## Menachot Daf 12b

###### Menachot 12b:1
[Menachot 12b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/12b:1)

״אוֹ כְּזַיִת״ אַשִּׁירַיִם, בִּקְמִיצָה נָמֵי לֶאֱכוֹל שִׁירַיִם לָא תָּנֵי ״אוֹ כְּזַיִת״, וְקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: פִּיגּוּל וְחַיָּיבִין עָלָיו כָּרֵת, אַלְמָא מַהְנְיָא לְהוּ הַקְטָרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Or an olive-bulk, in** the case of one’s intent with regard to the consumption of the **remainder,** because the remainder is already the size of an olive-bulk. Therefore, **in** the case of the **removal of the handful as well,** i.e., when he teaches: One who removes a handful **to partake** of **its remainder,** Rabbi Ḥiyya **did not teach: Or** to consume **an olive-bulk** of its remainder, despite the fact that he could have done so in that clause. Rava concludes his proof: **And** yet **the latter clause teaches** that if one burned the handful with the intent to consume the remainder after its designated time, the offering is ***piggul* and one is liable** to receive ***karet* on** account of **it. Evidently, burning is effective in** rendering a lacking remainder as *piggul*.


###### Menachot 12b:2
[Menachot 12b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/12b:2)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: לָא, הָא מַנִּי? רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר הִיא, דִּתְנַן: הַקּוֹמֶץ, וְהַלְּבוֹנָה, וְהַקְּטֹרֶת, וּמִנְחַת כֹּהֲנִים, וּמִנְחַת כֹּהֵן מָשִׁיחַ, וּמִנְחַת נְסָכִים, שֶׁהִקְרִיב מֵאַחַת מֵהֶן כְּזַיִת בַּחוּץ – חַיָּיב, וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר פּוֹטֵר עַד שֶׁיַּקְרִיב אֶת כּוּלּוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said to** Rava: **No,** one cannot prove from here that the mishna is discussing the case of a remainder that became lacking. The reason for this is: In accordance with **whose** opinion **is this** mishna of Rabbi Ḥiyya? **It is** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Elazar, as we learned** in a mishna (*Zevaḥim* 109b): With regard to **the handful** of flour, **and the frankincense, and the incense, and the meal offering of priests** (see Leviticus 6:16), **and the meal offering of the anointed priest** (see Leviticus 6:12–15), **and the meal offering** that accompanies the **libations** brought with animal offerings (see Numbers 15:1–16), **where one sacrificed an olive-bulk from one of them outside** the Temple courtyard, he is **liable** for sacrificing outside the courtyard. **And Rabbi Elazar exempts** one from liability **until he sacrifices** them in their **entirety** rather than just an olive-bulk from them.


###### Menachot 12b:3
[Menachot 12b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/12b:3)

כֵּיוָן דִּבְהַקְטָרַת קְמִיצָה לָא מִתְּנֵי לֵיהּ ״אוֹ כְּזַיִת מִקּוּמְצָהּ בַּחוּץ״, בְּשִׁירַיִם נָמֵי לָא מִתְּנֵי לֵיהּ ״אוֹ כְּזַיִת״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Abaye concludes: **Since with regard to the burning of the handful he** could **not teach: Or** burn **an olive-bulk of its handful outside** the Temple, as according to Rabbi Elazar one is not liable for burning anything less than the full handful and therefore intent to burn only an olive-bulk does not render the offering *piggul*, **with regard to** the **remainder as well, he did not teach: Or an olive-bulk.**


###### Menachot 12b:4
[Menachot 12b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/12b:4)

אִי רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר, הַאי ״לְהַקְטִיר קוּמְצָהּ״, ״לְהַקְטִיר קוּמְצָהּ וּלְבוֹנָתָהּ״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ! דִּתְנַן: הַקּוֹמֶץ וְהַלְּבוֹנָה שֶׁהִקְרִיב אֶת אֶחָד מֵהֶן בַּחוּץ – חַיָּיב, וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר פּוֹטֵר עַד שֶׁיַּקְרִיב אֶת שְׁנֵיהֶם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **If** the mishna of Rabbi Ḥiyya is really in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Elazar,** then **this** statement: **To burn its handful** outside the Temple courtyard, **should have** been phrased: **To burn its handful and its frankincense** outside the Temple courtyard, **as we learned** in a mishna (*Zevaḥim* 110a): With regard to **the handful and the frankincense,** in a case **where one sacrificed** only **one of them outside** the Temple courtyard, he is **liable. Rabbi Elazar exempts** from liability one who burns only one of them **until he sacrifices both of them** together.


###### Menachot 12b:5
[Menachot 12b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/12b:5)

לֹא נִצְרְכָא אֶלָּא לְקוֹמֶץ דְּמִנְחַת חוֹטֵא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: The mishna of Rabbi Ḥiyya **is necessary only for the handful of the meal offering of a sinner,** which has no frankincense. Since only the burning of the handful permits the remainder of the sinner’s meal offering for consumption, one’s intent to burn it the next day renders the offering *piggul*. With regard to this meal offering, one is not liable for burning anything less than the full handful, according to Rabbi Elazar, and therefore it does not teach: Or an olive-bulk.


###### Menachot 12b:6
[Menachot 12b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/12b:6)

וְאִיכְּפֵל תַּנָּא לְאַשְׁמוֹעִינַן קוֹמֶץ דְּמִנְחַת חוֹטֵא? אִין. וְכֵן כִּי אֲתָא רַב דִּימִי אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: קוֹמֶץ דְּמִנְחַת חוֹטֵא הוּא, וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר הִיא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And did the *tanna* go to all that trouble [*ve’ikhpal*]** just **to teach us** a *halakha* that is applicable only in the case of **the handful of the meal offering of a sinner?** The Gemara responds: **Yes,** he did. **And similarly, when Rav Dimi came** to Babylonia from Eretz Yisrael, he said that **Rabbi Elazar** ben Pedat **said:** When the mishna discusses an instance where one has intent to sacrifice the handful of a meal offering outside, **it is** referring to the **handful of the meal offering of a sinner, and it is** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Elazar.**


###### Menachot 12b:7
[Menachot 12b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/12b:7)

הֲדַר אָמַר רָבָא: לָאו מִילְּתָא הִיא דַּאֲמַרִי, דְּתַנְיָא: ״קֹדֶשׁ קָדָשִׁים הוּא״, שֶׁאִם נִפְרְסָה אַחַת מֵהֶן – חַלּוֹתֶיהָ כּוּלָּן פְּסוּלוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava then said: That** which **I said,** that the burning of the handful with the intent to consume the remainder the next day is effective in rendering even a remainder that became lacking in measure as *piggul* and to remove it from being subject to misuse of consecrated property **is nothing, as it is taught** in a *baraita*: The verse states with regard to the shewbread: **“It is most holy”** (Leviticus 24:9). The restrictive term “it” teaches that the shewbread must remain whole, so **that if one of** the loaves of the shewbread **broke** and consequently became lacking in measure, then **all of its loaves are disqualified,** and the burning of the bowls of frankincense does not render them permitted for consumption.


###### Menachot 12b:8
[Menachot 12b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/12b:8)

הָא יָצָאת – הָנֵי דְּאִיכָּא גַּוַּואי כְּשֵׁרוֹת, מַאן שָׁמְעַתְּ לֵיהּ דְּאָמַר: זְרִיקָה מוֹעֶלֶת לַיּוֹצֵא? רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא הִיא, וְקָאָמַר: נִפְרְסָה – לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rava continues: It can be inferred from the *baraita* that if the loaves remained whole **but** one of them **left** the Temple, **those that are inside** the Temple are still **fit.** And **whom have you heard who says:** The **sprinkling** of the blood **is effective in** rendering *piggul* an item that **left** the Temple? **It is Rabbi Akiva. And** yet **he says** in this *baraita* that if one of the loaves **broke,** the burning of the frankincense is **not** effective for them. Similarly, with regard to the remainder of a meal offering that became lacking in measure, even Rabbi Akiva agrees that the burning of the handful is ineffective in rendering it *piggul*.


###### Menachot 12b:9
[Menachot 12b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/12b:9)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: מִי קָתָנֵי הָא יָצָאת? דִּלְמָא הָא נִטְמֵאת – הָנָךְ כְּשֵׁרוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said to** Rava: How can you cite a proof from this *baraita*? **Is** it **taught** in this *baraita*: But if a loaf of shewbread **left,** those loaves that remain inside are fit? **Perhaps** all of the loaves are disqualified if even one of them left, and one should infer a different *halakha* from the *baraita*, that **if** one of the loaves **became ritually impure, these** that remain pure **are fit.**


###### Menachot 12b:10
[Menachot 12b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/12b:10)

מַאי טַעְמָא? דִּמְרַצֵּה צִיץ, אֲבָל יָצָאת – לָא, וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר הִיא, דְּאָמַר: אֵין זְרִיקָה מוֹעֶלֶת לַיּוֹצֵא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Abaye explains: **What is the reason** for such a distinction? The reason is **that the frontplate** of the High Priest **effects acceptance** for ritually impure offerings. **But** in a case where a loaf of shewbread **left,** the frontplate does **not** effect acceptance, and therefore all of the loaves are disqualified, as in a case where one loaf breaks. **And** if so, the *baraita* **is** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Eliezer, who says** that **sprinkling is not effective** with regard **to** an item **that left** the Temple courtyard.


###### Menachot 12b:11
[Menachot 12b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/12b:11)

וּבְדִין הוּא דְּאִיבְּעִי לֵיהּ לְמִיתְנֵי נָמֵי יָצָאת, וְהַאי דְּקָתָנֵי נִפְרְסָה – הָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן, דַּאֲפִילּוּ נִפְרְסָה, דְּאִיתֵיהּ בִּפְנִים – לָא מַהְנְיָא לֵיהּ הַקְטָרָה. אֲבָל לְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא דְּאָמַר: זְרִיקָה מוֹעֶלֶת לַיּוֹצֵא – אֲפִילּוּ חֶסְרוֹן נָמֵי מַהְנְיָא לֵיהּ הַקְטָרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Abaye continues: **And by right** the *baraita* **should have also taught** that if one of the loaves of shewbread **left,** all the loaves are disqualified. **And** as for the fact **that it teaches** the *halakha* specifically with regard to a loaf that **broke, this** is what the *baraita* **teaches us: That even** if the loaf **broke,** in **which** case the loaf **is** still **inside** the Temple, **burning is not effective** with regard **to it. But according to Rabbi Akiva, who says** that **sprinkling is effective** with regard **to** an item that **left** the Temple, **even** in the case of **a lacking** measure, **burning is effective** with regard **to it.**


###### Menachot 12b:12
[Menachot 12b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/12b:12)

**מַתְנִי׳** לֶאֱכוֹל כַּחֲצִי זַיִת וּלְהַקְטִיר כַּחֲצִי זַיִת – כָּשֵׁר, שֶׁאֵין אֲכִילָה וְהַקְטָרָה מִצְטָרְפִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** If one’s intent was **to partake of half an olive-bulk** of the remainder **and to burn half an olive-bulk** of it not at the appropriate time or not in the appropriate area, the offering is **fit, because eating and burning do not join together.**


###### Menachot 12b:13
[Menachot 12b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/12b:13)

**גְּמָ׳** טַעְמָא דְּלֶאֱכוֹל וּלְהַקְטִיר, הָא לֶאֱכוֹל וְלֶאֱכוֹל דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין דַּרְכּוֹ לֶאֱכוֹל – מִצְטָרֵף.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The Gemara infers from the mishna: **The reason that** the two halves of an olive-bulk do not join together is because his intent was **to partake of** half an olive-bulk **and to burn** half an olive-bulk, which indicates that if his intent was **to partake** of half an olive-bulk of the remainder **and to partake of** half an olive-bulk of **an item whose** typical **manner** is such that one does **not consume** it, i.e., the handful, then the halves do **join together** to the amount of an olive-bulk and disqualify the offering.


###### Menachot 12b:14
[Menachot 12b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/12b:14)

וְהָקָתָנֵי רֵישָׁא: לֶאֱכוֹל דָּבָר שֶׁדַּרְכּוֹ לֶאֱכוֹל, וּלְהַקְטִיר דָּבָר שֶׁדַּרְכּוֹ לְהַקְטִיר – דָּבָר שֶׁדַּרְכּוֹ לֶאֱכוֹל, אִין; שֶׁאֵין דַּרְכּוֹ לֶאֱכוֹל, לָא. מַאן תַּנָּא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara notes an apparent contradiction: **But the first clause teaches,** in the earlier mishna: If one’s intent was **to partake of an item whose** typical **manner** is such that one **partakes** of it, **or to burn an item whose** typical **manner** is such that one **burns** it on the altar, beyond its designated time, the offering is *piggul*. One can infer from this mishna that if his intent was to partake of **an item whose** typical **manner** is such that one **partakes** of it, **yes,** such intent disqualifies an offering. But if his intent was to partake of an item **whose** typical **manner is** such that one does **not partake** of it, this intent does **not** disqualify the offering, and likewise such intent does not join together with another to this end. If so, **who** is the *tanna* who **taught** the latter clause?


###### Menachot 12b:15
[Menachot 12b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/12b:15)

אָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: הָא מַנִּי? רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר הִיא, דְּאָמַר: מְחַשְּׁבִין מֵאֲכִילַת אָדָם לַמִּזְבֵּחַ, וּמֵאֲכִילַת מִזְבֵּחַ לָאָדָם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yirmeya said:** In accordance with **whose** opinion **is this** mishna? **It is** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Eliezer, who says** that **one can** have improper **intent from the consumption** performed by **a person to** the consumption performed by **the altar, and from the consumption** performed by the **altar to** the consumption performed by **a person.** In other words, if one’s intent was to burn the remainder the next day or to consume the handful the next day, such intent disqualifies an offering even though the remainder is intended for consumption by the priests and the handful is intended for burning upon the altar.


###### Menachot 12b:16
[Menachot 12b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/12b:16)

דִּתְנַן: הַקּוֹמֵץ אֶת הַמִּנְחָה לֶאֱכוֹל דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין דַּרְכּוֹ לֶאֱכוֹל, וּלְהַקְטִיר דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין דַּרְכּוֹ לְהַקְטִיר – כָּשֵׁר, וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר פּוֹסֵל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara cites the relevant ruling of Rabbi Eliezer. **As we learned** in a mishna (17a): In the case of **one who removes a handful from the meal offering** with the intent **to consume** after its designated time **an item whose** typical **manner is** such that one does **not consume** it, i.e., the handful, **or to burn** beyond its designated time **an item whose** typical **manner is** such that one does **not burn** it on the altar, i.e., the remainder of the meal offering, the meal offering is **fit. And Rabbi Eliezer deems** it **unfit,** although it is not *piggul* and consuming it is not punishable by *karet*.


###### Menachot 12b:17
[Menachot 12b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/12b:17)

אַבָּיֵי אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא רַבָּנַן, לָא תֵּימָא הָא לֶאֱכוֹל וְלֶאֱכוֹל דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין דַּרְכּוֹ לֶאֱכוֹל, אֶלָּא אֵימָא הָא לֶאֱכוֹל וְלֶאֱכוֹל דָּבָר שֶׁדַּרְכּוֹ לֶאֱכוֹל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said: You** may **even say** that the mishna here is in accordance with the opinion of **the Rabbis.** And **do not say that** one should infer from the mishna that if his intent was **to partake** of half an olive-bulk of an item whose typical manner is such that one consumes it **and to partake of** half an olive-bulk of **an item whose** typical **manner is** such that one does **not partake** of it, the offering is disqualified. **Rather, say** that if his intent was **to partake** of half an olive-bulk on the next day **and to partake** of half an olive-bulk outside the Temple, and each of these halves is from **an item whose** typical **manner** is such that one **partakes** of it, then the halves are joined together and disqualify the offering.


###### Menachot 12b:18
[Menachot 12b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/12b:18)

וּמַאי קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן? הָא בְּהֶדְיָא קָתָנֵי לַהּ: לֶאֱכוֹל כְּזַיִת בַּחוּץ וּכְזַיִת לְמָחָר, כְּזַיִת לְמָחָר וּכְזַיִת בַּחוּץ, כַּחֲצִי זַיִת בַּחוּץ וְכַחֲצִי זַיִת לְמָחָר, כַּחֲצִי זַיִת לְמָחָר וְכַחֲצִי זַיִת בַּחוּץ – פָּסוּל וְאֵין בּוֹ כָּרֵת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And what is** this **teaching us?** The previous mishna already **teaches** that principle **explicitly:** If one performed one of these rites with the intent **to partake of an olive-bulk outside** its designated area **and an olive-bulk the next day,** or **an olive-bulk the next day and an olive-bulk outside** its designated area, or **half an olive-bulk outside** its designated area **and half an olive-bulk the next day,** or **half an olive-bulk the next day and half an olive-bulk outside** its designated area, the offering is **unfit but there is no** liability for ***karet*.**