Commentary for Menachot 26:19

מני אילימא רבנן אפילו באחת מהן נמי אלא פשיטא רבי יוסי אי אמרת בשלמא חד גופא הוא מש"ה מצטרף

You may say it is based upon a logical argument', for surely the wrongful intention is not stronger than actual uncleanness! And if one limb became unclean is the whole unclean?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Certainly not! Of course the limb spoken of here had been detached from the animal.');">²¹</span> 'Or you may say it is based upon a verse', for it is written And the soul that eateth of it shall bear his iniquity,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. VII, 18.');">²²</span> that is, of it but not of any other part. R'Nahman raised an objection against R'Huna from the following: 'There is never the penalty of kareth incurred unless he expressed an intention which makes piggul with regard to an olive's bulk from both'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., if the wrongful intention was in respect of both loaves, even though only to the extent of a half-olive's bulk of each loaf, they are both piggul and the penalty of kareth is incurred by them that eat thereof.');">²⁴</span> Thus an olive's bulk from both, but not from one.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., if the wrongful intention was in respect of an olive's bulk of one loaf only, the other loaf would not be piggul.');">²⁵</span> Now who is the author of this Baraitha? Should you say it is the Rabbis - but according to them even though [the intention was] in respect of one loaf only [both are piggul].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. our MISHNAH:');">²⁶</span> Obviously then it is R'Jose. Now if you say that they are regarded as one body [there],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e.,that two limbs (as the right and left thigh) are not regarded as separate entities but as one 'body' derived from the one animal; so that if a wrongful intention was expressed with regard to one limb both would be piggul, contra R. Huna.');">²⁷</span> then it is evident why they can be combined [here].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the two loaves are, by reason of the form of the intention expressed (not 'a half-olive's bulk from each loaf', but 'an olive's bulk from the two loaves') , also regarded as one entity. In our Mishnah, however, the two loaves are admittedly regarded as two separate entities, for they were in no wise combined in one, not even by the intention expressed.');">²⁸</span>

Explore commentary for Menachot 26:19. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.