Menachot 34

דלא שנא כי מחשב בלשון אכילה למזבח ול"ש כי מחשב בלשון הקטרה למזבח

that it makes no difference whether the wrongful intention for the altar was expressed by the use of the term 'eating'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., if the priest whilst taking the handful expressed the intention that the handful shall be 'eaten' by the altar on the morrow, the offering is piggul');">¹</span> or by use of the term 'burning. Or [to teach you] that as for eating the quantity of an olive's bulk i essential,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In order to render the intention effective so as to make the offering piggul.');">²</span>

א"נ מה אכילה בכזית אף הקטרה בכזית ולעולם אכילה דאורחא משמע

so for the burning the quantity of an olive's bulk is essential. The term 'eating', however, always means in the usual manner.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The handful to be burnt upon the altar and the remainder to be eaten by man; only in these cases is the intention of consequence. kftv kftv');">³</span> And R'Eliezer? - If so, [he says], the Divine Law should have stated either he'akol he'akol<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' i.e., the repetition of the verb in the infinitive. kfth kfth');">⁴</span>

ור"א א"כ לכתוב רחמנא אם האכל האכל א"נ אם יאכל יאכל מאי האכל יאכל שמעת מינה תרתי

or ye'akel ye'akel;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' , both in the finite mood. kfth kftv');">⁵</span> why does it say he'akol ye'akel?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' , the first verb being in the infinitive and the second in the finite mood.');">⁶</span> That you may infer two things therefrom.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' (a) That for the burning there must be an intention in respect of an olive's bulk, and (b) that an intention to burn upon the altar what is eaten by man, or an intention that what is usually burnt on the altar shall be eaten by man, is of consequence.');">⁷</span>

אמר ליה רבי זירא לרב אסי ואי טעמא דר"א משום הכי הוא כרת נמי ליחייב וכי תימא ה"נ והא את הוא דאמרת משמיה דרבי יוחנן מודה ר"א שאין ענוש כרת

R'Zera said to R'Assi, If this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As given above, derived from the verse in Lev. VII, 18.');">⁸</span> is the reason for R'Eliezer's view, then one should also incur the penalty of kareth? And should you say that this is indeed so, but you yourself have reported in the name of R'Johanan that R'Eliezer admits that one is not thereby liable to kareth! - He replied, Tannaim differ as to the real view of R'Eliezer; some say that it is invalid by Biblical law,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In which case the penalty of kareth would be incurred.');">⁹</span>

א"ל תנאי היא אליבא דר"א איכא למ"ד פסולה דאורייתא ואיכא למ"ד פסולה דרבנן

others that it is invalid by Rabbinical law only. For it was taught: If one slaughtered an animal-offering intending to drink its blood<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., what is usually consumed by the altar to be eaten by man.');">¹⁰</span> on the morrow, or to burn its flesh<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., what is usually eaten by man to be consumed on the altar.');">¹¹</span>

דתניא השוחט את הזבח לשתות מדמו למחר להקטיר מבשרו למחר לאכול מאימוריו למחר כשר ור"א פוסל להניח מדמו למחר רבי יהודה פוסל אמר ר"א אף בזו ר"א פוסל וחכמים מכשירין

on the morrow, or to eat of the sacrificial portions<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., what is usually consumed by the altar to be eaten by man.');">¹⁰</span> on the morrow, the offering is valid; but R'Eliezer declares it to be invalid. If he intended to leave some of its blood for the morrow, R'Judah declares it to be invalid.

רבי יהודה אליבא דמאן אילימא אליבא דרבנן השתא ומה התם דקא מחשב בלשון אכילה מכשרי רבנן הכא לא כל שכן

R'Eleazar said, Even in this case, R'Eliezer declares it to be invalid, and t Sages declare it to be valid. Now whose view does R'Judah adopt?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., what is R. Judah's view in the first case where the intention expressed was to drink the blood on the morrow, etc?');">¹²</span> Do you say that of the Rabbis?

אלא אליבא דר"א ואמר ר' אלעזר אף בזו ר"א פוסל וחכמים מכשירין ר' אלעזר היינו ר' יהודה

But surely if in the case where the intention expressed is included under the term 'eating'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To drink and to burn upon the altar are acts included under the term 'eating'.');">¹³</span> the Rabbis declare the offering to be valid, how much more so in this case!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where there was no intention of eating at all, but merely to leave the blood for the morrow.');">¹⁴</span> It must therefore be that of R'Eliezer.

אלא לאו כרת איכא בינייהו דר' יהודה (דת"ק) סבר להניח פסולא בעלמא בהנך כרת נמי מיחייב ואתא ר' אלעזר למימר אידי ואידי פסול ואין בו כרת

And thereupon R'Eleazar had said, 'Even in this case, R'Eliezer declares it to be invalid, and the Sages declare i to be valid'. Is not R'Eleazar identical with R'Judah? It must therefore be said that the difference between them is on the question of kareth.

לא דכולי עלמא כרת ליכא והכא ג' מחלוקת בדבר ת"ק סבר בהנך פליגי להניח דברי הכל כשר

The first Tanna<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. R. Judah. In cur. edd. 'R. Judah' is also found in the text; evidently an explanatory gloss.');">¹⁵</span> is of the opinion that in the case of 'leaving'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the second clause of the abovementioned Baraitha, where there was an intention of leaving over some of the blood for the morrow.');">¹⁶</span> [R'Eliezer holds that] it is invalid only, but in the other cases<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., those cases mentioned in the first clause of the abovementioned Baraitha, where there was an intention of drinking the blood on the morrow or burning the flesh on the morrow.');">¹⁷</span> [R'Eliezer holds that] he is even liable to kareth; whereas R'Eleazar comes to tell us that in both these cases [R'Eliezer holds that] it is invalid only but the penalty of kareth is not incurred! - No, all are of the opinion that there is no penalty of kareth involved; but in this dispute there are three different views. The first Tanna is of the opinion that only in the other cases they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Eliezer and the Sages.');">¹⁸</span> differ,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Eliezer holding that where there was an intention of burning on the morrow what is usually eaten, the offering is invalid by Rabbinical law, merely as a precautionary measure against an intention of burning on the morrow what is usually burnt, in which case the offering would be piggul by the law of the Torah.');">¹⁹</span> but in the case of 'leaving' all<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Eliezer and the Sages.');">¹⁸</span> agree that it is valid. [