Menachot

What further does our Mishnah teach us? If it suggests the inference that where there was the intention to eat [a half-olive's bulk of what it is usual to eat] and also to eat [a half-olive's bulk] of what it is not usual to eat they can be reckoned together — but you already know from the first clause;1 and if [it teaches] that where there was the intention to eat and burn [a half-olive's bulk they cannot be reckoned together] — but you surely know this by inference from the preceding Mishnah: for if the intentions to eat [what it is usual to eat] and to eat what it is not usual to eat, cannot be reckoned together, is it then necessary to state that the intentions to eat and to burn [cannot be reckoned together]?2 — Yes, it is necessary to state that the intentions to eat and to burn [cannot be reckoned together]; for you might have thought that only in that case3 [the intentions cannot be reckoned together], for there is an intention there with regard to what is not proper.4 but here,5 since each intention relates to what is proper in each case, I might say that they should be reckoned together; — we are therefore taught [that they cannot be reckoned together]. MISHNAH. IF HE TOOK OUT THE HANDFUL [INTENDING] TO EAT THE REMAINDER OR TO BURN THE HANDFUL ON THE MORROW, IN THIS CASE R. JOSE AGREES THAT THE OFFERING IS PIGGUL6 AND THAT THE PENALTY OF KARETH6 IS INCURRED ON ACCOUNT THEREOF.7 [IF HE INTENDED] TO BURN THE FRANKINCENSE THEREOF ON THE MORROW, R. JOSE SAYS, IT IS INVALID BUT THE PENALTY OF KARETH IS NOT INCURRED ON ACCOUNT THEREOF; BUT THE SAGES SAY, IT IS PIGGUL AND THE PENALTY OF KARETH IS INCURRED ON ACCOUNT THEREOF. THEY SAID TO HIM, HOW DOES THIS DIFFER FROM AN ANIMAL-OFFERING?8 HE SAID TO THEM, WITH THE ANIMAL-OFFERING THE BLOOD, THE FLESH AND THE SACRIFICIAL PORTIONS ARE ALL ONE;9 BUT THE FRANKINCENSE IS NOT OF THE MEAL-OFFERING. GEMARA. Why does the Mishnah state, IN THIS CASE R. JOSE AGREES? — Because the Tanna wished to state the next clause: [IF HE INTENDED] TO BURN THE FRANKINCENSE THEREOF ON THE MORROW, R. JOSE SAYS, IT IS INVALID BUT THE PENALTY OF KARETH IS NOT INCURRED ON ACCOUNT THEREOF. Now you might have thought that the reason for R. Jose's opinion [in the last clause] was that a wrongful intention in respect of half the mattir does not render piggul10 and that consequently [R. Jose] differs even in the first clause. handful. being the proper practice. certainly piggul. The same surely should be the case with the meal-offering, for the frankincense corresponds to the sacrificial portions of the animal-offering. frankincense, for only after the burning of those two upon the altar is the remainder of the meal-offering rendered permitted to be eaten. It is now suggested that the reason for R. Jose's view in the second clause of our Mishnah is that a wrongful intention expressed during a service in respect of the frankincense, which is only half the mattir, is of no consequence. According to this principle, R. Jose should also hold in the first clause of our Mishnah that the offering is not piggul, since the wrongful intention was only in respect of the burning of the handful which is also only half the mattir.