Commentary for Menachot 32:30

אמרי

applies only to the services of taking the handful, or putting it in the vessel or bringing it nigh; [but if he had already reached the service of burning etc.] Now 'bringing nigh' surely means bringing nigh for the purposes of burning, does it not?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the Sages agree that a wrongful intention expressed during the bringing nigh renders piggul; contra Resh Lakish.');">²²</span> - No, it means bringing nigh in order to put it in the vessel.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is a complete service, for only the handful was put into a vessel and not the frankincense.');">²³</span> But if so, why is it stated [in this order] 'putting it in the vessel or bringing it nigh'? It oug surely to have stated 'bringing it nigh or putting it in the vessel'! - This is no difficulty, for you may rende it thus.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And reverse the order of the Baraitha.');">²⁴</span> But [it will be asked], why does it state 'but if he had already reached the service of burning'? It ought to have stated 'but if he had already reached the service of bringing nigh'!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the service of bringing nigh is prior to the burning, and the Sages and R. Meir differ herein, too, according to Resh Lakish.');">²⁵</span> - This, too,is no difficulty, for since the bringing nigh is for the purposes of burning he refers to it as the burning. But [it w be asked], why does it state 'and he offered'? It ought to have stated, 'and he brought it nigh'!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For even if it is accepted, as suggested, that the term 'burning' includes the bringing nigh, when describing the service the Tanna of the Baraitha should have mentioned the first act thereof, namely the bringing nigh, and not the act of offering (lit., 'the putting' upon the altar, i.e., the burning) .');">²⁶</span> - This is indeed a difficulty. If he burnt the size of a sesame seed of the handful intending to eat the size of a sesame seed of the remainder [on the morrow, and he repeated this again and again] until the handful was entirely [burnt up],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And so he did too with the frankincense.');">²⁷</span> - in this case R'Hisda, R'Hamnuna and R'Shesheth differ. One holds that it is piggul, the other that it is invalid, and the third that it is valid. Now shall we say that he who holds that it is piggul is in agreement with R'Meir,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That an intention which makes piggul expressed during the service of a portion of the mattir - in this case during the burning of the size of a sesame seed of the handful and of the frankincense - renders the offering piggul. The Sages, however, in such a case declare the offering invalid.');">²⁸</span> he who holds that it is invalid is in agreement with the Rabbis,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That an intention which makes piggul expressed during the service of a portion of the mattir - in this case during the burning of the size of a sesame seed of the handful and of the frankincense - renders the offering piggul. The Sages, however, in such a case declare the offering invalid.');">²⁸</span> and he who holds that it is valid is in agreement with Rabbi?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra ');">²⁹</span> - But is this so? perhaps R'Meir is of that opinion only there where he expressed [the intention which makes piggul] during a complete service,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., during the burning of the handful which, though but half of the mattir, for there is also the burning of the frankincense, is nevertheless a complete service.In this case only does R. Meir maintain that the offering is piggul.');">³⁰</span> but not here where he did not express [such an intention] during a complete service. Moreover, perhaps the Rabbis are of their opinion only there where he did not express an intention [which makes piggul] during the service of the whole mattir, but here where he actually expressed an intention [which makes piggul] during the service of the whole mattir [they would agree that] it is piggul. And again, perhaps Rabbi is of his opinion only there where he did not make up [the minimum quantity] later in the same service,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For in the case dealt with by Rabbi the piggul intention was expressed during the slaughtering of one lamb about a half-olive's bulk of one loaf and a similar piggul intention was expressed during the slaughtering of the other lamb about the same quantity of the other loaf.');">³¹</span> but here where he made up the quantity in the same service [he would agree that] it is invalid! - We must therefore say that he who holds that it is piggul holds thus according to all views; he who holds that it is invalid holds thus according to all views, and he who holds that it is valid holds thus according to all views.' He who holds that it is piggul holds thus according to all views', for he maintains that that<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The taking of quantities the size of a sesame seed at a time.');">³²</span> is a way of eating as well as a way of burning.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that this case is no-different from the usual cases of piggul where during the burning of an olive's bulk of the handful there was an intention expressed to eat an olive's bulk of the remainder on the morrow.');">³³</span> 'He who holds that it is invalid holds thus according to all views', for he maintains that that<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The taking of quantities the size of a sesame seed at a time.');">³²</span> is a way of eating but not a way of burning, and it was as though [the handful of] the meal-offering had not been burnt at all.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And therefore it is invalid.');">³⁴</span> 'And he who holds that it is valid holds thus according to all views', for he maintains that that<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The taking of quantities the size of a sesame seed at a time.');">³²</span> is a way of burning but not a way of eating.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The burning in this manner is regarded as a normal burning of the handful, whereas the intention concerning the eating of the remainder is no intention in law so as to invalidate the offering.');">³⁵</span>

Explore commentary for Menachot 32:30. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.