פירוש על מנחות 2:4

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.