Oily Dough Consistency and Min beMino

In today’s daf, Menachot 22, we have a Mishnah that I don’t feel has anything to do with nullification and min bemino (like kinds), but which is taken to be about min bemino. Before we get there, I’ll note my earlier article about Rabbi Yehuda’s Scientific Nullification:

where I connected various positions about bittul from Chazal with scientific theories of Aristotle and the stoics.

Looking at bittul through this lens, we might come to different halachic conclusions than the Rishonim and Acharonim, but that is fine.

Also, what partly contributed to views of various Rishonim regarding bittul are the sugyot scattered through the Talmud, which are sometimes at odds with one another. How we resolve those real or apparent contradictions can impact how we understand how the mechanism of bittul operates. As a random example, in that article, I discussed how Rabbeinu Tam at first suggested (correctly, according to my theory) that Rabbi Yehuda’s min bemino principle only applies to liquids. But, another sugya caused him to reevaluate that.

So, Menachot 22 is about Rabbi Yehuda’s min bemino, and some aspects of it seem like a kvetch. I think I can demonstrate this visually. Here is amud bet in Vilna Shas:

There is very little gemara. There is a tiny bit of Rashi in the left marginal column, indicating that the translation and simple rendition of the words is fairly straightforward. Then, there is a massive amount of commentary by the Tosafists, who generally grapple with harmonizing the present sugya with other sugyot across Shas. Without even reading the Tosafot, I feel a bit justified in kvetching about the interpretations about bittul in this gemara, its interpretations of the Mishnah, and the implications it may have on the global theory of

On to the Mishnah, at the bottom of amud aleph. It reads:

מַתְנִי׳ נִתְעָרֵב קוּמְצָהּ בְּקוֹמֶץ חֲבֶירְתָּהּ, בְּמִנְחַת כֹּהֲנִים, בְּמִנְחַת כֹּהֵן מָשִׁיחַ, בְּמִנְחַת נְסָכִים – כְּשֵׁרָה.

MISHNA: If a handful of one meal offering, which is to be burned on the altar, was intermingled with a handful of another meal offering, or with the meal offering of priests, or with the meal offering of the anointed priest, i.e., the High Priest, or with the meal offering of libations accompanying burnt offerings and peace offerings, all of which are burned in their entirety on the altar, it is fit for sacrifice, and the mixture is burned on the altar.

רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: בְּמִנְחַת כֹּהֵן מָשִׁיחַ, בְּמִנְחַת נְסָכִים – פְּסוּלָה, שֶׁזּוֹ בְּלִילָתָהּ עָבָה, וְזוֹ בְּלִילָתָהּ רַכָּה, וְהֵן בּוֹלְעוֹת זוֹ מִזּוֹ.

Rabbi Yehuda says: If the handful was intermingled with the meal offering of the anointed priest, or with the meal offering of libations, the mixture is unfit because with regard to this, the handful from the standard meal offering, its mixture is thick, one log of oil mixed with a tenth of an ephah of flour, and with regard to that, the meal offering of the anointed priest and the meal offering of libations, its mixture is loose, three log of oil mixed with a tenth of an ephah of flour. And the mixtures, which are not identical, absorb from each other, increasing the amount of oil in the handful and decreasing the amount of oil in the meal offering of the anointed priest or the meal offering of libations, thereby invalidating both.

Without the gemara, if you asked me the basis of Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion, I would not tell you that it related to bittul. I would say this though this is Rabbi Yehuda and he argues with the Sages, his fifth-generation Tannaitic colleagues, and that is a famous dispute between them.

It should not have to do with bittul based on the details of the case, as well as based on the Mishnah’s language.

The details of the case are that we are dealing with a mixture of dough, which is a solid. Even though both are dough, with one dough being oilier that the other, min bemino from other gemaras is within liquids. So too within Aristotle and the Stoics — they deal exclusively with liquids, where the continuum model of matter applies — that is, we can speak of a vector of qualities, and in true mixture, every bit of the combined liquid contains the weighted average of those qualities. With solids, even dough, we are dealing with particles of solid matter side by side — aggregation rather than mixis.

Yes, commentators fix this so that we are not worried about the mixture of doughs, but the oil from the oilier mincha combining with the oil of the less oily mincha. That does not work out so well with the words of the Mishnah, and also still seems to me like a kvetch in terms of the case and the reality.

In terms of the language in the Mishnah, Rabbi Yehuda never specified bittul as the concern. Rather, he said:

פְּסוּלָה, שֶׁזּוֹ בְּלִילָתָהּ עָבָה, וְזוֹ בְּלִילָתָהּ רַכָּה, וְהֵן בּוֹלְעוֹת זוֹ מִזּוֹ

the mixture is unfit because with regard to this, the handful from the standard meal offering, its mixture is thick, one log of oil mixed with a tenth of an ephah of flour, and with regard to that, the meal offering of the anointed priest and the meal offering of libations, its mixture is loose, three log of oil mixed with a tenth of an ephah of flour. And the mixtures, which are not identical, absorb from each other, increasing the amount of oil in the handful and decreasing the amount of oil in the meal offering of the anointed priest or the meal offering of libations, thereby invalidating both.

The simple implication is that both are unfit, and meforshim need to grapple with this to explain that only one of them is unfit.

The simple implication is also that, as a required aspect of mincha, there needs to be a precise ratio of flour to water. Once we mix the doughs, this mincha has a ratio where the oil is too little, and that mincha has a ration where the oil is too much. It is either too thick or too loose, so both menachot are invalid.

That has to do with consistency of the mixture, not with nullification of the oil.

I hereby declare (against slight evidence — stay tuned) that no named Amora weighed in to say that the issue is bittul. It is only the anonymous Talmudic Narrator who says this. The Narrator is often post-Ravina and Rav Ashi, and thus Savoraic or even Geonic. Here is the gemara:

תְּנַן: רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: בְּמִנְחַת כֹּהֲנִים, בְּמִנְחַת כֹּהֵן מָשִׁיחַ, וּבְמִנְחַת נְסָכִים – פְּסוּלָה, שֶׁזּוֹ בְּלִילָתָהּ עָבָה וְזוֹ בְּלִילָתָהּ רַכָּה, וְהֵן בּוֹלְעוֹת זוֹ מִזּוֹ. וְכִי בּוֹלְעוֹת זוֹ מִזּוֹ מָה הָוֵי? מִין בְּמִינוֹ הוּא!

The Gemara raises another objection to the explanation of Rabbi Yoḥanan: We learned in the mishna here that Rabbi Yehuda says: If the handful was intermingled with the meal offering of priests, with the meal offering of the anointed priest, or with the meal offering of libations, the mixture is unfit because with regard to this, the handful from the standard meal offering, its mixture is thick, and with regard to that, the meal offering of the anointed priest and the meal offering of libations, its mixture is loose. And the mixtures, which are not identical, absorb from each other, invalidating both. The Gemara asks: But when the mixtures absorb from each other, what of it? This is a case of a substance in contact with the same type of substance, and therefore neither oil nullifies the other and both should be sacrificed on the altar.

This is just the gemara, that is, the Talmudic Narrator, asking the question!

However, consider that the answer in the gemara is immediately given by Rava, a named fourth-generation Amora. Rava answers that the presence of a third substance — in this case the flour, though it is not mentioned explicitly — changes the halachic calculus of the case.

אָמַר רָבָא: קָסָבַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, כׇּל שֶׁהוּא מִין בְּמִינוֹ וְדָבָר אַחֵר – סַלֵּק אֶת מִינוֹ כְּמִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ, וְשֶׁאֵינוֹ מִינוֹ רָבֶה עָלָיו וּמְבַטְּלוֹ.

Rava said: Rabbi Yehuda holds that in the case of any mixture that consists of a substance in contact with the same type of substance as well as another type of substance, the halakha is to disregard the same substance, considering it as though it were not there, and in the event that the different type of substance is more than the first substance, the different substance nullifies the first substance. In the case of the mishna here, the handful of the meal offering is mixed with other types of meal offerings that comprise greater quantities of oil. The oil of the handful is disregarded, and the flour of the handful, which is present in greater quantities than the oil of the other meal offering that is absorbed in it, nullifies this oil of the other meal offering. That oil is now considered to be one with the oil of the handful, and therefore the oil of the handful is increased, and the handful is unfit.

It would then seem that the anonymous framing of the question actually reflects the thought process of fourth-generation Amoraim. Thus, Rava and others understand our Mishnah in this manner!

To this, I would be obstinate, and argue that Rava said nothing about our sugya, since it is not about bittul. Rava’s actual words occurred in a parallel sugya in Chullin, and the Talmudic Narrator transferred Rava’s words here to answer the question the Narrator himself posed. I wish he had said kede’amar Rava, in which case it would be clearer that this is a quote. However, the primary sugya where Rava said it is clearly in Chullin.

Thus, in Chullin 100a-b, Rav Safra visits Pumbedita and challenges Abaye. Abaye gives one answer and Rava gives another.

אמר ליה רב ספרא לאביי מכדי רב כמאן אמרה לשמעתיה כרבי יהודה דאמר מין במינו לא בטיל מאי איריא כי נתן טעם אפילו כי לא נתן טעם נמי אמר ליה הכא במאי עסקינן בשקדם וסלקו

Rav Safra said to Abaye: Now, in accordance with whose opinion did Rav say his statement? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who says that a type of food mixed with food of its own type is not nullified. But if so, why does Rav state specifically that the non-kosher meat renders all the pieces forbidden only when it has imparted flavor to another piece? Even if it did not impart flavor to another piece it should render all the contents of the pot forbidden. Abaye said to him: Here we are dealing with a case where he cooked the non-kosher piece with one kosher piece and first removed the non-kosher piece before adding the other pieces. Consequently, the remaining pieces are forbidden only if the non-kosher piece imparted flavor to the piece it was cooked with.

רבא אמר

Rava said an alternate answer to Rav Safra’s challenge of Rav’s statement:

100b

אפילו תימא לא קדם וסלקו הוי מין ומינו ודבר אחר

You may even say that it is referring to a case where he did not first remove the piece of non-kosher meat or fish. Nevertheless, this is a case of a mixture of one type of food with its own type of food and with something else, i.e., the spices and broth in the pot.

וכל מין ומינו ודבר אחר סלק את מינו כמי שאינו ושאין מינו רבה עליו ומבטלו:

And in any case of a type of forbidden food mixed with its own type of food and with something else, disregard the food that is its own type, as though it is not present in the mixture, and if the amount of permitted food that is not its own type is sixty times greater than the forbidden food, the permitted food nullifies it. Rav’s ruling applies to a case where the forbidden piece of meat or fish imparts flavor to another piece before the spices and broth are added, and there is a total volume sixty times greater than the original non-kosher piece. Consequently, even if the amount of spices and broth is eventually sixty times greater than the original non-kosher piece of meat or fish, the entire mixture is forbidden, as the spices and broth are not sixty times greater than the two pieces of meat or fish which are now non-kosher.

This is almost certainly the primary sugya, in which named fourth-generation Amoraim are in conversation with one another.

A secondary sugya occurs slightly later in Chullin, with named Amoraim from later generations referencing Rava’s position. Thus, in Chullin 108a:

אמר ליה מר זוטרא בריה דרב מרי לרבינא מכדי רב כמאן אמר לשמעתיה כרבי יהודה דאמר מין במינו לא בטיל לימא פליגא אדרבא

Mar Zutra, son of Rav Mari, said to Ravina: Now consider, in accordance with whose opinion did Rav say his halakha? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who said that a type of food mixed with food of its own type is not nullified. If so, shall we say that Rav disagrees with Rava’s interpretation of Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion?

דאמר רבא קסבר רבי יהודה כל שהוא מין ומינו ודבר אחר סלק את מינו כמי שאינו ושאינו מינו רבה עליו ומבטלו

As Rava said: Rabbi Yehuda holds with regard to any tripartite mixture consisting of a forbidden type of food, a permitted food of the same type, and another food item that is permitted, one disregards the permitted food that is its own type as though it were not there, and if the permitted food that is not of its own type is more than the forbidden food, the permitted food nullifies the forbidden food. In the case Rav describes, although the other pieces of meat are of the same type as the piece that has become forbidden, the gravy in the pot is not of the same type, and it should nullify the forbidden piece. Since Rav does not mention this principle, he apparently disagrees with it.

אמר ליה אי דנפל ברוטב רכה הכי נמי הכא במאי עסקינן דנפל ברוטב עבה

Ravina said to him: If the forbidden substance fell into thin gravy, Rav would concede that the gravy would indeed nullify the piece of meat, since the two substances are of different types. But here we are dealing with a case where it fell into thick gravy, which is composed of meat residue. Since the gravy is of the same substance as the meat, the forbidden piece is not nullified.

It is certain that Mar Zutra bereih deRav Mari was the one referenced Rava’s understanding of Rabbi Yehuda, in his query to Ravina. It is also plausible that Mar Zutra bereih deRav Mari even quoted the statement in full. It is possible that this was a helpful interjection by the Talmudic Narrator. Regardless, it is a short jump from Chullin 100 to Chullin 108, and Chullin 100 is the primary in terms of Chullin 108. In Menachot, we have no named Amora. And it makes sense that the Talmudic Narrator just channeled Rava’s position from Chullin, keeping the attribution to Rava.

If so, once again, that means that Rava did not actually weigh in on the Mishnah in Menachot, and he could have understood it as referring to consistency rather than some operation of bittul. In turn, this is one less sugya we need to grapple with, and kvetch the meaning of other sugyot in order to harmonize, as we try to get a handle on bittul.