Menachot 31

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> פיגל בקומץ ולא בלבונה בלבונה ולא בקומץ ר' מאיר אומר פיגול וחייבין עליו כרת וחכמים אומרים אין בו כרת עד שיפגל בכל המתיר

<big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>IF HE EXPRESSED AN INTENTION WHICH MAKES PIGGUL [IN RESPECT OF THE REMAINDER] 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] INCENSE, R'MEIR SAYS, IT IS PIGGUL AND THE PENALTY OF KARETH IS INCURRED ON ACCOUNT THEREOF; BUT THE SAGES SAY, THE PENALTY OF KARETH IS NOT INCURRED UNLESS HE EXPRESSED THE INTENTION WHICH MAKES PIGGUL DURING THE SERVICE OF THE WHOLE OF THE MATTIR.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 89, n. 2.');">¹</span> THE SAGES, HOWEVER, AGREE WITH R'MEIR THAT, IF IT WAS A SINNERS MEAL-OFFERING<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is offered without frankincense; cf. Lev. V, 11 and Num. V, 15.');">²</span>

ומודים חכמים לר' מאיר במנחת חוטא ובמנחת קנאות שאם פיגל בקומץ שהוא פיגול וחייבין עליו כרת שהקומץ הוא המתיר

OR A MEAL-OFFERING OF JEALOUSY,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is offered without frankincense; cf. Lev. V, 11 and Num. V, 15.');">²</span> AND HE EXPRESSED AN INTENTION WHICH MAKES PIGGUL DURING THE [BURNING OF THE] HANDFUL, IT IS PIGGUL AND THE PENALTY OF KARETH IS INCURRED ON ACCOUNT THEREOF, SINCE THE HANDFUL IS THE ENTIRE MATTIR'IF HE SLAUGHTERED ONE OF THE LAMBS<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is but half the mattir; for two lambs were offered as peace-offerings on the Feast of Weeks, along with a bread-offering of two loaves; v. Lev. XXIII, 17ff.');">³</span>

שחט אחד מן הכבשים לאכול ב' חלות למחר הקטיר אחד מן הבזיכין לאכול ב' סדרים למחר ר"מ אומר פיגול וחייבין עליו כרת וחכמים אומרים אין בו כרת עד שיפגל בכל המתיר

INTENDING TO EAT THE TWO LOAVES ON THE MORROW, OR IF HE BURNT ONE OF THE DISHES OF FRANKINCENSE<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Also half the mattir; for two dishes of frankincense were offered with the Shewbread. V. ibid. XXIV, 7.');">⁴</span> INTENDING TO EAT THE TWO ROWS [OF THE SHEWBREAD] ON THE MORROW, R'MEIR SAYS, IT IS PIGGUL AND THE PENALTY OF KARETH IS INCURRED ON ACCOUNT THEREOF; BUT THE SAGES SAY, THE PENALTY OF KARETH IS NOT INCURRED UNLESS HE EXPRESSED THE INTENTION WHICH MAKES PIGGUL DURING THE SERVICE OF THE WHOLE OF THE MATTIR'IF HE SLAUGHTERED ONE OF THE LAMBS INTENDING TO EAT A PART OF IT ON THE MORROW, THAT [LAMB] IS PIGGUL BUT THE OTHER [LAMB] IS VALID; IF HE INTENDED TO EAT OF THE OTHER [LAMB] ON THE MORROW, BOTH ARE VALID.

שחט אחד מן הכבשים לאכול ממנו למחר הוא פיגול וחבירו כשר לאכול מחבירו למחר שניהם כשרים:

<big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>Rab said, The dispute<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Between R. Meir and the Sages in our MISHNAH:');">⁵</span> is only where he offered<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'put it in' sc. the vessel, in readiness for the burning upon the altar. It must be remembered that the handful of flour was first burnt upon the altar and then the frankincense.');">⁶</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> אמר רב מחלוקת שנתן את הקומץ בשתיקה ואת הלבונה במחשבה

the handful in silence and then the frankincense with the expressed intention, but where he offered the handful with the expressed intention and then the frankincense in silence, all agree that it is piggul, for everything that a man does [in silence] h does in accordance with his first resolve.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And as his first resolve expressed during the offering of the handful was an intention of piggul-namely, of eating the remainder on the morrow - it is to be assumed that such was also his intention-though unexpressed during the offering of the frankincense.');">⁷</span> But Samuel said, There is still a dispute in that case too.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' MS.M. adds: And so also said R. Johanan, There is still a dispute in that case too.');">⁸</span>

אבל נתן הקומץ במחשבה ואת הלבונה בשתיקה דברי הכל פיגול שכל העושה על דעת ראשונה הוא עושה ושמואל אמר עדיין הוא מחלוקת

Raba was once sitting and reciting this statement [of Rab], when R'Aha B'R'Huna raised against Raba the following objection: This<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The ruling that a wrongful intention expressed whilst dealing with the handful alone renders piggul.');">⁹</span> applies only to the service of taking the handful, or of putting it in the vessel or bringing it nigh;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For each of these services is performed once only and that in connection with the handful, hence at each of these services the intention is in respect of the whole mattir; whereas the burning is performed twice, viz., the burning of the handful of flour and of the frankincense.');">¹⁰</span>

יתיב רבא וקאמר לה להא שמעתא איתיביה רב אחא בר רב הונא לרבא בד"א בקמיצה ובמתן כלי ובהילוך

but if he had already reached the service of burning, and he offered the handful in silence and then the frankincense with the expressed intention, or if he offered the handful with the expressed intention and then the frankincense in silence, R'Meir says, It is piggul and the penalty of kareth is incurred on account thereof. The Sages say, The penalty of kareth is not incurred unless he expressed an intention which makes piggul during the service of the whole of the mattir.

[אבל] בא לו להקטרה נתן את הקומץ בשתיקה ואת הלבונה במחשבה את הקומץ במחשבה ואת הלבונה בשתיקה ר"מ אומר פיגול וחייבין עליו כרת וחכמים אומרים אין בו כרת עד שיפגל בכל המתיר

Now here is stated the clause: 'Or if he offered the handful with the expressed intention and then the frankincense in silence', and yet they differ!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus contrary to Rab's view.');">¹¹</span> - Render: [Or if he offered the handful with the expressed intention] having already offered the frankincense in silence.

קתני מיהא נתן את הקומץ במחשבה ואת הלבונה בשתיקה ופליגי

But there are two objections to this: in the first place, it is identical with the firs clause;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where the first service was performed in silence, for it is immaterial whether that first service was the burning of the handful or of the frankincense.');">¹²</span> and secondly, it has been taught [in another Baraitha]: 'And then'!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Although in the Baraitha cited by R. Aha the expression 'and' may be explained as meaning 'having already', this cannot be so in the other Baraitha which expressly states 'and then'.');">¹³</span>

אימא וכבר נתן את הלבונה בשתיקה מעיקרא שתי תשובות בדבר חדא דהיינו קמייתא ועוד התניא אח"כ

- R'Hanina explained that here there were two minds.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., two Priests had performed the rites of the meal-offering, one burnt the handful of flour with an intention of piggul and the other burnt the frankincense in silence. In such a case the principle, 'Whatever a man does in silence he does in accordance with his first resolve', cannot apply; for this can only be said of one person but not of two.');">¹⁴</span> Come and hear: This<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The law that a wrongful intention expressed during one single sprinkling of the blood renders the offering piggul.');">¹⁵</span>

תרגמא רב חנינא בב' דיעות

applies only to offerings whose blood must be sprinkled upon the outer altar;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For since with these offerings one single sprinkling would effect atonement (v. Zeb. 36b) that sprinkling is accounted as the whole mattir and can therefore render piggul.');">¹⁶</span> but in the case of offerings whose blood must be sprinkled upon the inner altar, as for example the forty-three sprinklings on the Day of Atonement,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Made up as follows: eight sprinklings (one above and seven below) between the staves of the ark, of the blood of the bullock, and likewise eight of the blood of the he-goat; these same sprinklings repeated in the Sanctuary upon the veil; four sprinklings of the blood of the bullock and of the he-goat when mixed together, i.e., one upon each of the four corners of the golden altar, and seven upon the cleansed surface (i.e. the top) of the golden altar. V. Yoma Ch. V.');">¹⁷</span>

ת"ש בד"א בדמים הניתנין על מזבח החיצון

or the eleven sprinklings of the bullock of the anointed High Priest,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' These are: the seven sprinklings of the blood towards the veil, and the four sprinklings, one upon each of the four corners of the altar. Cf. Lev. IV, 6,7 and 17, 18.');">¹⁸</span> or the eleven sprinklings of the bullock offered for the error of the community,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' These are: the seven sprinklings of the blood towards the veil, and the four sprinklings, one upon each of the four corners of the altar. Cf. Lev. IV, 6,7 and 17, 18.');">¹⁸</span>

אבל דמים הניתנין על מזבח הפנימי כגון מ"ג של יום הכיפורים ואחת עשרה של פר כהן משוח ואחת עשרה של פר העלם דבר של ציבור פיגל בין בראשונה בין בשניה ובין בשלישית ר"מ אומר פיגול וחייבין עליו כרת וחכ"א אין בו כרת עד שיפגל בכל המתיר

if [the priest expressed an intention which makes piggul either during the first [sprinklings] or the second or the third,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The first, second and third sprinklings refer to the sprinklings of the blood in the Holy of Holies between the staves of the ark, towards the veil, and upon the altar respectively.');">¹⁹</span> R'Meir says, It is piggul and the penalty of kareth is incurred on account thereof.

קתני מיהא פיגל בין בראשונה בין בשניה ובין בשלישית ופליגי

But the Sages say, The penalty of kareth is not incurred unless he expressed the intention which makes piggul during the service of the whole mattir.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., during all the three sprinklings.');">²⁰</span> Now here it states: 'If he expressed an intention which makes piggul either during the first [sprinklings] or the second or the third', and yet they differ!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Sages holding that where the intention which makes piggul was expressed during the first sprinklings only, the others being performed in silence, the offering is not piggul. Apparently the principle, Whatsoever a man does in silence he does according to his first resolve, is not adopted; contra Rab.');">²¹</span>

וכי תימא ה"נ בשתי דעות הניחא למאן דאמר בפר ואפי' בדמו של פר אלא למ"ד בפר ולא בדמו של פר מאי איכא למימר

Should you, however, reply that there too there were two minds,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the sprinklings were performed by two High Priests, the High Priest who performed the first sprinklings having died immediately thereafter or The Master stated: 'R. Meir says, It is piggul and the penalty having become unclean; in which case the sprinklings in silence by the second High Priest can have no reference to or bearing upon the resolve of the former High Priest.');">²²</span> I grant you that this is satisfactory according to him who holds that the expression 'with a bullock'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XVI, 3.');">²³</span>

אמר רבא הכא במאי עסקי' כגון שפיגל בראשונה ושתק בשניה ופיגל בשלישית דאמרי' אי ס"ד כל העושה על דעת ראשונה הוא עושה מיהדר פיגולי בשלישית למה לי

means also 'with the blood of the bullock';<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the High Priest, after having slaughtered the bullock, could not continue to serve, his successor continued the service, and was not required to begin all the services anew and slaughter another bullock for himself; for the verse, Herewith shall Aaron (sc. the High Priest) come into the holy place; with a bullock (ibid.) does not imply that the High Priest shall begin his service with a living bullock, but he may even take the blood of the bullock which was slaughtered by his predecessor. V. Yoma 49b.');">²⁴</span> but what can be said according to him who holds that the expression 'with a bullock' excludes the blood of the bullock?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to him the service can never be performed by two High Priests, for the successor must begin anew.');">²⁵</span>

מתקיף לה רב אשי מידי שתק קתני אלא אמר רב אשי הכא במאי עסקי' כגון שפיגל בראשונה ובשניה ובשלישית דאמרי' אי ס"ד כל העושה על דעת ראשונה הוא עושה מיהדר פגולי בשניה (ובשלישית) למה לי

- Raba said, We must suppose here that he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The High Priest.');">²⁶</span> expressed an intention which makes piggul during the first sprinklings, was silent during the second, and again expressed an intention which makes piggul during the third; in which case we say, If you accept the principle that whatsoever a man does [in silence] he does according to his first resolve, why then did he express again an intention which makes piggul during the third [sprinklings]? R'Ashi demurred, saying, Does [the Baraitha] actually state 'he was silent'? - Rather, said R'Ashi, We must suppose here that he expressed an intention which makes piggul during the first [sprinklings] and also during the second;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'And also during the third' - so in cur. edd. but wanting in all MSS. and struck out by Sh. Mek. The case is clearly one where the High Priest was silent during the third sprinklings; so that only a part and not the whole of the mattir was performed with an intention which makes piggul.');">²⁷</span> in which case we say, If you accept the principle that whatsoever a man does [in silence] he does according to his first resolve, why then did he again express an intention which makes piggul during the second [sprinklings]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'And also during the third' - so in cur. edd. but wanting in all MSS. and struck out by Sh. Mek. The case is clearly one where the High Priest was silent during the third sprinklings; so that only a part and not the whole of the mattir was performed with an intention which makes piggul.');">²⁷</span>