## Menachot Daf 14b

###### Menachot 14b:1
[Menachot 14b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/14b:1)

מִיפַּגְּלִי – הָכָא דְּחַשֵּׁיב בְּהוּ בִּזְבִיחָה גּוּפַהּ, לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
and yet Rabbi Yosei said that the remainder **is rendered *piggul*;** then **here, where he has intent** to partake of the right thigh the next day, which is part **of** the **offering itself,** is it **not all the more so** that both thighs should become *piggul*?


###### Menachot 14b:2
[Menachot 14b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/14b:2)

אֶלָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הַיְינוּ טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי – הַכָּתוּב עֲשָׂאָן גּוּף אֶחָד, וְהַכָּתוּב עֲשָׂאָן שְׁנֵי גּוּפִין; גּוּף אֶחָד – דִּמְעַכְּבִי אַהֲדָדֵי, שְׁנֵי גּוּפִין – דְּאָמַר רַחֲמָנָא: הָא לְחוֹדַהּ עֲבִידָא וְהָא לְחוֹדַהּ עֲבִידָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Rabbi Yoḥanan said:** Rabbi Yosei holds that intent of *piggul* with regard to one thigh renders the other thigh *piggul* as well, as they are of one body. Similarly, with regard to two loaves, Rabbi Yosei is of the opinion that if one intends to consume an amount equal to an olive-bulk from both loaves, both loaves are rendered *piggul*. And as for his statement that intent of *piggul* with regard to one loaf does not render the other loaf *piggul*, **this is the reasoning of Rabbi Yosei: The verse renders** the two loaves **one body, and the verse** also **renders them two bodies.** The verse renders them **one body** in the sense **that they preclude one another,** i.e., neither loaf is valid without the other. The verse also renders them **two bodies, as the Merciful One states: This** loaf **is prepared alone and that is prepared alone,** i.e., the kneading and arrangement of each loaf must be performed separately.


###### Menachot 14b:3
[Menachot 14b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/14b:3)

עָרְבִינְהוּ – מִתְעָרְבִין, דְּהַכָּתוּב עֲשָׂאָן גּוּף אֶחָד; פַּלְגִינְהוּ מִיפַּלְגִי, דְּהַכָּתוּב עֲשָׂאָן שְׁנֵי גּוּפִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Therefore, if the priest **mixed them** together by intending to consume an olive-bulk from both of them, then **they are mixed** and they are both *piggul*, **as the verse renders them one body.** But if **he separated them** by having intent with regard to only one loaf, in that case **they are separated** and only that loaf is *piggul*, **as the verse renders them two bodies.**


###### Menachot 14b:4
[Menachot 14b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/14b:4)

בָּעֵי רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: פִּיגֵּל בְּלַחְמֵי תוֹדָה מַהוּ, בְּמִנְחַת מַאֲפֶה מַהוּ? תְּנָא לֵיהּ רַב תַּחְלִיפָא מִמַּעְרְבָא: וְכֵן אַתָּה אוֹמֵר בְּלַחְמֵי תוֹדָה, וְכֵן אַתָּה אוֹמֵר בְּמִנְחַת מַאֲפֶה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yoḥanan raises a dilemma:** If one **had intent of *piggul* with regard to** one type of loaf from the **loaves of a thanks offering, what is** the *halakha* concerning the remaining types of loaves, i.e., are they rendered *piggul* as well? Similarly, if one had intent of *piggul* **with regard to** either the loaves or the wafers of **baked meal offerings, what is** the *halakha* with regard to the remaining type? **Rav Taḥlifa from the West,** i.e., Eretz Yisrael, **taught him** a *baraita* that states: **And likewise you say with regard to the bread of a thanks offering, and likewise you say with regard to a baked meal offering,** that the *halakha* is a matter of dispute between Rabbi Yosei and the Rabbis.


###### Menachot 14b:5
[Menachot 14b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/14b:5)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: בִּשְׁעַת שְׁחִיטָה חִישֵּׁב לֶאֱכוֹל חֲצִי זַיִת, וּבִשְׁעַת זְרִיקָה חִישֵּׁב לֶאֱכוֹל חֲצִי זַיִת – פִּיגּוּל, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁשְּׁחִיטָה וּזְרִיקָה מִצְטָרְפִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **The Sages taught** in a *baraita*: If **at the time of** the **slaughter** of an offering one **had intent to consume half an olive-bulk** of its meat the next day, **and at the time of** the **sprinkling** of the blood **he had intent to consume half** of another **olive-bulk** of meat the next day, the offering is ***piggul*, as** intentions that occur during the **slaughter and sprinkling combine** to render an offering *piggul*.


###### Menachot 14b:6
[Menachot 14b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/14b:6)

אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: שְׁחִיטָה וּזְרִיקָה, דְּתַרְוַויְיהוּ מַתִּירִין – אִין, קַבָּלָה וְהוֹלָכָה – לָא. וְאִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: הָנָךְ דִּמְרַחֲקָן, וְכׇל שֶׁכֵּן הָנֵי דִּמְקָרְבָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
There is a dispute between *amora’im* with regard to the *halakha* of this *baraita*: **Some say** that in the case of intentions that occur specifically during the **slaughter and sprinkling, as both of them are permitting factors** of the offering, **yes,** the intentions combine. But intentions that occur during the **collection** of the blood in a service vessel **and** the **conveying** of the blood to the altar do **not** combine, as neither rite is a permitting factor. **And some say** that if intentions during **those** rites **that are distant** from one another, i.e., the slaughter and sprinkling, combine, **all the more so** intentions during **these** rites **that are close** to one another, i.e., collection and conveying, certainly combine.


###### Menachot 14b:7
[Menachot 14b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/14b:7)

אִינִי? וְהָא תָּנֵי לֵוִי: אַרְבַּע עֲבוֹדוֹת אֵין מִצְטָרְפוֹת לְפִיגּוּל, שְׁחִיטָה וּזְרִיקָה, קַבָּלָה וְהוֹלָכָה! אָמַר רָבָא, לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא רַבִּי, הָא רַבָּנַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Is that so,** i.e., that intentions during the slaughter and sprinkling combine? **But Levi teaches** in a *baraita*: Intentions that occur during the **four** sacrificial **rites do not combine to** render an offering ***piggul*,** and those rites are: **Slaughter and sprinkling, collection and conveying. Rava said:** It is **not difficult; this** statement of Levi is in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi, whereas **that** *baraita* is in accordance with the opinion of **the Rabbis.**


###### Menachot 14b:8
[Menachot 14b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/14b:8)

דְּתַנְיָא: הַשּׁוֹחֵט אֶת הַכֶּבֶשׂ לֶאֱכוֹל חֲצִי זַיִת מֵחַלָּה זוֹ, וְכֵן חֲבֵירוֹ לֶאֱכוֹל חֲצִי זַיִת מֵחַלָּה זוֹ, רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: אוֹמֵר אֲנִי שֶׁזֶּה כָּשֵׁר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**As it is taught** in a *baraita* with regard to the two loaves and two lambs sacrificed on *Shavuot*: With regard to **one who slaughters** one of **the lambs** brought as peace offerings on *Shavuot* with the intent **to consume half an olive-bulk from this loaf** the next day, **and similarly,** he slaughtered **the other** lamb with the intent **to consume half an olive-bulk from that** second **loaf** the next day, **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **says: I say that this** offering is **valid.** Clearly, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that intentions that occur during the performance of two permitting factors do not combine to render an offering *piggul*.


###### Menachot 14b:9
[Menachot 14b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/14b:9)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: אֵימַר דְּשָׁמְעַתְּ לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי – חֲצִי מַתִּיר וַחֲצִי אֲכִילָה, כּוּלּוֹ מַתִּיר וַחֲצִי אֲכִילָה מִי שָׁמְעַתְּ לֵיהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said to** Rava: You can **say that you have heard that Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi holds that intentions do not combine to render an offering *piggul* when each intention is concerning **half a permitting factor and half** a measure of **consumption,** i.e., one lamb and half an olive-bulk. But in a case where one had intentions during the performance of **an entire permitting factor,** i.e., during the slaughter and sprinkling, **and** concerning **half** a measure of **consumption, did you hear him** say that such intentions do not combine?


###### Menachot 14b:10
[Menachot 14b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/14b:10)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא בַּר רַב חָנָן לְאַבָּיֵי: וְאִי אִית לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי כּוּלּוֹ מַתִּיר וַחֲצִי אֲכִילָה, לִגְזוֹר חֲצִי מַתִּיר וַחֲצִי אֲכִילָה אַטּוּ כּוּלּוֹ מַתִּיר וַחֲצִי אֲכִילָה, דְּהָא רַבִּי יוֹסֵי גָּזַר וְרַבָּנַן גָּזְרִי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava bar Rav Ḥanan said to Abaye: But if Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **is of** the opinion that intentions during the performance of **an entire permitting factor and** concerning **half** a measure of **consumption** combine to render an offering *piggul*, why does he rule that when one slaughters each lamb with the intent to consume half an olive-bulk from one loaf the next day the offering is entirely valid? **Let him decree** that intentions during **half a permitting factor and** concerning **half** a measure of **consumption** disqualify an offering, **due to** the fact that intentions during **an entire permitting factor and** concerning **half** a measure of **consumption** render the offering *piggul*, **as** one finds in similar instances that **Rabbi Yosei decreed and the Rabbis decreed** in this manner.


###### Menachot 14b:11
[Menachot 14b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/14b:11)

רַבִּי יוֹסֵי גָּזַר, דִּתְנַן: לְהַקְטִיר לְבוֹנָתָהּ לְמָחָר, רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: פָּסוּל וְאֵין בּוֹ כָּרֵת, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: פִּיגּוּל וְחַיָּיבִין עָלֶיהָ כָּרֵת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rava bar Rav Ḥanan elaborates: **Rabbi Yosei decreed** in such a case, **as we learned** in a mishna (13a): With regard to one who removes a handful from the meal offering with the intent to burn its handful on the next day, everyone agrees that the meal offering is *piggul*. But if his intent was **to burn its frankincense** on **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 one is liable** to receive ***karet* for** partaking of the meal offering. Since one is not liable to receive *karet*, Rabbi Yosei evidently disqualifies the meal offering as a rabbinic decree due to concern over a case where his intention was to burn the handful the next day.


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

וְרַבָּנַן נָמֵי גָּזְרִי, דִּתְנַן: פִּיגֵּל בַּקּוֹמֶץ וְלֹא בַּלְּבוֹנָה, בַּלְּבוֹנָה וְלֹא בַּקּוֹמֶץ – רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: פִּיגּוּל וְחַיָּיבִין עָלָיו כָּרֵת, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֵין בּוֹ כָּרֵת עַד שֶׁיְּפַגֵּל בְּכׇל הַמַּתִּיר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And the Rabbis decreed as well, as we learned** in a mishna (16a): If one had **intent of *piggul* during** the burning of **the handful but not during** the burning of **the frankincense,** or if he had such intent **during** the burning of **the frankincense but not during** the burning of **the handful, Rabbi Meir says:** The meal offering is ***piggul* and one is liable** to receive ***karet* for** its consumption, **and the Rabbis say: There is no** liability to receive ***karet* for** its consumption **unless he has intent of *piggul* during** the burning of **the entire permitting factor,** i.e., both the handful and the frankincense. Since the Rabbis state that there is no liability to receive *karet*, but they do not rule that the offering is valid, evidently they maintain that the offering is disqualified by rabbinic law, due to concern over a case of *piggul* intent during the burning of the entire permitting factor.


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

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָכִי הַשְׁתָּא? בִּשְׁלָמָא הָתָם, גָּזַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי קוֹמֶץ דִּלְבוֹנָה אַטּוּ קוֹמֶץ דְּמִנְחָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Abaye **said to** Rava bar Rav Ḥanan: **How can** these cases **be compared? Granted there, Rabbi Yosei decreed** that the offering is disqualified in a case of intent involving **the handful of frankincense due to** the concern of intent involving **the handful of the meal offering,** as the two cases are similar.


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

רַבָּנַן גָּזְרִי קוֹמֶץ אַטּוּ קוֹמֶץ דְּמִנְחַת חוֹטֵא, וּלְבוֹנָה אַטּוּ לְבוֹנָה הַבָּאָה בְּבָזִיכִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Similarly, **the Rabbis decreed** that the offering is disqualified in a case of intent involving the **handful due to** a similar case of intent concerning **the handful of the meal offering of a sinner.** There is no frankincense in the case of a meal offering of a sinner, and consequently the priest’s intent with regard to the handful alone renders the offering *piggul*, as it is the sole permitting factor. **And** the Rabbis also decreed in a case of intent with regard to the **frankincense due to** a similar case of intent concerning the **frankincense that comes in** the **bowls** that accompany the shewbread. Here there is no handful, and consequently intent with regard to the frankincense alone renders the shewbread *piggul*.


###### Menachot 14b:15
[Menachot 14b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/14b:15)

כְּבָשִׂים נָמֵי, כֶּבֶשׂ אַטּוּ כֶּבֶשׂ חֲבֵירוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
In the case of the two **lambs** that accompany the two loaves brought on *Shavuot* **as well** (16a), the Rabbis rule that if one slaughters one of the lambs with the intent to consume both loaves the next day the offering is disqualified, but one is not liable to receive *karet* for partaking of it. This is a rabbinic decree in a case of intent during the slaughter of one **lamb due to the other lamb,** as were one to slaughter both lambs with intent of *piggul*, the loaves would be rendered *piggul*, since his intent occurred during the slaughter of the entire permitting factor.


###### Menachot 14b:16
[Menachot 14b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/14b:16)

בָּזֵךְ, אַטּוּ בָּזֵךְ חֲבֵירוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Similarly, when one burns a single **bowl** of frankincense from those that accompany the shewbread with the intent to consume both arrangements of shewbread the next day, the Rabbis disqualify the shewbread by rabbinic decree **due to the other bowl,** i.e., due to the concern over *piggul* intent during the burning of both bowls, as this intent involves the burning of the entire permitting factor.


###### Menachot 14b:17
[Menachot 14b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/14b:17)

אֶלָּא הָכָא, מִי אִיכָּא חֲצִי מַתִּיר וַחֲצִי אֲכִילָה בְּעָלְמָא, דְּלֵיקוּם וְלִיגְזַר?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Abaye concludes: **But here,** in the case of the *baraita* where one slaughtered each of the two lambs with the intent to consume half an olive-bulk from a different loaf, **is there** another instance **in general** where intent during the performance of a rite concerning **half a permitting factor and** with regard to **half** a measure **of consumption** renders an offering *piggul*, **that** Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi **will arise and decree** that the lambs in this instance are disqualified?


###### Menachot 14b:18
[Menachot 14b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/14b:18)

הָכִי נָמֵי מִסְתַּבְּרָא, דְּטַעְמָא דְּרַבָּנַן מִשּׁוּם הָכִי הוּא, דְּקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: מוֹדִים חֲכָמִים לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר בְּמִנְחַת חוֹטֵא וּמִנְחַת קְנָאוֹת שֶׁאִם פִּיגֵּל בַּקּוֹמֶץ שֶׁפִּיגּוּל, וְחַיָּיבִין עָלֶיהָ כָּרֵת, שֶׁהַקּוֹמֶץ הוּא הַמַּתִּיר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara notes: **So too, it is reasonable that the reasoning of the Rabbis is due to that** explanation, i.e., they disqualified the offerings in the aforementioned cases due to the fact that in similar instances the offering is *piggul*. This is evident from the fact **that** it **is taught** in **the latter clause** of the mishna (16a): **The Rabbis concede to Rabbi Meir in** the case of **the meal offering of a sinner and the meal offering of jealousy that if one had intent of *piggul* during** the burning of **the handful,** the meal offering is ***piggul* and one is liable** to receive ***karet* for** its consumption, **as the handful is the** sole **permitting factor.**


###### Menachot 14b:19
[Menachot 14b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/14b:19)

הָא לְמָה לִי לְמִיתְנָא כְּלָל? פְּשִׁיטָא, מִי אִיכָּא מַתִּיר אַחֲרִינָא? אֶלָּא לָאו הָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן, דְּטַעְמָא דְּקוֹמֶץ מִשּׁוּם דְּאִיכָּא קוֹמֶץ דְּמִנְחַת חוֹטֵא דְּדָמֵי לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains this proof: **Why do I** need the mishna **to teach** this last statement **at all?** Isn’t it **obvious** that these meal offerings are *piggul*, as **is there another permitting factor** aside from the handful? **Rather, is it not** correct to say that **this** is what the mishna **teaches us, that the reason that** the Rabbis disqualified a standard meal offering when only the **handful** was removed with the intent of *piggul* is **because there is** the case of **the handful of the meal offering of a sinner, which is similar to it** and is rendered *piggul* due to intent involving the handful alone?


###### Menachot 14b:20
[Menachot 14b:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/14b:20)

**מַתְנִי׳** נִטְמֵאת אַחַת מִן הַחַלּוֹת, אוֹ אֶחָד מִן הַסְּדָרִים – רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: שְׁנֵיהֶם יֵצְאוּ לְבֵית הַשְּׂרֵיפָה, שֶׁאֵין קׇרְבַּן צִיבּוּר חָלוּק. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: הַטָּמֵא בְּטוּמְאָתוֹ וְהַטָּהוֹר יֵאָכֵל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** If **one of the** two **loaves** of *Shavuot* **or one of the** two **arrangements** of the shewbread **became ritually impure, Rabbi Yehuda says: Both must be taken to the place of burning** like any other disqualified offering, **as no communal offering is divided.** That is, it is either fit in its entirety or unfit in its entirety. **And the Rabbis say: The impure one** remains **in its** state of **impurity and the pure one shall be eaten.**


###### Menachot 14b:21
[Menachot 14b:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/14b:21)

**גְּמָ׳** אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: מַחְלוֹקֶת לִפְנֵי זְרִיקָה, אֲבָל לְאַחַר זְרִיקָה – דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל הַטָּמֵא בְּטוּמְאָתוֹ וְהַטָּהוֹר יֵאָכֵל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **Rabbi Elazar says:** The **dispute** between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis applies only to a case where one loaf became ritually impure **before** the **sprinkling** of the blood of the lambs, as this is the act that renders the loaves permitted for consumption. Accordingly, they disagree whether the sprinkling is effective in permitting the remaining pure loaf for consumption. **But** in a case where one loaf was rendered impure **after the sprinkling,** meaning that both loaves were initially permitted for consumption, **everyone agrees** that **the impure one** remains **in its** state of **impurity and the pure one shall be eaten.**


###### Menachot 14b:22
[Menachot 14b:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/14b:22)

וְלִפְנֵי זְרִיקָה, בְּמַאי פְּלִיגִי? אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: בְּצִיץ מְרַצֶּה עַל אֲכִילוֹת קָא מִיפַּלְגִי,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** in the case where the loaves become impure **before** the **sprinkling** of the blood, **with regard to what** principle **do they disagree? Rav Pappa said: They disagree with regard to** the **frontplate** of the High Priest, i.e., whether it **effects acceptance** only for the impurity of items sacrificed on the altar, or even **for** the impurity of items that would normally be **consumed** by the priests.