Study Menachot folio 23B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
R' Yehuda follows the appearance of the item in determining whether the two items are the same type of substance. And therefore, this meat of a slaughtered animal and that meat of an unslaughtered carcass are viewed as a substance in contact with the same type of substance, since their appearances
Rather, it must be explained that the opinions of Rav Ḥisda and R' Ḥanina are in accordance with the opinion of R' Ḥiyya. As R' Ḥiyya teaches: The meat of an unslaughtered animal carcass and the meat of a slaughtered animal are nullified one in the other. Rav Ḥisda understands this statement to m
The Talmud asks: But then in accordance with whose opinion did R' Ḥiyya himself state his opinion? If his opinion is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, that is difficult: Didn’t the Rabbis say that it is in the case of a mixture of items that ascend to the altar that the different compon
The Talmud answers: Actually, the statement of R' Ḥiyya is in accordance with the opinion of R' Yehuda, and R' Ḥiyya holds that when R' Yehuda says that a substance in contact with the same type of substance is not nullified, this statement applies only where it is possible for one to become like t
And Rav Ḥisda and R' Ḥanina disagree with regard to this, as Rav Ḥisda holds that we follow the potentially nullifying substance, i.e., the larger quantity, and if it can attain the status of the smaller quantity, the two are considered identical substances and the smaller quantity is not nullified