מנחות 16:2 — Soncino English Talmud

But does not the Baraitha state: Either. . .or? — This is a difficulty. of kareth is incurred on account thereof’. Consider: the penalty of kareth is incurred only after all the mattirin have been offered, for a Master has stated: The expression ‘accepted’ suggests, as the acceptance of a valid offering so is the acceptance of an invalid offering; that is to say, as the acceptance of a valid offering is effected only after all the mattirin have been offered, so the acceptance of an invalid offering is effected only after all the mattirin have been offered. Now in this case since he expressed a wrongful intention [when sprinkling] within, he has thereby rendered it invalid, consequently when he later sprinkles in the Sanctuary it is as though he were sprinkling water! — Rabbah said, It can happen where four bullocks and four he-goats were used. Raba said, You may even hold that there was only one bullock and one he-goat, but [the sprinklings] are acceptable in regard to the law of piggul. ‘Forty-three [sprinklings]’. But we have been taught: Forty-seven! — This is no difficulty; one [Baraitha] accepts the view that for the sprinklings upon the horns of the altar they mix together [the blood of the bullock and the blood of the he-goat], whereas the other accepts the view that they do not mix them. But we have been taught: Forty-eight?-This is no difficulty; one [Baraitha] accepts the view that the [pouring out of the] residue [of the blood] is an indispensable service, whereas the other accepts the view that the [pouring out of the] residue is not indispensable. The question was raised: What is the law if he expressed an intention which makes piggul at the bringing nigh [of the handful to the altar]? R. Johanan said that the bringing nigh is like unto the taking of the handful; but Resh Lakish said that the bringing nigh is like unto the burning. Now Resh Lakish's view is clear, for there is also the bringing nigh of the frankincense; but what is the reason for R. Johanan's view? — Raba said, R. Johanan is of the opinion that any service which is not an absolute mattir is regarded as a service complete in itself with regard to piggul. Whereupon Abaye said to him, Behold the slaughtering of one of the lambs [on the Feast of Weeks] is a service which is not an absolute mattir, and yet they differ! For we have learnt: IF HE SLAUGHTERED ONE OF THE LAMBS INTENDING TO EAT THE TWO LOAVES ON THE MORROW, OR IF HE BURNT ONE OF THE DISHES OF FRANKINCENSE INTENDING TO EAT THE TWO ROWS [OF THE SHEWBREAD] ON THE MORROW, R. MEIR SAYS, IT IS PIGGUL AND THE PENALTY OF KARETH IS INCURRED ON ACCOUNT THEREOF; BUT THE SAGES SAY, THE PENALTY OF KARETH IS NOT INCURRED UNLESS HE EXPRESSED THE INTENTION WHICH MAKES PIGGUL DURING THE SERVICE OF THE WHOLE OF THE MATTIR! — He replied, Do you imagine that the loaves are hallowed already in the oven? It is the slaughtering of the lambs that hallows them; and whatsoever serves to hallow is on the same footing as whatsoever serves to render permissible. R. Shimi b. Ashi raised an objection. It was taught: Others say, If he had in mind first the circumcised persons and then the uncircumcised, it is valid; if he had in mind first the uncircumcised persons and then the circumcised, it is invalid. And it was established that they differ concerning half the mattir! — He replied, Do you think that the blood [of an animal-offering] is already hallowed in the throat? It is the knife [of slaughtering] that hallows it; and whatsoever serves to hallow is on the same footing as that which serves to render permissible. Come and hear: This applies only to the services of taking the handful, or putting it in the vessel or bringing it nigh; [but if he had already reached the service of burning etc.] Now ‘bringing nigh’ surely means bringing nigh for the purposes of burning, does it not? — No, it means bringing nigh in order to put it in the vessel. But if so, why is it stated [in this order] ‘putting it in the vessel or bringing it nigh’? It ought surely to have stated ‘bringing it nigh or putting it in the vessel’! — This is no difficulty, for you may render it thus. But [it will be asked], why does it state ‘but if he had already reached the service of burning’? It ought to have stated ‘but if he had already reached the service of bringing nigh’! — This, too,is no difficulty, for since the bringing nigh is for the purposes of burning he refers to it as the burning. But [it will be asked], why does it state ‘and he offered’? It ought to have stated, ‘and he brought it nigh’! — This is indeed a difficulty. If he burnt the size of a sesame seed of the handful intending to eat the size of a sesame seed of the remainder [on the morrow, and he repeated this again and again] until the handful was entirely [burnt up], — in this case R. Hisda, R. Hamnuna and R. Shesheth differ. One holds that it is piggul, the other that it is invalid, and the third that it is valid. Now shall we say that he who holds that it is piggul is in agreement with R. Meir, he who holds that it is invalid is in agreement with the Rabbis, and he who holds that it is valid is in agreement with Rabbi? — But is this so? perhaps R. Meir is of that opinion only there where he expressed [the intention which makes piggul] during a complete service, but not here where he did not express [such an intention] during a complete service. Moreover, perhaps the Rabbis are of their opinion only there where he did not express an intention [which makes piggul] during the service of the whole mattir, but here where he actually expressed an intention [which makes piggul] during the service of the whole mattir [they would agree that] it is piggul. And again, perhaps Rabbi is of his opinion only there where he did not make up [the minimum quantity] later in the same service, but here where he made up the quantity in the same service [he would agree that] it is invalid! — We must therefore say that he who holds that it is piggul holds thus according to all views; he who holds that it is invalid holds thus according to all views, and he who holds that it is valid holds thus according to all views. ‘He who holds that it is piggul holds thus according to all views’, for he maintains that that is a way of eating as well as a way of burning. ‘He who holds that it is invalid holds thus according to all views’, for he maintains that that is a way of eating but not a way of burning, and it was as though [the handful of] the meal-offering had not been burnt at all. ‘And he who holds that it is valid holds thus according to all views’, for he maintains that that is a way of burning but not a way of eating.35^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ

^ᵃnote:This implies that the intention which makes piggul was expressed only during one of the three sprinklings mentioned.
^ᵇnote:ihrh,n pl. of rh,n, ‘that which renders the offering permissible’; v. Glos. The penalty of kareth for eating piggul is not incurred unless the whole mattir was offered according to its prescribed rite except for the expressed intention which made it piggul. Thus where the mattir consists of a number of sprinklings, and at the first sprinklings there was expressed an intention which makes piggul, then it is essential, if the penalty of kareth is to apply, that the subsequent sprinklings be performed according to the prescribed rite.
^ᶜnote:Zeb. 28b, 42b.
^ᵈnote:Lev. XIX, 7 and XXII, 27; the former referring to an offering which has been made piggul and the latter to a valid offering.
^ᵉnote:Regarding the liability for piggul.
^ᶠnote:Sc. in the Holy of Holies between the staves of the ark, this being the first of the sprinkling services.
^ᵍnote:The penalty of kareth cannot therefore be incurred; how then can R. Meir say that kareth is incurred in those circumstances? It must be observed that at first sight this same question could also be raised in the case where a piggul intention was expressed during the slaughtering or during the receiving of the blood, for since the offering is rendered invalid by that intention the subsequent sprinkling is no service, consequently the penalty of kareth cannot be incurred. Rashi, however, suggests this distinction: in this case the slaughtering or the receiving was performed entirely in sanctity, for the intention of piggul related to some subsequent service, whereas in the case of our text the sprinkling was not performed entirely in sanctity, for the intention of piggul related to the other sprinklings of this same service. V. also Rashi in Zeb. 42b, s.v. hf; and Tosaf. here s.v. hf.
^ʰnote:Where after the High Priest had sprinkled the blood of the bullock and of the he-goat in the Holy of Holies between the staves of the ark, the residue of the blood had spilt, so that it was necessary to slaughter another bullock and he-goat to obtain their blood for sprinkling in the Sanctuary. Again after the second sprinklings the residue of the blood had spilt and so another bullock and he-goat were once more slaughtered in order to perform the sprinklings upon the four corners of the altar. Once again owing to this same mishap, a fourth bullock and he-goat were slaughtered in order to perform the final sprinklings seven times upon the cleansed portion of the altar. In these circumstances the offering would be valid (v. Yoma 61a), for each of the sprinklings is considered as a separate service. Now if an intention which makes piggul had been expressed at the first sprinklings the offering would be piggul, for here the subsequent three sprinklings were admittedly in themselves valid and were not affected by the wrongful intention of the first sprinklings. In the normal case, however, where only one bullock and one he-goat had been used in the service, R. Meir would agree that, where an intention which makes piggul was expressed at the first sprinklings, the penalty of kareth cannot be incurred.
^ⁱnote:Since the subsequent sprinklings had been performed without any further intention they are considered as vital services offered according to rule, and not as ‘sprinklings of water’. The offering therefore is piggul.
^ʲnote:But the blood of the bullock and of the he-goat must each separately be sprinkled upon the four corners of the altar; hence an addition of four to the total number of sprinklings. V. Yoma 57b.
^ᵏnote:The pouring out of the residue of the blood to the base of the altar, being an important service, is added to the number of the sprinklings, making thus a total of forty-eight. V. Yoma 60b.
^ˡnote:The service of bringing nigh to the altar applies both to the handful of flour and to the frankincense, so that it can be said that the bringing nigh of one is but half the mattir, and the dispute between the Sages and R. Meir would hold good here too.
^ᵐnote:Which is a complete service, a whole mattir, for the handful was only taken from the flour but not from the frankincense.
^ⁿnote:Of which there are two services: the burning of the handful and of the frankincense. And therefore the dispute between the Sages and R. Meir applies also to the service of bringing nigh.
^ᵒnote:I.e., it can be dispensed with; the bringing nigh can in certain cases be dispensed with for the handful can be passed on from priest to priest till it reaches the altar (Rashi). Aliter: it does not render aught permissible; in this respect the service of bringing nigh is different from other services, for the receiving the blood of the animal-offering renders the sprinkling possible, and the sprinkling renders the flesh permissible (v. Sh. Mek. n. 4).
^ᵖnote:And the ruling of the Sages that piggul does not apply to half a mattir does not apply here, since this service is not a mattir in the strict sense of the word.
^ᵠnote:For it does not render aught permissible. V. supra n. 3.
^ʳnote:So that the slaughtering is on a par with an absolute mattir, and therefore the Sages hold that it is piggul only when the whole of this mattir (i.e., the slaughtering of both lambs) was affected by the wrongful intention.
^ˢnote:V. Pes. 62b. The Baraitha refers to the case of a person who, whilst slaughtering the Passover-lamb on behalf of a number of people, circumcised and uncircumcised, cut one organ of the animal's throat on behalf of one class of people and then the second organ on behalf of the other class too. The view here stated is introduced by the expression ‘Others say’, which usually represents the view of R. Meir; the Sages, however, differ.
^ᵗnote:I.e., whether a wrongful intention expressed during the service of half the mattir can invalidate the offering or not; and here the cutting of the first organ is, as it were, but half the mattir. Now the mattir here spoken of, namely the slaughtering, is not an absolute mattir since it does not render aught permissible, and yet the Sages differ with R. Meir and hold that the wrongful intention in regard to half the mattir is of no consequence; contra Raba's interpretation of R. Johanan.
^ᵘnote:That a wrongful intention expressed whilst dealing with the handful alone renders piggul. V. supra p. 101.
^ᵛnote:And the Sages agree that a wrongful intention expressed during the bringing nigh renders piggul; contra Resh Lakish.
^ʷnote:Which is a complete service, for only the handful was put into a vessel and not the frankincense.
^ˣnote:And reverse the order of the Baraitha.
^ʸnote:For the service of bringing nigh is prior to the burning, and the Sages and R. Meir differ herein, too, according to Resh Lakish.
^ᶻnote:For even if it is accepted, as suggested, that the term ‘burning’ includes the bringing nigh, when describing the service the Tanna of the Baraitha should have mentioned the first act thereof, namely the bringing nigh, and not the act of offering (lit., ‘the putting’ upon the altar, i.e., the burning).
^ᵃᵃnote:And so he did too with the frankincense.
^ᵃᵇnote:That an intention which makes piggul expressed during the service of a portion of the mattir — in this case during the burning of the size of a sesame seed of the handful and of the frankincense — renders the offering piggul. The Sages, however, in such a case declare the offering invalid.
^ᵃᶜnote:V. supra 14a where Rabbi holds the view that the two parts of the mattir cannot be reckoned together to affect the offering, where each intention was made in respect of less than the minimum quantity that constitutes eating, namely an olive's bulk.
^ᵃᵈnote:Viz., during the burning of the handful which, though but half of the mattir, for there is also the burning of the frankincense, is nevertheless a complete service.In this case only does R. Meir maintain that the offering is piggul.
^ᵃᵉnote:For in the case dealt with by Rabbi the piggul intention was expressed during the slaughtering of one lamb about a half-olive's bulk of one loaf and a similar piggul intention was expressed during the slaughtering of the other lamb about the same quantity of the other loaf.
^ᵃᶠnote:The taking of quantities the size of a sesame seed at a time.
^ᵃᵍnote:So that this case is no-different from the usual cases of piggul where during the burning of an olive's bulk of the handful there was an intention expressed to eat an olive's bulk of the remainder on the morrow.
^ᵃʰnote:And therefore it is invalid.
^ᵃⁱnote:The burning in this manner is regarded as a normal burning of the handful, whereas the intention concerning the eating of the remainder is no intention in law so as to invalidate the offering.