Menachot 24

או כזית אשירים בקמיצה נמי לאכול שירים לא תני או כזית וקתני סיפא פיגול וחייבין עליו כרת אלמא מהניא להו הקטרה

or an olive's bulk',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For once it is assumed as a fact that after the taking out of the handful the remainder had diminished until there was only an olive's bulk left, then it is absurd to state 'if he put the handful into a vessel (or brought it nigh, or burnt it) intending to eat the remainder or an olive's bulk of the remainder outside its proper time . .' for the two, the remainder and the olive's bulk, are identical. This being so, R. Hiyya for the sake of consistency omitted the expression 'or an olive's bulk' even in the case of the taking of the handful where this expression is indeed meaningful. The condition of the text both in the Gemara and in Rashi is very doubtful and at present most unsatisfactory. The translation is based on the interpretation of R. Meir and his son Rashbam, given in cur. edd. at the end of Chapter I, infra 13a.');">¹</span> he therefore did not state 'or an olive's bulk' even with regard to the service of taking out the handful.

א"ל אביי לא הא מני ר"א היא דתנן הקומץ והלבונה והקטרת ומנחת כהנים ומנחת כהן משיח ומנחת נסכים שהקריב מאחת מהן כזית בחוץ חייב ורבי אלעזר פוטר עד שיקריב את כולו

Nevertheless, he states in the later clause, THE OFFERING IS PIGGUL AND THE PENALTY OF KARETH IS INCURRED; hence, it is evident, that the burning [of the handful] has an effect [upon the diminished remainder]! Said to him Abaye. It is not so,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The reason why R. Hiyya omits 'or an olive's bulk' was not as suggested above by Raba, but because R. Hiyya stated the teaching in accordance with the view of R. Eleazar, v. Zeb. 109b.');">²</span>

כיון דבהקטרת קמיצה לא מתני ליה או כזית מקומצה בחוץ בשירים נמי לא מתני ליה או כזית

but the author is R'Eleazar; for we have learnt: If a man offered outside [the Temple court] an olive's bulk of the handful,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of an ordinary meal-offering.');">³</span> or of the frankincense,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of an ordinary meal-offering.');">³</span>

אי רבי אלעזר האי להקטיר קומצה להקטיר קומצה ולבונתה מיבעי ליה דתנן הקומץ והלבונה שהקריב את אחד מהן בחוץ חייב ורבי אלעזר פוטר עד שיקריב את שניהם

or of the incense-offering.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which was offered daily in the Temple, morning and evening.');">⁴</span> or of the mealoffering of the priests.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Every meal-offering of the priest was to be wholly burnt. So too was the meal-offering of the High Priest which he was to bring daily, known kusd ivf h,hcj as . Likewise, the meal-offerings that were offered with the drink-offerings that accompanied most sacrifices (v. Num XV, 4ff) were wholly burnt.');">⁵</span>

לא נצרכא אלא לקומץ דמנחת חוטא

or of the meal-offering of the anointed [High] Priest, or of the meal-offering offered with the drink-offerings, he is liable;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To the penalty of kareth; v. Lev. XVII, 8, 9.');">⁶</span> but R'Eleazar declares him exempt unless he offered the whole thereof.

ואיכפל תנא לאשמועינן קומץ דמנחת חוטא אין וכן כי אתא רב דימי א"ר אלעזר קומץ דמנחת חוטא הוא ורבי אלעזר היא

Since therefore the expression 'or an olive's bulk' cannot be stated in connection with the [burning of the] handful, this same expression 'or an olive's bulk' is not stated in connection with the remainder.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence, according to R. Eleazar, to burn only an olive's bulk of the handful is no 'burning', and an intention to do so outside its proper time expressed during another service (say, during the taking out of the handful) would not render the offering piggul. Accordingly one must omit the expression 'or an olive's bulk' from the first clause, which deals with a wrongful intention in connection with the burning of the handful, and for the sake of consistency the expression was omitted by R. Hiyya throughout.');">⁷</span> But if it is R'Eleazar, why is it stated<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the Mishnah as taught by R. Hiyya.');">⁸</span>

הדר אמר רבא לאו מילתא היא דאמרי דתניא (ויקרא כד, ט) קדש קדשים הוא שאם נפרסה אחת מהן חלותיה כולן פסולות

'[Intending] to burn the handful'? It should state, '[Intending] to burn the handful and the frankincense'! For we have learnt:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Zeb. 110a.');">⁹</span>

הא יצאת הני דאיכא גוואי כשרות מאן שמעת ליה דאמר זריקה מועלת ליוצא ר"ע היא וקאמר נפרסה לא

If a man offered either the handful or the frankincense outside [the Temple court], he is liable; but R'Eleazar declares him exempt unless he offered both! - It refers to the handful of the sinner's meal-offering.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the Mishnah taught by R. Hiyya on the authority of R. Eleazar refers specifically to the sinner's meal-offering in which there was no frankincense at all, so that the 'burning' consists only of the burning of the handful.');">¹⁰</span> And did the Tanna trouble to teach us the case concerning the handful of the sinner's meal-offering? - He did.

א"ל אביי מי קתני הא יצאת דלמא הא נטמאת הנך כשרות

And likewise when R'Dimi came [from Palestine] he reported in the name of R'Eleazar that it referred only to the handful of the sinner's meal-offering, and it was in accordance with R'Eleazar's view. Later Raba said, What I said before was wrong.

מ"ט דמרצה ציץ אבל יצאת לא ור' אליעזר היא דאמר אין זריקה מועלת ליוצא

For it has been taught: The expression It is<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXIV, 9: For it is most holy unto him; with reference to the Shewbread.');">¹¹</span> implies that if one of the loaves was broken all are invalid.

ובדין הוא דאיבעי ליה למיתני נמי יצאת והאי דקתני נפרסה הא קמ"ל דאפי' נפרסה דאיתיה בפנים לא מהניא ליה הקטרה אבל לר"ע דאמר זריקה מועלת ליוצא אפי' חסרון נמי מהניא ליה הקטרה:

It follows however, that if one was taken out of the Sanctuary<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In all MSS. the following is added here in the text: 'or if one was rendered unclean'. So also Sh. Mek.');">¹²</span> those that are inside are valid.

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> לאכול כחצי זית ולהקטיר כחצי זית כשר שאין אכילה והקטרה מצטרפין:

Now whom have you heard say that the sprinkling [of the blood] has an effect upon what was taken out?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For here it is said that the burning of the frankincense of the Shewbread-offering - which corresponds to the sprinkling of the blood of an animal-offering - has an effect upon what was taken out, insofar as the number of the loaves is considered complete, the result being that those loaves which remained inside are now permitted to be eaten.');">¹³</span> [Obviously] it is R'Akiba, and yet it states that if one of the loaves was broken they are not [valid].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence, although the burning can have an effect upon what was taken out, it is admitted, even according to R. Akiba, that it can have no effect upon that which had diminished, and if one loaf was broken all are invalid, Raba thus agrees with R. Huna, and retracts his former view, .hm');">¹⁴</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> טעמא דלאכול ולהקטיר הא לאכול ולאכול דבר שאין דרכו לאכול מצטרף

Thereupon Abaye said to him, Does [the Baraitha] expressly state 'But if one was taken out [the others are valid]'? Perhaps the correct inference is: If one became unclean the others are valid, and that is because the [High Priest's] plate<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Heb, : the High Priest's plate of pure gold worn on the forehead which had the power of propitiation (v. Ex. XXVIII, 36ff) ; i.e., it secured the Divine acceptance of the sacrifice even though the flesh or the blood or any other part thereof had become unclean.');">¹⁵</span>

והקתני רישא לאכול דבר שדרכו לאכול ולהקטיר דבר שדרכו להקטיר דבר שדרכו לאכול אין שאין דרכו לאכול לא מאן תנא

renders it acceptable, whereas if one was taken out the others would not [be valid],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the burning of the frankincense must be on behalf of the whole Shewbread, i.e., twelve loaves, and here there is not this number.');">¹⁶</span> for the teaching is in accordance with R'Eleazar's view who maintains that the sprinkling of the blood has no effect upon what was taken out.

א"ר ירמיה הא מני ר"א היא דאמר מחשבין מאכילת אדם [לאכילת] מזבח ומאכילת מזבח [לאכילת] אדם

And by right the Tanna [of the Baraitha] should have also stated the case where one [of the loaves] was taken out, but he only stated the case where one was broken to teach us that, even though it is still inside [the Sanctuary], the 'burning' has no effect upo it. According to R'Akiba, however, who said that the sprinkling of the blood has an effect upon what was taken out, the 'burning' likewise will have an effect upon that which had diminished.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus contrary to R. Huna's view.');">¹⁷</span>

דתנן הקומץ את המנחה לאכול דבר שאין דרכו לאכול ולהקטיר דבר שאין דרכו להקטיר כשר ור"א פוסל

<big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>[IF HE INTENDED] TO EAT A HALF-OLIVE'S BULK AND TO BURN A HALF-OLIVE'S BULK,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Each either outside the proper time or outside the proper place.');">¹⁸</span> THE OFFERING IS VALID, FOR EATING AND BURNING CANNOT BE RECKONED TOGETHER'<big><b>GEMARA:</b></big>

אביי אמר אפי' תימא רבנן לא תימא הא לאכול ולאכול דבר שאין דרכו לאכול אלא אימא הא לאכול ולאכול דבר שדרכו לאכול

Now the reason [why they cannot be reckoned together] is that [there was an intention] to eat and to burn, but it follows that where [there was the intention] to eat [what it is usual to eat] and also to ea what it is not usual to eat, they can be reckoned together;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., if while taking the handful he intended to eat a half-olive's bulk of the remainder outside the Sanctuary and also to eat outside a half-olive's bulk of the handful (which is to be burnt and not eaten) , these two intentions would be reckoned as one in respect of an olive's bulk and the offering would be invalid.');">¹⁹</span> but it has been stated earlier [in the Mishnah]: '[Intending] to eat a thing that it is usual to eat or to burn a thing that it is usual to burn'.

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.