Menachot 25

Chapter 25

א הא תו למה לי אי לאכול ולאכול דבר שאין דרכו לאכול קמ"ל דמצטרף מרישא (דסיפא) שמעת מינה (דקתני כחצי זית בחוץ כחצי זית למחר פסול הא כחצי זית למחר וכחצי זית למחר פיגול)
1 What further does our Mishnah teach us?
ב אי לאכול ולהקטיר (דהיא גופא קמ"ל) מדיוקא דרישא שמעת מינה
2 If it suggests the inference that where there was the intention to eat [a half-olive's bulk of what it is usual to eat] and also to eat [a half-olive's bulk] of what it is not usual t they can be reckoned together - but you already know from the first clause;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., from the preceding Mishnah that these two intentions cannot combine; v. supra 12a.');"><sup>1</sup></span>
ג דהשתא מה לאכול ולאכול דבר שאין דרכו לאכול אמרת לא מצטרף לאכול ולהקטיר מיבעיא
3 and if [it teaches] that where there was the intention to eat and burn [a half-olive's bulk they cannot be reckoned together] - but you surely know this by inference from the preceding Mishnah: for if the intentions to eat [what it is usual to eat] and to eat what it is not usual to eat, cannot be reckoned together, is it then necessary to state that the intentions to eat and to burn [cannot be reckoned together]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For if two 'eatings' cannot combine, surely 'eating' and 'burning' cannot!');"><sup>2</sup></span>
ד אין לאכול ולהקטיר איצטריכא ליה ס"ד אמינא התם הוא דלא כי אורחיה קמחשב
4 - Yes, it is necessary to state that the intentions to eat and to burn [cannot be reckoned together]; for you might have thought that only in that case<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where the intention was to eat outside the Sanctuary a half-olive's bulk of the remainder and a half-olive's bulk of the handful.');"><sup>3</sup></span>
ה אבל הכא דבהאי כי אורחיה קמחשב ובהאי כי אורחיה קא מחשב אימא לצטרף קמ"ל:
5 [the intentions cannot be reckoned together], for there is an intention there with regard to what is not proper.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., to eat a thing that it is not usual to eat, sc. the handful.');"><sup>4</sup></span>
ו <br><br><big><strong>הדרן עלך כל המנחות</strong></big><br><br>
6 but here,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In our Mishnah where the intention is to eat of the remainder outside and to burn of the handful outside, each action being the proper practice.');"><sup>5</sup></span>
ז מתני׳ <big><strong>הקומץ</strong></big> את המנחה לאכול שיריה או להקטיר קומצה למחר מודה רבי יוסי בזה שהוא פיגול וחייבין עליו כרת להקטיר לבונתה למחר רבי יוסי אומר פסול ואין בו כרת וחכ"א פיגול וחייבין עליו כרת
7 since each intention relates to what is proper in each case, I might say that they should b reckoned together; - we are therefore taught [that they cannot be reckoned together].
ח אמרו לו מה שינה זה מן הזבח אמר להן שהזבח דמו ובשרו ואימוריו אחד ולבונה אינה מן המנחה:
8 <big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>IF HE TOOK OUT THE HANDFUL [INTENDING] TO EAT THE REMAINDER OR TO BURN THE HANDFUL ON THE MORROW, IN THIS CASE R'JOSE AGREES THAT THE OFFERING IS PIGGUL<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos.');"><sup>6</sup></span>
ט <big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> למה לי למיתנא מודה רבי יוסי בזו
9 AND THAT THE PENALTY OF KARETH<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos.');"><sup>6</sup></span>
י משום דקא בעי למיתנא סיפא להקטיר לבונתה למחר ר' יוסי אומר פסול ואין בו כרת
10 IS INCURRED ON ACCOUNT THEREOF.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Should one eat it.');"><sup>7</sup></span>
יא מהו דתימא טעמא דר' יוסי משום דקסבר אין מפגלין בחצי מתיר ואפי' רישא נמי
11 [IF HE INTENDED] TO BURN THE FRANKINCENSE THEREOF ON THE MORROW, R'JOSE SAYS, IT IS INVALID BUT THE PENALTY OF KARETH IS NOT INCURRED ON ACCOUNT THEREOF; BUT THE SAGES SAY, IT IS PIGGUL AND THE PENALTY OF KARETH IS INCURRED ON ACCOUNT THEREOF. THEY SAID TO HIM, HOW DOES THIS DIFFER FROM AN ANIMAL-OFFERING?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For if one slaughtered an animal-offering intending to burn the sacrificial portions on the morrow the offering is certainly piggul. The same surely should be the case with the meal-offering, for the frankincense corresponds to the sacrificial portions of the animal-offering.');"><sup>8</sup></span> HE SAID TO THEM, WITH THE ANIMAL-OFFERING THE BLOOD, THE FLESH AND THE SACRIFICIAL PORTIONS ARE ALL ONE;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Explained in the GEMARA: rh,n');"><sup>9</sup></span> BUT THE FRANKINCENSE IS NOT OF THE MEAL-OFFERING. <big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>Why does the Mishnah state, IN THIS CASE R'JOSE AGREES? - Because the Tanna wished to state the next clause: [IF HE INTENDED] TO BURN THE FRANKINCENSE THEREOF ON THE MORROW, R'JOSE SAYS, IT IS INVALID BUT THE PENALTY OF KARETH IS NOT INCURRED ON ACCOUNT THEREOF. Now you might have thought that the reason for R'Jose's opinion [in the last clause] was that a wrongful intention in respect of half the mattir does not render piggul<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The mattir (Heb. lit., 'that which renders permissible') of the meal-offering is the handful and the frankincense, for only after the burning of those two upon the altar is the remainder of the meal-offering rendered permitted to be eaten. It is now suggested that the reason for R. Jose's view in the second clause of our Mishnah is that a wrongful intention expressed during a service in respect of the frankincense, which is only half the mattir, is of no consequence. According to this principle, R. Jose should also hold in the first clause of our Mishnah that the offering is not piggul, since the wrongful intention was only in respect of the burning of the handful which is also only half the mattir.');"><sup>10</sup></span> and that consequently [R'Jose] differs even in the first clause.
Previous ChapterNext Chapter