Menachot 28

מיפגלי הכא דחשיב בהו בזביחה גופה לא כ"ש

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! - Rather said R'Johanan, This is the reason for R'Jose's opinion:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Huna's view is untenable, for it is accepted by all that a wrongful intention in respect of one limb certainly affects the other; nevertheless the case of the two loaves dealt with by R. Jose in our Mishnah is a special one, as R. Johanan proceeds to show.');">¹</span> Scripture regards [the two loaves] as one body and Scripture also regards them as two bodies.

אלא א"ר יוחנן ה"ט דרבי יוסי הכתוב עשאן גוף אחד והכתוב עשאן שני גופין גוף אחד דמעכבי אהדדי שני גופין דאמר רחמנא הא לחודה עבידא והא לחודה עבידא

As one body-since one cannot be offered without the other; and as two bodies-since the Divine Law ordains that each [loaf] shall be prepared separately. Therefore if they were reckoned as one,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the case where there was expressed an intention to eat one olive's bulk of the two loaves. This intention certainly reckoned the two loaves as one 'body' or entity, and therefore both are piggul, as stated in the Baraitha quoted supra p. 83 by R. Nahman.');">²</span>

ערבינהו מתערבין דהכתוב עשאן גוף אחד פלגינהו מיפלגי דהכתוב עשאן שני גופין

they are thereby united, since Scripture regards them as one body; if they were separated,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the case where the expressed intention referred to one loaf only. The other loaf is not affected by this intention, as stated in the MISHNAH:');">³</span> they remain thus separated, since Scripture regards them also as two bodies.

בעי רבי יוחנן פיגל בלחמי תודה מהו במנחת מאפה מהו תנא ליה רב תחליפא ממערבא וכן אתה אומר בלחמי תודה וכן אתה אומר במנחת מאפה

R'Johanan raised the following questions: What is the position if one expressed an intention which makes piggul in respect of the loaves of the thank-offering?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The thank-offering consisted of an animal-sacrifice and an offering of forty cakes, ten cakes of each of the four different kinds prescribed, v. Lev. VII, 12, 13. Now if during one of the services in connection with the animal-offering a wrongful intention was expressed with regard to the eating of the cakes of one kind, the question is: would R. Jose in this case also differ with the Rabbis and maintain that the other kinds of cakes are in no wise affected, or would he agree with them, seeing that all the kinds are rendered permissible by the offering of one sacrifice?');">⁴</span> or in respect of the baked meal-offering?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The baked meal-offering consisted of either ten unleavened cakes or ten unleavened wafers (v. ibid II, 4) , whilst according to R. Simeon it may consist of five cakes and five wafers; v. infra 63a. The question arises here according to R. Simeon's view: If a wrongful intention was expressed in respect of the cakes only or in respect of the wafers only, would R. Jose agree with the Rabbis that the other kind is also affected, seeing that only one handful was taken from this meal-offering on behalf of both kinds, or not?');">⁵</span>

ת"ר בשעת שחיטה חישב לאכול חצי זית ובשעת זריקה חישב לאכול חצי זית פיגול מפני ששחיטה וזריקה מצטרפין

- Thereupon R'Tahlifa the Palestinian recited to him the following teaching: You must say the same<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Jose in this case too differs with the Rabbis.');">⁶</span> of the loaves of the Thank-offering, and you must say the same of the baked meal-offering.

איכא דאמרי שחיטה וזריקה דתרווייהו מתירין אין קבלה והולכה לא ואיכא דאמרי הנך דמרחקן וכ"ש הני דמקרבן

Our Rabbis taught: If during the slaughtering he intended to eat a half-olive's bulk [of the flesh after its prescribed time], and during the sprinkling [of the blood] he also intended to eat a half-olive's bulk [after it prescribed time], the offering is piggul, for the slaughtering and the sprinkling can be reckoned together as one.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is regarded as though during one service an intention was expressed in respect of one whole olive's bulk.');">⁷</span> Some explained that this applied only to the slaughtering and the sprinkling since they are both mattirin,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' These services are alike in that each renders some part of the offering permissible: the slaughtering renders the blood permissible for sprinkling, and the sprinkling renders the flesh permissible to be eaten.');">⁸</span>

איני והא תני לוי ארבע עבודות אין מצטרפות לפיגול שחיטה וזריקה קבלה והולכה אמר רבא ל"ק הא רבי הא רבנן

but not to the receiving and the bringing nigh; whilst others explained that this applied even to these services which are not consecutive,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'which are far apart from each other'.');">⁹</span> and all the more to those services which are consecutive.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The order of the services is: slaughtering, receiving, bringing nigh, and sprinkling. Now if the first and the last services are reckoned together as one, how much more can those services which are consecutive be reckoned together!');">¹⁰</span>

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

This surely cannot be, for Levi has taught: The four services, viz. , slaughtering, receiving, bringing nigh, and sprinkling cannot be reckoned together so as to render piggul! - Raba answered, There is no contradiction: the one<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Baraitha taught by Levi that services cannot be reckoned together.');">¹¹</span> represents the view of Rabbi, the other the view of the Rabbis.

א"ל אביי אימר דשמעת ליה לרבי חצי מתיר וחצי אכילה כולו מתיר וחצי אכילה מי שמעת ליה

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. Said Abaye to him, perhaps Rabbi held that view only in the case of a [wrongful intention expressed during] half the mattir<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., during the slaughtering of one of the two lambs which is only half of the mattir, for it is only the slaughtering of the two lambs which renders the two loaves permissible to be eaten.');">¹²</span>

א"ל רבא בר רב חנן לאביי ואי אית ליה לרבי כולו מתיר וחצי אכילה לגזור חצי מתיר וחצי אכילה אטו כולו מתיר וחצי אכילה דהא רבי יוסי גזר ורבנן גזרי

in respect of half [the minimum quantity for] eating,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. a half-olive's bulk.');">¹³</span> but he might not uphold that view in the case of [a wrongful intention expressed during] the whole mattir in respect of half [the minimum quantity for] eating?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Indeed Rabbi would also agree that if an intention which makes piggul was expressed during the slaughtering of an ordinary offering (which is a whole mattir, v. supra n. 2) in respect of a half-olive's bulk of the flesh, and a similar intention was expressed during the sprinkling of the blood (which is also a whole mattir, ibid.) , these intentions would be reckoned together to make the offering piggul.');">¹⁴</span>

ר' יוסי גזר דתנן להקטיר לבונתה למחר רבי יוסי אומר פסול ואין בו כרת וחכ"א פיגול וחייבין עליה כרת

Raba son of R'Hanan then said to Abaye, But if [as you say,] Rabbi holds that in the case of [a wrongful intention expressed during] the whole mattir in respect of half [the minimum quantity for] eating, [the offering is piggul], then he should declare the offering piggul even in the case of [a wrongful intention expressed during] half the mattir in respect of half [the minimum quantity for] eating, as a precautionary measure against the case of [a wrongful intention expressed during] the whole mattir in respect of half [the minimum quantity for] eating; for R'Jose adopts such a precautionary measure, and the Rabbis also adopt such a precautionary measure. R'Jose adopts such a precautionary measure', as we have learnt: [If he intended] to burn the frankincense thereof on the morrow, R'Jose says, it is invalid,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Strictly the offering should be valid for there is no piggul here; R. Jose, however, declares it invalid only as a precautionary measure, since this case is similar to a real case of piggul, namely, where the intention was to burn the handful of the meal-offering on the morrow.');">¹⁵</span>

ורבנן נמי גזרי דתנן פיגל בקומץ ולא בלבונה בלבונה ולא בקומץ ר"מ אומר פיגול וחייבין עליו כרת וחכ"א אין בו כרת עד שיפגל בכל המתיר

but the penalty of kareth is not incurred on account thereof; but the Rabbis say, it is piggul and the penalty of kareth is incurred on account thereof.' And the Rabbis also adopt such a precautionary measure', as we have learnt: If he expressed an intention which makes piggul during the [burning of the] handful and not during the [burning of the] frankincense, or during the [burning of the] frankincense and not during the [burning of the] handful, R'Meir says, It is piggul and the penalty of kareth is incurred; but the Rabbis say, The penalty of kareth is not incurred unless the intention which makes piggul was expressed during the service of the whole of the mattir.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The offering, however, is invalid, as a precautionary measure against a real case of piggul where the burning of the handful of the meal-offering alone constitutes the whole mattir (as in the case of the sinner's meal-offering) , or where the burning of the frankincense alone constitutes the whole mattir (as in the case of the frankincense of the Shewbread) ; v. infra 16a.');">¹⁶</span>

א"ל הכי השתא בשלמא התם גזר רבי יוסי קומץ דלבונה אטו קומץ דמנחה

- He replied, There is no comparison between the cases. I grant you that there R'Jose declares invalid the case [where the wrongful intention was in respect] of the handful of frankincense as a precautionary measure against the case [where the wrongful intention was in respect] of the handful of the meal-offering;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is undoubtedly a real case of piggul; v. p. 89. n. 1.');">¹⁷</span>

רבנן גזרי קומץ אטו קומץ דמנחת חוטא ולבונה אטו לבונה הבאה בבזיכין

and also that the Rabbis declare invalid the case [where the wrongful intention was expressed during the burning] of the handful as a precautionary measure against the case [where the wrongful intention was expressed during the burning] of the handful of the sinner's meal-offering;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is a real case of piggul; v. supra p. 89, n. 2.');">¹⁸</span> and that they declare invalid the case [where the wrongful intention was expressed during the burning] of the frankincense as a precautionary measure against the case [where the wrongful intention was expressed during the burning] of the frankincense of the dishes.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is a real case of piggul; v. supra p. 89, n. 2.');">¹⁸</span>

כבשים נמי כבש אטו כבש חבירו

And in the case of the lambs too,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' infra 16a, MISHNAH:');">¹⁹</span> they declare invalid the case [where the wrongful intention was expressed during the slaughtering] of one lamb as a precautionary measure against the case [where the wrongful intention was expressed during the slaughtering] of the other lamb too;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' infra 16a, MISHNAH:');">¹⁹</span>

בזך אטו בזך חבירו

and they declare invalid the case [where the wrongful intention was expressed during the burning] of one dish of frankincense as a precautionary measure against the case [where the wrongful intention was expressed during the burning] of the other dish too.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is admittedly a real case of piggul.');">²⁰</span> In our case, however, is there ever a case of [a wrongful intention expressed during the service of] half a mattir in respect of half [the minimum quantity for] eating [that renders piggul], so that we should take here precautionary measures?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' There is no such case, hence there is no ground for a precautionary measure.');">²¹</span>

אלא הכא מי איכא חצי מתיר וחצי אכילה בעלמא דליקום וליגזר

Indeed it stands to reason that this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., that in every case where the offering is declared to be invalid it is only as a precautionary measure against a case of absolute piggul which is similar to it.');">²²</span> is the explanation of the view of the Rabbis, for in the next clause [of that Mishnah]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' infra 16a, MISHNAH:');">¹⁹</span>

הכי נמי מסתברא דטעמא דרבנן מש"ה הוא דקתני סיפא מודים חכמים לר"מ במנחת חוטא ומנחת קנאות שאם פיגל בקומץ שפיגול וחייבין עליה כרת שהקומץ הוא המתיר

it states: The Rabbis, however, agree with R'Meir that if it was a sinner's meal-offering or a meal-offering of jealousy, and he expressed an intention which makes piggul during the burning of the handful, the offering is piggul and the penalty of kareth is incurred on account thereof, since the handful [alone] is the [entire] mattir. Now why was it necessary for this [last expression] to be stated?

הא למה לי למיתנא כלל פשיטא מי איכא מתיר אחרינא אלא לאו הא קמ"ל דטעמא דקומץ משום דאיכא קומץ דמנחת חוטא דדמי ליה:

It is quite obvious, for is there then [in these cases] any other mattir? We must therefore say that it teaches us this: namely, the reason [why the Rabbis declare the offering invalid in the case where a wrongful intention was expressed during the burning] of the handful [of the 'ordinary meal-offering] is that there is the handful of the sinner's meal-offering which is similar to it [and which is a real case of piggul].

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> נטמאת אחת מן החלות או אחד מן הסדרים רבי יהודה אומר שניהם יצאו לבית השריפה שאין קרבן ציבור חלוק וחכמים אומרים הטמא בטומאתו והטהור יאכל:

<big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>IF ONE OF THE [TWO] LOAVES<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The two loaves offered with the two lambs on the Feast of Weeks; cf. Lev. XXIII, 19, 20.');">²³</span> OR ONE OF THE [TWO] ROWS [OF THE SHEWBREAD] BECAME UNCLEAN, R'JUDAH SAYS, BOTH MUST BE TAKEN OUT TO THE PLACE OF BURNING, FOR THE OFFERING OF THE CONGREGATION MAY NOT BE DIVIDED.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And if a part of the offering was rendered unfit for eating, as here on account of uncleanness, the whole may not be eaten.');">²⁴</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> א"ר אלעזר מחלוקת לפני זריקה אבל לאחר זריקה דברי הכל הטמא בטומאתו והטהור יאכל

BUT THE SAGES SAY, THE UNCLEAN [IS TREATED] AS UNCLEAN, BUT THE CLEAN MAY BE EATEN. <big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>R'Eleazar said, They differ only [in the case where one loaf became unclean] before the sprinkling of the blood,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Or, in the case of the Shewbread-offering, before the burning of the dishes of the frankincense which corresponds to the sprinkling of the blood in an animal-offering.');">²⁵</span>

ולפני זריקה במאי פליגי אמר רב פפא בציץ מרצה על אכילות קא מיפלגי

but [where it became unclean] after the sprinkling, all agree that the unclean one is treated as unclean and the clean one may be eaten. And [in the case where one became unclean] before the sprinkling, on what principle do they differ? - R'Papa said, They differ as to whether the [High Priest's] plate renders [the offering] acceptable [where] the eatable portions [had become unclean].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The High Priest's plate worn on the forehead had a propitiatory effect (v. Ex. XXVIII, 36-38) , and if a part of the sacrifice became unclean the offering was nevertheless acceptable, and the sprinkling of the blood was deemed to he a valid sprinkling. The Rabbis and R. Judah differ as to what portions of the sacrifice are comprehended within the propitiating effect of the plate, whether it includes even those portions usually eaten ,ukhft ihkug by the priests (Heb.) , or only those portions offered upon the altar (Heb.) , as the blood and the fat, and the frankincense.');">²⁶</span> [