מנחות 12:1 — Soncino English Talmud

THE OFFERING IS PIGGUL, 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 MATTIR WAS OFFERED ACCORDING TO ITS PRESCRIBED RITE. 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. 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 PLACE — (SUCH IS A CASE WHERE THE MATTIR IS OFFERED NOT ACCORDING TO ITS RITE). OR IF IT WAS A SINNER'S MEAL-OFFERING OR A MEAL-OFFERING OF JEALOUSY. 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] 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, OR TO EAT A HALF-OLIVE'S BULK THEREOF ON THE MORROW AND AN HALF-OLIVE'S BULK OUTSIDE ITS PROPER PLACE, 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. 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 eaten — [the question arises], can the burning of the handful have any effect [upon this remainder] that it should become piggul, and that it should no more be subject to the law of Sacrilege or not? — 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], 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, but upon that which has diminished, which is an intrinsic defect, the burning surely can have no effect. Thereupon Raba said, On the contrary, 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; 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^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ

^ᵃnote:Heb. kudhp, lit., ‘an abomination’. This term piggul which also involves the penalty of kareth (v. Glos.) applies 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.
^ᵇnote:Heb. rh,n; lit., ‘that which renders permissible’. This refers to the handful of flour and the frankincense of a 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.
^ᶜnote:I.e., there was no other imperfection or fault in the course of the services of the offering save the wrongful intention 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.
^ᵈnote:For the only defect in this offering was the ‘out of time’ intention, even though it was expressed during the other services too.
^ᵉnote:During one of these services, however, the intention was expressed of eating the remainder outside its proper time; thus in this offering there were two defects: the ‘out of time’ intention and the ‘out of place’ intention.
^ᶠnote:This sentence is struck out by Sh. Mek., and it is not found in MS.M. and other MSS.
^ᵍnote:These meal-offerings can also be rendered invalid by a wrongful intention concerning the nature of the offering. i.e., by treating the offering as if it were something else. V. supra 2a.
^ʰnote:During one service two wrongful intentions as exemplified in the Mishnah; and it is immaterial which intention was expressed first. This is in contradistinction from the foregoing cases of the Mishnah where two wrongful intentions were expressed during two services.
^ⁱnote:In this case the two half-olive's bulks are reckoned together so as to invalidate the offering.
^ʲnote:This rule of R. Judah applies to two wrongful intentions expressed during two services as well as during one service.
^ᵏnote:V. supra 9a and b.
^ˡnote:I.e., if while burning the handful the priest expressed the intention of eating this remainder (which in fact may not 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.
^ᵐnote:The general rule is that after the burning of the handful the remainder of the meal-offering is not subject to the law 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.
^ⁿnote:It is also established law that after the sprinkling of the blood of the animal-offering the consecrated meat is no 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.
^ᵒnote:By being taken out of its prescribed bounds; nothing however of the meat was lacking.
^ᵖnote:It is therefore still subject to the law of Sacrilege.
^ᵠnote:Raba is of the opinion that consecrated matter that was taken out of the Temple is a more serious matter than if it had diminished.
^ʳnote:This of course can be the case with the other services but not with the service of the taking of the handful, for if at 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.