Previous daf

1)

(a) According to Rebbi Yochanan, the Kometz of a Minchsa Chotei to which one added oil is Pasul. Resh Lakish says - on the contrary, one mixes in leftover oil from the Log of other Menachos (see Tosfos DH 'Hu Atzmo').

(b) Resh Lakish explains the Pasuk (in connection with a Minchas Chotei) "Lo Yasim Alehah Shemen ... " - as a prohibition to not add oil to a Minchas Chotei, like one does to other Menachos.

(c) Rebbi Yochanan queried Resh Lakish from a Beraisa. The Tana Kama there says 'Charev she'Nis'arev be'Balul, Yakriv' - because 'Ein Olin Mevatlin Zeh es Zeh'.

(d) Rebbi Yehudah says - 'Lo Yakriv'.

(a) If some Sheyarei Shemen fell on to the 'Charev' - the Rabbanan would agree 'Lo Yakriv' (a Kashya on Resh Lakish).

(b) Rebbi Yochanan assumes that 'Chorev' and 'Balul' refer to the Kometz of a Minchas Chotei and 'Balul', to that of a Minchas Nedavah respectively. Resh Lakish interprets them as - Minchas Parim ve'Eilim and Minchas Kevasim respectively.

(c) The difference between Parim and Eilim (on the one hand), and Kevasim (on the other) is - six Lugin and three Esronim (Parim), four Lugin and two Esronim (Eilim), a ratio of one Log per two Esronim, and three Lugin and one Isaron (Kevasim).

(d) If the Kometz of a Minchas Chotei became mixed up with that of a 'Balul', according to Resh Lakish - even Rebi Yehudah would agree that 'Yakriv'.

(a) The problem Rebbi Yochanan has with Resh Lakish's answer is - that in the very same Mishnah, Rebbi Yehudah and the Tana Kama mention Minchas Parim ve'Eilim which became mixed up with Kevasim independently (even before Charev and Balul).

(b) Resh Lakish replied 'Pirushi ka'Mefaresh', meaning - that the Mishnah is equating Minchas Parim ve'Eilim which became mixed up with Kevasim with Charev be'Balul, since even there (by the former), the Rabbanan hold 'Yakriv'.

(a) Rava asked what the Din will be if the Kohen squeezes the oil out of the Kometz on to the Ma'arachah, before placing the Kometz on top of it. This might not be a case of 'Chaser Komtzo' - because of the possibility that 'Chiburei Olin ke'Olin', meaning that when the Kohen subsequently places the Kometz on the Ma'arachah, it is as if the oil that is already burning on the Ma'arachah, now becomes absorbed inside it.

(b) In a case where someone sacrifices ba'Chutz a limb which only comprises a k'Zayis together with the bone, Rebbi Yochanan rules 'Chayav', Resh Lakish - 'Patur' ...

(c) ... because the former holds 'Chiburei Olin ke'Olin Damu', the latter, 'La'av ke'Ochlin Damu'.

(d) Ravina now suggests to Rav Ashi - that Rava's She'eilah is subject to the Machlokes between Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish.

(e) Rav Ashi replied that the She'eilah is applicable both according to Rebbi Yochanan and according to Resh Lakish. Even ...

1. ... Rebbi Yochanan might concede that in our case (of the Kometz and the oil), 'Chiburei Olin La'av ke'Olin Dami' - since, unlike the flesh and the bone, they are two different entities.
2. ... Resh Lakish might concede that, in our case, 'Chiburei Olin ke'Olin Dami' - because, as opposed to the bone (which is not an intrinsic part of the flesh, because, should it fall off the Mizbe'ach, there is no Mitzvah to return it), the oil is an intrinsic part of the Kometz).

(a) Our Mishnah rules that if two Menachos became mixed-up - as long as enough of each one remains recognizable (i.e. if they fell on two different sides of the K'li, and are only mixed in the middle) to take a Kemitzah from each one, then one should. If not, they are both Pasul.

(b) We learn this from the Pasuk (in connection with the Kemitzah) "mi'Soltah" - from which we Darshen 've'Lo mi'So'les Chavertah' (that the Kometz may not contain any flour from another Minchah).

(c) The Kohen may not ...

1. ... burn the entire mixture - because the Kemitzah is crucial to the Mitzvah.
2. ... simply take two Kemitzos from the mixture and burn them - in case he includes some flour from the second Minchah in either Kemitzah (as we just explained).

(a) The Tana also forbids burning a Kometz that became mixed up with a Minchah from which the Kemitzah was not taken - because it is forbidden to burn a Minchah from which the Kemitzah has not been taken.

(b) We learn from the Pasuk "Lo Saktiru Mimenu Isheh la'Hashem" - a prohibition to burn the Shirayim of a Minchah ('Kol she'Mimenu la'Ishim, Harei Hu be'Bal Taktiru').

(c) In a case where the Kohen burned the Kometz of a Minchah that became mixed-up with its own Shirayim or with somebody else's, the Tana rules that - the owner of the Kometz has fulfilled his duty.

(a) Rav Chisda makes a distinction between a piece of Neveilah that became mixed-up with two pieces of Shechutah - which becomes Bateil, and a piece of Shechutah that became mixed-up with two pieces of Neveilah - which does *not*.

(b) The ramifications of the distinction are - whether if Terumah touched one of the pieces, it becomes Tamei (and needs to be burned) or not.

(c) This is - because the Shechutah can never become intrinsically Tamei like the Neveilah, whereas the Neveilah can become intrinsically Tahor like the Shechutah (i.e. once it becomes unfit for a Ger to eat), turning it into a case of Miyn be'she'Eino Miyno (see Rashi in Beitzah 38b), which is Bateil be'Rov.

(d) According to Rav Chisda - if the Mevateil can become like the Bateil, it is considered 'Miyn be'Miyno'; if not, it is considered 'Miyn be'she'Eino Miyno'.

(a) Rebbi Chanina disagrees with Rav Chisda - in that he goes after the Bateil. Consequently, he holds that if the Bateil can become like the Mevateil, it is considered 'Miyn be'Miyno' and is not Bateil; whereas if it cannot, it is 'Miyn be'she'Eino Miyno , and is Bateil.

(b) Rebbi Chanina will therefore hold that ...

1. ... Neveilah that became mixed-up with Shechutah - is not Bateil.
2. ... Shechutah that became mixed-up with Neveilah - is Bateil.

(c) The problem with this is - that according to the opinion of ...

1. ... the Rabbanan - Miyn be'Miyno is no less Bateil than Miyn be'she'Eino Miyno.
2. ... Rebbi Yehudah - the criterion for Miyn be'Miyno is 'Chazuta' (its appearance, irrespective of Halachic similarities or differences). Consequently, in this case - seeing as Neveilah and Basar are both Basar, neither ought to be Bateil.

(d) We know that Rebbi Yehudah does not consider 'Efshar Lih'yos Kamohu' a criterion to determine 'Miyn be'Miyno' - because in the case of Dam ha'Par and Dam ha'Sa'ir too, the latter can never resemble the former, yet he considers it Miyn be'Miyno.

9)

(a) So we establish the current Sugya like Rebbi Chiya, who quoted a Beraisa - 'Neveilah u'Shechutah Beteilos Zu be'Zu'.

(b) Rebbi Chanina and Rav Chisda now argue over - whether the Tana means 'Neveilah in Shechutah' (Rav Chisda) or Shechutah in Neveilah (Rebbi Chanina).

(c) The problem with this is - that Rebbi Chiya cannot go like ...

1. ... the Rabbanan - because they hold 'Miyn be'Miyno Bateil'.
2. ... Rebbi Yehudah - because he holds 'Miyn be'Miyno, Eino Bateil' (under any circumstances, or so we initially think).

(d) We establish Rebbi Chiya like Rebbi Yehudah - by conceding that if either the Bateil cannot become like the Mevatel or vice-versa, it is considered 'Miyn be'she'Eino Miyno', and is therefore Bateil.

(a) This goes well with Rebbi Chanina, since (in the Mishnah in Zevachim [the source of the Machlokes between Rebbi Yehudah and the Rabbanan]) Kodshim can become like Chulin - if they are left overnight, to become Pasul be'Linah.

(b) The problem according to Rav Chisda, who goes after the Mevateil is - how can Dam Chulin become like Dam Kodshim?

(c) To answer this Kashya, Rav Chisda will explain the 'Nis'arev be Dam Beheimah ... ' - where it is the Dam Kodshim which is the majority, and it is a question of the Dam Chulin becoming Bateil in it).

(a) We learned in our Mishnah that if two Menachos became mixed-up, if one cannot take a Kemitzah from each one, they are Pasul (even if it is possible to take from one of them). The author cannot be the Rabbanan - because, seeing as they hold 'Miyn be'Miyno Bateil', according to them, there is no reason for the Shirayim (which are not considered Olin) not to be Mevatel the part of the other Minchah that is mixed with it (rendering the latter a Minchah that became Chaser before the Kemitzah).

(b) Assuming that one did take a Kemitzah from one of them, the other Minchah would now constitute the Bateil and the Shirayim, the Mevatel.

(a) In the current case, there is no problem according to Rebbi Chanina - because the Minchah can become like the Shirayim (by taking a Kemitzah from it), in which case it is Miyn be'Miyno.

(b) The problem according to Rav Chisda is - that since the Shirayim cannot become like the Minchah, it ought to be considered Miyn be'she'Eino Miyno, prompting us to propose that the author of our Mishnah cannot be (the Tana of) Rebbi Chiya.

(c) We reject this proposition however, based on a statement of Rebbi Zeira, who learned from a 'Gezeirah-Shavah' Haktarah be'Shirayim from Haktarah be'Kometz - that just as one Kometz cannot be Mevatel another Kometz, so too, can the Shirayim not be Mevatel a Kometz.

(d) The fact that the Shirayim not being Mevatel the Minchah, stems from a 'Gezeirah-Shavah', and not from the Din of Miyn be'Miyno Eino Bateil', reinstates the possibility of our Mishnah going like Rebbi Chiya.

(a) We also learned in our Mishnah that in a case where a Kometz became mixed-up with a Minchah from which the Kometz has not been taken, and that one subsequently burned on the Mizbe'ach, the owner has fulfilled his duty. This cannot go like the Rabbanan - because according to them, there is no reason for the Kometz not to become Bateil in the Minchah, in which case, the owner would not be Yotze.

(b) The problem in trying to establish the author as Rebbi Yehudah is - that according to Rebbi Chanina, who goes after the Bateil, why is the Kometz, which cannot become like the Minchah, not Bateil (even according to Rebbi Yehudah).

(c) We answer ...

1. ... this Kashya - by again citing Rebbi Zeira, and that is how we answer ...
2. ... the equivalent Kashya from the Seifa 'Nis'arev Komtzah be'Shirehah ... , ve'Im Hiktir, Alsah le'Ba'alim' (though in fact, it is on this case that Rebbi Zeira actually presented the 'Gezeirah-Shavah').

(a) Finally, we ask from the Beraisa, which permits a Matzah dough that contains Katzach (poppy-seeds). Assuming that the Katzach is in the majority - we can ask from this Beraisa on Rav Chisda, who goes after the Mevatel - that, seeing as here, the poppy-seeds cannot become Matzah, why are they not Mevatel the Matzah?

(b) This is not a problem according to Rebbi Chanina however - because the Matzah can indeed become like spices, in the event that it becomes moldy.

(c) We refute the Kashya on Rav Chisda however - by establishing the Beraisa when the Katzach is in the minority.

(d) And we extrapolate this from the Lashon of the Beraisa - 'Matzah Hi, Ela she'Nikra'as Matzah Metuveles', implying that the Matzah is in the majority.