Menachot

‘or an olive's bulk’,1 he therefore did not state ‘or an olive's bulk’ even with regard to the service of taking out the handful. Nevertheless, he states in the later clause, THE OFFERING IS PIGGUL AND THE PENALTY OF KARETH IS INCURRED; hence, it is evident, that the burning [of the handful] has an effect [upon the diminished remainder]! Said to him Abaye. It is not so,2 but the author is R. Eleazar; for we have learnt: If a man offered outside [the Temple court] an olive's bulk of the handful,3 or of the frankincense,3 or of the incense-offering.4 or of the mealoffering of the priests.5 or of the meal-offering of the anointed [High] Priest, or of the meal-offering offered with the drink-offerings, he is liable;6 but R. Eleazar declares him exempt unless he offered the whole thereof. Since therefore the expression ‘or an olive's bulk’ cannot be stated in connection with the [burning of the] handful, this same expression ‘or an olive's bulk’ is not stated in connection with the remainder.7 But if it is R. Eleazar, why is it stated8 ‘[Intending] to burn the handful’? It should state, ‘[Intending] to burn the handful and the frankincense’! For we have learnt:9 If a man offered either the handful or the frankincense outside [the Temple court], he is liable; but R. Eleazar declares him exempt unless he offered both! — It refers to the handful of the sinner's meal-offering.10 And did the Tanna trouble to teach us the case concerning the handful of the sinner's meal-offering? — He did. And likewise when R. Dimi came [from Palestine] he reported in the name of R. Eleazar that it referred only to the handful of the sinner's meal-offering, and it was in accordance with R. Eleazar's view. Later Raba said, What I said before was wrong. For it has been taught: The expression It is11 implies that if one of the loaves was broken all are invalid. It follows however, that if one was taken out of the Sanctuary12 those that are inside are valid. Now whom have you heard say that the sprinkling [of the blood] has an effect upon what was taken out?13 [Obviously] it is R. Akiba, and yet it states that if one of the loaves was broken they are not [valid].14 Thereupon Abaye said to him, Does [the Baraitha] expressly state ‘But if one was taken out [the others are valid]’? Perhaps the correct inference is: If one became unclean the others are valid, and that is because the [High Priest's] plate15 renders it acceptable, whereas if one was taken out the others would not [be valid],16 for the teaching is in accordance with R. Eleazar's view who maintains that the sprinkling of the blood has no effect upon what was taken out. And by right the Tanna [of the Baraitha] should have also stated the case where one [of the loaves] was taken out, but he only stated the case where one was broken to teach us that, even though it is still inside [the Sanctuary], the ‘burning’ has no effect upon it. According to R. Akiba, however, who said that the sprinkling of the blood has an effect upon what was taken out, the ‘burning’ likewise will have an effect upon that which had diminished.17 MISHNAH. [IF HE INTENDED] TO EAT A HALF-OLIVE'S BULK AND TO BURN A HALF-OLIVE'S BULK,18 THE OFFERING IS VALID, FOR EATING AND BURNING CANNOT BE RECKONED TOGETHER. GEMARA. Now the reason [why they cannot be reckoned together] is that [there was an intention] to eat and to burn, but it follows that where [there was the intention] to eat [what it is usual to eat] and also to eat what it is not usual to eat, they can be reckoned together;19 but it has been stated earlier [in the Mishnah]: ‘[Intending] to eat a thing that it is usual to eat or to burn a thing that it is usual to burn’. Hence [a wrongful intention to eat] is of consequence only in respect of a thing that it is usual to eat, but not in respect of a thing that it is not usual to eat!20 — Said R. Jeremiah: The author [of our Mishnah] is R. Eliezer, who maintains that a wrongful intention to consume upon the altar what is usually eaten by man, or to eat what is usually consumed upon the altar is of consequence.21 For we have learnt: If he took out the handful from the meal-offering [intending] to eat a thing that it is not usual to eat or to burn a thing that it is not usual to burn, the offering is valid; but R. Eliezer declares it to be invalid. Abaye said, You may even say that [this Mishnah] is in accordance with the view of the Rabbis, but you must not infer from it that where [there was the intention] to eat [a half-olive's bulk of what it is usual to eat] and to eat [the same of] what it is not usual to eat [they can be reckoned together], but rather infer this, that where the intention was to eat [a half-olive's bulk] and also to eat [the same of] a thing that it is usual to eat [they can be reckoned together].22 What does it teach us?23 We have expressly learnt this case in the earlier [Mishnah]: 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 another half-olive's bulk thereof on the morrow, or to eat a half-olive's bulk thereof on the morrow and another half-olive's bulk thereof outside its proper place, the offering is invalid, but the penalty of kareth is not incurred. only an olive's bulk left, then it is absurd to state ‘if he put the handful into a vessel (or brought it nigh, or burnt it) intending to eat the remainder or an olive's bulk of the remainder outside its proper time . . .’ for the two, the remainder and the olive's bulk, are identical. This being so, R. Hiyya for the sake of consistency omitted the expression ‘or an olive's bulk’ even in the case of the taking of the handful where this expression is indeed meaningful. The condition of the text both in the Gemara and in Rashi is very doubtful and at present most unsatisfactory. The translation is based on the interpretation of R. Meir and his son Rashbam, given in cur. edd. at the end of Chapter I, infra 13a. the teaching in accordance with the view of R. Eleazar, v. Zeb. 109b. was to bring daily, known as kusd ivf h,hcj. Likewise, the meal-offerings that were offered with the drink-offerings that accompanied most sacrifices (v. Num XV, 4ff) were wholly burnt. outside its proper time expressed during another service (say, during the taking out of the handful) would not render the offering piggul. Accordingly one must omit the expression ‘or an olive's bulk’ from the first clause, which deals with a wrongful intention in connection with the burning of the handful, and for the sake of consistency the expression was omitted by R. Hiyya throughout. which there was no frankincense at all, so that the ‘burning’ consists only of the burning of the handful. sprinkling of the blood of an animal-offering — has an effect upon what was taken out, insofar as the number of the loaves is considered complete, the result being that those loaves which remained inside are now permitted to be eaten. that it can have no effect upon that which had diminished, and if one loaf was broken all are invalid, Raba thus agrees with R. Huna, and retracts his former view, XXVIII, 36ff); i.e., it secured the Divine acceptance of the sacrifice even though the flesh or the blood or any other part thereof had become unclean. not this number. also to eat outside a half-olive's bulk of the handful (which is to be burnt and not eaten), these two intentions would be reckoned as one in respect of an olive's bulk and the offering would be invalid. no question at all of reckoning this intention together with another in order to render the offering invalid. Hence, according to R. Eliezer (v. infra 17a), a wrongful intention made in respect of a thing that it is not usual to eat or to burn renders the offering invalid and a fortiori if made partly in respect of a thing that it is usual to eat and partly in respect of a thing that it is not usual to eat. these intentions combine and the offering is invalid. indeed evident from the many bracketed lines and words. In fact the entire passage seems to have been taken over bodily from Zeb. 31b, and altered in parts so as to suit the context in our tractate; hence the confusion. V. Tosaf. s.v. tkt. The translation given is based entirely upon Rashi and upon the text that was apparently before him. V. also D.S. on this passage.