איתיביה ר' יוחנן לריש לקיש חרב שנתערב בבלול יקריב רבי יהודה אומר לא יקריב מאי לאו קומץ דמנחת חוטא דאיערב בקומץ דמנחת נדבה
R'Judah says, It may not be offered up. presumably the handful of a sinner's meal-offering was mixed with the handful of a freewill meal-offering!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The former meal-offering being dry, and the latter mingled with oil. Now it is clear that the first Tanna permitted the offering of these meal-offerings only because he holds that things offered up when mixed together do not neutralize each other, so that each is considered as though it were by itself; where, however, oil was poured on to a dry meal-offering they would also declare it to be invalid, contra Resh Lakish.');"><sup>6</sup></span>
Shulchan Arukh, Yoreh De'ah
If it is was mixed with something of the same type and it was spilled, in a case where one can not deal with it to measure it, if it is known that it was majority permissible, [it is] permissible. And if it is not known that it was majority permissible, [it is] forbidden. Rema: And in the matter of "being of the same type" we follow the name, if it is the same then this is "of the same type," but we do not follow the taste if it is the same or not. But if was mixed with something that is not of the same type and it spilled in a case where one can not deal with it to measure it, even it is known that it was majority permissible, [it is] forbidden. And if it was mixed with "of its kind" and with "not of its kind" and it spilled in a case where one can not deal with it to measure it, and it is known that it was majority "of its kind", one views the "not of its kind" as though it were not [present], and the rest, "of its kind" is greater and negates it.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
