Commentary for Menachot 30:16

אמר להן אף אני לא אמרתי אלא בבא עם האשם [א"ל] אפשר לשנותו לאשם אחר אמר רבא קסבר רבי מאיר הוקבעו בשחיטה כלחמי תודה:

AFTER THEY HAVE BEEN HALLOWED IN THE VESSEL. SO R'MEIR'BUT THE DRINK-OFFERINGS CANNOT RENDER THE ANIMAL-OFFERING PIGGUL. THUS, IF HE SLAUGHTERED AN ANIMAL-OFFERING INTENDING TO EAT THEREOF ON THE MORROW, BOTH IT AND THE DRINK-OFFERINGS ARE PIGGUL; IF HE INTENDED TO OFFER THE DRINK-OFFERINGS ON THE MORROW, THE DRINK-OFFERINGS ARE PIGGUL BUT THE ANIMAL-OFFERING IS NOT. <big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>Our Rabbis taught: For the drink-offerings of an animal-sacrifice the penalty of piggul is incurred, since the blood of the animal-offering renders them permissible to be offered [upon the altar].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And it is established law: Whatsoever is rendered permissible () , whether for man or for the altar, by a certain rite is subject to the law of piggul. V. Zeb. 43a; Yoma 60a.');">¹⁴</span> So R'Meir. They said to R'Meir, Is it not the fact that a man may bring his animal-offering to-day and the drink-offerings thereof in ten days' time?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence it is evident that the drink-offerings are not part of the offering and are not affected by any intention concerning them expressed during the slaughtering of the offering.');">¹⁵</span> He replied, I also only spoke of the case where they were brought together with the animal-offering. But<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In cur. edd. 'They said to him'. This is not found in the MSS. and is deleted by Sh. Mek.');">¹⁶</span> surely they may be transferred to another animal-offering!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Consequently they cannot be rendered piggul through any intention expressed during the slaughtering of the animal-offering, since they are not specifically bound to that offering.');">¹⁷</span> - Raba said, R'Meir is of the opinion that with the slaughtering they became appropriated [to this offering] like the cakes of the thank-offering.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And they may not be transferred to be used for another offering.');">¹⁸</span> Our Rabbis taught: For the leper's log of oil<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Lev. XIV, 10ff. If therefore while slaughtering the leper's guilt-offering he intended to deal with the oil on the morrow, the latter becomes piggul, and whosoever partakes of it incurs the penalty of kareth.');">¹⁹</span> the penalty of piggul is incurred, since the blood of the guilt-offering renders it permissible to be applied to the thumb and the great toe.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the oil may be applied only after the rites in connection with the blood of the guilt-offering have been performed. It is thus ihrh,n uk aha rcs ; v. supra p. 98,n. 4.');">²⁰</span> So R'Meir. They said to R'Meir, Is it not the fact that a man may bring his guilt-offering to-day and the log of oil in ten days' time? He replied, I also only spoke of the case where it was brought together with the guilt-offering. But surely it may be transferred to another [leper's] guilt-offering! - Raba said, R'Meir is of the opinion that with the slaughtering it became appropriated [to this guilt-offering] like the cakes of the thank-offering.

Explore commentary for Menachot 30:16. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.