This week’s learning is sponsored by Sara Averick in loving memory of her mother, Leah Shifrin Averick, לאה בת יהודה לייב חייקל וחיה מאשה. “She infused her many descendants with her love for Torah, Israel and the Jewish people.”
This week’s learning is sponsored by Elana and Daniel Storch in honor of their youngest daughter Arianne Yael’s engagement to Brett Aiken and for a for a refuah shleima for Ilana Malka bat Aviva Tamar and Leah Maritza bat Raizel. “We are thrilled to share besorot tovot with our Hadran Family. We pray that the chuppah will take place בשעה טובה ומוצלחת and they should be zoche to build a בית נאמן בישראל.
This week’s learning is sponsored by Ellen Cherrick in loving memory of her mother, Udy Katz Cherrick, z”l, on her 13th yahrzeit yesterday.
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Summary
If one of the loaves of the two loaves for Shavuot or one of the sets of six loaves of the showbread become impure, are the others to be burned as well? Rabbi Yehuda holds that public offerings are all treated as one unit and therefore they are all disqualified and are burned. The rabbis disagree and permit them to be eaten.
Rabbi Elazar limits their debate to a case where they became impure before the blood was sprinkled. According to Rav Papa, the debate centers on whether the tzitz atones for items that are to be eaten. If it atones for the bread, then the blood can be sprinkled and is effective to permit the other (pure) bread to be eaten. But if it does not atone for food items, the blood can be sprinkled, but since the bread was not complete at the time, it is forbidden to eat, as per Rabbi Yochanan’s opinion in Menachot 9b.
However, Rav Papa’s explanation is rejected on three counts. First, Rabbi Yehuda and the rabbis also disagree in a case where the item that was to be offered on the altar becomes impure. Second, Rabbi Yehuda’s position by the Paschal sacrifice, as appears in the braita, demonstrates that the phrase “the communal offerings are not divided” has no connection at all to the tzitz atoning. Third, the Mishna states explicitly the reason for Rabbi Yehuda’s position and it is because the communal offerings are not divided and not on account of the tzitz.
In a thanksgiving (toda) offering, if there is a pigul thought about the meat, the breads are disqualified, but a pigul thought about the bread only disqualifies the bread, but not the meat. The same holds true for the two sheep regarding the accompanying breads. After attempting one explanation, which is rejected, the Gemara explains the reasoning behind the law – the bread comes on account of the animal offering, but the animal offering does not come on account of the bread.
Both cases were necessary to bring, as one may have thought that the sheep and the accompanying breads are waved together and therefore might be considered completely one unit, but they are not.
There are three different versions of a question Rabbi Elazar asked Rav. The first version: if one slaughters the animal for the toda offering with a thought to eat a half an olive-bulk of the meat and half an olive-bulk of the bread, do they combine to make the bread pigul? Rav answers that it is. The Gemara asks why a kal v’chomer reasoning isn’t employed to lead us to say that the bread wouldn’t be pigul, as it cannot even make the meat pigul. A difficulty is raised against that suggestion as in a similar situation regarding mixed breeds in a vineyard, that kind of kal v’chomer isn’t used. But they distinguish between the two cases, resolving the difficulty. The second version has the same type question asked but regarding the two sheep offering and the accompanying breads. The third version of the question is about the meaning of someone’s language if they slaughtered the sheep to “eat an olive-bulk of its friend tomorrow.” Does “its friend” refer to the other sheep (it would not be pigul, as the sheep is a “permitter”) or to the bread (it would be pigul as bread is not a “permitter”)? Rav brings a tannaitic source which makes it clear that the meaning was the other sheep. The Gemara rejects this proof of Rav.
What is the relationship between the sacrifice and its libations regarding pigul? Rabbi Meir holds that if the libations were already placed in a sanctified vessel and the sacrifice is brought with a pigul intent, the libations are disqualified as well. But a pigul thought regarding the libations only disqualifies the libation, not the sacrifice. In the Tosefta Zevachim 5:1, the rabbis bring counter arguments to Rabbi Meir. First, they view the libations as completely separate and do not agree with Rabbi Meir that they become disqualified if the sacrifice becomes pigul, as they can be brought up to ten days later. When Rabbi Meir qualifies his ruling to a case where the libations are brought together with the offering, the rabbis continue with another claim. Since the libations can be designated to a different sacrifice, that proves that they are not inherently connected. Rava explains that Rabbi Meir must have held that the libations cannot be designated for a different sacrifice.
In the Tosefta, Rabbi Meir and the rabbis disagree as well regarding the oil of the leper – if the guilt offering becomes pigul, does the oil become pigul as well, and the same discussion ensues.
Today’s daily daf tools:
This week’s learning is sponsored by Sara Averick in loving memory of her mother, Leah Shifrin Averick, לאה בת יהודה לייב חייקל וחיה מאשה. “She infused her many descendants with her love for Torah, Israel and the Jewish people.”
This week’s learning is sponsored by Elana and Daniel Storch in honor of their youngest daughter Arianne Yael’s engagement to Brett Aiken and for a for a refuah shleima for Ilana Malka bat Aviva Tamar and Leah Maritza bat Raizel. “We are thrilled to share besorot tovot with our Hadran Family. We pray that the chuppah will take place בשעה טובה ומוצלחת and they should be zoche to build a בית נאמן בישראל.
This week’s learning is sponsored by Ellen Cherrick in loving memory of her mother, Udy Katz Cherrick, z”l, on her 13th yahrzeit yesterday.
Today’s daf is sponsored by Chaya Sara Nissan, Ze’ev Segal and Naomi Noi in loving memory of their father, Rav Shmuel Halevi Segal.
Menachot 15
רַבָּנַן סָבְרִי: הַצִּיץ מְרַצֶּה עַל אֲכִילוֹת, וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה סָבַר: אֵין הַצִּיץ מְרַצֶּה עַל אֲכִילוֹת.
The Rabbis hold that the frontplate effects acceptance for items that are normally consumed by the priests but have become ritually impure. Consequently, the sprinkling of the blood in this case is an entirely valid act that is capable of rendering the remaining pure loaf permitted for consumption. And Rabbi Yehuda holds that the frontplate does not effect acceptance for items that are consumed by the priests and have become impure. Accordingly, the sprinkling of the blood is ineffective in rendering the remaining pure loaf permitted for consumption.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב נָתָן לְרַב פָּפָּא: וְהָא עוֹלִין, דְּהַצִּיץ מְרַצֶּה עַל הָעוֹלִין, וּפְלִיגִי!
Rav Huna, son of Rav Natan, said to Rav Pappa: Can this be the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis? But what about items that normally ascend upon the altar? Even Rabbi Yehuda concedes that the frontplate effects acceptance for impure items that normally ascend the altar, and Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis nevertheless disagree with regard to the remaining item in a case of this kind.
דְּתַנְיָא: נִטְמָא אֶחָד מִן הַבָּזִיכִין, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: שְׁנֵיהֶם יֵעָשׂוּ בְּטוּמְאָה, לְפִי שֶׁאֵין קׇרְבַּן צִיבּוּר חָלוּק, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: הַטָּמֵא בְּטוּמְאָתוֹ וְהַטָּהוֹר בְּטׇהֳרָתוֹ.
The Gemara provides the source for this claim. As it is taught in a baraita: If one of the bowls of frankincense accompanying the shewbread, which are meant to be burned upon the altar, became impure, Rabbi Yehuda says that the rites of both of them may be performed in impurity, i.e., the priest may even render the second bowl impure and burn both of them together, as no communal offering is divided, and the mitzva to sacrifice communal offerings overrides the prohibition against rendering them impure. And the Rabbis say: The impure one remains in its state of impurity and the pure one remains in its state of purity. Evidently, their dispute does not depend on whether the frontplate effects acceptance.
וְעוֹד, אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: תָּא שְׁמַע, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אֲפִילּוּ שֵׁבֶט אֶחָד טָמֵא וְכׇל הַשְּׁבָטִים טְהוֹרִין – יַעֲשׂוּ בְּטוּמְאָה, לְפִי שֶׁאֵין (קׇרְבְּנוֹת) [קׇרְבַּן] צִיבּוּר חָלוּק, וְהָכָא מַאי הַצִּיץ מְרַצֶּה אִיכָּא?
And furthermore, Rav Ashi said: Come and hear an additional proof that the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis does not concern the frontplate, as we learn in a mishna (Pesaḥim 80a) with regard to the consumption of the Paschal offering in a state of impurity, that Rabbi Yehuda says: Even if one tribe is ritually impure and all the rest of the tribes are pure, all the tribes may perform the rite of the Paschal offering in a state of impurity, as no communal offerings are divided. Rav Ashi explains: But here, what relevance is there to the question of whether the frontplate effects acceptance? The frontplate effects acceptance for offerings that have become impure; but it does not render it permitted for one who is ritually impure to sacrifice an offering.
וְעוֹד, הָאָמַר רָבִינָא: תָּא שְׁמַע, נִטְמֵאת אַחַת מִן הַחַלּוֹת אוֹ (אַחַת) [אֶחָד] מִן הַסְּדָרִין, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: שְׁנֵיהֶם יֵצְאוּ לְבֵית הַשְּׂרֵיפָה, לְפִי שֶׁאֵין קׇרְבַּן צִיבּוּר חָלוּק, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: הַטָּמֵא בְּטוּמְאָתוֹ וְהַטָּהוֹר יֵאָכֵל.
And furthermore, doesn’t Ravina say: Come and hear a proof that the matter of the frontplate cannot be the subject of the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis, as the mishna teaches: If one of the two loaves brought on Shavuot or one of the two arrangements of shewbread became ritually impure, Rabbi Yehuda says: Both must be taken to the place of burning, as no communal offering is divided. And the Rabbis say: The impure one remains in its impurity and the pure one may be eaten.
וְאִם אִיתָא, לְפִי שֶׁאֵין הַצִּיץ מְרַצֶּה עַל אֲכִילוֹת מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ! אֶלָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: תַּלְמוּד עָרוּךְ הוּא בְּפִיו שֶׁל רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, שֶׁאֵין קׇרְבַּן צִיבּוּר חָלוּק.
The Gemara explains the difficulty: And if it is so, i.e., that the dispute between them concerns the frontplate, then Rabbi Yehuda should have said: They are both burned, because the frontplate does not effect acceptance for impure items that are consumed by the priests. Rather, Rabbi Yoḥanan says: It is a settled tradition in the mouth of Rabbi Yehuda that no communal offering is divided, and if one part of an offering becomes impure, the entire offering is disqualified.
מַתְנִי׳ הַתּוֹדָה מְפַגֶּלֶת אֶת הַלֶּחֶם, וְהַלֶּחֶם אֵינוֹ מְפַגֵּל אֶת הַתּוֹדָה. כֵּיצַד? שָׁחַט אֶת הַתּוֹדָה לֶאֱכוֹל מִמֶּנָּה לְמָחָר – הִיא וְהַלֶּחֶם מְפוּגָּלִין, לֶאֱכוֹל מִן הַלֶּחֶם לְמָחָר – הַלֶּחֶם מְפוּגָּל וְהַתּוֹדָה אֵינָהּ מְפוּגֶּלֶת.
MISHNA: The thanks offering renders the accompanying loaves piggul but the loaves do not render the thanks offering piggul. How so? If one slaughtered the thanks offering, which may be consumed only during the day it is slaughtered and the night thereafter, with the intent to partake of it the next day, the offering and the accompanying loaves are rendered piggul. If he slaughtered it with the intent to partake of the loaves the next day, the loaves are rendered piggul and the thanks offering is not piggul.
הַכְּבָשִׂים מְפַגְּלִין אֶת הַלֶּחֶם, וְהַלֶּחֶם אֵינוֹ מְפַגֵּל אֶת הַכְּבָשִׂים. כֵּיצַד? הַשּׁוֹחֵט אֶת הַכְּבָשִׂים לֶאֱכוֹל מֵהֶן לְמָחָר – הֵם וְהַלֶּחֶם מְפוּגָּלִין, לֶאֱכוֹל אֶת הַלֶּחֶם לְמָחָר – הַלֶּחֶם מְפוּגָּל וְהַכְּבָשִׂים אֵינָן מְפוּגָּלִין.
Likewise, the lambs sacrificed with the two loaves meal offering on Shavuot render the accompanying loaves piggul, but the loaves do not render the lambs piggul. How so? If one slaughtered the lambs, which may be consumed only during the day they are slaughtered and the night thereafter, with the intent to partake of them the next day, the lambs and the accompanying loaves are rendered piggul. If he did so with the intent to partake of the loaves the next day, the loaves are rendered piggul and the lambs are not piggul.
גְּמָ׳ מַאי טַעְמָא? אִילֵּימָא מִשּׁוּם דְּרַב כָּהֲנָא, דְּאָמַר רַב כָּהֲנָא: מִנַּיִן לְלַחְמֵי תוֹדָה שֶׁנִּקְרְאוּ תּוֹדָה? שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְהִקְרִיב עַל זֶבַח הַתּוֹדָה חַלּוֹת״.
GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What is the reason that a thanks offering renders its accompanying loaves piggul? If we say that it is due to that which Rav Kahana says, this is problematic. As Rav Kahana says: From where is it derived that the loaves of a thanks offering are themselves called a thanks offering? It is derived from that which is stated in the verse: “Then he shall offer with the sacrifice of thanks offering loaves” (Leviticus 7:12). The juxtaposition of the words “thanks offering” and “loaves” indicates that the loaves are themselves called a thanks offering.
אִי הָכִי אִיפְּכָא נָמֵי, הָא לָא קַשְׁיָא: לֶחֶם אִיקְּרִי תּוֹדָה, תּוֹדָה לָא אִיקְּרִי לֶחֶם.
The Gemara explains why the halakha of the mishna cannot be derived from Rav Kahana’s exposition. If so, then the opposite should be the halakha as well, that intent of piggul with regard to the loaves should likewise render the thanks offering piggul. The Gemara rejects this suggestion: This is not difficult, as the loaves are called a thanks offering, but a thanks offering is not called loaves.
אֶלָּא הָא דְּקָתָנֵי: הַכְּבָשִׂים מְפַגְּלִין אֶת הַלֶּחֶם וְהַלֶּחֶם אֵינוֹ מְפַגֵּל אֶת הַכְּבָשִׂים, לֶחֶם הֵיכָא אַשְׁכְּחַן דְּאִיקְּרִי כְּבָשִׂים? אֶלָּא לָאו הַיְינוּ טַעְמָא: לֶחֶם גְּלַל תּוֹדָה, וְאֵין תּוֹדָה גְּלַל (דלחם) [לֶחֶם], לֶחֶם גְּלַל (דכבשים) [כְבָשִׂים], וְאֵין כְּבָשִׂים גְּלַל (דלחם) [לֶחֶם].
The Gemara asks: But with regard to that which the mishna teaches: The lambs sacrificed with the two loaves meal offering on Shavuot render the accompanying loaves piggul but the loaves do not render the lambs piggul, where do we find that the two loaves are called lambs? Rather, is it not correct that this is the reason why the thanks offering renders the loaves piggul but not vice versa: The bread is brought on account of [gelal] the thanks offering, but the thanks offering is not brought on account of the bread, i.e., the thanks offering is the primary element of the sacrifice. Similarly, the two loaves of bread are brought on account of the lambs, and the lambs are not brought on account of the bread.
וּצְרִיכִי, דְּאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן תּוֹדָה – הָתָם הוּא דְּכִי מְפַגֵּל בְּלֶחֶם לָא מִפַּגְּלָא תּוֹדָה, מִשּׁוּם דְּלָא הוּזְקְקוּ זֶה לָזֶה בִּתְנוּפָה, אֲבָל כְּבָשִׂים דְּהוּזְקְקוּ זֶה לָזֶה בִּתְנוּפָה – אֵימָא כִּי מְפַגֵּל בְּלֶחֶם לִיפַּגְּלִי נָמֵי כְּבָשִׂים, צְרִיכָא.
The Gemara notes: And both of these halakhot are necessary, as, had the mishna taught us the halakha only in the case of a thanks offering, then one might say: It is only there, with regard to a thanks offering, that when one renders the loaves piggul the thanks offering is not rendered piggul, because they were not bound to one another by waving, i.e., the mitzva of waving the thanks offering may be fulfilled without the bread. But with regard to the lambs, in which the two items were bound to one another by waving, as the two loaves are waved together with the lambs, one might say that when he renders the bread piggul, the lambs should be rendered piggul as well. Therefore, it was necessary for the mishna to teach this halakha also with regard to the case of the lambs.
בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר מֵרַב: הַשּׁוֹחֵט אֶת הַתּוֹדָה לֶאֱכוֹל כְּזַיִת מִמֶּנָּה וּמִלַּחְמָהּ לְמָחָר, מַהוּ לְאִיפַּגּוֹלֵי? תּוֹדָה לָא מִיבַּעְיָא לִי, הַשְׁתָּא כּוּלּוֹ מִלַּחְמָהּ לָא מִיפַּגְּלָא, מִמֶּנָּה וּמִלַּחְמָהּ מִיבַּעְיָא?
§ Rabbi Elazar raised a dilemma before Rav: If one slaughters the thanks offering with the intent to consume an olive-bulk from it and from its loaves the next day, what is the halakha? Rabbi Elazar elaborates: I do not raise the dilemma with regard to rendering the thanks offering piggul, for the following reason: Now that in a case where his intent was to consume the entire olive-bulk from its loaves alone, the thanks offering is not rendered piggul, in accordance with the mishna’s ruling that piggul intent with regard to the loaves does not render the thanks offering piggul, then in a case where his intent is to consume half an olive-bulk from the thanks offering and half an olive-bulk from its loaves, in which case the offering is rendered piggul only if the two intentions of less than a full measure are combined, is it necessary to teach that the thanks offering is not piggul?
כִּי קָא מִיבַּעְיָא לִי לְאִיפַּגּוֹלֵי לֶחֶם, מִי מִצְטָרְפָה תּוֹדָה לְאִיפַּגּוֹלֵי לְלֶחֶם אוֹ לָא?
Rather, when I raise the dilemma, it is with regard to rendering the loaves piggul, which can be rendered piggul via intent concerning the loaves alone. In this case, does the intention of the priest with regard to the thanks offering combine with his intention concerning the loaves to render the loaves piggul, or not?
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אַף בְּזוֹ, הַלֶּחֶם מְפוּגָּל וְהַתּוֹדָה אֵינָהּ מְפוּגֶּלֶת. וְאַמַּאי? לֵימָא קַל וָחוֹמֶר: וּמָה תּוֹדָה הַמְפַגֵּל אֵין מִתְפַּגֵּל, הַבָּא לְפַגֵּל וְלֹא פִּיגֵּל – אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁלֹּא יִתְפַּגֵּל?
Rav said to Rabbi Elazar: Even in this case, the loaves are rendered piggul and the thanks offering is not rendered piggul. The Gemara asks: But why should the loaves be rendered piggul? Let us say the following a fortiori inference: And if the thanks offering, which in this case serves to render the loaves piggul, is itself not rendered piggul, then the loaves, which come to render the thanks offering piggul, but do not render it piggul, as the intent to consume half an olive-bulk from the loaves does not combine with the intent to consume half an olive-bulk from the thanks offering to render the thanks offering piggul, is it not logical that the loaves themselves should not be rendered piggul?
וּמִי אָמְרִינַן קַל וָחוֹמֶר כִּי הַאי גַוְונָא? וְהָתַנְיָא: מַעֲשֶׂה בְּאֶחָד
The Gemara asks: And do we say an a fortiori inference in this way? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: There was an incident involving one
שֶׁזָּרַע כַּרְמוֹ שֶׁל חֲבֵירוֹ סְמָדַר, וּבָא מַעֲשֶׂה לִפְנֵי חֲכָמִים, וְאָסְרוּ אֶת הַזְּרָעִים וְהִתִּירוּ אֶת הַגְּפָנִים. וְאַמַּאי? לֵימָא קַל וָחוֹמֶר הוּא: וּמָה הָאוֹסֵר אֵינוֹ נֶאֱסָר, הַבָּא לֶאֱסוֹר וְלֹא אָסַר – אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁלֹּא יִתְאַסֵּר?
who planted seeds in the vineyard of an another when the grapes on the vines were budding, and the incident came before the Sages and they deemed the seeds prohibited due to the prohibition against planting diverse kinds in a vineyard, but they deemed the vines permitted. The Gemara continues: But why did they deem the seeds prohibited? Let the Sages say through an analogous a fortiori inference that the seeds should be permitted: And if that which renders an item prohibited, i.e., the vine, which causes the seeds to be prohibited, is itself not prohibited, then with regard to the seeds, which come to render the vines prohibited but did not render the vines prohibited, is it not logical that they should not be rendered prohibited?
הָכִי הַשְׁתָּא? הָתָם קַנְבּוֹס וְלוּף אָסְרָה תּוֹרָה, דִּתְנַן: הָיְתָה שָׂדֵהוּ זְרוּעָה קַנְבּוֹס וְלוֹף לֹא יְהֵא זוֹרֵעַ עַל גַּבֵּיהֶם, שֶׁהֵן עוֹשׂוֹת לְשָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים – שְׁאָר זְרָעִים מִדְּרַבָּנַן הוּא דַּאֲסִירִי. הַאי דְּעָבֵיד אִיסּוּרָא – קַנְסוּהּ רַבָּנַן, הַאי דְּלָא עָבֵיד אִיסּוּרָא – לָא קַנְסוּהּ רַבָּנַן. אֲבָל הָכָא, לֵימָא קַל וָחוֹמֶר!
The Gemara rejects the comparison: How can these cases be compared? There, in the baraita, only hemp and arum are prohibited by Torah law to be sown in a vineyard, as we learned in a mishna (Kilayim 2:5): If one’s field was sown with hemp and arum, he should not sow above them, as they produce a yield only once every three years. Other seeds are prohibited by rabbinic law. Therefore, with regard to this person who committed a transgression by planting the seeds in the vineyard of another, the Sages penalized him and deemed his seeds prohibited, but as for that person who did not commit a transgression, i.e., the owner of the vineyard, the Sages did not penalize him. But here, in the case of piggul, which is a biblical prohibition, let us say such an a fortiori inference.
וְאִיכָּא דְּמַתְנֵי לַהּ אַכְּבָשִׂים, בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר מֵרַב: הַשּׁוֹחֵט אֶת הַכְּבָשִׂים לֶאֱכוֹל כְּזַיִת מֵהֶן וּמִלַּחְמָן, מַהוּ?
And there are those who teach the dilemma of Rabbi Elazar with regard to the lambs brought with the two loaves, and not with regard to a thanks offering. Rabbi Elazar raised a dilemma before Rav: In a case where one slaughters the lambs with the intent to consume an olive-bulk from them and from their loaves the next day, what is the halakha?
לְאִיפַּגּוֹלֵי כְּבָשִׂים לָא קָא מִיבַּעְיָא לִי, הַשְׁתָּא כּוּלּוֹ מִלֶּחֶם לָא מִפַּגְּלִי, מֵהֶן וּמִלַּחְמָן מִיבַּעְיָא? כִּי קָא מִיבַּעְיָא לִי לְאִיפַּגּוֹלֵי לֶחֶם, מִי מִצְטָרְפִי כְּבָשִׂים לְאִיפַּגּוֹלֵי לְלֶחֶם אוֹ לָא?
Rabbi Elazar elaborated: I do not raise the dilemma with regard to rendering the lambs piggul for the following reason: Now that in a case where his intent was to consume an entire olive-bulk from the loaves alone, the lambs are not rendered piggul, as the mishna teaches that piggul intent with regard to the loaves does not render the lambs piggul, then in a case where his intent is to consume half an olive-bulk from them and half an olive-bulk from their loaves, is it necessary to teach that the lambs are not piggul? Rather, when I raised the dilemma, it was with regard to rendering the loaves piggul. Does his intention with regard to the lambs combine with his intention with regard to the loaves to render the loaves piggul or not?
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אַף בְּזוֹ, הַלֶּחֶם מְפוּגָּל וְהַכְּבָשִׂים אֵינָן מְפוּגָּלִין. וְאַמַּאי? לֵימָא קַל וָחוֹמֶר: וּמָה הַמְפַגֵּל אֵינוֹ מִתְפַּגֵּל, הַבָּא לְפַגֵּל וְלֹא פִּיגֵּל – אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁלֹּא יִתְפַּגֵּל?
Rav said to Rabbi Elazar: Even in this case, the loaves are rendered piggul and the lambs are not rendered piggul. The Gemara asks: But why should the loaves be rendered piggul? Let us say the following a fortiori inference: And if that which renders an item piggul, i.e., the lambs, since it is maintained that intent to consume half an olive-bulk from the lambs assists to render the loaves piggul, is itself not rendered piggul, then with regard to the loaves, which come to render the lambs piggul, but do not render them piggul, as the intent to consume half an olive-bulk from the loaves does not combine with the intent to consume half an olive-bulk from the lambs to render them piggul, is it not logical that the loaves themselves should not be rendered piggul?
וּמִי אָמְרִינַן קַל וָחוֹמֶר כִּי הַאי גַּוְנָא? וְהָתַנְיָא: מַעֲשֶׂה בְּאֶחָד שֶׁזָּרַע כַּרְמוֹ שֶׁל חֲבֵירוֹ סְמָדַר וְכוּ׳. וְאַמַּאי? לֵימָא קַל וָחוֹמֶר: מָה הָאוֹסֵר אֵינוֹ נֶאֱסָר, הַבָּא לֶאֱסוֹר וְלָא אָסַר – אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁלֹּא יִתְאַסֵּר?
The Gemara asks: And do we say an a fortiori inference of this kind? But isn’t it taught in a baraita that there was an incident involving one who planted seeds in the vineyard of his friend when the grapes on the vines were budding, and the incident came before the Sages and they deemed the seeds prohibited due to the prohibition against planting diverse kinds in a vineyard, but they deemed the vines permitted. The Gemara continues: But why did they deem the seeds prohibited? Let the Sages say through an analogous a fortiori inference that the seeds should be permitted: And if that which renders an item prohibited, i.e., the vine, which causes the seeds to be prohibited, is itself not prohibited, then with regard to the seeds, which come to render the vines prohibited but did not render the vines prohibited, is it not logical that they should not be rendered prohibited?
הָכִי הַשְׁתָּא? הָתָם קַנְבּוֹס וָלוּף אָסְרָה תּוֹרָה, שְׁאָר זְרָעִים מִדְּרַבָּנַן הוּא דַּאֲסִירִי, הַאי דְּעָבֵד אִיסּוּרָא – קַנְסוּהּ רַבָּנַן, דְּלָא עָבֵד אִיסּוּרָא – לָא קַנְסוּהּ רַבָּנַן, אֲבָל הָכָא לֵימָא קַל וָחוֹמֶר!
The Gemara rejects the comparison: How can these cases be compared? There, in the baraita, only hemp and arum are prohibited by Torah law to be sown in a vineyard. Other seeds are prohibited by rabbinic law. Therefore, with regard to this person who committed a transgression by planting the seeds in the vineyard of another, the Sages penalized him and deemed his seeds prohibited, but as for this person who did not commit a transgression, i.e., the owner of the vineyard, the Sages did not penalize him. But here, in the case of piggul, which is a biblical prohibition, let us say such an a fortiori inference.
מַאן דְּמַתְנֵי לַהּ אַתּוֹדָה – כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן אַכְּבָשִׂים, וּמַאן דְּמַתְנֵי לַהּ אַכְּבָשִׂים – כְּבָשִׂים הוּא דְּהוּזְקְקוּ זֶה לָזֶה לִתְנוּפָה, אֲבָל תּוֹדָה דְּלֹא הוּזְקְקָה זֶה לָזֶה בִּתְנוּפָה – לָא.
The Gemara notes: The one who teaches that the dilemma of Rabbi Elazar was raised with regard to the thanks offering and the accompanying loaves, all the more so will hold that the dilemma may be raised with regard to the case of the lambs brought with the two loaves on Shavuot. But the one who teaches that Rabbi Elazar’s dilemma was raised with regard to the lambs and the two loaves, it is possible that he holds that the dilemma was raised only with regard to the lambs and the two loaves, as they were bound to one another by waving, since the priest waves the lambs and loaves together (see Leviticus 23:20). But with regard to a thanks offering and its loaves, as they were not bound to one another by waving, the dilemma was not raised, since it is obvious in this case that his intentions do not combine.
רַבִּי אַבָּא זוּטֵי בָּעֵי לַהּ הָכִי, בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר מֵרַב: הַשּׁוֹחֵט אֶת הַכֶּבֶשׂ לֶאֱכוֹל כְּזַיִת מֵחֲבֵירוֹ לְמָחָר, מַהוּ? ״חֲבֵירוֹ״ כֶּבֶשׂ מַשְׁמַע, וְלָא מְפַגֵּל, אוֹ דִלְמָא ״לֶחֶם״ מַשְׁמַע, וּמְפַגֵּל לֵיהּ.
Rabbi Abba the small taught that Rabbi Elazar raises the dilemma in this manner: Rabbi Elazar raised a dilemma before Rav: If one slaughters one of the lambs brought on Shavuot with the two loaves intending to consume an olive-bulk from the other the next day, what is the halakha? When this individual thinks of the other, does he mean the other lamb, and if so, the lamb is not rendered piggul, as one permitting factor does not render another permitting factor piggul? Or perhaps when this individual thinks of the other he means the other part of the offering, i.e., the two loaves, and if so his intention renders it piggul, as taught in the mishna.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: תְּנֵיתוּהָ, שָׁחַט אֶחָד מִן הַכְּבָשִׂים לֶאֱכוֹל מִמֶּנּוּ לְמָחָר – הוּא פִּיגּוּל וַחֲבֵירוֹ כָּשֵׁר, לֶאֱכוֹל מֵחֲבֵירוֹ לְמָחָר – שְׁנֵיהֶם כְּשֵׁרִים, אַלְמָא ״חֲבֵירוֹ״ כֶּבֶשׂ מַשְׁמַע! דִּלְמָא דְּפָרֵישׁ וְאָמַר ״חֲבֵירוֹ כֶּבֶשׂ״.
Rav said to Rabbi Elazar: You learned in a mishna (16a): If one slaughtered one of the lambs with the intent to partake of it the next day, that lamb is piggul and the other is fit. If he slaughtered one lamb with the intent to partake of the other the next day, both lambs are fit, as one permitting factor does not render another permitting factor piggul. Rav concludes: Evidently, in this context the term: The other, means the other lamb. The Gemara rejects this proof: Perhaps the mishna is discussing a case where he clarifies and says: The other lamb, but the mishna is not referring to a case where he merely thought: The other.
מַתְנִי׳ הַזֶּבַח מְפַגֵּל אֶת הַנְּסָכִים, מִשֶּׁקָּדְשׁוּ בִּכְלִי, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. הַנְּסָכִים אֵינָן מְפַגְּלִים אֶת הַזֶּבַח. כֵּיצַד? הַשּׁוֹחֵט אֶת הַזֶּבַח לֶאֱכוֹל מִמֶּנּוּ לְמָחָר – הוּא וּנְסָכָיו מְפוּגָּלִין, לְהַקְרִיב נְסָכָיו לְמָחָר – הַנְּסָכִים מְפוּגָּלִין, הַזֶּבַח אֵינוֹ מְפוּגָּל.
MISHNA: The animal offering renders the accompanying libations and meal offerings piggul from the moment that they were consecrated in the vessel, but not before; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. The libations do not render the animal offering piggul. How so? In the case of one who slaughters the offering with the intent to partake of it the next day, the offering and its libations are rendered piggul. But if one slaughters the offering with the intent to sacrifice its libations the next day, the libations are rendered piggul, while the offering is not piggul.
גְּמָ׳ תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: נִסְכֵי בְּהֵמָה חַיָּיבִין עֲלֵיהֶן מִשּׁוּם פִּיגּוּל, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁדַּם הַזֶּבַח מַתִּירָן לִקְרַב, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר.
GEMARA: The Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to the libations of an animal offering, one is liable for eating them due to violation of the prohibition of piggul, as the blood of the offering permits them to be offered on the altar, and any item that becomes permitted for consumption or for sacrifice through a permitting factor can be rendered piggul, and one who partakes of such an item after its permitting factors were sacrificed is liable to receive karet. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir.
אָמְרוּ לוֹ לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר: וַהֲלֹא אָדָם מֵבִיא זִבְחוֹ הַיּוֹם וּנְסָכָיו עַד עֲשָׂרָה יָמִים! אָמַר לָהֶן: אַף אֲנִי לֹא אָמַרְתִּי אֶלָּא בְּבָאִין עִם הַזֶּבַח. אָמְרוּ לוֹ: אֶפְשָׁר לְשַׁנּוֹתוֹ לְזֶבַח אַחֵר!
The Rabbis said to Rabbi Meir: But a person may bring his offering today and the accompanying libations from now until even ten days later. Evidently, then, the blood of the offering does render the libations permitted. Rabbi Meir said to them: I, too, spoke only about libations that come to be sacrificed together with the offering and were already sanctified in a service vessel for that purpose. The Rabbis said to him: But it is possible to switch the libations for use with another offering. Clearly, then, they are not considered an indispensable part of that offering.
אָמַר רָבָא: קָסָבַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר, הוּקְבְּעוּ בִּשְׁחִיטָה, כְּלַחְמֵי תוֹדָה.
Rava said: Rabbi Meir holds that the libations are fixed to this particular offering at the time of its slaughter, and one may not use them with another offering. Accordingly, these libations are rendered piggul on account of intent during the slaughter of the offering, just like the loaves of a thanks offering, which are fixed to a particular thanks offering upon its slaughter and become piggul on account of intent during the slaughter of that particular thanks offering.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: לוֹג שֶׁמֶן שֶׁל מְצוֹרָע חַיָּיבִין עָלָיו מִשּׁוּם פִּיגּוּל, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁדַּם אָשָׁם מַתִּירוֹ לַבְּהוֹנוֹת, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. אָמְרוּ לוֹ לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר: וַהֲלֹא אָדָם מֵבִיא אֲשָׁמוֹ הַיּוֹם, וְלוּגּוֹ מִיכָּן וְעַד עֲשָׂרָה יָמִים.
In a similar vein, the Sages taught: With regard to the log of oil of the leper (see Leviticus 14:10–20), one is liable for eating it due to violation of the prohibition of piggul if the guilt offering that this oil accompanied became piggul, as the blood of the offering permits it to be placed on the right thumb and big toe of the leper. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. The Rabbis said to Rabbi Meir: But a person may bring his guilt offering today and the accompanying log of oil from now until even ten days later. Evidently, the log of oil is not considered part of the guilt offering, and therefore it should not be rendered piggul on account of it.
אָמַר לָהֶן: אַף אֲנִי לֹא אָמַרְתִּי אֶלָּא בְּבָא עִם הָאָשָׁם, אֶפְשָׁר לְשַׁנּוֹתוֹ לְאָשָׁם אַחֵר. אָמַר רָבָא: קָסָבַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר הוּקְבְּעוּ בִּשְׁחִיטָה, כְּלַחְמֵי תוֹדָה.
Rabbi Meir said to them: I, too, spoke only about a log of oil that comes with the guilt offering. The Rabbis said to him: But even in this case, the oil should not be considered part of the offering, as it is possible to switch the oil for use with another guilt offering. Rava said: Rabbi Meir holds that the log of oil is fixed to this particular guilt offering at the time of its slaughter and is therefore rendered piggul on account of it, just like the loaves of a thanks offering, as the slaughter of the thanks offering fixes the accompanying loaves to that particular offering.
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
In January 2020 on a Shabbaton to Baltimore I heard about the new cycle of Daf Yomi after the siyum celebration in NYC stadium. I started to read “ a daily dose of Talmud “ and really enjoyed it . It led me to google “ do Orthodox women study Talmud? “ and found HADRAN! Since then I listen to the podcast every morning, participate in classes and siyum. I love to learn, this is amazing! Thank you
Atlanta, United States
After experiences over the years of asking to join gemara shiurim for men and either being refused by the maggid shiur or being the only women there, sometimes behind a mechitza, I found out about Hadran sometime during the tail end of Masechet Shabbat, I think. Life has been much better since then.
London, United Kingdom
I started learning daf yomi at the beginning of this cycle. As the pandemic evolved, it’s been so helpful to me to have this discipline every morning to listen to the daf podcast after I’ve read the daf; learning about the relationships between the rabbis and the ways they were constructing our Jewish religion after the destruction of the Temple. I’m grateful to be on this journey!
Teaneck NJ, United States
In early January of 2020, I learned about Siyyum HaShas and Daf Yomi via Tablet Magazine’s brief daily podcast about the Daf. I found it compelling and fascinating. Soon I discovered Hadran; since then I have learned the Daf daily with Rabbanit Michelle Cohen Farber. The Daf has permeated my every hour, and has transformed and magnified my place within the Jewish Universe.
San Francisco, CA , United States
Ive been learning Gmara since 5th grade and always loved it. Have always wanted to do Daf Yomi and now with Michelle Farber’s online classes it made it much easier to do! Really enjoying the experience thank you!!
Neve Daniel, Israel
Having never learned Talmud before, I started Daf Yomi in hopes of connecting to the Rabbinic tradition, sharing a daily idea on Instagram (@dafyomiadventures). With Hadran and Sefaria, I slowly gained confidence in my skills and understanding. Now, part of the Pardes Jewish Educators Program, I can’t wait to bring this love of learning with me as I continue to pass it on to my future students.
Pennsylvania, United States
Studying has changed my life view on הלכה and יהדות and time. It has taught me bonudaries of the human nature and honesty of our sages in their discourse to try and build a nation of caring people .
Kfar Saba, Israel
It’s hard to believe it has been over two years. Daf yomi has changed my life in so many ways and has been sustaining during this global sea change. Each day means learning something new, digging a little deeper, adding another lens, seeing worlds with new eyes. Daf has also fostered new friendships and deepened childhood connections, as long time friends have unexpectedly become havruta.
Northwest Washington, United States
I started learning at the beginning of this Daf Yomi cycle because I heard a lot about the previous cycle coming to an end and thought it would be a good thing to start doing. My husband had already bought several of the Koren Talmud Bavli books and they were just sitting on the shelf, not being used, so here was an opportunity to start using them and find out exactly what was in them. Loving it!
Borehamwood, United Kingdom
In July, 2012 I wrote for Tablet about the first all women’s siyum at Matan in Jerusalem, with 100 women. At the time, I thought, I would like to start with the next cycle – listening to a podcast at different times of day makes it possible. It is incredible that after 10 years, so many women are so engaged!
Pittsburgh, United States
In early January of 2020, I learned about Siyyum HaShas and Daf Yomi via Tablet Magazine’s brief daily podcast about the Daf. I found it compelling and fascinating. Soon I discovered Hadran; since then I have learned the Daf daily with Rabbanit Michelle Cohen Farber. The Daf has permeated my every hour, and has transformed and magnified my place within the Jewish Universe.
San Francisco, CA , United States
I started learning Jan 2020 when I heard the new cycle was starting. I had tried during the last cycle and didn’t make it past a few weeks. Learning online from old men didn’t speak to my soul and I knew Talmud had to be a soul journey for me. Enter Hadran! Talmud from Rabbanit Michelle Farber from a woman’s perspective, a mother’s perspective and a modern perspective. Motivated to continue!
Brentwood, California, United States
I learned Mishnayot more than twenty years ago and started with Gemara much later in life. Although I never managed to learn Daf Yomi consistently, I am learning since some years Gemara in depth and with much joy. Since last year I am studying at the International Halakha Scholars Program at the WIHL. I often listen to Rabbanit Farbers Gemara shiurim to understand better a specific sugyiah. I am grateful for the help and inspiration!
Berlin, Germany
I had tried to start after being inspired by the hadran siyum, but did not manage to stick to it. However, just before masechet taanit, our rav wrote a message to the shul WhatsApp encouraging people to start with masechet taanit, so I did! And this time, I’m hooked! I listen to the shiur every day , and am also trying to improve my skills.
Yad Binyamin, Israel
I am a Reform rabbi and took Talmud courses in rabbinical school, but I knew there was so much more to learn. It felt inauthentic to serve as a rabbi without having read the entire Talmud, so when the opportunity arose to start Daf Yomi in 2020, I dove in! Thanks to Hadran, Daf Yomi has enriched my understanding of rabbinic Judaism and deepened my love of Jewish text & tradition. Todah rabbah!
California, United States
Having never learned Talmud before, I started Daf Yomi in hopes of connecting to the Rabbinic tradition, sharing a daily idea on Instagram (@dafyomiadventures). With Hadran and Sefaria, I slowly gained confidence in my skills and understanding. Now, part of the Pardes Jewish Educators Program, I can’t wait to bring this love of learning with me as I continue to pass it on to my future students.
Pennsylvania, United States
I started learning at the start of this cycle, and quickly fell in love. It has become such an important part of my day, enriching every part of my life.
Toronto, Canada
I started learning daf in January, 2020, being inspired by watching the Siyyum Hashas in Binyanei Haumah. I wasn’t sure I would be able to keep up with the task. When I went to school, Gemara was not an option. Fast forward to March, 2022, and each day starts with the daf. The challenge is now learning the intricacies of delving into the actual learning. Hadran community, thank you!
Riverdale, NY, United States
I tried Daf Yomi in the middle of the last cycle after realizing I could listen to Michelle’s shiurim online. It lasted all of 2 days! Then the new cycle started just days before my father’s first yahrzeit and my youngest daughter’s bat mitzvah. It seemed the right time for a new beginning. My family, friends, colleagues are immensely supportive!
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
I started learning Daf Yomi in January 2020 after watching my grandfather, Mayer Penstein z”l, finish shas with the previous cycle. My grandfather made learning so much fun was so proud that his grandchildren wanted to join him. I was also inspired by Ilana Kurshan’s book, If All the Seas Were Ink. Two years in, I can say that it has enriched my life in so many ways.
New York, United States
Menachot 15
Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ Φ·Χ Χ‘ΦΈΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΄Χ: ΧΦ·Χ¦Φ΄ΦΌΧΧ₯ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·Χ¦ΦΆΦΌΧ Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΦ²ΧΦ΄ΧΧΧΦΉΧͺ, ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ Χ‘ΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ·Χ¦Φ΄ΦΌΧΧ₯ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·Χ¦ΦΆΦΌΧ Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΦ²ΧΦ΄ΧΧΧΦΉΧͺ.
The Rabbis hold that the frontplate effects acceptance for items that are normally consumed by the priests but have become ritually impure. Consequently, the sprinkling of the blood in this case is an entirely valid act that is capable of rendering the remaining pure loaf permitted for consumption. And Rabbi Yehuda holds that the frontplate does not effect acceptance for items that are consumed by the priests and have become impure. Accordingly, the sprinkling of the blood is ineffective in rendering the remaining pure loaf permitted for consumption.
ΧΦ²ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΧΦΌΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ·Χ Χ ΦΈΧͺΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·Χ Χ€ΦΈΦΌΧ€ΦΈΦΌΧ: ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ Χ’ΧΦΉΧΦ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·Χ¦Φ΄ΦΌΧΧ₯ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·Χ¦ΦΆΦΌΧ Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΦΈΧ’ΧΦΉΧΦ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦΌΧ€Φ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ΄Χ!
Rav Huna, son of Rav Natan, said to Rav Pappa: Can this be the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis? But what about items that normally ascend upon the altar? Even Rabbi Yehuda concedes that the frontplate effects acceptance for impure items that normally ascend the altar, and Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis nevertheless disagree with regard to the remaining item in a case of this kind.
ΧΦ°ΦΌΧͺΦ·Χ Φ°ΧΦΈΧ: Χ Φ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΆΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ΄ΧΧ, Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ¨: Χ©Φ°ΧΧ Φ΅ΧΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ΅Χ’ΦΈΧ©ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦ°Χ€Φ΄Χ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ΅ΧΧ Χ§ΧΧ¨Φ°ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ Χ¦Φ΄ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ¨ ΧΦΈΧΧΦΌΧ§, ΧΦ·ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ: ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧͺΧΦΉ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧΦΉΧ¨ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΧΦ³Χ¨ΦΈΧͺΧΦΉ.
The Gemara provides the source for this claim. As it is taught in a baraita: If one of the bowls of frankincense accompanying the shewbread, which are meant to be burned upon the altar, became impure, Rabbi Yehuda says that the rites of both of them may be performed in impurity, i.e., the priest may even render the second bowl impure and burn both of them together, as no communal offering is divided, and the mitzva to sacrifice communal offerings overrides the prohibition against rendering them impure. And the Rabbis say: The impure one remains in its state of impurity and the pure one remains in its state of purity. Evidently, their dispute does not depend on whether the frontplate effects acceptance.
ΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΉΧ, ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΦΈΧ©Φ΅ΧΧ: ΧͺΦΈΦΌΧ Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦ·Χ’, Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ¨: ΧΦ²Χ€Φ΄ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌ Χ©Φ΅ΧΧΦΆΧ ΧΦΆΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ°ΧΧΧ ΧΦ·Χ©Φ°ΦΌΧΧΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ β ΧΦ·Χ’Φ²Χ©ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦ°Χ€Φ΄Χ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ΅ΧΧ (Χ§ΧΧ¨Φ°ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ ΧΦΉΧͺ) [Χ§ΧΧ¨Φ°ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ] Χ¦Φ΄ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ¨ ΧΦΈΧΧΦΌΧ§, ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦ·Χ¦Φ΄ΦΌΧΧ₯ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·Χ¦ΦΆΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΦΌΧ?
And furthermore, Rav Ashi said: Come and hear an additional proof that the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis does not concern the frontplate, as we learn in a mishna (PesaαΈ₯im 80a) with regard to the consumption of the Paschal offering in a state of impurity, that Rabbi Yehuda says: Even if one tribe is ritually impure and all the rest of the tribes are pure, all the tribes may perform the rite of the Paschal offering in a state of impurity, as no communal offerings are divided. Rav Ashi explains: But here, what relevance is there to the question of whether the frontplate effects acceptance? The frontplate effects acceptance for offerings that have become impure; but it does not render it permitted for one who is ritually impure to sacrifice an offering.
ΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΉΧ, ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨ΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΦΈΧ: ΧͺΦΈΦΌΧ Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦ·Χ’, Χ Φ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦ·Χͺ ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧͺ ΧΧΦΉ (ΧΦ·ΧΦ·Χͺ) [ΧΦΆΧΦΈΧ] ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ·Χ‘Φ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ, Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ¨: Χ©Φ°ΧΧ Φ΅ΧΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ΅Χ¦Φ°ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧͺ ΧΦ·Χ©Φ°ΦΌΧΧ¨Φ΅ΧΧ€ΦΈΧ, ΧΦ°Χ€Φ΄Χ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ΅ΧΧ Χ§ΧΧ¨Φ°ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ Χ¦Φ΄ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ¨ ΧΦΈΧΧΦΌΧ§, ΧΦ·ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ: ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧͺΧΦΉ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧΦΉΧ¨ ΧΦ΅ΧΦΈΧΦ΅Χ.
And furthermore, doesnβt Ravina say: Come and hear a proof that the matter of the frontplate cannot be the subject of the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis, as the mishna teaches: If one of the two loaves brought on Shavuot or one of the two arrangements of shewbread became ritually impure, Rabbi Yehuda says: Both must be taken to the place of burning, as no communal offering is divided. And the Rabbis say: The impure one remains in its impurity and the pure one may be eaten.
ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ΄ΧΧͺΦΈΧ, ΧΦ°Χ€Φ΄Χ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ·Χ¦Φ΄ΦΌΧΧ₯ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·Χ¦ΦΆΦΌΧ Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΦ²ΧΦ΄ΧΧΧΦΉΧͺ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ°ΦΌΧ’Φ΅Χ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ! ΧΦΆΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ: ΧͺΦ·ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ Χ’ΦΈΧ¨ΧΦΌΧΦ° ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ€Φ΄ΧΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ, Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ΅ΧΧ Χ§ΧΧ¨Φ°ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ Χ¦Φ΄ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ¨ ΧΦΈΧΧΦΌΧ§.
The Gemara explains the difficulty: And if it is so, i.e., that the dispute between them concerns the frontplate, then Rabbi Yehuda should have said: They are both burned, because the frontplate does not effect acceptance for impure items that are consumed by the priests. Rather, Rabbi YoαΈ₯anan says: It is a settled tradition in the mouth of Rabbi Yehuda that no communal offering is divided, and if one part of an offering becomes impure, the entire offering is disqualified.
ΧΦ·ΧͺΦ°Χ Φ΄ΧΧ³ ΧΦ·ΧͺΦΌΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ€Φ·ΧΦΆΦΌΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦΆΦΌΧΦΆΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΆΦΌΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΉ ΧΦ°Χ€Φ·ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ ΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΦ·ΧͺΦΌΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ. ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΧ¦Φ·Χ? Χ©ΦΈΧΧΦ·Χ ΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΦ·ΧͺΦΌΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΆΧΦ±ΧΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦΆΦΌΧ ΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ¨ β ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΆΦΌΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ°Χ€ΧΦΌΧΦΈΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦΆΧΦ±ΧΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΆΦΌΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ¨ β ΧΦ·ΧΦΆΦΌΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ°Χ€ΧΦΌΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧͺΦΌΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦ°Χ€ΧΦΌΧΦΆΦΌΧΦΆΧͺ.
MISHNA: The thanks offering renders the accompanying loaves piggul but the loaves do not render the thanks offering piggul. How so? If one slaughtered the thanks offering, which may be consumed only during the day it is slaughtered and the night thereafter, with the intent to partake of it the next day, the offering and the accompanying loaves are rendered piggul. If he slaughtered it with the intent to partake of the loaves the next day, the loaves are rendered piggul and the thanks offering is not piggul.
ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ©Φ΄ΧΧΧ ΧΦ°Χ€Φ·ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦΆΦΌΧΦΆΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΆΦΌΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΉ ΧΦ°Χ€Φ·ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ ΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ©Φ΄ΧΧΧ. ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΧ¦Φ·Χ? ΧΦ·Χ©ΦΌΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ©Φ΄ΧΧΧ ΧΦΆΧΦ±ΧΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ¨ β ΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΆΦΌΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ°Χ€ΧΦΌΧΦΈΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦΆΧΦ±ΧΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦΆΦΌΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ¨ β ΧΦ·ΧΦΆΦΌΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ°Χ€ΧΦΌΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ©Φ΄ΧΧΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ€ΧΦΌΧΦΈΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧ.
Likewise, the lambs sacrificed with the two loaves meal offering on Shavuot render the accompanying loaves piggul, but the loaves do not render the lambs piggul. How so? If one slaughtered the lambs, which may be consumed only during the day they are slaughtered and the night thereafter, with the intent to partake of them the next day, the lambs and the accompanying loaves are rendered piggul. If he did so with the intent to partake of the loaves the next day, the loaves are rendered piggul and the lambs are not piggul.
ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧ³ ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦ·Χ’Φ°ΧΦΈΧ? ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ·Χ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦ²Χ ΦΈΧ, ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦ²Χ ΦΈΧ: ΧΦ΄Χ Φ·ΦΌΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅Χ ΧͺΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧ Φ΄ΦΌΧ§Φ°Χ¨Φ°ΧΧΦΌ ΧͺΦΌΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ? Χ©ΦΆΧΧ ΦΆΦΌΧΦ±ΧΦ·Χ¨: Χ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ§Φ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΦΆΧΦ·Χ ΧΦ·ΧͺΦΌΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧͺΧ΄.
GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What is the reason that a thanks offering renders its accompanying loaves piggul? If we say that it is due to that which Rav Kahana says, this is problematic. As Rav Kahana says: From where is it derived that the loaves of a thanks offering are themselves called a thanks offering? It is derived from that which is stated in the verse: βThen he shall offer with the sacrifice of thanks offering loavesβ (Leviticus 7:12). The juxtaposition of the words βthanks offeringβ and βloavesβ indicates that the loaves are themselves called a thanks offering.
ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ€Φ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ Χ ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ, ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧ Χ§Φ·Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦΈΧ: ΧΦΆΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ§Φ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ΄Χ ΧͺΦΌΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ, ΧͺΦΌΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ§Φ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ΄Χ ΧΦΆΧΦΆΧ.
The Gemara explains why the halakha of the mishna cannot be derived from Rav Kahanaβs exposition. If so, then the opposite should be the halakha as well, that intent of piggul with regard to the loaves should likewise render the thanks offering piggul. The Gemara rejects this suggestion: This is not difficult, as the loaves are called a thanks offering, but a thanks offering is not called loaves.
ΧΦΆΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ§ΦΈΧͺΦΈΧ Φ΅Χ: ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ©Φ΄ΧΧΧ ΧΦ°Χ€Φ·ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦΆΦΌΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΆΦΌΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΉ ΧΦ°Χ€Φ·ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ ΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ©Φ΄ΧΧΧ, ΧΦΆΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·Χ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧ§Φ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ΄Χ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ©Φ΄ΧΧΧ? ΧΦΆΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦΈΧΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΧ ΧΦΌ ΧΦ·Χ’Φ°ΧΦΈΧ: ΧΦΆΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·Χ ΧͺΦΌΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧͺΦΌΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·Χ (ΧΧΧΧ) [ΧΦΆΧΦΆΧ], ΧΦΆΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·Χ (ΧΧΧΧ©ΧΧ) [ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ©Φ΄ΧΧΧ], ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ©Φ΄ΧΧΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·Χ (ΧΧΧΧ) [ΧΦΆΧΦΆΧ].
The Gemara asks: But with regard to that which the mishna teaches: The lambs sacrificed with the two loaves meal offering on Shavuot render the accompanying loaves piggul but the loaves do not render the lambs piggul, where do we find that the two loaves are called lambs? Rather, is it not correct that this is the reason why the thanks offering renders the loaves piggul but not vice versa: The bread is brought on account of [gelal] the thanks offering, but the thanks offering is not brought on account of the bread, i.e., the thanks offering is the primary element of the sacrifice. Similarly, the two loaves of bread are brought on account of the lambs, and the lambs are not brought on account of the bread.
ΧΦΌΧ¦Φ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧΦ΄Χ, ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ·Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦ°Χ’Φ΄ΧΧ Φ·Χ ΧͺΦΌΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ β ΧΦΈΧͺΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ°Χ€Φ·ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΆΧΦΆΧ ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄Χ€Φ·ΦΌΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧͺΦΌΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΌΧΦ°Χ§Φ°Χ§ΧΦΌ ΧΦΆΧ ΧΦΈΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧͺΦ°Χ ΧΦΌΧ€ΦΈΧ, ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ©Φ΄ΧΧΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧΦ°Χ§Φ°Χ§ΧΦΌ ΧΦΆΧ ΧΦΈΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧͺΦ°Χ ΧΦΌΧ€ΦΈΧ β ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ°Χ€Φ·ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΆΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ€Φ·ΦΌΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΄Χ Χ ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ©Φ΄ΧΧΧ, Χ¦Φ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ.
The Gemara notes: And both of these halakhot are necessary, as, had the mishna taught us the halakha only in the case of a thanks offering, then one might say: It is only there, with regard to a thanks offering, that when one renders the loaves piggul the thanks offering is not rendered piggul, because they were not bound to one another by waving, i.e., the mitzva of waving the thanks offering may be fulfilled without the bread. But with regard to the lambs, in which the two items were bound to one another by waving, as the two loaves are waved together with the lambs, one might say that when he renders the bread piggul, the lambs should be rendered piggul as well. Therefore, it was necessary for the mishna to teach this halakha also with regard to the case of the lambs.
ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ’ΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ Φ΅ΦΌΧΧΦΌ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦΆΧΦ°Χ’ΦΈΧΦΈΧ¨ ΧΦ΅Χ¨Φ·Χ: ΧΦ·Χ©ΦΌΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΦ·ΧͺΦΌΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΆΧΦ±ΧΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·ΧΦ΄Χͺ ΧΦ΄ΧΦΆΦΌΧ ΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ¨, ΧΦ·ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ€Φ·ΦΌΧΦΌΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ? ΧͺΦΌΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ·ΦΌΧ’Φ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄Χ, ΧΦ·Χ©Φ°ΧΧͺΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧΦΌΧΦΉ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ€Φ·ΦΌΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦ΄ΧΦΆΦΌΧ ΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ·ΦΌΧ’Φ°ΧΦΈΧ?
Β§ Rabbi Elazar raised a dilemma before Rav: If one slaughters the thanks offering with the intent to consume an olive-bulk from it and from its loaves the next day, what is the halakha? Rabbi Elazar elaborates: I do not raise the dilemma with regard to rendering the thanks offering piggul, for the following reason: Now that in a case where his intent was to consume the entire olive-bulk from its loaves alone, the thanks offering is not rendered piggul, in accordance with the mishnaβs ruling that piggul intent with regard to the loaves does not render the thanks offering piggul, then in a case where his intent is to consume half an olive-bulk from the thanks offering and half an olive-bulk from its loaves, in which case the offering is rendered piggul only if the two intentions of less than a full measure are combined, is it necessary to teach that the thanks offering is not piggul?
ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ Χ§ΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ·ΦΌΧ’Φ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ€Φ·ΦΌΧΦΌΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΆΧΦΆΧ, ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ΄Χ¦Φ°ΧΦΈΧ¨Φ°Χ€ΦΈΧ ΧͺΦΌΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ€Φ·ΦΌΧΦΌΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ°ΧΦΆΧΦΆΧ ΧΧΦΉ ΧΦΈΧ?
Rather, when I raise the dilemma, it is with regard to rendering the loaves piggul, which can be rendered piggul via intent concerning the loaves alone. In this case, does the intention of the priest with regard to the thanks offering combine with his intention concerning the loaves to render the loaves piggul, or not?
ΧΦ²ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ: ΧΦ·Χ£ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦΉ, ΧΦ·ΧΦΆΦΌΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ°Χ€ΧΦΌΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧͺΦΌΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦ°Χ€ΧΦΌΧΦΆΦΌΧΦΆΧͺ. ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΧ? ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ Χ§Φ·Χ ΧΦΈΧΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ¨: ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧͺΦΌΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°Χ€Φ·ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ΄ΧͺΦ°Χ€Φ·ΦΌΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ, ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ°Χ€Φ·ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦΉΧ Χ€Φ΄ΦΌΧΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ β ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΉ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦΉΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄ΧͺΦ°Χ€Φ·ΦΌΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ?
Rav said to Rabbi Elazar: Even in this case, the loaves are rendered piggul and the thanks offering is not rendered piggul. The Gemara asks: But why should the loaves be rendered piggul? Let us say the following a fortiori inference: And if the thanks offering, which in this case serves to render the loaves piggul, is itself not rendered piggul, then the loaves, which come to render the thanks offering piggul, but do not render it piggul, as the intent to consume half an olive-bulk from the loaves does not combine with the intent to consume half an olive-bulk from the thanks offering to render the thanks offering piggul, is it not logical that the loaves themselves should not be rendered piggul?
ΧΦΌΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ Φ·Χ Χ§Φ·Χ ΧΦΈΧΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ¨ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΧ ΦΈΧ? ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧͺΦ·Χ Φ°ΧΦΈΧ: ΧΦ·Χ’Φ²Χ©ΦΆΧΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΆΧΦΈΧ
The Gemara asks: And do we say an a fortiori inference in this way? But isnβt it taught in a baraita: There was an incident involving one
Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦΈΦΌΧ¨Φ·Χ’ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ¨Φ°ΧΧΦΉ Χ©ΦΆΧΧ ΧΦ²ΧΦ΅ΧΧ¨ΧΦΉ Χ‘Φ°ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨, ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·Χ’Φ²Χ©ΦΆΧΧ ΧΦ΄Χ€Φ°Χ Φ΅Χ ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ‘Φ°Χ¨ΧΦΌ ΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨ΦΈΧ’Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧͺΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ¨ΧΦΌ ΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ€ΦΈΧ Φ΄ΧΧ. ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΧ? ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ Χ§Φ·Χ ΧΦΈΧΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ¨ ΧΧΦΌΧ: ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΧΦΉΧ‘Φ΅Χ¨ ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΉ Χ ΦΆΧΦ±Χ‘ΦΈΧ¨, ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦΆΧΦ±Χ‘ΧΦΉΧ¨ ΧΦ°ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΈΧ‘Φ·Χ¨ β ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΉ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦΉΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄ΧͺΦ°ΧΦ·Χ‘Φ΅ΦΌΧ¨?
who planted seeds in the vineyard of an another when the grapes on the vines were budding, and the incident came before the Sages and they deemed the seeds prohibited due to the prohibition against planting diverse kinds in a vineyard, but they deemed the vines permitted. The Gemara continues: But why did they deem the seeds prohibited? Let the Sages say through an analogous a fortiori inference that the seeds should be permitted: And if that which renders an item prohibited, i.e., the vine, which causes the seeds to be prohibited, is itself not prohibited, then with regard to the seeds, which come to render the vines prohibited but did not render the vines prohibited, is it not logical that they should not be rendered prohibited?
ΧΦΈΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ·Χ©Φ°ΧΧͺΦΈΦΌΧ? ΧΦΈΧͺΦΈΧ Χ§Φ·Χ Φ°ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧ‘ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ£ ΧΦΈΧ‘Φ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ ΧͺΦΌΧΦΉΧ¨ΦΈΧ, ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧͺΦ°Χ Φ·Χ: ΧΦΈΧΦ°ΧͺΦΈΧ Χ©ΦΈΧΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΌΧ’ΦΈΧ Χ§Φ·Χ Φ°ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧ‘ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ£ ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅Χ ΧΧΦΉΧ¨Φ΅Χ’Φ· Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΧΦΆΧ, Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ΅Χ Χ’ΧΦΉΧ©ΧΧΦΉΧͺ ΧΦ°Χ©ΦΈΧΧΦΉΧ©Χ Χ©ΦΈΧΧ Φ΄ΧΧ β Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦΈΧ¨ ΧΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ’Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ Φ·Χ ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦ²Χ‘Φ΄ΧΧ¨Φ΄Χ. ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ’ΦΈΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ‘ΦΌΧΦΌΧ¨ΦΈΧ β Χ§Φ·Χ Φ°Χ‘ΧΦΌΧΦΌ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ Φ·Χ, ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ Χ’ΦΈΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ‘ΦΌΧΦΌΧ¨ΦΈΧ β ΧΦΈΧ Χ§Φ·Χ Φ°Χ‘ΧΦΌΧΦΌ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ Φ·Χ. ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ Χ§Φ·Χ ΧΦΈΧΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ¨!
The Gemara rejects the comparison: How can these cases be compared? There, in the baraita, only hemp and arum are prohibited by Torah law to be sown in a vineyard, as we learned in a mishna (Kilayim 2:5): If oneβs field was sown with hemp and arum, he should not sow above them, as they produce a yield only once every three years. Other seeds are prohibited by rabbinic law. Therefore, with regard to this person who committed a transgression by planting the seeds in the vineyard of another, the Sages penalized him and deemed his seeds prohibited, but as for that person who did not commit a transgression, i.e., the owner of the vineyard, the Sages did not penalize him. But here, in the case of piggul, which is a biblical prohibition, let us say such an a fortiori inference.
ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·ΧͺΦ°Χ Φ΅Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ©Φ΄ΧΧΧ, ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ’ΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ Φ΅ΦΌΧΧΦΌ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦΆΧΦ°Χ’ΦΈΧΦΈΧ¨ ΧΦ΅Χ¨Φ·Χ: ΧΦ·Χ©ΦΌΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ©Φ΄ΧΧΧ ΧΦΆΧΦ±ΧΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·ΧΦ΄Χͺ ΧΦ΅ΧΦΆΧ ΧΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦ·ΧΧΦΌ?
And there are those who teach the dilemma of Rabbi Elazar with regard to the lambs brought with the two loaves, and not with regard to a thanks offering. Rabbi Elazar raised a dilemma before Rav: In a case where one slaughters the lambs with the intent to consume an olive-bulk from them and from their loaves the next day, what is the halakha?
ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ€Φ·ΦΌΧΦΌΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ©Φ΄ΧΧΧ ΧΦΈΧ Χ§ΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ·ΦΌΧ’Φ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄Χ, ΧΦ·Χ©Φ°ΧΧͺΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧΦΌΧΦΉ ΧΦ΄ΧΦΆΦΌΧΦΆΧ ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄Χ€Φ·ΦΌΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΄Χ, ΧΦ΅ΧΦΆΧ ΧΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ·ΦΌΧ’Φ°ΧΦΈΧ? ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ Χ§ΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ·ΦΌΧ’Φ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ€Φ·ΦΌΧΦΌΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΆΧΦΆΧ, ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ΄Χ¦Φ°ΧΦΈΧ¨Φ°Χ€Φ΄Χ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ©Φ΄ΧΧΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ€Φ·ΦΌΧΦΌΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ°ΧΦΆΧΦΆΧ ΧΧΦΉ ΧΦΈΧ?
Rabbi Elazar elaborated: I do not raise the dilemma with regard to rendering the lambs piggul for the following reason: Now that in a case where his intent was to consume an entire olive-bulk from the loaves alone, the lambs are not rendered piggul, as the mishna teaches that piggul intent with regard to the loaves does not render the lambs piggul, then in a case where his intent is to consume half an olive-bulk from them and half an olive-bulk from their loaves, is it necessary to teach that the lambs are not piggul? Rather, when I raised the dilemma, it was with regard to rendering the loaves piggul. Does his intention with regard to the lambs combine with his intention with regard to the loaves to render the loaves piggul or not?
ΧΦ²ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ: ΧΦ·Χ£ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦΉ, ΧΦ·ΧΦΆΦΌΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ°Χ€ΧΦΌΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ©Φ΄ΧΧΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ€ΧΦΌΧΦΈΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧ. ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΧ? ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ Χ§Φ·Χ ΧΦΈΧΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ¨: ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°Χ€Φ·ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΉ ΧΦ΄ΧͺΦ°Χ€Φ·ΦΌΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ, ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ°Χ€Φ·ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦΉΧ Χ€Φ΄ΦΌΧΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ β ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΉ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦΉΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄ΧͺΦ°Χ€Φ·ΦΌΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ?
Rav said to Rabbi Elazar: Even in this case, the loaves are rendered piggul and the lambs are not rendered piggul. The Gemara asks: But why should the loaves be rendered piggul? Let us say the following a fortiori inference: And if that which renders an item piggul, i.e., the lambs, since it is maintained that intent to consume half an olive-bulk from the lambs assists to render the loaves piggul, is itself not rendered piggul, then with regard to the loaves, which come to render the lambs piggul, but do not render them piggul, as the intent to consume half an olive-bulk from the loaves does not combine with the intent to consume half an olive-bulk from the lambs to render them piggul, is it not logical that the loaves themselves should not be rendered piggul?
ΧΦΌΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ Φ·Χ Χ§Φ·Χ ΧΦΈΧΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ¨ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦ°Χ ΦΈΧ? ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧͺΦ·Χ Φ°ΧΦΈΧ: ΧΦ·Χ’Φ²Χ©ΦΆΧΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΆΧΦΈΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦΈΦΌΧ¨Φ·Χ’ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ¨Φ°ΧΧΦΉ Χ©ΦΆΧΧ ΧΦ²ΧΦ΅ΧΧ¨ΧΦΉ Χ‘Φ°ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ³. ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΧ? ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ Χ§Φ·Χ ΧΦΈΧΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ¨: ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΧΦΉΧ‘Φ΅Χ¨ ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΉ Χ ΦΆΧΦ±Χ‘ΦΈΧ¨, ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦΆΧΦ±Χ‘ΧΦΉΧ¨ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧ‘Φ·Χ¨ β ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΉ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦΉΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄ΧͺΦ°ΧΦ·Χ‘Φ΅ΦΌΧ¨?
The Gemara asks: And do we say an a fortiori inference of this kind? But isnβt it taught in a baraita that there was an incident involving one who planted seeds in the vineyard of his friend when the grapes on the vines were budding, and the incident came before the Sages and they deemed the seeds prohibited due to the prohibition against planting diverse kinds in a vineyard, but they deemed the vines permitted. The Gemara continues: But why did they deem the seeds prohibited? Let the Sages say through an analogous a fortiori inference that the seeds should be permitted: And if that which renders an item prohibited, i.e., the vine, which causes the seeds to be prohibited, is itself not prohibited, then with regard to the seeds, which come to render the vines prohibited but did not render the vines prohibited, is it not logical that they should not be rendered prohibited?
ΧΦΈΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ·Χ©Φ°ΧΧͺΦΈΦΌΧ? ΧΦΈΧͺΦΈΧ Χ§Φ·Χ Φ°ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧ‘ ΧΦΈΧΧΦΌΧ£ ΧΦΈΧ‘Φ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ ΧͺΦΌΧΦΉΧ¨ΦΈΧ, Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦΈΧ¨ ΧΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ’Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ Φ·Χ ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦ²Χ‘Φ΄ΧΧ¨Φ΄Χ, ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ’ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ‘ΦΌΧΦΌΧ¨ΦΈΧ β Χ§Φ·Χ Φ°Χ‘ΧΦΌΧΦΌ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ Φ·Χ, ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ Χ’ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ‘ΦΌΧΦΌΧ¨ΦΈΧ β ΧΦΈΧ Χ§Φ·Χ Φ°Χ‘ΧΦΌΧΦΌ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ Φ·Χ, ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ Χ§Φ·Χ ΧΦΈΧΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ¨!
The Gemara rejects the comparison: How can these cases be compared? There, in the baraita, only hemp and arum are prohibited by Torah law to be sown in a vineyard. Other seeds are prohibited by rabbinic law. Therefore, with regard to this person who committed a transgression by planting the seeds in the vineyard of another, the Sages penalized him and deemed his seeds prohibited, but as for this person who did not commit a transgression, i.e., the owner of the vineyard, the Sages did not penalize him. But here, in the case of piggul, which is a biblical prohibition, let us say such an a fortiori inference.
ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·ΧͺΦ°Χ Φ΅Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌ ΧΦ·ΧͺΦΌΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ β ΧΧΦΌΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ©Φ΄ΧΧΧ, ΧΦΌΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·ΧͺΦ°Χ Φ΅Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ©Φ΄ΧΧΧ β ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ©Φ΄ΧΧΧ ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧΦ°Χ§Φ°Χ§ΧΦΌ ΧΦΆΧ ΧΦΈΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ΄ΧͺΦ°Χ ΧΦΌΧ€ΦΈΧ, ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ ΧͺΦΌΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΉΧ ΧΧΦΌΧΦ°Χ§Φ°Χ§ΦΈΧ ΧΦΆΧ ΧΦΈΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧͺΦ°Χ ΧΦΌΧ€ΦΈΧ β ΧΦΈΧ.
The Gemara notes: The one who teaches that the dilemma of Rabbi Elazar was raised with regard to the thanks offering and the accompanying loaves, all the more so will hold that the dilemma may be raised with regard to the case of the lambs brought with the two loaves on Shavuot. But the one who teaches that Rabbi Elazarβs dilemma was raised with regard to the lambs and the two loaves, it is possible that he holds that the dilemma was raised only with regard to the lambs and the two loaves, as they were bound to one another by waving, since the priest waves the lambs and loaves together (see Leviticus 23:20). But with regard to a thanks offering and its loaves, as they were not bound to one another by waving, the dilemma was not raised, since it is obvious in this case that his intentions do not combine.
Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΌΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΈΦΌΧ’Φ΅Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌ ΧΦΈΧΦ΄Χ, ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ’ΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ Φ΅ΦΌΧΧΦΌ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦΆΧΦ°Χ’ΦΈΧΦΈΧ¨ ΧΦ΅Χ¨Φ·Χ: ΧΦ·Χ©ΦΌΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦΆΦΌΧΦΆΧ©Χ ΧΦΆΧΦ±ΧΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·ΧΦ΄Χͺ ΧΦ΅ΧΦ²ΧΦ΅ΧΧ¨ΧΦΉ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ¨, ΧΦ·ΧΧΦΌ? Χ΄ΧΦ²ΧΦ΅ΧΧ¨ΧΦΉΧ΄ ΧΦΆΦΌΧΦΆΧ©Χ ΧΦ·Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦ·Χ’, ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ€Φ·ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ, ΧΧΦΉ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ Χ΄ΧΦΆΧΦΆΧΧ΄ ΧΦ·Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦ·Χ’, ΧΦΌΧΦ°Χ€Φ·ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ.
Rabbi Abba the small taught that Rabbi Elazar raises the dilemma in this manner: Rabbi Elazar raised a dilemma before Rav: If one slaughters one of the lambs brought on Shavuot with the two loaves intending to consume an olive-bulk from the other the next day, what is the halakha? When this individual thinks of the other, does he mean the other lamb, and if so, the lamb is not rendered piggul, as one permitting factor does not render another permitting factor piggul? Or perhaps when this individual thinks of the other he means the other part of the offering, i.e., the two loaves, and if so his intention renders it piggul, as taught in the mishna.
ΧΦ²ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ: ΧͺΦ°ΦΌΧ Φ΅ΧΧͺΧΦΌΧΦΈ, Χ©ΦΈΧΧΦ·Χ ΧΦΆΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ©Φ΄ΧΧΧ ΧΦΆΧΦ±ΧΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦΆΦΌΧ ΦΌΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ¨ β ΧΧΦΌΧ Χ€Φ΄ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ²ΧΦ΅ΧΧ¨ΧΦΉ ΧΦΈΦΌΧ©Φ΅ΧΧ¨, ΧΦΆΧΦ±ΧΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΦ²ΧΦ΅ΧΧ¨ΧΦΉ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ¨ β Χ©Φ°ΧΧ Φ΅ΧΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ©Φ΅ΧΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ Χ΄ΧΦ²ΧΦ΅ΧΧ¨ΧΦΉΧ΄ ΧΦΆΦΌΧΦΆΧ©Χ ΧΦ·Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦ·Χ’! ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ€ΦΈΧ¨Φ΅ΧΧ©Χ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ΄ΧΦ²ΧΦ΅ΧΧ¨ΧΦΉ ΧΦΆΦΌΧΦΆΧ©ΧΧ΄.
Rav said to Rabbi Elazar: You learned in a mishna (16a): If one slaughtered one of the lambs with the intent to partake of it the next day, that lamb is piggul and the other is fit. If he slaughtered one lamb with the intent to partake of the other the next day, both lambs are fit, as one permitting factor does not render another permitting factor piggul. Rav concludes: Evidently, in this context the term: The other, means the other lamb. The Gemara rejects this proof: Perhaps the mishna is discussing a case where he clarifies and says: The other lamb, but the mishna is not referring to a case where he merely thought: The other.
ΧΦ·ΧͺΦ°Χ Φ΄ΧΧ³ ΧΦ·ΧΦΆΦΌΧΦ·Χ ΧΦ°Χ€Φ·ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ ΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΦ·Χ Φ°ΦΌΧ‘ΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΆΦΌΧΧ§ΦΈΦΌΧΦ°Χ©ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ, ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΅Χ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¨. ΧΦ·Χ Φ°ΦΌΧ‘ΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ€Φ·ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦΆΦΌΧΦ·Χ. ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΧ¦Φ·Χ? ΧΦ·Χ©ΦΌΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦΆΦΌΧΦ·Χ ΧΦΆΧΦ±ΧΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦΆΦΌΧ ΦΌΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ¨ β ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦΌΧ Φ°Χ‘ΦΈΧΦΈΧΧ ΧΦ°Χ€ΧΦΌΧΦΈΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ§Φ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ Χ Φ°Χ‘ΦΈΧΦΈΧΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ¨ β ΧΦ·Χ Φ°ΦΌΧ‘ΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°Χ€ΧΦΌΧΦΈΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦ·ΧΦΆΦΌΧΦ·Χ ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΉ ΧΦ°Χ€ΧΦΌΧΦΈΦΌΧ.
MISHNA: The animal offering renders the accompanying libations and meal offerings piggul from the moment that they were consecrated in the vessel, but not before; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. The libations do not render the animal offering piggul. How so? In the case of one who slaughters the offering with the intent to partake of it the next day, the offering and its libations are rendered piggul. But if one slaughters the offering with the intent to sacrifice its libations the next day, the libations are rendered piggul, while the offering is not piggul.
ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧ³ ΧͺΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦΌ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ Φ·Χ: Χ Φ΄Χ‘Φ°ΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΅ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧΦ΄ΧΧ Χ’Φ²ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧ Χ€Φ΄ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ, ΧΦ΄Χ€Φ°ΦΌΧ Φ΅Χ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ·ΦΌΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΆΦΌΧΦ·Χ ΧΦ·ΧͺΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄Χ§Φ°Χ¨Φ·Χ, ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΅Χ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¨.
GEMARA: The Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to the libations of an animal offering, one is liable for eating them due to violation of the prohibition of piggul, as the blood of the offering permits them to be offered on the altar, and any item that becomes permitted for consumption or for sacrifice through a permitting factor can be rendered piggul, and one who partakes of such an item after its permitting factors were sacrificed is liable to receive karet. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir.
ΧΦΈΧΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΌ ΧΧΦΉ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¨: ΧΦ·ΧΦ²ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΌΧ Φ°Χ‘ΦΈΧΦΈΧΧ Χ’Φ·Χ Χ’Φ²Χ©ΦΈΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ! ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦΈΧΦΆΧ: ΧΦ·Χ£ ΧΦ²Χ Φ΄Χ ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨Φ°ΧͺΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦΆΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ Χ’Φ΄Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΆΦΌΧΦ·Χ. ΧΦΈΧΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΌ ΧΧΦΉ: ΧΦΆΧ€Φ°Χ©ΦΈΧΧ¨ ΧΦ°Χ©Φ·ΧΧ ΦΌΧΦΉΧͺΧΦΉ ΧΦ°ΧΦΆΧΦ·Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦ΅Χ¨!
The Rabbis said to Rabbi Meir: But a person may bring his offering today and the accompanying libations from now until even ten days later. Evidently, then, the blood of the offering does render the libations permitted. Rabbi Meir said to them: I, too, spoke only about libations that come to be sacrificed together with the offering and were already sanctified in a service vessel for that purpose. The Rabbis said to him: But it is possible to switch the libations for use with another offering. Clearly, then, they are not considered an indispensable part of that offering.
ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨ΦΈΧΦΈΧ: Χ§ΦΈΧ‘ΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¨, ΧΧΦΌΧ§Φ°ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ’ΧΦΌ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ©Φ°ΧΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅Χ ΧͺΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ.
Rava said: Rabbi Meir holds that the libations are fixed to this particular offering at the time of its slaughter, and one may not use them with another offering. Accordingly, these libations are rendered piggul on account of intent during the slaughter of the offering, just like the loaves of a thanks offering, which are fixed to a particular thanks offering upon its slaughter and become piggul on account of intent during the slaughter of that particular thanks offering.
ΧͺΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦΌ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ Φ·Χ: ΧΧΦΉΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦΆΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧ ΧΦ°Χ¦ΧΦΉΧ¨ΦΈΧ’ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧΦ΄ΧΧ Χ’ΦΈΧΦΈΧΧ ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧ Χ€Φ΄ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ, ΧΦ΄Χ€Φ°ΦΌΧ Φ΅Χ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ·ΦΌΧ ΧΦΈΧ©ΦΈΧΧ ΧΦ·ΧͺΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ¨ΧΦΉ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΉΧͺ, ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΅Χ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¨. ΧΦΈΧΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΌ ΧΧΦΉ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¨: ΧΦ·ΧΦ²ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ²Χ©ΦΈΧΧΧΦΉ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌΧΦΉ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ°Χ’Φ·Χ Χ’Φ²Χ©ΦΈΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ.
In a similar vein, the Sages taught: With regard to the log of oil of the leper (see Leviticus 14:10β20), one is liable for eating it due to violation of the prohibition of piggul if the guilt offering that this oil accompanied became piggul, as the blood of the offering permits it to be placed on the right thumb and big toe of the leper. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. The Rabbis said to Rabbi Meir: But a person may bring his guilt offering today and the accompanying log of oil from now until even ten days later. Evidently, the log of oil is not considered part of the guilt offering, and therefore it should not be rendered piggul on account of it.
ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦΈΧΦΆΧ: ΧΦ·Χ£ ΧΦ²Χ Φ΄Χ ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨Φ°ΧͺΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦΆΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ Χ’Φ΄Χ ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ©ΦΈΧΧ, ΧΦΆΧ€Φ°Χ©ΦΈΧΧ¨ ΧΦ°Χ©Φ·ΧΧ ΦΌΧΦΉΧͺΧΦΉ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ©ΦΈΧΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ΅Χ¨. ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨ΦΈΧΦΈΧ: Χ§ΦΈΧ‘ΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¨ ΧΧΦΌΧ§Φ°ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ’ΧΦΌ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ©Φ°ΧΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅Χ ΧͺΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ.
Rabbi Meir said to them: I, too, spoke only about a log of oil that comes with the guilt offering. The Rabbis said to him: But even in this case, the oil should not be considered part of the offering, as it is possible to switch the oil for use with another guilt offering. Rava said: Rabbi Meir holds that the log of oil is fixed to this particular guilt offering at the time of its slaughter and is therefore rendered piggul on account of it, just like the loaves of a thanks offering, as the slaughter of the thanks offering fixes the accompanying loaves to that particular offering.
