## Menachot Daf 13b

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

קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דִּבְהָא מוֹדֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Therefore, the *tanna* **teaches us that in this** case Rabbi Yosei **concedes** that if the handful is removed with the intent to burn only the handful on the next day, the offering is rendered *piggul*. Accordingly, Rabbi Yosei holds that one renders an offering *piggul* with intent that concerns only half of its permitting factors, and the offering is not rendered *piggul* in the case of the latter clause for a different reason, as the Gemara will discuss later.


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

לְהַקְטִיר לְבוֹנָתָהּ לְמָחָר, רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: פָּסוּל וְאֵין בּוֹ כָּרֵת. אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: אוֹמֵר הָיָה רַבִּי יוֹסֵי, אֵין מַתִּיר מְפַגֵּל אֶת הַמַּתִּיר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches that if one removed the handful from a meal offering with the intent **to burn its frankincense** on **the next day, Rabbi Yosei says** that the meal offering is **unfit but** partaking of it **does not include** liability to receive ***karet*.** Concerning this, **Reish Lakish says: Rabbi Yosei would say,** i.e., this is Rabbi Yosei’s reasoning: **A permitting factor does not render** another **permitting factor *piggul*.** In other words, if, while performing the rites of a permitting factor, one had intent to perform the rites of a different permitting factor outside its designated time, the offering is not rendered *piggul* on account of this intent.


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

וְכֵן אַתָּה אוֹמֵר בִּשְׁנֵי בְּזִיכֵי לְבוֹנָה שֶׁל לֶחֶם הַפָּנִים, שֶׁאֵין מַתִּיר מְפַגֵּל אֶת הַמַּתִּיר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Reish Lakish adds: **And you** would **say the same with regard to** the **two bowls of frankincense of the shewbread, that a permitting factor does not render** another **permitting factor *piggul*,** and therefore if the priest burned one of the bowls with the intent to burn the other bowl the next day, the shewbread is not rendered *piggul*.


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

מַאי ״וְכֵן אַתָּה אוֹמֵר״? מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בִּלְבוֹנָה – מִשּׁוּם דְּלָאו מִינַהּ דְּמִנְחָה הִיא, אֲבָל בִּשְׁנֵי בְּזִיכֵי לְבוֹנָה, דְּמִינַהּ דַּהֲדָדֵי נִינְהוּ – אֵימָא מְפַגְּלִי אַהֲדָדֵי, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What** is the purpose of the apparently superfluous statement: **And you** would **say the same** with regard to the two bowls of frankincense? Is there reason to assume that Rabbi Yosei would hold that the shewbread is rendered *piggul* in such a case? The Gemara responds that it is necessary, **lest you say** that **the reason that Rabbi Yosei** holds that there is no *piggul* **in** the case of the **frankincense** is **because it is not** of the same **type as a meal offering. But with regard to** the **two bowls of frankincense, which are of the same type as each other,** one might **say** that **they do render one another *piggul*.** Therefore, Reish Lakish **teaches us** that in both instances one permitting factor does not render another permitting factor *piggul*.


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

וּמִי מָצֵית אָמְרַתְּ טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בִּלְבוֹנָה לָאו מִשּׁוּם דְּלָאו מִינַהּ דְּמִנְחָה הִיא? וְהָא קָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: אָמְרוּ לוֹ: מָה שִׁינְּתָה מִן הַזֶּבַח? אָמַר לָהֶן: הַזֶּבַח דָּמוֹ וּבְשָׂרוֹ וְאֵימוּרָיו אֶחָד, וּלְבוֹנָה אֵינָהּ מִן הַמִּנְחָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And can you say** that **the reason** for the opinion **of Rabbi Yosei in** the case of the **frankincense** in the mishna **is not due to** the fact **that** the frankincense **is not** of the same **type as a meal offering? But isn’t it taught** in **the latter clause** of the mishna that the Rabbis **said to** Rabbi Yosei: In **what** manner does the frankincense **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*; and 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, **but** the **frankincense is not** part **of the meal offering?** The mishna indicates that according to Rabbi Yosei the reason the meal offering is not *piggul* is because the frankincense is not of the same type as the meal offering.


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

מַאי ״אֵינָהּ מִן הַמִּנְחָה״? אֵינָהּ בְּעִיכּוּב מִנְחָה, דְּלָאו כִּי הֵיכִי דִּמְעַכֵּב לְהוּ קוֹמֶץ לְשִׁירַיִם, דְּכַמָּה דְּלָאו מִתְקַטַּר קוֹמֶץ לָא מִיתְאַכְלִי שִׁירַיִם, הָכִי נָמֵי מְעַכֵּב לַהּ לִלְבוֹנָה, אֶלָּא אִי בָּעֵי הַאי מַקְטַר בְּרֵישָׁא וְאִי בָּעֵי הַאי מַקְטַר בְּרֵישָׁא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **What** does Rabbi Yosei mean when he says that the frankincense **is not** part **of the meal offering?** He means that **it is not** part **of** the **preclusion** of the **meal offering.** The Gemara elaborates: This means **that** the *halakha* is **not** that **just as** the **handful precludes** the **remainder,** i.e., **that as long as** the **handful is not burned** the **remainder may not be consumed, so too** the handful **precludes the frankincense** from being burned upon the altar. **Rather, if** the priest **wants, he burns this first, and if he wants, he burns that first,** i.e., he may burn the frankincense before or after the burning of the handful. Accordingly, the frankincense is an independent permitting factor. For this reason, intent with regard to the frankincense that occurred during the removal of the handful does not render a meal offering *piggul*.


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

וְרַבָּנַן, כִּי אָמְרִינַן ״אֵין מַתִּיר מְפַגֵּל אֶת הַמַּתִּיר״ (גַּבֵּי שָׁחַט אֶחָד מִן הַכְּבָשִׂים לֶאֱכוֹל מֵחֲבֵירוֹ לְמָחָר, דְּאָמְרַתְּ שְׁנֵיהֶם כְּשֵׁרִים), הָנֵי מִילֵּי הֵיכָא דְּלָא אִיקְּבַעוּ בְּחַד מָנָא, אֲבָל הֵיכָא דְּאִיקְּבַעוּ בְּחַד מָנָא – כְּחַד דָּמֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And the Rabbis,** who say that the meal offering is rendered *piggul* in such a case, what is their opinion? The Gemara responds: They hold that **when we say** that **a permitting factor does not render** another **permitting factor *piggul*,** this is **with regard to** the case taught in a mishna (16a) concerning one who **slaughtered one of the lambs** whose sacrifice permits the consumption of the two loaves meal offering brought on *Shavuot*, with the intent **to partake of the other** lamb **the next day.** The Gemara elaborates: **When you said** in the mishna that **both** permitting factors **are fit, this statement** applies only **where they were not fixed in one vessel. But** in a situation **where they were fixed in one vessel,** as is the case with regard to the handful and the frankincense, they are **considered like one** unit, and therefore they render one another *piggul*.


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

אָמַר רַבִּי יַנַּאי: לִיקּוּט לְבוֹנָה בְּזָר – פָּסוּל. מַאי טַעְמָא? אָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: מִשּׁוּם הוֹלָכָה נָגְעוּ בָּהּ, קָסָבַר הוֹלָכָה שֶׁלֹּא בָּרֶגֶל שְׁמָהּ הוֹלָכָה, וְהוֹלָכָה בְּזָר – פְּסוּלָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ With regard to the frankincense, **Rabbi Yannai says:** The **collection** of the **frankincense** from a meal offering, when performed **by a non-priest,** is **not valid** and disqualifies the meal offering. The Gemara asks: **What is the reason? Rabbi Yirmeya said:** It is **because** the rite of **conveying has touched it,** i.e., the collection of the frankincense is considered part of the rite of the conveying of the frankincense to the altar for the purpose of burning. Even if the non-priest simply collected the frankincense and thereafter transferred it to a priest, Rabbi Yannai **holds** that **conveying** even **without** moving one’s **leg is called conveying, and** the *halakha* is that the performance of the rite of **conveying by a non-priest** is **not valid.**


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

אָמַר רַב מָרִי: אַף אֲנַן נָמֵי תְּנֵינָא, זֶה הַכְּלָל: כׇּל הַקּוֹמֵץ, וְנוֹתֵן בִּכְלִי, וְהַמּוֹלִיךְ, וְהַמַּקְטִיר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Mari said: We learn** this *halakha* in the mishna on 12a, which discusses those sacrificial rites of a meal offering during which improper intent renders an offering *piggul*, **as well.** The mishna teaches: **This is the principle:** In the case of **anyone who removes the handful, or places** the handful **in the vessel,** or **who conveys** the vessel with the handful to the altar, or **who burns** the handful on the altar, with the intent 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, outside its designated area, the meal offering is unfit but there is no liability for *karet*. If his intent was to perform any of these actions beyond their designated time, the offering is *piggul* and one is liable to receive *karet* on account of it, provided that the permitting factor, i.e., the handful, was sacrificed in accordance with its mitzva.


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

בִּשְׁלָמָא קוֹמֵץ הַיְינוּ שׁוֹחֵט, מוֹלִיךְ נָמֵי הַיְינוּ מוֹלִיךְ, מַקְטִיר הַיְינוּ זוֹרֵק, אֶלָּא נוֹתֵן בִּכְלִי מַאי קָא עָבֵיד?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Mari analyzes the first part of this mishna: **Granted,** the **removal of the handful** from a meal offering **is** the same as, i.e., equivalent to, the **slaughter** of animal offerings. The **conveying** of the handful to the altar in order to burn it **is also** the same as the **conveying** of the blood of a slaughtered offering to the altar in order to sprinkle it. Similarly, the **burning** of the handful and frankincense of a meal offering **is** comparable to the **sprinkling** of the blood of a slaughtered offering upon the altar. **But** as for **placing** the handful **in the** service **vessel, what** rite **is he performing** that is comparable to a rite of slaughtered offerings?


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

אִילֵּימָא מִשּׁוּם דְּדָמֵי לְקַבָּלָה, מִי דָּמֵי? הָתָם מִמֵּילָא, הָכָא קָא שָׁקֵיל וְרָמֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**If we say** that the meal offering is *piggul* **because** the placing of the handful into a vessel **is comparable to** the **collection** of the blood of a slaughtered offering into a service vessel, one can ask: **Are** these rites in fact **comparable? There,** in the case of animal offerings, the blood enters the vessel **by itself,** whereas **here,** the priest **takes** the handful from the meal offering **and casts** it into the vessel.


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

אֶלָּא מִשּׁוּם דְּכֵיוָן דְּלָא סַגִּיא לֵיהּ דְּלָא עָבֵד לַהּ, עֲבוֹדָה חֲשׁוּבָה הִיא, עַל כֻּרְחָיךְ מְשַׁוֵּי לַהּ כְּקַבָּלָה. הָכָא נָמֵי, כֵּיוָן דְּלָא סַגִּיא לֵהּ דְּלָא עָבֵד לַהּ, עֲבוֹדָה חֲשׁוּבָה הִיא, עַל כֻּרְחָיךְ מְשַׁוֵּי לַהּ כִּי הוֹלָכָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** it must be **due to** the following reason: **Since it is not possible** to sacrifice the handful **without** first **performing** the act of placing it in a vessel, the placement of the handful in a vessel **is** considered **a significant rite,** and **perforce** this factor causes it to be **considered like** the **collection** of the blood. **Here too,** with regard to the collection of the frankincense, **since it is not possible** to sacrifice the frankincense **without** first **performing** the act of collecting it from the vessel, the collection of the frankincense **is a significant rite** that **perforce** causes it to be **considered like** the rite of **conveying.**


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

לָא, לְעוֹלָם דְּדָמֵי לְקַבָּלָה, וּדְקָא קַשְׁיָא לָךְ: הָתָם מִמֵּילָא, הָכָא קָא שָׁקֵיל וְרָמֵי –

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this suggestion: **No,** this is not the reason, and one cannot prove from the mishna that the collection of the frankincense from a meal offering performed by a non-priest is not valid. **Actually,** the reason why intent during the placement of the handful renders the offering *piggul* is in fact **because it is comparable to** the **collection** of the blood of a slaughtered offering. **And as for** the **difficulty you** raised, that **there** the blood enters the vessel **by itself,** whereas **here he takes** the handful from the meal offering **and casts** it into the vessel, this is not a true difficulty.


###### Menachot 13b:14
[Menachot 13b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/13b:14)

מִכְּדֵי תַּרְוַיְיהוּ קְדוּשַּׁת כְּלִי הוּא, מָה לִי מִמֵּילָא, מָה לִי קָא שָׁקֵיל וְרָמֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **Now** consider, **both of them,** i.e., the collection of the blood and the placing of the handful, involve the **sanctity of a vessel,** in which a service vessel sanctifies a permitting factor to the altar, either the handful or the blood. **What** difference is it **to me** if the permitting factor enters the vessel **by itself or** whether one **takes** the item **and casts** it into the vessel?


###### Menachot 13b:15
[Menachot 13b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/13b:15)

**מַתְנִי׳** שָׁחַט שְׁנֵי כְּבָשִׂים לֶאֱכוֹל אַחַת מִן הַחַלּוֹת לְמָחָר, הִקְטִיר שְׁנֵי בָּזִיכִין לֶאֱכוֹל אֶחָד מִן הַסְּדָרִים לְמָחָר, רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: אוֹתָהּ הַחַלָּה וְאוֹתוֹ הַסֵּדֶר שֶׁחִישֵּׁב עָלָיו – פִּיגּוּל וְחַיָּיבִין עָלָיו כָּרֵת, וְהַשֵּׁנִי פָּסוּל וְאֵין בּוֹ כָּרֵת. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: זֶה וָזֶה פִּיגּוּל וְחַיָּיבִין עָלָיו כָּרֵת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** If **one slaughtered** the **two lambs** that accompany the two meal offering loaves sacrificed on *Shavuot* with the intent **to partake of one of the** two **loaves the next day,** or if **one burned** the **two bowls** of frankincense accompanying the shewbread with the intent **to partake of one of the arrangements** of the shewbread **the next day, Rabbi Yosei says: That loaf and that arrangement of which he intended** to partake the next day are ***piggul* and one is liable** to receive ***karet* for** their consumption, **and the second** loaf and arrangement are **unfit, but there is no** liability to receive ***karet* for** their consumption. **And the Rabbis say: This** loaf and arrangement **and that** loaf and arrangement are both ***piggul* and one is liable** to receive ***karet* for** their consumption.


###### Menachot 13b:16
[Menachot 13b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/13b:16)

**גְּמָ׳** אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: אוֹמֵר הָיָה רַבִּי יוֹסֵי, פִּיגֵּל בַּיָּרֵךְ שֶׁל יָמִין – לֹא נִתְפַּגֵּל הַיָּרֵךְ שֶׁל שְׂמֹאל. מַאי טַעְמָא? אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא סְבָרָא, וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא קְרָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **Rav Huna says: Rabbi Yosei would say,** in accordance with his opinion that intent of *piggul* with regard to one loaf or one arrangement does not render the second loaf or arrangement *piggul*, that if one **had intent of *piggul* with regard to the right thigh,** i.e., he slaughtered an offering with the intent to partake of the right thigh the next day, then **the left thigh has not become *piggul*** and one is not liable to receive *karet* for its consumption. **What is the reason** for this? **If you wish, propose a logical argument, and if you wish, cite a verse.**


###### Menachot 13b:17
[Menachot 13b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/13b:17)

אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא סְבָרָא: לָא עֲדִיפָא מַחְשָׁבָה מִמַּעֲשֵׂה הַטּוּמְאָה, אִילּוּ אִיטַּמִּי חַד אֵבֶר מִי אִיטַּמִּי לֵיהּ כּוּלֵּיהּ? וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא קְרָא: ״וְהַנֶּפֶשׁ הָאֹכֶלֶת מִמֶּנּוּ עֲוֹנָהּ תִּשָּׂא״ – מִמֶּנּוּ וְלֹא מֵחֲבֵירוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Huna elaborates: **If you wish, propose a logical argument:** Disqualifying **intent is no stronger than an incident of ritual impurity,** and **if one limb** of an offering **became impure, did the entire** offering then **become impure?** Accordingly, one limb can be rendered *piggul* without the other. **And if you wish, cite a verse** that addresses *piggul*: **“And the soul that eats of it shall bear his iniquity”** (Leviticus 7:18). The verse indicates that one who eats specifically **“of it,”** i.e., from one part, shall bear his iniquity, **and not** one who eats **from the other** part of the offering.


###### Menachot 13b:18
[Menachot 13b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/13b:18)

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַב נַחְמָן לְרַב הוּנָא: וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, לְעוֹלָם אֵין בּוֹ כָּרֵת עַד שֶׁיְּפַגֵּל בִּשְׁתֵּיהֶן בִּכְזַיִת. בִּשְׁתֵּיהֶן – אִין, בְּאַחַת מֵהֶן – לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Naḥman raised an objection to** Rav **Huna** from a *baraita*: **And the Rabbis say** that **there is never** liability to receive ***karet*** for partaking of the two loaves **unless one has intent of *piggul* with regard to an olive-bulk of both of them,** i.e., one’s intent renders both loaves *piggul* only if he slaughters the lambs with the intent to consume an amount equal to an olive-bulk from both loaves combined outside their proper time. One can infer from this that if he had intent **with regard to both of them, yes,** both loaves are *piggul*. But if his intent was **with regard to** only **one of them, no,** the other loaf is not *piggul*.


###### Menachot 13b:19
[Menachot 13b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/13b:19)

מַנִּי? אִילֵּימָא רַבָּנַן – אֲפִילּוּ בְּאַחַת מֵהֶן נָמֵי! אֶלָּא פְּשִׁיטָא רַבִּי יוֹסֵי. אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא חַד גּוּפָא הוּא – מִשּׁוּם הָכִי מִצְטָרֵף,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Naḥman continues: In accordance with **whose** opinion is the *baraita*? **If we say** that it is in accordance with the opinion of **the Rabbis** of the mishna, then **even** if his intent was **with regard to** only **one of them,** both loaves are rendered *piggul*. **Rather,** it is **obvious** that the *baraita* is in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Yosei.** Now, **granted, if you say** that according to Rabbi Yosei the left and right thighs of an offering are considered **one body,** and consequently *piggul* intent with regard to one thigh renders the other thigh *piggul* as well, then **due to that** reason it is understandable that if the *piggul* intent was for an amount equal to one total olive-bulk from both of the loaves, then the intent with regard to each loaf is **combined** with the other.