If the burning is done in very small quantities and the thought the kohen has each time he burns a little bit is about eating a very small part of the remainder, is that pigul? A debate is brought regarding the case where one burns the kmitza and thinks about burning the frankincense at the wrong time, is that pigul or not? The third perek starts with an explanation of the debate between Rabbi Eliezer and the rabbis regarding a pigul thought about burning something that is meant to be eaten and eating something that is meant to be burned.
Menachot 17
08.27.2018 | ט״ז באלול תשע״ח
Share this shiur:
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Menachot 17
חֲרִיפֵי דְּפוּמְבְּדִיתָא: הַקְטָרָה מְפַגֶּלֶת הַקְטָרָה, וַאֲפִילּוּ לְרַבָּנַן דְּאָמְרִי אֵין מְפַגְּלִין בַּחֲצִי מַתִּיר – הָנֵי מִילֵּי הֵיכָא דְּחַשֵּׁב בֵּיהּ בְּשִׁירַיִם וּלְבוֹנָה בְּמִילְּתָא קָיְימָא, אֲבָל הָכָא דְּחַשֵּׁב לַהּ בִּלְבוֹנָה – כְּמָה דְּחַשֵּׁב בֵּיהּ בְּכוּלֵּיהּ מַתִּיר דָּמֵי.
the sharp people in the city of Pumbedita: Burning renders burning piggul, e.g., burning the handful with the intent to burn the frankincense the next day renders the meal offering piggul. And this is the halakha even according to the Rabbis, who say that one does not render an offering piggul with intent occurring during the sacrifice of half of a permitting factor, e.g., when sacrificing the handful alone with intent of piggul. The reason is that this statement applies only where he had intent during the sacrifice of the handful to consume the remainder the next day, and the frankincense stands intact, i.e., he had no intent with regard to it. But here, when he had intent with regard to the frankincense while burning the handful, it is considered as though he had intent with regard to the entire permitting factor.
אָמַר רָבָא: אַף אֲנַן נָמֵי תְּנֵינָא, זֶה הַכְּלָל: כׇּל הַקּוֹמֵץ וְנוֹתֵן בִּכְלִי, וְהַמּוֹלִיךְ וְהַמַּקְטִיר, לֶאֱכוֹל דָּבָר שֶׁדַּרְכּוֹ לֶאֱכוֹל וּלְהַקְטִיר דָּבָר שֶׁדַּרְכּוֹ לְהַקְטִיר, חוּץ לִמְקוֹמוֹ – פָּסוּל וְאֵין בּוֹ כָּרֵת, חוּץ לִזְמַנּוֹ – פִּגּוּל וְחַיָּיבִין עָלָיו כָּרֵת.
Rava said: We learn this halakha in a mishna, as well (12a): This is the principle: In the case of anyone who removes the handful, or places the handful in the vessel, or who conveys the vessel with the handful to the altar, or who burns the handful on the altar, with the intent to partake of an item whose typical manner is such that one partakes of it, or to burn an item whose typical manner is such that one burns it on the altar, outside its designated area, the meal offering is unfit but there is no liability for karet. If his intent was to do so beyond its designated time, the offering is piggul and one is liable to receive karet on account of it.
מַאי לָאו הַקְטָרָה דּוּמְיָא דְּהָנָךְ, מָה הָנָךְ – בֵּין לֶאֱכוֹל בֵּין לְהַקְטִיר, אַף הַקְטָרָה – בֵּין לֶאֱכוֹל בֵּין לְהַקְטִיר?
Rava explains: What, is it not correct to say that the halakha with regard to burning is similar to these, i.e., the removal of the handful, its placement in a vessel, and the conveying? Accordingly, just as with regard to these, whether one’s intent was to partake of the remainder the next day or to burn the frankincense the next day, the halakha is that the offering is piggul, so too with regard to burning, whether one’s intent was to partake of the remainder or to burn the frankincense the next day, the offering is piggul.
לָא, הָנָךְ – בֵּין לֶאֱכוֹל בֵּין לְהַקְטִיר; הַקְטָרָה – לֶאֱכוֹל אִין, לְהַקְטִיר לָא.
The Gemara rejects this comparison: No, with regard to these, whether one’s intent was to partake of the remainder or to burn the frankincense the next day, the offering is in fact piggul. But with regard to burning, if one’s intent was to partake of the remainder the next day, yes, it is piggul, but if one’s intent was to burn the frankincense the next day, it is not piggul.
יָתֵיב רַב מְנַשְּׁיָא בַּר גַּדָּא קַמֵּיהּ דְּאַבָּיֵי, וְיָתֵיב וְקָא אָמַר מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב חִסְדָּא: אֵין הַקְטָרָה מְפַגֶּלֶת הַקְטָרָה, וַאֲפִילּוּ לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר, דְּאָמַר: ״מְפַגְּלִין בַּחֲצִי מַתִּיר״ –
The Gemara relates that Rav Menashya bar Gadda sat before Abaye, and while he was sitting he said in the name of Rav Ḥisda: Burning does not render burning piggul, e.g., burning the handful with the intent to burn the frankincense the next day does not render the offering piggul. And this is the halakha even according to the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who says in the mishna that one renders an offering piggul through intent during the sacrifice of half of a permitting factor, e.g., when sacrificing the handful but not the frankincense with intent of piggul.
הָנֵי מִילֵּי הֵיכָא דְּחַשֵּׁב בְּהוּ בְּשִׁירַיִם, דְּקוֹמֶץ מַתִּיר דִּידְהוּ, אֲבָל הָכָא דְּקוֹמֶץ לָאו מַתִּיר דִּלְבוֹנָה הוּא – לָא מָצֵי מְפַגֵּל בֵּיהּ.
Rav Menashya bar Gadda explains that the reason is that this statement of Rabbi Meir applies only where he had intent during the sacrifice of the handful to consume the remainder the next day, as the handful is their permitting factor. But here, as the handful is not a permitting factor of the frankincense, the offering cannot be rendered piggul through it.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: עֲנִי מָרִי מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִין. אִיתְּמַר נָמֵי, אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא אָמַר רַב: אֵין הַקְטָרָה מְפַגֶּלֶת הַקְטָרָה.
Abaye said to Rav Menashya: Answer me, my Master, did Rav Ḥisda state this halakha in the name of Rav? Rav Menashya said to Abaye: Yes. The Gemara notes that it was also stated explicitly that Rav Ḥisda says that Rav says: Burning does not render burning piggul.
אָמַר רַב יַעֲקֹב בַּר אִידִי מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּאַבָּיֵי: אַף אֲנַן נָמֵי תְּנֵינָא, שָׁחַט אֶחָד מִן הַכְּבָשִׂים לֶאֱכוֹל מִמֶּנּוּ לְמָחָר – הוּא פִּיגּוּל וַחֲבֵירוֹ כָּשֵׁר, לֶאֱכוֹל מֵחֲבֵירוֹ לְמָחָר – שְׁנֵיהֶם כְּשֵׁרִין. מַאי טַעְמָא? לָאו מִשּׁוּם דְּכֵיוָן דְּלָאו מַתִּיר דִּידֵיהּ הוּא, לָא מָצֵי מְפַגֵּל בֵּיהּ.
Rav Ya’akov bar Idi said in the name of Abaye: We learn in the mishna as well that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav: If one slaughtered one of the lambs with the intent to partake of it the next day, that lamb is piggul and the other lamb is fit. If he slaughtered one lamb with the intent to partake of the other the next day, both lambs are fit. What is the reason? Is it not due to the fact that since the first lamb is not a permitting factor of the second lamb, it cannot render the second lamb piggul? The same reasoning should apply to the case of the handful and frankincense.
לָא, הָתָם הוּא דְּלָא אִיקְּבַע בְּחַד מָנָא, אֲבָל הָכָא דְּאִיקְּבַע בְּחַד מָנָא – כִּי חַד דָּמוּ.
The Gemara rejects this suggestion: No; there is a difference between these cases. It is only there, in the mishna, that one lamb cannot render the other piggul, as it was not fixed in one vessel with the other lamb, and therefore each animal stands independent of the other. But here, as the handful and frankincense were fixed in one vessel for the purpose of offering them, they are considered like one item and one of them therefore renders the other piggul.
אָמַר רַב הַמְנוּנָא: הָא מִילְּתָא אַבְלַע לִי רַבִּי חֲנִינָא, וּתְקִילָא לִי כְּכוּלֵּיהּ תַּלְמוּדַאי – הִקְטִיר קוֹמֶץ לְהַקְטִיר לְבוֹנָה, וּלְבוֹנָה לֶאֱכוֹל שִׁירַיִם לְמָחָר – פִּגּוּל.
§ Rav Hamnuna said: Rabbi Ḥanina helped me internalize this following matter, and to me it is equivalent to all the rest of my learning, as it contains a significant novelty: If one burned the handful with the intent to burn the frankincense the next day, and burned the frankincense with the intent to partake of the remainder the next day, the meal offering is piggul.
מַאי קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן? אִי הַקְטָרָה מְפַגֶּלֶת הַקְטָרָה קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן – לֵימָא: ״הִקְטִיר קוֹמֶץ לְהַקְטִיר לְבוֹנָה״! אִי מְפַגְּלִין בַּחֲצִי מַתִּיר קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן – לֵימָא: ״הִקְטִיר קוֹמֶץ לֶאֱכוֹל שִׁירַיִם לְמָחָר״! אִי תַּרְוַיְיהוּ אֲתָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן – לֵימָא: ״הִקְטִיר קוֹמֶץ לְהַקְטִיר לְבוֹנָה וְלֶאֱכוֹל שִׁירַיִם לְמָחָר״!
The Gemara asks: What is Rabbi Ḥanina teaching us? If he is teaching us that burning renders burning piggul, then let him simply say: If one burned the handful with the intent to burn the frankincense, the offering is piggul. If he is teaching us that one renders an offering piggul through intent during the sacrifice of half of a permitting factor, then let him say: If one burned the handful with the intent to partake of the remainder the next day, the offering is piggul. If he is coming to teach us both of these halakhot, let him say: If one burned the handful with the intent to burn the frankincense or to partake of the remainder the next day, the offering is piggul.
אָמַר רַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה: לְעוֹלָם קָסָבַר אֵין הַקְטָרָה מְפַגֶּלֶת הַקְטָרָה, וְאֵין מְפַגְּלִין בַּחֲצִי מַתִּיר, וְשָׁאנֵי הָכָא דְּפָשְׁטָא לַיהּ מַחְשָׁבָה בְּכוּלַּהּ מִנְחָה.
Rav Adda bar Ahava said: Actually, Rabbi Ḥanina holds that burning does not render burning piggul, and therefore if one burned only the handful with the intent to burn the frankincense the next day, the offering is not piggul. And he also holds that one does not render an offering piggul through intent during the sacrifice of half of a permitting factor, and consequently if one burned only the handful with the intent to partake of the remainder the next day, the offering is not piggul either. But it is different here, as intent of piggul has extended over the entire meal offering, as he had intent of piggul during the burning of the handful with regard to the frankincense and during the burning of the frankincense with regard to the remainder.
תָּנֵי תַּנָּא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב יִצְחָק בַּר אַבָּא: הִקְטִיר קוֹמֶץ לֶאֱכוֹל שִׁירַיִם – לְדִבְרֵי הַכֹּל פִּגּוּל. וְהָא מִיפְלָג פְּלִיגִי? אֶלָּא אֵימָא: לְדִבְרֵי הַכֹּל פָּסוּל.
The Gemara relates that a tanna taught a baraita before Rav Yitzḥak bar Abba: If one burned the handful with the intent to partake of the remainder the next day, everyone agrees that the meal offering is piggul. The Gemara raises a difficulty: But don’t Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis disagree in the mishna with regard to this very case? Rather, say that the baraita states: Everyone agrees that the offering is disqualified, as although the Rabbis hold that such intent does not render an offering piggul, they concede that it disqualifies the offering.
וְלֵימָא: הֲרֵי זֶה פִּגּוּל, וְרַבִּי מֵאִיר הִיא! תַּנָּא ״דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל״ אַתְנְיוּהּ, ״פִּיגּוּל״ בְּ״פָסוּל״ מִיחַלַּף לֵיהּ, ״הֲרֵי זֶה״ בְּ״דִבְרֵי הַכֹּל״ לָא מִיחַלַּף לֵיהּ.
The Gemara challenges: But if one must emend the baraita, let him say that the baraita states: It is piggul, and that it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir. The Gemara responds: It is reasonable that the tanna taught that everyone agrees, and that he accidentally exchanged the word piggul for disqualified. But he would not confuse the phrase: This is the opinion of Rabbi Meir, with the phrase: Everyone agrees.
הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ הַקּוֹמֵץ אֶת הַמִּנְחָה.
מַתְנִי׳ הַקּוֹמֵץ אֶת הַמִּנְחָה לֶאֱכוֹל דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין דַּרְכּוֹ לֶאֱכוֹל, וּלְהַקְטִיר דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין דַּרְכּוֹ לְהַקְטִיר – כָּשֵׁר, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר פּוֹסֵל.
MISHNA: In the case of one who removes a handful from the meal offering with the intent to consume, beyond its designated time, an item whose typical manner is such that one does not consume it, i.e., the handful, or to burn, beyond its designated time, an item whose typical manner is such that one does not burn it on the altar, i.e., the remainder of the meal offering, the meal offering is fit. Rabbi Eliezer deems it unfit, although it is not piggul, and consuming it is therefore not punishable by excision from the World-to-Come [karet].
לֶאֱכוֹל דָּבָר שֶׁדַּרְכּוֹ לֶאֱכוֹל, וּלְהַקְטִיר דָּבָר שֶׁדַּרְכּוֹ לְהַקְטִיר פָּחוֹת מִכְּזַיִת – כָּשֵׁר. לֶאֱכוֹל כַּחֲצִי זַיִת וּלְהַקְטִיר כַּחֲצִי זַיִת – כָּשֵׁר, שֶׁאֵין אֲכִילָה וְהַקְטָרָה מִצְטָרְפִין.
In the case of one who removes a handful from the meal offering with the intent to consume, beyond its designated time, an item whose typical manner is such that one does consume it, or to burn, beyond its designated time, an item whose typical manner is such that one does burn it on the altar, but his intent was to consume or burn improperly less than an olive-bulk, the offering is fit. If his intent was both to consume half an olive-bulk and to burn half an olive-bulk beyond its designated time, the meal offering is nevertheless fit, because eating and burning do not join together.
גְּמָ׳ אָמַר רַבִּי אַסִּי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר? אָמַר קְרָא ״וְאִם הֵאָכֹל יֵאָכֵל מִבְּשַׂר זֶבַח שְׁלָמָיו״ – בִּשְׁתֵּי אֲכִילוֹת הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר, אֶחָד אֲכִילַת אָדָם וְאֶחָד אֲכִילַת מִזְבֵּחַ, לוֹמַר לָךְ: כְּשֵׁם שֶׁמְּחַשְּׁבִין בַּאֲכִילַת אָדָם, כָּךְ מְחַשְּׁבִין בַּאֲכִילַת מִזְבֵּחַ.
GEMARA: Rabbi Asi says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: What is the reason for the ruling of Rabbi Eliezer that the intention to consume, beyond its designated time, an item that is not usually consumed renders the meal offering unfit? The verse states with regard to consuming an offering after its designated time: “And if any of the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace offerings is at all consumed [he’akhol ye’akhel]” (Leviticus 7:18), repeating for emphasis the term for consumption. He derives from the repeated term that the verse is speaking of two types of consumption: One is the consumption of the offering by a person, e.g., by the priests or the owner of the offering, and the other one is the consumption of the sacrificial portions by their being burned on the altar. This serves to tell you that just as one’s improper intention with regard to the consumption of a person renders the offering unfit, so too, one’s improper intention with regard to the consumption of the altar renders the offering unfit.
וּכְשֵׁם שֶׁמְּחַשְּׁבִין מֵאֲכִילַת אָדָם לַאֲכִילַת אָדָם, וּמֵאֲכִילַת מִזְבֵּחַ לַאֲכִילַת מִזְבֵּחַ, כָּךְ מְחַשְּׁבִין מֵאֲכִילַת אָדָם לַמִּזְבֵּחַ, וּמֵאֲכִילַת מִזְבֵּחַ לָאָדָם.
And furthermore, this serves to tell you that just as one’s improper intention that a portion of the offering designated for consumption by a person will be consumed on the following day by a person renders the offering unfit, and one’s improper intention that a portion of the offering designated for consumption of the altar will be consumed on the following day by the altar renders the offering unfit, so too, one’s improper intention that a portion of the offering designated for consumption by a person will be consumed on the altar renders the offering unfit, and one’s improper intention that a portion of the offering designated for consumption of the altar will be consumed on the following day by a person renders the offering unfit.
מַאי טַעְמָא? מִדְּאַפְּקִינְהוּ רַחֲמָנָא לְהַקְטָרָה בִּלְשׁוֹן אֲכִילָה.
What is the reason for this derivation? It is derived from the fact that the Merciful One expresses the burning of the offering using the language of consumption.
וְרַבָּנַן, הַאי דְּאַפְּקִינְהוּ רַחֲמָנָא בִּלְשׁוֹן אֲכִילָה,
And the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Eliezer, maintain the following: This fact that the Merciful One expresses the burning of the offering using the language of consumption
דְּלָא שְׁנָא כִּי מְחַשֵּׁב בִּלְשׁוֹן אֲכִילָה לְמִזְבֵּחַ, וְלָא שְׁנָא כִּי מְחַשֵּׁב בִּלְשׁוֹן הַקְטָרָה לַמִּזְבֵּחַ.
demonstrates that there is no difference if one expresses his intention using the language of: Consumption on the altar, and there is no difference if one expresses his intention using the language of: Burning on the altar. Therefore, if the priest removed the handful from the meal offering while expressing the intention that it should be burned on the altar on the following day, whether this intention was phrased as: Consumed on the altar, or: Burned on the altar, the offering is piggul.
אִי נָמֵי, מָה אֲכִילָה בִּכְזַיִת – אַף הַקְטָרָה בִּכְזַיִת, וּלְעוֹלָם אֲכִילָה דְּאוֹרְחָא מַשְׁמַע.
Alternatively, the doubled expression serves to teach that just as one renders the offering piggul only when one’s intention involves the consumption of an olive-bulk, as this is the minimal measure for an act to be considered eating, so too, one renders the offering piggul only when one’s intention involves the burning of an olive-bulk. But actually, the expression for consumption found in the verse indicates consuming it in the usual manner, and therefore an offering is rendered unfit only if one’s improper intention involved consuming an item that is usually consumed, or burning an item that is usually burned.
וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, אִם כֵּן, לִכְתּוֹב רַחֲמָנָא ״אִם הֵאָכֹל הֵאָכֹל״, אִי נָמֵי ״אִם יֵאָכֵל יֵאָכֵל״, מַאי ״הֵאָכֹל יֵאָכֵל״? שָׁמְעַתְּ מִינַּהּ תַּרְתֵּי.
And what would Rabbi Eliezer respond? He would say that if that were so, that the verse intends to teach only that halakha, let the Merciful One write either: If he’akhol he’akhol, or: If ye’akhel ye’akhel, repeating the same form of the word twice. What is the reason that the verse states “he’akhol ye’akhel,” employing both repetition and variation? Learn from this formulation two halakhot. One, as the Rabbis explain, is that the offering is rendered unfit whether one uses an expression of consumption or an expression of burning, provided that one’s intention is with regard to at least an olive-bulk. The second is that the offering is rendered unfit if one intends to burn on the altar an item that is usually consumed by a person, or to consume an item that is usually burned on the altar.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי זֵירָא לְרַב אַסִּי: וְאִי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר מִשּׁוּם הָכִי הוּא, כָּרֵת נָמֵי לִיחַיַּיב? וְכִי תֵּימָא הָכִי נָמֵי, וְהָא אַתְּ הוּא דְּאָמְרַתְּ מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מוֹדֶה רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר שֶׁאֵין עָנוּשׁ כָּרֵת!
Rabbi Zeira said to Rav Asi: But if the reasoning of Rabbi Eliezer is due to that derivation, and he understands that the verse equates the improper intent to consume an item that is usually consumed with the improper intent to consume an item that is usually burned, then let one also be liable to receive karet for consuming an offering brought with intention to consume, after its designated time, the part of the offering that is burned, or for intention to burn, after its designated time, an item that is usually consumed. Why does Rabbi Eliezer state only that the offering is rendered unfit? And if you would say that indeed, Rabbi Eliezer does hold that one who consumes such an offering is liable to receive karet, that is difficult: But aren’t you the one who said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: Rabbi Eliezer concedes that doing so is not punishable by karet?
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: תַּנָּאֵי הִיא אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, אִיכָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר: פְּסוּלָה דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא, וְאִיכָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר: פְּסוּלָה דְּרַבָּנַן.
Rav Asi said to him: It is a dispute between tanna’im as to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer. There is one who says that Rabbi Eliezer deems the offering to be unfit by Torah law and one is liable to receive karet. It was in accordance with this opinion that Rabbi Yoḥanan cited the proof from the verse. And there is one who says that Rabbi Eliezer deems the offering to be unfit by rabbinic law, and it was in accordance with this opinion that Rabbi Yoḥanan said that according to Rabbi Eliezer there is no punishment of karet for this transgression.
דְּתַנְיָא: הַשּׁוֹחֵט אֶת הַזֶּבַח לִשְׁתּוֹת מִדָּמוֹ לְמָחָר, לְהַקְטִיר מִבְּשָׂרוֹ לְמָחָר, לֶאֱכוֹל מֵאֵימוּרָיו לְמָחָר – כָּשֵׁר, וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר פּוֹסֵל. לְהַנִּיחַ מִדָּמוֹ לְמָחָר – רַבִּי יְהוּדָה פּוֹסֵל. אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: אַף בָּזוֹ רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר פּוֹסֵל וַחֲכָמִים מַכְשִׁירִין.
As it is taught in a baraita: In the case of one who slaughters the offering with the intention to drink some of its blood, which is designated to be presented on the altar, on the next day, or to burn some of its meat, which is meant to be eaten, on the next day, or to eat some of its sacrificial portions, which are designated to be burned on the altar, on the next day, the offering is fit, as his intention is either to eat an item that is usually sacrificed on the altar, or to burn on the altar an item that is usually eaten. But Rabbi Eliezer deems the offering unfit. If one slaughters the offering with the intention to leave some of its blood for the next day, but not to present it or consume it, Rabbi Yehuda deems the offering unfit. Rabbi Elazar said: Even in this case Rabbi Eliezer deems the offering unfit, and the Rabbis deem it fit.
רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, אַלִּיבָּא דְּמַאן? אִילֵימָא אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבָּנַן – הַשְׁתָּא, וּמָה הָתָם דְּקָא מְחַשֵּׁב בִּלְשׁוֹן אֲכִילָה מַכְשְׁרִי רַבָּנַן, הָכָא לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן?
The Gemara clarifies: In accordance with whose opinion is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda that the offering is unfit even if he intends only to leave the blood for the next day, but not present it or consume it? If we say it is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, now consider: And if there, where the priest expresses his intention using the language of consumption, the Rabbis nevertheless deem the offering fit, despite the fact that if he had used this expression with regard to the portion burned on the altar, the offering would be piggul, is it not all the more so the case that here, when he intends only to leave the blood until the next day, the offering should be fit?
אֶלָּא, אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, וְאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: אַף בְּזוֹ רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר פּוֹסֵל וַחֲכָמִים מַכְשִׁירִין. רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר הַיְינוּ רַבִּי יְהוּדָה!
Rather, it must be that Rabbi Yehuda’s statement is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer. And yet the baraita continues: Rabbi Elazar said: Even in this case Rabbi Eliezer deems the offering unfit, and the Rabbis deem it fit. If Rabbi Yehuda’s statement is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, then the explanation of Rabbi Elazar of Rabbi Eliezer’s opinion is identical to that of Rabbi Yehuda, and there does not appear to be any disagreement between the two.
אֶלָּא לָאו כָּרֵת אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ, דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה (דְּתַנָּא קַמָּא) סָבַר: לְהַנִּיחַ – פְּסוּלָא בְּעָלְמָא, בְּהָנָךְ כָּרֵת נָמֵי מִיחַיַּיב, וַאֲתָא רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר לְמֵימַר: אִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי פָּסוּל וְאֵין בּוֹ כָּרֵת!
Rather, is it not so that the difference between Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Yehuda is with regard to liability for karet? The difference lies in that Rabbi Yehuda holds that if one’s intention is to leave the blood for the next day, then according to Rabbi Eliezer the offering is only rendered unfit, whereas in those cases listed in the mishna, such as where one’s intention is to eat the sacrificial portions on the next day, he would be liable to receive karet as well. And Rabbi Elazar comes to say that according to Rabbi Eliezer, both in this case and in that case, the offering is unfit but there is no liability to receive karet for it.
לָא, דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא כָּרֵת לֵיכָּא, וְהָכָא שָׁלֹשׁ מַחְלוֹקֶת בְּדָבָר: תַּנָּא קַמָּא סָבַר בְּהָנָךְ פְּלִיגִי, לְהַנִּיחַ – דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל כָּשֵׁר,
The Gemara rejects this suggestion: No, it may be that everyone agrees that according to Rabbi Eliezer in a case where one’s intention is to eat, after its designated time, an item that is usually burned, or to burn an item that is usually eaten, there is no liability to receive karet. And here there are three disputes with regard to the matter. The first tanna holds that the Rabbis and Rabbi Eliezer disagree only in those cases, with regard to whether the offering is rendered unfit due to the intention to eat an item that is usually burned or to burn an item that is usually eaten. But with regard to leaving of its blood until the next day, everyone agrees that the offering is fit.
Follow
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
Geri Goldstein got me started learning daf yomi when I was in Israel 2 years ago. It’s been a challenge and I’ve learned a lot though I’m sure I miss a lot. I quilt as I listen and I want to share what I’ve been working on.
Rebecca Stulberg
Ottawa, Canada
I started learning with rabbis. I needed to know more than the stories. My first teacher to show me “the way of the Talmud” as well as the stories was Samara Schwartz.
Michelle Farber started the new cycle 2 yrs ago and I jumped on for the ride.
I do not look back.
Jenifer Nech
Houston, United States
I started learning Daf Yomi to fill what I saw as a large gap in my Jewish education. I also hope to inspire my three daughters to ensure that they do not allow the same Talmud-sized gap to form in their own educations. I am so proud to be a part of the Hadran community, and I have loved learning so many of the stories and halachot that we have seen so far. I look forward to continuing!
Dora Chana Haar
Oceanside NY, United States
I start learning Daf Yomi in January 2020. The daily learning with Rabbanit Michelle has kept me grounded in this very uncertain time. Despite everything going on – the Pandemic, my personal life, climate change, war, etc… I know I can count on Hadran’s podcast to bring a smile to my face.
Deb Engel
Los Angeles, United States
Hearing and reading about the siyumim at the completion of the 13 th cycle Daf Yomi asked our shul rabbi about starting the Daf – he directed me to another shiur in town he thought would allow a woman to join, and so I did! Love seeing the sources for the Divrei Torah I’ve been hearing for the past decades of living an observant life and raising 5 children .
Jill Felder
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States
I’ve been wanting to do Daf Yomi for years, but always wanted to start at the beginning and not in the middle of things. When the opportunity came in 2020, I decided: “this is now the time!” I’ve been posting my journey daily on social media, tracking my progress (#DafYomi); now it’s fully integrated into my daily routines. I’ve also inspired my partner to join, too!
Joséphine Altzman
Teaneck, United States
I never thought I’d be able to do Daf Yomi till I saw the video of Hadran’s Siyum HaShas. Now, 2 years later, I’m about to participate in Siyum Seder Mo’ed with my Hadran community. It has been an incredible privilege to learn with Rabbanit Michelle and to get to know so many caring, talented and knowledgeable women. I look forward with great anticipation and excitement to learning Seder Nashim.
Caroline Ben-Ari
Karmiel, Israel
I heard the new Daf Yomi cycle was starting and I was curious, so I searched online for a women’s class and was pleasently surprised to find Rabanit Michelle’s great class reviews in many online articles. It has been a splendid journey. It is a way to fill my days with Torah, learning so many amazing things I have never heard before during my Tanach learning at High School. Thanks so much .
Martha Tarazi
Panama, Panama
I graduated college in December 2019 and received a set of shas as a present from my husband. With my long time dream of learning daf yomi, I had no idea that a new cycle was beginning just one month later, in January 2020. I have been learning the daf ever since with Michelle Farber… Through grad school, my first job, my first baby, and all the other incredible journeys over the past few years!
Sigal Spitzer Flamholz
Bronx, United States
After being so inspired by the siyum shas two years ago, I began tentatively learning daf yomi, like Rabbanut Michelle kept saying – taking one daf at a time. I’m still taking it one daf at a time, one masechet at a time, but I’m loving it and am still so inspired by Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran community, and yes – I am proud to be finishing Seder Mo’ed.
Caroline Graham-Ofstein
Bet Shemesh, Israel
I started with Ze Kollel in Berlin, directed by Jeremy Borowitz for Hillel Deutschland. We read Masechet Megillah chapter 4 and each participant wrote his commentary on a Sugia that particularly impressed him. I wrote six poems about different Sugiot!
Fascinated by the discussions on Talmud I continued to learn with Rabanit Michelle Farber and am currently taking part in the Tikun Olam course.
Yael Merlini
Berlin, Germany
I never thought I’d be able to do Daf Yomi till I saw the video of Hadran’s Siyum HaShas. Now, 2 years later, I’m about to participate in Siyum Seder Mo’ed with my Hadran community. It has been an incredible privilege to learn with Rabbanit Michelle and to get to know so many caring, talented and knowledgeable women. I look forward with great anticipation and excitement to learning Seder Nashim.
Caroline Ben-Ari
Karmiel, Israel
My curiosity was peaked after seeing posts about the end of the last cycle. I am always looking for opportunities to increase my Jewish literacy & I am someone that is drawn to habit and consistency. Dinnertime includes a “Guess what I learned on the daf” segment for my husband and 18 year old twins. I also love the feelings of connection with my colleagues who are also learning.
Diana Bloom
Tampa, United States
I started learning Daf in Jan 2020 with Brachot b/c I had never seen the Jewish people united around something so positive, and I wanted to be a part of it. Also, I wanted to broaden my background in Torah Shebal Peh- Maayanot gave me a great gemara education, but I knew that I could hold a conversation in most parts of tanach but almost no TSB. I’m so thankful for Daf and have gained immensely.
Meira Shapiro
NJ, United States
I heard about the syium in January 2020 & I was excited to start learning then the pandemic started. Learning Daf became something to focus on but also something stressful. As the world changed around me & my family I had to adjust my expectations for myself & the world. Daf Yomi & the Hadran podcast has been something I look forward to every day. It gives me a moment of centering & Judaism daily.
Talia Haykin
Denver, United States
In early 2020, I began the process of a stem cell transplant. The required extreme isolation forced me to leave work and normal life but gave me time to delve into Jewish text study. I did not feel isolated. I began Daf Yomi at the start of this cycle, with family members joining me online from my hospital room. I’ve used my newly granted time to to engage, grow and connect through this learning.
Reena Slovin
Worcester, United States
I started learning at the start of this cycle, and quickly fell in love. It has become such an important part of my day, enriching every part of my life.
Naomi Niederhoffer
Toronto, Canada
In January 2020, my chevruta suggested that we “up our game. Let’s do Daf Yomi” – and she sent me the Hadran link. I lost my job (and went freelance), there was a pandemic, and I am still opening the podcast with my breakfast coffee, or after Shabbat with popcorn. My Aramaic is improving. I will need a new bookcase, though.
Rhondda May
Atlanta, Georgia, United States
I started at the beginning of this cycle. No 1 reason, but here’s 5.
In 2019 I read about the upcoming siyum hashas.
There was a sermon at shul about how anyone can learn Talmud.
Talmud references come up when I am studying. I wanted to know more.
Yentl was on telly. Not a great movie but it’s about studying Talmud.
I went to the Hadran website: A new cycle is starting. I’m gonna do this
Denise Neapolitan
Cambridge, United Kingdom
About a year into learning more about Judaism on a path to potential conversion, I saw an article about the upcoming Siyum HaShas in January of 2020. My curiosity was piqued and I immediately started investigating what learning the Daf actually meant. Daily learning? Just what I wanted. Seven and a half years? I love a challenge! So I dove in head first and I’ve enjoyed every moment!!
Nickie Matthews
Blacksburg, United States
Menachot 17
ΧΦ²Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ€Φ΅Χ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ€ΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧͺΦΈΧ: ΧΦ·Χ§Φ°ΧΦΈΧ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ€Φ·ΧΦΆΦΌΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΦ·Χ§Φ°ΧΦΈΧ¨ΦΈΧ, ΧΦ·ΧΦ²Χ€Φ΄ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ Φ·Χ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΄Χ ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ°Χ€Φ·ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦ²Χ¦Φ΄Χ ΧΦ·ΧͺΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ¨ β ΧΦΈΧ Φ΅Χ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·Χ©Φ΅ΦΌΧΧ ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ©Φ΄ΧΧΧ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ°ΦΌΧͺΦΈΧ Χ§ΦΈΧΦ°ΧΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·Χ©Φ΅ΦΌΧΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ ΦΈΧ β ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·Χ©Φ΅ΦΌΧΧ ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ·ΧͺΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ¨ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦ΅Χ.
the sharp people in the city of Pumbedita: Burning renders burning piggul, e.g., burning the handful with the intent to burn the frankincense the next day renders the meal offering piggul. And this is the halakha even according to the Rabbis, who say that one does not render an offering piggul with intent occurring during the sacrifice of half of a permitting factor, e.g., when sacrificing the handful alone with intent of piggul. The reason is that this statement applies only where he had intent during the sacrifice of the handful to consume the remainder the next day, and the frankincense stands intact, i.e., he had no intent with regard to it. But here, when he had intent with regard to the frankincense while burning the handful, it is considered as though he had intent with regard to the entire permitting factor.
ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨ΦΈΧΦΈΧ: ΧΦ·Χ£ ΧΦ²Χ Φ·Χ Χ ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ ΧͺΦ°ΦΌΧ Φ΅ΧΧ ΦΈΧ, ΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ: ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ·Χ§ΦΌΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ₯ ΧΦ°Χ ΧΦΉΧͺΦ΅Χ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ° ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ§Φ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¨, ΧΦΆΧΦ±ΧΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΈΧ¨ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ·ΦΌΧ¨Φ°ΧΦΌΧΦΉ ΧΦΆΧΦ±ΧΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ§Φ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¨ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΈΧ¨ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ·ΦΌΧ¨Φ°ΧΦΌΧΦΉ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ§Φ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¨, ΧΧΦΌΧ₯ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ§ΧΦΉΧΧΦΉ β Χ€ΦΈΦΌΧ‘ΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΌΧΦΉ ΧΦΈΦΌΧ¨Φ΅Χͺ, ΧΧΦΌΧ₯ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ ΦΌΧΦΉ β Χ€Φ΄ΦΌΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧΦ΄ΧΧ Χ’ΦΈΧΦΈΧΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧ¨Φ΅Χͺ.
Rava said: We learn this halakha in a mishna, as well (12a): This is the principle: In the case of anyone who removes the handful, or places the handful in the vessel, or who conveys the vessel with the handful to the altar, or who burns the handful on the altar, with the intent to partake of an item whose typical manner is such that one partakes of it, or to burn an item whose typical manner is such that one burns it on the altar, outside its designated area, the meal offering is unfit but there is no liability for karet. If his intent was to do so beyond its designated time, the offering is piggul and one is liable to receive karet on account of it.
ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦΈΧΧ ΧΦ·Χ§Φ°ΧΦΈΧ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧΦ°, ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧΦ° β ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΧ ΧΦΆΧΦ±ΧΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ§Φ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¨, ΧΦ·Χ£ ΧΦ·Χ§Φ°ΧΦΈΧ¨ΦΈΧ β ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΧ ΧΦΆΧΦ±ΧΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ§Φ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¨?
Rava explains: What, is it not correct to say that the halakha with regard to burning is similar to these, i.e., the removal of the handful, its placement in a vessel, and the conveying? Accordingly, just as with regard to these, whether oneβs intent was to partake of the remainder the next day or to burn the frankincense the next day, the halakha is that the offering is piggul, so too with regard to burning, whether oneβs intent was to partake of the remainder or to burn the frankincense the next day, the offering is piggul.
ΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧΦ° β ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΧ ΧΦΆΧΦ±ΧΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ§Φ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¨; ΧΦ·Χ§Φ°ΧΦΈΧ¨ΦΈΧ β ΧΦΆΧΦ±ΧΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ§Φ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¨ ΧΦΈΧ.
The Gemara rejects this comparison: No, with regard to these, whether oneβs intent was to partake of the remainder or to burn the frankincense the next day, the offering is in fact piggul. But with regard to burning, if oneβs intent was to partake of the remainder the next day, yes, it is piggul, but if oneβs intent was to burn the frankincense the next day, it is not piggul.
ΧΦΈΧͺΦ΅ΧΧ Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΦ°Χ Φ·Χ©Φ°ΦΌΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ¨ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦΈΦΌΧ Χ§Φ·ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦ΅Χ, ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧͺΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ°Χ§ΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ΄Χ©Φ°ΦΌΧΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ·Χ ΧΦ΄Χ‘Φ°ΧΦΈΦΌΧ: ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ·Χ§Φ°ΧΦΈΧ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ€Φ·ΧΦΆΦΌΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΦ·Χ§Φ°ΧΦΈΧ¨ΦΈΧ, ΧΦ·ΧΦ²Χ€Φ΄ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¨, ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: Χ΄ΧΦ°Χ€Φ·ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦ²Χ¦Φ΄Χ ΧΦ·ΧͺΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ¨Χ΄ β
The Gemara relates that Rav Menashya bar Gadda sat before Abaye, and while he was sitting he said in the name of Rav αΈ€isda: Burning does not render burning piggul, e.g., burning the handful with the intent to burn the frankincense the next day does not render the offering piggul. And this is the halakha even according to the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who says in the mishna that one renders an offering piggul through intent during the sacrifice of half of a permitting factor, e.g., when sacrificing the handful but not the frankincense with intent of piggul.
ΧΦΈΧ Φ΅Χ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·Χ©Φ΅ΦΌΧΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ©Φ΄ΧΧΧ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄Χ, ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ§ΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ₯ ΧΦ·ΧͺΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ¨ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌ, ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ§ΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ₯ ΧΦΈΧΧ ΧΦ·ΧͺΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ¨ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΌΧ β ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧ¦Φ΅Χ ΧΦ°Χ€Φ·ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΧΦΌ.
Rav Menashya bar Gadda explains that the reason is that this statement of Rabbi Meir applies only where he had intent during the sacrifice of the handful to consume the remainder the next day, as the handful is their permitting factor. But here, as the handful is not a permitting factor of the frankincense, the offering cannot be rendered piggul through it.
ΧΦ²ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦ΅Χ: Χ’Φ²Χ Φ΄Χ ΧΦΈΧ¨Φ΄Χ ΧΦ΄Χ©Φ°ΦΌΧΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ·Χ? ΧΦ²ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ: ΧΦ΄ΧΧ. ΧΦ΄ΧΧͺΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ, ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΦ΄Χ‘Φ°ΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·Χ: ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ·Χ§Φ°ΧΦΈΧ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ€Φ·ΧΦΆΦΌΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΦ·Χ§Φ°ΧΦΈΧ¨ΦΈΧ.
Abaye said to Rav Menashya: Answer me, my Master, did Rav αΈ€isda state this halakha in the name of Rav? Rav Menashya said to Abaye: Yes. The Gemara notes that it was also stated explicitly that Rav αΈ€isda says that Rav says: Burning does not render burning piggul.
ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΦ·Χ’Φ²Χ§ΦΉΧ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ¨ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ΄Χ©Φ°ΦΌΧΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦ΅Χ: ΧΦ·Χ£ ΧΦ²Χ Φ·Χ Χ ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ ΧͺΦ°ΦΌΧ Φ΅ΧΧ ΦΈΧ, Χ©ΦΈΧΧΦ·Χ ΧΦΆΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ©Φ΄ΧΧΧ ΧΦΆΧΦ±ΧΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦΆΦΌΧ ΦΌΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ¨ β ΧΧΦΌΧ Χ€Φ΄ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ²ΧΦ΅ΧΧ¨ΧΦΉ ΧΦΈΦΌΧ©Φ΅ΧΧ¨, ΧΦΆΧΦ±ΧΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΦ²ΧΦ΅ΧΧ¨ΧΦΉ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ¨ β Χ©Φ°ΧΧ Φ΅ΧΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ©Φ΅ΧΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ. ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦ·Χ’Φ°ΧΦΈΧ? ΧΦΈΧΧ ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧΧ ΧΦ·ΧͺΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ¨ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΧΦΌΧ, ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧ¦Φ΅Χ ΧΦ°Χ€Φ·ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΧΦΌ.
Rav Yaβakov bar Idi said in the name of Abaye: We learn in the mishna as well that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav: If one slaughtered one of the lambs with the intent to partake of it the next day, that lamb is piggul and the other lamb is fit. If he slaughtered one lamb with the intent to partake of the other the next day, both lambs are fit. What is the reason? Is it not due to the fact that since the first lamb is not a permitting factor of the second lamb, it cannot render the second lamb piggul? The same reasoning should apply to the case of the handful and frankincense.
ΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦΈΧͺΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ§Φ°ΦΌΧΦ·Χ’ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·Χ ΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ, ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧ§Φ°ΦΌΧΦ·Χ’ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·Χ ΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ β ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ·Χ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧΦΌ.
The Gemara rejects this suggestion: No; there is a difference between these cases. It is only there, in the mishna, that one lamb cannot render the other piggul, as it was not fixed in one vessel with the other lamb, and therefore each animal stands independent of the other. But here, as the handful and frankincense were fixed in one vessel for the purpose of offering them, they are considered like one item and one of them therefore renders the other piggul.
ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°Χ ΧΦΌΧ ΦΈΧ: ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ°ΦΌΧͺΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ’ ΧΦ΄Χ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ²Χ Φ΄ΧΧ ΦΈΧ, ΧΦΌΧͺΦ°Χ§Φ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΧΦΌ ΧͺΦ·ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦ·ΧΧ β ΧΦ΄Χ§Φ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¨ Χ§ΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ₯ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ§Φ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¨ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ ΦΈΧ, ΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΦΆΧΦ±ΧΧΦΉΧ Χ©Φ΄ΧΧΧ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ¨ β Χ€Φ΄ΦΌΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ.
Β§ Rav Hamnuna said: Rabbi αΈ€anina helped me internalize this following matter, and to me it is equivalent to all the rest of my learning, as it contains a significant novelty: If one burned the handful with the intent to burn the frankincense the next day, and burned the frankincense with the intent to partake of the remainder the next day, the meal offering is piggul.
ΧΦ·ΧΧ Χ§ΦΈΧ ΧΦ·Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦ·Χ’ ΧΦ·Χ? ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ·Χ§Φ°ΧΦΈΧ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ€Φ·ΧΦΆΦΌΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΦ·Χ§Φ°ΧΦΈΧ¨ΦΈΧ Χ§ΦΈΧ ΧΦ·Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦ·Χ’ ΧΦ·Χ β ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ: Χ΄ΧΦ΄Χ§Φ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¨ Χ§ΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ₯ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ§Φ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¨ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ ΦΈΧΧ΄! ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ°Χ€Φ·ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦ²Χ¦Φ΄Χ ΧΦ·ΧͺΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ¨ Χ§ΦΈΧ ΧΦ·Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦ·Χ’ ΧΦ·Χ β ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ: Χ΄ΧΦ΄Χ§Φ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¨ Χ§ΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ₯ ΧΦΆΧΦ±ΧΧΦΉΧ Χ©Φ΄ΧΧΧ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ¨Χ΄! ΧΦ΄Χ ΧͺΦ·ΦΌΧ¨Φ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ²ΧͺΦΈΧ Χ§ΦΈΧ ΧΦ·Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦ·Χ’ ΧΦ·Χ β ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ: Χ΄ΧΦ΄Χ§Φ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¨ Χ§ΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ₯ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ§Φ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¨ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦΆΧΦ±ΧΧΦΉΧ Χ©Φ΄ΧΧΧ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ¨Χ΄!
The Gemara asks: What is Rabbi αΈ€anina teaching us? If he is teaching us that burning renders burning piggul, then let him simply say: If one burned the handful with the intent to burn the frankincense, the offering is piggul. If he is teaching us that one renders an offering piggul through intent during the sacrifice of half of a permitting factor, then let him say: If one burned the handful with the intent to partake of the remainder the next day, the offering is piggul. If he is coming to teach us both of these halakhot, let him say: If one burned the handful with the intent to burn the frankincense or to partake of the remainder the next day, the offering is piggul.
ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ¨ ΧΦ·ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ: ΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ Χ§ΦΈΧ‘ΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ·Χ§Φ°ΧΦΈΧ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ€Φ·ΧΦΆΦΌΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΦ·Χ§Φ°ΧΦΈΧ¨ΦΈΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ°Χ€Φ·ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦ²Χ¦Φ΄Χ ΧΦ·ΧͺΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ¨, ΧΦ°Χ©ΦΈΧΧΧ Φ΅Χ ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ€ΦΈΧ©Φ°ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°Χ©ΦΈΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦΌ ΧΦ΄Χ Φ°ΧΦΈΧ.
Rav Adda bar Ahava said: Actually, Rabbi αΈ€anina holds that burning does not render burning piggul, and therefore if one burned only the handful with the intent to burn the frankincense the next day, the offering is not piggul. And he also holds that one does not render an offering piggul through intent during the sacrifice of half of a permitting factor, and consequently if one burned only the handful with the intent to partake of the remainder the next day, the offering is not piggul either. But it is different here, as intent of piggul has extended over the entire meal offering, as he had intent of piggul during the burning of the handful with regard to the frankincense and during the burning of the frankincense with regard to the remainder.
ΧͺΦΈΦΌΧ Φ΅Χ ΧͺΦ·ΦΌΧ ΦΈΦΌΧ Χ§Φ·ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ·Χ ΧΦ΄Χ¦Φ°ΧΦΈΧ§ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ¨ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ: ΧΦ΄Χ§Φ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¨ Χ§ΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ₯ ΧΦΆΧΦ±ΧΧΦΉΧ Χ©Φ΄ΧΧΧ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄Χ β ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΅Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΉΦΌΧ Χ€Φ΄ΦΌΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ. ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ€Φ°ΧΦΈΧ Χ€Φ°ΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ΄Χ? ΧΦΆΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ: ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΅Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΉΦΌΧ Χ€ΦΈΦΌΧ‘ΧΦΌΧ.
The Gemara relates that a tanna taught a baraita before Rav YitzαΈ₯ak bar Abba: If one burned the handful with the intent to partake of the remainder the next day, everyone agrees that the meal offering is piggul. The Gemara raises a difficulty: But donβt Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis disagree in the mishna with regard to this very case? Rather, say that the baraita states: Everyone agrees that the offering is disqualified, as although the Rabbis hold that such intent does not render an offering piggul, they concede that it disqualifies the offering.
ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ: ΧΦ²Χ¨Φ΅Χ ΧΦΆΧ Χ€Φ΄ΦΌΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ, ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¨ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ! ΧͺΦ·ΦΌΧ ΦΈΦΌΧ Χ΄ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΅Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΉΦΌΧΧ΄ ΧΦ·ΧͺΦ°Χ Φ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌ, Χ΄Χ€Φ΄ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧΦΌΧΧ΄ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ΄Χ€ΦΈΧ‘ΧΦΌΧΧ΄ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ·ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ£ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ, Χ΄ΧΦ²Χ¨Φ΅Χ ΧΦΆΧΧ΄ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ΄ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΅Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΉΦΌΧΧ΄ ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ·ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ£ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ.
The Gemara challenges: But if one must emend the baraita, let him say that the baraita states: It is piggul, and that it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir. The Gemara responds: It is reasonable that the tanna taught that everyone agrees, and that he accidentally exchanged the word piggul for disqualified. But he would not confuse the phrase: This is the opinion of Rabbi Meir, with the phrase: Everyone agrees.
ΧΦ²ΧΦ·Χ¨Φ·Χ Χ’Φ²ΧΦΈΧΦ° ΧΦ·Χ§ΦΌΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ₯ ΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ Φ°ΧΦΈΧ.
ΧΦ·ΧͺΦ°Χ Φ΄ΧΧ³ ΧΦ·Χ§ΦΌΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ₯ ΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ Φ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΆΧΦ±ΧΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΈΧ¨ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ¨Φ°ΧΦΌΧΦΉ ΧΦΆΧΦ±ΧΧΦΉΧ, ΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ§Φ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¨ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΈΧ¨ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ¨Φ°ΧΦΌΧΦΉ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ§Φ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¨ β ΧΦΈΦΌΧ©Φ΅ΧΧ¨, Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ±ΧΦ΄ΧΧ’ΦΆΧΦΆΧ¨ Χ€ΦΌΧΦΉΧ‘Φ΅Χ.
MISHNA: In the case of one who removes a handful from the meal offering with the intent to consume, beyond its designated time, an item whose typical manner is such that one does not consume it, i.e., the handful, or to burn, beyond its designated time, an item whose typical manner is such that one does not burn it on the altar, i.e., the remainder of the meal offering, the meal offering is fit. Rabbi Eliezer deems it unfit, although it is not piggul, and consuming it is therefore not punishable by excision from the World-to-Come [karet].
ΧΦΆΧΦ±ΧΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΈΧ¨ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ·ΦΌΧ¨Φ°ΧΦΌΧΦΉ ΧΦΆΧΦ±ΧΧΦΉΧ, ΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ§Φ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¨ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΈΧ¨ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ·ΦΌΧ¨Φ°ΧΦΌΧΦΉ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ§Φ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¨ Χ€ΦΈΦΌΧΧΦΉΧͺ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·ΧΦ΄Χͺ β ΧΦΈΦΌΧ©Φ΅ΧΧ¨. ΧΦΆΧΦ±ΧΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦ²Χ¦Φ΄Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦ΄Χͺ ΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ§Φ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¨ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦ²Χ¦Φ΄Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦ΄Χͺ β ΧΦΈΦΌΧ©Φ΅ΧΧ¨, Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ²ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ§Φ°ΧΦΈΧ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄Χ¦Φ°ΧΦΈΧ¨Φ°Χ€Φ΄ΧΧ.
In the case of one who removes a handful from the meal offering with the intent to consume, beyond its designated time, an item whose typical manner is such that one does consume it, or to burn, beyond its designated time, an item whose typical manner is such that one does burn it on the altar, but his intent was to consume or burn improperly less than an olive-bulk, the offering is fit. If his intent was both to consume half an olive-bulk and to burn half an olive-bulk beyond its designated time, the meal offering is nevertheless fit, because eating and burning do not join together.
ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧ³ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ·Χ‘Φ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ: ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦ·Χ’Φ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ±ΧΦ΄ΧΧ’ΦΆΧΦΆΧ¨? ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ§Φ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ Χ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ΅ΧΦΈΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΦΈΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ©Φ·ΧΧ¨ ΧΦΆΧΦ·Χ Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦΈΧΦΈΧΧΧ΄ β ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ©Φ°ΧΧͺΦ΅ΦΌΧ ΧΦ²ΧΦ΄ΧΧΧΦΉΧͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧͺΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ¨, ΧΦΆΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ²ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ·Χͺ ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦΆΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ²ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ·Χͺ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΦ·, ΧΧΦΉΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦΈΧΦ°: ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ©Φ΅ΧΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·Χ©Φ°ΦΌΧΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦ²ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ·Χͺ ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦ° ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ©Φ°ΦΌΧΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦ²ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ·Χͺ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΦ·.
GEMARA: Rabbi Asi says that Rabbi YoαΈ₯anan says: What is the reason for the ruling of Rabbi Eliezer that the intention to consume, beyond its designated time, an item that is not usually consumed renders the meal offering unfit? The verse states with regard to consuming an offering after its designated time: βAnd if any of the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace offerings is at all consumed [heβakhol yeβakhel]β (Leviticus 7:18), repeating for emphasis the term for consumption. He derives from the repeated term that the verse is speaking of two types of consumption: One is the consumption of the offering by a person, e.g., by the priests or the owner of the offering, and the other one is the consumption of the sacrificial portions by their being burned on the altar. This serves to tell you that just as oneβs improper intention with regard to the consumption of a person renders the offering unfit, so too, oneβs improper intention with regard to the consumption of the altar renders the offering unfit.
ΧΦΌΧΦ°Χ©Φ΅ΧΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·Χ©Φ°ΦΌΧΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΦ²ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ·Χͺ ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ²ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ·Χͺ ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦΌΧΦ΅ΧΦ²ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ·Χͺ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΦ· ΧΦ·ΧΦ²ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ·Χͺ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΦ·, ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦ° ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ©Φ°ΦΌΧΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΦ²ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ·Χͺ ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΦ·, ΧΦΌΧΦ΅ΧΦ²ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ·Χͺ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΦ· ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ.
And furthermore, this serves to tell you that just as oneβs improper intention that a portion of the offering designated for consumption by a person will be consumed on the following day by a person renders the offering unfit, and oneβs improper intention that a portion of the offering designated for consumption of the altar will be consumed on the following day by the altar renders the offering unfit, so too, oneβs improper intention that a portion of the offering designated for consumption by a person will be consumed on the altar renders the offering unfit, and oneβs improper intention that a portion of the offering designated for consumption of the altar will be consumed on the following day by a person renders the offering unfit.
ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦ·Χ’Φ°ΧΦΈΧ? ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·Χ€Φ°ΦΌΧ§Φ΄ΧΧ Φ°ΧΧΦΌ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ§Φ°ΧΦΈΧ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°Χ©ΧΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ²ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ.
What is the reason for this derivation? It is derived from the fact that the Merciful One expresses the burning of the offering using the language of consumption.
ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ Φ·Χ, ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·Χ€Φ°ΦΌΧ§Φ΄ΧΧ Φ°ΧΧΦΌ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°Χ©ΧΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ²ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ,
And the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Eliezer, maintain the following: This fact that the Merciful One expresses the burning of the offering using the language of consumption
ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ Χ©Φ°ΧΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ©Φ΅ΦΌΧΧ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°Χ©ΧΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ²ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΦ·, ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ Χ©Φ°ΧΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ©Φ΅ΦΌΧΧ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°Χ©ΧΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ·Χ§Φ°ΧΦΈΧ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΦ·.
demonstrates that there is no difference if one expresses his intention using the language of: Consumption on the altar, and there is no difference if one expresses his intention using the language of: Burning on the altar. Therefore, if the priest removed the handful from the meal offering while expressing the intention that it should be burned on the altar on the following day, whether this intention was phrased as: Consumed on the altar, or: Burned on the altar, the offering is piggul.
ΧΦ΄Χ Χ ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ, ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ²ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ΄Χͺ β ΧΦ·Χ£ ΧΦ·Χ§Φ°ΧΦΈΧ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ΄Χͺ, ΧΦΌΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ²ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦΉΧ¨Φ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦ·Χ’.
Alternatively, the doubled expression serves to teach that just as one renders the offering piggul only when oneβs intention involves the consumption of an olive-bulk, as this is the minimal measure for an act to be considered eating, so too, one renders the offering piggul only when oneβs intention involves the burning of an olive-bulk. But actually, the expression for consumption found in the verse indicates consuming it in the usual manner, and therefore an offering is rendered unfit only if oneβs improper intention involved consuming an item that is usually consumed, or burning an item that is usually burned.
ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ±ΧΦ΄ΧΧ’ΦΆΧΦΆΧ¨, ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ, ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧͺΦΌΧΦΉΧ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ Χ΄ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ΅ΧΦΈΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΦΈΧΦΉΧΧ΄, ΧΦ΄Χ Χ ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ Χ΄ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ΅ΧΦΈΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ΅ΧΦΈΧΦ΅ΧΧ΄, ΧΦ·ΧΧ Χ΄ΧΦ΅ΧΦΈΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΦΈΧΦ΅ΧΧ΄? Χ©ΦΈΧΧΦ°Χ’Φ·ΧͺΦ°ΦΌ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ Φ·ΦΌΧΦΌ ΧͺΦ·ΦΌΧ¨Φ°ΧͺΦ΅ΦΌΧ.
And what would Rabbi Eliezer respond? He would say that if that were so, that the verse intends to teach only that halakha, let the Merciful One write either: If heβakhol heβakhol, or: If yeβakhel yeβakhel, repeating the same form of the word twice. What is the reason that the verse states βheβakhol yeβakhel,β employing both repetition and variation? Learn from this formulation two halakhot. One, as the Rabbis explain, is that the offering is rendered unfit whether one uses an expression of consumption or an expression of burning, provided that oneβs intention is with regard to at least an olive-bulk. The second is that the offering is rendered unfit if one intends to burn on the altar an item that is usually consumed by a person, or to consume an item that is usually burned on the altar.
ΧΦ²ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΦ·Χ‘Φ΄ΦΌΧ: ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ·Χ’Φ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ±ΧΦ΄ΧΧ’ΦΆΧΦΆΧ¨ ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ΄Χ ΧΧΦΌΧ, ΧΦΈΦΌΧ¨Φ΅Χͺ Χ ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ·ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΧ? ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ ΧͺΦ΅ΦΌΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ΄Χ Χ ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ, ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧͺΦ°ΦΌ ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧͺΦ°ΦΌ ΧΦ΄Χ©Φ°ΦΌΧΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ: ΧΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ±ΧΦ΄ΧΧ’ΦΆΧΦΆΧ¨ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ΅ΧΧ Χ’ΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΧ©Χ ΧΦΈΦΌΧ¨Φ΅Χͺ!
Rabbi Zeira said to Rav Asi: But if the reasoning of Rabbi Eliezer is due to that derivation, and he understands that the verse equates the improper intent to consume an item that is usually consumed with the improper intent to consume an item that is usually burned, then let one also be liable to receive karet for consuming an offering brought with intention to consume, after its designated time, the part of the offering that is burned, or for intention to burn, after its designated time, an item that is usually consumed. Why does Rabbi Eliezer state only that the offering is rendered unfit? And if you would say that indeed, Rabbi Eliezer does hold that one who consumes such an offering is liable to receive karet, that is difficult: But arenβt you the one who said in the name of Rabbi YoαΈ₯anan: Rabbi Eliezer concedes that doing so is not punishable by karet?
ΧΦ²ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ: ΧͺΦ·ΦΌΧ ΦΈΦΌΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ±ΧΦ΄ΧΧ’ΦΆΧΦΆΧ¨, ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: Χ€Φ°ΦΌΧ‘ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦΉΧ¨ΦΈΧΦ°ΧΧͺΦΈΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: Χ€Φ°ΦΌΧ‘ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ Φ·Χ.
Rav Asi said to him: It is a dispute between tannaβim as to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer. There is one who says that Rabbi Eliezer deems the offering to be unfit by Torah law and one is liable to receive karet. It was in accordance with this opinion that Rabbi YoαΈ₯anan cited the proof from the verse. And there is one who says that Rabbi Eliezer deems the offering to be unfit by rabbinic law, and it was in accordance with this opinion that Rabbi YoαΈ₯anan said that according to Rabbi Eliezer there is no punishment of karet for this transgression.
ΧΦ°ΦΌΧͺΦ·Χ Φ°ΧΦΈΧ: ΧΦ·Χ©ΦΌΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦΆΦΌΧΦ·Χ ΧΦ΄Χ©Φ°ΧΧͺΦΌΧΦΉΧͺ ΧΦ΄ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧΦΉ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ¨, ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ§Φ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¨ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ©ΦΈΧΧ¨ΧΦΉ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ¨, ΧΦΆΧΦ±ΧΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΦ΅ΧΧΧΦΌΧ¨ΦΈΧΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ¨ β ΧΦΈΦΌΧ©Φ΅ΧΧ¨, ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ±ΧΦ΄ΧΧ’ΦΆΧΦΆΧ¨ Χ€ΦΌΧΦΉΧ‘Φ΅Χ. ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ Φ΄ΦΌΧΧΦ· ΧΦ΄ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧΦΉ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ¨ β Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ Χ€ΦΌΧΦΉΧ‘Φ΅Χ. ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦΆΧΦ°Χ’ΦΈΧΦΈΧ¨: ΧΦ·Χ£ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧΦΉ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ±ΧΦ΄ΧΧ’ΦΆΧΦΆΧ¨ Χ€ΦΌΧΦΉΧ‘Φ΅Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°Χ©Φ΄ΧΧΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ.
As it is taught in a baraita: In the case of one who slaughters the offering with the intention to drink some of its blood, which is designated to be presented on the altar, on the next day, or to burn some of its meat, which is meant to be eaten, on the next day, or to eat some of its sacrificial portions, which are designated to be burned on the altar, on the next day, the offering is fit, as his intention is either to eat an item that is usually sacrificed on the altar, or to burn on the altar an item that is usually eaten. But Rabbi Eliezer deems the offering unfit. If one slaughters the offering with the intention to leave some of its blood for the next day, but not to present it or consume it, Rabbi Yehuda deems the offering unfit. Rabbi Elazar said: Even in this case Rabbi Eliezer deems the offering unfit, and the Rabbis deem it fit.
Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·ΧΧ? ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ Φ·Χ β ΧΦ·Χ©Φ°ΧΧͺΦΈΦΌΧ, ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧͺΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ§ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ©Φ΅ΦΌΧΧ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°Χ©ΧΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ²ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°Χ©Φ°ΧΧ¨Φ΄Χ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ Φ·Χ, ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΉΧ ΧΧΦΌΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ?
The Gemara clarifies: In accordance with whose opinion is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda that the offering is unfit even if he intends only to leave the blood for the next day, but not present it or consume it? If we say it is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, now consider: And if there, where the priest expresses his intention using the language of consumption, the Rabbis nevertheless deem the offering fit, despite the fact that if he had used this expression with regard to the portion burned on the altar, the offering would be piggul, is it not all the more so the case that here, when he intends only to leave the blood until the next day, the offering should be fit?
ΧΦΆΧΦΈΦΌΧ, ΧΦ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ±ΧΦ΄ΧΧ’ΦΆΧΦΆΧ¨, ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦΆΧΦ°Χ’ΦΈΧΦΈΧ¨: ΧΦ·Χ£ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦΉ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ±ΧΦ΄ΧΧ’ΦΆΧΦΆΧ¨ Χ€ΦΌΧΦΉΧ‘Φ΅Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°Χ©Φ΄ΧΧΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ. Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦΆΧΦ°Χ’ΦΈΧΦΈΧ¨ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΧ ΧΦΌ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ!
Rather, it must be that Rabbi Yehudaβs statement is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer. And yet the baraita continues: Rabbi Elazar said: Even in this case Rabbi Eliezer deems the offering unfit, and the Rabbis deem it fit. If Rabbi Yehudaβs statement is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, then the explanation of Rabbi Elazar of Rabbi Eliezerβs opinion is identical to that of Rabbi Yehuda, and there does not appear to be any disagreement between the two.
ΧΦΆΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦΈΧΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧ¨Φ΅Χͺ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΧ Φ·ΧΦ°ΧΧΧΦΌ, ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ (ΧΦ°ΦΌΧͺΦ·Χ ΦΈΦΌΧ Χ§Φ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ) Χ‘ΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ Φ΄ΦΌΧΧΦ· β Χ€Φ°ΦΌΧ‘ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ’ΦΈΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧΦ° ΧΦΈΦΌΧ¨Φ΅Χͺ Χ ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ·ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΧ, ΧΦ·ΧΦ²ΧͺΦΈΧ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦΆΧΦ°Χ’ΦΈΧΦΈΧ¨ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦ·Χ¨: ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ Χ€ΦΈΦΌΧ‘ΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΌΧΦΉ ΧΦΈΦΌΧ¨Φ΅Χͺ!
Rather, is it not so that the difference between Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Yehuda is with regard to liability for karet? The difference lies in that Rabbi Yehuda holds that if oneβs intention is to leave the blood for the next day, then according to Rabbi Eliezer the offering is only rendered unfit, whereas in those cases listed in the mishna, such as where oneβs intention is to eat the sacrificial portions on the next day, he would be liable to receive karet as well. And Rabbi Elazar comes to say that according to Rabbi Eliezer, both in this case and in that case, the offering is unfit but there is no liability to receive karet for it.
ΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ Χ’ΦΈΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧ¨Φ΅Χͺ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΈΦΌΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ Χ©ΦΈΧΧΦΉΧ©Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ§ΦΆΧͺ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ¨: ΧͺΦ·ΦΌΧ ΦΈΦΌΧ Χ§Φ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ Χ‘ΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧΦ° Χ€Φ°ΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ΄Χ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ Φ΄ΦΌΧΧΦ· β ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΅Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΉΦΌΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧ©Φ΅ΧΧ¨,
The Gemara rejects this suggestion: No, it may be that everyone agrees that according to Rabbi Eliezer in a case where oneβs intention is to eat, after its designated time, an item that is usually burned, or to burn an item that is usually eaten, there is no liability to receive karet. And here there are three disputes with regard to the matter. The first tanna holds that the Rabbis and Rabbi Eliezer disagree only in those cases, with regard to whether the offering is rendered unfit due to the intention to eat an item that is usually burned or to burn an item that is usually eaten. But with regard to leaving of its blood until the next day, everyone agrees that the offering is fit.
Follow
