Menachot 27

אלא אי אמרת תרי גופי נינהו מי מיצטרפי

But if you say that they are regarded as two bodies [there], why are they combined [here]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For if the two limbs which are derived from the one body are regarded as two entities so that the wrongful intention in respect of one will not affect the other, then the two loaves are a fortiori regarded as two entities and can by no means be combined in one merely by the form of intention expressed. Why then is it held that where the intention was in respect of an olive's bulk of the two loaves both are piggul?');">¹</span> The author of that [Baraitha] is Rabbi.

הא מני רבי היא דתניא השוחט את הכבש לאכול חצי זית מחלה זו וכן חבירו לאכול חצי זית מחלה זו רבי אומר אומר אני שזה כשר

For it was taught: If he slaughtered the lamb intending to eat a half-olive's bulk of the one loaf [on the morrow], and likewise [he slaughtered] the other lamb intending to eat a half-olive's bulk of the other loaf [on the morrow], Rabbi says, I maintain that this offering is valid. Now this is so only because he referred to two halves,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'half', 'half'. I.e., the wrongful intention was expressed each time in respect of a half-olive's bulk only of the loaf, and therefore the two intentions cannot be combined to make the offering piggul.');">²</span>

טעמא דאמר חצי חצי אבל אמר כזית משתיהן מצטרף

but had he referred to an olive's bulk of both [loaves] they would be combined.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus identical with the view stated in the Baraitha quoted by R. Nahman.');">³</span> Whose ruling does Rabbi follow?

ורבי אליבא דמאן אי אליבא דרבנן אפי' באחת מהן נמי אי אליבא דר' יוסי הדרא קושיין לדוכתיה

If you say that of the Rabbis, but [according to them] even though the intention was in respect of one loaf only [both would be piggul]; and if you say that of R'Jose, then our original question confronts us again.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra, beginning of 14a: 'But if you say... ', v. p. 83, n.9. ivh,ac');">⁴</span> It must be that he follows the ruling of the Rabbis, but read not [in th above mentioned Baraitha] 'unless he expressed an intention which makes piggul with regard to an olive's bulk from both',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., from the two loaves. Heb. the fem. form referring to the loaves. ivhbac');">⁵</span>

לעולם אליבא דרבנן ולא תימא עד שיפגל בשתיהן אלא [אימא עד שיפגל] בשניהן ואפילו באחת מהן

but rather 'unless he expressed an intention which makes piggul with regard to an olive's bulk in both',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., in the course of the slaughtering of the two lambs. Heb. the masc. form referring to the lambs. The wrongful intention which makes piggul must be expressed during the service of both lambs, which together form the mattir, i.e., that which renders the loaves permissible, and not during the slaughtering of one of the lambs which is only half the mattir. This clearly conflicts with R. Meir's view. okugk');">⁶</span> even though the intention was only [in respect of an olive's bulk] of one [loaf].

ולאפוקי מדר' מאיר דאמר מפגלין בחצי מתיר קמ"ל דלא

He thus reject the view of R'Meir who said, A wrongful intention expressed during the service of half the mattir renders the offering piggul; and he teaches us [that it is not so]. If so, why is this introduced by the expression 'It must be'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Heb. , a dialectic term usually employed when a view is suggested rejecting all others.');">⁷</span>

אי הכי מאי לעולם אי אמרת בשלמא בשתיהן ובשניהן ורבי יוסי היא ולאפוקי מדר"מ ומדרבנן קאתי היינו דקאמר לעולם

If, of course, you would have said that the author of that Baraitha meant from both [loaves] and in both [lambs],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that there must be an intention which makes piggul expressed during the slaughtering of both lambs and in respect of both loaves. This would be in accordance with R. Jose's view as stated in our MISHNAH:');">⁸</span> adopting thus the view of R'Jose and rejecting the views of R'Meir<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who maintains that a wrongful intention expressed during the slaughtering of one of the lambs, which is but half the mattir, renders piggul. This view is rejected by the statement in the Baraitha 'in both'.');">⁹</span>

אלא אי אמרת רבנן ולאפוקי מדר"מ מאי לעולם

and the Rabbis,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who maintain that the wrongful intention expressed in respect of one loaf renders the other piggul too. This view is rejected by the expression 'from both'.');">¹⁰</span> the expression 'It must be' would be quite in order.

ועוד הא אמר רב אשי ת"ש רבי אומר משום רבי יוסי פיגל בדבר הנעשה בחוץ פיגל בדבר הנעשה בפנים לא פיגל

But if you merely say that he adopted the view of the Rabbis, rejecting only the view of R'Meir, why then the expression 'It must be'? Moreover R'Ashi had raised an objection [against R'Huna from the following]: Come and hear: Rabbi says in the name of R'Jose, If<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This refers to the bullocks and the he-goats that were to be wholly burnt (Lev. IV, 1-12; 13-21; XVI, 3 and 5; Num. XV, 24) . The procedure in these offerings (v. Zeb. V, 2) was as follows: the animals were slaughtered outside in the courtyard; the blood was sprinkled inside the Temple, i.e., on the veil and on the golden altar; the sacrificial portions, i.e., the entire beast, were burnt outside upon the outer altar; and the residue of the blood was poured out at the western base of the outer altar which stood in the Temple courtyard.');">¹¹</span>

כיצד היה עומד בחוץ ואמר הריני שוחט ע"מ להזות מדמו למחר לא פיגל שמחשבה בחוץ בדבר הנעשה בפנים היה עומד בפנים ואמר הריני מזה ע"מ להקטיר אימורין למחר ולשפוך שיריים למחר לא פיגל שמחשבה בפנים בדבר הנעשה בחוץ

[whilst performing a service outside]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In this passage the term 'outside' signifies outside the Temple building, i.e., in the Temple courtyard, and the term 'inside' within the Temple building.');">¹²</span> he expressed an intention which makes piggul in respect of another service which is performed outside, the offering is piggul, if in respect of another service which is performed inside, it is not piggul.

היה עומד בחוץ ואמר הריני שוחט ע"מ לשפוך שיריים למחר ולהקטיר אימורין למחר פיגל שמחשבה בחוץ בדבר הנעשה בחוץ

Thus, if whilst standing outside he said, 'Behold I am slaughtering with the intention of sprinkling the blood thereof on the morrow', it is not piggul, for this is an intention expressed whilst serving outside in respect of a service performed inside. If whilst standing inside he said, 'Behold I am sprinkling the blood with the intention of burning the sacrificial portions on the morrow', or, 'of pouring out the residue of the blood on the morrow', it is not piggul for this is an intention expressed whilst serving inside in respect of a service performed outside.

לשפוך שיריים לאיפגולי מאי אילימא לאיפגולי דם דם מי מיפגל והתנן אלו דברים שאין חייבין עליהן משום פיגול הקומץ והלבונה והקטורת ומנחת כהנים ומנחת נסכים ומנחת כהן משיח והדם

If whilst standing outside he said, 'Behold I am slaughtering with the intention of pouring out the residue of the blood on the morrow', or 'of burning the sacrificial portions on the morrow', it is piggul; for this is an intention expressed whilst serving outside in respect of a service performed outside. Now [in the latter case] where the intention was of pouring out the residue of the blood, what is it that becomes piggul?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., what portion of this offering must one eat in order to incur the penalty of kareth for eating piggul?');">¹³</span>

אלא פשיטא לאפגולי בשר השתא ומה התם דלא חשיב ביה בבשר גופיה א"ר יוסי מיפגל הכא דחשיב ביה בזבח גופיה לא כ"ש דפיגל בירך ימין פיגל בירך שמאל

Should you say that it is the blood that becomes piggul,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that if one were to eat the blood of this sacrifice in error one would be liable to bring two sin-offerings for the two counts of kareth, (a) for eating blood, and (b) for eating piggul.');">¹⁴</span> but does the blood become piggul?

ועוד האמר רבינא תא שמע הקומץ את המנחה לאכול שיריה או להקטיר קומצה למחר מודה רבי יוסי בזו שפיגל וחייבין עליו כרת

Behold we have learnt:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Zeb. 42b.');">¹⁵</span> For the following things the penalty of piggul is not incurred: viz. , the handful, the frankincense, the incense-offering, the meal-offering of the priests, the meal-offering offered with the drink-offerings, the meal-offering of the anointed [High] Priest, and the blood!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., if the offering was rendered piggul and one ate of the parts enumerated, the penalty of kareth is not incurred, for the law of piggul does not apply to that part of the offering which is the mattir, i.e., which renders other parts permissible. V. Zeb. 42b, 43a.');">¹⁶</span>

להקטיר קומצה לאיפגולי מאי אילימא לאיפגולי קומץ קומץ מי מיפגל והתנן אלו דברים שאין חייבין עליהן משום פיגול הקומץ כו' אלא פשיטא לאיפגולי שיריים השתא ומה התם דלא חשיב בהו בשיריים גופיה

Obviously then it is the flesh that becomes piggul. Now if in that case where no intention was expressed with regard to the flesh at all R'Jose holds that it nevertheless becomes piggul, how much more so in this case where he actually expressed an intention with regard to the [flesh of the] offering!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus the piggul-intention expressed in connection with the right thigh will certainly render the left thigh also piggul-contra R. Huna. This sentence is found in the text in cur. edd., but it is wanting in MS.M. Sh. Mek. strikes it out as a gloss.');">¹⁷</span> Moreover Rabina had raised an objection [against R'Huna] from the following: Come and hear: 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 and that the penalty of kareth is incurred on account thereof. Now where the intention was to burn the handful, what is it that becomes piggul? Should you say that it is the handful that becomes piggul, but does the handful become piggul? Behold we have learnt: For the following things the penalty of piggul is not incurred: viz. , the handful, etc. Obviously then it is the remainder that becomes piggul. Now if in that case where no intention was expressed with regard to the remainder at all