## Menachot Daf 15a

###### Menachot 15a:1
[Menachot 15a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/15a:1)

רַבָּנַן סָבְרִי: הַצִּיץ מְרַצֶּה עַל אֲכִילוֹת, וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה סָבַר: אֵין הַצִּיץ מְרַצֶּה עַל אֲכִילוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**The Rabbis hold** that **the frontplate effects acceptance for** items that are normally **consumed** by the priests but have become ritually impure. Consequently, the sprinkling of the blood in this case is an entirely valid act that is capable of rendering the remaining pure loaf permitted for consumption. **And Rabbi Yehuda holds** that **the frontplate does not effect acceptance for** items that are **consumed** by the priests and have become impure. Accordingly, the sprinkling of the blood is ineffective in rendering the remaining pure loaf permitted for consumption.


###### Menachot 15a:2
[Menachot 15a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/15a:2)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב נָתָן לְרַב פָּפָּא: וְהָא עוֹלִין, דְּהַצִּיץ מְרַצֶּה עַל הָעוֹלִין, וּפְלִיגִי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Huna, son of Rav Natan, said to Rav Pappa:** Can this be the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis? **But** what about items that normally **ascend** upon the altar? Even Rabbi Yehuda concedes **that the frontplate effects acceptance for** impure items **that** normally **ascend** the altar, **and** Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis nevertheless **disagree** with regard to the remaining item in a case of this kind.


###### Menachot 15a:3
[Menachot 15a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/15a:3)

דְּתַנְיָא: נִטְמָא אֶחָד מִן הַבָּזִיכִין, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: שְׁנֵיהֶם יֵעָשׂוּ בְּטוּמְאָה, לְפִי שֶׁאֵין קׇרְבַּן צִיבּוּר חָלוּק, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: הַטָּמֵא בְּטוּמְאָתוֹ וְהַטָּהוֹר בְּטׇהֳרָתוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara provides the source for this claim. **As it is taught** in a *baraita*: If **one of the bowls** of frankincense accompanying the shewbread, which are meant to be burned upon the altar, **became impure, Rabbi Yehuda says** that the rites of **both of them may be performed in impurity,** i.e., the priest may even render the second bowl impure and burn both of them together, **as no communal offering is divided,** and the mitzva to sacrifice communal offerings overrides the prohibition against rendering them impure. **And the Rabbis say: The impure one** remains **in its** state of **impurity and the pure one** remains **in its** state of **purity.** Evidently, their dispute does not depend on whether the frontplate effects acceptance.


###### Menachot 15a:4
[Menachot 15a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/15a:4)

וְעוֹד, אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: תָּא שְׁמַע, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אֲפִילּוּ שֵׁבֶט אֶחָד טָמֵא וְכׇל הַשְּׁבָטִים טְהוֹרִין – יַעֲשׂוּ בְּטוּמְאָה, לְפִי שֶׁאֵין (קׇרְבְּנוֹת) [קׇרְבַּן] צִיבּוּר חָלוּק, וְהָכָא מַאי הַצִּיץ מְרַצֶּה אִיכָּא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And furthermore, Rav Ashi said: Come** and **hear** an additional proof that the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis does not concern the frontplate, as we learn in a mishna (*Pesaḥim* 80a) with regard to the consumption of the Paschal offering in a state of impurity, that **Rabbi Yehuda says: Even** if **one tribe is ritually impure and all** the rest of **the tribes are pure,** all the tribes **may perform** the rite of the Paschal offering **in** a state of **impurity, as no communal offerings are divided.** Rav Ashi explains: **But here, what** relevance **is there** to the question of whether **the frontplate effects acceptance?** The frontplate effects acceptance for offerings that have become impure; but it does not render it permitted for one who is ritually impure to sacrifice an offering.


###### Menachot 15a:5
[Menachot 15a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/15a:5)

וְעוֹד, הָאָמַר רָבִינָא: תָּא שְׁמַע, נִטְמֵאת אַחַת מִן הַחַלּוֹת אוֹ (אַחַת) [אֶחָד] מִן הַסְּדָרִין, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: שְׁנֵיהֶם יֵצְאוּ לְבֵית הַשְּׂרֵיפָה, לְפִי שֶׁאֵין קׇרְבַּן צִיבּוּר חָלוּק, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: הַטָּמֵא בְּטוּמְאָתוֹ וְהַטָּהוֹר יֵאָכֵל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And furthermore, doesn’t Ravina say: Come** and **hear** a proof that the matter of the frontplate cannot be the subject of the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis, as the mishna teaches: If **one of the** two **loaves** brought on *Shavuot* **or one of the** two **arrangements** of shewbread **became ritually impure, Rabbi Yehuda says: Both must be taken to the place of burning, as no communal offering is divided. And the Rabbis say: The impure one** remains **in its impurity and the pure one may be eaten.**


###### Menachot 15a:6
[Menachot 15a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/15a:6)

וְאִם אִיתָא, לְפִי שֶׁאֵין הַצִּיץ מְרַצֶּה עַל אֲכִילוֹת מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ! אֶלָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: תַּלְמוּד עָרוּךְ הוּא בְּפִיו שֶׁל רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, שֶׁאֵין קׇרְבַּן צִיבּוּר חָלוּק.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains the difficulty: **And if it is so,** i.e., that the dispute between them concerns the frontplate, then Rabbi Yehuda **should have** said: They are both burned, **because the frontplate does not effect acceptance for** impure items that are **consumed** by the priests. **Rather, Rabbi Yoḥanan says: It is a settled tradition in the mouth of Rabbi Yehuda that no communal offering is divided,** and if one part of an offering becomes impure, the entire offering is disqualified.


###### Menachot 15a:7
[Menachot 15a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/15a:7)

**מַתְנִי׳** הַתּוֹדָה מְפַגֶּלֶת אֶת הַלֶּחֶם, וְהַלֶּחֶם אֵינוֹ מְפַגֵּל אֶת הַתּוֹדָה. כֵּיצַד? שָׁחַט אֶת הַתּוֹדָה לֶאֱכוֹל מִמֶּנָּה לְמָחָר – הִיא וְהַלֶּחֶם מְפוּגָּלִין, לֶאֱכוֹל מִן הַלֶּחֶם לְמָחָר – הַלֶּחֶם מְפוּגָּל וְהַתּוֹדָה אֵינָהּ מְפוּגֶּלֶת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** **The thanks offering renders the** accompanying **loaves *piggul* but the loaves do not render the thanks offering *piggul*. How so?** If **one slaughtered the thanks offering,** which may be consumed only during the day it is slaughtered and the night thereafter, with the intent **to partake of it the next day,** the offering **and the** accompanying **loaves are rendered *piggul*.** If he slaughtered it with the intent **to partake of the loaves the next day, the loaves are rendered *piggul* and the thanks offering is not *piggul*.**


###### Menachot 15a:8
[Menachot 15a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/15a:8)

הַכְּבָשִׂים מְפַגְּלִין אֶת הַלֶּחֶם, וְהַלֶּחֶם אֵינוֹ מְפַגֵּל אֶת הַכְּבָשִׂים. כֵּיצַד? הַשּׁוֹחֵט אֶת הַכְּבָשִׂים לֶאֱכוֹל מֵהֶן לְמָחָר – הֵם וְהַלֶּחֶם מְפוּגָּלִין, לֶאֱכוֹל אֶת הַלֶּחֶם לְמָחָר – הַלֶּחֶם מְפוּגָּל וְהַכְּבָשִׂים אֵינָן מְפוּגָּלִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Likewise, **the lambs** sacrificed with the two loaves meal offering on *Shavuot* **render the** accompanying **loaves *piggul*, but the loaves do not render the lambs *piggul*. How so?** If **one slaughtered the lambs,** which may be consumed only during the day they are slaughtered and the night thereafter, with the intent **to partake of them the next day,** the lambs **and the** accompanying **loaves are rendered *piggul*.** If he did so with the intent **to partake of the loaves the next day, the loaves are rendered *piggul* and the lambs are not *piggul*.**


###### Menachot 15a:9
[Menachot 15a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/15a:9)

**גְּמָ׳** מַאי טַעְמָא? אִילֵּימָא מִשּׁוּם דְּרַב כָּהֲנָא, דְּאָמַר רַב כָּהֲנָא: מִנַּיִן לְלַחְמֵי תוֹדָה שֶׁנִּקְרְאוּ תּוֹדָה? שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְהִקְרִיב עַל זֶבַח הַתּוֹדָה חַלּוֹת״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The Gemara asks: **What is the reason** that a thanks offering renders its accompanying loaves *piggul*? **If we say** that it is **due to that** which **Rav Kahana** says, this is problematic. **As Rav Kahana says: From where** is it derived that **the loaves of a thanks offering are** themselves **called a thanks offering?** It is derived from **that** which **is stated** in the verse: **“Then he shall offer with the sacrifice of thanks offering loaves”** (Leviticus 7:12). The juxtaposition of the words “thanks offering” and “loaves” indicates that the loaves are themselves called a thanks offering.


###### Menachot 15a:10
[Menachot 15a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/15a:10)

אִי הָכִי אִיפְּכָא נָמֵי, הָא לָא קַשְׁיָא: לֶחֶם אִיקְּרִי תּוֹדָה, תּוֹדָה לָא אִיקְּרִי לֶחֶם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains why the *halakha* of the mishna cannot be derived from Rav Kahana’s exposition. **If so,** then **the opposite** should be the *halakha* **as well,** that intent of *piggul* with regard to the loaves should likewise render the thanks offering *piggul*. The Gemara rejects this suggestion: **This** is **not difficult,** as the **loaves are called a thanks offering,** but **a thanks offering is not called loaves.**


###### Menachot 15a:11
[Menachot 15a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/15a:11)

אֶלָּא הָא דְּקָתָנֵי: הַכְּבָשִׂים מְפַגְּלִין אֶת הַלֶּחֶם וְהַלֶּחֶם אֵינוֹ מְפַגֵּל אֶת הַכְּבָשִׂים, לֶחֶם הֵיכָא אַשְׁכְּחַן דְּאִיקְּרִי כְּבָשִׂים? אֶלָּא לָאו הַיְינוּ טַעְמָא: לֶחֶם גְּלַל תּוֹדָה, וְאֵין תּוֹדָה גְּלַל (דלחם) [לֶחֶם], לֶחֶם גְּלַל (דכבשים) [כְבָשִׂים], וְאֵין כְּבָשִׂים גְּלַל (דלחם) [לֶחֶם].

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But** with regard to **that which** the mishna **teaches: The lambs** sacrificed with the two loaves meal offering on *Shavuot* **render the** accompanying **loaves *piggul* but the loaves do not render the lambs *piggul*, where do we find that** the two **loaves are called lambs? Rather, is it not** correct that **this is the reason** why the thanks offering renders the loaves *piggul* but not vice versa: The **bread** is brought **on account of [*gelal*]** the **thanks offering, but** the **thanks offering is not** brought **on account of** the **bread,** i.e., the thanks offering is the primary element of the sacrifice. Similarly, the two loaves of **bread are** brought **on account of** the **lambs, and** the **lambs are not** brought **on account of** the **bread.**


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

וּצְרִיכִי, דְּאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן תּוֹדָה – הָתָם הוּא דְּכִי מְפַגֵּל בְּלֶחֶם לָא מִפַּגְּלָא תּוֹדָה, מִשּׁוּם דְּלָא הוּזְקְקוּ זֶה לָזֶה בִּתְנוּפָה, אֲבָל כְּבָשִׂים דְּהוּזְקְקוּ זֶה לָזֶה בִּתְנוּפָה – אֵימָא כִּי מְפַגֵּל בְּלֶחֶם לִיפַּגְּלִי נָמֵי כְּבָשִׂים, צְרִיכָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara notes: **And** both of these *halakhot* **are necessary, as, had** the mishna **taught us** the *halakha* only in the case of **a thanks offering,** then one might say: **It is** only **there,** with regard to a thanks offering, **that when one renders the loaves *piggul* the thanks offering is not rendered *piggul*, because they were not bound to one another by waving,** i.e., the mitzva of waving the thanks offering may be fulfilled without the bread. **But** with regard to the **lambs,** in **which** the two items **were bound to one another by waving,** as the two loaves are waved together with the lambs, one might **say** that **when he renders the bread *piggul*,** the **lambs should be rendered *piggul* as well.** Therefore, it was **necessary** for the mishna to teach this *halakha* also with regard to the case of the lambs.


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

בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר מֵרַב: הַשּׁוֹחֵט אֶת הַתּוֹדָה לֶאֱכוֹל כְּזַיִת מִמֶּנָּה וּמִלַּחְמָהּ לְמָחָר, מַהוּ לְאִיפַּגּוֹלֵי? תּוֹדָה לָא מִיבַּעְיָא לִי, הַשְׁתָּא כּוּלּוֹ מִלַּחְמָהּ לָא מִיפַּגְּלָא, מִמֶּנָּה וּמִלַּחְמָהּ מִיבַּעְיָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rabbi Elazar raised a dilemma before Rav:** If **one slaughters the thanks offering** with the intent **to consume an olive-bulk from it and from its loaves the next day, what is** the *halakha*? Rabbi Elazar elaborates: **I do not raise the dilemma with regard to rendering** the **thanks offering *piggul*,** for the following reason: **Now** that in a case where his intent was to consume **the entire** olive-bulk **from its loaves** alone, the thanks offering **is not rendered *piggul*,** in accordance with the mishna’s ruling that *piggul* intent with regard to the loaves does not render the thanks offering *piggul*, then in a case where his intent is to consume half an olive-bulk **from** the thanks offering **and** half an olive-bulk **from its loaves,** in which case the offering is rendered *piggul* only if the two intentions of less than a full measure are combined, is it **necessary** to teach that the thanks offering is not *piggul*?


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

כִּי קָא מִיבַּעְיָא לִי לְאִיפַּגּוֹלֵי לֶחֶם, מִי מִצְטָרְפָה תּוֹדָה לְאִיפַּגּוֹלֵי לְלֶחֶם אוֹ לָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rather, **when I raise the dilemma,** it is with regard **to rendering the loaves *piggul*,** which can be rendered *piggul* via intent concerning the loaves alone. In this case, **does** the intention of the priest with regard to the **thanks offering combine** with his intention concerning the loaves **to render the loaves *piggul*, or not?**


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

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אַף בְּזוֹ, הַלֶּחֶם מְפוּגָּל וְהַתּוֹדָה אֵינָהּ מְפוּגֶּלֶת. וְאַמַּאי? לֵימָא קַל וָחוֹמֶר: וּמָה תּוֹדָה הַמְפַגֵּל אֵין מִתְפַּגֵּל, הַבָּא לְפַגֵּל וְלֹא פִּיגֵּל – אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁלֹּא יִתְפַּגֵּל?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav **said to** Rabbi Elazar: **Even in this** case, **the loaves are rendered *piggul* and the thanks offering is not rendered *piggul*.** The Gemara asks: **But why** should the loaves be rendered *piggul*? **Let us say** the following ***a fortiori*** inference: **And if** the **thanks offering, which** in this case serves to **render** the loaves ***piggul*, is** itself **not rendered *piggul*,** then the loaves, **which come to render** the thanks offering ***piggul*, but do not render** it ***piggul*,** as the intent to consume half an olive-bulk from the loaves does not combine with the intent to consume half an olive-bulk from the thanks offering to render the thanks offering *piggul*, **is it not logical that the** loaves themselves **should not be rendered *piggul*?**


###### Menachot 15a:16
[Menachot 15a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/15a:16)

וּמִי אָמְרִינַן קַל וָחוֹמֶר כִּי הַאי גַוְונָא? וְהָתַנְיָא: מַעֲשֶׂה בְּאֶחָד

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And do we say an *a fortiori*** inference **in this way? But isn’t it taught** in a *baraita*: There was **an incident involving one**