1) ABSORBED OIL

(a) (R. Yochanan): If oil was put on a Minchas Chotei, it is Pasul;
(b) (Reish Lakish): L’Chatchilah, one should rub Minchas Chotei on the leftover oil from the Log brought for a (regular) Minchah, all the more so it is Kosher if oil was put on it!
(c) Question: But it says “Lo Yasim Aleha Shemen v’Lo Yiten Aleha Levonah”!
(d) Answer: That forbids putting oil on it *before* Kemitzah.
(e) Question (R. Yochanan – Beraisa): If a Charev (Minchas Chotei or Minchas Sotah, which is not mixed with oil) became mixed with a Balul (a Minchah that is mixed with oil), we offer it;
1. R. Yehudah says, we do not offer it.
2. Suggestion: The case is, the Kometz of a Charev became mixed with the Kometz of Minchas Nedavah.
(f) Answer: No, the case is, Minchas Nesachim for a bull or ram (which has two Lugim of oil for each Isaron of flour) became mixed with Minchas Nesachim for a lamb (three Lugim of oil per Isaron. The former is called Charev, for it is drier than the latter.)
(g) Question: Both of these are taught in the same Beraisa, surely they are not the same case!
1. (Beraisa): If Minchas Nesachim for a bull or ram became mixed with that of a lamb, or if a Charev became mixed with a Balul, we offer it;
2. R. Yehudah says, we do not offer it.
(h) Answer: Both are the same case, the Seifa explains the Reisha. (Even though the former is drier and absorbs from the latter, Chachamim Machshir.)
(i) Question (Rava): If the oil of a Kometz was squeezed onto wood, what is the law?
1. Are Chiburei Olim (things connected to something offered on the Mizbe’ach) considered like Olim; or not? (Rashi – if the Kometz is next to the oil, do we consider it as if the oil is inside, or is it considered Chaser? Alternatively – is it necessary to burn the wood with the Kometz (because the oil is still part of the Kometz, if it is not burned, the Kometz is Chaser), or not? Tosfos – the question is when some oil was absorbed and some is intact on the wood, are they considered like one?)
(j) Suggestion (Ravina): R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish argued about this!
1. (R. Yochanan): If one is Ma’aleh (b’Chutz) a k’Zayis of meat *including* a bone (there is less than a k’Zayis of meat), he is liable;
i. This is because Chiburei Olim (things connected to something offered on the Mizbe’ach) are considered like Olim;
2. (Reish Lakish): He is exempt – Chiburei Olim are not like Olim.
(k) Rejection (Rav Ashi): No, it is not clear how either of them would hold in Rava’s case:
1. R. Yochanan only said that Chiburei Olim are like Olim regarding a bone, for it is the same Min as meat, but wood (alternatively – oil) is not the same Min as a Kometz!
2. Reish Lakish only said that Chiburei Olim are not like Olim regarding a bone, for if it came off the fire, there is no Mitzvah to return it, but oil would never come off the fire.
(l) This question is not resolved.
2) WHEN IS “MIN B’EINO MINO” NOT “BATEL”
(a) (Mishnah): If two Menachos became mixed together before Kemitzah:
1. If one can take a Kometz from each of them by itself (e.g. they are mixed only in the middle, each is by itself on the side), they are Kesherim, if not, they are Pesulim;
(b) If a Kometz became mixed with a Minchah before Kemitzah, we do not Maktir the mixture;
1. If a Kohen was Maktir the mixture; the owner of the (Minchah which was) Nikmetzes fulfilled his obligation, the owner of the other Minchah did not.
(c) If a Kometz became mixed with its Shirayim or those of another Minchah, we do not Maktir the mixture;
1. If a Kohen was Maktir the mixture; the owner fulfilled his obligation.
(d) (Gemara – Rav Chisda):If a Neveilah became mixed with a majority of slaughtered animals, it is Batel, for it is impossible for a slaughtered animal to become (an Av ha’Tum’ah, like) a Neveilah (therefore, it is like Min b’Eino Mino);
1. If a slaughtered animal became mixed with a Neveilah, it is not Batel, for it is possible for a Neveilah to become like a slaughtered animal (this is like Min b’Mino.);
i. When a Neveilah rots, it becomes Tahor.
(e) (R. Chanina): If the Batel (minority) can become like the Mevatel (majority), it is not Batel; if the Batel cannot become like the Mevatel, it is Batel
(f) Question: According to which Tana are these teachings?
1. They are not like Chachamim – Chachamim say that Olim do not Mevatel each other, but Min b’Mino is Batel (whether or not one can become like the other!)
2. They are not like R. Yehudah, for he says that Bitul depends on the appearance (22A, Dam Par cannot Mevatel Dam Sa’ir, even though neither can become like the other) – Min b’Mino is never Batel, whether or not one can become like the other!
23b—————————————23b

(g) Answer: They are according to R. Chiya:
1. (Beraisa – R. Chiya): If slaughtered animals and Neveilos became mixed, one of these (if it is the majority) is Mevatel the other. (Rashba – if each of them could Mevatel the other, whether or not it can become like the other, R. Chiya would have said that Min b’Mino is Batel, without specifying Neveilos and slaughtered animals.)
(h) Question: Which Tana does R. Chiya hold like?
1. He is not like Chachamim – Chachamim say that Olim do not Mevatel each other, but Min b’Mino is (always) Batel!
2. He is not like R. Yehudah, for he says that Min b’Mino is not (i.e. never) Batel!
(i) Answer: He is like R. Yehudah – really, R. Yehudah says that Min b’Mino is not Batel only when one can become like the other, but if one cannot become like the other, there is Bitul;
1. Rav Chisda says that it depends upon the Mevatel (if it cannot become like the Batel, there is Bitul);
2. R. Chanina says that it depends upon the Batel (if it cannot become like the Mevatel, there is Bitul).
3) WHO IS THE AUTHOR OF OUR “MISHNAH”
(a) (Mishnah): If two Menachos became mixed together before Kemitzah – if one can take a Kometz from each of them by itself they are Kesherim, if not, they are Pesulim.
(b) Observation: After taking one Kometz, the rest of that Minchah is Shirayim;
(c) (Surely, there are pieces of the Tevel (the other Minchah) amidst a majority of Shirayim – if these pieces became Batel, the Tevel would be considered Chaser before Kemitzah!)
1. Since both are Kesherim, we infer that the Shirayim do not Mevatel the Tevel. (We cannot infer whether or not the Tevel is Mevatel (pieces of) the Shirayim, for Chisaron after Kemitzah is not Posel.)
(d) Question: Which Tana is this like?
1. It is not like Chachamim – Chachamim say that Olim do not Mevatel each other, but Min b’Mino is Batel (and Shirayim are not Olim)!
(e) Answer: Clearly, it is like R. Yehudah.
(f) Question: We understand according to R. Chanina – since the Batel (Tevel) *can* become like the Mevatel (Shirayim) (by doing Kemitzah), there is no Bitul;
1. But according to Rav Chisda, since the Mevatel cannot become like the Batel, there should be Bitul, the second Minchah should be Pasul!
2. Suggestion: Rav Chisda must say that our Mishnah is unlike R. Chiya!
(g) Answer: No, he explains like R. Zeira.
1. (R. Zeira): It says “Haktarah” regarding the Kometz and regarding Shirayim – just as Komtzim do not Mevatel Komtzim (even R. Yehudah agrees to this in our Mishnah), also Shirayim do not Mevatel Komtzim.
(h) (Mishnah): If a Kometz became mixed with a Minchah before Kemitzah, we do not Maktir the mixture;
1. If a Kohen was Maktir the mixture; the owner of the Nikmetzes fulfilled his obligation, the owner of the Tevel did not.
(i) Inference: Since the Nikmetzes is Kosher, it follows that the Tevel does not Mevatel the Kometz.
(j) Question: Which Tana is this like?
1. It is not like Chachamim – they say that Olim do not Mevatel each other, but Min b’Mino is Batel (the Tevel is not considered Olim, for it will not be offered)!
(k) Answer: Clearly, it is like R. Yehudah.
(l) Question: We understand according to Rav Chisda – since (part of) the Mevatel (Tevel) can become like the Batel (Kometz) (by doing Kemitzah), there is no Bitul;
1. But according to R. Chanina, since the Batel cannot become like the Mevatel, there should be Bitul, the Nikmetzes should be Pasul!
2. Suggestion: R. Chanina must say that our Mishnah is unlike R. Chiya!
(m) Answer: No, he explains like R. Zeira.
1. (R. Zeira): It says “Haktarah” regarding Kometz and Shirayim – just as Komtzim do not Mevatel Komtzim (even according to R. Yehudah), Shirayim do not Mevatel Komtzim.
(n) (Mishnah): If a Kometz became mixed with (its Shirayim or) Shirayim of another Minchah, we do not Maktir the mixture;
1. If a Kohen was Maktir the mixture; the owner fulfilled his obligation.
(o) Inference: Since it is Kosher, it follows that the Shirayim do not Mevatel the Kometz.
(p) Question: Which Tana is this like?
(q) Answer: It is not like Chachamim (they would say that the Shirayim Mevatel the Kometz!), rather, it is like R. Yehudah.
(r) Question: Neither the Mevatel (Shirayim) nor Batel (Kometz) can become like the other – Rav Chisda and R. Chanina should agree that there is Bitul, this is unlike R. Chiya!
(s) Answer (R. Zeira): It says “Haktarah” regarding Kometz and Shirayim – just as Komtzim do not Mevatel Komtzim, Shirayim do not Mevatel Komtzim.
4) SEASONED “MATZAH”
(a) (Beraisa): If Matzah was seasoned with Ketzach (black cumin) or sesame or other spices, it is Kosher, for it is (still) Matzah, just it is called seasoned Matzah.
(b) We are thinking that the spices are the majority.
(c) Question: We understand according to R. Chanina – since the Batel (Matzah) can become like the Mevatel (spices), when it will become moldy (it will lose the status of Matzah), it is not Batel;
1. But according to Rav Chisda, since the Mevatel cannot become like the Batel, there should be Bitul!
(d) Answer: The case is, the Matzah is the majority, not the spices.
(e) Support: The Beraisa says, ‘It is Matzah, just it is called seasoned Matzah.’