Menachos Daf 23 - Mevatel or Batel in Defining Min B'Mino
Summary
- The text presents the flow of מנחות דף כ״ג, opening with a מחלוקת about whether adding שמן to the קומץ of a מנחת חוטא invalidates it, continuing to a תיקו about whether oil squeezed from a קומץ onto the עצים still combines with the קומץ as חיבורי עולין, and then laying out the משנה’s cases of תערובות among מנחות, קומץ, and שיריים. It then turns to the core conceptual issue of ביטול in *min b’mino*, developing רבי חייא’s idea that “sameness” can be defined by הלכתic status and even הלכתic potential, and framing a dispute between Rav Ḥisda and Rabbi Ḥanina about whether this potential is assessed from the מבטל or the מתבטל, while showing that several attempted proofs from the משנה are deflected by רבי זירא’s גזירה שוה of הקטרה that blocks ביטול between קומץ and שיריים.
- Shacharit is set for eight, and the speaker begins the shiur on מנחות דף כ״ג at the point of the “two dots” on כ״ג עמוד א׳, three lines into the page. The speaker previews four main units: oil on the קמיצה of a מנחת חוטא, squeezing oil out of a קומץ onto the עצים, the משנה’s תערובות among מנחות, and the difficult sugya of ביטול in *min b’mino* based on רבי חייא’s framework and the dispute about whether to follow the מבטל or the מתבטל.
- The גמרא records a dispute about קומץ דמנחת חוטא ששמנו, where Rabbi Yoḥanan rules it פסול and Reish Lakish rules that he rubs it with שירי לוג and offers it. The גמרא challenges Reish Lakish from the פסוק “לא ישים עליה שמן ולא יתן עליה לבונה,” and answers that the פסוק forbids establishing a fixed oil measure like other מנחות, while allowing a minimal residue from a measuring vessel. Tosafot (ד״ה הוא עצמו משכשכו בשירי הלוג) explains that oil remains because “לא נתנה תורה למלאכי השרת,” since oil inevitably clings to the כלי.
- Rabbi Yoḥanan challenges Reish Lakish from the ברייתא of חרב שנתערב בבלול, where the תנא קמא allows offering and רבי יהודה forbids. The גמרא rejects identifying this as a קומץ of מנחת חוטא mixed with a קומץ of מנחת נדבה, and instead reads חרב and בלול as referring to different oil ratios among standard מנחות such as מנחת פרים ואילים versus מנחת כבשים. The גמרא resolves the apparent redundancy in the ברייתא by saying “פירושי קמפרש לה,” and closes this unit with the framing that Rabbi Yoḥanan invalidates oil added to a מנחת חוטא while Reish Lakish validates it and even treats it as לכתחילה via residual oil.
- Rava asks whether a קומץ whose oil was squeezed onto the עצים is still valid for burning, because the קומץ might be חסר, or because the oil and the קומץ reunite on the same fire and thus count as one unit. Ravina suggests linking the question to the זבחים dispute about one who offers an איבר lacking כזית meat but completed by bone, where Rabbi Yoḥanan says חייב because חיבורי עולין כעולין דמו and Reish Lakish says פטור because חיבורי עולין לאו כעולין דמו.
- The גמרא concludes that the question is unresolved even within each view, because Rabbi Yoḥanan’s inclusion of bone may depend on bone being the same natural מין as meat, while oil is not the same מין as flour, and Reish Lakish’s exclusion of bone may depend on bone being separable with no requirement to reattach it, while oil is not meant to be separated. The sugya ends with תיקו.
- The משנה rules that if two מנחות שלא נקמצו become mixed, they are כשרות if a distinct קמיצה can be taken from each, and פסולות if not. The משנה rules that if a קומץ becomes mixed with a מנחה שלא נקמצה, one should not offer it, and if it was offered then the already-nikmetzah מנחה counts for its owners while the un-nikmetzah one does not. The משנה rules that if a קומץ becomes mixed with its own שיריים or with the שיריים of another, one should not offer it, but if it was offered then it counts for the owners, with the consequence that the שיריים are lost to eating.
- Rav Ḥisda states that נבלה is בטל in שחוטה because the שחוטה can never become נבלה, while שחוטה is not בטל in נבלה because the נבלה can become like שחוטה when it rots and loses the status of נבלה. Rabbi Ḥanina states a general rule that anything that can become like the other is not בטל, and anything that cannot become like the other is בטל. The גמרא rejects grounding these principles in the רבנן because they treat *min b’mino* as subject to ביטול and focus instead on “עולין” dynamics, and it rejects grounding them in רבי יהודה’s simple physical definition because נבלה and שחוטה would both be meat and thus *min b’mino*.
- The גמרא attributes the underlying framework to רבי חייא, who teaches that נבלה ושחוטה can be בטלות זו בזו, and explains that רבי חייא works within רבי יהודה’s language of *min b’mino* but refines “מין” to depend on whether one item can become like the other in הלכה. The גמרא then defines the internal dispute: Rav Ḥisda follows the מבטל, asking whether the majority item can become like the minority, while Rabbi Ḥanina follows the בטל, asking whether the minority item can become like the majority.
- The גמרא attempts to prove the מבטל-versus-בטל dispute from the first case of the משנה, reasoning that after taking a קמיצה from one of two mixed טבל מנחות, the remainder becomes שיריים and is now mixed with the still-טבל מנחה, yet the משנה still allows proceeding, which seems to force a particular criterion for *min b’mino*. The גמרא answers that the case follows רבי זירא, who derives by a גזירה שוה that since “הקטרה” is said regarding the קומץ and also regarding שיריים, just as one קומץ does not annul another, so too שיריים do not annul the קומץ, preventing a proof about general ביטול rules.
- The גמרא similarly tries to prove the issue from the second case, where a קומץ mixed into a מנחה שלא נקמצה is not treated as annulled, and it again answers “הכא נמי כדרבי זירא,” invoking the same גזירה שוה framework. The גמרא then cites the third case, where a קומץ mixed with שיריים still counts if offered, and it presents רבי זירא’s teaching in its primary setting: “נאמרה הקטרה בקומץ ונאמרה הקטרה בשיריים,” yielding that שיריים do not annul the קומץ. The shiur closes with the note to begin at eight and a brief sign-off wishing everyone a wonderful day.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions