מנחות יב

מנחות יב

פִּיגּוּל, וְחַיָּיבִין עָלָיו כָּרֵת.

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

זֶה הַכְּלָל: כׇּל הַקּוֹמֵץ [אוֹ] נוֹתֵן בִּכְלִי, הַמּוֹלִיךְ, הַמַּקְטִיר, לֶאֱכוֹל דָּבָר שֶׁדַּרְכּוֹ לֶאֱכוֹל, וּלְהַקְטִיר דָּבָר שֶׁדַּרְכּוֹ לְהַקְטִיר, חוּץ לִמְקוֹמוֹ – פָּסוּל וְאֵין בּוֹ כָּרֵת, חוּץ לִזְמַנּוֹ – פִּיגּוּל וְחַיָּיבִין עָלָיו כָּרֵת, וּבִלְבַד שֶׁיַּקְרִיב הַמַּתִּיר כְּמִצְוָתוֹ.

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

כֵּיצַד קָרֵב הַמַּתִּיר כְּמִצְוָתוֹ? קָמַץ בִּשְׁתִיקָה, נָתַן בִּכְלִי וְהוֹלִיךְ וְהִקְטִיר חוּץ לִזְמַנּוֹ; אוֹ שֶׁקָּמַץ חוּץ לִזְמַנּוֹ, נָתַן בִּכְלִי וְהוֹלִיךְ וְהִקְטִיר בִּשְׁתִיקָה; אוֹ שֶׁקָּמַץ וְנָתַן בִּכְלִי וְהוֹלִיךְ וְהִקְטִיר חוּץ לִזְמַנּוֹ – זֶהוּ שֶׁקָּרֵב הַמַּתִּיר כְּמִצְוָתוֹ.

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

כֵּיצַד לֹא קָרַב הַמַּתִּיר כְּמִצְוָתוֹ? קָמַץ חוּץ לִמְקוֹמוֹ, נָתַן בִּכְלִי וְהוֹלִיךְ וְהִקְטִיר חוּץ לִזְמַנּוֹ, אוֹ שֶׁקָּמַץ חוּץ לִזְמַנּוֹ, נָתַן בִּכְלִי וְהוֹלִיךְ וְהִקְטִיר חוּץ לִמְקוֹמוֹ, אוֹ שֶׁקָּמַץ, נָתַן בִּכְלִי וְהוֹלִיךְ וְהִקְטִיר חוּץ לִמְקוֹמוֹ – זֶהוּ שֶׁלֹּא קָרַב הַמַּתִּיר כְּמִצְוָתוֹ.

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

מִנְחַת חוֹטֵא וּמִנְחַת קְנָאוֹת שֶׁקְּמָצָן שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָן, נָתַן בִּכְלִי וְהוֹלִיךְ וְהִקְטִיר חוּץ לִזְמַנּוֹ; אוֹ שֶׁקָּמַץ חוּץ לִזְמַנּוֹ, נָתַן בִּכְלִי וְהוֹלִיךְ וְהִקְטִיר שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָן; אוֹ שֶׁקָּמַץ וְנָתַן בִּכְלִי וְהוֹלִיךְ וְהִקְטִיר שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָן – זֶהוּ שֶׁלֹּא קָרַב הַמַּתִּיר כְּמִצְוָתוֹ.

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

לֶאֱכוֹל כְּזַיִת בַּחוּץ כְּזַיִת לְמָחָר, כְּזַיִת לְמָחָר כְּזַיִת בַּחוּץ, כַּחֲצִי זַיִת בַּחוּץ כַּחֲצִי זַיִת לְמָחָר, כַּחֲצִי זַיִת לְמָחָר כַּחֲצִי זַיִת בַּחוּץ – פָּסוּל וְאֵין בּוֹ כָּרֵת.

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

אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, זֶה הַכְּלָל: אִם מַחְשֶׁבֶת הַזְּמַן קָדְמָה לְמַחְשֶׁבֶת הַמָּקוֹם – פִּיגּוּל, וְחַיָּיבִין עָלָיו כָּרֵת. אִם מַחְשֶׁבֶת הַמָּקוֹם קָדְמָה לְמַחְשֶׁבֶת הַזְּמַן – פָּסוּל, וְאֵין בּוֹ כָּרֵת. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: זֶה וָזֶה פָּסוּל וְאֵין בּוֹ כָּרֵת.

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

גְּמָ׳ אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ, לְדִבְרֵי הָאוֹמֵר: שִׁירַיִם שֶׁחָסְרוּ בֵּין קְמִיצָה לְהַקְטָרָה מַקְטִיר קוֹמֶץ עֲלֵיהֶן, וְקַיְימָא לַן דְּאוֹתָן שִׁירַיִם אֲסוּרִים בַּאֲכִילָה, מַהוּ דְּתִיהַנֵּי לְהוּ הַקְטָרָה לְמִיקְבְּעִינְהוּ בְּפִיגּוּל?

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

(ולפקינהו) [וּלְאַפֹּקִינְהוּ] מִידֵי מְעִילָה?

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

אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: אֲפִילּוּ לְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא דְּאָמַר ״זְרִיקָה מוֹעֶלֶת לַיּוֹצֵא״, הָנֵי מִילֵּי יוֹצֵא,

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

דְּאִיתֵיהּ בְּעֵינֵיהּ, וּפָסוּל מֵחֲמַת דָּבָר אַחֵר הוּא, אֲבָל חֶסְרוֹן, דִּפְסוּלָא דְּגוּפֵיהּ הוּא – לָא מַהְנְיָא לֵיהּ הַקְטָרָה.

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

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא: אַדְּרַבָּה, אֲפִילּוּ לְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר דְּאָמַר ״אֵין זְרִיקָה מוֹעֶלֶת לַיּוֹצֵא״ – הָנֵי מִילֵּי יוֹצֵא, דְּלֵיתֵיהּ בִּפְנִים, אֲבָל חֶסְרוֹן דְּאִיתֵיהּ בִּפְנִים – מַהְנְיָא לֵיהּ הַקְטָרָה.

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

אָמַר רָבָא: מְנָא אָמֵינָא לַהּ, דִּתְנַן: הַקּוֹמֵץ אֶת הַמִּנְחָה לֶאֱכוֹל שְׁיָרֶיהָ בַּחוּץ אוֹ כְּזַיִת מִשְּׁיָרֶיהָ בַּחוּץ, וְתָנֵי רַבִּי חִיָּיא: הַקּוֹמֵץ אֶת הַמִּנְחָה, וְלָא תָּנֵי ״אוֹ כְּזַיִת״.

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

מַאי טַעְמָא לָא תָּנֵי ״אוֹ כְּזַיִת״? לָאו כְּגוֹן שֶׁחָסְרוּ שִׁירַיִם וְקָמוּ לְהוּ אַכְּזַיִת, וְכֵיוָן דִּבְמַתַּן כְּלִי, בְּהִילּוּךְ, וּבְהַקְטָרָה לָא מִתְּנֵי לֵיהּ

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

״אוֹ כְּזַיִת״ אַשִּׁירַיִם, בִּקְמִיצָה נָמֵי לֶאֱכוֹל שִׁירַיִם לָא תָּנֵי ״אוֹ כְּזַיִת״, וְקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: פִּיגּוּל וְחַיָּיבִין עָלָיו כָּרֵת, אַלְמָא מַהְנְיָא לְהוּ הַקְטָרָה.

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

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: לָא, הָא מַנִּי? רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר הִיא, דִּתְנַן: הַקּוֹמֶץ, וְהַלְּבוֹנָה, וְהַקְּטֹרֶת, וּמִנְחַת כֹּהֲנִים, וּמִנְחַת כֹּהֵן מָשִׁיחַ, וּמִנְחַת נְסָכִים, שֶׁהִקְרִיב מֵאַחַת מֵהֶן כְּזַיִת בַּחוּץ – חַיָּיב, וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר פּוֹטֵר עַד שֶׁיַּקְרִיב אֶת כּוּלּוֹ.

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

כֵּיוָן דִּבְהַקְטָרַת קְמִיצָה לָא מִתְּנֵי לֵיהּ ״אוֹ כְּזַיִת מִקּוּמְצָהּ בַּחוּץ״, בְּשִׁירַיִם נָמֵי לָא מִתְּנֵי לֵיהּ ״אוֹ כְּזַיִת״.

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

אִי רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר, הַאי ״לְהַקְטִיר קוּמְצָהּ״, ״לְהַקְטִיר קוּמְצָהּ וּלְבוֹנָתָהּ״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ! דִּתְנַן: הַקּוֹמֶץ וְהַלְּבוֹנָה שֶׁהִקְרִיב אֶת אֶחָד מֵהֶן בַּחוּץ – חַיָּיב, וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר פּוֹטֵר עַד שֶׁיַּקְרִיב אֶת שְׁנֵיהֶם.

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

לֹא נִצְרְכָא אֶלָּא לְקוֹמֶץ דְּמִנְחַת חוֹטֵא.

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

וְאִיכְּפֵל תַּנָּא לְאַשְׁמוֹעִינַן קוֹמֶץ דְּמִנְחַת חוֹטֵא? אִין. וְכֵן כִּי אֲתָא רַב דִּימִי אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: קוֹמֶץ דְּמִנְחַת חוֹטֵא הוּא, וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר הִיא.

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

הֲדַר אָמַר רָבָא: לָאו מִילְּתָא הִיא דַּאֲמַרִי, דְּתַנְיָא: ״קֹדֶשׁ קָדָשִׁים הוּא״, שֶׁאִם נִפְרְסָה אַחַת מֵהֶן – חַלּוֹתֶיהָ כּוּלָּן פְּסוּלוֹת.

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

הָא יָצָאת – הָנֵי דְּאִיכָּא גַּוַּואי כְּשֵׁרוֹת, מַאן שָׁמְעַתְּ לֵיהּ דְּאָמַר: זְרִיקָה מוֹעֶלֶת לַיּוֹצֵא? רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא הִיא, וְקָאָמַר: נִפְרְסָה – לָא.

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

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: מִי קָתָנֵי הָא יָצָאת? דִּלְמָא הָא נִטְמֵאת – הָנָךְ כְּשֵׁרוֹת.

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

מַאי טַעְמָא? דִּמְרַצֵּה צִיץ, אֲבָל יָצָאת – לָא, וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר הִיא, דְּאָמַר: אֵין זְרִיקָה מוֹעֶלֶת לַיּוֹצֵא.

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

וּבְדִין הוּא דְּאִיבְּעִי לֵיהּ לְמִיתְנֵי נָמֵי יָצָאת, וְהַאי דְּקָתָנֵי נִפְרְסָה – הָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן, דַּאֲפִילּוּ נִפְרְסָה, דְּאִיתֵיהּ בִּפְנִים – לָא מַהְנְיָא לֵיהּ הַקְטָרָה. אֲבָל לְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא דְּאָמַר: זְרִיקָה מוֹעֶלֶת לַיּוֹצֵא – אֲפִילּוּ חֶסְרוֹן נָמֵי מַהְנְיָא לֵיהּ הַקְטָרָה.

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

מַתְנִי׳ לֶאֱכוֹל כַּחֲצִי זַיִת וּלְהַקְטִיר כַּחֲצִי זַיִת – כָּשֵׁר, שֶׁאֵין אֲכִילָה וְהַקְטָרָה מִצְטָרְפִין.

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

גְּמָ׳ טַעְמָא דְּלֶאֱכוֹל וּלְהַקְטִיר, הָא לֶאֱכוֹל וְלֶאֱכוֹל דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין דַּרְכּוֹ לֶאֱכוֹל – מִצְטָרֵף.

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

וְהָקָתָנֵי רֵישָׁא: לֶאֱכוֹל דָּבָר שֶׁדַּרְכּוֹ לֶאֱכוֹל, וּלְהַקְטִיר דָּבָר שֶׁדַּרְכּוֹ לְהַקְטִיר – דָּבָר שֶׁדַּרְכּוֹ לֶאֱכוֹל, אִין; שֶׁאֵין דַּרְכּוֹ לֶאֱכוֹל, לָא. מַאן תַּנָּא?

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

אָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: הָא מַנִּי? רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר הִיא, דְּאָמַר: מְחַשְּׁבִין מֵאֲכִילַת אָדָם לַמִּזְבֵּחַ, וּמֵאֲכִילַת מִזְבֵּחַ לָאָדָם.

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

דִּתְנַן: הַקּוֹמֵץ אֶת הַמִּנְחָה לֶאֱכוֹל דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין דַּרְכּוֹ לֶאֱכוֹל, וּלְהַקְטִיר דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין דַּרְכּוֹ לְהַקְטִיר – כָּשֵׁר, וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר פּוֹסֵל.

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

אַבָּיֵי אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא רַבָּנַן, לָא תֵּימָא הָא לֶאֱכוֹל וְלֶאֱכוֹל דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין דַּרְכּוֹ לֶאֱכוֹל, אֶלָּא אֵימָא הָא לֶאֱכוֹל וְלֶאֱכוֹל דָּבָר שֶׁדַּרְכּוֹ לֶאֱכוֹל.

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

וּמַאי קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן? הָא בְּהֶדְיָא קָתָנֵי לַהּ: לֶאֱכוֹל כְּזַיִת בַּחוּץ וּכְזַיִת לְמָחָר, כְּזַיִת לְמָחָר וּכְזַיִת בַּחוּץ, כַּחֲצִי זַיִת בַּחוּץ וְכַחֲצִי זַיִת לְמָחָר, כַּחֲצִי זַיִת לְמָחָר וְכַחֲצִי זַיִת בַּחוּץ – פָּסוּל וְאֵין בּוֹ כָּרֵת.

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