחוֹת שֶׁלֹּא נִקְמְצוּ וְנִתְעָרְבוּ זוֹ בָּזוֹ, אִם יָכוֹל לִקְמוֹץ מִזּוֹ בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָהּ וּמִזּוֹ בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָהּ — כְּשֵׁרוֹת, וְאִם לָאו — פְּסוּלוֹת. וְהָא הָכָא, כֵּיוָן דְּקָמֵיץ לֵיהּ מֵחֲדָא — אִידָּךְ הָוֵי לֵיהּ שִׁירַיִם, וְלָא קָא מְבַטְּלִי שִׁירַיִם לְטִיבְלָא!
English Translation:
We learned in the mishna: In the case of two meal offerings from which a handful was not removed and which were intermingled with each other, if the priest can remove a handful from this by itself and from that by itself, they are fit, but if not, they are unfit. And here, once he removes a handful from one, the rest of it becomes the remainder, and this remainder does not nullify the other meal offering from which a handful has not yet been removed.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara tests both opinions against the Mishnah. Once the priest takes a handful from offering A, the rest of A becomes “remainder” (שיריים). This remainder is now mixed with offering B (still “טבל”—untithed, pre-handful). The Mishnah implies the remainder doesn’t nullify the tevel. But if they’re min b’mino (flour with flour), shouldn’t nullification apply according to SOMEONE?
Key Terms:
- שיריים = Remainder; post-handful portion
- טיבלא = Tevel; pre-handful meal offering
Segment 7
TYPE: גמרא – הסבר
Whose opinion fits the Mishnah?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַנִּי? אִי רַבָּנַן — הָא אָמְרִי: עוֹלִין הוּא דְּלָא מְבַטְּלִי אַהֲדָדֵי, הָא מִין בְּמִינוֹ בָּטֵל! אֶלָּא פְּשִׁיטָא — רַבִּי יְהוּדָה.
English Translation:
In accordance with whose opinion is the mishna? If it is the Rabbis—didn’t they say altar items don’t nullify but otherwise min b’mino is nullified? Rather, it is obvious that the mishna is Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Mishnah can’t follow the Rabbis (who say min b’mino IS nullified). It must follow Rabbi Yehuda, who says min b’mino is NOT nullified—explaining why the remainder doesn’t nullify the tevel.
Segment 8
TYPE: גמרא – ראיה לרבי חנינא
Support for Rabbi Chanina
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בִּשְׁלָמָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר בָּתַר בָּטֵל אָזְלִינַן — בָּטֵל הָוֵי כִּמְבַטֵּל, דְּלִכִי קָמֵיץ מֵאִידָּךְ — הָווּ לְהוּ שִׁירַיִם כִּי הָנֵי.
English Translation:
Now, granted, according to Rabbi Ḥanina, who says we follow the potentially nullified substance: the nullified substance can become like the nullifying substance, as when the priest removes the handful from the other offering, it will become a remainder, just like that of the first.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Chanina’s view fits perfectly: We look at the בטל (tevel, potentially nullified). CAN it become like the remainder? YES—once its handful is taken, it becomes remainder too! So they’re “same type,” and no nullification. The Mishnah’s ruling makes sense.
Segment 9
TYPE: גמרא – קושיא לרב חסדא
Challenge to Rav Chisda
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר בָּתַר מְבַטֵּל אָזְלִינַן — שִׁירַיִם מִי קָא הָווּ טִיבְלָא? לֵימָא: אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַב חִסְדָּא דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי חִיָּיא!
English Translation:
But according to Rav Ḥisda, who says we follow the potentially nullifying substance: can the remainder become tevel? Therefore, shall we say that according to Rav Ḥisda the mishna is not in accordance with Rabbi Ḥiyya?
קלאוד על הדף:
Problem for Rav Chisda: We look at the מבטל (remainder, nullifier). CAN it become like tevel? NO—once something is remainder, it can’t go back to being “pre-handful.” So they should be DIFFERENT types, and nullification SHOULD occur! The Mishnah’s ruling contradicts Rav Chisda’s view (within Rabbi Chiyya’s framework).
Segment 10
TYPE: גמרא – תירוץ
Rabbi Zeira’s resolution
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הָתָם, כִּדְרַבִּי זֵירָא, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: נֶאֶמְרָה הַקְטָרָה בְּקוֹמֶץ, וְנֶאֶמְרָה הַקְטָרָה בְּשִׁירַיִם.
English Translation:
There, the halakha of the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Zeira, as Rabbi Zeira says: The term burning is stated with regard to the handful, and the term burning is stated with regard to the remainder.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Zeira provides an independent reason why remainder doesn’t nullify in meal offering cases: a גזירה שוה (verbal analogy). The word “burning” (הקטרה) appears regarding both handfuls and remainders. Just as handfuls don’t nullify each other (all agree on this), so remainders can’t nullify handfuls or other components. This is a Torah edict, not dependent on the Rav Chisda/Rabbi Chanina dispute.
Key Terms:
- נאמרה הקטרה = The term burning is stated
- גזירה שוה = Verbal analogy; interpretive method
Segment 11
TYPE: גמרא – הסבר הגזירה שוה
Explanation of the verbal analogy
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מָה הַקְטָרָה הָאֲמוּרָה בְּקוֹמֶץ — אֵין הַקּוֹמֶץ מְבַטֵּל אֶת חֲבֵירוֹ, אַף הַקְטָרָה הָאֲמוּרָה בְּשִׁירַיִם — אֵין שִׁירַיִם מְבַטְּלִין אֶת הַקּוֹמֶץ.
English Translation:
Just as in the case of the burning stated with regard to the handful, if two handfuls are mixed together one handful does not nullify the other and all agree that the two are burned on the altar, so too, in the case of the burning stated with regard to the remainder, the remainder does not nullify the handful.
קלאוד על הדף:
The analogy works as follows: Everyone agrees that when handfuls mix, neither nullifies the other—both go on the altar. The Torah’s use of “burning” for both handfuls and remainders teaches that the same principle applies: remainders can’t nullify handfuls either. This explains all the Mishnah cases without requiring the Rav Chisda/Rabbi Chanina framework.
Segment 12
TYPE: גמרא – ראיה נוספת
Second proof from the Mishnah
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּא שְׁמַע: הַקּוֹמֶץ שֶׁנִּתְעָרֵב בְּמִנְחָה שֶׁלֹּא נִקְמְצָה — לֹא יַקְטִיר, וְאִם הִקְטִיר — זוֹ שֶׁנִּקְמְצָה עָלְתָה לַבְּעָלִים, וְזוֹ שֶׁלֹּא נִקְמְצָה לֹא עָלְתָה לַבְּעָלִים. וְלָא קָא מְבַטֵּל לֵיהּ טִיבְלָא לְקוֹמֶץ!
English Translation:
Come and hear a proof from the mishna here: The handful that was intermingled with a meal offering from which a handful was not removed—the priest should not burn it, and if he burned it, this meal offering from which the handful was taken satisfied the obligation of the owner and that from which the handful was not taken did not satisfy the obligation of the owner. And the tevel does not nullify the handful.
קלאוד על הדף:
Second Mishnah case: handful mixed with tevel (pre-handful offering). The tevel doesn’t nullify the handful. Now the analysis reverses: this case supports RAV CHISDA (the tevel/מבטל CAN become like the handful when its own handful is taken), and challenges RABBI CHANINA (the handful/בטל can’t become tevel). The resolution is again Rabbi Zeira’s principle.
Segment 13
TYPE: גמרא – ראיה שלישית
Third proof from the Mishnah
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּא שְׁמַע: נִתְעָרֵב קוּמְצָהּ בְּשִׁירֵי חֲבֶרְתָּהּ — לֹא יַקְטִיר, וְאִם הִקְטִיר — עָלְתָה לַבְּעָלִים. וְהָא הָכָא דְּלָא הָוֵי מְבַטֵּל כְּבָטֵל, וְלָא קָא מְבַטְּלִי לֵיהּ שִׁירַיִם לְקוֹמֶץ!
English Translation:
Come and hear: If its handful was intermingled with the remainder of another meal offering—the priest should not burn it, and if he burned it, it satisfied the obligation of the owner. But here, the potentially nullifying substance cannot become like the potentially nullified substance, and the remainder does not nullify the handful.
קלאוד על הדף:
Third case: handful with remainder of a DIFFERENT offering. Here NEITHER can become like the other: remainder can’t become handful, handful can’t become remainder. Yet the Mishnah rules no nullification! This challenges BOTH Rav Chisda AND Rabbi Chanina—proving that Rabbi Zeira’s Torah edict is necessary to explain these cases.
Segment 14
TYPE: גמרא – תירוץ
Rabbi Zeira’s principle again
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: נֶאֶמְרָה הַקְטָרָה בְּקוֹמֶץ, וְנֶאֶמְרָה הַקְטָרָה בְּשִׁירַיִם. מָה הַקְטָרָה הָאֲמוּרָה בְּקוֹמֶץ — אֵין קוֹמֶץ מְבַטֵּל אֶת חֲבֵירוֹ, אַף הַקְטָרָה הָאֲמוּרָה בְּשִׁירַיִם — אֵין שִׁירַיִם מְבַטְּלִין אֶת הַקּוֹמֶץ.
English Translation:
Rabbi Zeira said: The term burning is stated with regard to the handful, and the term burning is stated with regard to the remainder. Just as in the case of the burning stated with regard to the handful, one handful does not nullify the other, so too, the remainder does not nullify the handful.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Zeira’s gezeirah shavah resolves all three Mishnah cases. This is an independent Torah teaching about meal offerings: remainders and handfuls never nullify each other, regardless of the Rav Chisda/Rabbi Chanina dispute about general min b’mino principles. The dispute applies to OTHER areas (like neveilah/shechutah) but not here.
Segment 15
TYPE: גמרא – ראיה מברייתא
Proof from seasoned matzah
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּא שְׁמַע: תִּיבְּלָהּ בְּקֶצַח, בְּשׁוּמְשְׁמִין, וּבְכׇל מִינֵי תַּבְלִין — כְּשֵׁירָה. מַצָּה הִיא, אֶלָּא שֶׁנִּקְרֵאת מַצָּה מְתוּבֶּלֶת.
English Translation:
Come and hear: In the case of matzah that one seasoned with black cumin, with sesame, or with any type of spice, it is fit. It is considered matzah, but it is called seasoned matzah.
קלאוד על הדף:
A new proof from Passover law: heavily seasoned matzah remains valid matzah. The Gemara assumes MORE spices than matzah. If the matzah should be nullified by the spices, it couldn’t fulfill the mitzva! This case tests the Rav Chisda/Rabbi Chanina dispute in a non-meal-offering context.
Key Terms:
- תיבלה = Seasoned it
- קצח = Black cumin
- שומשמין = Sesame
- מצה מתובלת = Seasoned matzah
Segment 16
TYPE: גמרא – הנחה
Assumption about the quantities
Hebrew/Aramaic:
קָא סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ דְּאַפִּישׁ לַהּ תַּבְלִין טְפֵי מִמַּצָּה.
English Translation:
It enters your mind that there were more spices than the matzah itself.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara’s assumption: the baraita discusses a case where spices OUTNUMBER the matzah. This creates the nullification question—if the matzah is the minority, shouldn’t it be nullified by the majority spices?
Segment 17
TYPE: גמרא – ראיה לרבי חנינא
Support for Rabbi Chanina
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בִּשְׁלָמָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר בָּתַר בָּטֵל אָזְלִינַן — בָּטֵל הָוֵי כִּמְבַטֵּל, דְּלִכִי מִיעַפְּשָׁא הָוְיָא לַהּ כְּתַבְלִין.
English Translation:
Granted, according to Rabbi Ḥanina, who says we follow the potentially nullified substance: the nullified can become like the nullifying, as when the matzah becomes moldy it becomes like the spices.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Chanina’s view works: the matzah (בטל, smaller?) CAN become like spices—when it goes moldy, it’s inedible like spices. So they’re “same type” and no nullification.
Segment 18
TYPE: גמרא – קושיא לרב חסדא
Challenge to Rav Chisda
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר בָּתַר מְבַטֵּל אָזְלִינַן — תַּבְלִין מִי קָא הָווּ מַצָּה?
English Translation:
But according to Rav Ḥisda, who says we follow the potentially nullifying substance: can the spices become matzah?
קלאוד על הדף:
But Rav Chisda has a problem: can SPICES become MATZAH? No way! So they should be “different types,” and the matzah should be nullified by the majority spices!
Segment 19
TYPE: גמרא – תירוץ
Resolution: the matzah is actually the majority
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן? דְּלָא אַפִּישׁ לַהּ תַּבְלִין, דְּרוּבַּהּ מַצָּה הִיא, וְלָא בָּטְלָה.
English Translation:
What are we dealing with here? A case where there are not more spices, but rather the majority is matzah and therefore the matzah is not nullified.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara resolves: the baraita doesn’t involve majority spices! The matzah is the majority—that’s why it’s valid. The text itself hints this: “it IS matzah”—meaning matzah predominates.
Segment 20
TYPE: גמרא – ראיה מלשון הברייתא
Textual support
Hebrew/Aramaic:
דַּיְקָא נָמֵי, דְּקָתָנֵי: מַצָּה הִיא, אֶלָּא שֶׁנִּקְרֵאת מַצָּה מְתוּבֶּלֶת — שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.
English Translation:
The language is also precise: it teaches “it is matzah, but it is called seasoned matzah.” Learn from here that the majority is matzah.
קלאוד על הדף:
Textual proof: the baraita says “it IS matzah” (emphasizing its primary identity) but merely “called seasoned matzah” (a secondary descriptor). This phrasing confirms the matzah predominates; it’s merely flavored with spices. This reading neutralizes the proof for either position.
Key Terms:
- רובה מצה = The majority is matzah
- דיקא נמי = The language is also precise
Segment 21
TYPE: גמרא – מעשה
Rav Kahana’s encounter with Rabbi Chiyya’s sons
Hebrew/Aramaic:
כִּי סְלֵיק רַב כָּהֲנָא, אַשְׁכְּחִינְהוּ לִבְנֵי דְּרַבִּי חִיָּיא דְּיָתְבִי וְקָאָמְרִי: עִשָּׂרוֹן שֶׁחִילְּקוֹ וְהִקְרִיב חֶצְיוֹ — יִגְמוֹר עָלָיו מֵאוֹתוֹ עִשָּׂרוֹן עַצְמוֹ.
English Translation:
When Rav Kahana ascended from Babylonia to Eretz Yisrael, he found the sons of Rabbi Ḥiyya, who were sitting and saying: In the case of a tenth of an ephah of a meal offering that one divided and he sacrificed half of it, he should complete it from that very same tenth of an ephah.
קלאוד על הדף:
The daf transitions to a new topic via narrative: Rav Kahana traveled from Babylonia to Israel and encountered Rabbi Chiyya’s sons studying. They discussed a divided tenth-ephah meal offering—if only half was offered, complete it from the same measure. This sets up continued analysis.
Key Terms:
- כי סליק = When he ascended; traveled to Israel
- בני דרבי חייא = The sons of Rabbi Chiyya
- עשרון = A tenth of an ephah; standard meal offering measure
Segment 22
TYPE: גמרא – מחלוקת
Disagreement about completing from a different tenth
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲמַר לְהוּ: מֵעִשָּׂרוֹן אַחֵר לָא? אֲמַר לְהוּ: לָא מִבָּעֵי קָאָמֵינָא. לָא מִבַּעְיָא מֵעִשָּׂרוֹן אַחֵר — דְּאֵין שִׁירֵי מְנָחָה מְבַטְּלִין זֶה אֶת זֶה,
English Translation:
Rav Kahana said to them: From another tenth of an ephah, no? They said to him: We are not raising a difficulty, as we meant that it is not necessary to state that from another tenth of an ephah one may not complete it, because the remainder of one meal offering does not nullify the remainder of another.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Kahana questions whether you could complete from a DIFFERENT tenth-ephah. Rabbi Chiyya’s sons clarify: obviously you can’t use a different measure—that would create a mixture of remainders, and remainders don’t nullify each other (as established earlier via Rabbi Zeira’s gezeirah shavah).
Segment 23
TYPE: גמרא – המשך
Why the same tenth works
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא אֲפִילּוּ מֵאוֹתוֹ עִשָּׂרוֹן עַצְמוֹ — דְּכׇל עִשָּׂרוֹן בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ הוּא עוֹמֵד.
English Translation:
Rather, the novel element is that even from that very same tenth of an ephah one may complete it, even though each tenth of an ephah stands by itself as an independent offering.
קלאוד על הדף:
The chiddush (novel teaching): even completing from the SAME tenth is not obvious! Each tenth-ephah might be considered a complete, independent unit—once half is offered, the remainder might be a new entity that can’t combine with what was already offered. Yet the sons of Rabbi Chiyya teach that completing from the same measure IS permitted, because it maintains the unity of the original offering.
Key Terms:
- כל עשרון בפני עצמו = Each tenth of an ephah stands by itself
- חידוש = Novel element; the non-obvious teaching