Menachot

MISHNAH. IF HE EXPRESSED AN INTENTION WHICH MAKES PIGGUL [IN RESPECT OF THE REMAINDER] DURING THE [BURNING OF THE] HANDFUL AND NOT DURING THE [BURNING OF THE] FRANKINCENSE, OR DURING THE [BURNING OF THE] FRANKINCENSE AND NOT DURING THE [BURNING OF THE] INCENSE, 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.1 THE SAGES, HOWEVER, AGREE WITH R. MEIR THAT, IF IT WAS A SINNERS MEAL-OFFERING2 OR A MEAL-OFFERING OF JEALOUSY,2 AND HE EXPRESSED AN INTENTION WHICH MAKES PIGGUL DURING THE [BURNING OF THE] HANDFUL, IT IS PIGGUL AND THE PENALTY OF KARETH IS INCURRED ON ACCOUNT THEREOF, SINCE THE HANDFUL IS THE ENTIRE MATTIR. IF HE SLAUGHTERED ONE OF THE LAMBS3 INTENDING TO EAT THE TWO LOAVES ON THE MORROW, OR IF HE BURNT ONE OF THE DISHES OF FRANKINCENSE4 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. IF HE SLAUGHTERED ONE OF THE LAMBS INTENDING TO EAT A PART OF IT ON THE MORROW, THAT [LAMB] IS PIGGUL BUT THE OTHER [LAMB] IS VALID; IF HE INTENDED TO EAT OF THE OTHER [LAMB] ON THE MORROW, BOTH ARE VALID. GEMARA. Rab said, The dispute5 is only where he offered6 the handful in silence and then the frankincense with the expressed intention, but where he offered the handful with the expressed intention and then the frankincense in silence, all agree that it is piggul, for everything that a man does [in silence] he does in accordance with his first resolve.7 But Samuel said, There is still a dispute in that case too.8 Raba was once sitting and reciting this statement [of Rab], when R. Aha b. R. Huna raised against Raba the following objection: This9 applies only to the service of taking the handful, or of putting it in the vessel or of bringing it nigh;10 but if he had already reached the service of burning, and he offered the handful in silence and then the frankincense with the expressed intention, or if he offered the handful with the expressed intention and then the frankincense in silence, R. Meir says, It is piggul and the penalty of kareth is incurred on account thereof. The Sages say, The penalty of kareth is not incurred unless he expressed an intention which makes piggul during the service of the whole of the mattir. Now here is stated the clause: ‘Or if he offered the handful with the expressed intention and then the frankincense in silence’, and yet they differ!11 — Render: [Or if he offered the handful with the expressed intention] having already offered the frankincense in silence. But there are two objections to this: in the first place, it is identical with the first clause;12 and secondly, it has been taught [in another Baraitha]: ‘And then’!13 — R. Hanina explained that here there were two minds.14 Come and hear: This15 applies only to offerings whose blood must be sprinkled upon the outer altar;16 but in the case of offerings whose blood must be sprinkled upon the inner altar, as for example the forty-three sprinklings on the Day of Atonement,17 or the eleven sprinklings of the bullock of the anointed High Priest,18 or the eleven sprinklings of the bullock offered for the error of the community,18 if [the priest] expressed an intention which makes piggul either during the first [sprinklings] or the second or the third,19 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 mattir.20 Now here it states: ‘If he expressed an intention which makes piggul either during the first [sprinklings] or the second or the third’, and yet they differ!21 Should you, however, reply that there too there were two minds,22 I grant you that this is satisfactory according to him who holds that the expression ‘with a bullock’23 means also ‘with the blood of the bullock’;24 but what can be said according to him who holds that the expression ‘with a bullock’ excludes the blood of the bullock?25 — Raba said, We must suppose here that he26 expressed an intention which makes piggul during the first sprinklings, was silent during the second, and again expressed an intention which makes piggul during the third; in which case we say, If you accept the principle that whatsoever a man does [in silence] he does according to his first resolve, why then did he express again an intention which makes piggul during the third [sprinklings]? R. Ashi demurred, saying, Does [the Baraitha] actually state ‘he was silent’? — Rather, said R. Ashi, We must suppose here that he expressed an intention which makes piggul during the first [sprinklings] and also during the second;27 in which case we say, If you accept the principle that whatsoever a man does [in silence] he does according to his first resolve, why then did he again express an intention which makes piggul during the second [sprinklings]? 27 bread-offering of two loaves; v. Lev. XXIII, 17ff. flour was first burnt upon the altar and then the frankincense. remainder on the morrow — it is to be assumed that such was also his intention-though unexpressed during the offering of the frankincense. services the intention is in respect of the whole mattir; whereas the burning is performed twice, viz., the burning of the handful of flour and of the frankincense. the handful or of the frankincense. cannot be so in the other Baraitha which expressly states ‘and then’. piggul and the other burnt the frankincense in silence. In such a case the principle, ‘Whatever a man does in silence he does in accordance with his first resolve’, cannot apply; for this can only be said of one person but not of two. accounted as the whole mattir and can therefore render piggul. the bullock, and likewise eight of the blood of the he-goat; these same sprinklings repeated in the Sanctuary upon the veil; four sprinklings of the blood of the bullock and of the he-goat when mixed together, i.e., one upon each of the four corners of the golden altar, and seven upon the cleansed surface (i.e. the top) of the golden altar. V. Yoma Ch. V. corners of the altar. Cf. Lev. IV, 6,7 and 17, 18. of the ark, towards the veil, and upon the altar respectively. others being performed in silence, the offering is not piggul. Apparently the principle, Whatsoever a man does in silence he does according to his first resolve, is not adopted; contra Rab. died immediately thereafter or The Master stated: ‘R. Meir says, It is piggul and the penalty having become unclean; in which case the sprinklings in silence by the second High Priest can have no reference to or bearing upon the resolve of the former High Priest. service, and was not required to begin all the services anew and slaughter another bullock for himself; for the verse, Herewith shall Aaron (sc. the High Priest) come into the holy place; with a bullock (ibid.) does not imply that the High Priest shall begin his service with a living bullock, but he may even take the blood of the bullock which was slaughtered by his predecessor. V. Yoma 49b. one where the High Priest was silent during the third sprinklings; so that only a part and not the whole of the mattir was performed with an intention which makes piggul.