Menachot 29

רבנן סברי הציץ מרצה על אכילות ורבי יהודה סבר אין הציץ מרצה על אכילות

The Rabbis are of the opinion that the plate renders [the offering] acceptable [even though] the eatable portions [had become unclean];<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of course, there is no question at all that the unclean portions are forbidden to be eaten; for there is an express prohibition against it (Lev. VII, 19) . They hold, however, that where one loaf became unclean the offering is acceptable, and the sprinkling is a valid sprinkling; consequently the other loaf is permitted to be eaten.');">¹</span> but R'Judah is of the opinion that the plate does not render [the offering] acceptable [where] the eatable portions [had become unclean].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And as the sprinkling is not valid, even the clean loaf may not be eaten. R. Papa apparently ignores the reason stated by R. Judah in our Mishnah, FOR THE OFFERING OF THE CONGREGATION MAY NOT BE DIVIDED, and submits quite a new argument for R. Judah's view.');">²</span>

א"ל רב הונא בריה דרב נתן לרב פפא והא עולין דהציץ מרצה על העולין ופליגי

Thereupon R'Huna the son of R'Nathan said to R'Papa, Behold the plate certainly renders [the offering] acceptable [where] the sacrificial portions [had become unclean], and yet they differ! For it has been taught: If one of the dishes of frankincense became unclean, R'Judah says, Both are offered in conditions of uncleanness, for an offering of the congregation may not be divided.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is established law (Pes. 80a) that an offering of the congregation may be offered in conditions of uncleanness. And as the unclean dish of frankincense is offered in conditions of uncleanness, the other dish may be made unclean and offered together with the first. It is thus manifest that the reason for R. Judah's view is as stated here and also in our Mishnah, namely that the offering of the congregation may not be divided, and it has nothing whatever to do with the effectiveness of the plate, for we see that he put forward this reason in our Mishnah where it was suggested that R. Judah held that the plate does not render the offering acceptable where the eatable portions had become unclean, and he also gives this reason in the Baraitha quoted where he admits that the plate renders the offering acceptable where the sacrificial portions had become unclean.');">³</span> But the Rabbis say, The unclean is offered in conditions of uncleanness and the clean in cleanness.

דתניא נטמא אחד מן הבזיכין רבי יהודה אומר שניהם יעשו בטומאה לפי שאין קרבן ציבור חלוק וחכמים אומרים הטמא בטומאתו והטהור בטהרתו

Moreover R'Ashi had raised an objection thus: Come and hear: R'Judah says, Even though one tribe only was unclean and all the other tribes were clean, [all the Passover-offerings] shall be offered in conditions of uncleanness, for the offering of the congregation may not be divided.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where all the members of one tribe of Israel became unclean on the fourteenth day of Nisan, the day for the offering of the Passover-lamb, they are permitted, according to R. Judah, to offer the Passover-lamb in conditions of uncleanness; and since the offering of the congregation may not be divided, all the Passover-lambs are to be offered in conditions of uncleanness.');">⁴</span> Now in this case, how does the principle of the plate rendering the offering acceptable apply?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' There can be no question here of the plate rendering the offering acceptable for the plate exercises a propitiatory effect only where part of the offering became unclean but not where the person officiating became unclean. Again it is clear from this that the reason stated, 'For the offering of the congregation may not be divided', has nothing whatever to do with the propitiating effect or otherwise of the plate.');">⁵</span>

ועוד אמר רב אשי ת"ש ר' יהודה אומר אפילו שבט אחד טמא וכל השבטים טהורין יעשו בטומאה לפי שאין קרבנות ציבור חלוק והכא מאי הציץ מרצה איכא

Furthermore Rabina had raised an objection thus: Come and hear: IF 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. BUT THE SAGES SAY, THE UNCLEAN [IS TREATED] AS UNCLEAN, BUT THE CLEAN ONE MAY BE EATEN.

ועוד האמר רבינא ת"ש נטמאת אחת מן החלות או אחת מן הסדרין רבי יהודה אומר שניהם יצאו לבית השריפה לפי שאין קרבן ציבור חלוק וחכמים אומרים הטמא בטומאתו והטהור יאכל

Now if that were so,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the reason for R. Judah's view is that the plate does not render the offering acceptable where the eatable portions had become unclean.');">⁶</span> then it should have stated: 'for the plate does not render [the offering] acceptable [where] the eatable portions [had become unclean]'.

ואם איתא לפי שאין הציץ מרצה על אכילות מיבעי ליה אלא א"ר יוחנן למוד ערוך הוא בפיו של רבי יהודה שאין קרבן ציבור חלוק:

- R'Johanan therefore said, It is an accepted teaching in the mouth of R'Judah that the offering of the congregation may not be divided.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In truth it has no relation to the propitiatory effect of the plate.');">⁷</span> <big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>THE THANK-OFFERING<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The thank-offering consisted of an animal-offering and a bread-offering of forty cakes, ten cakes of each of the four different kinds specified; v. Lev. VII, 12, 13. The entire thank-offering had to be consumed on the same day of offering until midnight.');">⁸</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> התודה מפגלת את הלחם והלחם אינו מפגל את התודה כיצד שחט את התודה לאכול ממנה למחר היא והלחם מפוגלין לאכול מן הלחם למחר הלחם מפוגל והתודה אינה מפוגלת

CAN RENDER THE BREAD PIGGUL BUT THE BREAD CANNOT RENDER THE THANK-OFFERING PIGGUL. THUS, IF HE SLAUGHTERED THE THANK-OFFERING INTENDING TO EAT A PART THEREOF ON THE MORROW, BOTH IT AND THE BREAD ARE PIGGUL; IF HE INTENDED TO EAT OF THE BREAD ON THE MORROW, THE BREAD IS PIGGUL BUT THE THANK-OFFERING IS NOT PIGGUL.

הכבשים מפגלין את הלחם והלחם אינו מפגל את הכבשים כיצד השוחט את הכבשים לאכול מהן למחר הם והלחם מפוגלין לאכול את הלחם למחר הלחם מפוגל והכבשים אינן מפוגלין:

THE LAMBS<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the special peace-offering offered on the Feast of Weeks and accompanied by a bread-offering of two loaves as firstfruits, v. Lev. XXIII, 17-19. This peace-offering and the loaves had to be eaten on the same day of offering.');">⁹</span> CAN RENDER THE BREAD PIGGUL BUT THE BREAD CANNOT RENDER THE LAMBS PIGGUL.

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> מ"ט אילימא משום דרב כהנא דאמר רב כהנא מנין ללחמי תודה שנקראו תודה שנאמר (ויקרא ז, יב) והקריב על זבח התודה חלות

THUS, IF HE SLAUGHTERED THE LAMBS INTENDING TO EAT A PART THEREOF ON THE MORROW, BOTH THEY AND THE BREAD ARE PIGGUL IF HE INTENDED TO EAT OF THE BREAD ON THE MORROW, THE BREAD IS PIGGUL BUT THE LAMBS ARE NOT. <big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>Why is it?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That a wrongful intention which makes piggul expressed during the service of the thank-offering renders the bread piggul too.');">¹⁰</span>

אי הכי איפכא נמי הא לא קשיא לחם איקרי תודה תודה לא איקרי לחם

Should you say it is because of R'Kahana's teaching, who said, Whence do we know that the cakes of the thank-offering are called 'the thank-offering'? From the verse, He shall offer for th sacrifice of the thank-offering unleavened cakes.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. VII, 12.');">¹¹</span>

אלא הא דקתני הכבשים מפגלין את הלחם והלחם אינו מפגל את הכבשים לחם היכא אשכחן דאיקרי כבשים אלא (לאו) היינו טעמא לחם גלל תודה ואין תודה גלל דלחם לחם גלל דכבשים ואין כבשים גלל דלחם

Then the reverse should also be true.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., a wrongful intention expressed in respect of the bread should also render the thank-offering piggul. Yet this is not the case.');">¹²</span> This, however, is no difficulty, for the bread is referred to as 'the thank-offering', whereas the thank-offering is nowhere referred to as 'the bread'.

וצריכי דאי אשמעינן תודה התם הוא דכי מפגל בלחם לא מפגלא תודה משום דלא הוזקקו זה לזה בתנופה אבל כבשים דהוזקקו זה לזה בתנופה אימא כי מפגל בלחם ליפגלי נמי כבשים צריכא:

But when [the Mishnah] states: THE LAMBS CAN RENDER THE BREAD PIGGUL BUT THE BREAD CANNOT RENDER THE LAMBS PIGGUL, the question will be asked, Where do we find the bread ever referred to as 'the lambs'? - It must be that this is the reason [for our Mishnah]: the bread is appurtenant to the thank-offering<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The slaughtering of the thank-offering renders the bread consecrated; so too does the slaughtering of the lambs at the Feast of Weeks.');">¹³</span> but the thank-offering is not appurtenant to the bread; the bread is appurtenant to the lambs but the lambs are not appurtenant to the bread.

בעא מיניה ר"א מרב השוחט את התודה לאכול כזית ממנה ומלחמה למחר מהו לאיפגולי תודה לא מיבעיא לי השתא כולו מלחמה לא מיפגלא ממנה ומלחמה מיבעיא

Now both cases had to be stated [in our Mishnah]. For had it stated only the case of the thank-offering, I would have thought that only in that case is it held that an intention which makes piggul expressed in respect of the bread does not render the thank-offering piggul since they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the animal-offering and the bread-offering.');">¹⁴</span>

כי קא מיבעיא לי לאיפגולי לחם מי מצטרפה תודה לאיפגולי ללחם או לא

are not dependent upon each other for the rite of waving,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the thank-offering the breast was waved before the Lord (Lev. VII, 30) but not in conjunction with the bread-offering; on the Feast of Weeks, however, the lambs were waved together with the loaves (ibid. XXIII, 20) .');">¹⁵</span> but in the case of the lambs, since they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the animal-offering and the bread-offering.');">¹⁴</span>

אמר ליה אף בזו הלחם מפוגל והתודה אינה מפוגלת ואמאי לימא קל וחומר ומה (תודה) המפגל אין מתפגל הבא לפגל ולא פיגל אינו דין שלא יתפגל

are dependent upon each other with regard to the rite of waving,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the thank-offering the breast was waved before the Lord (Lev. VII, 30) but not in conjunction with the bread-offering; on the Feast of Weeks, however, the lambs were waved together with the loaves (ibid. XXIII, 20) .');">¹⁵</span> I would say that an intention which makes piggul expressed in respect of the bread would render the lambs piggul too.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And, on the other hand, had the Mishnah only stated the case of the lambs, I should have thought that only there is it held that an intention which makes piggul expressed in respect of the lambs renders the bread piggul too, since they are dependent upon each other for the rite of waving; but since this is not the case with the thank-offering and its bread I would say that an intention which makes piggul expressed in respect of the thank-offering does not render the bread piggul.');">¹⁶</span>

ומי אמרינן קל וחומר כי האי גוונא והתניא מעשה באחד

Therefore [both cases] had to be stated. R'Eleazar put this question to Rab: What is the law if he slaughtered the thank-offering intending to eat an olive's bulk of it and of its bread on the morrow?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the olive's bulk that he proposes to eat on the morrow is made up of a half-olive's bulk of the flesh of the offering and a half-olive's bulk of the bread.');">¹⁷</span> Of course, as to whether the thank-offering becomes piggul thereby, I have no doubt at all [that it does not], for if where the intention was in respect of a whole olive's bulk of the bread the thank-offering does not become piggul, can there be any question where [the intention was in respect of an olive's bulk made up] of it and of the loaves? My question is as to whether the bread becomes piggul or not. Is the thank-offering to be reckoned with [the bread] so as to render the bread piggul or not? - He answered, In this case too, the bread is piggul but the thank-offering is not piggul. But why is this so? Surely one can apply here an a fortiori argument thus, if what helps to make the other piggul does not itself become piggul,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The half-olive's bulk of the thank-offering helps by combining with the half-olive's bulk of the bread to render the other, sc. the bread piggul, although the thank-offering does not itself become piggul thereby.');">¹⁸</span> then surely what cannot even help to make the other piggul<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'which came to render piggul but did not actually make piggul'. The half-olive's bulk of the bread does not combine with the half-olive's bulk of the thank-offering to render the other (sc. the thank-offering) piggul.');">¹⁹</span> does not itself become piggul! And do we apply an a fortiori argument of such a kind? Behold, it has been taught: It once happened that a man