Menachot 46

רבי יהודה בתר חזותא אזיל ואידי ואידי מין במינו הוא

R'Judah adopts the criterion of appearance,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 22a. Things that have the same appearance are regarded as of like kind; and nebelah meat and slaughtered meat would always be considered as of like kind, so that neutralization would not take effect.');">¹</span> and [by that criterion] in either case it would be a mixture of like kinds! - Rather it is according to R'Hiyya's view, for R'Hiyya taught: In a mixture of nebelah meat and ritually slaughtered meat neutralization takes place.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But only in one case, either where nebelah meat was confused with a larger quantity of slaughtered meat as R. Hisda would have it, or where slaughtered meat was confused with a larger quantity of nebelah meat as R. Hanina would have it.');">²</span>

אלא אליבא דרבי חייא דתני רבי חייא נבילה ושחוטה בטילות זו בזו

And whose view does R'Hiyya follow? It cannot be that of the Rabbis, for they have said that only things which are offered up do not neutralize one another, but in a mixture of like kinds neutralization takes effect.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whereas R. Hiyya holds that neutralization does take place in a mixture of nebelah meat and slaughtered meat, even though only in one case, v. prec. n.');">³</span>

רבי חייא אליבא דמאן אי אליבא דרבנן הא אמרי עולין הוא דלא מבטלי אהדדי הא מין במינו בטיל ואי אליבא דר' יהודה כל מין במינו לר' יהודה לא בטיל

Neither can it be that of R'Judah, for according to R'Judah in any mixture of like kinds neutralization does not take effect! - In fact he follows the opinion of R'Judah, for R'Judah laid down the rule that in a mixture of like kinds neutralization does not take effect only in that case where it is possible for one kind to become like the other, but where it is not possible for one kind to become like the other, there neutralization does take effect. And they differ in this point: R'Hisda holds that we must consider the neutralizer,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the substance which is in the majority in the mixture. If this substance can become like the substance which is in the minority, the mixture is deemed to be one of like kinds, and neutralization will not take place.');">⁴</span>

לעולם אליבא דר' יהודה וכי קא אמר ר' יהודה מין במינו לא בטל ה"מ היכא דאפשר ליה למיהוי כוותיה אבל היכא דלא אפשר ליה למיהוי כוותיה בטל

but R'Hanina holds that we must consider what is to be neutralized.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the substance which is in the minority in the mixture. V. p. 147, n. 7');">⁵</span> We have learnt: IF TWO MEAL-OFFERINGS FROM WHICH THE HANDFULS HAD NOT YET BEEN TAKEN WERE MIXED TOGETHER, BUT IT IS STILL POSSIBLE TO TAKE THE HANDFUL FROM EACH SEPARATELY, THEY ARE VALID; OTHERWISE THEY ARE INVALID, Now in this case we see that when the handful is taken from one, whereby the rest becomes the remainder, this remainder does not neutralize the other meal-offering from which the handful has not yet been taken.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is certain that neutralization does not take place, for otherwise it would not be permitted subsequently (as stated in the Mishnah) to take the handful from the second meal-offering.');">⁶</span>

ובהא קא מיפלגי דרב חסדא סבר בתר מבטל אזלינן

Whose view is represented here? It cannot be that of the Rabbis, for they have said that only things which are offered up do not neutralize one another;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The remainder, however, is not a thing that is offered up, consequently it should neutralize the other meal-offering, even though the mixture is of like kinds.');">⁷</span>

ור' חנינא סבר בתר בטל אזלינן

but in a mixture of like kinds neutralization takes effect. Obviously it is the view of R'Judah.

תנן שתי מנחות שלא נקמצו ונתערבו זו בזו אם יכול לקמוץ מזו בפני עצמה ומזו בפני עצמה כשרות ואם לאו פסולות והא הכא כיון דקמיץ ליה מחדא אידך הוה ליה שירים ולא קא מבטלי שירים לטיבלא

Now this is well according to him who holds that we must consider what is to be neutralized, for here what is to be neutralized<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the other meal-offering from which the handful has not yet been taken.');">⁸</span> can become like the neutralizer,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the remainder of the meal-offering from which the handful has been taken.');">⁹</span>

מני אי רבנן הא אמרי עולין הוא דלא מבטלי הדדי הא מין במינו בטל אלא פשיטא רבי יהודה

seeing that when the handful will have been taken from the other meal-offering there will be a remainder like that of the first meal-offering.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And it is deemed to be a mixture of like kinds and neutralization does not take place.');">¹⁰</span> But according to him who holds that we must consider the neutralizer, [it will be asked here,] Can the remainder ever become like that from which the handful has not yet been taken?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Obviously it cannot. The mixture is therefore one of unlike kinds and neutralization should take effect, so that it should not be permitted subsequently to take the handful from the second meal-offering.');">¹¹</span>

בשלמא למ"ד בתר בטל אזלינן בטל הוי כמבטל דלכי קמיץ מאידך הוו להו שירים כי הני

Are we to say then that our Mishnah is not in accordance with R'Hiyya [as interpreted by R'Hisda]? - It is to be explained there according to R'Zera's dictum; for R'Zera said,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra, and Zeb. 110a,');">¹²</span> 'Burning' is stated with regard to the handful,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev, II, 2.');">¹³</span>

אלא למ"ד בתר מבטל אזלינן שירים מי קא הוו טיבלא לימא (אליבא דרב חסדא) דלא כרבי חייא

and 'burning' is also stated with regard to the remainder;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. II, 10, For whatever offering has a portion thereof burnt upon the altar comes under the law of 'ye shall not burn'.');">¹⁴</span> therefore as in the case of the handful, concerning which the expression 'burning' is used, [it i established that] one handful cannot neutralize the other,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is admitted even by R. Judah. V. supra p. 141.');">¹⁵</span>

התם כדר' זירא דא"ר זירא נאמרה הקטרה בקומץ ונאמרה הקטרה בשירים

so too in the case of the remainder, concerning which the expression 'burning' is also used, the remainder cannot neutralize the handful.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The effect of R. Zera's teaching is that the law of neutralization does not apply to any mixture of remainders and handfuls in any circumstances.');">¹⁶</span> Come and hear: IF THE HANDFUL [OF A MEAL-OFFERING] WAS MIXED WITH A MEAL-OFFERING FROM WHICH THE HANDFUL HAD NOT BEEN TAKEN, IT MUST NOT BE OFFERED.

מה הקטרה האמורה בקומץ אין הקומץ מבטל את חבירו אף הקטרה האמורה בשירים אין שירים מבטלין את הקומץ

IF, HOWEVER, IT WAS OFFERED, THEN THE MEAL-OFFERING FROM WHICH THE HANDFUL HAD BEEN TAKEN DISCHARGES THE OWNER'S OBLIGATION, WHILST THE OTHER FROM WHICH THE HANDFUL HAD NOT BEEN TAKEN DOES NOT DISCHARGE THE OWNER'S OBLIGATION. We see then that the meal-offering from which the handful had not been taken does not neutralize the handful.

ת"ש הקומץ שנתערב במנחה שלא נקמצה לא יקטיר ואם הקטיר זו שנקמצה עלתה לבעלים וזו שלא נקמצה לא עלתה לבעלים ולא קא מבטיל ליה טיבלא לקומץ

Whose view is this? It cannot be that of the Rabbis, for they have said that only things which are offered up do not neutralize one another; but in a mixture of like kinds neutralization takes effect.

מני אי רבנן הא אמרי עולין הוא דלא מבטלי הדדי הא מין במינו בטיל אלא פשיטא ר' יהודה

Obviously it is the view of R'Judah. Now it is well according to him who holds that we must consider the neutralizer, for here the neutralizer<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the meal-offering from which the handful had not yet been taken.');">¹⁷</span>

בשלמא למ"ד בתר מבטל אזלינן מבטל הוי כבטל דכל פורתא חזי למקמץ מיניה והוי ליה מין ומינו ומין במינו לא בטל

can become like that which is to be neutralized, seeing that every particle thereof is appropriate to be taken up in the handful.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Consequently the mixture is deemed to be one of like kinds, and therefore neutralization does not take place. In cur. edd. this is added in the text. It is omitted in MS.M.');">¹⁸</span> But according to him who holds that we must consider what is to be neutralized, [it will be asked,] Can the handful ever become like the meal-offering from which the handful has not yet been taken?

אלא למ"ד בתר בטל אזלינן קומץ מי קא הוי טיבלא לימא דלא כרבי חייא הא נמי כדרבי זירא

Are we to say then that our Mishnah is not in accordance with R'Hiyya [as interpreted by R'Hanina]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This sentence is omitted in all MSS.');">¹⁹</span> - This too must be explained in accordance with R'Zera's dictum.

ת"ש נתערב קומצה בשירים של חברתה לא יקטיר ואם הקטיר עלתה לבעלים והא הכא דלא הוי מבטל כבטיל ולא קא מבטלי ליה שירים לקומץ

Come and hear: IF THE HANDFUL WAS MIXED WITH THE REMAINDER OF THE MEAL-OFFERING OR WITH THE REMAINDER OF ANOTHER MEAL-OFFERING, IT MUST NOT BE OFFERED; BUT IF IT WAS OFFERED IT DISCHARGES THE OWNER'S OBLIGATION. Now here the neutralizer cannot become like that which is to be neutralized, nor can what is to be neutralized become like the neutralizer,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Neutralization therefore should take effect.');">²⁰</span>

מני אי רבנן וכו'

nevertheless the remainder does not neutralize the handful. Whose view is this?

א"ר זירא נאמרה הקטרה בקומץ ונאמרה הקטרה בשירים מה הקטרה האמורה בקומץ אין קומץ מבטל את חבירו אף הקטרה האמורה בשירים אין שירים מבטלין את הקומץ

It cannot be that of the Rabbis, for etc. ! - R'Zera answered, 'Burning' is stated with regard to the handful, and 'burning' is also stated with regard to the remainder; as in the case of the handful, concerning which the expression 'burning' is used, [it is established that] one handful cannot neutralize the other, so too in the case of the remainder, concerning which the expression 'burning' is also used, the remainder cannot neutralize the handful.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 149, nn. 1, 2 and 3.');">²¹</span> Come and hear: If one seasoned it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. unleavened dough.');">²²</span>

ת"ש תיבלה בקצח בשומשמין ובכל מיני תבלין כשרה מצה היא אלא שנקראת מצה מתובלת קא סלקא דעתך דאפיש לה תבלין טפי ממצה

with cumin or with sesame seed or with any other kind of spice, it is fit;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To be used on the Passover night for fulfilling the command of eating unleavened bread.');">²³</span> for it is unleavened bread, only that it is called seasoned unleavened bread.

בשלמא למאן דאמר בתר בטל אזלינן בטיל הוי כמבטל דלכי מעפשא הוי לה כתבלין אלא למאן דאמר בתר מבטל אזלינן תבלין מי קא הוו מצה

Now it was assumed that there were more spices than unleavened dough. According to him, then, who holds that we must consider what is to be neutralized, it is well, for what is to be neutralized<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Here the unleavened dough.');">²⁴</span>

הכא במאי עסקינן דלא אפיש לה תבלין דרובה מצה היא ולא בטלה דיקא נמי דקתני מצה היא אלא שנקראת מצה מתובלת ש"מ

can become like the neutralizer, seeing that when it becomes mouldy it is like the spices.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And it is no more unleavened bread.');">²⁵</span> But according to him who holds that we must consider the neutralizer, [it will be asked,] Can the spices become like the unleavened bread?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of course not; consequently neutralization should take place and it should not be regarded as unleavened bread at all.');">²⁶</span>

כי סליק רב כהנא אשכחינהו לבני רבי חייא דיתבי וקאמרי עשרון שחלקו

- We are dealing here with the case where there was not so much spices; indeed the larger part was the unleavened bread, and therefore it is not neutralized. This too is to be inferred [from the words of the Baraitha], for it reads, is unleavened bread, only that it is called seasoned unleavened bread'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus clearly showing that the main part is the unleavened bread and not the spices.');">²⁷</span> This is conclusive. When R'Kahana went up [to Palestine] he found the sons of R'Hiyya sitting and discoursing as follows: If one divided a tenth<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The tenth part of an ephah of flour set aside for a meal-offering.');">²⁸</span>