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

Today's Daf Yomi

August 27, 2018 | 讟状讝 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 17

If the burning is done in very small quantities and the thought the kohen has each time he burns a little bit is about eating a very small part of the remainder, is that pigul? A debate is brought regarding the case where one聽burns the kmitza聽and thinks about burning the frankincense聽at the wrong time, is that pigul or not? The third perek聽starts with an explanation of the debate between Rabbi Eliezer and the rabbis regarding a pigul thought about burning something that is meant to be eaten and eating something that is meant to be burned.


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

讞专讬驻讬 讚驻讜诪讘讚讬转讗 讛拽讟专讛 诪驻讙诇转 讛拽讟专讛 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诇专讘谞谉 讚讗诪专讬 讗讬谉 诪驻讙诇讬谉 讘讞爪讬 诪转讬专 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讬讻讗 讚讞讬砖讘 讘讬讛 讘砖讬专讬诐 讜诇讘讜谞讛 讘诪讬诇转讗 拽讬讬诪讗 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讚讞讬砖讘 诇讛 讘诇讘讜谞讛 讻诪讛 讚讞讬砖讘 讘讬讛 讘讻讜诇讬讛 诪转讬专 讚诪讬

the sharp people in the city of Pumbedita: Burning renders burning piggul, e.g., burning the handful with the intent to burn the frankincense the next day renders the meal offering piggul. And this is the halakha even according to the Rabbis, who say that one does not render an offering piggul with intent occurring during the sacrifice of half of a permitting factor, e.g., when sacrificing the handful alone with intent of piggul. The reason is that this statement applies only where he had intent during the sacrifice of the handful to consume the remainder the next day, and the frankincense stands intact, i.e., he had no intent with regard to it. But here, when he had intent with regard to the frankincense while burning the handful, it is considered as though he had intent with regard to the entire permitting factor.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讗祝 讗谞谉 谞诪讬 转谞讬谞讗 讝讛 讛讻诇诇 讻诇 讛拽讜诪抓 讜谞讜转谉 讘讻诇讬 讜讛诪讜诇讬讱 讜讛诪拽讟讬专 诇讗讻讜诇 讚讘专 砖讚专讻讜 诇讗讻讜诇 讜诇讛拽讟讬专 讚讘专 砖讚专讻讜 诇讛拽讟讬专 讞讜抓 诇诪拽讜诪讜 驻住讜诇 讜讗讬谉 讘讜 讻专转 讞讜抓 诇讝诪谞讜 驻讙讜诇 讜讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 讻专转

Rava said: We learn this halakha in a mishna, as well (12a): This is the principle: In the case of anyone who removes the handful, or places the handful in the vessel, or who conveys the vessel with the handful to the altar, or who burns the handful on the altar, with the intent to partake of an item whose typical manner is such that one partakes of it, or to burn an item whose typical manner is such that one burns it on the altar, outside its designated area, the meal offering is unfit but there is no liability for karet. If his intent was to do so beyond its designated time, the offering is piggul and one is liable to receive karet on account of it.

诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讛拽讟专讛 讚讜诪讬讗 讚讛谞讱 诪讛 讛谞讱 讘讬谉 诇讗讻讜诇 讘讬谉 诇讛拽讟讬专 讗祝 讛拽讟专讛 讘讬谉 诇讗讻讜诇 讘讬谉 诇讛拽讟讬专

Rava explains: What, is it not correct to say that the halakha with regard to burning is similar to these, i.e., the removal of the handful, its placement in a vessel, and the conveying? Accordingly, just as with regard to these, whether one鈥檚 intent was to partake of the remainder the next day or to burn the frankincense the next day, the halakha is that the offering is piggul, so too with regard to burning, whether one鈥檚 intent was to partake of the remainder or to burn the frankincense the next day, the offering is piggul.

诇讗 讛谞讱 讘讬谉 诇讗讻讜诇 讘讬谉 诇讛拽讟讬专 讛拽讟专讛 诇讗讻讜诇 讗讬谉 诇讛拽讟讬专 诇讗

The Gemara rejects this comparison: No, with regard to these, whether one鈥檚 intent was to partake of the remainder or to burn the frankincense the next day, the offering is in fact piggul. But with regard to burning, if one鈥檚 intent was to partake of the remainder the next day, yes, it is piggul, but if one鈥檚 intent was to burn the frankincense the next day, it is not piggul.

讬转讬讘 专讘 诪谞砖讬讗 讘专 讙讚讗 拽诪讬讛 讚讗讘讬讬 讜讬转讬讘 讜拽讗 讗诪专 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讞住讚讗 讗讬谉 讛拽讟专讛 诪驻讙诇转 讛拽讟专讛 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讚讗诪专 诪驻讙诇讬谉 讘讞爪讬 诪转讬专

The Gemara relates that Rav Menashya bar Gadda sat before Abaye, and while he was sitting he said in the name of Rav 岣sda: Burning does not render burning piggul, e.g., burning the handful with the intent to burn the frankincense the next day does not render the offering piggul. And this is the halakha even according to the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who says in the mishna that one renders an offering piggul through intent during the sacrifice of half of a permitting factor, e.g., when sacrificing the handful but not the frankincense with intent of piggul.

讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讬讻讗 讚讞讬砖讘 讘讛讜 讘砖讬专讬诐 讚拽讜诪抓 诪转讬专 讚讬讚讛讜 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讚拽讜诪抓 诇讗讜 诪转讬专 讚诇讘讜谞讛 讛讜讗 诇讗 诪爪讬 诪驻讙诇 讘讬讛

Rav Menashya bar Gadda explains that the reason is that this statement of Rabbi Meir applies only where he had intent during the sacrifice of the handful to consume the remainder the next day, as the handful is their permitting factor. But here, as the handful is not a permitting factor of the frankincense, the offering cannot be rendered piggul through it.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 注谞讬 诪专讬 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谉 讗讬转诪专 谞诪讬 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗讬谉 讛拽讟专讛 诪驻讙诇转 讛拽讟专讛

Abaye said to Rav Menashya: Answer me, my Master, did Rav 岣sda state this halakha in the name of Rav? Rav Menashya said to Abaye: Yes. The Gemara notes that it was also stated explicitly that Rav 岣sda says that Rav says: Burning does not render burning piggul.

讗诪专 专讘 讬注拽讘 讘专 讗讬讚讬 诪砖诪讬讛 讚讗讘讬讬 讗祝 讗谞谉 谞诪讬 转谞讬谞讗 砖讞讟 讗讞讚 诪谉 讛讻讘砖讬诐 诇讗讻讜诇 诪诪谞讜 诇诪讞专 讛讜讗 驻讬讙讜诇 讜讞讘讬专讜 讻砖专 诇讗讻讜诇 诪讞讘讬专讜 诇诪讞专 砖谞讬讛诐 讻砖专讬谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讚讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗讜 诪转讬专 讚讬讚讬讛 讛讜讗 诇讗 诪爪讬 诪驻讙诇 讘讬讛

Rav Ya鈥檃kov bar Idi said in the name of Abaye: We learn in the mishna as well that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav: If one slaughtered one of the lambs with the intent to partake of it the next day, that lamb is piggul and the other lamb is fit. If he slaughtered one lamb with the intent to partake of the other the next day, both lambs are fit. What is the reason? Is it not due to the fact that since the first lamb is not a permitting factor of the second lamb, it cannot render the second lamb piggul? The same reasoning should apply to the case of the handful and frankincense.

诇讗 讛转诐 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 讗讬拽讘注 讘讞讚 诪谞讗 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讚讗讬拽讘注 讘讞讚 诪谞讗 讻讬 讞讚 讚诪讜

The Gemara rejects this suggestion: No; there is a difference between these cases. It is only there, in the mishna, that one lamb cannot render the other piggul, as it was not fixed in one vessel with the other lamb, and therefore each animal stands independent of the other. But here, as the handful and frankincense were fixed in one vessel for the purpose of offering them, they are considered like one item and one of them therefore renders the other piggul.

讗诪专 专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 讛讗 诪讬诇转讗 讗讘诇注 诇讬 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讜转拽讬诇讗 诇讬 讻讻讜诇讬讛 转诇诪讜讚讗讬 讛拽讟讬专 拽讜诪抓 诇讛拽讟讬专 诇讘讜谞讛 讜诇讘讜谞讛 诇讗讻讜诇 砖讬专讬诐 诇诪讞专 驻讙讜诇

Rav Hamnuna said: Rabbi 岣nina helped me internalize this following matter, and to me it is equivalent to all the rest of my learning, as it contains a significant novelty: If one burned the handful with the intent to burn the frankincense the next day, and burned the frankincense with the intent to partake of the remainder the next day, the meal offering is piggul.

诪讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讗讬 讛拽讟专讛 诪驻讙诇转 讛拽讟专讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 诇讬诪讗 讛拽讟讬专 拽讜诪抓 诇讛拽讟讬专 诇讘讜谞讛 讗讬 诪驻讙诇讬谉 讘讞爪讬 诪转讬专 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 诇讬诪讗 讛拽讟讬专 拽讜诪抓 诇讗讻讜诇 砖讬专讬诐 诇诪讞专 讗讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讗转讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 诇讬诪讗 讛拽讟讬专 拽讜诪抓 诇讛拽讟讬专 诇讘讜谞讛 讜诇讗讻讜诇 砖讬专讬诐 诇诪讞专

The Gemara asks: What is Rabbi 岣nina teaching us? If he is teaching us that burning renders burning piggul, then let him simply say: If one burned the handful with the intent to burn the frankincense, the offering is piggul. If he is teaching us that one renders an offering piggul through intent during the sacrifice of half of a permitting factor, then let him say: If one burned the handful with the intent to partake of the remainder the next day, the offering is piggul. If he is coming to teach us both of these halakhot, let him say: If one burned the handful with the intent to burn the frankincense or to partake of the remainder the next day, the offering is piggul.

讗诪专 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 诇注讜诇诐 拽住讘专 讗讬谉 讛拽讟专讛 诪驻讙诇转 讛拽讟专讛 讜讗讬谉 诪驻讙诇讬谉 讘讞爪讬 诪转讬专 讜砖讗谞讬 讛讻讗 讚驻砖讟讗 诇讬讛 诪讞砖讘讛 讘讻讜诇讛 诪谞讞讛

Rav Adda bar Ahava said: Actually, Rabbi 岣nina holds that burning does not render burning piggul, and therefore if one burned only the handful with the intent to burn the frankincense the next day, the offering is not piggul. And he also holds that one does not render an offering piggul through intent during the sacrifice of half of a permitting factor, and consequently if one burned only the handful with the intent to partake of the remainder the next day, the offering is not piggul either. But it is different here, as intent of piggul has extended over the entire meal offering, as he had intent of piggul during the burning of the handful with regard to the frankincense and during the burning of the frankincense with regard to the remainder.

转谞讬 转谞讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专 讗讘讗 讛拽讟讬专 拽讜诪抓 诇讗讻讜诇 砖讬专讬诐 诇讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 驻讙讜诇 讜讛讗 诪讬驻诇讙 驻诇讬讙讬 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 诇讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 驻住讜诇

The Gemara relates that a tanna taught a baraita before Rav Yitz岣k bar Abba: If one burned the handful with the intent to partake of the remainder the next day, everyone agrees that the meal offering is piggul. The Gemara raises a difficulty: But don鈥檛 Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis disagree in the mishna with regard to this very case? Rather, say that the baraita states: Everyone agrees that the offering is disqualified, as although the Rabbis hold that such intent does not render an offering piggul, they concede that it disqualifies the offering.

讜诇讬诪讗 讛专讬 讝讛 驻讙讜诇 讜专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讬讗 转谞讗 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讗转谞讬讜讛 驻讬讙讜诇 讘驻住讜诇 诪讬讞诇祝 诇讬讛 讛专讬 讝讛 讘讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 诇讗 诪讬讞诇祝 诇讬讛

The Gemara challenges: But if one must emend the baraita, let him say that the baraita states: It is piggul, and that it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir. The Gemara responds: It is reasonable that the tanna taught that everyone agrees, and that he accidentally exchanged the word piggul for disqualified. But he would not confuse the phrase: This is the opinion of Rabbi Meir, with the phrase: Everyone agrees.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讛拽讜诪抓 讗转 讛诪谞讞讛

 

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

MISHNA: In the case of one who removes a handful from the meal offering with the intent to consume, beyond its designated time, an item whose typical manner is such that one does not consume it, i.e., the handful, or to burn, beyond its designated time, an item whose typical manner is such that one does not burn it on the altar, i.e., the remainder of the meal offering, the meal offering is fit. Rabbi Eliezer deems it unfit, although it is not piggul, and consuming it is therefore not punishable by excision from the World-to-Come [karet].

诇讗讻讜诇 讚讘专 砖讚专讻讜 诇讗讻讜诇 讜诇讛拽讟讬专 讚讘专 砖讚专讻讜 诇讛拽讟讬专 驻讞讜转 诪讻讝讬转 讻砖专 诇讗讻讜诇 讻讞爪讬 讝讬转 讜诇讛拽讟讬专 讻讞爪讬 讝讬转 讻砖专 砖讗讬谉 讗讻讬诇讛 讜讛拽讟专讛 诪爪讟专驻讬谉

In the case of one who removes a handful from the meal offering with the intent to consume, beyond its designated time, an item whose typical manner is such that one does consume it, or to burn, beyond its designated time, an item whose typical manner is such that one does burn it on the altar, but his intent was to consume or burn improperly less than an olive-bulk, the offering is fit. If his intent was both to consume half an olive-bulk and to burn half an olive-bulk beyond its designated time, the meal offering is nevertheless fit, because eating and burning do not join together.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗住讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讗诐 讛讗讻诇 讬讗讻诇 诪讘砖专 讝讘讞 砖诇诪讬讜 讘砖转讬 讗讻讬诇讜转 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专 讗讞讚 讗讻讬诇转 讗讚诐 讜讗讞讚 讗讻讬诇转 诪讝讘讞 诇讜诪专 诇讱 讻砖诐 砖诪讞砖讘讬谉 讘讗讻讬诇转 讗讚诐 讻讱 诪讞砖讘讬谉 讘讗讻讬诇转 诪讝讘讞

GEMARA: Rabbi Asi says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: What is the reason for the ruling of Rabbi Eliezer that the intention to consume, beyond its designated time, an item that is not usually consumed renders the meal offering unfit? The verse states with regard to consuming an offering after its designated time: 鈥淎nd if any of the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace offerings is at all consumed [he鈥檃khol ye鈥檃khel]鈥 (Leviticus 7:18), repeating for emphasis the term for consumption. He derives from the repeated term that the verse is speaking of two types of consumption: One is the consumption of the offering by a person, e.g., by the priests or the owner of the offering, and the other one is the consumption of the sacrificial portions by their being burned on the altar. This serves to tell you that just as one鈥檚 improper intention with regard to the consumption of a person renders the offering unfit, so too, one鈥檚 improper intention with regard to the consumption of the altar renders the offering unfit.

讜讻砖诐 砖诪讞砖讘讬谉 诪讗讻讬诇转 讗讚诐 诇讗讻讬诇转 讗讚诐 讜诪讗讻讬诇转 诪讝讘讞 诇讗讻讬诇转 诪讝讘讞 讻讱 诪讞砖讘讬谉 诪讗讻讬诇转 讗讚诐 诇诪讝讘讞 讜诪讗讻讬诇转 诪讝讘讞 诇讗讚诐

And furthermore, this serves to tell you that just as one鈥檚 improper intention that a portion of the offering designated for consumption by a person will be consumed on the following day by a person renders the offering unfit, and one鈥檚 improper intention that a portion of the offering designated for consumption of the altar will be consumed on the following day by the altar renders the offering unfit, so too, one鈥檚 improper intention that a portion of the offering designated for consumption by a person will be consumed on the altar renders the offering unfit, and one鈥檚 improper intention that a portion of the offering designated for consumption of the altar will be consumed on the following day by a person renders the offering unfit.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诪讚讗驻拽讬谞讛讜 专讞诪谞讗 诇讛拽讟专讛 讘诇砖讜谉 讗讻讬诇讛

What is the reason for this derivation? It is derived from the fact that the Merciful One expresses the burning of the offering using the language of consumption.

讜专讘谞谉 讛讗讬 讚讗驻拽讬谞讛讜 专讞诪谞讗 讘诇砖讜谉 讗讻讬诇讛

And the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Eliezer, maintain the following: This fact that the Merciful One expresses the burning of the offering using the language of consumption

讚诇讗 砖谞讗 讻讬 诪讞砖讘 讘诇砖讜谉 讗讻讬诇讛 诇诪讝讘讞 讜诇讗 砖谞讗 讻讬 诪讞砖讘 讘诇砖讜谉 讛拽讟专讛 诇诪讝讘讞

demonstrates that there is no difference if one expresses his intention using the language of: Consumption on the altar, and there is no difference if one expresses his intention using the language of: Burning on the altar. Therefore, if the priest removed the handful from the meal offering while expressing the intention that it should be burned on the altar on the following day, whether this intention was phrased as: Consumed on the altar, or: Burned on the altar, the offering is piggul.

讗讬 谞诪讬 诪讛 讗讻讬诇讛 讘讻讝讬转 讗祝 讛拽讟专讛 讘讻讝讬转 讜诇注讜诇诐 讗讻讬诇讛 讚讗讜专讞讗 诪砖诪注

Alternatively, the doubled expression serves to teach that just as one renders the offering piggul only when one鈥檚 intention involves the consumption of an olive-bulk, as this is the minimal measure for an act to be considered eating, so too, one renders the offering piggul only when one鈥檚 intention involves the burning of an olive-bulk. But actually, the expression for consumption found in the verse indicates consuming it in the usual manner, and therefore an offering is rendered unfit only if one鈥檚 improper intention involved consuming an item that is usually consumed, or burning an item that is usually burned.

讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗诐 讻谉 诇讻转讜讘 专讞诪谞讗 讗诐 讛讗讻诇 讛讗讻诇 讗讬 谞诪讬 讗诐 讬讗讻诇 讬讗讻诇 诪讗讬 讛讗讻诇 讬讗讻诇 砖诪注转 诪讬谞讛 转专转讬

And what would Rabbi Eliezer respond? He would say that if that were so, that the verse intends to teach only that halakha, let the Merciful One write either: If he鈥檃khol he鈥檃khol, or: If ye鈥檃khel ye鈥檃khel, repeating the same form of the word twice. What is the reason that the verse states he鈥檃khol ye鈥檃khel,鈥 employing both repetition and variation? Learn from this formulation two halakhot. One, as the Rabbis explain, is that the offering is rendered unfit whether one uses an expression of consumption or an expression of burning, provided that one鈥檚 intention is with regard to at least an olive-bulk. The second is that the offering is rendered unfit if one intends to burn on the altar an item that is usually consumed by a person, or to consume an item that is usually burned on the altar.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诇专讘 讗住讬 讜讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 讛讜讗 讻专转 谞诪讬 诇讬讞讬讬讘 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讜讛讗 讗转 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专转 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 砖讗讬谉 注谞讜砖 讻专转

Rabbi Zeira said to Rav Asi: But if the reasoning of Rabbi Eliezer is due to that derivation, and he understands that the verse equates the improper intent to consume an item that is usually consumed with the improper intent to consume an item that is usually burned, then let one also be liable to receive karet for consuming an offering brought with intention to consume, after its designated time, the part of the offering that is burned, or for intention to burn, after its designated time, an item that is usually consumed. Why does Rabbi Eliezer state only that the offering is rendered unfit? And if you would say that indeed, Rabbi Eliezer does hold that one who consumes such an offering is liable to receive karet, that is difficult: But aren鈥檛 you the one who said in the name of Rabbi Yo岣nan: Rabbi Eliezer concedes that doing so is not punishable by karet?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 驻住讜诇讛 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讜讗讬讻讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 驻住讜诇讛 讚专讘谞谉

Rav Asi said to him: It is a dispute between tanna鈥檌m as to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer. There is one who says that Rabbi Eliezer deems the offering to be unfit by Torah law and one is liable to receive karet. It was in accordance with this opinion that Rabbi Yo岣nan cited the proof from the verse. And there is one who says that Rabbi Eliezer deems the offering to be unfit by rabbinic law, and it was in accordance with this opinion that Rabbi Yo岣nan said that according to Rabbi Eliezer there is no punishment of karet for this transgression.

讚转谞讬讗 讛砖讜讞讟 讗转 讛讝讘讞 诇砖转讜转 诪讚诪讜 诇诪讞专 诇讛拽讟讬专 诪讘砖专讜 诇诪讞专 诇讗讻讜诇 诪讗讬诪讜专讬讜 诇诪讞专 讻砖专 讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 驻讜住诇 诇讛谞讬讞 诪讚诪讜 诇诪讞专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 驻讜住诇 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗祝 讘讝讜 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 驻讜住诇 讜讞讻诪讬诐 诪讻砖讬专讬谉

As it is taught in a baraita: In the case of one who slaughters the offering with the intention to drink some of its blood, which is designated to be presented on the altar, on the next day, or to burn some of its meat, which is meant to be eaten, on the next day, or to eat some of its sacrificial portions, which are designated to be burned on the altar, on the next day, the offering is fit, as his intention is either to eat an item that is usually sacrificed on the altar, or to burn on the altar an item that is usually eaten. But Rabbi Eliezer deems the offering unfit. If one slaughters the offering with the intention to leave some of its blood for the next day, but not to present it or consume it, Rabbi Yehuda deems the offering unfit. Rabbi Elazar said: Even in this case Rabbi Eliezer deems the offering unfit, and the Rabbis deem it fit.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诇讬讘讗 讚诪讗谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘谞谉 讛砖转讗 讜诪讛 讛转诐 讚拽讗 诪讞砖讘 讘诇砖讜谉 讗讻讬诇讛 诪讻砖专讬 专讘谞谉 讛讻讗 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉

The Gemara clarifies: In accordance with whose opinion is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda that the offering is unfit even if he intends only to leave the blood for the next day, but not present it or consume it? If we say it is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, now consider: And if there, where the priest expresses his intention using the language of consumption, the Rabbis nevertheless deem the offering fit, despite the fact that if he had used this expression with regard to the portion burned on the altar, the offering would be piggul, is it not all the more so the case that here, when he intends only to leave the blood until the next day, the offering should be fit?

讗诇讗 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗祝 讘讝讜 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 驻讜住诇 讜讞讻诪讬诐 诪讻砖讬专讬谉 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讛讬讬谞讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

Rather, it must be that Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 statement is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer. And yet the baraita continues: Rabbi Elazar said: Even in this case Rabbi Eliezer deems the offering unfit, and the Rabbis deem it fit. If Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 statement is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, then the explanation of Rabbi Elazar of Rabbi Eliezer鈥檚 opinion is identical to that of Rabbi Yehuda, and there does not appear to be any disagreement between the two.

讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讻专转 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 (讚转谞讗 拽诪讗) 住讘专 诇讛谞讬讞 驻住讜诇讗 讘注诇诪讗 讘讛谞讱 讻专转 谞诪讬 诪讬讞讬讬讘 讜讗转讗 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诇诪讬诪专 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 驻住讜诇 讜讗讬谉 讘讜 讻专转

Rather, is it not so that the difference between Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Yehuda is with regard to liability for karet? The difference lies in that Rabbi Yehuda holds that if one鈥檚 intention is to leave the blood for the next day, then according to Rabbi Eliezer the offering is only rendered unfit, whereas in those cases listed in the mishna, such as where one鈥檚 intention is to eat the sacrificial portions on the next day, he would be liable to receive karet as well. And Rabbi Elazar comes to say that according to Rabbi Eliezer, both in this case and in that case, the offering is unfit but there is no liability to receive karet for it.

诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讻专转 诇讬讻讗 讜讛讻讗 砖诇砖 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘讚讘专 转谞讗 拽诪讗 住讘专 讘讛谞讱 驻诇讬讙讬 诇讛谞讬讞 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讻砖专

The Gemara rejects this suggestion: No, it may be that everyone agrees that according to Rabbi Eliezer in a case where one鈥檚 intention is to eat, after its designated time, an item that is usually burned, or to burn an item that is usually eaten, there is no liability to receive karet. And here there are three disputes with regard to the matter. The first tanna holds that the Rabbis and Rabbi Eliezer disagree only in those cases, with regard to whether the offering is rendered unfit due to the intention to eat an item that is usually burned or to burn an item that is usually eaten. But with regard to leaving of its blood until the next day, everyone agrees that the offering is fit.

  • 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 17

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Menachot 17

讞专讬驻讬 讚驻讜诪讘讚讬转讗 讛拽讟专讛 诪驻讙诇转 讛拽讟专讛 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诇专讘谞谉 讚讗诪专讬 讗讬谉 诪驻讙诇讬谉 讘讞爪讬 诪转讬专 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讬讻讗 讚讞讬砖讘 讘讬讛 讘砖讬专讬诐 讜诇讘讜谞讛 讘诪讬诇转讗 拽讬讬诪讗 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讚讞讬砖讘 诇讛 讘诇讘讜谞讛 讻诪讛 讚讞讬砖讘 讘讬讛 讘讻讜诇讬讛 诪转讬专 讚诪讬

the sharp people in the city of Pumbedita: Burning renders burning piggul, e.g., burning the handful with the intent to burn the frankincense the next day renders the meal offering piggul. And this is the halakha even according to the Rabbis, who say that one does not render an offering piggul with intent occurring during the sacrifice of half of a permitting factor, e.g., when sacrificing the handful alone with intent of piggul. The reason is that this statement applies only where he had intent during the sacrifice of the handful to consume the remainder the next day, and the frankincense stands intact, i.e., he had no intent with regard to it. But here, when he had intent with regard to the frankincense while burning the handful, it is considered as though he had intent with regard to the entire permitting factor.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讗祝 讗谞谉 谞诪讬 转谞讬谞讗 讝讛 讛讻诇诇 讻诇 讛拽讜诪抓 讜谞讜转谉 讘讻诇讬 讜讛诪讜诇讬讱 讜讛诪拽讟讬专 诇讗讻讜诇 讚讘专 砖讚专讻讜 诇讗讻讜诇 讜诇讛拽讟讬专 讚讘专 砖讚专讻讜 诇讛拽讟讬专 讞讜抓 诇诪拽讜诪讜 驻住讜诇 讜讗讬谉 讘讜 讻专转 讞讜抓 诇讝诪谞讜 驻讙讜诇 讜讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 讻专转

Rava said: We learn this halakha in a mishna, as well (12a): This is the principle: In the case of anyone who removes the handful, or places the handful in the vessel, or who conveys the vessel with the handful to the altar, or who burns the handful on the altar, with the intent to partake of an item whose typical manner is such that one partakes of it, or to burn an item whose typical manner is such that one burns it on the altar, outside its designated area, the meal offering is unfit but there is no liability for karet. If his intent was to do so beyond its designated time, the offering is piggul and one is liable to receive karet on account of it.

诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讛拽讟专讛 讚讜诪讬讗 讚讛谞讱 诪讛 讛谞讱 讘讬谉 诇讗讻讜诇 讘讬谉 诇讛拽讟讬专 讗祝 讛拽讟专讛 讘讬谉 诇讗讻讜诇 讘讬谉 诇讛拽讟讬专

Rava explains: What, is it not correct to say that the halakha with regard to burning is similar to these, i.e., the removal of the handful, its placement in a vessel, and the conveying? Accordingly, just as with regard to these, whether one鈥檚 intent was to partake of the remainder the next day or to burn the frankincense the next day, the halakha is that the offering is piggul, so too with regard to burning, whether one鈥檚 intent was to partake of the remainder or to burn the frankincense the next day, the offering is piggul.

诇讗 讛谞讱 讘讬谉 诇讗讻讜诇 讘讬谉 诇讛拽讟讬专 讛拽讟专讛 诇讗讻讜诇 讗讬谉 诇讛拽讟讬专 诇讗

The Gemara rejects this comparison: No, with regard to these, whether one鈥檚 intent was to partake of the remainder or to burn the frankincense the next day, the offering is in fact piggul. But with regard to burning, if one鈥檚 intent was to partake of the remainder the next day, yes, it is piggul, but if one鈥檚 intent was to burn the frankincense the next day, it is not piggul.

讬转讬讘 专讘 诪谞砖讬讗 讘专 讙讚讗 拽诪讬讛 讚讗讘讬讬 讜讬转讬讘 讜拽讗 讗诪专 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讞住讚讗 讗讬谉 讛拽讟专讛 诪驻讙诇转 讛拽讟专讛 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讚讗诪专 诪驻讙诇讬谉 讘讞爪讬 诪转讬专

The Gemara relates that Rav Menashya bar Gadda sat before Abaye, and while he was sitting he said in the name of Rav 岣sda: Burning does not render burning piggul, e.g., burning the handful with the intent to burn the frankincense the next day does not render the offering piggul. And this is the halakha even according to the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who says in the mishna that one renders an offering piggul through intent during the sacrifice of half of a permitting factor, e.g., when sacrificing the handful but not the frankincense with intent of piggul.

讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讬讻讗 讚讞讬砖讘 讘讛讜 讘砖讬专讬诐 讚拽讜诪抓 诪转讬专 讚讬讚讛讜 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讚拽讜诪抓 诇讗讜 诪转讬专 讚诇讘讜谞讛 讛讜讗 诇讗 诪爪讬 诪驻讙诇 讘讬讛

Rav Menashya bar Gadda explains that the reason is that this statement of Rabbi Meir applies only where he had intent during the sacrifice of the handful to consume the remainder the next day, as the handful is their permitting factor. But here, as the handful is not a permitting factor of the frankincense, the offering cannot be rendered piggul through it.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 注谞讬 诪专讬 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谉 讗讬转诪专 谞诪讬 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗讬谉 讛拽讟专讛 诪驻讙诇转 讛拽讟专讛

Abaye said to Rav Menashya: Answer me, my Master, did Rav 岣sda state this halakha in the name of Rav? Rav Menashya said to Abaye: Yes. The Gemara notes that it was also stated explicitly that Rav 岣sda says that Rav says: Burning does not render burning piggul.

讗诪专 专讘 讬注拽讘 讘专 讗讬讚讬 诪砖诪讬讛 讚讗讘讬讬 讗祝 讗谞谉 谞诪讬 转谞讬谞讗 砖讞讟 讗讞讚 诪谉 讛讻讘砖讬诐 诇讗讻讜诇 诪诪谞讜 诇诪讞专 讛讜讗 驻讬讙讜诇 讜讞讘讬专讜 讻砖专 诇讗讻讜诇 诪讞讘讬专讜 诇诪讞专 砖谞讬讛诐 讻砖专讬谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讚讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗讜 诪转讬专 讚讬讚讬讛 讛讜讗 诇讗 诪爪讬 诪驻讙诇 讘讬讛

Rav Ya鈥檃kov bar Idi said in the name of Abaye: We learn in the mishna as well that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav: If one slaughtered one of the lambs with the intent to partake of it the next day, that lamb is piggul and the other lamb is fit. If he slaughtered one lamb with the intent to partake of the other the next day, both lambs are fit. What is the reason? Is it not due to the fact that since the first lamb is not a permitting factor of the second lamb, it cannot render the second lamb piggul? The same reasoning should apply to the case of the handful and frankincense.

诇讗 讛转诐 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 讗讬拽讘注 讘讞讚 诪谞讗 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讚讗讬拽讘注 讘讞讚 诪谞讗 讻讬 讞讚 讚诪讜

The Gemara rejects this suggestion: No; there is a difference between these cases. It is only there, in the mishna, that one lamb cannot render the other piggul, as it was not fixed in one vessel with the other lamb, and therefore each animal stands independent of the other. But here, as the handful and frankincense were fixed in one vessel for the purpose of offering them, they are considered like one item and one of them therefore renders the other piggul.

讗诪专 专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 讛讗 诪讬诇转讗 讗讘诇注 诇讬 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讜转拽讬诇讗 诇讬 讻讻讜诇讬讛 转诇诪讜讚讗讬 讛拽讟讬专 拽讜诪抓 诇讛拽讟讬专 诇讘讜谞讛 讜诇讘讜谞讛 诇讗讻讜诇 砖讬专讬诐 诇诪讞专 驻讙讜诇

Rav Hamnuna said: Rabbi 岣nina helped me internalize this following matter, and to me it is equivalent to all the rest of my learning, as it contains a significant novelty: If one burned the handful with the intent to burn the frankincense the next day, and burned the frankincense with the intent to partake of the remainder the next day, the meal offering is piggul.

诪讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讗讬 讛拽讟专讛 诪驻讙诇转 讛拽讟专讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 诇讬诪讗 讛拽讟讬专 拽讜诪抓 诇讛拽讟讬专 诇讘讜谞讛 讗讬 诪驻讙诇讬谉 讘讞爪讬 诪转讬专 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 诇讬诪讗 讛拽讟讬专 拽讜诪抓 诇讗讻讜诇 砖讬专讬诐 诇诪讞专 讗讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讗转讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 诇讬诪讗 讛拽讟讬专 拽讜诪抓 诇讛拽讟讬专 诇讘讜谞讛 讜诇讗讻讜诇 砖讬专讬诐 诇诪讞专

The Gemara asks: What is Rabbi 岣nina teaching us? If he is teaching us that burning renders burning piggul, then let him simply say: If one burned the handful with the intent to burn the frankincense, the offering is piggul. If he is teaching us that one renders an offering piggul through intent during the sacrifice of half of a permitting factor, then let him say: If one burned the handful with the intent to partake of the remainder the next day, the offering is piggul. If he is coming to teach us both of these halakhot, let him say: If one burned the handful with the intent to burn the frankincense or to partake of the remainder the next day, the offering is piggul.

讗诪专 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 诇注讜诇诐 拽住讘专 讗讬谉 讛拽讟专讛 诪驻讙诇转 讛拽讟专讛 讜讗讬谉 诪驻讙诇讬谉 讘讞爪讬 诪转讬专 讜砖讗谞讬 讛讻讗 讚驻砖讟讗 诇讬讛 诪讞砖讘讛 讘讻讜诇讛 诪谞讞讛

Rav Adda bar Ahava said: Actually, Rabbi 岣nina holds that burning does not render burning piggul, and therefore if one burned only the handful with the intent to burn the frankincense the next day, the offering is not piggul. And he also holds that one does not render an offering piggul through intent during the sacrifice of half of a permitting factor, and consequently if one burned only the handful with the intent to partake of the remainder the next day, the offering is not piggul either. But it is different here, as intent of piggul has extended over the entire meal offering, as he had intent of piggul during the burning of the handful with regard to the frankincense and during the burning of the frankincense with regard to the remainder.

转谞讬 转谞讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专 讗讘讗 讛拽讟讬专 拽讜诪抓 诇讗讻讜诇 砖讬专讬诐 诇讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 驻讙讜诇 讜讛讗 诪讬驻诇讙 驻诇讬讙讬 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 诇讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 驻住讜诇

The Gemara relates that a tanna taught a baraita before Rav Yitz岣k bar Abba: If one burned the handful with the intent to partake of the remainder the next day, everyone agrees that the meal offering is piggul. The Gemara raises a difficulty: But don鈥檛 Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis disagree in the mishna with regard to this very case? Rather, say that the baraita states: Everyone agrees that the offering is disqualified, as although the Rabbis hold that such intent does not render an offering piggul, they concede that it disqualifies the offering.

讜诇讬诪讗 讛专讬 讝讛 驻讙讜诇 讜专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讬讗 转谞讗 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讗转谞讬讜讛 驻讬讙讜诇 讘驻住讜诇 诪讬讞诇祝 诇讬讛 讛专讬 讝讛 讘讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 诇讗 诪讬讞诇祝 诇讬讛

The Gemara challenges: But if one must emend the baraita, let him say that the baraita states: It is piggul, and that it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir. The Gemara responds: It is reasonable that the tanna taught that everyone agrees, and that he accidentally exchanged the word piggul for disqualified. But he would not confuse the phrase: This is the opinion of Rabbi Meir, with the phrase: Everyone agrees.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讛拽讜诪抓 讗转 讛诪谞讞讛

 

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

MISHNA: In the case of one who removes a handful from the meal offering with the intent to consume, beyond its designated time, an item whose typical manner is such that one does not consume it, i.e., the handful, or to burn, beyond its designated time, an item whose typical manner is such that one does not burn it on the altar, i.e., the remainder of the meal offering, the meal offering is fit. Rabbi Eliezer deems it unfit, although it is not piggul, and consuming it is therefore not punishable by excision from the World-to-Come [karet].

诇讗讻讜诇 讚讘专 砖讚专讻讜 诇讗讻讜诇 讜诇讛拽讟讬专 讚讘专 砖讚专讻讜 诇讛拽讟讬专 驻讞讜转 诪讻讝讬转 讻砖专 诇讗讻讜诇 讻讞爪讬 讝讬转 讜诇讛拽讟讬专 讻讞爪讬 讝讬转 讻砖专 砖讗讬谉 讗讻讬诇讛 讜讛拽讟专讛 诪爪讟专驻讬谉

In the case of one who removes a handful from the meal offering with the intent to consume, beyond its designated time, an item whose typical manner is such that one does consume it, or to burn, beyond its designated time, an item whose typical manner is such that one does burn it on the altar, but his intent was to consume or burn improperly less than an olive-bulk, the offering is fit. If his intent was both to consume half an olive-bulk and to burn half an olive-bulk beyond its designated time, the meal offering is nevertheless fit, because eating and burning do not join together.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗住讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讗诐 讛讗讻诇 讬讗讻诇 诪讘砖专 讝讘讞 砖诇诪讬讜 讘砖转讬 讗讻讬诇讜转 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专 讗讞讚 讗讻讬诇转 讗讚诐 讜讗讞讚 讗讻讬诇转 诪讝讘讞 诇讜诪专 诇讱 讻砖诐 砖诪讞砖讘讬谉 讘讗讻讬诇转 讗讚诐 讻讱 诪讞砖讘讬谉 讘讗讻讬诇转 诪讝讘讞

GEMARA: Rabbi Asi says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: What is the reason for the ruling of Rabbi Eliezer that the intention to consume, beyond its designated time, an item that is not usually consumed renders the meal offering unfit? The verse states with regard to consuming an offering after its designated time: 鈥淎nd if any of the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace offerings is at all consumed [he鈥檃khol ye鈥檃khel]鈥 (Leviticus 7:18), repeating for emphasis the term for consumption. He derives from the repeated term that the verse is speaking of two types of consumption: One is the consumption of the offering by a person, e.g., by the priests or the owner of the offering, and the other one is the consumption of the sacrificial portions by their being burned on the altar. This serves to tell you that just as one鈥檚 improper intention with regard to the consumption of a person renders the offering unfit, so too, one鈥檚 improper intention with regard to the consumption of the altar renders the offering unfit.

讜讻砖诐 砖诪讞砖讘讬谉 诪讗讻讬诇转 讗讚诐 诇讗讻讬诇转 讗讚诐 讜诪讗讻讬诇转 诪讝讘讞 诇讗讻讬诇转 诪讝讘讞 讻讱 诪讞砖讘讬谉 诪讗讻讬诇转 讗讚诐 诇诪讝讘讞 讜诪讗讻讬诇转 诪讝讘讞 诇讗讚诐

And furthermore, this serves to tell you that just as one鈥檚 improper intention that a portion of the offering designated for consumption by a person will be consumed on the following day by a person renders the offering unfit, and one鈥檚 improper intention that a portion of the offering designated for consumption of the altar will be consumed on the following day by the altar renders the offering unfit, so too, one鈥檚 improper intention that a portion of the offering designated for consumption by a person will be consumed on the altar renders the offering unfit, and one鈥檚 improper intention that a portion of the offering designated for consumption of the altar will be consumed on the following day by a person renders the offering unfit.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诪讚讗驻拽讬谞讛讜 专讞诪谞讗 诇讛拽讟专讛 讘诇砖讜谉 讗讻讬诇讛

What is the reason for this derivation? It is derived from the fact that the Merciful One expresses the burning of the offering using the language of consumption.

讜专讘谞谉 讛讗讬 讚讗驻拽讬谞讛讜 专讞诪谞讗 讘诇砖讜谉 讗讻讬诇讛

And the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Eliezer, maintain the following: This fact that the Merciful One expresses the burning of the offering using the language of consumption

讚诇讗 砖谞讗 讻讬 诪讞砖讘 讘诇砖讜谉 讗讻讬诇讛 诇诪讝讘讞 讜诇讗 砖谞讗 讻讬 诪讞砖讘 讘诇砖讜谉 讛拽讟专讛 诇诪讝讘讞

demonstrates that there is no difference if one expresses his intention using the language of: Consumption on the altar, and there is no difference if one expresses his intention using the language of: Burning on the altar. Therefore, if the priest removed the handful from the meal offering while expressing the intention that it should be burned on the altar on the following day, whether this intention was phrased as: Consumed on the altar, or: Burned on the altar, the offering is piggul.

讗讬 谞诪讬 诪讛 讗讻讬诇讛 讘讻讝讬转 讗祝 讛拽讟专讛 讘讻讝讬转 讜诇注讜诇诐 讗讻讬诇讛 讚讗讜专讞讗 诪砖诪注

Alternatively, the doubled expression serves to teach that just as one renders the offering piggul only when one鈥檚 intention involves the consumption of an olive-bulk, as this is the minimal measure for an act to be considered eating, so too, one renders the offering piggul only when one鈥檚 intention involves the burning of an olive-bulk. But actually, the expression for consumption found in the verse indicates consuming it in the usual manner, and therefore an offering is rendered unfit only if one鈥檚 improper intention involved consuming an item that is usually consumed, or burning an item that is usually burned.

讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗诐 讻谉 诇讻转讜讘 专讞诪谞讗 讗诐 讛讗讻诇 讛讗讻诇 讗讬 谞诪讬 讗诐 讬讗讻诇 讬讗讻诇 诪讗讬 讛讗讻诇 讬讗讻诇 砖诪注转 诪讬谞讛 转专转讬

And what would Rabbi Eliezer respond? He would say that if that were so, that the verse intends to teach only that halakha, let the Merciful One write either: If he鈥檃khol he鈥檃khol, or: If ye鈥檃khel ye鈥檃khel, repeating the same form of the word twice. What is the reason that the verse states he鈥檃khol ye鈥檃khel,鈥 employing both repetition and variation? Learn from this formulation two halakhot. One, as the Rabbis explain, is that the offering is rendered unfit whether one uses an expression of consumption or an expression of burning, provided that one鈥檚 intention is with regard to at least an olive-bulk. The second is that the offering is rendered unfit if one intends to burn on the altar an item that is usually consumed by a person, or to consume an item that is usually burned on the altar.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诇专讘 讗住讬 讜讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 讛讜讗 讻专转 谞诪讬 诇讬讞讬讬讘 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讜讛讗 讗转 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专转 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 砖讗讬谉 注谞讜砖 讻专转

Rabbi Zeira said to Rav Asi: But if the reasoning of Rabbi Eliezer is due to that derivation, and he understands that the verse equates the improper intent to consume an item that is usually consumed with the improper intent to consume an item that is usually burned, then let one also be liable to receive karet for consuming an offering brought with intention to consume, after its designated time, the part of the offering that is burned, or for intention to burn, after its designated time, an item that is usually consumed. Why does Rabbi Eliezer state only that the offering is rendered unfit? And if you would say that indeed, Rabbi Eliezer does hold that one who consumes such an offering is liable to receive karet, that is difficult: But aren鈥檛 you the one who said in the name of Rabbi Yo岣nan: Rabbi Eliezer concedes that doing so is not punishable by karet?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 驻住讜诇讛 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讜讗讬讻讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 驻住讜诇讛 讚专讘谞谉

Rav Asi said to him: It is a dispute between tanna鈥檌m as to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer. There is one who says that Rabbi Eliezer deems the offering to be unfit by Torah law and one is liable to receive karet. It was in accordance with this opinion that Rabbi Yo岣nan cited the proof from the verse. And there is one who says that Rabbi Eliezer deems the offering to be unfit by rabbinic law, and it was in accordance with this opinion that Rabbi Yo岣nan said that according to Rabbi Eliezer there is no punishment of karet for this transgression.

讚转谞讬讗 讛砖讜讞讟 讗转 讛讝讘讞 诇砖转讜转 诪讚诪讜 诇诪讞专 诇讛拽讟讬专 诪讘砖专讜 诇诪讞专 诇讗讻讜诇 诪讗讬诪讜专讬讜 诇诪讞专 讻砖专 讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 驻讜住诇 诇讛谞讬讞 诪讚诪讜 诇诪讞专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 驻讜住诇 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗祝 讘讝讜 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 驻讜住诇 讜讞讻诪讬诐 诪讻砖讬专讬谉

As it is taught in a baraita: In the case of one who slaughters the offering with the intention to drink some of its blood, which is designated to be presented on the altar, on the next day, or to burn some of its meat, which is meant to be eaten, on the next day, or to eat some of its sacrificial portions, which are designated to be burned on the altar, on the next day, the offering is fit, as his intention is either to eat an item that is usually sacrificed on the altar, or to burn on the altar an item that is usually eaten. But Rabbi Eliezer deems the offering unfit. If one slaughters the offering with the intention to leave some of its blood for the next day, but not to present it or consume it, Rabbi Yehuda deems the offering unfit. Rabbi Elazar said: Even in this case Rabbi Eliezer deems the offering unfit, and the Rabbis deem it fit.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诇讬讘讗 讚诪讗谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘谞谉 讛砖转讗 讜诪讛 讛转诐 讚拽讗 诪讞砖讘 讘诇砖讜谉 讗讻讬诇讛 诪讻砖专讬 专讘谞谉 讛讻讗 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉

The Gemara clarifies: In accordance with whose opinion is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda that the offering is unfit even if he intends only to leave the blood for the next day, but not present it or consume it? If we say it is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, now consider: And if there, where the priest expresses his intention using the language of consumption, the Rabbis nevertheless deem the offering fit, despite the fact that if he had used this expression with regard to the portion burned on the altar, the offering would be piggul, is it not all the more so the case that here, when he intends only to leave the blood until the next day, the offering should be fit?

讗诇讗 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗祝 讘讝讜 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 驻讜住诇 讜讞讻诪讬诐 诪讻砖讬专讬谉 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讛讬讬谞讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

Rather, it must be that Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 statement is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer. And yet the baraita continues: Rabbi Elazar said: Even in this case Rabbi Eliezer deems the offering unfit, and the Rabbis deem it fit. If Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 statement is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, then the explanation of Rabbi Elazar of Rabbi Eliezer鈥檚 opinion is identical to that of Rabbi Yehuda, and there does not appear to be any disagreement between the two.

讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讻专转 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 (讚转谞讗 拽诪讗) 住讘专 诇讛谞讬讞 驻住讜诇讗 讘注诇诪讗 讘讛谞讱 讻专转 谞诪讬 诪讬讞讬讬讘 讜讗转讗 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诇诪讬诪专 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 驻住讜诇 讜讗讬谉 讘讜 讻专转

Rather, is it not so that the difference between Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Yehuda is with regard to liability for karet? The difference lies in that Rabbi Yehuda holds that if one鈥檚 intention is to leave the blood for the next day, then according to Rabbi Eliezer the offering is only rendered unfit, whereas in those cases listed in the mishna, such as where one鈥檚 intention is to eat the sacrificial portions on the next day, he would be liable to receive karet as well. And Rabbi Elazar comes to say that according to Rabbi Eliezer, both in this case and in that case, the offering is unfit but there is no liability to receive karet for it.

诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讻专转 诇讬讻讗 讜讛讻讗 砖诇砖 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘讚讘专 转谞讗 拽诪讗 住讘专 讘讛谞讱 驻诇讬讙讬 诇讛谞讬讞 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讻砖专

The Gemara rejects this suggestion: No, it may be that everyone agrees that according to Rabbi Eliezer in a case where one鈥檚 intention is to eat, after its designated time, an item that is usually burned, or to burn an item that is usually eaten, there is no liability to receive karet. And here there are three disputes with regard to the matter. The first tanna holds that the Rabbis and Rabbi Eliezer disagree only in those cases, with regard to whether the offering is rendered unfit due to the intention to eat an item that is usually burned or to burn an item that is usually eaten. But with regard to leaving of its blood until the next day, everyone agrees that the offering is fit.

Scroll To Top