Commentary for Menachot 24:18

ומאי קמ"ל הא בהדיא קתני לה לאכול כזית בחוץ וכזית למחר כזית למחר וכזית בחוץ כחצי זית בחוץ וכחצי זית למחר כחצי זית למחר וכחצי זית בחוץ פסול ואין בו כרת

Hence [a wrong intention to eat] is of consequence only in respect of a thing that it is usual to eat, but not in respect of a that it is not usual to eat!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Such an intention even in respect of a whole olive's bulk is of no consequence whatsoever; so that there can then be no question at all of reckoning this intention together with another in order to render the offering invalid.');">²⁰</span> - Said R'Jeremiah: The author [of our Mishnah] is R'Eliezer, who maintains that a wrongful intention to consume upon the altar what is usually eaten by man, or to eat what is usually consumed upon the altar is of consequence.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The handful is a thing that it is usual to burn upon the altar, and the remainder is a thing that it is usual to eat. Hence, according to R. Eliezer');">²¹</span> For we have learnt: If he took out the handful from the meal-offering [intending] to eat a thing that it is not usual to eat or to burn a thing that it is not usual to the offering is valid; but R'Eliezer declares it to be invalid. Abaye said, You may even say that [this Mishnah] is in accordance with the view of the Rabbis, but you must not infer from it that where [there was the intention] to eat [a half-olive's bulk of what it is usual to eat] and to eat [the same of] what it is not u to eat [they can be reckoned together], but rather infer this, that where the intention was to eat [a half-olive bulk] and also to eat [the same of] a thing that it is usual to eat [they can be reckoned together].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The one to be eaten outside its proper place and the other on the morrow. Our Mishnah, by inference, teaches that these intentions combine and the offering is invalid.');">²²</span> What does it teach us?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From this point until the end of the chapter the text is very doubtful and in many parts obviously corrupt; as is indeed evident from the many bracketed lines and words. In fact the entire passage seems to have been taken over bodily from Zeb. 31b, and altered in parts so as to suit the tkt context in our tractate; hence the confusion. V. Tosaf. s.v. The translation given is based entirely upon Rashi and upon the text that was apparently before him. V. also D.S. on this passage.');">²³</span> We have expressly learnt this case in the earlier [Mishnah]: If he intended to eat an olive's bul [of the remainder] outside its proper place and another olive's bulk thereof on the morrow, or to eat an olive's bulk thereof on the morrow and another olive's bulk thereof outside its proper place, or to eat a half-olive's bulk thereof outside its proper place and another half-olive's bulk thereof on the morrow, or to eat a half-olive's bulk thereof on the morrow and another half-olive's bulk thereof outside its proper place, the offering is invalid, but the penalty of kareth is not incurred.

Explore commentary for Menachot 24:18. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.