Wenn er eine Absicht hatte, die dazu führt, dass etwas wegen Schweinchens [im Hinblick auf den Rest des Getreideangebots] während des [Brennens der] Handvoll und nicht während des [Brennens des] Weihrauchs oder während des [Brennens] abgelehnt wird vom Weihrauch und nicht während des Weihrauchs: Rabbi Meir sagt: es wird wegen Schweinchens abgelehnt und er haftet für die Ausrottung dafür; Aber die Weisen sagen: Es gibt keine Ausrottung, es sei denn, er hatte eine Absicht, die dazu führt, dass etwas aufgrund von Schweinchen während des Dienstes an der gesamten Sache, die es erlaubt, abgelehnt wird. Die Weisen stimmen mit Rabbi Meir in Bezug auf einen Sünder überein's Getreideangebot oder ein Getreideangebot der Eifersucht, dass, wenn er eine Absicht hatte, die etwas ablehnt, das aufgrund von Schweinchen während des [Brennens der] Handvoll abgelehnt wurde, [der Rest] aufgrund von Schweinchen abgelehnt wird und er für die Ausrottung dafür haftet, denn die Handvoll ist das Ganze, was dazu führt, dass es erlaubt wird. Wenn er eines der Lämmer schlachtete, die am nächsten Tag die beiden Brote essen wollten, oder wenn er eines der Weihrauchgerichte verbrannte, die am nächsten Tag die beiden Reihen [des Schaubrotes] essen wollten: Rabbi Meir sagt: Es wird abgelehnt wegen Schweinchen und er haftet für die Ausrottung dafür; Aber die Weisen sagen: Es wird nicht aufgrund von Schweinchen abgelehnt, es sei denn, er hatte die Absicht, etwas, das aufgrund von Schweinchen abgelehnt wurde, während des Dienstes an der gesamten Sache, die es erlaubt, abzulehnen. Wenn er eines der Lämmer geschlachtet hat, die am nächsten Tag einen Teil davon essen wollen, wird dieses [Lamm] wegen Schweinchen abgelehnt, aber das andere [Lamm] ist gültig. Wenn er am nächsten Tag das andere [Lamm] essen wollte, sind beide gültig.
Bartenura on Mishnah Menachot
פיגל בקומץ – in the burning on the altar of the handful of meal-offering, he thought about the eating the residue/remnants not at their appropriate time.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Menachot
If he had an intention which makes piggul [with regard to the remainder of the minhah] 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: Rabbi Meir says: it is piggul and he is liable for karet for it; But the sages say: there is no karet unless he had an intention that makes piggul during the service of the whole of the mattir. As we have explained on several occasions, there are two elements that allow the remainder of the minhah offering to be eaten: the removal of the fistful and its burning on the altar and the burning of the frankincense. These are the two “mattirs” for the remainder. According to Rabbi Meir, if while burning either the handful or the frankincense he has the intention of eating the remainder after its time has expired, the remainder is piggul and one who eats it is liable for karet. The other sages disagree and say that in order for something to be piggul and for one to be liable for karet for eating it, he has to have a disqualifying intention while all of the mattirs are being burned, in this case both the handful and the frankincense.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Menachot
עד שיפגל בכל המתיר – for the burning on the altar of one of them is half of what makes an object permitted for enjoyment, for there is also the burning on the altar of its partner, for the residue of the meal-offering is not permitted for consumption by a Kohen until he burns on the altar the handful of the meal-offering and the frankincense.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Menachot
The sages agree with Rabbi Meir with regard to a sinner’s minhah or a minhah of jealousy, that if he had an intention which makes piggul during the [burning of the] handful, [the remainder] is piggul and he is liable for karet for it, since the handful is the entire mattir. There is no frankincense offered with the sinner’s minhah or the minhah of jealousy (that brought by the Sotah). Therefore, the sages agree that if he has a disqualifying intention when burning the handful, the remainder is piggul, because the handful is the only mattir.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Menachot
במנחת חוטא ובמנחת קנאות – which do not have frankincense, and the handful of meal-offering alone is what is permitted [for consumption].
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Menachot
If he slaughtered one of the lambs intending to eat the two loaves the next day, or if he burned one of the dishes of frankincense intending to eat the two rows [of the showbread] on the next day: Rabbi Meir says: it is piggul and he is liable for karet for it; But the sages say: it is not piggul, unless he had an intention that makes piggul during the service of the whole of the mattir. Again the mishnah makes reference to the two lambs slaughtered on Shavuot and the two bowls of frankincense which allow the showbread to be eaten. The lambs are the “mattir” for the bread that is brought with them on Shavuot and the frankincense is the “mattir” for the showbread. Rabbi Meir holds that if the priest intends to eat the Shavuot bread after its time while sacrificing even one of the two lambs or intends to eat the showbread after its time while burning even one of the two bowls of frankincense, the bread is piggul and one who eats it is liable for karet. The other sages disagree because the bread can’t be piggul unless all of the mattirs (both lambs or both bowls) are offered with a disqualifying intention.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Menachot
שחט אחד מן הכבשים – [he slaughtered one] of the lambs of Atzeret/Shavuot. But the bread is not permitted other than after both of them (i.e., the lambs) have been ritually slaughtered.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Menachot
If he slaughtered one of the lambs intending to eat part of it the next day, that [lamb] is piggul but the other [lamb] is valid. Having a disqualifying intention with regard to one of the lambs brought on Shavuot does not affect the status of the other lamb. One lamb is not a “mattir” for the other.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Menachot
הקטיר אחד מן הבזיכין – for behold it does not permit the bread other than through the burning of both of them on the altar.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Menachot
If he intended to eat the other [lamb] the next day, both are valid. If while slaughtering one of the lambs one has a disqualifying intention with regard to the other lamb, neither lamb is affected. He did not have the wrong intention with regard to the lamb he was actually sacrificing, so it is not affected. And while he did have a wrong intention with regard to the other lamb, he wasn’t actually slaughtering the other lamb when he had that intention.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Menachot
ר' מאיר אומר פגול – for he holds that half of what is permitted also makes improper intention. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Meir.
