## Menachot Daf 16a

###### Menachot 16a:1
[Menachot 16a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/16a:1)

**מַתְנִי׳** 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:**
**MISHNA:** With regard to the burning of the handful of a meal offering and the frankincense, both of which render the meal offering permitted for consumption: If the priest had an intention that can **render** the offering ***piggul* during** the burning of **the handful but not during** the burning of **the frankincense,** or **during** the burning of **the frankincense but not during** the burning of **the handful,** i.e., he burned one of them with the intention to eat the remainder of the offering beyond its designated time, **Rabbi Meir says:** The offering is ***piggul* and one** who eats it is **liable** to receive ***karet*** for its consumption. **And the Rabbis say: There is no** liability to receive ***karet* in this** case **unless he renders** the offering ***piggul* during** the sacrifice of **the entire permitting factor,** i.e., the burning of both the handful and the frankincense.


###### Menachot 16a:2
[Menachot 16a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/16a:2)

וּמוֹדִים חֲכָמִים לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר בְּמִנְחַת חוֹטֵא וּבְמִנְחַת קְנָאוֹת, שֶׁאִם פִּיגֵּל בַּקּוֹמֶץ, שֶׁהוּא פִּיגּוּל וְחַיָּיבִין עָלָיו כָּרֵת, שֶׁהַקּוֹמֶץ הוּא הַמַּתִּיר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And the Rabbis concede to Rabbi Meir in** the case of **a meal offering of a sinner and in** the case of **a meal offering of jealousy** of a *sota* **that if one had intent of *piggul* during** the burning of **the handful, that** the meal offering is ***piggul* and one is liable** to receive ***karet*** for its consumption, **as** here **the handful is the** sole **permitting factor.**


###### Menachot 16a:3
[Menachot 16a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/16a:3)

שָׁחַט אֶחָד מִן הַכְּבָשִׂים לֶאֱכוֹל שְׁתֵּי חַלּוֹת לְמָחָר, הִקְטִיר אֶחָד מִן הַבָּזִיכִין לֶאֱכוֹל שְׁנֵי סְדָרִים לְמָחָר – רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: פִּיגּוּל וְחַיָּיבִין עָלָיו כָּרֵת, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֵין בּוֹ כָּרֵת עַד שֶׁיְּפַגֵּל בְּכׇל הַמַּתִּיר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If **one slaughtered one of the** two **lambs** sacrificed with the two loaves on *Shavuot* with the intent **to partake of** the **two loaves the next day,** or if **one burned one of the bowls** of frankincense with the intent **to partake of two arrangements** of shewbread **the next day, 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* unless he has intent of *piggul* during** the sacrifice of **the entire permitting factor.**


###### Menachot 16a:4
[Menachot 16a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/16a:4)

שָׁחַט אֶחָד מִן הַכְּבָשִׂים לֶאֱכוֹל מִמֶּנּוּ לְמָחָר – הוּא פִּיגּוּל, וַחֲבֵירוֹ כָּשֵׁר; לֶאֱכוֹל מֵחֲבֵירוֹ לְמָחָר – שְׁנֵיהֶם כְּשֵׁרִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If **one slaughtered one of the lambs** with the intent **to partake of it the next day, that** lamb is ***piggul* and the other is a fit** offering. If he slaughtered one lamb with the intent **to partake of the other the next day, both** lambs **are fit** offerings, as one permitting factor does not render another permitting factor *piggul*.


###### Menachot 16a:5
[Menachot 16a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/16a:5)

**גְּמָ׳** אָמַר רַב: מַחְלוֹקֶת שֶׁנָּתַן אֶת הַקּוֹמֶץ בִּשְׁתִיקָה, וְאֶת הַלְּבוֹנָה בְּמַחְשָׁבָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **Rav says:** The **dispute** between Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis with regard to a case where one has intent of *piggul* by either the handful or the frankincense applies only, for instance, **when he placed the handful** upon the altar **in silence,** i.e., without specific intent, **and** thereafter placed **the frankincense with intent** to partake of the remainder the next day. In such a case, it is evident that his intent relates only to the frankincense.


###### Menachot 16a:6
[Menachot 16a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/16a:6)

אֲבָל נָתַן הַקּוֹמֶץ בְּמַחְשָׁבָה, וְאֶת הַלְּבוֹנָה בִּשְׁתִיקָה – דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל פִּיגּוּל, שֶׁכׇּל הָעוֹשֶׂה עַל דַּעַת רִאשׁוֹנָה הוּא עוֹשֶׂה. וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: עֲדַיִין הִוא מַחְלוֹקֶת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But** if **he placed the handful with** the **intent** to partake of the remainder the next day **and** then placed **the frankincense in silence, all agree** that the meal offering is ***piggul*, as anyone who performs** the rites in such a manner **performs** them **in accordance with** his **initial intent. And Shmuel says:** Even in such a case, there **is still a dispute** between the Rabbis and Rabbi Meir.


###### Menachot 16a:7
[Menachot 16a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/16a:7)

יָתֵיב רָבָא וְקָאָמַר לַהּ לְהָא שְׁמַעְתָּא, אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַב אַחָא בַּר רַב הוּנָא לְרָבָא: בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים – בִּקְמִיצָה, וּבְמַתַּן כְּלִי, וּבְהִילּוּךְ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava sat and stated this *halakha*** in accordance with the opinion of Rav. **Rav Aḥa bar Rav Huna raised an objection to Rava** from a *baraita*: **In what** case **is this statement,** that intent of *piggul* concerning only the handful renders the meal offering *piggul*, **said?** It is stated in a case where one had such intent **during the removal of the handful, or during the placement of** the handful in a service **vessel, or during the conveying** of the vessel to the altar. Since these rites are not performed with the frankincense, during these stages the handful is the only relevant permitting factor.


###### Menachot 16a:8
[Menachot 16a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/16a:8)

בָּא לוֹ לְהַקְטָרָה, נָתַן אֶת הַקּוֹמֶץ בִּשְׁתִיקָה וְאֶת הַלְּבוֹנָה בְּמַחְשָׁבָה, אֶת הַקּוֹמֶץ בְּמַחְשָׁבָה וְאֶת הַלְּבוֹנָה בִּשְׁתִיקָה – רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: פִּיגּוּל וְחַיָּיבִין עָלָיו כָּרֵת, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֵין בּוֹ כָּרֵת עַד שֶׁיְּפַגֵּל בְּכׇל הַמַּתִּיר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: But once the priest **comes to** perform **the burning** of the handful, then if he **placed the handful** on the fire of the altar **in silence and** he placed **the frankincense with intent** of *piggul*, or if he placed **the handful with intent and the frankincense in silence, Rabbi Meir says:** It is ***piggul* and one is liable** to receive ***karet* for** its consumption, **and the Rabbis say: There is no** liability to receive ***karet* unless he has intent of *piggul* during** the sacrifice of **the entire permitting factor.**


###### Menachot 16a:9
[Menachot 16a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/16a:9)

קָתָנֵי מִיהָא: נָתַן אֶת הַקּוֹמֶץ בְּמַחְשָׁבָה וְאֶת הַלְּבוֹנָה בִּשְׁתִיקָה, וּפְלִיגִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Aḥa bar Rav Huna explains his objection: **In any event,** the *baraita* **teaches** a case where he **placed the handful with intent and the frankincense in silence, and** yet the Rabbis **disagree** with Rabbi Meir and they do not say that one performs the rite of the frankincense with one’s initial intent.


###### Menachot 16a:10
[Menachot 16a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/16a:10)

אֵימָא: וּכְבָר נָתַן אֶת הַלְּבוֹנָה בִּשְׁתִיקָה מֵעִיקָּרָא. שְׁתֵּי תְּשׁוּבוֹת בַּדָּבָר: חֲדָא, דְּהַיְינוּ קַמַּיְיתָא, וְעוֹד, הָתַנְיָא: אַחַר כָּךְ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rava answered: **Say** that this is what the *baraita* means: If he placed the handful with intent, **and he had already placed the frankincense in silence from the outset,** then Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis disagree. The Gemara rejects this statement: **There are two** possible **refutations of** this **statement. One** is **that** if Rava’s answer is accepted, then **this** case **is** identical to **the first** case of the *baraita*, which already taught that there is a dispute if the initial permitting factor was sacrificed in silence. **And furthermore, isn’t it taught** explicitly in another *baraita*: **After** placing the handful he burned the frankincense.


###### Menachot 16a:11
[Menachot 16a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/16a:11)

תַּרְגְּמַהּ רַב חֲנִינָא בִּשְׁתֵּי דֵּיעוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Ḥanina interpreted** this *baraita* in accordance with the opinion of Rav: This *baraita* is referring to a case **of two intentions,** i.e., there were two priests, the first one of whom burned the handful with intent of *piggul*, and the second burned the frankincense in silence. Since the intent of one priest is entirely independent of the other, it cannot be said that the second priest burns the frankincense in accordance with the intent of the first priest.


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

תָּא שְׁמַע: בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים? בְּדָמִים הַנִּיתָּנִין עַל מִזְבֵּחַ הַחִיצוֹן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara continues: **Come** and **hear** a proof for the opinion of Shmuel from a *baraita* that addresses *piggul* during the sprinkling of the blood. **In what** case **is this statement,** that the offering is rendered *piggul* even when he intends only while performing the first placement to eat it beyond its designated time, **said?** It is rendered *piggul* **in** the case of **blood that is placed on the external altar,** where one placement renders the offering permitted.


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

אֲבָל דָּמִים הַנִּיתָּנִין עַל מִזְבֵּחַ הַפְּנִימִי, כְּגוֹן אַרְבָּעִים וְשָׁלֹשׁ שֶׁל יוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים, וְאַחַת עֶשְׂרֵה שֶׁל פַּר כֹּהֵן מָשׁוּחַ, וְאַחַת עֶשְׂרֵה שֶׁל פַּר הֶעְלֵם דָּבָר שֶׁל צִיבּוּר, פִּיגֵּל בֵּין בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה בֵּין בַּשְּׁנִיָּה וּבֵין בַּשְּׁלִישִׁית, רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: פִּיגּוּל וְחַיָּיבִין עָלָיו כָּרֵת, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֵין בּוֹ כָּרֵת עַד שֶׁיְּפַגֵּל בְּכׇל הַמַּתִּיר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But** with regard to the **blood placed** inside, in the Holy of Holies, on the Curtain, and **on the inner altar, for example,** the **forty-three** presentations of the blood **of** the bull and goat of **Yom Kippur, and the eleven** presentations of the blood **of** the **bull for** an unwitting sin of the **anointed priest, and** the **eleven** presentations of the blood **of** the **bull for an unwitting communal sin,** if the priest had an intention that can **render** the offering ***piggul*, whether in the first** set of presentations, **whether in the second** set, **or whether in the third** set, i.e., in any of the requisite sets of presentations, e.g., in the case of the Yom Kippur bull in the Holy of Holies, on the Curtain, and on the inner altar, **Rabbi Meir says:** The offering is ***piggul* and one is liable** to receive ***karet* for its** consumption. **And the Rabbis say: There is no** liability to receive ***karet* unless he** had an intention that can **render** the offering ***piggul* during** the performance of **the entire permitting factor.**


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

קָתָנֵי מִיהָא: פִּיגֵּל בֵּין בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה, בֵּין בַּשְּׁנִיָּה, וּבֵין בַּשְּׁלִישִׁית, וּפְלִיגִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains the proof: **In any event,** this *baraita* **teaches:** If the priest had an intention that can **render** the offering ***piggul*, whether in the first** set of presentations, **whether in the second** set, **or whether in the third** set; **and** Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis **disagree** in this case as well. Evidently, the Rabbis are not of the opinion that anyone who performs a rite performs it in accordance with his initial intent.


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

וְכִי תֵּימָא, הָכָא נָמֵי בִּשְׁתֵּי דֵּעוֹת – הָנִיחָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר ״בְּפַר״ וַאֲפִילּוּ בְּדָמוֹ שֶׁל פַּר, אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר ״בְּפַר״ וְלֹא בְּדָמוֹ שֶׁל פַּר, מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you would say** that **here too,** the *baraita* is referring to a case **of two intentions,** e.g., one High Priest performed the initial presentation and was thereafter disqualified from performing the other presentations, and a second priest replaced him and performed the remaining presentations, there is still a difficulty: **This works out well according to the one who says** that the verse: “With this shall Aaron come into the sacred place: **With** a young **bull”** (Leviticus 16:3), indicates that a High Priest may enter the Sanctuary **even with the blood of a bull,** i.e., he may continue the presentations with the blood of the offerings slaughtered by another High Priest. **But according to the one who says** that the verse indicates that a High Priest may enter **“with** a young **bull,” but not with the blood of a bull,** i.e., a replacement High Priest must slaughter another bull and begin the presentations again, **what can be said?** If so, it is impossible for these presentations to be performed by two priests.


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

אָמַר רָבָא: הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן? כְּגוֹן שֶׁפִּיגֵּל בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה, וְשָׁתַק בַּשְּׁנִיָּה, וּפִיגֵּל בַּשְּׁלִישִׁית, דְּאָמְרִינַן: אִי סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ כׇּל הָעוֹשֶׂה עַל דַּעַת רִאשׁוֹנָה הוּא עוֹשֶׂה, מִיהְדָּר פַּיגּוֹלֵי בַּשְּׁלִישִׁית לְמָה לִי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said:** According to Rav, **here,** in the *baraita*, **we are dealing with** a case **where** the High Priest **had intent of *piggul* during the first** set of presentations **and was silent during the second** set, **and** again **had intent of *piggul* during the third** set. In such a case, **we say: If** it **enters your mind** to say that **anyone who performs** a rite **performs** it **in accordance with his initial intention,** then **why do I** need the High Priest to **repeat** his intent of ***piggul* during the third** set? The fact that he repeats his intention during the third set indicates that he did not perform the second set in accordance with his initial intent. Accordingly, the Rabbis hold that the offering is not *piggul*, as he did not have intent of *piggul* during the presentation of the entire permitting factor.


###### Menachot 16a:17
[Menachot 16a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/16a:17)

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב אָשֵׁי: מִידֵּי שָׁתַק קָתָנֵי? אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – כְּגוֹן שֶׁפִּיגֵּל בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה וּבַשְּׁנִיָּה וּבַשְּׁלִישִׁית, דְּאָמְרִינַן: אִי סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ כׇּל הָעוֹשֶׂה עַל דַּעַת רִאשׁוֹנָה הוּא עוֹשֶׂה, מִיהְדָּר פַּגּוֹלֵי בַּשְּׁנִיָּה וּבַשְּׁלִישִׁית לְמָה לִי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ashi objects to this** explanation: **Does** the *baraita* **teach** that the High Priest was **silent? Rather, Rav Ashi said: Here we are dealing with** a case **where he had** explicit **intent of *piggul* during the first, second, and third** presentations, and was silent during the subsequent presentations. In such a case, **we say: If** it **enters your mind** to say that **anyone who performs** a rite **performs** it **in accordance with his initial intention, why do I** need the High Priest to **repeat** his intent of ***piggul* during the second and third** presentations?