Commentary for Menachot 32:9

איבעיא להו פיגל בהולכה מהו

he has thereby rendered it invalid, consequently when he later sprinkles in the Sanctuary it is as though he were sprinkling water!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The penalty of kareth cannot therefore be incurred; how then can R. Meir say that kareth is incurred in those circumstances? It must be observed that at first sight this same question could also be raised in the case where a piggul intention was expressed during the slaughtering or during the receiving of the blood, for since the offering is rendered invalid by that intention the subsequent sprinkling is no service, consequently the penalty of kareth cannot be incurred. Rashi, however, suggests this distinction: in this case the slaughtering or the receiving was performed entirely in sanctity, for the intention of piggul related to some subsequent service, whereas in the case of our text the sprinkling was not performed entirely in sanctity, for the intention of piggul related to the other sprinklings of this same service. V. also Rashi in Zeb. 42b, hf hf s.v. ; and Tosaf. here s.v. .');">⁷</span>

Explore commentary for Menachot 32:9. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.