Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

August 22, 2018 | 讬状讗 讘讗诇讜诇 转砖注状讞

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Menachot 12

Shiur dedicated to refuah shleima for Zelig Natan Hakohen ben Dena. How does pigul work by a meal offering? If the remnants are missing and one can’t eat them anyway, if one had a thought about eating them in the wrong time, would that also render them pigul聽and remove the meila from them?


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

驻讬讙讜诇 讜讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 讻专转

the offering is piggul, and one is liable to receive karet for partaking of the remainder of that meal offering.

讝讛 讛讻诇诇 讻诇 讛拽讜诪抓 [讗讜] 谞讜转谉 讘讻诇讬 讛诪讜诇讬讱 讛诪拽讟讬专 诇讗讻讜诇 讚讘专 砖讚专讻讜 诇讗讻讜诇 讜诇讛拽讟讬专 讚讘专 砖讚专讻讜 诇讛拽讟讬专 讞讜抓 诇诪拽讜诪讜 驻住讜诇 讜讗讬谉 讘讜 讻专转 讞讜抓 诇讝诪谞讜 驻讬讙讜诇 讜讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 讻专转 讜讘诇讘讚 砖讬拽专讬讘 讛诪转讬专 讻诪爪讜转讜

This is the principle: In the case of anyone who removes the handful, or places the handful in the vessel, or who conveys the vessel with the handful to the altar, or who burns the handful on the altar, with the intent to partake of an item whose typical manner is such that one partakes of it, e.g., the remainder, or to burn an item whose typical manner is such that one burns it on the altar, e.g., the handful or the frankincense, outside its designated area, the meal offering is unfit but there is no liability for karet. If his intent was to do so beyond its designated time, the offering is piggul and one is liable to receive karet on account of it, provided that the permitting factor, i.e., the handful, was sacrificed in accordance with its mitzva. If the permitting factor was not sacrificed in accordance with its mitzva, although the meal offering is unfit, the prohibition of piggul does not apply to it.

讻讬爪讚 拽专讘 讛诪转讬专 讻诪爪讜转讜 拽诪抓 讘砖转讬拽讛 谞转谉 讘讻诇讬 讜讛讜诇讬讱 讜讛拽讟讬专 讞讜抓 诇讝诪谞讜 讗讜 砖拽诪抓 讞讜抓 诇讝诪谞讜 谞转谉 讘讻诇讬 讜讛讜诇讬讱 讜讛拽讟讬专 讘砖转讬拽讛 讗讜 砖拽诪抓 讜谞转谉 讘讻诇讬 讜讛讜诇讬讱 讜讛拽讟讬专 讞讜抓 诇讝诪谞讜 讝讛讜 砖拽专讘 讛诪转讬专 讻诪爪讜转讜

How is the permitting factor considered to have been sacrificed in accordance with its mitzva? If one removed the handful in silence, i.e., with no specific intent, and placed it in the vessel, conveyed it, and burned the handful on the altar, with the intent to partake of the remainder beyond its designated time; or if one removed the handful with the intent to partake of the or burn the handful or frankincense beyond its designated time, and placed it in the vessel, and conveyed it, and burned the handful on the altar in silence, with no specific intent; or if one removed the handful and placed it in the vessel, conveyed it, and burned the handful on the altar, with the intent to partake of the remainder beyond its designated time, that is the case of an offering whose permitting factor was sacrificed in accordance with its mitzva, and one is liable to receive karet for partaking of it due to piggul.

讻讬爪讚 诇讗 拽专讘 讛诪转讬专 讻诪爪讜转讜 拽诪抓 讞讜抓 诇诪拽讜诪讜 谞转谉 讘讻诇讬 讜讛讜诇讬讱 讜讛拽讟讬专 讞讜抓 诇讝诪谞讜 讗讜 砖拽诪抓 讞讜抓 诇讝诪谞讜 谞转谉 讘讻诇讬 讜讛讜诇讬讱 讜讛拽讟讬专 讞讜抓 诇诪拽讜诪讜 讗讜 砖拽诪抓 谞转谉 讘讻诇讬 讜讛讜诇讬讱 讜讛拽讟讬专 讞讜抓 诇诪拽讜诪讜 讝讛讜 砖诇讗 拽专讘 讛诪转讬专 讻诪爪讜转讜

How is the permitting factor not sacrificed in accordance with its mitzva? If one removed the handful with the intent to partake of the remainder or burn the handful or frankincense outside its designated area, or placed it in the vessel, conveyed it, and burned the handful on the altar, with the intent to partake of the remainder beyond its designated time; or if one removed the handful with the intent to partake of the remainder or burn the handful or frankincense beyond its designated time, and placed it in the vessel, conveyed it, and burned the handful on the altar, with the intent to partake of the remainder outside its designated area; or if one removed the handful and placed it in the vessel, and conveyed it, and burned the handful on the altar, with the intent to partake of the remainder outside its designated area, that is the case of an offering whose permitting factor was not sacrificed in accordance with its mitzva.

诪谞讞转 讞讜讟讗 讜诪谞讞转 拽谞讗讜转 砖拽诪爪谉 砖诇讗 诇砖诪谉 谞转谉 讘讻诇讬 讜讛讜诇讬讱 讜讛拽讟讬专 讞讜抓 诇讝诪谞讜 讗讜 砖拽诪抓 讞讜抓 诇讝诪谞讜 谞转谉 讘讻诇讬 讜讛讜诇讬讱 讜讛拽讟讬专 砖诇讗 诇砖诪谉 讗讜 砖拽诪抓 讜谞转谉 讘讻诇讬 讜讛讜诇讬讱 讜讛拽讟讬专 砖诇讗 诇砖诪谉 讝讛讜 砖诇讗 拽专讘 讛诪转讬专 讻诪爪讜转讜

The meal offering of a sinner and the meal offering of jealousy brought by a sota that one removed their handful not for their sake and placed it in the vessel, conveyed it, and burned the handful on the altar, with the intent to partake of the remainder or burn the handful beyond its designated time; or that one removed the handful with the intent to partake of the remainder or burn the handful beyond its designated time or placed it in the vessel, conveyed it, and burned the handful on the altar, not for their sake; or that one removed the handful, and placed it in the vessel, and conveyed it, and burned the handful on the altar, not for their sake, that is the case of an offering whose permitting factor was not sacrificed in accordance with its mitzva.

诇讗讻讜诇 讻讝讬转 讘讞讜抓 讻讝讬转 诇诪讞专 讻讝讬转 诇诪讞专 讻讝讬转 讘讞讜抓 讻讞爪讬 讝讬转 讘讞讜抓 讻讞爪讬 讝讬转 诇诪讞专 讻讞爪讬 讝讬转 诇诪讞专 讻讞爪讬 讝讬转 讘讞讜抓 驻住讜诇 讜讗讬谉 讘讜 讻专转

If one performed one of these rites with the intent to partake of an olive-bulk outside its designated area and an olive-bulk the next day, or an olive-bulk the next day and an olive-bulk outside its designated area, or half an olive-bulk outside its designated area and half an olive-bulk the next day, or half an olive-bulk the next day and half an olive-bulk outside its designated area, the offering is unfit but there is no liability for karet.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讝讛 讛讻诇诇 讗诐 诪讞砖讘转 讛讝诪谉 拽讚诪讛 诇诪讞砖讘转 讛诪拽讜诐 驻讬讙讜诇 讜讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 讻专转 讗诐 诪讞砖讘转 讛诪拽讜诐 拽讚诪讛 诇诪讞砖讘转 讛讝诪谉 驻住讜诇 讜讗讬谉 讘讜 讻专转 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讝讛 讜讝讛 驻住讜诇 讜讗讬谉 讘讜 讻专转

Rabbi Yehuda says that this is the principle: If the intent with regard to the time preceded the intent with regard to the area, the offering is piggul and one is liable to receive karet on account of it. If the intent with regard to the area preceded the intent with regard to the time, the offering is unfit but there is no liability for karet. And the Rabbis say: In both this case, where the intent with regard to time was first, and that case, where the intent with regard to area came first, the offering is unfit but there is no liability for karet.

讙诪壮 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 诇讚讘专讬 讛讗讜诪专 砖讬专讬诐 砖讞住专讜 讘讬谉 拽诪讬爪讛 诇讛拽讟专讛 诪拽讟讬专 拽讜诪抓 注诇讬讛谉 讜拽讬讬诪讗 诇谉 讚讗讜转谉 砖讬专讬诐 讗住讜专讬诐 讘讗讻讬诇讛 诪讛讜 讚转讬讛谞讬 诇讛讜 讛拽讟专讛 诇诪讬拽讘注讬谞讛讜 讘驻讬讙讜诇

GEMARA: A dilemma was raised before the Sages: According to the statement of the one who says that if the remainder of a meal offering became lacking between the removal of the handful and the burning of the handful on the altar the priest nevertheless burns the handful on account of such a meal offering, and as we maintain that despite the fact that the handful is burned on account of it that remainder is prohibited for consumption, what is the halakha with regard to piggul? Should the burning of the handful be effective in establishing such a remainder as piggul when the handful was burned with the intent to partake of the remainder the next day?

讜诇驻拽讬谞讛讜 诪讬讚讬 诪注讬诇讛

And similarly, is the burning of the handful effective in removing such a remainder from being subject to misuse of consecrated property, just as a complete remainder is removed being subject to this prohibition after the burning of the handful, when it becomes permitted to the priests for consumption?

讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗驻讬诇讜 诇专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讚讗诪专 讝专讬拽讛 诪讜注诇转 诇讬讜爪讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讬讜爪讗

Rav Huna said: Even according to the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who says that the sprinkling of the blood of an offering, which renders its meat permitted for consumption and removes it from being subject to misuse of consecrated property, is effective in removing the meat of an offering that left the Temple courtyard from being subject to misuse of consecrated property despite the fact that such meat is prohibited for consumption, that statement applies only when the meat was disqualified by means of leaving.

讚讗讬转讬讛 讘注讬谞讬讛 讜驻住讜诇 诪讞诪转 讚讘专 讗讞专 讛讜讗 讗讘诇 讞住专讜谉 讚驻住讜诇讗 讚讙讜驻讬讛 讛讜讗 诇讗 诪讛谞讬 诇讬讛 讛拽讟专讛

Rav Huna explains: The reason is that the meat remains as is, and the disqualification of the meat by means of leaving is on account of something else, i.e., a factor external to the meat itself. But in the case of a lack in the measure of the remainder of a meal offering, which is a disqualification on account of itself, the burning of the handful is not effective in removing the remainder from being subject to misuse of consecrated property, nor to establish it as piggul.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讗讚专讘讛 讗驻讬诇讜 诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讚讗诪专 讗讬谉 讝专讬拽讛 诪讜注诇转 诇讬讜爪讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讬讜爪讗 讚诇讬转讬讛 讘驻谞讬诐 讗讘诇 讞住专讜谉 讚讗讬转讬讛 讘驻谞讬诐 诪讛谞讬讗 诇讬讛 讛拽讟专讛

Rava said to Rav Huna: On the contrary; even according to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who says that sprinkling is not effective in removing the meat that left the Temple courtyard from being subject to misuse of consecrated property, that statement applies only when the meat was disqualified by means of leaving, as the meat is not inside the Temple courtyard where the sprinkling could be effective for it. But with regard to a lack in the measure of the remainder of a meal offering that is inside the Temple courtyard, the burning of the handful is effective in removing the remainder from being subject to misuse of consecrated property as well as in establishing it as piggul.

讗诪专 专讘讗 诪谞讗 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讛 讚转谞谉 讛拽讜诪抓 讗转 讛诪谞讞讛 诇讗讻讜诇 砖讬专讬讛 讘讞讜抓 讗讜 讻讝讬转 诪砖讬专讬讛 讘讞讜抓 讜转谞讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讛拽讜诪抓 讗转 讛诪谞讞讛 讜诇讗 转谞讬 讗讜 讻讝讬转

Rava said: From where do I say that even remainders that lack a full measure can be rendered piggul? This can be inferred from that which we learned in the mishna: With regard to one who removes a handful from the meal offering with the intent to partake of its remainder outside the Temple courtyard or to partake of an olive-bulk of its remainder outside the Temple courtyard, the meal offering is unfit but there is no liability for karet, and if he removes a handful from the meal offering with the intent to partake of its remainder beyond the designated time or to partake of an olive-bulk of its remainder beyond the designated time the offering is piggul and one is liable to receive karet for partaking of the remainder of that meal offering. And Rabbi 岣yya teaches in his version of the mishna: One who removes a handful from the meal offering with the intent to partake of its remainder, and he does not teach: Or an olive-bulk of its remainder.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 转谞讬 讗讜 讻讝讬转 诇讗讜 讻讙讜谉 砖讞住专讜 砖讬专讬诐 讜拽诪讜 诇讛讜 讗讻讝讬转 讜讻讬讜谉 讚讘诪转谉 讻诇讬 讘讛讬诇讜讱 讜讘讛拽讟专讛 诇讗 诪转谞讬 诇讬讛

Rava continues: What is the reason that Rabbi 岣yya diverged from the standard text of the mishna and did not teach: Or an olive-bulk? Is it not because his mishna is discussing a case where the remainder later became lacking and its measure stood at an olive-bulk? And therefore Rabbi 岣yya did not include the clause: Or an olive-bulk, since later in the mishna, with regard to the placement of the handful in a vessel, and with regard to the conveyance of the vessel to the altar, and with regard to the burning of the handful, he could not teach the phrase:

讗讜 讻讝讬转 讗砖讬专讬诐 讘拽诪讬爪讛 谞诪讬 诇讗讻讜诇 砖讬专讬诐 诇讗 转谞讬 讗讜 讻讝讬转 讜拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 驻讬讙讜诇 讜讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 讻专转 讗诇诪讗 诪讛谞讬讗 诇讛讜 讛拽讟专讛

Or an olive-bulk, in the case of one鈥檚 intent with regard to the consumption of the remainder, because the remainder is already the size of an olive-bulk. Therefore, in the case of the removal of the handful as well, i.e., when he teaches: One who removes a handful to partake of its remainder, Rabbi 岣yya did not teach: Or to consume an olive-bulk of its remainder, despite the fact that he could have done so in that clause. Rava concludes his proof: And yet the latter clause teaches that if one burned the handful with the intent to consume the remainder after its designated time, the offering is piggul and one is liable to receive karet on account of it. Evidently, burning is effective in rendering a lacking remainder as piggul.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诇讗 讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讛讬讗 讚转谞谉 讛拽讜诪抓 讜讛诇讘讜谞讛 讜讛拽讟专转 讜诪谞讞转 讻讛谞讬诐 讜诪谞讞转 讻讛谉 诪砖讬讞 讜诪谞讞转 谞住讻讬诐 砖讛拽专讬讘 诪讗讞转 诪讛谉 讻讝讬转 讘讞讜抓 讞讬讬讘 讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 驻讜讟专 注讚 砖讬拽专讬讘 讗转 讻讜诇讜

Abaye said to Rava: No, one cannot prove from here that the mishna is discussing the case of a remainder that became lacking. The reason for this is: In accordance with whose opinion is this mishna of Rabbi 岣yya? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, as we learned in a mishna (Zeva岣m 109b): With regard to the handful of flour, and the frankincense, and the incense, and the meal offering of priests (see Leviticus 6:16), and the meal offering of the anointed priest (see Leviticus 6:12鈥15), and the meal offering that accompanies the libations brought with animal offerings (see Numbers 15:1鈥16), where one sacrificed an olive-bulk from one of them outside the Temple courtyard, he is liable for sacrificing outside the courtyard. And Rabbi Elazar exempts one from liability until he sacrifices them in their entirety rather than just an olive-bulk from them.

讻讬讜谉 讚讘讛拽讟专转 拽诪讬爪讛 诇讗 诪转谞讬 诇讬讛 讗讜 讻讝讬转 诪拽讜诪爪讛 讘讞讜抓 讘砖讬专讬诐 谞诪讬 诇讗 诪转谞讬 诇讬讛 讗讜 讻讝讬转

Abaye concludes: Since with regard to the burning of the handful he could not teach: Or burn an olive-bulk of its handful outside the Temple, as according to Rabbi Elazar one is not liable for burning anything less than the full handful and therefore intent to burn only an olive-bulk does not render the offering piggul, with regard to the remainder as well, he did not teach: Or an olive-bulk.

讗讬 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讛讗讬 诇讛拽讟讬专 拽讜诪爪讛 诇讛拽讟讬专 拽讜诪爪讛 讜诇讘讜谞转讛 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 讚转谞谉 讛拽讜诪抓 讜讛诇讘讜谞讛 砖讛拽专讬讘 讗转 讗讞讚 诪讛谉 讘讞讜抓 讞讬讬讘 讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 驻讜讟专 注讚 砖讬拽专讬讘 讗转 砖谞讬讛诐

The Gemara asks: If the mishna of Rabbi 岣yya is really in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, then this statement: To burn its handful outside the Temple courtyard, should have been phrased: To burn its handful and its frankincense outside the Temple courtyard, as we learned in a mishna (Zeva岣m 110a): With regard to the handful and the frankincense, in a case where one sacrificed only one of them outside the Temple courtyard, he is liable. Rabbi Eliezer exempts from liability one who burns only one of them until he sacrifices both of them together.

诇讗 谞爪专讻讗 讗诇讗 诇拽讜诪抓 讚诪谞讞转 讞讜讟讗

The Gemara responds: The mishna of Rabbi 岣yya is necessary only for the handful of the meal offering of a sinner, which has no frankincense. Since only the burning of the handful permits the remainder of the sinner鈥檚 meal offering for consumption, one鈥檚 intent to burn it the next day renders the offering piggul. With regard to this meal offering, one is not liable for burning anything less than the full handful, according to Rabbi Elazar, and therefore it does not teach: Or an olive-bulk.

讜讗讬讻驻诇 转谞讗 诇讗砖诪讜注讬谞谉 拽讜诪抓 讚诪谞讞转 讞讜讟讗 讗讬谉 讜讻谉 讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 拽讜诪抓 讚诪谞讞转 讞讜讟讗 讛讜讗 讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讛讬讗

The Gemara asks: And did the tanna go to all that trouble [ve鈥檌khpal] just to teach us a halakha that is applicable only in the case of the handful of the meal offering of a sinner? The Gemara responds: Yes, he did. And similarly, when Rav Dimi came to Babylonia from Eretz Yisrael, he said that Rabbi Elazar ben Pedat said: When the mishna discusses an instance where one has intent to sacrifice the handful of a meal offering outside, it is referring to the handful of the meal offering of a sinner, and it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar.

讛讚专 讗诪专 专讘讗 诇讗讜 诪讬诇转讗 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专讬 讚转谞讬讗 拽讚砖 拽讚砖讬诐 讛讜讗 砖讗诐 谞驻专住讛 讗讞转 诪讛谉 讞诇讜转讬讛 讻讜诇谉 驻住讜诇讜转

Rava then said: That which I said, that the burning of the handful with the intent to consume the remainder the next day is effective in rendering even a remainder that became lacking in measure as piggul and to remove it from being subject to misuse of consecrated property is nothing, as it is taught in a baraita: The verse states with regard to the shewbread: 鈥淚t is most holy鈥 (Leviticus 24:9). The restrictive term 鈥渋t鈥 teaches that the shewbread must remain whole, so that if one of the loaves of the shewbread broke and consequently became lacking in measure, then all of its loaves are disqualified, and the burning of the bowls of frankincense do not render them permitted for consumption.

讛讗 讬爪讗转 讛谞讬 讚讗讬讻讗 讙讜讜讗讬 讻砖专讜转 诪讗谉 砖诪注转 诇讬讛 讚讗诪专 讝专讬拽讛 诪讜注诇转 诇讬讜爪讗 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讛讬讗 讜拽讗诪专 谞驻专住讛 诇讗

Rava continues: It can be inferred from the baraita that if the loaves remained whole but one of them left the Temple, those that are inside the Temple are still fit. And whom have you heard who says: The sprinkling of the blood is effective in rendering piggul an item that left the Temple? It is Rabbi Akiva. And yet he says in this baraita that if one of the loaves broke, the burning of the frankincense is not effective for them. Similarly, with regard to the remainder of a meal offering that became lacking in measure, even Rabbi Akiva agrees that the burning of the handful is ineffective in rendering it piggul.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诪讬 拽转谞讬 讛讗 讬爪讗转 讚诇诪讗 讛讗 谞讟诪讗转 讛谞讱 讻砖专讜转

Abaye said to Rava: How can you cite a proof from this baraita? Is it taught in this baraita: But if a loaf of shewbread left, those loaves that remain inside are fit? Perhaps all of the loaves are disqualified if even one of them left, and one should infer a different halakha from the baraita, that if one of the loaves became ritually impure, these that remain pure are fit.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚诪专爪讛 爪讬抓 讗讘诇 讬爪讗转 诇讗 讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 讗讬谉 讝专讬拽讛 诪讜注诇转 诇讬讜爪讗

Abaye explains: What is the reason for such a distinction? The reason is that the frontplate of the High Priest effects acceptance for ritually impure offerings. But in a case where a loaf of shewbread left, the frontplate does not effect acceptance, and therefore all of the loaves are disqualified, as in a case where one loaf breaks. And if so, the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who says that sprinkling is not effective with regard to an item that left the Temple courtyard.

讜讘讚讬谉 讛讜讗 讚讗讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇诪讬转谞讬 谞诪讬 讬爪讗转 讜讛讗讬 讚拽转谞讬 谞驻专住讛 讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讗驻讬诇讜 谞驻专住讛 讚讗讬转讬讛 讘驻谞讬诐 诇讗 诪讛谞讬讗 诇讬讛 讛拽讟专讛 讗讘诇 诇专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讚讗诪专 讝专讬拽讛 诪讜注诇转 诇讬讜爪讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讞住专讜谉 谞诪讬 诪讛谞讬讗 诇讬讛 讛拽讟专讛

Abaye continues: And by right the baraita should have also taught that if one of the loaves of shewbread left, all the loaves are disqualified. And as for the fact that it teaches the halakha specifically with regard to a loaf that broke, this is what the baraita teaches us: That even if the loaf broke, in which case the loaf is still inside the Temple, burning is not effective with regard to it. But according to Rabbi Akiva, who says that sprinkling is effective with regard to an item that left the Temple, even in the case of a lacking measure, burning is effective with regard to it.

诪转谞讬壮 诇讗讻讜诇 讻讞爪讬 讝讬转 讜诇讛拽讟讬专 讻讞爪讬 讝讬转 讻砖专 砖讗讬谉 讗讻讬诇讛 讜讛拽讟专讛 诪爪讟专驻讬谉

MISHNA: If one鈥檚 intent was to partake of half an olive-bulk of the remainder and to burn half an olive-bulk of it not at the appropriate time or not in the appropriate area, the offering is fit, because eating and burning do not join together.

讙诪壮 讟注诪讗 讚诇讗讻讜诇 讜诇讛拽讟讬专 讛讗 诇讗讻讜诇 讜诇讗讻讜诇 讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 讚专讻讜 诇讗讻讜诇 诪爪讟专祝

GEMARA: The Gemara infers from the mishna: The reason that the two halves of an olive-bulk do not join together is because his intent was to partake of half an olive-bulk and to burn half an olive-bulk, which indicates that if his intent was to partake of half an olive-bulk of the remainder and to partake of half an olive-bulk of an item whose typical manner is such that one does not consume it, i.e., the handful, then the halves do join together to the amount of an olive-bulk and disqualify the offering.

讜讛拽转谞讬 专讬砖讗 诇讗讻讜诇 讚讘专 砖讚专讻讜 诇讗讻讜诇 讜诇讛拽讟讬专 讚讘专 砖讚专讻讜 诇讛拽讟讬专 讚讘专 砖讚专讻讜 诇讗讻讜诇 讗讬谉 砖讗讬谉 讚专讻讜 诇讗讻讜诇 诇讗 诪讗谉 转谞讗

The Gemara notes an apparent contradiction: But the first clause teaches, in the earlier mishna: If one鈥檚 intent was to partake of an item whose typical manner is such that one partakes of it, or to burn an item whose typical manner is such that one burns it on the altar, beyond its designated time, the offering is piggul. One can infer from this mishna that if his intent was to partake of an item whose typical manner is such that one partakes of it, yes, such intent disqualifies an offering. But if his intent was to partake of an item whose typical manner is such that one does not partake of it, this intent does not disqualify the offering, and likewise such intent does not join together with another to this end. If so, who is the tanna who taught the latter clause?

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 诪讞砖讘讬谉 诪讗讻讬诇转 讗讚诐 诇诪讝讘讞 讜诪讗讻讬诇转 诪讝讘讞 诇讗讚诐

Rabbi Yirmeya said: In accordance with whose opinion is this mishna? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who says that one can have improper intent from the consumption performed by a person to the consumption performed by the altar, and from the consumption performed by the altar to the consumption performed by a person. In other words, if one鈥檚 intent was to burn the remainder the next day or to consume the handful the next day, such intent disqualifies an offering even though the remainder is intended for consumption by the priests and the handful is intended for burning upon the altar.

讚转谞谉 讛拽讜诪抓 讗转 讛诪谞讞讛 诇讗讻讜诇 讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 讚专讻讜 诇讗讻讜诇 讜诇讛拽讟讬专 讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 讚专讻讜 诇讛拽讟讬专 讻砖专 讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 驻讜住诇

The Gemara cites the relevant ruling of Rabbi Eliezer. As we learned in a mishna (17a): In the case of one who removes a handful from the meal offering with the intent to consume after its designated time an item whose typical manner is such that one does not consume it, i.e., the handful, or to burn beyond its designated time an item whose typical manner is such that one does not burn it on the altar, i.e., the remainder of the meal offering, the meal offering is fit. And Rabbi Eliezer deems it unfit, although it is not piggul and consuming it is not punishable by karet.

讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘谞谉 诇讗 转讬诪讗 讛讗 诇讗讻讜诇 讜诇讗讻讜诇 讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 讚专讻讜 诇讗讻讜诇 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 讛讗 诇讗讻讜诇 讜诇讗讻讜诇 讚讘专 砖讚专讻讜 诇讗讻讜诇

Abaye said: You may even say that the mishna here is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. And do not say that one should infer from the mishna that if his intent was to partake of half an olive-bulk of an item whose typical manner is such that one consumes it and to partake of half an olive-bulk of an item whose typical manner is such that one does not partake of it, the offering is disqualified. Rather, say that if his intent was to partake of half an olive-bulk on the next day and to partake of half an olive-bulk outside the Temple, and each of these halves is from an item whose typical manner is such that one partakes of it, then the halves are joined together and disqualify the offering.

讜诪讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讛讗 讘讛讚讬讗 拽转谞讬 诇讛 诇讗讻讜诇 讻讝讬转 讘讞讜抓 讜讻讝讬转 诇诪讞专 讻讝讬转 诇诪讞专 讜讻讝讬转 讘讞讜抓 讻讞爪讬 讝讬转 讘讞讜抓 讜讻讞爪讬 讝讬转 诇诪讞专 讻讞爪讬 讝讬转 诇诪讞专 讜讻讞爪讬 讝讬转 讘讞讜抓 驻住讜诇 讜讗讬谉 讘讜 讻专转

The Gemara asks: And what is this teaching us? The previous mishna already teaches that principle explicitly: If one performed one of these rites with the intent to partake of an olive-bulk outside its designated area and an olive-bulk the next day, or an olive-bulk the next day and an olive-bulk outside its designated area, or half an olive-bulk outside its designated area and half an olive-bulk the next day, or half an olive-bulk the next day and half an olive-bulk outside its designated area, the offering is unfit but there is no liability for karet.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Menachot 12

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Menachot 12

驻讬讙讜诇 讜讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 讻专转

the offering is piggul, and one is liable to receive karet for partaking of the remainder of that meal offering.

讝讛 讛讻诇诇 讻诇 讛拽讜诪抓 [讗讜] 谞讜转谉 讘讻诇讬 讛诪讜诇讬讱 讛诪拽讟讬专 诇讗讻讜诇 讚讘专 砖讚专讻讜 诇讗讻讜诇 讜诇讛拽讟讬专 讚讘专 砖讚专讻讜 诇讛拽讟讬专 讞讜抓 诇诪拽讜诪讜 驻住讜诇 讜讗讬谉 讘讜 讻专转 讞讜抓 诇讝诪谞讜 驻讬讙讜诇 讜讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 讻专转 讜讘诇讘讚 砖讬拽专讬讘 讛诪转讬专 讻诪爪讜转讜

This is the principle: In the case of anyone who removes the handful, or places the handful in the vessel, or who conveys the vessel with the handful to the altar, or who burns the handful on the altar, with the intent to partake of an item whose typical manner is such that one partakes of it, e.g., the remainder, or to burn an item whose typical manner is such that one burns it on the altar, e.g., the handful or the frankincense, outside its designated area, the meal offering is unfit but there is no liability for karet. If his intent was to do so beyond its designated time, the offering is piggul and one is liable to receive karet on account of it, provided that the permitting factor, i.e., the handful, was sacrificed in accordance with its mitzva. If the permitting factor was not sacrificed in accordance with its mitzva, although the meal offering is unfit, the prohibition of piggul does not apply to it.

讻讬爪讚 拽专讘 讛诪转讬专 讻诪爪讜转讜 拽诪抓 讘砖转讬拽讛 谞转谉 讘讻诇讬 讜讛讜诇讬讱 讜讛拽讟讬专 讞讜抓 诇讝诪谞讜 讗讜 砖拽诪抓 讞讜抓 诇讝诪谞讜 谞转谉 讘讻诇讬 讜讛讜诇讬讱 讜讛拽讟讬专 讘砖转讬拽讛 讗讜 砖拽诪抓 讜谞转谉 讘讻诇讬 讜讛讜诇讬讱 讜讛拽讟讬专 讞讜抓 诇讝诪谞讜 讝讛讜 砖拽专讘 讛诪转讬专 讻诪爪讜转讜

How is the permitting factor considered to have been sacrificed in accordance with its mitzva? If one removed the handful in silence, i.e., with no specific intent, and placed it in the vessel, conveyed it, and burned the handful on the altar, with the intent to partake of the remainder beyond its designated time; or if one removed the handful with the intent to partake of the or burn the handful or frankincense beyond its designated time, and placed it in the vessel, and conveyed it, and burned the handful on the altar in silence, with no specific intent; or if one removed the handful and placed it in the vessel, conveyed it, and burned the handful on the altar, with the intent to partake of the remainder beyond its designated time, that is the case of an offering whose permitting factor was sacrificed in accordance with its mitzva, and one is liable to receive karet for partaking of it due to piggul.

讻讬爪讚 诇讗 拽专讘 讛诪转讬专 讻诪爪讜转讜 拽诪抓 讞讜抓 诇诪拽讜诪讜 谞转谉 讘讻诇讬 讜讛讜诇讬讱 讜讛拽讟讬专 讞讜抓 诇讝诪谞讜 讗讜 砖拽诪抓 讞讜抓 诇讝诪谞讜 谞转谉 讘讻诇讬 讜讛讜诇讬讱 讜讛拽讟讬专 讞讜抓 诇诪拽讜诪讜 讗讜 砖拽诪抓 谞转谉 讘讻诇讬 讜讛讜诇讬讱 讜讛拽讟讬专 讞讜抓 诇诪拽讜诪讜 讝讛讜 砖诇讗 拽专讘 讛诪转讬专 讻诪爪讜转讜

How is the permitting factor not sacrificed in accordance with its mitzva? If one removed the handful with the intent to partake of the remainder or burn the handful or frankincense outside its designated area, or placed it in the vessel, conveyed it, and burned the handful on the altar, with the intent to partake of the remainder beyond its designated time; or if one removed the handful with the intent to partake of the remainder or burn the handful or frankincense beyond its designated time, and placed it in the vessel, conveyed it, and burned the handful on the altar, with the intent to partake of the remainder outside its designated area; or if one removed the handful and placed it in the vessel, and conveyed it, and burned the handful on the altar, with the intent to partake of the remainder outside its designated area, that is the case of an offering whose permitting factor was not sacrificed in accordance with its mitzva.

诪谞讞转 讞讜讟讗 讜诪谞讞转 拽谞讗讜转 砖拽诪爪谉 砖诇讗 诇砖诪谉 谞转谉 讘讻诇讬 讜讛讜诇讬讱 讜讛拽讟讬专 讞讜抓 诇讝诪谞讜 讗讜 砖拽诪抓 讞讜抓 诇讝诪谞讜 谞转谉 讘讻诇讬 讜讛讜诇讬讱 讜讛拽讟讬专 砖诇讗 诇砖诪谉 讗讜 砖拽诪抓 讜谞转谉 讘讻诇讬 讜讛讜诇讬讱 讜讛拽讟讬专 砖诇讗 诇砖诪谉 讝讛讜 砖诇讗 拽专讘 讛诪转讬专 讻诪爪讜转讜

The meal offering of a sinner and the meal offering of jealousy brought by a sota that one removed their handful not for their sake and placed it in the vessel, conveyed it, and burned the handful on the altar, with the intent to partake of the remainder or burn the handful beyond its designated time; or that one removed the handful with the intent to partake of the remainder or burn the handful beyond its designated time or placed it in the vessel, conveyed it, and burned the handful on the altar, not for their sake; or that one removed the handful, and placed it in the vessel, and conveyed it, and burned the handful on the altar, not for their sake, that is the case of an offering whose permitting factor was not sacrificed in accordance with its mitzva.

诇讗讻讜诇 讻讝讬转 讘讞讜抓 讻讝讬转 诇诪讞专 讻讝讬转 诇诪讞专 讻讝讬转 讘讞讜抓 讻讞爪讬 讝讬转 讘讞讜抓 讻讞爪讬 讝讬转 诇诪讞专 讻讞爪讬 讝讬转 诇诪讞专 讻讞爪讬 讝讬转 讘讞讜抓 驻住讜诇 讜讗讬谉 讘讜 讻专转

If one performed one of these rites with the intent to partake of an olive-bulk outside its designated area and an olive-bulk the next day, or an olive-bulk the next day and an olive-bulk outside its designated area, or half an olive-bulk outside its designated area and half an olive-bulk the next day, or half an olive-bulk the next day and half an olive-bulk outside its designated area, the offering is unfit but there is no liability for karet.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讝讛 讛讻诇诇 讗诐 诪讞砖讘转 讛讝诪谉 拽讚诪讛 诇诪讞砖讘转 讛诪拽讜诐 驻讬讙讜诇 讜讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 讻专转 讗诐 诪讞砖讘转 讛诪拽讜诐 拽讚诪讛 诇诪讞砖讘转 讛讝诪谉 驻住讜诇 讜讗讬谉 讘讜 讻专转 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讝讛 讜讝讛 驻住讜诇 讜讗讬谉 讘讜 讻专转

Rabbi Yehuda says that this is the principle: If the intent with regard to the time preceded the intent with regard to the area, the offering is piggul and one is liable to receive karet on account of it. If the intent with regard to the area preceded the intent with regard to the time, the offering is unfit but there is no liability for karet. And the Rabbis say: In both this case, where the intent with regard to time was first, and that case, where the intent with regard to area came first, the offering is unfit but there is no liability for karet.

讙诪壮 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 诇讚讘专讬 讛讗讜诪专 砖讬专讬诐 砖讞住专讜 讘讬谉 拽诪讬爪讛 诇讛拽讟专讛 诪拽讟讬专 拽讜诪抓 注诇讬讛谉 讜拽讬讬诪讗 诇谉 讚讗讜转谉 砖讬专讬诐 讗住讜专讬诐 讘讗讻讬诇讛 诪讛讜 讚转讬讛谞讬 诇讛讜 讛拽讟专讛 诇诪讬拽讘注讬谞讛讜 讘驻讬讙讜诇

GEMARA: A dilemma was raised before the Sages: According to the statement of the one who says that if the remainder of a meal offering became lacking between the removal of the handful and the burning of the handful on the altar the priest nevertheless burns the handful on account of such a meal offering, and as we maintain that despite the fact that the handful is burned on account of it that remainder is prohibited for consumption, what is the halakha with regard to piggul? Should the burning of the handful be effective in establishing such a remainder as piggul when the handful was burned with the intent to partake of the remainder the next day?

讜诇驻拽讬谞讛讜 诪讬讚讬 诪注讬诇讛

And similarly, is the burning of the handful effective in removing such a remainder from being subject to misuse of consecrated property, just as a complete remainder is removed being subject to this prohibition after the burning of the handful, when it becomes permitted to the priests for consumption?

讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗驻讬诇讜 诇专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讚讗诪专 讝专讬拽讛 诪讜注诇转 诇讬讜爪讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讬讜爪讗

Rav Huna said: Even according to the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who says that the sprinkling of the blood of an offering, which renders its meat permitted for consumption and removes it from being subject to misuse of consecrated property, is effective in removing the meat of an offering that left the Temple courtyard from being subject to misuse of consecrated property despite the fact that such meat is prohibited for consumption, that statement applies only when the meat was disqualified by means of leaving.

讚讗讬转讬讛 讘注讬谞讬讛 讜驻住讜诇 诪讞诪转 讚讘专 讗讞专 讛讜讗 讗讘诇 讞住专讜谉 讚驻住讜诇讗 讚讙讜驻讬讛 讛讜讗 诇讗 诪讛谞讬 诇讬讛 讛拽讟专讛

Rav Huna explains: The reason is that the meat remains as is, and the disqualification of the meat by means of leaving is on account of something else, i.e., a factor external to the meat itself. But in the case of a lack in the measure of the remainder of a meal offering, which is a disqualification on account of itself, the burning of the handful is not effective in removing the remainder from being subject to misuse of consecrated property, nor to establish it as piggul.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讗讚专讘讛 讗驻讬诇讜 诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讚讗诪专 讗讬谉 讝专讬拽讛 诪讜注诇转 诇讬讜爪讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讬讜爪讗 讚诇讬转讬讛 讘驻谞讬诐 讗讘诇 讞住专讜谉 讚讗讬转讬讛 讘驻谞讬诐 诪讛谞讬讗 诇讬讛 讛拽讟专讛

Rava said to Rav Huna: On the contrary; even according to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who says that sprinkling is not effective in removing the meat that left the Temple courtyard from being subject to misuse of consecrated property, that statement applies only when the meat was disqualified by means of leaving, as the meat is not inside the Temple courtyard where the sprinkling could be effective for it. But with regard to a lack in the measure of the remainder of a meal offering that is inside the Temple courtyard, the burning of the handful is effective in removing the remainder from being subject to misuse of consecrated property as well as in establishing it as piggul.

讗诪专 专讘讗 诪谞讗 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讛 讚转谞谉 讛拽讜诪抓 讗转 讛诪谞讞讛 诇讗讻讜诇 砖讬专讬讛 讘讞讜抓 讗讜 讻讝讬转 诪砖讬专讬讛 讘讞讜抓 讜转谞讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讛拽讜诪抓 讗转 讛诪谞讞讛 讜诇讗 转谞讬 讗讜 讻讝讬转

Rava said: From where do I say that even remainders that lack a full measure can be rendered piggul? This can be inferred from that which we learned in the mishna: With regard to one who removes a handful from the meal offering with the intent to partake of its remainder outside the Temple courtyard or to partake of an olive-bulk of its remainder outside the Temple courtyard, the meal offering is unfit but there is no liability for karet, and if he removes a handful from the meal offering with the intent to partake of its remainder beyond the designated time or to partake of an olive-bulk of its remainder beyond the designated time the offering is piggul and one is liable to receive karet for partaking of the remainder of that meal offering. And Rabbi 岣yya teaches in his version of the mishna: One who removes a handful from the meal offering with the intent to partake of its remainder, and he does not teach: Or an olive-bulk of its remainder.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 转谞讬 讗讜 讻讝讬转 诇讗讜 讻讙讜谉 砖讞住专讜 砖讬专讬诐 讜拽诪讜 诇讛讜 讗讻讝讬转 讜讻讬讜谉 讚讘诪转谉 讻诇讬 讘讛讬诇讜讱 讜讘讛拽讟专讛 诇讗 诪转谞讬 诇讬讛

Rava continues: What is the reason that Rabbi 岣yya diverged from the standard text of the mishna and did not teach: Or an olive-bulk? Is it not because his mishna is discussing a case where the remainder later became lacking and its measure stood at an olive-bulk? And therefore Rabbi 岣yya did not include the clause: Or an olive-bulk, since later in the mishna, with regard to the placement of the handful in a vessel, and with regard to the conveyance of the vessel to the altar, and with regard to the burning of the handful, he could not teach the phrase:

讗讜 讻讝讬转 讗砖讬专讬诐 讘拽诪讬爪讛 谞诪讬 诇讗讻讜诇 砖讬专讬诐 诇讗 转谞讬 讗讜 讻讝讬转 讜拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 驻讬讙讜诇 讜讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 讻专转 讗诇诪讗 诪讛谞讬讗 诇讛讜 讛拽讟专讛

Or an olive-bulk, in the case of one鈥檚 intent with regard to the consumption of the remainder, because the remainder is already the size of an olive-bulk. Therefore, in the case of the removal of the handful as well, i.e., when he teaches: One who removes a handful to partake of its remainder, Rabbi 岣yya did not teach: Or to consume an olive-bulk of its remainder, despite the fact that he could have done so in that clause. Rava concludes his proof: And yet the latter clause teaches that if one burned the handful with the intent to consume the remainder after its designated time, the offering is piggul and one is liable to receive karet on account of it. Evidently, burning is effective in rendering a lacking remainder as piggul.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诇讗 讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讛讬讗 讚转谞谉 讛拽讜诪抓 讜讛诇讘讜谞讛 讜讛拽讟专转 讜诪谞讞转 讻讛谞讬诐 讜诪谞讞转 讻讛谉 诪砖讬讞 讜诪谞讞转 谞住讻讬诐 砖讛拽专讬讘 诪讗讞转 诪讛谉 讻讝讬转 讘讞讜抓 讞讬讬讘 讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 驻讜讟专 注讚 砖讬拽专讬讘 讗转 讻讜诇讜

Abaye said to Rava: No, one cannot prove from here that the mishna is discussing the case of a remainder that became lacking. The reason for this is: In accordance with whose opinion is this mishna of Rabbi 岣yya? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, as we learned in a mishna (Zeva岣m 109b): With regard to the handful of flour, and the frankincense, and the incense, and the meal offering of priests (see Leviticus 6:16), and the meal offering of the anointed priest (see Leviticus 6:12鈥15), and the meal offering that accompanies the libations brought with animal offerings (see Numbers 15:1鈥16), where one sacrificed an olive-bulk from one of them outside the Temple courtyard, he is liable for sacrificing outside the courtyard. And Rabbi Elazar exempts one from liability until he sacrifices them in their entirety rather than just an olive-bulk from them.

讻讬讜谉 讚讘讛拽讟专转 拽诪讬爪讛 诇讗 诪转谞讬 诇讬讛 讗讜 讻讝讬转 诪拽讜诪爪讛 讘讞讜抓 讘砖讬专讬诐 谞诪讬 诇讗 诪转谞讬 诇讬讛 讗讜 讻讝讬转

Abaye concludes: Since with regard to the burning of the handful he could not teach: Or burn an olive-bulk of its handful outside the Temple, as according to Rabbi Elazar one is not liable for burning anything less than the full handful and therefore intent to burn only an olive-bulk does not render the offering piggul, with regard to the remainder as well, he did not teach: Or an olive-bulk.

讗讬 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讛讗讬 诇讛拽讟讬专 拽讜诪爪讛 诇讛拽讟讬专 拽讜诪爪讛 讜诇讘讜谞转讛 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 讚转谞谉 讛拽讜诪抓 讜讛诇讘讜谞讛 砖讛拽专讬讘 讗转 讗讞讚 诪讛谉 讘讞讜抓 讞讬讬讘 讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 驻讜讟专 注讚 砖讬拽专讬讘 讗转 砖谞讬讛诐

The Gemara asks: If the mishna of Rabbi 岣yya is really in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, then this statement: To burn its handful outside the Temple courtyard, should have been phrased: To burn its handful and its frankincense outside the Temple courtyard, as we learned in a mishna (Zeva岣m 110a): With regard to the handful and the frankincense, in a case where one sacrificed only one of them outside the Temple courtyard, he is liable. Rabbi Eliezer exempts from liability one who burns only one of them until he sacrifices both of them together.

诇讗 谞爪专讻讗 讗诇讗 诇拽讜诪抓 讚诪谞讞转 讞讜讟讗

The Gemara responds: The mishna of Rabbi 岣yya is necessary only for the handful of the meal offering of a sinner, which has no frankincense. Since only the burning of the handful permits the remainder of the sinner鈥檚 meal offering for consumption, one鈥檚 intent to burn it the next day renders the offering piggul. With regard to this meal offering, one is not liable for burning anything less than the full handful, according to Rabbi Elazar, and therefore it does not teach: Or an olive-bulk.

讜讗讬讻驻诇 转谞讗 诇讗砖诪讜注讬谞谉 拽讜诪抓 讚诪谞讞转 讞讜讟讗 讗讬谉 讜讻谉 讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 拽讜诪抓 讚诪谞讞转 讞讜讟讗 讛讜讗 讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讛讬讗

The Gemara asks: And did the tanna go to all that trouble [ve鈥檌khpal] just to teach us a halakha that is applicable only in the case of the handful of the meal offering of a sinner? The Gemara responds: Yes, he did. And similarly, when Rav Dimi came to Babylonia from Eretz Yisrael, he said that Rabbi Elazar ben Pedat said: When the mishna discusses an instance where one has intent to sacrifice the handful of a meal offering outside, it is referring to the handful of the meal offering of a sinner, and it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar.

讛讚专 讗诪专 专讘讗 诇讗讜 诪讬诇转讗 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专讬 讚转谞讬讗 拽讚砖 拽讚砖讬诐 讛讜讗 砖讗诐 谞驻专住讛 讗讞转 诪讛谉 讞诇讜转讬讛 讻讜诇谉 驻住讜诇讜转

Rava then said: That which I said, that the burning of the handful with the intent to consume the remainder the next day is effective in rendering even a remainder that became lacking in measure as piggul and to remove it from being subject to misuse of consecrated property is nothing, as it is taught in a baraita: The verse states with regard to the shewbread: 鈥淚t is most holy鈥 (Leviticus 24:9). The restrictive term 鈥渋t鈥 teaches that the shewbread must remain whole, so that if one of the loaves of the shewbread broke and consequently became lacking in measure, then all of its loaves are disqualified, and the burning of the bowls of frankincense do not render them permitted for consumption.

讛讗 讬爪讗转 讛谞讬 讚讗讬讻讗 讙讜讜讗讬 讻砖专讜转 诪讗谉 砖诪注转 诇讬讛 讚讗诪专 讝专讬拽讛 诪讜注诇转 诇讬讜爪讗 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讛讬讗 讜拽讗诪专 谞驻专住讛 诇讗

Rava continues: It can be inferred from the baraita that if the loaves remained whole but one of them left the Temple, those that are inside the Temple are still fit. And whom have you heard who says: The sprinkling of the blood is effective in rendering piggul an item that left the Temple? It is Rabbi Akiva. And yet he says in this baraita that if one of the loaves broke, the burning of the frankincense is not effective for them. Similarly, with regard to the remainder of a meal offering that became lacking in measure, even Rabbi Akiva agrees that the burning of the handful is ineffective in rendering it piggul.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诪讬 拽转谞讬 讛讗 讬爪讗转 讚诇诪讗 讛讗 谞讟诪讗转 讛谞讱 讻砖专讜转

Abaye said to Rava: How can you cite a proof from this baraita? Is it taught in this baraita: But if a loaf of shewbread left, those loaves that remain inside are fit? Perhaps all of the loaves are disqualified if even one of them left, and one should infer a different halakha from the baraita, that if one of the loaves became ritually impure, these that remain pure are fit.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚诪专爪讛 爪讬抓 讗讘诇 讬爪讗转 诇讗 讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 讗讬谉 讝专讬拽讛 诪讜注诇转 诇讬讜爪讗

Abaye explains: What is the reason for such a distinction? The reason is that the frontplate of the High Priest effects acceptance for ritually impure offerings. But in a case where a loaf of shewbread left, the frontplate does not effect acceptance, and therefore all of the loaves are disqualified, as in a case where one loaf breaks. And if so, the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who says that sprinkling is not effective with regard to an item that left the Temple courtyard.

讜讘讚讬谉 讛讜讗 讚讗讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇诪讬转谞讬 谞诪讬 讬爪讗转 讜讛讗讬 讚拽转谞讬 谞驻专住讛 讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讗驻讬诇讜 谞驻专住讛 讚讗讬转讬讛 讘驻谞讬诐 诇讗 诪讛谞讬讗 诇讬讛 讛拽讟专讛 讗讘诇 诇专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讚讗诪专 讝专讬拽讛 诪讜注诇转 诇讬讜爪讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讞住专讜谉 谞诪讬 诪讛谞讬讗 诇讬讛 讛拽讟专讛

Abaye continues: And by right the baraita should have also taught that if one of the loaves of shewbread left, all the loaves are disqualified. And as for the fact that it teaches the halakha specifically with regard to a loaf that broke, this is what the baraita teaches us: That even if the loaf broke, in which case the loaf is still inside the Temple, burning is not effective with regard to it. But according to Rabbi Akiva, who says that sprinkling is effective with regard to an item that left the Temple, even in the case of a lacking measure, burning is effective with regard to it.

诪转谞讬壮 诇讗讻讜诇 讻讞爪讬 讝讬转 讜诇讛拽讟讬专 讻讞爪讬 讝讬转 讻砖专 砖讗讬谉 讗讻讬诇讛 讜讛拽讟专讛 诪爪讟专驻讬谉

MISHNA: If one鈥檚 intent was to partake of half an olive-bulk of the remainder and to burn half an olive-bulk of it not at the appropriate time or not in the appropriate area, the offering is fit, because eating and burning do not join together.

讙诪壮 讟注诪讗 讚诇讗讻讜诇 讜诇讛拽讟讬专 讛讗 诇讗讻讜诇 讜诇讗讻讜诇 讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 讚专讻讜 诇讗讻讜诇 诪爪讟专祝

GEMARA: The Gemara infers from the mishna: The reason that the two halves of an olive-bulk do not join together is because his intent was to partake of half an olive-bulk and to burn half an olive-bulk, which indicates that if his intent was to partake of half an olive-bulk of the remainder and to partake of half an olive-bulk of an item whose typical manner is such that one does not consume it, i.e., the handful, then the halves do join together to the amount of an olive-bulk and disqualify the offering.

讜讛拽转谞讬 专讬砖讗 诇讗讻讜诇 讚讘专 砖讚专讻讜 诇讗讻讜诇 讜诇讛拽讟讬专 讚讘专 砖讚专讻讜 诇讛拽讟讬专 讚讘专 砖讚专讻讜 诇讗讻讜诇 讗讬谉 砖讗讬谉 讚专讻讜 诇讗讻讜诇 诇讗 诪讗谉 转谞讗

The Gemara notes an apparent contradiction: But the first clause teaches, in the earlier mishna: If one鈥檚 intent was to partake of an item whose typical manner is such that one partakes of it, or to burn an item whose typical manner is such that one burns it on the altar, beyond its designated time, the offering is piggul. One can infer from this mishna that if his intent was to partake of an item whose typical manner is such that one partakes of it, yes, such intent disqualifies an offering. But if his intent was to partake of an item whose typical manner is such that one does not partake of it, this intent does not disqualify the offering, and likewise such intent does not join together with another to this end. If so, who is the tanna who taught the latter clause?

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 诪讞砖讘讬谉 诪讗讻讬诇转 讗讚诐 诇诪讝讘讞 讜诪讗讻讬诇转 诪讝讘讞 诇讗讚诐

Rabbi Yirmeya said: In accordance with whose opinion is this mishna? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who says that one can have improper intent from the consumption performed by a person to the consumption performed by the altar, and from the consumption performed by the altar to the consumption performed by a person. In other words, if one鈥檚 intent was to burn the remainder the next day or to consume the handful the next day, such intent disqualifies an offering even though the remainder is intended for consumption by the priests and the handful is intended for burning upon the altar.

讚转谞谉 讛拽讜诪抓 讗转 讛诪谞讞讛 诇讗讻讜诇 讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 讚专讻讜 诇讗讻讜诇 讜诇讛拽讟讬专 讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 讚专讻讜 诇讛拽讟讬专 讻砖专 讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 驻讜住诇

The Gemara cites the relevant ruling of Rabbi Eliezer. As we learned in a mishna (17a): In the case of one who removes a handful from the meal offering with the intent to consume after its designated time an item whose typical manner is such that one does not consume it, i.e., the handful, or to burn beyond its designated time an item whose typical manner is such that one does not burn it on the altar, i.e., the remainder of the meal offering, the meal offering is fit. And Rabbi Eliezer deems it unfit, although it is not piggul and consuming it is not punishable by karet.

讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘谞谉 诇讗 转讬诪讗 讛讗 诇讗讻讜诇 讜诇讗讻讜诇 讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 讚专讻讜 诇讗讻讜诇 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 讛讗 诇讗讻讜诇 讜诇讗讻讜诇 讚讘专 砖讚专讻讜 诇讗讻讜诇

Abaye said: You may even say that the mishna here is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. And do not say that one should infer from the mishna that if his intent was to partake of half an olive-bulk of an item whose typical manner is such that one consumes it and to partake of half an olive-bulk of an item whose typical manner is such that one does not partake of it, the offering is disqualified. Rather, say that if his intent was to partake of half an olive-bulk on the next day and to partake of half an olive-bulk outside the Temple, and each of these halves is from an item whose typical manner is such that one partakes of it, then the halves are joined together and disqualify the offering.

讜诪讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讛讗 讘讛讚讬讗 拽转谞讬 诇讛 诇讗讻讜诇 讻讝讬转 讘讞讜抓 讜讻讝讬转 诇诪讞专 讻讝讬转 诇诪讞专 讜讻讝讬转 讘讞讜抓 讻讞爪讬 讝讬转 讘讞讜抓 讜讻讞爪讬 讝讬转 诇诪讞专 讻讞爪讬 讝讬转 诇诪讞专 讜讻讞爪讬 讝讬转 讘讞讜抓 驻住讜诇 讜讗讬谉 讘讜 讻专转

The Gemara asks: And what is this teaching us? The previous mishna already teaches that principle explicitly: If one performed one of these rites with the intent to partake of an olive-bulk outside its designated area and an olive-bulk the next day, or an olive-bulk the next day and an olive-bulk outside its designated area, or half an olive-bulk outside its designated area and half an olive-bulk the next day, or half an olive-bulk the next day and half an olive-bulk outside its designated area, the offering is unfit but there is no liability for karet.

Scroll To Top