Menachot 33

חריפי דפומבדיתא הקטרה מפגלת הקטרה ואפילו לרבנן דאמרי אין מפגלין בחצי מתיר ה"מ היכא דחישב ביה בשירים ולבונה במילתא קיימא אבל הכא דחישב לה בלבונה כמה דחישב ביה בכוליה מתיר דמי

The keen intellects of Pumbeditha<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Sanh. 17b. This title of honour was applied to 'Efah and Abimi, the sons of Rehabah the Pumbedithan.');">¹</span> said, An intention which makes piggul expressed during one service of burning concerning another service of burning renders the offering piggul.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., if during the burning of the handful of the meal-offering the officiating priest expressed the intention of burning the frankincense on the morrow, the offering is piggul.');">²</span>

אמר רבא אף אנן נמי תנינא זה הכלל כל הקומץ ונותן בכלי והמוליך והמקטיר לאכול דבר שדרכו לאכול ולהקטיר דבר שדרכו להקטיר חוץ למקומו פסול ואין בו כרת חוץ לזמנו פגול וחייבין עליו כרת

And this is so even according to the Rabbis who ruled that an intention which makes piggul expressed during the service of half the mattir does not render piggul, for that is their ruling only in the case where he expressed an intention [which makes piggul] about the remainder [of the meal-offering], the frankincense, however, remaining unaffected; but in this case where he expressed an intention [which makes piggul] about the frankincense, it is as though he had expressed the intention during the service of the whole mattir. Raba said, We have also learnt to the same effect: This is the general rule: If one took the handful or put it into the vessel or brought it nigh, or burnt it, intending to eat a thing that it is usual to eat or to burn a thing that it is usual to burn, outside proper place, the offering is invalid but the penalty of kareth is not incurred; but if [he intended the like] outside its proper time, the offering is piggul and the penalty of kareth is incurred.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 12a.');">³</span>

מאי לאו הקטרה דומיא דהנך מה הנך בין לאכול בין להקטיר אף הקטרה בין לאכול בין להקטיר

Now presumably the service of burning is similar to the other [services],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which are stated in this Mishnah in connection with the handful.');">⁴</span> and as with the others [the intention which makes piggul may be] either concerning the eating [of the remainder] or concerning the burning [of the frankincense], so with the service of burning [the intention which makes piggul may be] either concerning the eating [of the remainder] or concerning the burning [of the frankincense]! - No; with the others the intention may be either concerning the eating or concerning the burning, but with the service of burning the intention can be only concerning the eating but not concerning the burning.

לא הנך בין לאכול בין להקטיר הקטרה לאכול אין להקטיר לא

R'Menasiah B'Gadda was once sitting before Abaye and recited the following in the name of R'Hisda: An intention which makes piggul expressed during one service of burning concerning another service of burning does not render the offering piggul. And this is so even according to R'Meir who ruled that an intention which makes piggul expressed during the service of half the mattir renders piggul; for that is his ruling only where the intention expressed was concerning the remainder, since it is the handful that renders the remainder permissible; in this case, however, since the handful does not render the frankincense permissible,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the frankincense is not dependent upon the burning of the handful; v. supra 13b, p. 80.');">⁵</span>

יתיב רב מנשיא בר גדא קמיה דאביי ויתיב וקא אמר משמיה דרב חסדא אין הקטרה מפגלת הקטרה ואפילו לר"מ דאמר מפגלין בחצי מתיר

it cannot make the offering piggul.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where the piggul intention was expressed during the burning of the handful concerning the frankincense.');">⁶</span> Thereupon Abaye said to him, Tell me, Sir, was that [statement] in the name of Rab?

ה"מ היכא דחישב בהו בשירים דקומץ מתיר דידהו אבל הכא דקומץ לאו מתיר דלבונה הוא לא מצי מפגל ביה

He replied, Yes. And it has been so reported: R'Hisda said in the name of Rab, An intention which makes piggul expressed during one service of burning concerning another service of burning does not render the offering piggul.

א"ל אביי עני מרי משמיה דרב א"ל אין איתמר נמי אמר רב חסדא אמר רב אין הקטרה מפגלת הקטרה

R'Jacob B'Abba<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So in all MSS. and Sh. Mek.; in cur. edd. 'ldi'.');">⁷</span> said in the name of Abaye, We have also learnt the same: 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.

אמר רב יעקב בר אידי משמיה דאביי אף אנן נמי תנינא שחט אחד מן הכבשים לאכול ממנו למחר הוא פיגול וחבירו כשר לאכול מחבירו למחר שניהם כשרין מ"ט לאו משום דכיון דלאו מתיר דידיה הוא לא מצי מפגל ביה

Now what is the reason?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That both are valid.');">⁸</span> It is, is it not, because [the one lamb], not being the mattir the other, cannot make the offering piggul by reason of an intention concerning [that other]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Just as the burning of the handful, not being the mattir of the frankincense, cannot render the offering piggul by reason of a piggul intention concerning the latter.');">⁹</span>

לא התם הוא דלא איקבע בחד מנא אבל הכא דאיקבע בחד מנא כי חד דמו

- No, there the reason is because they are not joined in one vessel;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The two lambs, which are the two mattirs, are not united by any act or service, but are separate and distinct; and therefore one is not affected by the other.');">¹⁰</span> here, however, since they are joined in the one vessel, they are considered as one.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The handful and the frankincense are placed together in the same vessel, and so regarded as one mattir.');">¹¹</span>

אמר רב המנונא הא מילתא אבלע לי רבי חנינא ותקילא לי ככוליה תלמודאי הקטיר קומץ להקטיר לבונה (ולבונה) לאכול שירים למחר פגול

R'Hamnuna said, The following was taught me<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'I was made to swallow'. vbucku');">¹²</span> by R'Hanina and is equal in worth to me to all my studies: If he burnt the handful intending to burn the frankincense [on the morrow], [and] to<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The word 'and the frankincense', found in all edd. is wanting in the MSS. and is struck out by Sh. Mek. The translation in the text is vbucku based upon the text and interpretation of Rashi. Maim. apparently included the word in the text, and the translation would read thus: If he burnt the handful intending to burn the frankincense on the morrow, and (then he burnt) the frankincense intending to eat the remainder on the ,ufkv hyuek morrow, the offering is piggul. V. Maim. Yad, Pesule Hamuk. XVI, 8; and also on Men. a.l. by Israel Meir Hakohen.');">¹³</span>

מאי קמ"ל אי הקטרה מפגלת הקטרה קמ"ל לימא הקטיר קומץ להקטיר לבונה אי מפגלין בחצי מתיר קמ"ל לימא הקטיר קומץ לאכול שירים למחר אי תרוייהו (אתא) קמ"ל לימא הקטיר קומץ להקטיר לבונה ולאכול שירים למחר

eat the remainder on the morrow, the offering is piggul. What is it that he teaches us?

אמר רב אדא בר אהבה לעולם קסבר אין הקטרה מפגלת הקטרה ואין מפגלין בחצי מתיר ושאני הכא דפשטא ליה מחשבה בכולה מנחה

If he teaches us that an intention which makes piggul expressed during one service of burning concerning another service of burning renders the offering piggul, then he should [only] have said, If he burnt the handful intending to burn the frankincense [on the morrow]. And if he teaches us that an intention which makes piggul expressed during the service of half the mattir renders piggul, then he should have [only] said, If he burnt the handful intending to eat the remainder on the morrow.

תני תנא קמיה דרב יצחק בר אבא הקטיר קומץ לאכול שירים לדברי הכל פגול והא מיפלג פליגי אלא אימא לדברי הכל פסול

And if he teaches us both these rules, then he should have said, If he burnt the handful intending to burn the frankincense [on the morrow] and<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The 'and' however would be taken,' as often, in the sense of 'or'.');">¹⁴</span> to eat the remainder on the morrow! - R'Adda B'Ahabah said, Actually he is of the opinion that an intention which makes piggul expressed during one service of burning concerning another service of burning does not render piggul, and he holds also that an intention which makes piggul expressed during the service of half the mattir does not render piggul, yet in this case it is different since the wrongful intention has spread over the entire meal-offering.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Although each intention by itself would not render piggul, the two together affect the whole of the meal-offering and render it piggul.');">¹⁵</span>

ולימא ה"ז פגול ור"מ היא תנא דברי הכל אתניוה פיגול בפסול מיחלף ליה הרי זה בדברי הכל לא מיחלף ליה:

A Tanna once recited before R'Isaac B'Abba: If he burnt the handful intending to eat the remainder [on the morrow], all hold it to be piggul. But surely this is a matter of dispute?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Between R. Meir and the Sages; and according to the latter it is not piggul since the intention was expressed during the service of half the mattir only.');">¹⁶</span>

<br><br><big><strong>הדרן עלך הקומץ את המנחה</strong></big><br><br>

- Rather render: All hold it to be invalid.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Sages agree that such an intention renders the offering invalid. kudhp kuxp zv hrv');">¹⁷</span> But could he not have corrected himself thus: It is piggul, that is, according to R'Meir? - The Tanna evidently was taught the ruling 'all hold', and he confused in his mind 'piggul' with 'invalid'; but he would not confuse 'it is [piggul]' with 'all hold'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is more probable that the Tanna confused in his mind with 'invalid', rather than that he confused 'it is' with kfv hrcs 'all hold'.');">¹⁸</span>

מתני׳ <big><strong>הקומץ</strong></big> את המנחה לאכול דבר שאין דרכו לאכול ולהקטיר דבר שאין דרכו להקטיר כשר ר"א פוסל

<big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>IF HE TOOK THE HANDFUL FROM THE MEAL-OFFERING INTENDING TO EAT<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On the morrow.');">¹⁹</span> A THING THAT IT IS NOT USUAL TO EAT<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., the frankincense or the handful.');">²⁰</span>

לאכול דבר שדרכו לאכול ולהקטיר דבר שדרכו להקטיר פחות מכזית כשר לאכול כחצי זית ולהקטיר כחצי זית כשר שאין אכילה והקטרה מצטרפין:

OR TO BURN<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On the morrow.');">¹⁹</span> A THING THAT IT IS NOT USUAL TO BURN,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., the remainder of the meal-offering. kfth kftv ot');">²¹</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> א"ר אסי א"ר יוחנן מ"ט דר"א אמר קרא (ויקרא ז, יח) ואם האכל יאכל מבשר זבח שלמיו בשתי אכילות הכתוב מדבר אחד אכילת אדם ואחד אכילת מזבח לומר לך כשם שמחשבין באכילת אדם כך מחשבין באכילת מזבח

THE OFFERING IS VALID; BUT R'ELIEZER DECLARES IT TO BE INVALID. IF HE INTENDED TO EAT<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On the morrow.');">¹⁹</span>

וכשם שמחשבין מאכילת אדם לאכילת אדם ומאכילת מזבח לאכילת מזבח כך מחשבין מאכילת אדם למזבח ומאכילת מזבח לאדם

LESS THAN AN OLIVE'S BULK OF A THING THAT IT IS USUAL TO EAT, OR TO BURN<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On the morrow.');">¹⁹</span> LESS THAN AN OLIVE'S BULK OF A THING THAT IT IS USUAL TO BURN, THE OFFERING IS VALID.

מ"ט מדאפקינהו רחמנא להקטרה בלשון אכילה

IF HE INTENDED TO EAT<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On the morrow.');">¹⁹</span> A HALF-OLIVE'S BULK AND TO BURN<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On the morrow.');">¹⁹</span>

ורבנן האי דאפקינהו רחמנא בלשון אכילה

A HALF-OLIVE'S BULK, THE OFFERING IS VALID, FOR EATING AND BURNING CANNOT BE RECKONED TOGETHER'<big><b>GEMARA:</b></big> R'Assi said in the name of R'Johanan, What is the reason for R'Eliezer s view? Because the verse reads, And if any of the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace-offerings be at all eaten.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. VII, 18. Heb. lit., 'If eaten there shall be eaten'; hence the verse contemplates two kinds of eating.');">²²</span> The verse here speaks of two 'eatings'. the 'eating' by man and the 'eating' by the altar, to inform you that as there can be a wrongful intention concerning what is usually eaten by man, so there can be a wrongful intention concerning what is usually 'eaten' by the altar; and furthermore, as there can be a wrongful intention concerning what is usually eaten by man in regard to man's eating thereof<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., an intention expressed during the burning of the handful that what is usually eaten by man (sc. the remainder) shall be eaten by man beyond the time prescribed for the eating thereof. This intention renders the offering piggul. Similarly the intention that what is usually consumed by the altar shall be burnt upon the altar outside the prescribed time renders the offering piggul.');">²³</span> and concerning what is usually 'eaten' by the altar in regard to the altar's 'eating' thereof, so there can be a wrongful intention concerning what is usually eaten by man in regard to the altar's 'eating' thereof<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the intention that what is usually eaten by man shall be burnt upon the altar outside the prescribed time also renders the offering piggul.');">²⁴</span> and concerning what is usually 'eaten' by the altar in regard to man's eating thereof. And why is this? Because the Divine Law expressed [the burning upon the altar] by the term 'eating'. And the Rabbis, [what would they say to this]? - The reason why the Divine Law expressed it by the term 'eating' was [to teach you]