פירוש על מנחות 2:13

הקומץ את המנחה. מודה ר' יוסי שהוא פגול (Rabbi Yossi’s statement is equivalent to what is found in Tractate Menahot, Chapter 1, Mishnah 3) – because it is necessary to teach the ending clause: “to burn its frankincense on the morrow, Rabbi Yossi states that it is invalid, but there is no extirpation,” you might have thought that the reason of Rabbi Yossi is because that he holds that he does not make a sacrifice rejectable through improper mental disposal (see Leviticus 19:7) with the half which fits the sacrifices for eating, that is to say, that if he thought to perform the act of Divine service on the morrow that the act of Divine service of half permits it, he did not have an inappropriate intention, and this frankincense is one-half makes the object permissible for enjoyment, for whether it is the burning on the altar of the handful of meal-offering and the frankincense which permit the residue, but even the first clause of the Mishnah, when he thought with the burning on the altar of the handful of meal-offering is an act of Divine service which is half permissible, and Rabbi Yossi disputes, this comes to teach us that in this he agrees. For the reason is not because of this, but rather because that which permits does not invalidate by inappropriate intention that which is permitted.

Introduction In this mishnah, Rabbi Yose and the sages disagree concerning a case where a priest offered a minhah and had a disqualifying intention with regard to the accompanying frankincense.

If he took out the handful [intending] to eat the remainder or to burn the handful the next day, in this case Rabbi Yose agrees that the offering is piggul and he is obligated for karet. This is the same case that was mentioned in mishnah three of the previous chapter. Since he had a disqualifying intention with regard to either eating the remainder of the minhah or burning the handful that he removes in order to burn on the altar, everyone agrees that the offering is piggul (forbidden) and the penalty for eating it is karet (extirpation). This section is mentioned here to note that in this case Rabbi Yose agrees, but he will disagree below about a similar case.

אינה מן המנחה – it is not from the species of the meal-offering like the taking of a fistful of meal-offering, and even though it is from those that permit the meal-offering. For Rabbi Yossi holds that what makes an object permitted for eating cannot unfit another act of the same nature (i.e., if the priest on offering a handful of flour had in mind an unlawful application of the frankincense, the latter is not hereby made rejectable – see Talmud Menahot 13b, for the act of Divine service with that which is permitted which is the taking of a handful of the meal-offering have any effect to invalidate by inappropriate intention something else that is permitted which is the frankincense, which is a thought on the frankincense while performing the act of taking the handful of meal-offering. But the Rabbis say to him: just as we state , that what makes an object permitted for eating cannot unit an other act of the same nature, where he did not establish with one of them, as for example, the two lambs for Atzeret/Shavuot, where both of them permit the bread, but if he ritually slaughtered one of them in order to eat its companion on the morrow, both of them are kosher, but where he established with one of them, such as the handful of the meal-offering and the frankincense in one utensil, his thought-process [to eat one of them at a different time] of one act which fits the sacrifice for eating makes unfit by inappropriate intention another act of the same nature. And the Halakha is according to the Sages.

[If he intended] to burn its frankincense the next day: Rabbi Yose says: it is invalid but he is not liable for karet. But the sages say: it is piggul and he is liable for karet. The debate concerns a case where the priest’s disqualifying intention was in connection with burning the frankincense that accompanies the minhah. Rabbi Yose holds that the minhah is merely invalid it is not piggul and therefore one who eats it is not liable for karet. The sages disagree and hold that this minhah is piggul and one who eats it is liable for karet, just as he would be if the disqualifying intention was with regard to eating the remainder or burning the fistful (section one).

They said to him: how does this differ from an animal-offering? He said to them: with the animal-offering the blood, the flesh and the sacrificial portions are all one; but the frankincense is not part of the minhah. In this section the rabbis argue out their position. As we have seen, the fistful of the minhah is parallel to the blood of an animal offering and the frankincense is parallel to the innards of the animal that are burned on the altar (the emurim). If one sacrifices the animal with the intention of burning the innards on the following day, the sacrifice is piggul and one who eats it is liable for karet. So too, one who sacrifices the minhah with the intention of burning the innards on the following day, the minhah is piggul and one who eats it is liable for karet. Rabbi Yose responds by pointing out the difference between the parts of the animal sacrifice and the components of the minhah. The three parts of the animal, the flesh, the blood and the innards, are all from the same source. When it comes to the minhah, the fistful and the remains are from the same source, but the frankincense is not. Therefore, with regard to disqualifying intentions, the minhah is treated differently from the frankincense.

שחט שני כבשים – of Atzeret/Shavuot, as it is written regarding them (Leviticus 23:19): “[You shall also offer one as a he-goat as a purification offering] and two yearling lambs as a sacrifice of well-being,” and those yearling lambs permit and sanctify the two loaves, for the bread is not holy other than with the slaughtering of the two yearling lambs, since they were needed with it in waving. But the rest of the lambs of Atzeret/Shavuot, are of the Musaf [sacrifice].

Introduction In this mishnah Rabbi Yose and the sages continue to debate cases where a priest has a disqualifying intention concerning one of the components of a sacrifice. The question is: does this cause the entire sacrifice to become piggul or just the part over which he had a disqualifying intention.

לאכול אחת מן החלות למחר – for the time for the eating of the loaves is none other than during that day and night, like the law of the meal-offering, where it states concerning it (Leviticus 7:7): “The reparation offering/כחטאת is like the purification offering/כאשם. [The same rule applies to both: it shall belong to the priest who makes expiation thereby].”

If he slaughtered the two lambs [intending] to eat one of the [two] loaves the next day, or if he burned the two dishes [of the frankincense intending] to eat one of the [two] rows of the showbread the next day: Rabbi Yose says: that loaf or that row about which he expressed the intention is piggul and he is liable for karet for it, while the other is invalid but he is not liable for karet for it. But the sages say, both are piggul and he is liable for karet for both of them. On Shavuot there are two lambs offered on behalf of the community, and with them are brought two loaves of bread. When the lambs are sacrificed the loaves become sanctified (see Leviticus 23:17, 19-20). In the case here, when sacrificing the lamb the priest has the intention to eat one of the two loaves after the proper time. On top of the showbread the priest puts two dishes of frankincense. When he burns this frankincense on Shabbat, the showbread can be eaten that day and the following night. In the case here, the priest intends to eat one of the two rows of the showbread the following day, after its time has expired. The debate concerning these two circumstances is similar to the debate in yesterday’s mishnah. According to Rabbi Yose, a disqualifying intention with regard to one of the component parts does not cause the entire sacrifice to become piggul. Thus the loaf which he intended to eat the next day is piggul and one who eats it is liable for karet. The other loaf is invalid, but it is not piggul. The same is true with regard to the two rows of bread; only the one which he intended to eat the next day is piggul. The rabbis are consistent with their position in the previous mishnah. If the priest intends to eat one part of the sacrifice after its time has expired, then the whole sacrifice is piggul and one who eats any part of it is liable for karet.

הקטיר שני בזיכים – for two piles of wood on the altar in the Temple of the shewbread , as it is written (Leviticus 24:6): “Place them on the pure table before the LORD in two rows, six to a row,” there was on each pile of wood one spoon which has in it frankincense, as it is written (Leviticus 24:7): “With each row you shall place pure frankincense, [which is to be the a token offering for the bread, as a gift to the LORD].” And these two spoons which in them is placed the frankincense are called the two censers/vessels. And the frankincense is burned as it is written (Leviticus 24:7): “which is to be token offering for the bread, And the bread is consumed, and the time for its consumption is only all of that week that they remove it from the table. But if at the time when the two censers of frankincense are offered, he thought of one of the other piles of wood on the altar of bread to eat it on the morrow, that is to say, not at its appropriate time.

If one of the [two] loaves or one of the [two] rows [of the showbread] became unclean: Rabbi Judah says: both must be taken out to the place of burning, for the offering of the congregation may not be divided. But the sages say, the unclean [is treated] as unclean, but the clean may be eaten. Since the previous section dealt with the two loaves and the two rows of showbread, the mishnah relates another law concerning these sacrifices. If one of the two things (either loaves or rows) becomes impure and thus cannot be eaten, Rabbi Judah says they both must be burned. A sacrifice of the congregation cannot be divided in two, and therefore neither can be eaten. The rabbis say that only the part that was actually impure cannot be eaten. The other part is still permitted.

אותה חלה – of the two loaves of Atzeret/Shavuot.

ואותו הסדר – of the shewbread.

זה וזה פגול – for all of them are considered as one body.

נטמאת אחת מן החלות – and specifically when one of the two loaves are defiled before the sprinkling of the blood of the lambs, or one from the rows prior to the burning of [on the altar] of the dishes/censers, is what Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis disagree upon. But if it was defiled after the sprinkling of the blood or after the burning of the dishes/censers, everyone agrees that what is defiled remains in its defiled state and that which is pure can be eaten.

שאין קרבן צבור חלוק – in the Gemara (Tractate Menahot 15a) it reaches a definite conclusion that Rabbi Yehuda stated that this matter is not from a Scriptural verse nor from logic, but rather it is an accepted teaching in the mouth of Rabbi Yehuda, and such it was received from his Rabbis/teachers that an offering of the congregation may not be divided, and if half of it was disqualified, all of it is disqualified.

התודה מפגלת את הלחם – that the bread (i.e., loaves) comes for the thanksgiving offering and it is of secondary import to it, but the thanksgiving offering is not of secondary import to the bead. And similarly, the two lambs of Atzeret/Shavuot, the two loaves that come with them are of secondary import to the lambs but the lambs are not of secondary import to the bread, but the principal [item(s)] make the sacrifice rejectable through improper mental disposal but that of secondary import do not make the sacrifice rejectable through improper mental disposal. But if it was necessary for the Tanna/teacher to teach this law regarding the thanksgiving offering but it was not necessary [to teach this law with regard] to the lams of Atzeret/Shavuot, I would think that it is there that the when the bread makes the sacrifice rejectable through improper mental disposal, the thanksgiving-offering does not make the sacrifice rejectable through improper mental disposal because it was not dependent upon the waving with the loaves, but the lambs [for Atzeret/Shavuot] which were dependent upon the waving with the loaves, as it is written (Leviticus 23:20): “The priest shall elevate these – the two lambs- together with the bread [of first fruits as an elevation offering before the LORD],”I would say that the bread makes the sacrifice rejectable through improper mental disposal to also make the lambs rejectable through improper mental disposal. But if the Tanna/teacher taught [only] the lambs, I would state there that when the lambs make the sacrifice rejectable through improper mental disposal, it makes the bread rejectable through improper mental disposal because they were dependent upon each other in waving, but the thanksgiving-offering which were not dependent, I would state that when the thanksgiving offering makes the sacrifice rejectable through improper mental disposal, it does not make the loaves rejectable through improper mental disposal, hence, they are both necessary.

Introduction This mishnah continues to deal with cases where a priest has a disqualifying intention with regard to one part of a multi-part sacrifice and whether this renders the entire sacrifice piggul and the one who eats it liable for karet.

The todah can render the bread piggul but the bread does not render the todah piggul. How so? If he slaughtered the todah intending to eat part of it on the next day, both it and the bread are piggul; if he intended to eat part of the bread the next day, the bread is piggul but the todah is not piggul. When one brings a todah (thanksgiving) offering, he brings with it unleavened cakes of bread (see Leviticus 7:12). If the priest intends to eat the todah after its time has expired, the bread is also rendered piggul. This is because the todah is the main part and the loaves are ancillary to it. However, if he intends to eat the loaves after their time has expired, then the loaves alone are piggul and the todah is not. The rule is that the main part can render that which is ancillary to it piggul, but the ancillary part cannot render the main part of the sacrifice piggul.

The lambs can render the bread piggul but the bread cannot render the lambs piggul. How so? If he slaughtered the lambs intending to eat part of them the next day, both they and the bread are piggul; if he intended to eat part of the bread the next day, the bread is piggul but the lambs are not. This is the same rule as above but applied to the lambs that are sacrificed on Shavuot and the loaves that accompany them (see yesterday’s mishnah). The lambs are the main part and the bread is ancillary.

הזבח מפגל את הנכסים – and a person who drinks from them is punished with extirpation.

Introduction This mishnah contains another example of the same rule found in yesterday’s mishnah.

משקדשו בכלי – after they placed them in the sacred vessels, for the vessel sanctifies them with an eternal holiness, and furthermore they don’t have any redemption.

The animal-offering can render the libations piggul after they have been sanctified in the vessel, the words of Rabbi Meir. When one offers an animal sacrifice, he must bring with it libations. This includes a minhah and a wine-libation (see Numbers 15). Rabbi Meir holds that if the priest has a disqualifying intention with regard to the animal offering, the libations become piggul as well, as long as they have already been sanctified by being put into a ministering vessel. The sages’ opinion with regard to this issue is not found in this mishnah. In Zevahim 4:3 we learn that the sages hold that the libations that accompany an animal offering cannot ever become piggul. Therefore, even if the priest has a disqualifying intention with regard to the animal, the libations can still be eaten.

דברי ר' מאיר – for Rabbi Meir holds that the libations make the sacrifice rejectable, because the blood of the offering is what makes it appropriate and permits them for the altar. And since they have something that makes it permitted, it becomes rejectable through an intention/thought outside of its proper time. But the Sages dispute him in the Tractate Zevakhim in the chapter “The School of Shammai” (Chapter 4, Mishnah 3 – Talmud Zevakhim) [44a] and they (i.e., the Sages] state that the libations do not have that which makes them permissible [for consumption], therefore they do not become rejectable. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Meir.

But the libations cannot render the animal-offering piggul. Thus, if he slaughtered an animal-offering intending to eat part of it on the next day, both it and the libations are piggul; if he intended to offer the libations the next day, the libations are piggul but the animal-offering is not. Since the libations are ancillary to the animal-offering, even if the priest has a disqualifying intention with regard to them, the animal-offering is not piggul.

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.

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.

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.

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.

במנחת חוטא ובמנחת קנאות – which do not have frankincense, and the handful of meal-offering alone is what is permitted [for consumption].

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.

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.

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.

הקטיר אחד מן הבזיכין – for behold it does not permit the bread other than through the burning of both of them on the altar.

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.

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.