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

Today's Daf Yomi

August 23, 2018 | 讬状讘 讘讗诇讜诇 转砖注状讞

  • 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 13

Study Guide Menachot 13. The mishna seems to contradict the previous mishna as it implies that the remainder can become pigul if one had thoughts of eating half a shiur of the remainder tomorrow and half a shiur of the kometz聽tomorrow, even though the kometz聽can’t be eaten. Two answers are offered. Can a pigul thought about the frankincense during the act of kemitza聽create pigul聽that one would be obligated in karet? Since the frankincense is not the same object as the meal offering, even though they go together, do we view these as one unit or not? Rabbi Yossi says there is no karet. Reish聽Lakish explains the logic behind his argument although questions are raised regarding his explanation. Is collecting the frankincense from the聽meal offering mixture considered a sacrificial rite such that it would be forbidden by a non Kohen?


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

讛讗 转讜 诇诪讛 诇讬 讗讬 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 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚诪爪讟专祝 诪专讬砖讗 讚住讬驻讗 砖诪注转 诪讬谞讛 讚拽转谞讬 讻讞爪讬 讝讬转 讘讞讜抓 讻讞爪讬 讝讬转 诇诪讞专 驻住讜诇 讛讗 讻讞爪讬 讝讬转 诇诪讞专 讜讻讞爪讬 讝讬转 诇诪讞专 驻讬讙讜诇

According to Abaye, why do I also need this mishna here? If you will suggest that this mishna is necessary, as one can infer from it that if one intended to partake of half an olive-bulk the next day and then intended to partake of another half an olive-bulk the next day, both from an item whose typical manner is such that one partakes of it, the mishna teaches us that they join together in order to render the offering piggul, this suggestion can be rejected: But you already learn the halakha in this case from the first clause of the latter clause of the previous mishna, as it teaches: Half an olive-bulk outside and half an olive-bulk the next day, the offering is unfit. One can infer from this that if his intent was to consume half an olive-bulk the next day and half an olive-bulk the next day, it is piggul.

讗讬 诇讗讻讜诇 讜诇讛拽讟讬专 讚讛讬讗 讙讜驻讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 诪讚讬讜拽讗 讚专讬砖讗 砖诪注转 诪讬谞讛

If you suggest that the mishna is necessary for a case where one intended to consume and to burn, i.e., that the mishna teaches us the matter itself, that intent to consume does not join together with intent to burn, this too cannot be. The reason is that from the inference of the first clause of the mishna you can already learn the halakha in this case, as it teaches: If one intended to partake of an item whose typical manner is such that one partakes of it, the offering is rendered piggul. This indicates that if his intent was to consume an item whose typical manner is such that one does not consume it, the offering is not rendered piggul.

讚讛砖转讗 诪讛 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 讗诪专转 诇讗 诪爪讟专祝 诇讗讻讜诇 讜诇讛拽讟讬专 诪讬讘注讬讗

The Gemara explains how the halakha that intent to consume and burn do not combine can be inferred from the mishna: Now consider, if when one intended to partake of an item whose typical manner is such that one partakes of it and to partake of an item whose typical manner is such that one does not partake of it, you say that his intentions do not join together, despite the fact that both of his intentions referred to consumption, is it necessary for the mishna to teach that intentions to consume and to burn do not join together?

讗讬谉 诇讗讻讜诇 讜诇讛拽讟讬专 讗讬爪讟专讬讻讗 诇讬讛 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛转诐 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 讻讬 讗讜专讞讬讛 拽诪讞砖讘

The Gemara responds: Yes; although the mishna teaches the halakha of a case where one intended to consume an item typically consumed and to consume an item typically not consumed, it was necessary for the mishna to teach the halakha of a case where one intended to eat and to burn. As it might enter your mind to say that there, where one鈥檚 intentions referred solely to consumption, the halakha is that his intentions do not join together, as he intended to act not in accordance with its typical manner, since he intended to consume that which is not meant to be consumed.

讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讚讘讛讗讬 讻讬 讗讜专讞讬讛 拽诪讞砖讘 讜讘讛讗讬 讻讬 讗讜专讞讬讛 拽讗 诪讞砖讘 讗讬诪讗 诇爪讟专祝 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara continues: But here, where his intent was to consume half an olive-bulk and to burn half an olive-bulk, where with regard to this half he intends in accordance with its typical manner, and with regard to this half he intends in accordance with its typical manner, one might say that they should join together, despite the fact that each intention concerns only half an olive-bulk. Therefore, the mishna teaches us that such intentions do not join together, and the mishna can be explained even in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讻诇 讛诪谞讞讜转

 

诪转谞讬壮 讛拽讜诪抓 讗转 讛诪谞讞讛 诇讗讻讜诇 砖讬专讬讛 讗讜 诇讛拽讟讬专 拽讜诪爪讛 诇诪讞专 诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘讝讛 砖讛讜讗 驻讬讙讜诇 讜讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 讻专转 诇讛拽讟讬专 诇讘讜谞转讛 诇诪讞专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 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 驻讬讙讜诇 讜讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 讻专转

MISHNA: In the case of a priest who removes a handful from the meal offering with the intent to partake of its remainder or to burn its handful on the next day, Rabbi Yosei concedes in this instance that it is a case of piggul and he is liable to receive karet for partaking of it. But if the priest鈥檚 intent was to burn its frankincense the next day, Rabbi Yosei says: The meal offering is unfit but partaking of it does not include liability to receive karet. And the Rabbis say: It is a case of piggul and he is liable to receive karet for partaking of the meal offering.

讗诪专讜 诇讜 诪讛 砖讬谞讛 讝讛 诪谉 讛讝讘讞 讗诪专 诇讛谉 砖讛讝讘讞 讚诪讜 讜讘砖专讜 讜讗讬诪讜专讬讜 讗讞讚 讜诇讘讜谞讛 讗讬谞讛 诪谉 讛诪谞讞讛

The Rabbis said to Rabbi Yosei: In what manner does this differ from an animal offering, where if one slaughtered it with the intent to sacrifice the portions consumed on the altar the next day, it is piggul? Rabbi Yosei said to the Rabbis: There is a difference, as in the case of an animal offering, its blood, and its flesh, and its portions consumed on the altar are all one entity. Consequently, intent with regard to any one of them renders the entire offering piggul. But the frankincense is not part of the meal offering.

讙诪壮 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇诪讬转谞讗 诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘讝讜

GEMARA: The Gemara questions the terminology of the mishna: Why do I need the tanna to teach that Rabbi Yosei concedes in this instance? Let the tanna simply state: If one removes the handful from a meal offering with the intent to partake of its remainder or to burn the handful on the next day, Rabbi Yosei says that the offering is piggul and one is liable to receive karet for partaking of the remainder.

诪砖讜诐 讚拽讗 讘注讬 诇诪讬转谞讗 住讬驻讗 诇讛拽讟讬专 诇讘讜谞转讛 诇诪讞专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 驻住讜诇 讜讗讬谉 讘讜 讻专转

The Gemara responds: It was necessary for the tanna to teach that Rabbi Yosei concedes, because he wants to teach the latter clause of the mishna, that if his intent was to burn its frankincense the next day, Rabbi Yosei says that the meal offering is unfit, but partaking of it does not include liability to receive karet.

诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诪砖讜诐 讚拽住讘专 讗讬谉 诪驻讙诇讬谉 讘讞爪讬 诪转讬专 讜讗驻讬诇讜 专讬砖讗 谞诪讬

The Gemara elaborates: The reason the tanna links the two cases of the mishna is lest you say that the reason that Rabbi Yosei does not render the meal offering piggul is because he holds that one cannot render an offering piggul with intent that concerns only half of its permitting factors. And consequently, since the burning of the handful and the frankincense render the remainder of a meal offering permitted for consumption, then even in the first clause of the mishna, where one intends to burn the handful the next day, Rabbi Yosei should hold that the offering is not rendered piggul, as the intent does not refer to the frankincense as well.

拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讘讛讗 诪讜讚讛

Therefore, the tanna teaches us that in this case Rabbi Yosei concedes that if the handful is removed with the intent to burn only the handful on the next day, the offering is rendered piggul. Accordingly, Rabbi Yosei holds that one renders an offering piggul with intent that concerns only half of its permitting factors, and the offering is not rendered piggul in the case of the latter clause for a different reason, as the Gemara will discuss later.

诇讛拽讟讬专 诇讘讜谞转讛 诇诪讞专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 驻住讜诇 讜讗讬谉 讘讜 讻专转 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗讜诪专 讛讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讬谉 诪转讬专 诪驻讙诇 讗转 讛诪转讬专

搂 The mishna teaches that if one removed the handful from a meal offering with the intent to burn its frankincense on the next day, Rabbi Yosei says that the meal offering is unfit but partaking of it does not include liability to receive karet. Concerning this, Reish Lakish says: Rabbi Yosei would say, i.e., this is Rabbi Yosei鈥檚 reasoning: A permitting factor does not render another permitting factor piggul. In other words, if, while performing the rites of a permitting factor, one had intent to perform the rites of a different permitting factor outside its designated time, the offering is not rendered piggul on account of this intent.

讜讻谉 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 讘砖谞讬 讘讝讬讻讬 诇讘讜谞讛 砖诇 诇讞诐 讛驻谞讬诐 砖讗讬谉 诪转讬专 诪驻讙诇 讗转 讛诪转讬专

Reish Lakish adds: And you would say the same with regard to the two bowls of frankincense of the shewbread, that a permitting factor does not render another permitting factor piggul, and therefore if the priest burned one of the bowls with the intent to burn the other bowl the next day, the shewbread is not rendered piggul.

诪讗讬 讜讻谉 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘诇讘讜谞讛 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗讜 诪讬谞讛 讚诪谞讞讛 讛讬讗 讗讘诇 讘砖谞讬 讘讝讬讻讬 诇讘讜谞讛 讚诪讬谞讛 讚讛讚讚讬 谞讬谞讛讜 讗讬诪讗 诪驻讙诇讬 讗讛讚讚讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara asks: What is the purpose of the apparently superfluous statement: And you would say the same with regard to the two bowls of frankincense? Is there reason to assume that Rabbi Yosei would hold that the shewbread is rendered piggul in such a case? The Gemara responds that it is necessary, lest you say that the reason that Rabbi Yosei holds that there is no piggul in the case of the frankincense is because it is not of the same type as a meal offering. But with regard to the two bowls of frankincense, which are of the same type as each other, one might say that they do render one another piggul. Therefore, Reish Lakish teaches us that in both instances one permitting factor does not render another permitting factor piggul.

讜诪讬 诪爪讬转 讗诪专转 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘诇讘讜谞讛 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗讜 诪讬谞讛 讚诪谞讞讛 讛讬讗 讜讛讗 拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讗诪专讜 诇讜 诪讛 砖讬谞转讛 诪谉 讛讝讘讞 讗诪专 诇讛谉 讛讝讘讞 讚诪讜 讜讘砖专讜 讜讗讬诪讜专讬讜 讗讞讚 讜诇讘讜谞讛 讗讬谞讛 诪谉 讛诪谞讞讛

The Gemara asks: And can you say that the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Yosei in the case of the frankincense in the mishna is not due to the fact that the frankincense is not of the same type as a meal offering? But isn鈥檛 it taught in the latter clause of the mishna that the Rabbis said to Rabbi Yosei: In what manner does the frankincense differ from an animal offering, where if one slaughtered it with the intent to sacrifice the portions consumed on the altar the next day it is piggul; and Rabbi Yosei said to the Rabbis: There is a difference, as in the case of an animal offering, its blood, and its flesh, and its portions consumed on the altar are all one entity, but the frankincense is not part of the meal offering? The mishna indicates that according to Rabbi Yosei the reason the meal offering is not piggul is because the frankincense is not of the same type as the meal offering.

诪讗讬 讗讬谞讛 诪谉 讛诪谞讞讛 讗讬谞讛 讘注讬讻讜讘 诪谞讞讛 讚诇讗讜 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诪注讻讘 诇讛讜 拽讜诪抓 诇砖讬专讬诐 讚讻诪讛 讚诇讗讜 诪转拽讟专 拽讜诪抓 诇讗 诪讬转讗讻诇讬 砖讬专讬诐 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪注讻讘 诇讛 诇诇讘讜谞讛 讗诇讗 讗讬 讘注讬 讛讗讬 诪拽讟专 讘专讬砖讗 讜讗讬 讘注讬 讛讗讬 诪拽讟专 讘专讬砖讗

The Gemara explains: What does Rabbi Yosei mean when he says that the frankincense is not part of the meal offering? He means that it is not part of the preclusion of the meal offering. The Gemara elaborates: This means that the halakha is not that just as the handful precludes the remainder, i.e., that as long as the handful is not burned the remainder may not be consumed, so too the handful precludes the frankincense from being burned upon the altar. Rather, if the priest wants, he burns this first, and if he wants, he burns that first, i.e., he may burn the frankincense before or after the burning of the handful. Accordingly, the frankincense is an independent permitting factor. For this reason, intent with regard to the frankincense that occurred during the removal of the handful does not render a meal offering piggul.

讜专讘谞谉 讻讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讗讬谉 诪转讬专 诪驻讙诇 讗转 讛诪转讬专 讙讘讬 砖讞讟 讗讞讚 诪谉 讛讻讘砖讬诐 诇讗讻讜诇 诪讞讘讬专讜 诇诪讞专 讚讗诪专转 砖谞讬讛诐 讻砖专讬诐 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讗 讗讬拽讘注讜 讘讞讚 诪谞讗 讗讘诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬拽讘注讜 讘讞讚 诪谞讗 讻讞讚 讚诪讬

The Gemara asks: And the Rabbis, who say that the meal offering is rendered piggul in such a case, what is their opinion? The Gemara responds: They hold that when we say that a permitting factor does not render another permitting factor piggul, this is with regard to the case taught in a mishna (16a) concerning one who slaughtered one of the lambs whose sacrifice permits the consumption of the two loaves meal offering brought on Shavuot, with the intent to partake of the other lamb the next day. The Gemara elaborates: When you said in the mishna that both permitting factors are fit, this statement applies only where they were not fixed in one vessel. But in a situation where they were fixed in one vessel, as is the case with regard to the handful and the frankincense, they are considered like one unit, and therefore they render one another piggul.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 诇讬拽讜讟 诇讘讜谞讛 讘讝专 驻住讜诇 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 诪砖讜诐 讛讜诇讻讛 谞讙注讜 讘讛 拽住讘专 讛讜诇讻讛 砖诇讗 讘专讙诇 砖诪讛 讛讜诇讻讛 讜讛讜诇讻讛 讘讝专 驻住讜诇讛

搂 With regard to the frankincense, Rabbi Yannai says: The collection of the frankincense from a meal offering, when performed by a non-priest, is not valid and disqualifies the meal offering. The Gemara asks: What is the reason? Rabbi Yirmeya said: It is because the rite of conveying has touched it, i.e., the collection of the frankincense is considered part of the rite of the conveying of the frankincense to the altar for the purpose of burning. Even if the non-priest simply collected the frankincense and thereafter transferred it to a priest, Rabbi Yannai holds that conveying even without moving one鈥檚 leg is called conveying, and the halakha is that the performance of the rite of conveying by a non-priest is not valid.

讗诪专 专讘 诪专讬 讗祝 讗谞谉 谞诪讬 转谞讬谞讗 讝讛 讛讻诇诇 讻诇 讛拽讜诪抓 讜谞讜转谉 讘讻诇讬 讜讛诪讜诇讬讱 讜讛诪拽讟讬专

Rav Mari said: We learn this halakha in the mishna on 12a, which discusses those sacrificial rites of a meal offering during which improper intent renders an offering piggul, as well. The mishna teaches: 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, or to burn an item whose typical manner is such that one burns it on the altar, outside its designated area, the meal offering is unfit but there is no liability for karet. If his intent was to perform any of these actions beyond their 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.

讘砖诇诪讗 拽讜诪抓 讛讬讬谞讜 砖讜讞讟 诪讜诇讬讱 谞诪讬 讛讬讬谞讜 诪讜诇讬讱 诪拽讟讬专 讛讬讬谞讜 讝讜专拽 讗诇讗 谞讜转谉 讘讻诇讬 诪讗讬 拽讗 注讘讬讚

Rav Mari analyzes the first part of this mishna: Granted, the removal of the handful from a meal offering is the same as, i.e., equivalent to, the slaughter of animal offerings. The conveying of the handful to the altar in order to burn it is also the same as the conveying of the blood of a slaughtered offering to the altar in order to sprinkle it. Similarly, the burning of the handful and frankincense of a meal offering is comparable to the sprinkling of the blood of a slaughtered offering upon the altar. But as for placing the handful in the service vessel, what rite is he performing that is comparable to a rite of slaughtered offerings?

讗讬诇讬诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讚诪讬 诇拽讘诇讛 诪讬 讚诪讬 讛转诐 诪诪讬诇讗 讛讻讗 拽讗 砖拽讬诇 讜专诪讬

If we say that the meal offering is piggul because the placing of the handful into a vessel is comparable to the collection of the blood of a slaughtered offering into a service vessel, one can ask: Are these rites in fact comparable? There, in the case of animal offerings, the blood enters the vessel by itself, whereas here, the priest takes the handful from the meal offering and casts it into the vessel.

讗诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 住讙讬讗 诇讬讛 讚诇讗 注讘讚 诇讛 注讘讜讚讛 讞砖讜讘讛 讛讬讗 注诇 讻专讞讬讱 诪砖讜讬 诇讛 讻拽讘诇讛 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 住讙讬讗 诇讛 讚诇讗 注讘讚 诇讛 注讘讜讚讛 讞砖讜讘讛 讛讬讗 注诇 讻专讞讬讱 诪砖讜讬 诇讛 讻讬 讛讜诇讻讛

Rather, it must be due to the following reason: Since it is not possible to sacrifice the handful without first performing the act of placing it in a vessel, the placement of the handful in a vessel is considered a significant rite, and perforce this factor causes it to be considered like the collection of the blood. Here too, with regard to the collection of the frankincense, since it is not possible to sacrifice the frankincense without first performing the act of collecting it from the vessel, the collection of the frankincense is a significant rite that perforce causes it to be considered like the rite of conveying.

诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 讚讚诪讬 诇拽讘诇讛 讜讚拽讗 拽砖讬讗 诇讱 讛转诐 诪诪讬诇讗 讛讻讗 拽讗 砖拽讬诇 讜专诪讬

The Gemara rejects this suggestion: No, this is not the reason, and one cannot prove from the mishna that the collection of the frankincense from a meal offering performed by a non-priest is not valid. Actually, the reason why intent during the placement of the handful renders the offering piggul is in fact because it is comparable to the collection of the blood of a slaughtered offering. And as for the difficulty you raised, that there the blood enters the vessel by itself, whereas here he takes the handful from the meal offering and casts it into the vessel, this is not a true difficulty.

诪讻讚讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 拽讚讜砖转 讻诇讬 讛讜讗 诪讛 诇讬 诪诪讬诇讗 诪讛 诇讬 拽讗 砖拽讬诇 讜专诪讬

The Gemara explains: Now consider, both of them, i.e., the collection of the blood and the placing of the handful, involve the sanctity of a vessel, in which a service vessel sanctifies a permitting factor to the altar, either the handful or the blood. What difference is it to me if the permitting factor enters the vessel by itself or whether one takes the item and casts it into the vessel?

诪转谞讬壮 砖讞讟 砖谞讬 讻讘砖讬诐 诇讗讻讜诇 讗讞转 诪谉 讛讞诇讜转 诇诪讞专 讛拽讟讬专 砖谞讬 讘讝讬讻讬谉 诇讗讻讜诇 讗讞讚 诪谉 讛住讚专讬诐 诇诪讞专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讗讜转讜 讛讞诇讛 讜讗讜转讜 讛住讚专 砖讞讬砖讘 注诇讬讜 驻讬讙讜诇 讜讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 讻专转 讜讛砖谞讬 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 驻讬讙讜诇 讜讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 讻专转

MISHNA: If one slaughtered the two lambs that accompany the two meal offering loaves sacrificed on Shavuot with the intent to partake of one of the two loaves the next day, or if one burned the two bowls of frankincense accompanying the shewbread with the intent to partake of one of the arrangements of the shewbread the next day, Rabbi Yosei says: That loaf and that arrangement of which he intended to partake the next day are piggul and one is liable to receive karet for their consumption, and the second loaf and arrangement are unfit, but there is no liability to receive karet for their consumption. And the Rabbis say: This loaf and arrangement and that loaf and arrangement are both piggul and one is liable to receive karet for their consumption.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗讜诪专 讛讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 驻讬讙诇 讘讬专讱 砖诇 讬诪讬谉 诇讗 谞转驻讙诇 讛讬专讱 砖诇 砖诪讗诇 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 住讘专讗 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 拽专讗

GEMARA: Rav Huna says: Rabbi Yosei would say, in accordance with his opinion that intent of piggul with regard to one loaf or one arrangement does not render the second loaf or arrangement piggul, that if one had intent of piggul with regard to the right thigh, i.e., he slaughtered an offering with the intent to partake of the right thigh the next day, then the left thigh has not become piggul and one is not liable to receive karet for its consumption. What is the reason for this? If you wish, propose a logical argument, and if you wish, cite a verse.

讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 住讘专讗 诇讗 注讚讬驻讗 诪讞砖讘讛 诪诪注砖讛 讛讟讜诪讗讛 讗讬诇讜 讗讬讟诪讬 讞讚 讗讘专 诪讬 讗讬讟诪讬 诇讬讛 讻讜诇讬讛 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 拽专讗 讜讛谞驻砖 讛讗讻诇转 诪诪谞讜 注讜谞讛 转砖讗 诪诪谞讜 讜诇讗 诪讞讘讬专讜

Rav Huna elaborates: If you wish, propose a logical argument: Disqualifying intent is no stronger than an incident of ritual impurity, and if one limb of an offering became impure, did the entire offering then become impure? Accordingly, one limb can be rendered piggul without the other. And if you wish, cite a verse that addresses piggul: 鈥淎nd the soul that eats of it shall bear his iniquity鈥 (Leviticus 7:18). The verse indicates that one who eats specifically 鈥渙f it,鈥 i.e., from one part, shall bear his iniquity, and not one who eats from the other part of the offering.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇专讘 讛讜谞讗 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇注讜诇诐 讗讬谉 讘讜 讻专转 注讚 砖讬驻讙诇 讘砖转讬讛谉 讘讻讝讬转 讘砖转讬讛谉 讗讬谉 讘讗讞转 诪讛谉 诇讗

Rav Na岣an raised an objection to Rav Huna from a baraita: And the Rabbis say that there is never liability to receive karet for partaking of the two loaves unless one has intent of piggul with regard to an olive-bulk of both of them, i.e., one鈥檚 intent renders both loaves piggul only if he slaughters the lambs with the intent to consume an amount equal to an olive-bulk from both loaves combined outside their proper time. One can infer from this that if he had intent with regard to both of them, yes, both loaves are piggul. But if his intent was with regard to only one of them, no, the other loaf is not piggul.

诪谞讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 专讘谞谉 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讗讞转 诪讛谉 谞诪讬 讗诇讗 驻砖讬讟讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 讞讚 讙讜驻讗 讛讜讗 诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 诪爪讟专祝

Rav Na岣an continues: In accordance with whose opinion is the baraita? If we say that it is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis of the mishna, then even if his intent was with regard to only one of them, both loaves are rendered piggul. Rather, it is obvious that the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. Now, granted, if you say that according to Rabbi Yosei the left and right thighs of an offering are considered one body, and consequently piggul intent with regard to one thigh renders the other thigh piggul as well, then due to that reason it is understandable that if the piggul intent was for an amount equal to one total olive-bulk from both of the loaves, then the intent with regard to each loaf is combined with the other.

  • 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 13

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Menachot 13

讛讗 转讜 诇诪讛 诇讬 讗讬 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 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚诪爪讟专祝 诪专讬砖讗 讚住讬驻讗 砖诪注转 诪讬谞讛 讚拽转谞讬 讻讞爪讬 讝讬转 讘讞讜抓 讻讞爪讬 讝讬转 诇诪讞专 驻住讜诇 讛讗 讻讞爪讬 讝讬转 诇诪讞专 讜讻讞爪讬 讝讬转 诇诪讞专 驻讬讙讜诇

According to Abaye, why do I also need this mishna here? If you will suggest that this mishna is necessary, as one can infer from it that if one intended to partake of half an olive-bulk the next day and then intended to partake of another half an olive-bulk the next day, both from an item whose typical manner is such that one partakes of it, the mishna teaches us that they join together in order to render the offering piggul, this suggestion can be rejected: But you already learn the halakha in this case from the first clause of the latter clause of the previous mishna, as it teaches: Half an olive-bulk outside and half an olive-bulk the next day, the offering is unfit. One can infer from this that if his intent was to consume half an olive-bulk the next day and half an olive-bulk the next day, it is piggul.

讗讬 诇讗讻讜诇 讜诇讛拽讟讬专 讚讛讬讗 讙讜驻讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 诪讚讬讜拽讗 讚专讬砖讗 砖诪注转 诪讬谞讛

If you suggest that the mishna is necessary for a case where one intended to consume and to burn, i.e., that the mishna teaches us the matter itself, that intent to consume does not join together with intent to burn, this too cannot be. The reason is that from the inference of the first clause of the mishna you can already learn the halakha in this case, as it teaches: If one intended to partake of an item whose typical manner is such that one partakes of it, the offering is rendered piggul. This indicates that if his intent was to consume an item whose typical manner is such that one does not consume it, the offering is not rendered piggul.

讚讛砖转讗 诪讛 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 讗诪专转 诇讗 诪爪讟专祝 诇讗讻讜诇 讜诇讛拽讟讬专 诪讬讘注讬讗

The Gemara explains how the halakha that intent to consume and burn do not combine can be inferred from the mishna: Now consider, if when one intended to partake of an item whose typical manner is such that one partakes of it and to partake of an item whose typical manner is such that one does not partake of it, you say that his intentions do not join together, despite the fact that both of his intentions referred to consumption, is it necessary for the mishna to teach that intentions to consume and to burn do not join together?

讗讬谉 诇讗讻讜诇 讜诇讛拽讟讬专 讗讬爪讟专讬讻讗 诇讬讛 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛转诐 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 讻讬 讗讜专讞讬讛 拽诪讞砖讘

The Gemara responds: Yes; although the mishna teaches the halakha of a case where one intended to consume an item typically consumed and to consume an item typically not consumed, it was necessary for the mishna to teach the halakha of a case where one intended to eat and to burn. As it might enter your mind to say that there, where one鈥檚 intentions referred solely to consumption, the halakha is that his intentions do not join together, as he intended to act not in accordance with its typical manner, since he intended to consume that which is not meant to be consumed.

讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讚讘讛讗讬 讻讬 讗讜专讞讬讛 拽诪讞砖讘 讜讘讛讗讬 讻讬 讗讜专讞讬讛 拽讗 诪讞砖讘 讗讬诪讗 诇爪讟专祝 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara continues: But here, where his intent was to consume half an olive-bulk and to burn half an olive-bulk, where with regard to this half he intends in accordance with its typical manner, and with regard to this half he intends in accordance with its typical manner, one might say that they should join together, despite the fact that each intention concerns only half an olive-bulk. Therefore, the mishna teaches us that such intentions do not join together, and the mishna can be explained even in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讻诇 讛诪谞讞讜转

 

诪转谞讬壮 讛拽讜诪抓 讗转 讛诪谞讞讛 诇讗讻讜诇 砖讬专讬讛 讗讜 诇讛拽讟讬专 拽讜诪爪讛 诇诪讞专 诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘讝讛 砖讛讜讗 驻讬讙讜诇 讜讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 讻专转 诇讛拽讟讬专 诇讘讜谞转讛 诇诪讞专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 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 驻讬讙讜诇 讜讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 讻专转

MISHNA: In the case of a priest who removes a handful from the meal offering with the intent to partake of its remainder or to burn its handful on the next day, Rabbi Yosei concedes in this instance that it is a case of piggul and he is liable to receive karet for partaking of it. But if the priest鈥檚 intent was to burn its frankincense the next day, Rabbi Yosei says: The meal offering is unfit but partaking of it does not include liability to receive karet. And the Rabbis say: It is a case of piggul and he is liable to receive karet for partaking of the meal offering.

讗诪专讜 诇讜 诪讛 砖讬谞讛 讝讛 诪谉 讛讝讘讞 讗诪专 诇讛谉 砖讛讝讘讞 讚诪讜 讜讘砖专讜 讜讗讬诪讜专讬讜 讗讞讚 讜诇讘讜谞讛 讗讬谞讛 诪谉 讛诪谞讞讛

The Rabbis said to Rabbi Yosei: In what manner does this differ from an animal offering, where if one slaughtered it with the intent to sacrifice the portions consumed on the altar the next day, it is piggul? Rabbi Yosei said to the Rabbis: There is a difference, as in the case of an animal offering, its blood, and its flesh, and its portions consumed on the altar are all one entity. Consequently, intent with regard to any one of them renders the entire offering piggul. But the frankincense is not part of the meal offering.

讙诪壮 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇诪讬转谞讗 诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘讝讜

GEMARA: The Gemara questions the terminology of the mishna: Why do I need the tanna to teach that Rabbi Yosei concedes in this instance? Let the tanna simply state: If one removes the handful from a meal offering with the intent to partake of its remainder or to burn the handful on the next day, Rabbi Yosei says that the offering is piggul and one is liable to receive karet for partaking of the remainder.

诪砖讜诐 讚拽讗 讘注讬 诇诪讬转谞讗 住讬驻讗 诇讛拽讟讬专 诇讘讜谞转讛 诇诪讞专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 驻住讜诇 讜讗讬谉 讘讜 讻专转

The Gemara responds: It was necessary for the tanna to teach that Rabbi Yosei concedes, because he wants to teach the latter clause of the mishna, that if his intent was to burn its frankincense the next day, Rabbi Yosei says that the meal offering is unfit, but partaking of it does not include liability to receive karet.

诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诪砖讜诐 讚拽住讘专 讗讬谉 诪驻讙诇讬谉 讘讞爪讬 诪转讬专 讜讗驻讬诇讜 专讬砖讗 谞诪讬

The Gemara elaborates: The reason the tanna links the two cases of the mishna is lest you say that the reason that Rabbi Yosei does not render the meal offering piggul is because he holds that one cannot render an offering piggul with intent that concerns only half of its permitting factors. And consequently, since the burning of the handful and the frankincense render the remainder of a meal offering permitted for consumption, then even in the first clause of the mishna, where one intends to burn the handful the next day, Rabbi Yosei should hold that the offering is not rendered piggul, as the intent does not refer to the frankincense as well.

拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讘讛讗 诪讜讚讛

Therefore, the tanna teaches us that in this case Rabbi Yosei concedes that if the handful is removed with the intent to burn only the handful on the next day, the offering is rendered piggul. Accordingly, Rabbi Yosei holds that one renders an offering piggul with intent that concerns only half of its permitting factors, and the offering is not rendered piggul in the case of the latter clause for a different reason, as the Gemara will discuss later.

诇讛拽讟讬专 诇讘讜谞转讛 诇诪讞专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 驻住讜诇 讜讗讬谉 讘讜 讻专转 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗讜诪专 讛讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讬谉 诪转讬专 诪驻讙诇 讗转 讛诪转讬专

搂 The mishna teaches that if one removed the handful from a meal offering with the intent to burn its frankincense on the next day, Rabbi Yosei says that the meal offering is unfit but partaking of it does not include liability to receive karet. Concerning this, Reish Lakish says: Rabbi Yosei would say, i.e., this is Rabbi Yosei鈥檚 reasoning: A permitting factor does not render another permitting factor piggul. In other words, if, while performing the rites of a permitting factor, one had intent to perform the rites of a different permitting factor outside its designated time, the offering is not rendered piggul on account of this intent.

讜讻谉 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 讘砖谞讬 讘讝讬讻讬 诇讘讜谞讛 砖诇 诇讞诐 讛驻谞讬诐 砖讗讬谉 诪转讬专 诪驻讙诇 讗转 讛诪转讬专

Reish Lakish adds: And you would say the same with regard to the two bowls of frankincense of the shewbread, that a permitting factor does not render another permitting factor piggul, and therefore if the priest burned one of the bowls with the intent to burn the other bowl the next day, the shewbread is not rendered piggul.

诪讗讬 讜讻谉 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘诇讘讜谞讛 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗讜 诪讬谞讛 讚诪谞讞讛 讛讬讗 讗讘诇 讘砖谞讬 讘讝讬讻讬 诇讘讜谞讛 讚诪讬谞讛 讚讛讚讚讬 谞讬谞讛讜 讗讬诪讗 诪驻讙诇讬 讗讛讚讚讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara asks: What is the purpose of the apparently superfluous statement: And you would say the same with regard to the two bowls of frankincense? Is there reason to assume that Rabbi Yosei would hold that the shewbread is rendered piggul in such a case? The Gemara responds that it is necessary, lest you say that the reason that Rabbi Yosei holds that there is no piggul in the case of the frankincense is because it is not of the same type as a meal offering. But with regard to the two bowls of frankincense, which are of the same type as each other, one might say that they do render one another piggul. Therefore, Reish Lakish teaches us that in both instances one permitting factor does not render another permitting factor piggul.

讜诪讬 诪爪讬转 讗诪专转 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘诇讘讜谞讛 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗讜 诪讬谞讛 讚诪谞讞讛 讛讬讗 讜讛讗 拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讗诪专讜 诇讜 诪讛 砖讬谞转讛 诪谉 讛讝讘讞 讗诪专 诇讛谉 讛讝讘讞 讚诪讜 讜讘砖专讜 讜讗讬诪讜专讬讜 讗讞讚 讜诇讘讜谞讛 讗讬谞讛 诪谉 讛诪谞讞讛

The Gemara asks: And can you say that the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Yosei in the case of the frankincense in the mishna is not due to the fact that the frankincense is not of the same type as a meal offering? But isn鈥檛 it taught in the latter clause of the mishna that the Rabbis said to Rabbi Yosei: In what manner does the frankincense differ from an animal offering, where if one slaughtered it with the intent to sacrifice the portions consumed on the altar the next day it is piggul; and Rabbi Yosei said to the Rabbis: There is a difference, as in the case of an animal offering, its blood, and its flesh, and its portions consumed on the altar are all one entity, but the frankincense is not part of the meal offering? The mishna indicates that according to Rabbi Yosei the reason the meal offering is not piggul is because the frankincense is not of the same type as the meal offering.

诪讗讬 讗讬谞讛 诪谉 讛诪谞讞讛 讗讬谞讛 讘注讬讻讜讘 诪谞讞讛 讚诇讗讜 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诪注讻讘 诇讛讜 拽讜诪抓 诇砖讬专讬诐 讚讻诪讛 讚诇讗讜 诪转拽讟专 拽讜诪抓 诇讗 诪讬转讗讻诇讬 砖讬专讬诐 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪注讻讘 诇讛 诇诇讘讜谞讛 讗诇讗 讗讬 讘注讬 讛讗讬 诪拽讟专 讘专讬砖讗 讜讗讬 讘注讬 讛讗讬 诪拽讟专 讘专讬砖讗

The Gemara explains: What does Rabbi Yosei mean when he says that the frankincense is not part of the meal offering? He means that it is not part of the preclusion of the meal offering. The Gemara elaborates: This means that the halakha is not that just as the handful precludes the remainder, i.e., that as long as the handful is not burned the remainder may not be consumed, so too the handful precludes the frankincense from being burned upon the altar. Rather, if the priest wants, he burns this first, and if he wants, he burns that first, i.e., he may burn the frankincense before or after the burning of the handful. Accordingly, the frankincense is an independent permitting factor. For this reason, intent with regard to the frankincense that occurred during the removal of the handful does not render a meal offering piggul.

讜专讘谞谉 讻讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讗讬谉 诪转讬专 诪驻讙诇 讗转 讛诪转讬专 讙讘讬 砖讞讟 讗讞讚 诪谉 讛讻讘砖讬诐 诇讗讻讜诇 诪讞讘讬专讜 诇诪讞专 讚讗诪专转 砖谞讬讛诐 讻砖专讬诐 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讗 讗讬拽讘注讜 讘讞讚 诪谞讗 讗讘诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬拽讘注讜 讘讞讚 诪谞讗 讻讞讚 讚诪讬

The Gemara asks: And the Rabbis, who say that the meal offering is rendered piggul in such a case, what is their opinion? The Gemara responds: They hold that when we say that a permitting factor does not render another permitting factor piggul, this is with regard to the case taught in a mishna (16a) concerning one who slaughtered one of the lambs whose sacrifice permits the consumption of the two loaves meal offering brought on Shavuot, with the intent to partake of the other lamb the next day. The Gemara elaborates: When you said in the mishna that both permitting factors are fit, this statement applies only where they were not fixed in one vessel. But in a situation where they were fixed in one vessel, as is the case with regard to the handful and the frankincense, they are considered like one unit, and therefore they render one another piggul.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 诇讬拽讜讟 诇讘讜谞讛 讘讝专 驻住讜诇 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 诪砖讜诐 讛讜诇讻讛 谞讙注讜 讘讛 拽住讘专 讛讜诇讻讛 砖诇讗 讘专讙诇 砖诪讛 讛讜诇讻讛 讜讛讜诇讻讛 讘讝专 驻住讜诇讛

搂 With regard to the frankincense, Rabbi Yannai says: The collection of the frankincense from a meal offering, when performed by a non-priest, is not valid and disqualifies the meal offering. The Gemara asks: What is the reason? Rabbi Yirmeya said: It is because the rite of conveying has touched it, i.e., the collection of the frankincense is considered part of the rite of the conveying of the frankincense to the altar for the purpose of burning. Even if the non-priest simply collected the frankincense and thereafter transferred it to a priest, Rabbi Yannai holds that conveying even without moving one鈥檚 leg is called conveying, and the halakha is that the performance of the rite of conveying by a non-priest is not valid.

讗诪专 专讘 诪专讬 讗祝 讗谞谉 谞诪讬 转谞讬谞讗 讝讛 讛讻诇诇 讻诇 讛拽讜诪抓 讜谞讜转谉 讘讻诇讬 讜讛诪讜诇讬讱 讜讛诪拽讟讬专

Rav Mari said: We learn this halakha in the mishna on 12a, which discusses those sacrificial rites of a meal offering during which improper intent renders an offering piggul, as well. The mishna teaches: 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, or to burn an item whose typical manner is such that one burns it on the altar, outside its designated area, the meal offering is unfit but there is no liability for karet. If his intent was to perform any of these actions beyond their 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.

讘砖诇诪讗 拽讜诪抓 讛讬讬谞讜 砖讜讞讟 诪讜诇讬讱 谞诪讬 讛讬讬谞讜 诪讜诇讬讱 诪拽讟讬专 讛讬讬谞讜 讝讜专拽 讗诇讗 谞讜转谉 讘讻诇讬 诪讗讬 拽讗 注讘讬讚

Rav Mari analyzes the first part of this mishna: Granted, the removal of the handful from a meal offering is the same as, i.e., equivalent to, the slaughter of animal offerings. The conveying of the handful to the altar in order to burn it is also the same as the conveying of the blood of a slaughtered offering to the altar in order to sprinkle it. Similarly, the burning of the handful and frankincense of a meal offering is comparable to the sprinkling of the blood of a slaughtered offering upon the altar. But as for placing the handful in the service vessel, what rite is he performing that is comparable to a rite of slaughtered offerings?

讗讬诇讬诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讚诪讬 诇拽讘诇讛 诪讬 讚诪讬 讛转诐 诪诪讬诇讗 讛讻讗 拽讗 砖拽讬诇 讜专诪讬

If we say that the meal offering is piggul because the placing of the handful into a vessel is comparable to the collection of the blood of a slaughtered offering into a service vessel, one can ask: Are these rites in fact comparable? There, in the case of animal offerings, the blood enters the vessel by itself, whereas here, the priest takes the handful from the meal offering and casts it into the vessel.

讗诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 住讙讬讗 诇讬讛 讚诇讗 注讘讚 诇讛 注讘讜讚讛 讞砖讜讘讛 讛讬讗 注诇 讻专讞讬讱 诪砖讜讬 诇讛 讻拽讘诇讛 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 住讙讬讗 诇讛 讚诇讗 注讘讚 诇讛 注讘讜讚讛 讞砖讜讘讛 讛讬讗 注诇 讻专讞讬讱 诪砖讜讬 诇讛 讻讬 讛讜诇讻讛

Rather, it must be due to the following reason: Since it is not possible to sacrifice the handful without first performing the act of placing it in a vessel, the placement of the handful in a vessel is considered a significant rite, and perforce this factor causes it to be considered like the collection of the blood. Here too, with regard to the collection of the frankincense, since it is not possible to sacrifice the frankincense without first performing the act of collecting it from the vessel, the collection of the frankincense is a significant rite that perforce causes it to be considered like the rite of conveying.

诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 讚讚诪讬 诇拽讘诇讛 讜讚拽讗 拽砖讬讗 诇讱 讛转诐 诪诪讬诇讗 讛讻讗 拽讗 砖拽讬诇 讜专诪讬

The Gemara rejects this suggestion: No, this is not the reason, and one cannot prove from the mishna that the collection of the frankincense from a meal offering performed by a non-priest is not valid. Actually, the reason why intent during the placement of the handful renders the offering piggul is in fact because it is comparable to the collection of the blood of a slaughtered offering. And as for the difficulty you raised, that there the blood enters the vessel by itself, whereas here he takes the handful from the meal offering and casts it into the vessel, this is not a true difficulty.

诪讻讚讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 拽讚讜砖转 讻诇讬 讛讜讗 诪讛 诇讬 诪诪讬诇讗 诪讛 诇讬 拽讗 砖拽讬诇 讜专诪讬

The Gemara explains: Now consider, both of them, i.e., the collection of the blood and the placing of the handful, involve the sanctity of a vessel, in which a service vessel sanctifies a permitting factor to the altar, either the handful or the blood. What difference is it to me if the permitting factor enters the vessel by itself or whether one takes the item and casts it into the vessel?

诪转谞讬壮 砖讞讟 砖谞讬 讻讘砖讬诐 诇讗讻讜诇 讗讞转 诪谉 讛讞诇讜转 诇诪讞专 讛拽讟讬专 砖谞讬 讘讝讬讻讬谉 诇讗讻讜诇 讗讞讚 诪谉 讛住讚专讬诐 诇诪讞专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讗讜转讜 讛讞诇讛 讜讗讜转讜 讛住讚专 砖讞讬砖讘 注诇讬讜 驻讬讙讜诇 讜讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 讻专转 讜讛砖谞讬 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 驻讬讙讜诇 讜讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 讻专转

MISHNA: If one slaughtered the two lambs that accompany the two meal offering loaves sacrificed on Shavuot with the intent to partake of one of the two loaves the next day, or if one burned the two bowls of frankincense accompanying the shewbread with the intent to partake of one of the arrangements of the shewbread the next day, Rabbi Yosei says: That loaf and that arrangement of which he intended to partake the next day are piggul and one is liable to receive karet for their consumption, and the second loaf and arrangement are unfit, but there is no liability to receive karet for their consumption. And the Rabbis say: This loaf and arrangement and that loaf and arrangement are both piggul and one is liable to receive karet for their consumption.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗讜诪专 讛讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 驻讬讙诇 讘讬专讱 砖诇 讬诪讬谉 诇讗 谞转驻讙诇 讛讬专讱 砖诇 砖诪讗诇 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 住讘专讗 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 拽专讗

GEMARA: Rav Huna says: Rabbi Yosei would say, in accordance with his opinion that intent of piggul with regard to one loaf or one arrangement does not render the second loaf or arrangement piggul, that if one had intent of piggul with regard to the right thigh, i.e., he slaughtered an offering with the intent to partake of the right thigh the next day, then the left thigh has not become piggul and one is not liable to receive karet for its consumption. What is the reason for this? If you wish, propose a logical argument, and if you wish, cite a verse.

讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 住讘专讗 诇讗 注讚讬驻讗 诪讞砖讘讛 诪诪注砖讛 讛讟讜诪讗讛 讗讬诇讜 讗讬讟诪讬 讞讚 讗讘专 诪讬 讗讬讟诪讬 诇讬讛 讻讜诇讬讛 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 拽专讗 讜讛谞驻砖 讛讗讻诇转 诪诪谞讜 注讜谞讛 转砖讗 诪诪谞讜 讜诇讗 诪讞讘讬专讜

Rav Huna elaborates: If you wish, propose a logical argument: Disqualifying intent is no stronger than an incident of ritual impurity, and if one limb of an offering became impure, did the entire offering then become impure? Accordingly, one limb can be rendered piggul without the other. And if you wish, cite a verse that addresses piggul: 鈥淎nd the soul that eats of it shall bear his iniquity鈥 (Leviticus 7:18). The verse indicates that one who eats specifically 鈥渙f it,鈥 i.e., from one part, shall bear his iniquity, and not one who eats from the other part of the offering.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇专讘 讛讜谞讗 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇注讜诇诐 讗讬谉 讘讜 讻专转 注讚 砖讬驻讙诇 讘砖转讬讛谉 讘讻讝讬转 讘砖转讬讛谉 讗讬谉 讘讗讞转 诪讛谉 诇讗

Rav Na岣an raised an objection to Rav Huna from a baraita: And the Rabbis say that there is never liability to receive karet for partaking of the two loaves unless one has intent of piggul with regard to an olive-bulk of both of them, i.e., one鈥檚 intent renders both loaves piggul only if he slaughters the lambs with the intent to consume an amount equal to an olive-bulk from both loaves combined outside their proper time. One can infer from this that if he had intent with regard to both of them, yes, both loaves are piggul. But if his intent was with regard to only one of them, no, the other loaf is not piggul.

诪谞讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 专讘谞谉 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讗讞转 诪讛谉 谞诪讬 讗诇讗 驻砖讬讟讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 讞讚 讙讜驻讗 讛讜讗 诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 诪爪讟专祝

Rav Na岣an continues: In accordance with whose opinion is the baraita? If we say that it is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis of the mishna, then even if his intent was with regard to only one of them, both loaves are rendered piggul. Rather, it is obvious that the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. Now, granted, if you say that according to Rabbi Yosei the left and right thighs of an offering are considered one body, and consequently piggul intent with regard to one thigh renders the other thigh piggul as well, then due to that reason it is understandable that if the piggul intent was for an amount equal to one total olive-bulk from both of the loaves, then the intent with regard to each loaf is combined with the other.

Scroll To Top