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

Today's Daf Yomi

August 24, 2018 | 讬状讙 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 14

In offerings that have several parts, i.e. 2 lambs and 2 loaves of bread (Shavuot) or 2 bowls of frankincense and 2 sets of 6 loaves of the showbread, do pigul thoughts regarding part of the bread affect all of the bread? Additionally, since both lambs need to be slaugghtered to permit the bread, would a pigul thought during the slaughter of one of the animals, make the bread pigul or does one need to have the thought聽during the slaughtering of each of the animals?


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

讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 转专讬 讙讜驻讬 谞讬谞讛讜 诪讬 诪讬爪讟专驻讬

But if you say that Rabbi Yosei holds that the right and left thighs of an offering are considered two distinct bodies, and therefore piggul intent with regard to one does not render the other piggul, then in the case of the two loaves, would the intentions concerning both loaves combine to render them both piggul?

讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讛砖讜讞讟 讗转 讛讻讘砖 诇讗讻讜诇 讞爪讬 讝讬转 诪讞诇讛 讝讜 讜讻谉 讞讘讬专讜 诇讗讻讜诇 讞爪讬 讝讬转 诪讞诇讛 讝讜 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讗讜诪专 讗谞讬 砖讝讛 讻砖专

Rav Huna responds: One cannot infer anything from this baraita with regard to the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, as in accordance with whose opinion is this baraita? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, as it is taught in another baraita: With regard to one who slaughters one of the lambs brought as peace offerings on Shavuot with the intent to consume half an olive-bulk from this loaf the next day, and similarly, he slaughtered the other lamb with the intent to consume half an olive-bulk from that second loaf the next day, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: I say that this offering is valid, as his intentions do not combine.

讟注诪讗 讚讗诪专 讞爪讬 讞爪讬 讗讘诇 讗诪专 讻讝讬转 诪砖转讬讛谉 诪爪讟专祝

Rav Huna continues: It may be inferred that the reason why the priest鈥檚 intentions do not combine is that his intent was said with regard to a half and a half, i.e., he slaughtered each lamb with the intent to consume half an olive-bulk from one loaf the next day. But if he said during the slaughter of each of the lambs that he is slaughtering it with the intent to consume an olive-bulk from both of them, then the halves combine to render the offering piggul.

讜专讘讬 讗诇讬讘讗 讚诪讗谉 讗讬 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘谞谉 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讗讞转 诪讛谉 谞诪讬 讗讬 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讚专讗 拽讜砖讬讬谉 诇讚讜讻转讬讛

The Gemara asks: And as for Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who says that the two loaves are piggul only if he has intent with regard to an amount equal to an olive-bulk from both of them combined, in accordance with whose opinion is his statement? If it is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis of the mishna, who hold that piggul intent with regard to one loaf renders both loaves piggul, then even if his intent was with regard to only one of them, both loaves should be piggul. And if it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, who holds that piggul intent with regard to one loaf does not render the second loaf piggul, then our difficulty returns to its place: If Rabbi Yosei holds that the right and left thighs are considered two distinct bodies, how can intentions with regard to two halves of an olive-bulk combine to render both loaves piggul?

诇注讜诇诐 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘谞谉 讜诇讗 转讬诪讗 注讚 砖讬驻讙诇 讘砖转讬讛谉 讗诇讗 讘砖谞讬讛谉 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讘讗讞转 诪讛谉

The Gemara responds: Actually, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi鈥檚 statement is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. And do not say that the baraita states: It is not piggul unless one has the intent of piggul with regard to both of them [bishteihen], in the feminine form, whereby the baraita would be referring to the loaves. Rather, the baraita states: With regard to both of them [bishneihen], in the masculine form, i.e., unless he slaughters both lambs with piggul intent, and in such a case, even if his intent was with regard to only one of the loaves, the offering is piggul.

讜诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讚讗诪专 诪驻讙诇讬谉 讘讞爪讬 诪转讬专 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚诇讗

The Gemara adds: And this baraita serves to exclude the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who says in the mishna on 16a: One renders an offering piggul by means of intent during the sacrifice of half a permitting factor, e.g., if one slaughtered one of the lambs with the intent to consume the two loaves the next day, the loaves are piggul. This baraita teaches us that this is not the halakha.

讗讬 讛讻讬 诪讗讬 诇注讜诇诐 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 讘砖转讬讛谉 讜讘砖谞讬讛谉 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讬讗 讜诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜诪讚专讘谞谉 拽讗转讬 讛讬讬谞讜 讚拽讗诪专 诇注讜诇诐

The Gemara asks: If so, then what is the meaning of the emphasis in the baraita: There is never liability? Granted, this phrase is understandable if you say that the baraita means that the loaves are not piggul unless he has intent with regard to both of the loaves and both of the lambs, i.e., they are piggul only if he slaughters both lambs with the intention to partake of both loaves the next day. In that case the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, and it comes to exclude the statements of both Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis, and this is the reason that the baraita states: There is never liability, to emphasize that Rabbi Yosei disagrees with both of these opinions.

讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 专讘谞谉 讜诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪讗讬 诇注讜诇诐

But if you say that the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis and that it serves to exclude only the opinion of Rabbi Meir, for what reason does the baraita stress: There is never liability? The tanna would not use such a word to exclude merely one opinion. Rather, it must be that the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. If so, then the difficulty raised against Rav Huna, who says that piggul intent concerning the right thigh does not render the left one piggul, remains unresolved.

讜注讜讚 讛讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 转讗 砖诪注 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 驻讬讙诇 讘讚讘专 讛谞注砖讛 讘讞讜抓 驻讬讙诇 讘讚讘专 讛谞注砖讛 讘驻谞讬诐 诇讗 驻讬讙诇

And furthermore, didn鈥檛 Rav Ashi say: Come and hear a refutation of the opinion of Rav Huna from a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says in the name of Rabbi Yosei that if, while performing the sacrificial rites for the bulls or goats which are burned as an offering, the priest had an intention that can render the offering piggul with regard to a matter that is performed outside the Sanctuary, i.e., in the Temple courtyard, he has rendered the offering piggul. If his intention was with regard to a matter that is performed inside the Sanctuary or the Holy of Holies, he has not rendered the offering piggul.

讻讬爪讚 讛讬讛 注讜诪讚 讘讞讜抓 讜讗诪专 讛专讬谞讬 砖讜讞讟 注诇 诪谞转 诇讛讝讜转 诪讚诪讜 诇诪讞专 诇讗 驻讬讙诇 砖诪讞砖讘讛 讘讞讜抓 讘讚讘专 讛谞注砖讛 讘驻谞讬诐 讛讬讛 注讜诪讚 讘驻谞讬诐 讜讗诪专 讛专讬谞讬 诪讝讛 注诇 诪谞转 诇讛拽讟讬专 讗讬诪讜专讬谉 诇诪讞专 讜诇砖驻讜讱 砖讬专讬讬诐 诇诪讞专 诇讗 驻讬讙诇 砖诪讞砖讘讛 讘驻谞讬诐 讘讚讘专 讛谞注砖讛 讘讞讜抓

The baraita elaborates: How so? If he was standing outside when slaughtering the animal and said: I hereby slaughter the animal with the intention of sprinkling its blood tomorrow inside the Sanctuary, he has not rendered the offering piggul. The reason is that when one has an intention outside with regard to a matter that is performed inside, he has not rendered the offering piggul. Likewise, if he was standing inside when sprinkling, and said: I hereby sprinkle the blood of the sin offering in order to burn its sacrificial portions on the external altar tomorrow and to pour out its remainder on the base of the altar tomorrow, he has not rendered the offering piggul, as he had an intention inside with regard to a matter that is performed outside.

讛讬讛 注讜诪讚 讘讞讜抓 讜讗诪专 讛专讬谞讬 砖讜讞讟 注诇 诪谞转 诇砖驻讜讱 砖讬专讬讬诐 诇诪讞专 讜诇讛拽讟讬专 讗讬诪讜专讬谉 诇诪讞专 驻讬讙诇 砖诪讞砖讘讛 讘讞讜抓 讘讚讘专 讛谞注砖讛 讘讞讜抓

But if he was standing outside and said: I hereby slaughter the animal with the intention to pour out the remainder of its blood tomorrow, or to burn its sacrificial portions tomorrow, he has rendered the offering piggul, as he had an intention outside with regard to a matter that is performed outside.

诇砖驻讜讱 砖讬专讬讬诐 诇讗讬驻讙讜诇讬 诪讗讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诇讗讬驻讙讜诇讬 讚诐 讚诐 诪讬 诪讬驻讙诇 讜讛转谞谉 讗诇讜 讚讘专讬诐 砖讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讛谉 诪砖讜诐 驻讬讙讜诇 讛拽讜诪抓 讜讛诇讘讜谞讛 讜讛拽讟讜专转 讜诪谞讞转 讻讛谞讬诐 讜诪谞讞转 谞住讻讬诐 讜诪谞讞转 讻讛谉 诪砖讬讞 讜讛讚诐

The Gemara analyzes this baraita: With regard to the case where one slaughtered the offering with the intent to pour the remaining blood the next day, what could be rendered piggul? If we say the blood could be rendered piggul, one can ask: Does blood become piggul? But didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (Zeva岣m 42b): These are the items for which one is not liable to receive karet due to the prohibition of piggul: The handful; the frankincense; the incense; the meal offering of priests; the meal offering accompanying the libations brought with an animal offering; the meal offering of the anointed priest; and the blood?

讗诇讗 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讗驻讙讜诇讬 讘砖专 讛砖转讗 讜诪讛 讛转诐 讚诇讗 讞砖讬讘 讘讬讛 讘讘砖专 讙讜驻讬讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诪讬驻讙诇 讛讻讗 讚讞砖讬讘 讘讬讛 讘讝讘讞 讙讜驻讬讛 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉 讚驻讬讙诇 讘讬专讱 讬诪讬谉 驻讬讙诇 讘讬专讱 砖诪讗诇

Rather, it is obvious that the baraita means that it is the meat of the offering that could be rendered piggul. Now consider: And if there, in the baraita, where he did not have intent with regard to the meat itself, as his intention was not to partake of the meat the next day but to pour the remaining blood the next day, and yet Rabbi Yosei said that the meat is rendered piggul; then here, where he has intent to partake of the right thigh the next day, which is part of the offering itself, is it not all the more so that if he had intent of piggul with regard to the right thigh, he has rendered the left thigh piggul as well?

讜注讜讚 讛讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 转讗 砖诪注 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 讘讝讜 砖驻讬讙诇 讜讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 讻专转

And furthermore, doesn鈥檛 Ravina say: Come and hear a refutation of the statement of Rav Huna from the mishna (13a): In the case of one 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 he has rendered the offering piggul and he is liable to receive karet for partaking of it.

诇讛拽讟讬专 拽讜诪爪讛 诇讗讬驻讙讜诇讬 诪讗讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诇讗讬驻讙讜诇讬 拽讜诪抓 拽讜诪抓 诪讬 诪讬驻讙诇 讜讛转谞谉 讗诇讜 讚讘专讬诐 砖讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讛谉 诪砖讜诐 驻讬讙讜诇 讛拽讜诪抓 讻讜壮 讗诇讗 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讗讬驻讙讜诇讬 砖讬专讬讬诐 讛砖转讗 讜诪讛 讛转诐 讚诇讗 讞砖讬讘 讘讛讜 讘砖讬专讬讬诐 讙讜驻讬讛

Ravina continues: When one removes the handful with the intent to burn its handful, what could be rendered piggul? If we say that the handful could be rendered piggul, does the handful become piggul? But didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (Zeva岣m 42b): These are the items for which one is not liable to receive karet due to the prohibition of piggul: The handful, etc. Rather, it is obvious that the remainder could be rendered piggul. Now consider: And if there, in the mishna, where he did not have intent with regard to the remainder itself, i.e., to partake of the remainder the next day,

诪讬驻讙诇讬 讛讻讗 讚讞砖讬讘 讘讛讜 讘讝讘讬讞讛 讙讜驻讛 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉

and yet Rabbi Yosei said that the remainder is rendered piggul; then here, where he has intent to partake of the right thigh the next day, which is part of the offering itself, is it not all the more so that both thighs should become piggul?

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讻转讜讘 注砖讗谉 讙讜祝 讗讞讚 讜讛讻转讜讘 注砖讗谉 砖谞讬 讙讜驻讬谉 讙讜祝 讗讞讚 讚诪注讻讘讬 讗讛讚讚讬 砖谞讬 讙讜驻讬谉 讚讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讛讗 诇讞讜讚讛 注讘讬讚讗 讜讛讗 诇讞讜讚讛 注讘讬讚讗

Rather, Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Rabbi Yosei holds that intent of piggul with regard to one thigh renders the other thigh piggul as well, as they are of one body. Similarly, with regard to two loaves, Rabbi Yosei is of the opinion that if one intends to consume an amount equal to an olive-bulk from both loaves, both loaves are rendered piggul. And as for his statement that intent of piggul with regard to one loaf does not render the other loaf piggul, this is the reasoning of Rabbi Yosei: The verse renders the two loaves one body, and the verse also renders them two bodies. The verse renders them one body in the sense that they preclude one another, i.e., neither loaf is valid without the other. The verse also renders them two bodies, as the Merciful One states: This loaf is prepared alone and that is prepared alone, i.e., the kneading and arrangement of each loaf must be performed separately.

注专讘讬谞讛讜 诪转注专讘讬谉 讚讛讻转讜讘 注砖讗谉 讙讜祝 讗讞讚 驻诇讙讬谞讛讜 诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚讛讻转讜讘 注砖讗谉 砖谞讬 讙讜驻讬谉

Therefore, if the priest mixed them together by intending to consume an olive-bulk from both of them, then they are mixed and they are both piggul, as the verse renders them one body. But if he separated them by having intent with regard to only one loaf, in that case they are separated and only that loaf is piggul, as the verse renders them two bodies.

讘注讬 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 驻讬讙诇 讘诇讞诪讬 转讜讚讛 诪讛讜 讘诪谞讞转 诪讗驻讛 诪讛讜 转谞讗 诇讬讛 专讘 转讞诇讬驻讗 诪诪注专讘讗 讜讻谉 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 讘诇讞诪讬 转讜讚讛 讜讻谉 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 讘诪谞讞转 诪讗驻讛

Rabbi Yo岣nan raises a dilemma: If one had intent of piggul with regard to one type of loaf from the loaves of a thanks offering, what is the halakha concerning the remaining types of loaves, i.e., are they rendered piggul as well? Similarly, if one had intent of piggul with regard to either the loaves or the wafers of baked meal offerings, what is the halakha with regard to the remaining type? Rav Ta岣ifa from the West, i.e., Eretz Yisrael, taught him a baraita that states: And likewise you say with regard to the bread of a thanks offering, and likewise you say with regard to a baked meal offering, that the halakha is a matter of dispute between Rabbi Yosei and the Rabbis.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讘砖注转 砖讞讬讟讛 讞讬砖讘 诇讗讻讜诇 讞爪讬 讝讬转 讜讘砖注转 讝专讬拽讛 讞讬砖讘 诇讗讻讜诇 讞爪讬 讝讬转 驻讬讙讜诇 诪驻谞讬 砖砖讞讬讟讛 讜讝专讬拽讛 诪爪讟专驻讬谉

The Sages taught in a baraita: If at the time of the slaughter of an offering one had intent to consume half an olive-bulk of its meat the next day, and at the time of the sprinkling of the blood he had intent to consume half of another olive-bulk of meat the next day, the offering is piggul, as intentions that occur during the slaughter and sprinkling combine to render an offering piggul.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 砖讞讬讟讛 讜讝专讬拽讛 讚转专讜讜讬讬讛讜 诪转讬专讬谉 讗讬谉 拽讘诇讛 讜讛讜诇讻讛 诇讗 讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讛谞讱 讚诪专讞拽谉 讜讻诇 砖讻谉 讛谞讬 讚诪拽专讘谉

There is a dispute between amora鈥檌m with regard to the halakha of this baraita: Some say that in the case of intentions that occur specifically during the slaughter and sprinkling, as both of them are permitting factors of the offering, yes, the intentions combine. But intentions that occur during the collection of the blood in a service vessel and the conveying of the blood to the altar do not combine, as neither rite is a permitting factor. And some say that if intentions during those rites that are distant from one another, i.e., the slaughter and sprinkling, combine, all the more so intentions during these rites that are close to one another, i.e., collection and conveying, certainly combine.

讗讬谞讬 讜讛讗 转谞讬 诇讜讬 讗专讘注 注讘讜讚讜转 讗讬谉 诪爪讟专驻讜转 诇驻讬讙讜诇 砖讞讬讟讛 讜讝专讬拽讛 拽讘诇讛 讜讛讜诇讻讛 讗诪专 专讘讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 专讘讬 讛讗 专讘谞谉

The Gemara asks: Is that so, i.e., that intentions during the slaughter and sprinkling combine? But Levi teaches in a baraita: Intentions that occur during the four sacrificial rites do not combine to render an offering piggul, and those rites are: Slaughter and sprinkling, collection and conveying. Rava said: It is not difficult; this statement of Levi is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, whereas that baraita is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis.

讚转谞讬讗 讛砖讜讞讟 讗转 讛讻讘砖 诇讗讻讜诇 讞爪讬 讝讬转 诪讞诇讛 讝讜 讜讻谉 讞讘讬专讜 诇讗讻讜诇 讞爪讬 讝讬转 诪讞诇讛 讝讜 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讗讜诪专 讗谞讬 砖讝讛 讻砖专

As it is taught in a baraita with regard to the two loaves and two lambs sacrificed on Shavuot: With regard to one who slaughters one of the lambs brought as peace offerings on Shavuot with the intent to consume half an olive-bulk from this loaf the next day, and similarly, he slaughtered the other lamb with the intent to consume half an olive-bulk from that second loaf the next day, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: I say that this offering is valid. Clearly, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that intentions that occur during the performance of two permitting factors do not combine to render an offering piggul.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讗讬诪专 讚砖诪注转 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讞爪讬 诪转讬专 讜讞爪讬 讗讻讬诇讛 讻讜诇讜 诪转讬专 讜讞爪讬 讗讻讬诇讛 诪讬 砖诪注转 诇讬讛

Abaye said to Rava: You can say that you have heard that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that intentions do not combine to render an offering piggul when each intention is concerning half a permitting factor and half a measure of consumption, i.e., one lamb and half an olive-bulk. But in a case where one had intentions during the performance of an entire permitting factor, i.e., during the slaughter and sprinkling, and concerning half a measure of consumption, did you hear him say that such intentions do not combine?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讘专 专讘 讞谞谉 诇讗讘讬讬 讜讗讬 讗讬转 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讻讜诇讜 诪转讬专 讜讞爪讬 讗讻讬诇讛 诇讙讝讜专 讞爪讬 诪转讬专 讜讞爪讬 讗讻讬诇讛 讗讟讜 讻讜诇讜 诪转讬专 讜讞爪讬 讗讻讬诇讛 讚讛讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讙讝专 讜专讘谞谉 讙讝专讬

Rava bar Rav 岣nan said to Abaye: But if Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi is of the opinion that intentions during the performance of an entire permitting factor and concerning half a measure of consumption combine to render an offering piggul, why does he rule that when one slaughters each lamb with the intent to consume half an olive-bulk from one loaf the next day the offering is entirely valid? Let him decree that intentions during half a permitting factor and concerning half a measure of consumption disqualify an offering, due to the fact that intentions during an entire permitting factor and concerning half a measure of consumption render the offering piggul, as one finds in similar instances that Rabbi Yosei decreed and the Rabbis decreed in this manner.

专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讙讝专 讚转谞谉 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 注诇讬讛 讻专转

Rava bar Rav 岣nan elaborates: Rabbi Yosei decreed in such a case, as we learned in a mishna (13a): With regard to one who removes a handful from the meal offering with the intent to burn its handful on the next day, everyone agrees that the meal offering is piggul. But if his intent was to burn its frankincense on 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 one is liable to receive karet for partaking of the meal offering. Since one is not liable to receive karet, Rabbi Yosei evidently disqualifies the meal offering as a rabbinic decree due to concern over a case where his intention was to burn the handful the next day.

讜专讘谞谉 谞诪讬 讙讝专讬 讚转谞谉 驻讬讙诇 讘拽讜诪抓 讜诇讗 讘诇讘讜谞讛 讘诇讘讜谞讛 讜诇讗 讘拽讜诪抓 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 驻讬讙讜诇 讜讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 讻专转 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谉 讘讜 讻专转 注讚 砖讬驻讙诇 讘讻诇 讛诪转讬专

And the Rabbis decreed as well, as we learned in a mishna (16a): If one had intent of piggul during the burning of the handful but not during the burning of the frankincense, or if he had such intent during the burning of the frankincense but not during the burning of the handful, Rabbi Meir says: The meal offering is piggul and one is liable to receive karet for its consumption, and the Rabbis say: There is no liability to receive karet for its consumption unless he has intent of piggul during the burning of the entire permitting factor, i.e., both the handful and the frankincense. Since the Rabbis state that there is no liability to receive karet, but they do not rule that the offering is valid, evidently they maintain that the offering is disqualified by rabbinic law, due to concern over a case of piggul intent during the burning of the entire permitting factor.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讻讬 讛砖转讗 讘砖诇诪讗 讛转诐 讙讝专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 拽讜诪抓 讚诇讘讜谞讛 讗讟讜 拽讜诪抓 讚诪谞讞讛

Abaye said to Rava bar Rav 岣nan: How can these cases be compared? Granted there, Rabbi Yosei decreed that the offering is disqualified in a case of intent involving the handful of frankincense due to the concern of intent involving the handful of the meal offering, as the two cases are similar.

专讘谞谉 讙讝专讬 拽讜诪抓 讗讟讜 拽讜诪抓 讚诪谞讞转 讞讜讟讗 讜诇讘讜谞讛 讗讟讜 诇讘讜谞讛 讛讘讗讛 讘讘讝讬讻讬谉

Similarly, the Rabbis decreed that the offering is disqualified in a case of intent involving the handful due to a similar case of intent concerning the handful of the meal offering of a sinner. There is no frankincense in the case of a meal offering of a sinner, and consequently the priest鈥檚 intent with regard to the handful alone renders the offering piggul, as it is the sole permitting factor. And the Rabbis also decreed in a case of intent with regard to the frankincense due to a similar case of intent concerning the frankincense that comes in the bowls that accompany the shewbread. Here there is no handful, and consequently intent with regard to the frankincense alone renders the shewbread piggul.

讻讘砖讬诐 谞诪讬 讻讘砖 讗讟讜 讻讘砖 讞讘讬专讜

In the case of the two lambs that accompany the two loaves brought on Shavuot as well (16a), the Rabbis rule that if one slaughters one of the lambs with the intent to consume both loaves the next day the offering is disqualified, but one is not liable to receive karet for partaking of it. This is a rabbinic decree in a case of intent during the slaughter of one lamb due to the other lamb, as were one to slaughter both lambs with intent of piggul, the loaves would be rendered piggul, since his intent occurred during the slaughter of the entire permitting factor.

讘讝讱 讗讟讜 讘讝讱 讞讘讬专讜

Similarly, when one burns a single bowl of frankincense from those that accompany the shewbread with the intent to consume both arrangements of shewbread the next day, the Rabbis disqualify the shewbread by rabbinic decree due to the other bowl, i.e., due to the concern over piggul intent during the burning of both bowls, as this intent involves the burning of the entire permitting factor.

讗诇讗 讛讻讗 诪讬 讗讬讻讗 讞爪讬 诪转讬专 讜讞爪讬 讗讻讬诇讛 讘注诇诪讗 讚诇讬拽讜诐 讜诇讬讙讝专

Abaye concludes: But here, in the case of the baraita where one slaughtered each of the two lambs with the intent to consume half an olive-bulk from a different loaf, is there another instance in general where intent during the performance of a rite concerning half a permitting factor and with regard to half a measure of consumption renders an offering piggul, that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi will arise and decree that the lambs in this instance are disqualified?

讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪住转讘专讗 讚讟注诪讗 讚专讘谞谉 诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 讛讜讗 讚拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 诪讜讚讬诐 讞讻诪讬诐 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讘诪谞讞转 讞讜讟讗 讜诪谞讞转 拽谞讗讜转 砖讗诐 驻讬讙诇 讘拽讜诪抓 砖驻讬讙讜诇 讜讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讛 讻专转 砖讛拽讜诪抓 讛讜讗 讛诪转讬专

The Gemara notes: So too, it is reasonable that the reasoning of the Rabbis is due to that explanation, i.e., they disqualified the offerings in the aforementioned cases due to the fact that in similar instances the offering is piggul. This is evident from the fact that it is taught in the latter clause of the mishna (16a): The Rabbis concede to Rabbi Meir in the case of the meal offering of a sinner and the meal offering of jealousy that if one had intent of piggul during the burning of the handful, the meal offering is piggul and one is liable to receive karet for its consumption, as the handful is the sole permitting factor.

讛讗 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇诪讬转谞讗 讻诇诇 驻砖讬讟讗 诪讬 讗讬讻讗 诪转讬专 讗讞专讬谞讗 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讟注诪讗 讚拽讜诪抓 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讬讻讗 拽讜诪抓 讚诪谞讞转 讞讜讟讗 讚讚诪讬 诇讬讛

The Gemara explains this proof: Why do I need the mishna to teach this last statement at all? Isn鈥檛 it obvious that these meal offerings are piggul, as is there another permitting factor aside from the handful? Rather, is it not correct to say that this is what the mishna teaches us, that the reason that the Rabbis disqualified a standard meal offering when only the handful was removed with the intent of piggul is because there is the case of the handful of the meal offering of a sinner, which is similar to it and is rendered piggul due to intent involving the handful alone?

诪转谞讬壮 谞讟诪讗转 讗讞转 诪谉 讛讞诇讜转 讗讜 讗讞讚 诪谉 讛住讚专讬诐 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 砖谞讬讛诐 讬爪讗讜 诇讘讬转 讛砖专讬驻讛 砖讗讬谉 拽专讘谉 爪讬讘讜专 讞诇讜拽 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讛讟诪讗 讘讟讜诪讗转讜 讜讛讟讛讜专 讬讗讻诇

MISHNA: If one of the two loaves of Shavuot or one of the two arrangements of the shewbread became ritually impure, Rabbi Yehuda says: Both must be taken to the place of burning like any other disqualified offering, as no communal offering is divided. That is, it is either fit in its entirety or unfit in its entirety. And the Rabbis say: The impure one remains in its state of impurity and the pure one shall be eaten.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诪讞诇讜拽转 诇驻谞讬 讝专讬拽讛 讗讘诇 诇讗讞专 讝专讬拽讛 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讛讟诪讗 讘讟讜诪讗转讜 讜讛讟讛讜专 讬讗讻诇

GEMARA: Rabbi Elazar says: The dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis applies only to a case where one loaf became ritually impure before the sprinkling of the blood of the lambs, as this is the act that renders the loaves permitted for consumption. Accordingly, they disagree whether the sprinkling is effective in permitting the remaining pure loaf for consumption. But in a case where one loaf was rendered impure after the sprinkling, meaning that both loaves were initially permitted for consumption, everyone agrees that the impure one remains in its state of impurity and the pure one shall be eaten.

讜诇驻谞讬 讝专讬拽讛 讘诪讗讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讘爪讬抓 诪专爪讛 注诇 讗讻讬诇讜转 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬

The Gemara asks: And in the case where the loaves become impure before the sprinkling of the blood, with regard to what principle do they disagree? Rav Pappa said: They disagree with regard to the frontplate of the High Priest, i.e., whether it effects acceptance only for the impurity of items sacrificed on the altar, or even for the impurity of items that would normally be consumed by the priests.

  • 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 14

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Menachot 14

讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 转专讬 讙讜驻讬 谞讬谞讛讜 诪讬 诪讬爪讟专驻讬

But if you say that Rabbi Yosei holds that the right and left thighs of an offering are considered two distinct bodies, and therefore piggul intent with regard to one does not render the other piggul, then in the case of the two loaves, would the intentions concerning both loaves combine to render them both piggul?

讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讛砖讜讞讟 讗转 讛讻讘砖 诇讗讻讜诇 讞爪讬 讝讬转 诪讞诇讛 讝讜 讜讻谉 讞讘讬专讜 诇讗讻讜诇 讞爪讬 讝讬转 诪讞诇讛 讝讜 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讗讜诪专 讗谞讬 砖讝讛 讻砖专

Rav Huna responds: One cannot infer anything from this baraita with regard to the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, as in accordance with whose opinion is this baraita? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, as it is taught in another baraita: With regard to one who slaughters one of the lambs brought as peace offerings on Shavuot with the intent to consume half an olive-bulk from this loaf the next day, and similarly, he slaughtered the other lamb with the intent to consume half an olive-bulk from that second loaf the next day, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: I say that this offering is valid, as his intentions do not combine.

讟注诪讗 讚讗诪专 讞爪讬 讞爪讬 讗讘诇 讗诪专 讻讝讬转 诪砖转讬讛谉 诪爪讟专祝

Rav Huna continues: It may be inferred that the reason why the priest鈥檚 intentions do not combine is that his intent was said with regard to a half and a half, i.e., he slaughtered each lamb with the intent to consume half an olive-bulk from one loaf the next day. But if he said during the slaughter of each of the lambs that he is slaughtering it with the intent to consume an olive-bulk from both of them, then the halves combine to render the offering piggul.

讜专讘讬 讗诇讬讘讗 讚诪讗谉 讗讬 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘谞谉 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讗讞转 诪讛谉 谞诪讬 讗讬 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讚专讗 拽讜砖讬讬谉 诇讚讜讻转讬讛

The Gemara asks: And as for Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who says that the two loaves are piggul only if he has intent with regard to an amount equal to an olive-bulk from both of them combined, in accordance with whose opinion is his statement? If it is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis of the mishna, who hold that piggul intent with regard to one loaf renders both loaves piggul, then even if his intent was with regard to only one of them, both loaves should be piggul. And if it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, who holds that piggul intent with regard to one loaf does not render the second loaf piggul, then our difficulty returns to its place: If Rabbi Yosei holds that the right and left thighs are considered two distinct bodies, how can intentions with regard to two halves of an olive-bulk combine to render both loaves piggul?

诇注讜诇诐 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘谞谉 讜诇讗 转讬诪讗 注讚 砖讬驻讙诇 讘砖转讬讛谉 讗诇讗 讘砖谞讬讛谉 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讘讗讞转 诪讛谉

The Gemara responds: Actually, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi鈥檚 statement is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. And do not say that the baraita states: It is not piggul unless one has the intent of piggul with regard to both of them [bishteihen], in the feminine form, whereby the baraita would be referring to the loaves. Rather, the baraita states: With regard to both of them [bishneihen], in the masculine form, i.e., unless he slaughters both lambs with piggul intent, and in such a case, even if his intent was with regard to only one of the loaves, the offering is piggul.

讜诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讚讗诪专 诪驻讙诇讬谉 讘讞爪讬 诪转讬专 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚诇讗

The Gemara adds: And this baraita serves to exclude the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who says in the mishna on 16a: One renders an offering piggul by means of intent during the sacrifice of half a permitting factor, e.g., if one slaughtered one of the lambs with the intent to consume the two loaves the next day, the loaves are piggul. This baraita teaches us that this is not the halakha.

讗讬 讛讻讬 诪讗讬 诇注讜诇诐 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 讘砖转讬讛谉 讜讘砖谞讬讛谉 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讬讗 讜诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜诪讚专讘谞谉 拽讗转讬 讛讬讬谞讜 讚拽讗诪专 诇注讜诇诐

The Gemara asks: If so, then what is the meaning of the emphasis in the baraita: There is never liability? Granted, this phrase is understandable if you say that the baraita means that the loaves are not piggul unless he has intent with regard to both of the loaves and both of the lambs, i.e., they are piggul only if he slaughters both lambs with the intention to partake of both loaves the next day. In that case the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, and it comes to exclude the statements of both Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis, and this is the reason that the baraita states: There is never liability, to emphasize that Rabbi Yosei disagrees with both of these opinions.

讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 专讘谞谉 讜诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪讗讬 诇注讜诇诐

But if you say that the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis and that it serves to exclude only the opinion of Rabbi Meir, for what reason does the baraita stress: There is never liability? The tanna would not use such a word to exclude merely one opinion. Rather, it must be that the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. If so, then the difficulty raised against Rav Huna, who says that piggul intent concerning the right thigh does not render the left one piggul, remains unresolved.

讜注讜讚 讛讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 转讗 砖诪注 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 驻讬讙诇 讘讚讘专 讛谞注砖讛 讘讞讜抓 驻讬讙诇 讘讚讘专 讛谞注砖讛 讘驻谞讬诐 诇讗 驻讬讙诇

And furthermore, didn鈥檛 Rav Ashi say: Come and hear a refutation of the opinion of Rav Huna from a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says in the name of Rabbi Yosei that if, while performing the sacrificial rites for the bulls or goats which are burned as an offering, the priest had an intention that can render the offering piggul with regard to a matter that is performed outside the Sanctuary, i.e., in the Temple courtyard, he has rendered the offering piggul. If his intention was with regard to a matter that is performed inside the Sanctuary or the Holy of Holies, he has not rendered the offering piggul.

讻讬爪讚 讛讬讛 注讜诪讚 讘讞讜抓 讜讗诪专 讛专讬谞讬 砖讜讞讟 注诇 诪谞转 诇讛讝讜转 诪讚诪讜 诇诪讞专 诇讗 驻讬讙诇 砖诪讞砖讘讛 讘讞讜抓 讘讚讘专 讛谞注砖讛 讘驻谞讬诐 讛讬讛 注讜诪讚 讘驻谞讬诐 讜讗诪专 讛专讬谞讬 诪讝讛 注诇 诪谞转 诇讛拽讟讬专 讗讬诪讜专讬谉 诇诪讞专 讜诇砖驻讜讱 砖讬专讬讬诐 诇诪讞专 诇讗 驻讬讙诇 砖诪讞砖讘讛 讘驻谞讬诐 讘讚讘专 讛谞注砖讛 讘讞讜抓

The baraita elaborates: How so? If he was standing outside when slaughtering the animal and said: I hereby slaughter the animal with the intention of sprinkling its blood tomorrow inside the Sanctuary, he has not rendered the offering piggul. The reason is that when one has an intention outside with regard to a matter that is performed inside, he has not rendered the offering piggul. Likewise, if he was standing inside when sprinkling, and said: I hereby sprinkle the blood of the sin offering in order to burn its sacrificial portions on the external altar tomorrow and to pour out its remainder on the base of the altar tomorrow, he has not rendered the offering piggul, as he had an intention inside with regard to a matter that is performed outside.

讛讬讛 注讜诪讚 讘讞讜抓 讜讗诪专 讛专讬谞讬 砖讜讞讟 注诇 诪谞转 诇砖驻讜讱 砖讬专讬讬诐 诇诪讞专 讜诇讛拽讟讬专 讗讬诪讜专讬谉 诇诪讞专 驻讬讙诇 砖诪讞砖讘讛 讘讞讜抓 讘讚讘专 讛谞注砖讛 讘讞讜抓

But if he was standing outside and said: I hereby slaughter the animal with the intention to pour out the remainder of its blood tomorrow, or to burn its sacrificial portions tomorrow, he has rendered the offering piggul, as he had an intention outside with regard to a matter that is performed outside.

诇砖驻讜讱 砖讬专讬讬诐 诇讗讬驻讙讜诇讬 诪讗讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诇讗讬驻讙讜诇讬 讚诐 讚诐 诪讬 诪讬驻讙诇 讜讛转谞谉 讗诇讜 讚讘专讬诐 砖讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讛谉 诪砖讜诐 驻讬讙讜诇 讛拽讜诪抓 讜讛诇讘讜谞讛 讜讛拽讟讜专转 讜诪谞讞转 讻讛谞讬诐 讜诪谞讞转 谞住讻讬诐 讜诪谞讞转 讻讛谉 诪砖讬讞 讜讛讚诐

The Gemara analyzes this baraita: With regard to the case where one slaughtered the offering with the intent to pour the remaining blood the next day, what could be rendered piggul? If we say the blood could be rendered piggul, one can ask: Does blood become piggul? But didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (Zeva岣m 42b): These are the items for which one is not liable to receive karet due to the prohibition of piggul: The handful; the frankincense; the incense; the meal offering of priests; the meal offering accompanying the libations brought with an animal offering; the meal offering of the anointed priest; and the blood?

讗诇讗 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讗驻讙讜诇讬 讘砖专 讛砖转讗 讜诪讛 讛转诐 讚诇讗 讞砖讬讘 讘讬讛 讘讘砖专 讙讜驻讬讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诪讬驻讙诇 讛讻讗 讚讞砖讬讘 讘讬讛 讘讝讘讞 讙讜驻讬讛 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉 讚驻讬讙诇 讘讬专讱 讬诪讬谉 驻讬讙诇 讘讬专讱 砖诪讗诇

Rather, it is obvious that the baraita means that it is the meat of the offering that could be rendered piggul. Now consider: And if there, in the baraita, where he did not have intent with regard to the meat itself, as his intention was not to partake of the meat the next day but to pour the remaining blood the next day, and yet Rabbi Yosei said that the meat is rendered piggul; then here, where he has intent to partake of the right thigh the next day, which is part of the offering itself, is it not all the more so that if he had intent of piggul with regard to the right thigh, he has rendered the left thigh piggul as well?

讜注讜讚 讛讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 转讗 砖诪注 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 讘讝讜 砖驻讬讙诇 讜讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 讻专转

And furthermore, doesn鈥檛 Ravina say: Come and hear a refutation of the statement of Rav Huna from the mishna (13a): In the case of one 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 he has rendered the offering piggul and he is liable to receive karet for partaking of it.

诇讛拽讟讬专 拽讜诪爪讛 诇讗讬驻讙讜诇讬 诪讗讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诇讗讬驻讙讜诇讬 拽讜诪抓 拽讜诪抓 诪讬 诪讬驻讙诇 讜讛转谞谉 讗诇讜 讚讘专讬诐 砖讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讛谉 诪砖讜诐 驻讬讙讜诇 讛拽讜诪抓 讻讜壮 讗诇讗 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讗讬驻讙讜诇讬 砖讬专讬讬诐 讛砖转讗 讜诪讛 讛转诐 讚诇讗 讞砖讬讘 讘讛讜 讘砖讬专讬讬诐 讙讜驻讬讛

Ravina continues: When one removes the handful with the intent to burn its handful, what could be rendered piggul? If we say that the handful could be rendered piggul, does the handful become piggul? But didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (Zeva岣m 42b): These are the items for which one is not liable to receive karet due to the prohibition of piggul: The handful, etc. Rather, it is obvious that the remainder could be rendered piggul. Now consider: And if there, in the mishna, where he did not have intent with regard to the remainder itself, i.e., to partake of the remainder the next day,

诪讬驻讙诇讬 讛讻讗 讚讞砖讬讘 讘讛讜 讘讝讘讬讞讛 讙讜驻讛 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉

and yet Rabbi Yosei said that the remainder is rendered piggul; then here, where he has intent to partake of the right thigh the next day, which is part of the offering itself, is it not all the more so that both thighs should become piggul?

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讻转讜讘 注砖讗谉 讙讜祝 讗讞讚 讜讛讻转讜讘 注砖讗谉 砖谞讬 讙讜驻讬谉 讙讜祝 讗讞讚 讚诪注讻讘讬 讗讛讚讚讬 砖谞讬 讙讜驻讬谉 讚讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讛讗 诇讞讜讚讛 注讘讬讚讗 讜讛讗 诇讞讜讚讛 注讘讬讚讗

Rather, Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Rabbi Yosei holds that intent of piggul with regard to one thigh renders the other thigh piggul as well, as they are of one body. Similarly, with regard to two loaves, Rabbi Yosei is of the opinion that if one intends to consume an amount equal to an olive-bulk from both loaves, both loaves are rendered piggul. And as for his statement that intent of piggul with regard to one loaf does not render the other loaf piggul, this is the reasoning of Rabbi Yosei: The verse renders the two loaves one body, and the verse also renders them two bodies. The verse renders them one body in the sense that they preclude one another, i.e., neither loaf is valid without the other. The verse also renders them two bodies, as the Merciful One states: This loaf is prepared alone and that is prepared alone, i.e., the kneading and arrangement of each loaf must be performed separately.

注专讘讬谞讛讜 诪转注专讘讬谉 讚讛讻转讜讘 注砖讗谉 讙讜祝 讗讞讚 驻诇讙讬谞讛讜 诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚讛讻转讜讘 注砖讗谉 砖谞讬 讙讜驻讬谉

Therefore, if the priest mixed them together by intending to consume an olive-bulk from both of them, then they are mixed and they are both piggul, as the verse renders them one body. But if he separated them by having intent with regard to only one loaf, in that case they are separated and only that loaf is piggul, as the verse renders them two bodies.

讘注讬 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 驻讬讙诇 讘诇讞诪讬 转讜讚讛 诪讛讜 讘诪谞讞转 诪讗驻讛 诪讛讜 转谞讗 诇讬讛 专讘 转讞诇讬驻讗 诪诪注专讘讗 讜讻谉 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 讘诇讞诪讬 转讜讚讛 讜讻谉 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 讘诪谞讞转 诪讗驻讛

Rabbi Yo岣nan raises a dilemma: If one had intent of piggul with regard to one type of loaf from the loaves of a thanks offering, what is the halakha concerning the remaining types of loaves, i.e., are they rendered piggul as well? Similarly, if one had intent of piggul with regard to either the loaves or the wafers of baked meal offerings, what is the halakha with regard to the remaining type? Rav Ta岣ifa from the West, i.e., Eretz Yisrael, taught him a baraita that states: And likewise you say with regard to the bread of a thanks offering, and likewise you say with regard to a baked meal offering, that the halakha is a matter of dispute between Rabbi Yosei and the Rabbis.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讘砖注转 砖讞讬讟讛 讞讬砖讘 诇讗讻讜诇 讞爪讬 讝讬转 讜讘砖注转 讝专讬拽讛 讞讬砖讘 诇讗讻讜诇 讞爪讬 讝讬转 驻讬讙讜诇 诪驻谞讬 砖砖讞讬讟讛 讜讝专讬拽讛 诪爪讟专驻讬谉

The Sages taught in a baraita: If at the time of the slaughter of an offering one had intent to consume half an olive-bulk of its meat the next day, and at the time of the sprinkling of the blood he had intent to consume half of another olive-bulk of meat the next day, the offering is piggul, as intentions that occur during the slaughter and sprinkling combine to render an offering piggul.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 砖讞讬讟讛 讜讝专讬拽讛 讚转专讜讜讬讬讛讜 诪转讬专讬谉 讗讬谉 拽讘诇讛 讜讛讜诇讻讛 诇讗 讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讛谞讱 讚诪专讞拽谉 讜讻诇 砖讻谉 讛谞讬 讚诪拽专讘谉

There is a dispute between amora鈥檌m with regard to the halakha of this baraita: Some say that in the case of intentions that occur specifically during the slaughter and sprinkling, as both of them are permitting factors of the offering, yes, the intentions combine. But intentions that occur during the collection of the blood in a service vessel and the conveying of the blood to the altar do not combine, as neither rite is a permitting factor. And some say that if intentions during those rites that are distant from one another, i.e., the slaughter and sprinkling, combine, all the more so intentions during these rites that are close to one another, i.e., collection and conveying, certainly combine.

讗讬谞讬 讜讛讗 转谞讬 诇讜讬 讗专讘注 注讘讜讚讜转 讗讬谉 诪爪讟专驻讜转 诇驻讬讙讜诇 砖讞讬讟讛 讜讝专讬拽讛 拽讘诇讛 讜讛讜诇讻讛 讗诪专 专讘讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 专讘讬 讛讗 专讘谞谉

The Gemara asks: Is that so, i.e., that intentions during the slaughter and sprinkling combine? But Levi teaches in a baraita: Intentions that occur during the four sacrificial rites do not combine to render an offering piggul, and those rites are: Slaughter and sprinkling, collection and conveying. Rava said: It is not difficult; this statement of Levi is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, whereas that baraita is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis.

讚转谞讬讗 讛砖讜讞讟 讗转 讛讻讘砖 诇讗讻讜诇 讞爪讬 讝讬转 诪讞诇讛 讝讜 讜讻谉 讞讘讬专讜 诇讗讻讜诇 讞爪讬 讝讬转 诪讞诇讛 讝讜 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讗讜诪专 讗谞讬 砖讝讛 讻砖专

As it is taught in a baraita with regard to the two loaves and two lambs sacrificed on Shavuot: With regard to one who slaughters one of the lambs brought as peace offerings on Shavuot with the intent to consume half an olive-bulk from this loaf the next day, and similarly, he slaughtered the other lamb with the intent to consume half an olive-bulk from that second loaf the next day, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: I say that this offering is valid. Clearly, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that intentions that occur during the performance of two permitting factors do not combine to render an offering piggul.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讗讬诪专 讚砖诪注转 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讞爪讬 诪转讬专 讜讞爪讬 讗讻讬诇讛 讻讜诇讜 诪转讬专 讜讞爪讬 讗讻讬诇讛 诪讬 砖诪注转 诇讬讛

Abaye said to Rava: You can say that you have heard that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that intentions do not combine to render an offering piggul when each intention is concerning half a permitting factor and half a measure of consumption, i.e., one lamb and half an olive-bulk. But in a case where one had intentions during the performance of an entire permitting factor, i.e., during the slaughter and sprinkling, and concerning half a measure of consumption, did you hear him say that such intentions do not combine?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讘专 专讘 讞谞谉 诇讗讘讬讬 讜讗讬 讗讬转 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讻讜诇讜 诪转讬专 讜讞爪讬 讗讻讬诇讛 诇讙讝讜专 讞爪讬 诪转讬专 讜讞爪讬 讗讻讬诇讛 讗讟讜 讻讜诇讜 诪转讬专 讜讞爪讬 讗讻讬诇讛 讚讛讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讙讝专 讜专讘谞谉 讙讝专讬

Rava bar Rav 岣nan said to Abaye: But if Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi is of the opinion that intentions during the performance of an entire permitting factor and concerning half a measure of consumption combine to render an offering piggul, why does he rule that when one slaughters each lamb with the intent to consume half an olive-bulk from one loaf the next day the offering is entirely valid? Let him decree that intentions during half a permitting factor and concerning half a measure of consumption disqualify an offering, due to the fact that intentions during an entire permitting factor and concerning half a measure of consumption render the offering piggul, as one finds in similar instances that Rabbi Yosei decreed and the Rabbis decreed in this manner.

专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讙讝专 讚转谞谉 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 注诇讬讛 讻专转

Rava bar Rav 岣nan elaborates: Rabbi Yosei decreed in such a case, as we learned in a mishna (13a): With regard to one who removes a handful from the meal offering with the intent to burn its handful on the next day, everyone agrees that the meal offering is piggul. But if his intent was to burn its frankincense on 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 one is liable to receive karet for partaking of the meal offering. Since one is not liable to receive karet, Rabbi Yosei evidently disqualifies the meal offering as a rabbinic decree due to concern over a case where his intention was to burn the handful the next day.

讜专讘谞谉 谞诪讬 讙讝专讬 讚转谞谉 驻讬讙诇 讘拽讜诪抓 讜诇讗 讘诇讘讜谞讛 讘诇讘讜谞讛 讜诇讗 讘拽讜诪抓 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 驻讬讙讜诇 讜讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 讻专转 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谉 讘讜 讻专转 注讚 砖讬驻讙诇 讘讻诇 讛诪转讬专

And the Rabbis decreed as well, as we learned in a mishna (16a): If one had intent of piggul during the burning of the handful but not during the burning of the frankincense, or if he had such intent during the burning of the frankincense but not during the burning of the handful, Rabbi Meir says: The meal offering is piggul and one is liable to receive karet for its consumption, and the Rabbis say: There is no liability to receive karet for its consumption unless he has intent of piggul during the burning of the entire permitting factor, i.e., both the handful and the frankincense. Since the Rabbis state that there is no liability to receive karet, but they do not rule that the offering is valid, evidently they maintain that the offering is disqualified by rabbinic law, due to concern over a case of piggul intent during the burning of the entire permitting factor.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讻讬 讛砖转讗 讘砖诇诪讗 讛转诐 讙讝专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 拽讜诪抓 讚诇讘讜谞讛 讗讟讜 拽讜诪抓 讚诪谞讞讛

Abaye said to Rava bar Rav 岣nan: How can these cases be compared? Granted there, Rabbi Yosei decreed that the offering is disqualified in a case of intent involving the handful of frankincense due to the concern of intent involving the handful of the meal offering, as the two cases are similar.

专讘谞谉 讙讝专讬 拽讜诪抓 讗讟讜 拽讜诪抓 讚诪谞讞转 讞讜讟讗 讜诇讘讜谞讛 讗讟讜 诇讘讜谞讛 讛讘讗讛 讘讘讝讬讻讬谉

Similarly, the Rabbis decreed that the offering is disqualified in a case of intent involving the handful due to a similar case of intent concerning the handful of the meal offering of a sinner. There is no frankincense in the case of a meal offering of a sinner, and consequently the priest鈥檚 intent with regard to the handful alone renders the offering piggul, as it is the sole permitting factor. And the Rabbis also decreed in a case of intent with regard to the frankincense due to a similar case of intent concerning the frankincense that comes in the bowls that accompany the shewbread. Here there is no handful, and consequently intent with regard to the frankincense alone renders the shewbread piggul.

讻讘砖讬诐 谞诪讬 讻讘砖 讗讟讜 讻讘砖 讞讘讬专讜

In the case of the two lambs that accompany the two loaves brought on Shavuot as well (16a), the Rabbis rule that if one slaughters one of the lambs with the intent to consume both loaves the next day the offering is disqualified, but one is not liable to receive karet for partaking of it. This is a rabbinic decree in a case of intent during the slaughter of one lamb due to the other lamb, as were one to slaughter both lambs with intent of piggul, the loaves would be rendered piggul, since his intent occurred during the slaughter of the entire permitting factor.

讘讝讱 讗讟讜 讘讝讱 讞讘讬专讜

Similarly, when one burns a single bowl of frankincense from those that accompany the shewbread with the intent to consume both arrangements of shewbread the next day, the Rabbis disqualify the shewbread by rabbinic decree due to the other bowl, i.e., due to the concern over piggul intent during the burning of both bowls, as this intent involves the burning of the entire permitting factor.

讗诇讗 讛讻讗 诪讬 讗讬讻讗 讞爪讬 诪转讬专 讜讞爪讬 讗讻讬诇讛 讘注诇诪讗 讚诇讬拽讜诐 讜诇讬讙讝专

Abaye concludes: But here, in the case of the baraita where one slaughtered each of the two lambs with the intent to consume half an olive-bulk from a different loaf, is there another instance in general where intent during the performance of a rite concerning half a permitting factor and with regard to half a measure of consumption renders an offering piggul, that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi will arise and decree that the lambs in this instance are disqualified?

讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪住转讘专讗 讚讟注诪讗 讚专讘谞谉 诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 讛讜讗 讚拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 诪讜讚讬诐 讞讻诪讬诐 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讘诪谞讞转 讞讜讟讗 讜诪谞讞转 拽谞讗讜转 砖讗诐 驻讬讙诇 讘拽讜诪抓 砖驻讬讙讜诇 讜讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讛 讻专转 砖讛拽讜诪抓 讛讜讗 讛诪转讬专

The Gemara notes: So too, it is reasonable that the reasoning of the Rabbis is due to that explanation, i.e., they disqualified the offerings in the aforementioned cases due to the fact that in similar instances the offering is piggul. This is evident from the fact that it is taught in the latter clause of the mishna (16a): The Rabbis concede to Rabbi Meir in the case of the meal offering of a sinner and the meal offering of jealousy that if one had intent of piggul during the burning of the handful, the meal offering is piggul and one is liable to receive karet for its consumption, as the handful is the sole permitting factor.

讛讗 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇诪讬转谞讗 讻诇诇 驻砖讬讟讗 诪讬 讗讬讻讗 诪转讬专 讗讞专讬谞讗 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讟注诪讗 讚拽讜诪抓 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讬讻讗 拽讜诪抓 讚诪谞讞转 讞讜讟讗 讚讚诪讬 诇讬讛

The Gemara explains this proof: Why do I need the mishna to teach this last statement at all? Isn鈥檛 it obvious that these meal offerings are piggul, as is there another permitting factor aside from the handful? Rather, is it not correct to say that this is what the mishna teaches us, that the reason that the Rabbis disqualified a standard meal offering when only the handful was removed with the intent of piggul is because there is the case of the handful of the meal offering of a sinner, which is similar to it and is rendered piggul due to intent involving the handful alone?

诪转谞讬壮 谞讟诪讗转 讗讞转 诪谉 讛讞诇讜转 讗讜 讗讞讚 诪谉 讛住讚专讬诐 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 砖谞讬讛诐 讬爪讗讜 诇讘讬转 讛砖专讬驻讛 砖讗讬谉 拽专讘谉 爪讬讘讜专 讞诇讜拽 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讛讟诪讗 讘讟讜诪讗转讜 讜讛讟讛讜专 讬讗讻诇

MISHNA: If one of the two loaves of Shavuot or one of the two arrangements of the shewbread became ritually impure, Rabbi Yehuda says: Both must be taken to the place of burning like any other disqualified offering, as no communal offering is divided. That is, it is either fit in its entirety or unfit in its entirety. And the Rabbis say: The impure one remains in its state of impurity and the pure one shall be eaten.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诪讞诇讜拽转 诇驻谞讬 讝专讬拽讛 讗讘诇 诇讗讞专 讝专讬拽讛 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讛讟诪讗 讘讟讜诪讗转讜 讜讛讟讛讜专 讬讗讻诇

GEMARA: Rabbi Elazar says: The dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis applies only to a case where one loaf became ritually impure before the sprinkling of the blood of the lambs, as this is the act that renders the loaves permitted for consumption. Accordingly, they disagree whether the sprinkling is effective in permitting the remaining pure loaf for consumption. But in a case where one loaf was rendered impure after the sprinkling, meaning that both loaves were initially permitted for consumption, everyone agrees that the impure one remains in its state of impurity and the pure one shall be eaten.

讜诇驻谞讬 讝专讬拽讛 讘诪讗讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讘爪讬抓 诪专爪讛 注诇 讗讻讬诇讜转 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬

The Gemara asks: And in the case where the loaves become impure before the sprinkling of the blood, with regard to what principle do they disagree? Rav Pappa said: They disagree with regard to the frontplate of the High Priest, i.e., whether it effects acceptance only for the impurity of items sacrificed on the altar, or even for the impurity of items that would normally be consumed by the priests.

Scroll To Top