## Menachot Daf 13a

###### Menachot 13a:1
[Menachot 13a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/13a:1)

הָא תּוּ לְמָה לִי? אִי לֶאֱכוֹל וְלֶאֱכוֹל דָּבָר (שאין) [שֶׁ]דַּרְכּוֹ לֶאֱכוֹל קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דְּמִצְטָרֵף, מֵרֵישָׁא דְּסֵיפָא שָׁמְעַתְּ מִינַּהּ, דְּקָתָנֵי: כַּחֲצִי זַיִת בַּחוּץ כַּחֲצִי זַיִת לְמָחָר פָּסוּל, הָא כַּחֲצִי זַיִת לְמָחָר וְכַחֲצִי זַיִת לְמָחָר – פִּיגּוּל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
According to Abaye, **why do I also** need **this** mishna here? **If** you will suggest that this mishna is necessary, as one can infer from it that if one intended **to partake** of half an olive-bulk the next day **and** then intended **to partake of** another half an olive-bulk the next day, both from **an item whose** typical **manner** is such that one **partakes** of it, the mishna **teaches us that** they **join together** in order to render the offering *piggul*, this suggestion can be rejected: But **you** already **learn** the *halakha* in this case **from the first clause of the latter clause** of the previous mishna, **as it teaches: Half an olive-bulk outside and half an olive-bulk the next day,** the offering is **unfit.** One can infer from this **that** if his intent was to consume **half an olive-bulk the next day and half an olive-bulk the next day,** it is ***piggul*.**


###### Menachot 13a:2
[Menachot 13a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/13a:2)

אִי לֶאֱכוֹל וּלְהַקְטִיר (דְּהִיא גּוּפַהּ קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן), מִדִּיּוּקָא דְּרֵישָׁא שָׁמְעַתְּ מִינַּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**If** you suggest that the mishna is necessary for a case where one intended **to consume and to burn,** i.e., **that** the mishna **teaches us the** matter **itself,** that intent to consume does not join together with intent to burn, this too cannot be. The reason is that **from the inference of the first clause** of the mishna **you** can already **learn** the *halakha* in this case, as it teaches: If one intended to partake of an item whose typical manner is such that one partakes of it, the offering is rendered *piggul*. This indicates that if his intent was to consume an item whose typical manner is such that one does not consume it, the offering is not rendered *piggul*.


###### Menachot 13a:3
[Menachot 13a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/13a:3)

דְּהַשְׁתָּא, מָה לֶאֱכוֹל וְלֶאֱכוֹל דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין דַּרְכּוֹ לֶאֱכוֹל – אָמְרַתְּ לָא מִצְטָרֵף, לֶאֱכוֹל וּלְהַקְטִיר מִיבַּעְיָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains how the *halakha* **that** intent to consume and burn do not combine can be inferred from the mishna: **Now** consider, **if** when one intended **to partake** of an item whose typical manner is such that one partakes of it **and to partake of an item whose** typical **manner is** such that one does **not partake of** it, **you say** that his intentions **do not join together,** despite the fact that both of his intentions referred to consumption, **is it necessary** for the mishna to teach that intentions **to consume and to burn** do not join together?


###### Menachot 13a:4
[Menachot 13a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/13a:4)

אִין, לֶאֱכוֹל וּלְהַקְטִיר אִיצְטְרִיכָא לֵיהּ, סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: הָתָם הוּא דְּלָא כִּי אוֹרְחֵיהּ קָמְחַשֵּׁב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: **Yes;** although the mishna teaches the *halakha* of a case where one intended to consume an item typically consumed and to consume an item typically not consumed, **it was necessary for** the mishna to teach the *halakha* of a case where one intended **to eat and to burn.** As it might **enter your mind to say** that **there,** where one’s intentions referred solely to consumption, the *halakha* **is** that his intentions do not join together, **as he intended** to act **not in accordance with its** typical **manner,** since he intended to consume that which is not meant to be consumed.


###### Menachot 13a:5
[Menachot 13a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/13a:5)

אֲבָל הָכָא, דִּבְהַאי כִּי אוֹרְחֵיהּ קָמְחַשֵּׁב, וּבְהַאי כִּי אוֹרְחֵיהּ קָא מְחַשֵּׁב, אֵימָא לִצְטָרֵף, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara continues: **But here,** where his intent was to consume half an olive-bulk and to burn half an olive-bulk, **where with regard to this** half **he intends** in **accordance with its** typical **manner, and with regard to this** half **he intends in accordance with its** typical **manner,** one might **say** that **they should join together,** despite the fact that each intention concerns only half an olive-bulk. Therefore, the mishna **teaches us** that such intentions do not join together, and the mishna can be explained even in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis.


###### Menachot 13a:6
[Menachot 13a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/13a:6)

**הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ כׇּל הַמְּנָחוֹת.**


###### Menachot 13a:7
[Menachot 13a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/13a:7)

מַתְנִי׳ **הַקּוֹמֵץ אֶת הַמִּנְחָה** לֶאֱכוֹל שְׁיָרֶיהָ אוֹ לְהַקְטִיר קוּמְצָהּ לְמָחָר – מוֹדֶה רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בָּזֶה שֶׁהוּא פִּיגּוּל וְחַיָּיבִין עָלָיו כָּרֵת. לְהַקְטִיר לְבוֹנָתָהּ לְמָחָר, רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: פָּסוּל וְאֵין בּוֹ כָּרֵת, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: פִּיגּוּל וְחַיָּיבִין עָלָיו כָּרֵת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** In the case of a priest **who removes a handful from the meal offering** with the intent **to partake of its remainder or to burn its handful** on **the next day, Rabbi Yosei concedes in this** instance **that it is** a case of ***piggul* and he is liable** to receive ***karet* for** partaking of **it.** But if the priest’s intent was **to burn its frankincense the next day, Rabbi Yosei says:** The meal offering is **unfit but** partaking of it **does not include** liability to receive ***karet*. And the Rabbis say:** It is a case of ***piggul* and he is liable** to receive ***karet* for** partaking of the meal offering.


###### Menachot 13a:8
[Menachot 13a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/13a:8)

אָמְרוּ לוֹ: מָה (שִׁינָּה) [שָׁנַת] זוֹ מִן הַזֶּבַח? אָמַר לָהֶן: שֶׁהַזֶּבַח דָּמוֹ וּבְשָׂרוֹ וְאֵימוּרָיו אֶחָד, וּלְבוֹנָה אֵינָהּ מִן הַמִּנְחָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Rabbis **said to** Rabbi Yosei: In **what** manner does **this differ from** an animal **offering,** where if one slaughtered it with the intent to sacrifice the portions consumed on the altar the next day, it is *piggul*? Rabbi Yosei **said to** the Rabbis: There is a difference, **as** in **the** case of an animal **offering, its blood, and its flesh, and its portions** consumed on the altar are all **one** entity. Consequently, intent with regard to any one of them renders the entire offering *piggul*. **But** the **frankincense is not** part **of the meal offering.**


###### Menachot 13a:9
[Menachot 13a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/13a:9)

**גְּמָ׳** לְמָה לִי לְמִיתְנֵא ״מוֹדֶה רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בָּזוֹ״?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The Gemara questions the terminology of the mishna: **Why do I** need the *tanna* **to teach** that **Rabbi Yosei concedes in this** instance? Let the *tanna* simply state: If one removes the handful from a meal offering with the intent to partake of its remainder or to burn the handful on the next day, Rabbi Yosei says that the offering is *piggul* and one is liable to receive *karet* for partaking of the remainder.


###### Menachot 13a:10
[Menachot 13a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/13a:10)

מִשּׁוּם דְּקָא בָּעֵי לְמִיתְנֵא סֵיפָא, לְהַקְטִיר לְבוֹנָתָהּ לְמָחָר, רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: פָּסוּל וְאֵין בּוֹ כָּרֵת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: It was necessary for the *tanna* to teach that Rabbi Yosei concedes, **because he wants to teach the latter clause** of the mishna, that if his intent was **to burn its frankincense the next day, Rabbi Yosei says** that the meal offering is **unfit, but** partaking of it **does not include** liability to receive ***karet*.**


###### Menachot 13a:11
[Menachot 13a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/13a:11)

מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי מִשּׁוּם דְּקָסָבַר אֵין מְפַגְּלִין בַּחֲצִי מַתִּיר, וַאֲפִילּוּ רֵישָׁא נָמֵי,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara elaborates: The reason the *tanna* links the two cases of the mishna is **lest you say** that **the reason that Rabbi Yosei** does not render the meal offering *piggul* is **because he holds** that one **cannot render** an offering ***piggul* with** intent that concerns only **half of** its **permitting factors. And** consequently, since the burning of the handful and the frankincense render the remainder of a meal offering permitted for consumption, then **even** in **the first clause** of the mishna, where one intends to burn the handful the next day, Rabbi Yosei should hold that the offering is not rendered *piggul*, as the intent does not refer to the frankincense as well.