S'il avait une intention qui fait rejeter quelque chose à cause du piggul [en ce qui concerne le reste de l'offrande de céréales] pendant [la combustion de la] poignée et non pendant [la combustion de] l'encens, ou pendant la [combustion de l'encens et non pendant [la combustion de] l'encens: Rabbi Meir dit: il est rejeté à cause du piggul et il est passible de disparition pour cela; Mais les sages disent: il n'y a pas d'extirpation à moins qu'il n'ait eu une intention qui fait rejeter quelque chose à cause de piggul pendant le service de l'ensemble de la chose qui fait qu'il soit permis. Les sages sont d'accord avec le rabbin Meir concernant un pécheur's offrande de grain ou offrande de grain de jalousie, que s'il avait une intention qui rend quelque chose rejeté en raison de piggul pendant [l'incendie de la] poignée, [le reste] est rejeté en raison de piggul et il est responsable de l'extirpation pour cela, puisque la poignée est la chose entière qui fait qu'elle soit autorisée. S'il a abattu l'un des agneaux avec l'intention de manger les deux pains le lendemain, ou s'il a brûlé l'un des plats d'encens avec l'intention de manger les deux rangées [de pains de proposition] le lendemain: Rabbi Meir dit: il est rejeté en raison de piggul et il est responsable de sa disparition; Mais les sages disent: il n'est pas rejeté à cause de piggul, à moins qu'il n'ait une intention qui rend quelque chose rejeté à cause de piggul pendant le service de l'ensemble de la chose qui la fait être autorisée. S'il a abattu l'un des agneaux avec l'intention d'en manger une partie le lendemain, cet [agneau] est rejeté à cause de piggul, mais l'autre [agneau] est valide. S'il avait l'intention de manger l'autre [agneau] le lendemain, les deux sont valides.
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.
