Menachot — Daf 12a

פיגול וחייבין עליו כרת

זה הכלל כל הקומץ [או] נותן בכלי המוליך המקטיר לאכול דבר שדרכו לאכול ולהקטיר דבר שדרכו להקטיר חוץ למקומו פסול ואין בו כרת חוץ לזמנו פיגול וחייבין עליו כרת ובלבד שיקריב המתיר כמצותו

כיצד קרב המתיר כמצותו קמץ בשתיקה נתן בכלי והוליך והקטיר חוץ לזמנו או שקמץ חוץ לזמנו נתן בכלי והוליך והקטיר בשתיקה או שקמץ ונתן בכלי והוליך והקטיר חוץ לזמנו זהו שקרב המתיר כמצותו

כיצד לא קרב המתיר כמצותו קמץ חוץ למקומו נתן בכלי והוליך והקטיר חוץ לזמנו או שקמץ חוץ לזמנו נתן בכלי והוליך והקטיר חוץ למקומו או שקמץ נתן בכלי והוליך והקטיר חוץ למקומו זהו שלא קרב המתיר כמצותו

מנחת חוטא ומנחת קנאות שקמצן שלא לשמן נתן בכלי והוליך והקטיר חוץ לזמנו או שקמץ חוץ לזמנו נתן בכלי והוליך והקטיר שלא לשמן או שקמץ ונתן בכלי והוליך והקטיר שלא לשמן זהו שלא קרב המתיר כמצותו

לאכול כזית בחוץ כזית למחר כזית למחר כזית בחוץ כחצי זית בחוץ כחצי זית למחר כחצי זית למחר כחצי זית בחוץ פסול ואין בו כרת

א"ר יהודה זה הכלל אם מחשבת הזמן קדמה למחשבת המקום פיגול וחייבין עליו כרת אם מחשבת המקום קדמה למחשבת הזמן פסול ואין בו כרת וחכמי' אומרים זה וזה פסול ואין בו כרת:

גמ׳ איבעיא להו לדברי האומר שירים שחסרו בין קמיצה להקטרה מקטיר קומץ עליהן וקיימא לן דאותן שירים אסורים באכילה מהו דתיהני להו הקטרה למיקבעינהו בפיגול

ולפקינהו מידי מעילה

אמר רב הונא אפילו לר"ע דאמר זריקה מועלת ליוצא ה"מ יוצא

דאיתיה בעיניה ופסול מחמת דבר אחר הוא אבל חסרון דפסולא דגופיה הוא לא מהני ליה הקטרה

אמר ליה רבא אדרבה אפי' לר"א דאמר אין זריקה מועלת ליוצא ה"מ יוצא דליתיה בפנים אבל חסרון דאיתיה בפנים מהניא ליה הקטרה

אמר רבא מנא אמינא לה דתנן הקומץ את המנחה לאכול שיריה בחוץ או כזית משיריה בחוץ ותני רבי חייא הקומץ את המנחה ולא תני או כזית

מ"ט לא תני או כזית לאו כגון שחסרו שירים וקמו להו אכזית וכיון דבמתן כלי בהילוך ובהקטרה לא מתני ליה

THE OFFERING IS PIGGUL,1 AND THE PENALTY OF KARETH IS INCURRED. THIS IS THE GENERAL RULE: IF ONE TOOK THE HANDFUL OR PUT IT INTO THE VESSEL OR BROUGHT IT NIGH OR BURNT IT, [INTENDING] TO EAT A THING THAT IS USUAL TO EAT OR TO BURN A THING THAT IS USUAL TO BURN, OUTSIDE ITS PROPER PLACE, THE OFFERING IS INVALID BUT THE PENALTY OF KARETH IS NOT INCURRED; BUT IF [HE INTENDED THE LIKE] OUTSIDE ITS PROPER TIME, THE OFFERING IS PIGGUL AND THE PENALTY OF KARETH IS INCURRED; PROVIDED THAT THE MATTIR2 WAS OFFERED ACCORDING TO ITS PRESCRIBED RITE.3 HOW IS THE MATTIR OFFERED ACCORDING TO ITS PRESCRIBED RITE? IF HE TOOK OUT THE HANDFUL IN SILENCE, BUT PUT IT INTO THE VESSEL AND BROUGHT IT NIGH AND BURNT IT [INTENDING AT EACH SERVICE TO EAT THE REMAINDER] OUTSIDE ITS PROPER TIME; OR IF HE TOOK OUT THE HANDFUL [INTENDING TO EAT THE REMAINDER] OUTSIDE ITS PROPER TIME, BUT PUT IT INTO THE VESSEL AND BROUGHT IT NIGH AND BURNT IT IN SILENCE; OR IF HE TOOK OUT THE HANDFUL AND PUT IT INTO THE VESSEL AND BROUGHT IT NIGH AND BURNT IT [INTENDING AT EACH SERVICE TO EAT THE REMAINDER] OUTSIDE ITS PROPER TIME — SUCH IS A CASE WHERE THE MATTIR IS OFFERED ACCORDING TO ITS PRESCRIBED RITE.4 HOW IS THE MATTIR OFFERED NOT ACCORDING TO ITS PRESCRIBED RITE? IF HE TOOK OUT THE HANDFUL [INTENDING TO EAT THE REMAINDER] OUTSIDE ITS PROPER PLACE, AND PUT IT INTO THE VESSEL AND BROUGHT IT NIGH AND BURNT IT [INTENDING AT EACH SERVICE TO EAT THE REMAINDER] OUTSIDE ITS PROPER TIME; OR IF HE TOOK OUT THE HANDFUL [INTENDING TO EAT THE REMAINDER] OUTSIDE ITS PROPER TIME, AND HE PUT IT INTO THE VESSEL AND BROUGHT IT NIGH AND BURNT IT [INTENDING AT EACH SERVICE TO EAT THE REMAINDER] OUTSIDE ITS PROPER PLACE; OR IF HE TOOK OUT THE HANDFUL AND PUT IT INTO THE VESSEL AND BROUGHT IT NIGH AND BURNT IT [INTENDING AT THESE SERVICES TO EAT THE REMAINDER] OUTSIDE ITS PROPER PLACE5 — (SUCH IS A CASE WHERE THE MATTIR IS OFFERED NOT ACCORDING TO ITS RITE).6 OR IF IT WAS A SINNER'S MEAL-OFFERING7 OR A MEAL-OFFERING OF JEALOUSY.7 AND HE TOOK THE HANDFUL THEREFROM UNDER ANY NAME OTHER THAN ITS OWN, AND PUT IT INTO THE VESSEL AND BROUGHT IT NIGH AND BURNT IT [INTENDING AT EACH SERVICE TO EAT THE REMAINDER] OUTSIDE ITS PROPER TIME; OR IF HE TOOK OUT THE HANDFUL [INTENDING TO EAT THE REMAINDER] OUTSIDE ITS PROPER TIME, AND PUT IT INTO THE VESSEL AND BROUGHT IT NIGH AND BURNT IT UNDER ANY NAME OTHER THAN ITS OWN; OR IF HE TOOK OUT THE HANDFUL AND PUT IT INTO THE VESSEL AND BROUGHT IT NIGH AND BURNT IT UNDER ANY NAME OTHER THAN ITS OWN — SUCH IS A CASE WHERE THE MATTIR IS OFFERED NOT ACCORDING TO ITS PRESCRIBED RITE. [IF HE INTENDED]8 TO EAT AN OLIVE'S BULK OF THE REMAINDER OUTSIDE ITS PROPER PLACE AND ANOTHER OLIVE'S BULK THEREOF ON THE MORROW, OR TO EAT AN OLIVE'S BULK THEREOF ON THE MORROW AND ANOTHER OLIVE'S BULK THEREOF OUTSIDE ITS PROPER PLACE, OR TO EAT A HALF-OLIVE'S BULK THEREOF OUTSIDE ITS PROPER PLACE AND A HALF-OLIVE'S BULK ON THE MORROW,9 OR TO EAT A HALF-OLIVE'S BULK THEREOF ON THE MORROW AND AN HALF-OLIVE'S BULK OUTSIDE ITS PROPER PLACE,9 THE OFFERING IS INVALID BUT THE PENALTY OF KARETH IS NOT INCURRED. R. JUDAH SAID, THIS IS THE GENERAL RULE: IF THE INTENTION ABOUT THE TIME PRECEDED THE INTENTION ABOUT THE PLACE, THE OFFERING IS PIGGUL AND THE PENALTY OF KARETH IS INCURRED; BUT IF THE INTENTION ABOUT THE PLACE PRECEDED THE INTENTION ABOUT THE TIME, THE OFFERING IS INVALID BUT THE PENALTY OF KARETH IS NOT INCURRED.10 BUT THE SAGES SAY, IN BOTH CASES THE OFFERING IS INVALID BUT THE PENALTY OF KARETH IS NOT INCURRED. GEMARA. The question was raised: According to him who holds that if the remainder of the meal-offering had diminished in the time between the taking of the handful and the burning thereof he may nevertheless burn the handful on account of it; and we had established that that remainder may not be eaten11 — [the question arises], can the burning of the handful have any effect [upon this remainder] that it should become piggul,12 and that it should no more be subject to the law of Sacrilege or not?13 — R. Huna said, Even according to R. Akiba who said that the sprinkling [of the blood] has an effect upon [the consecrated meat] that was taken out [of its prescribed bounds],14 that is so only with regard to what was taken out, since it is entirely here but has become invalid only through some extrinsic cause,15 but upon that which has diminished, which is an intrinsic defect, the burning surely can have no effect.16 Thereupon Raba said, On the contrary,17 even according to R. Eliezer who said that the sprinkling of the blood has no effect upon what was taken out, that is so only with regard to what was taken out, since it is no longer inside [the Sanctuary], but upon that which has diminished, since it is still inside [the Sanctuary], the burning surely can have an effect. Raba said, How do [arrive at the above? Because we have learnt: IF HE TOOK THE HANDFUL FROM THE MEAL-OFFERING [INTENDING] TO EAT THE REMAINDER OUTSIDE [THE TEMPLE COURT]. OR AN OLIVE'S BULK OF THE REMAINDER OUTSIDE; and R. Hiyya when learning this Mishnah quoted, ‘IF HE TOOK THE HANDFUL FROM THE MEAL-OFFERING’, etc., but he did not include in it OR AN OLIVE'S BULK. Now why did he not include OR AN OLIVE'S BULK? Surely [because he assumed the Mishnah to be dealing with] the case where the remainder had diminished until there was only an olive's bulk left;18 and since with regard to the services of putting the handful into a vessel, of bringing it nigh, and of burning it, [R. Hiyya] could not have stated only to a wrongful intention concerning the time of the eating of the offering, in contradistinction from the wrongful intention concerning the place which merely renders the sacrifice kuxp ‘invalid’, but which does not involve the penalty of kareth. meal-offering which, on being burnt, render the remainder permissible to be eaten. It also refers to the blood of an animal-offering which, on being sprinkled upon the altar, renders the meat thereof permissible to be eaten. of ‘out of time’. If, however, there was some other fault during the course of the services, either before or after the wrongful intention of ‘out of time’, the offering is not piggul but merely invalid, and the penalty of kareth is not incurred by them that eat thereof. The Mishnah now proceeds to exemplify the two rules stated. services too. thus in this offering there were two defects: the ‘out of time’ intention and the ‘out of place’ intention. by treating the offering as if it were something else. V. supra 2a. expressed first. This is in contradistinction from the foregoing cases of the Mishnah where two wrongful intentions were expressed during two services. service. he eaten since it was found to be lacking) outside its proper time. This case may be put in the same category as where a wrongful intention was expressed concerning ‘a thing that it is not usual to eat’, which according to our Mishnah is not included in the law of piggul. On the other hand, since the burning of the handful is carried out according to law, it is in no wise different from the burning in any other meal-offering, and it can render the offering piggul. of Sacrilege since it is now permitted to the priests (Me'il I, 1); and therefore if a layman were to derive any enjoyment whatsoever from the remainder, he would not be liable to bring a guilt-offering for Sacrilege. In this case, however, since even after the burning of the handful, the priests are not permitted to eat the remainder, it might rightly be said that the law of Sacrilege still applies. more subject to the law of Sacrilege, since it may now be eaten by the priests. This rule, according to R. Akiba, applies even to what was taken out of its bounds and which consequently may not be eaten; v. Me'il. 7a. had diminished. the time of taking the handful the meal-offering had diminished it is invalid, and can in no wise be affected by any wrongful intention.