Menachot 30

שזרע כרמו של חבירו סמדר ובא מעשה לפני חכמים ואסרו את הזרעים והתירו את הגפנים ואמאי לימא קל וחומר הוא ומה האוסר אינו נאסר הבא לאסור ולא אסר אינו דין שלא יתאסר

sowed [with his own seeds] his neighbour's vineyard which was in the budding stage;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The sowing of seeds in a vineyard is expressly prohibited, cf. Deut. XXII, 9.');">¹</span> the case came before the Rabbis and they pronounced the seeds forbidden and the vines permissible.

הכי השתא התם קנבוס ולוף אסרה תורה (דתנן היתה שדהו זרועה קנבוס ולוף לא יהא זורע על גביהם שהן עושות לשלש שנים) שאר זרעים מדרבנן הוא דאסירי האי דעביד איסורא קנסוה רבנן האי דלא עביד איסורא לא קנסוה רבנן אבל הכא לימא ק"ו

But why? Surely one could apply there [this kind of] a fortiori argument thus, If what makes the other forbidden<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the vines, on account of which the seeds are declared forbidden.');">²</span>

ואיכא דמתני לה אכבשים בעא מיניה רבי אלעזר מרב השוחט את הכבשים לאכול כזית מהן ומלחמן מהו

does not itself become forbidden, what may have made the other forbidden but did not do so<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the seeds, on account of which the vines would have been forbidden were it not for the reason stated infra in the GEMARA:');">³</span> surely does not itself become forbidden!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Nevertheless the seeds are forbidden and such an a fortiori argument is not applied.');">⁴</span>

לאיפגולי כבשים לא קא מיבעיא לי השתא כולו מלחם לא מפגלי מהן ומלחמן מיבעיא כי קא מיבעיא לי לאיפגולי לחם מי מצטרפי כבשים לאיפגולי ללחם או לא

- There can be no comparison. There [with regard to diverse kinds] the Torah has forbidden<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of course in addition to the five kinds of grain (R. Nissim, Hul. X) . V. however Sh. Mek. note 2.');">⁵</span>

א"ל אף בזו הלחם מפוגל והכבשים אינן מפוגלין ואמאי לימא ק"ו ומה המפגל אינו מתפגל הבא לפגל ולא פיגל אינו דין שלא יתפגל

hemp and arum,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of all seeds only these kinds are forbidden to be sown in a vineyard, for they ripen only after three years, and their seed does not perish in the ground but they leave roots behind them; moreover they grow in clusters like grapes. In the cur. edd. there is here quoted the Mishnah Kil. I, 5; but it is omitted in all MSS.');">⁶</span> but other seeds are forbidden only Rabbinically; therefore he who transgressed the law was penalized by the Rabbis, and he who did not transgress the law was not penalized by the Rabbis.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that in the above case where a man sowed seed in his neighbour's vineyard the prohibition involved was only a Rabbinic one, and the Rabbis penalized only him who transgressed their enactment but not the owner of the vineyard. Thus there is no place for the a fortiori argument, for even the seeds are not forbidden strictly but only as a penalty.');">⁷</span>

ומי אמרינן ק"ו כי האי גונא והתניא מעשה באחד שזרע כרמו של חבירו סמדר וכו' ואמאי לימא ק"ו מה האוסר אינו נאסר הבא לאסור ולא אסר אינו דין שלא יתאסר

In our case, however, one must certainly apply the a fortiori argument.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Concerning piggul, v. supra p. 95 at end.');">⁸</span> Others refer the above argument to the case of the lambs thus: R'Eleazar put this question to Rab: What is the law if he slaughtered the lambs intending to eat an olive's bulk of them and of the bread [on the morrow]?

הכי השתא התם קנבוס ולוף אסרה תורה שאר זרעים מדרבנן הוא דאסירי האי דעבד איסורא קנסוה רבנן דלא עבד איסורא לא קנסוה רבנן אבל הכא לימא ק"ו

Of course, as to whether the lambs become piggul thereby, I have no doubt at all [that they do not] for if where the intention was in respect of a whole olive's bulk of the bread the lambs do not become piggul, can there be any question where [the intention was in respect of an olive's bulk made up] of them and of the bread? My question is as to whether the bread becomes piggul or not.

מאן דמתני לה אתודה כל שכן אכבשים ומאן דמתני לה אכבשים כבשים הוא דהוזקקו זה לזה לתנופה אבל תודה דלא הוזקקה זה לזה בתנופה לא

Are the lambs 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 lambs are not. But why is this so?

רבי אבא זוטי בעי לה הכי בעא מיניה ר' אלעזר מרב השוחט את הכבש לאכול כזית מחבירו למחר מהו חבירו כבש משמע ולא מפגל או דלמא לחם משמע ומפגל ליה

Surely one can apply here an a fortiori argument thus, If what helps to make the other piggul does not itself become piggul, then surely what cannot even help to make the other piggul 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 sowed [with his own seeds] his neighbour's vineyard which was in the budding stage, etc. But why?

אמר ליה תניתוה שחט אחד מן הכבשים לאכול ממנו למחר הוא פיגול וחבירו כשר לאכול מחבירו למחר שניהם כשרים אלמא חבירו כבש משמע דלמא דפריש ואמר חבירו כבש:

Surely one could apply there [this kind of] a fortiori argument thus, If what makes the other forbidden does not itself become forbidden, what might have made the other forbidden, but did not do so, does not itself become forbidden! - There can be no comparison. There [with regard to diverse kinds] the Torah has forbidden hemp and arum, but other seeds are forbidden only Rabbinically; therefore he who transgressed the law was penalized by the Rabbis, and he who did not transgress the law was not penalized by the Rabbis.

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> הזבח מפגל את הנסכים משקדשו בכלי דברי ר"מ הנסכים אינן מפגלים את הזבח כיצד השוחט את הזבח לאכול ממנו למחר הוא ונסכיו מפוגלין להקריב נסכיו למחר הנסכים מפוגלין הזבח אינו מפוגל:

In our case, however, one must certainly apply the a fortiori argument. Now those who refer it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. Rab's answer to the question, namely that the offering combines with the bread to render the latter piggul.');">⁹</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> ת"ר נסכי בהמה חייבין עליהן משום פיגול מפני שדם הזבח מתירן לקרב דברי ר"מ

to the case of the thank-offering refer it all the more to the case of the lambs; b those who refer it to the case of the lambs maintain that it applies only to the case of the lambs since they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the bread and the offering. V. supra P. 95, n. 2.');">¹⁰</span> are dependent upon each other with regard to the rite of waving, but not to the case of the thank-offering since they are not dependent upon each other with regard to the rite of waving.

אמרו לו לר"מ והלא אדם מביא זבחו היום ונסכיו עד י' ימים אמר להן אף אני לא אמרתי אלא בבאין עם הזבח א"ל אפשר לשנותו לזבח אחר

R'Abba the Younger stated the question thus, R'Eleazar enquired of Rab: What is the law if he slaughtered the lamb intending to eat an olive's bulk of the other on the morrow? Does 'the other' mean the [other] lamb, in which case there is no piggul at all;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For, since the slaughtering of both lambs is the mattir, i.e., that which renders the loaves permissible, a wrongful intention expressed during the slaughtering of one lamb, which is only part of the mattir, in respect of the other part of the mattir, i.e., the other lamb, does not make piggul.');">¹¹</span>

אמר רבא קסבר ר"מ הוקבעו בשחיטה כלחמי תודה

or does it mean the bread, in which case [the bread becomes] piggul? - He answered, You have learnt it: If he slaughtered one of the lambs intending to eat a part of it on the morrow, that [lamb] is piggul and the other [lamb] is valid; if he intended to eat of the othe [lamb] on the morrow, both are valid.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 16a.');">¹²</span> Hence it is clear that 'the other' means the other lamb.

ת"ר לוג שמן של מצורע חייבין עליו משום פיגול מפני שדם אשם מתירו לבהונות דברי רבי מאיר אמרו לו לרבי מאיר והלא אדם מביא אשמו היום ולוגו מיכן ועד י' ימים

Perhaps [however in that Mishnah] he expressly said 'the other lamb'. <big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>THE ANIMAL-OFFERING CAN RENDER THE DRINK-OFFERINGS PIGGUL<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And whosoever partakes of the drink-offerings incurs the penalty of kareth on the ground of piggul. The drink-offerings consisted of prescribed quantities of flour and oil for the meal-offering and of wine for the libation; they accompanied most sacrifices (cf. Num. XV, 4-10) . ihrh,n uk aha rcs');">¹³</span>

אמר להן אף אני לא אמרתי אלא בבא עם האשם [א"ל] אפשר לשנותו לאשם אחר אמר רבא קסבר רבי מאיר הוקבעו בשחיטה כלחמי תודה:

AFTER THEY HAVE BEEN HALLOWED IN THE VESSEL. SO R'MEIR'BUT THE DRINK-OFFERINGS CANNOT RENDER THE ANIMAL-OFFERING PIGGUL. THUS, IF HE SLAUGHTERED AN ANIMAL-OFFERING INTENDING TO EAT THEREOF ON THE MORROW, BOTH IT AND THE DRINK-OFFERINGS ARE PIGGUL; IF HE INTENDED TO OFFER THE DRINK-OFFERINGS ON THE MORROW, THE DRINK-OFFERINGS ARE PIGGUL BUT THE ANIMAL-OFFERING IS NOT. <big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>Our Rabbis taught: For the drink-offerings of an animal-sacrifice the penalty of piggul is incurred, since the blood of the animal-offering renders them permissible to be offered [upon the altar].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And it is established law: Whatsoever is rendered permissible () , whether for man or for the altar, by a certain rite is subject to the law of piggul. V. Zeb. 43a; Yoma 60a.');">¹⁴</span> So R'Meir. They said to R'Meir, Is it not the fact that a man may bring his animal-offering to-day and the drink-offerings thereof in ten days' time?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence it is evident that the drink-offerings are not part of the offering and are not affected by any intention concerning them expressed during the slaughtering of the offering.');">¹⁵</span> He replied, I also only spoke of the case where they were brought together with the animal-offering. But<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In cur. edd. 'They said to him'. This is not found in the MSS. and is deleted by Sh. Mek.');">¹⁶</span> surely they may be transferred to another animal-offering!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Consequently they cannot be rendered piggul through any intention expressed during the slaughtering of the animal-offering, since they are not specifically bound to that offering.');">¹⁷</span> - Raba said, R'Meir is of the opinion that with the slaughtering they became appropriated [to this offering] like the cakes of the thank-offering.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And they may not be transferred to be used for another offering.');">¹⁸</span> Our Rabbis taught: For the leper's log of oil<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Lev. XIV, 10ff. If therefore while slaughtering the leper's guilt-offering he intended to deal with the oil on the morrow, the latter becomes piggul, and whosoever partakes of it incurs the penalty of kareth.');">¹⁹</span> the penalty of piggul is incurred, since the blood of the guilt-offering renders it permissible to be applied to the thumb and the great toe.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the oil may be applied only after the rites in connection with the blood of the guilt-offering have been performed. It is thus ihrh,n uk aha rcs ; v. supra p. 98,n. 4.');">²⁰</span> So R'Meir. They said to R'Meir, Is it not the fact that a man may bring his guilt-offering to-day and the log of oil in ten days' time? He replied, I also only spoke of the case where it was brought together with the guilt-offering. But surely it may be transferred to another [leper's] guilt-offering! - Raba said, R'Meir is of the opinion that with the slaughtering it became appropriated [to this guilt-offering] like the cakes of the thank-offering.