## Menachot Daf 16b

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

וְהָא ״בֵּין בֵּין״ קָתָנֵי! קַשְׁיָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a difficulty against Rav Ashi’s interpretation: **But** the *baraita* **teaches: Whether** during the first presentation or **whether** during the second, which indicates that the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Meir even with regard to a case where the priest had intent of *piggul* during any one of the presentations. The Gemara notes: Indeed, this poses **a difficulty.**


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

אָמַר מָר: רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר פִּגּוּל, וְחַיָּיבִין עָלָיו כָּרֵת. מִכְּדֵי, כָּרֵת לָא מִיחַיַּיב עַד שֶׁיִּקְרְבוּ כׇּל הַמַּתִּירִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara returns to the discussion of the *baraita* itself. **The Master said** above: If the priest had intent of *piggul*, whether in the first set of presentations, whether in the second set, or whether in the third set, **Rabbi Meir says:** The offering is ***piggul* and one is liable** to receive ***karet* for** its consumption, despite the fact that he performed the rest of the rite silently. The Gemara asks: **Now** consider, **one is not liable** to receive ***karet* unless all the permitting factors** of the offering **have been sacrificed,** i.e., if the whole service is completed, including the presentation of the blood.


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

דְּאָמַר מָר: ״יֵרָצֶה״ – כְּהַרְצָאַת כָּשֵׁר, כָּךְ הַרְצָאַת פָּסוּל; מָה הַרְצָאַת כָּשֵׁר עַד שֶׁיִּקְרְבוּ כׇּל הַמַּתִּירִין, אַף הַרְצָאַת פָּסוּל עַד שֶׁיִּקְרְבוּ כׇּל הַמַּתִּירִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara provides the source for this claim. **As the Master said** that the verse states with regard to *piggul*: **“It shall** not **be accepted”** (Leviticus 7:18), which indicates that **the acceptance of a disqualified** offering is **like the acceptance of a valid** offering, of which the verse states: “It shall be accepted” (Leviticus 22:27), and **just as** there is no **acceptance of a valid** offering **unless all** its **permitting factors have been sacrificed, so too** there is no lack of **acceptance of a disqualified** offering, i.e., it is not rendered *piggul*, **unless all** its **permitting factors have been sacrificed.** That is to say, in the absence of one of its permitting factors it does not become *piggul*.


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

וְהַאי, כֵּיוָן דְּחַשֵּׁיב בֵּהּ בִּפְנִים – פַּסְלֵיהּ, כִּי מַדֵּי בְּהֵיכַל – מַיָּא בְּעָלְמָא הוּא דְּקָא מַדֵּי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Accordingly, the Gemara challenges: **And** with regard to **this** case, of the blood of the bull and goat brought on Yom Kippur, **since he had intent** of *piggul* **with regard to it** when he was presenting the blood **inside** the Holy of Holies, **he has disqualified it.** If so, **when he sprinkles** the blood again later **in the Sanctuary,** on the Curtain and the inner altar, it is as though **he is merely sprinkling water,** and not the blood of the offering. Consequently, the permitting factors of the offering have not been sacrificed, and therefore the offering should not be rendered *piggul*.


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

אָמַר רַבָּה: מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ בְּאַרְבָּעָה פָּרִים וְאַרְבָּעָה שְׂעִירִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabba said: You find it** possible **in** a case where there were **four bulls and four goats,** i.e., in a case where after the High Priest presented the blood inside the Holy of Holies with *piggul* intent, the remaining blood spilled. Consequently, he was required to bring another bull and goat in order to present their blood on the Curtain separating the Sanctuary and Holy of Holies. During that presentation he had intent of *piggul*, after which the remaining blood spilled, requiring him to bring another bull and goat in order to present their blood on the corners of the golden altar. He again had intent of *piggul* during that presentation, and then the blood spilled, which meant he had to bring yet another bull and goat in order to present their blood upon the golden altar itself.


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

רָבָא אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא פַּר אֶחָד וְשָׂעִיר אֶחָד, לְפַגּוֹלֵי מְרַצֵּי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said: You** may **even say** that the *baraita* is referring to a case of only **one bull and one goat,** and the remaining blood was in fact disqualified. Nevertheless, **with regard to rendering** an offering ***piggul*,** the presentations performed with the disqualified blood **effect acceptance,** as though the entire permitting factor was performed in its proper manner. In other words, even though the High Priest sprinkled the blood inside the Holy of Holies with improper intent, and thereby disqualified the offering, nevertheless, since he completed the service he is considered as having sacrificed all the permitting factors with regard to *piggul*.


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

אַרְבָּעִים וְשָׁלֹשׁ, וְהָתַנְיָא: אַרְבָּעִים וָשֶׁבַע! לָא קַשְׁיָא, הָא כְּמַאן דְּאָמַר: מְעָרְבִין לִקְרָנוֹת, וְהָא כְּמַאן דְּאָמַר: אֵין מְעָרְבִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The *baraita* mentioned that there are **forty-three** presentations of the blood of the bull and the goat sacrificed on Yom Kippur. The Gemara asks: **But isn’t it taught** otherwise in a different *baraita*, which states that there are **forty-seven** presentations of that blood? The Gemara answers: This is **not difficult. This** statement, that there are forty-three presentations, is **in accordance with** the opinion of **the one who says** that the High Priest **mixes** the blood of the bull and the goat before placing it **on the corners** of the inner altar, rather than placing the blood of each one separately. **And that** statement, that there are forty-seven presentations, is **in accordance with** the opinion of **the one who says** that the High Priest **does not mix** the two types of blood before placing them on the corners, but sprinkles four times from the blood of the bull and another four times from the blood of the goat, and only afterward mixes the blood of the two animals for placement on the top of the altar.


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

וְהָתַנְיָא: אַרְבָּעִים וּשְׁמוֹנָה! לָא קַשְׁיָא, הָא כְּמַאן דְּאָמַר: שִׁירַיִם מְעַכְּבִין, הָא כְּמַאן דְּאָמַר: שִׁירַיִם לֹא מְעַכְּבִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises another difficulty: **But isn’t it taught** in yet another *baraita* that there are **forty-eight** presentations? The Gemara answers: This is **not difficult. This** statement, that there are forty-eight presentations, is **in accordance with** the opinion of **the one who says** that the pouring of the **remainder** of the blood on the base of the external altar **is indispensable,** and therefore this act is added to the total. **That** statement, that there are only forty-seven presentations, is **in accordance with** the opinion of **the one who says** that the pouring of the **remainder** of the blood **is not indispensable.**


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

אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: פִּיגֵּל בְּהוֹלָכָה, מַהוּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: If one had intent of *piggul* during the sacrifice of only part of the permitting factors, e.g., during the burning of the handful but not during the burning of the frankincense, the Rabbis rule that the offering is not *piggul*. Concerning this, **a dilemma was raised before** the Sages: If one **had intent of *piggul* during** the **conveying** of the handful to the altar but not during the conveying of the frankincense, **what is** the *halakha*?


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

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הוֹלָכָה כִּקְמִיצָה, וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר: הוֹלָכָה כְּהַקְטָרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yoḥanan says:** The *halakha* with regard to **conveying** the handful is **like** that of the **removing of the handful.** Just as intent of *piggul* with regard to removing only the handful renders the offering *piggul*, as it is the sole permitting factor with which the rite of removal is performed, the same applies to conveying the handful. **And Reish Lakish says:** The **conveying** of the handful is **like** its **burning.** Just as intent of *piggul* is required during the burning of both the handful and the frankincense for the offering to be rendered *piggul*, as both of them are burned on the altar, the same *halakha* applies to conveying.


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

בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ, אִיכָּא נָמֵי הוֹלָכָה דִּלְבוֹנָה, אֶלָּא לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מַאי טַעְמָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Granted,** one can understand the ruling of **Reish Lakish,** as the conveying of the handful is only part of the permitting factors, since **there is also the conveying of** the **frankincense. But** as **for** the ruling of **Rabbi Yoḥanan, what is the reason** that intent of *piggul* during the conveying of only the handful renders the offering *piggul*? After all, he has not had intent of *piggul* during the conveying of all of the permitting factors.


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

אָמַר רָבָא, קָסָבַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: כׇּל עֲבוֹדָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ מַתֶּרֶת, עֲבוֹדָה חֲשׁוּבָה הִיא לְפַגֵּל עָלֶיהָ בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said: Rabbi Yoḥanan holds** that if one performed **any** sacrificial **rite that does not permit** the offering, e.g., conveying, even if he performed it with only one of the permitting factors, such as with the handful and not with the frankincense, **it is** considered **a significant rite with regard to rendering** the offering ***piggul* on account of it, by itself.** It is not comparable to a case of intent of *piggul* during the sacrifice of only part of the permitting factors, as this rite of conveying does not render the offering permitted.


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

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: הֲרֵי שְׁחִיטַת אֶחָד מִן הַכְּבָשִׂים, דַּעֲבוֹדָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ מַתִּירָתָהּ, וּפְלִיגִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said to** Rava: **But** what about **the slaughter of one of the lambs** brought with the two loaves on *Shavuot*, **which** is **a rite that does not permit** the offering, as neither the sacrifice of its portions designated for burning upon the altar nor the consumption of the meat of the offering and the two loaves is permitted by this slaughter, **and** yet the Rabbis **disagree** with Rabbi Meir in this case?


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

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**As we learned** in the mishna: If **one slaughtered one of the** two **lambs** with the intent **to partake of 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.** Although the slaughter of one of the lambs is a rite that does not render an offering permitted, nevertheless the Rabbis maintain that it is not considered a significant rite with regard to rendering the offering *piggul* by itself.


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

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מִי סָבְרַתְּ לֶחֶם בְּתַנּוּר קָדוֹשׁ? שְׁחִיטַת כְּבָשִׂים מְקַדְּשָׁא לֵיהּ, וְהַבָּא לְקַדֵּשׁ כְּבָא לְהַתִּיר דָּמֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rava **said to** Abaye: **Do you maintain** that the two loaves of **bread** are already **sanctified** from when they are **in the oven,** and require only the sprinkling of the blood to render them permitted for consumption? In fact, **the slaughter of the lambs sanctifies** the loaves, **and** an act **that comes to sanctify is considered like** that which **comes to permit.** Since the slaughter of the two lambs sanctifies the loaves, the slaughter of each lamb is considered half a permitting factor; the slaughter of each lamb independently cannot render the loaves *piggul*.


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

מֵתִיב רַב שִׁימִי בַּר אָשֵׁי: אֲחֵרִים אוֹמְרִים: הִקְדִּים מוּלִים לַעֲרֵלִים – כָּשֵׁר, הִקְדִּים עֲרֵלִים לְמוּלִים – פָּסוּל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Shimi bar Ashi raises an objection** from a *baraita* that discusses the slaughter of the Paschal offering. The first *tanna* rules that if one slaughtering the Paschal offering intended for it to be consumed by both disqualified individuals, e.g., uncircumcised males, and fit individuals, e.g., circumcised males, the offering is not disqualified. ***Aḥerim* say:** In a case where one slaughtered a Paschal offering and severed one of the two organs of ritual slaughter with a disqualifying intention, and severed the other organ with a valid intention, then if one’s intent with regard to **circumcised** males **preceded the** intent with regard to the **uncircumcised** males, the offering is **valid.** But if the intent with regard to the **uncircumcised** males **preceded** the intent with regard to the **circumcised** males, it is **disqualified.**


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

וְקַיְימָא לַן, דְּבַחֲצִי מַתִּיר פְּלִיגִי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מִי סָבְרַתְּ דָּם בְּצַוַּאר בְּהֵמָה קָדוֹשׁ? דַּם – סַכִּין מְקַדְּשָׁא לֵיהּ, וְהַבָּא לְקַדֵּשׁ כְּבָא לְהַתִּיר דָּמֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Shimi bar Ashi continues: **And we maintain that** the first *tanna* and *Aḥerim* **disagree with regard to** whether the sacrifice of **half a permitting factor** with disqualifying intent disqualifies the entire offering. In this case, although this slaughter does not sanctify anything, the severing of one of the organs is considered half of a permitting factor. Rava **said to** Rav Shimi bar Ashi: **Do you maintain** that the **blood** is already **sanctified** while **inside the neck of** the **animal?** In fact, the **knife sanctifies** the **blood, and that which comes to sanctify is considered like** that which **comes to permit.** Consequently, the slaughter of the animal is a permitting factor, and the severing of one of its organs is half a permitting factor.


###### Menachot 16b:18
[Menachot 16b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/16b:18)

תָּא שְׁמַע: בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים – בִּקְמִיצָה, וּבְמַתַּן כְּלִי, וּבְהִילּוּךְ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear** a proof from a *baraita*: **In what** case **is this statement,** that intent of *piggul* with regard to only the handful renders the meal offering *piggul*, **said?** It is said 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.**


###### Menachot 16b:19
[Menachot 16b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/16b:19)

מַאי לָאו הִילּוּךְ דְּהַקְטָרָה? לָא, הִילּוּךְ דְּמַתַּן כְּלִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara clarifies the proof: **What, is it not** correct to say that the *baraita* is referring to the **conveying** of the handful **for burning** upon the altar, in which case it is teaching that intent of *piggul* with regard to the handful during its conveying renders the offering *piggul*? The Gemara responds: **No;** the *baraita* is referring to the **conveying of** the handful before its **placement** into the service **vessel** that sanctifies it. Since the frankincense is not placed into a vessel, in this case the conveying of the handful alone is considered the performance of the entire rite.


###### Menachot 16b:20
[Menachot 16b:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/16b:20)

אִי הָכִי, בְּמַתַּן כְּלִי וּבְהִילּוּךְ? בְּהִילּוּךְ וּבְמַתַּן כְּלִי מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ! הָא לָא קַשְׁיָא, תָּנֵי הָכִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **If so,** why does the *baraita* state: **During the placement** of the handful in **a vessel or during the conveying?** This indicates that it is referring to an act of conveying that occurs after the placement. **It should have** stated: **During the conveying or during the placement** of the handful in **a vessel.** The Gemara responds: **This** is **not difficult,** as one should emend the *baraita* and **teach** it in **that** order, i.e., with the conveying before the placement.


###### Menachot 16b:21
[Menachot 16b:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/16b:21)

בָּא לוֹ לְהַקְטָרָה? בָּא לוֹ לְהוֹלָכָה מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ! הָא לָא קַשְׁיָא, כֵּיוָן דְּהוֹלָכָה צוֹרֶךְ דְּהַקְטָרָה הִיא, קָרֵי לַהּ הַקְטָרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises another objection from the next clause of the same *baraita*: Once **he comes to** perform **the burning** of the handful, there is no liability to receive *karet* unless he has intent of *piggul* during the sacrifice of the frankincense as well. The Gemara asks: According to Reish Lakish, the *baraita* **should have** stated: Once **he comes to** perform **the conveying** and to perform the burning. Reish Lakish maintains that the conveying mentioned previously in the *baraita* occurs earlier, before its placement into a service vessel, which means that there is another act of conveying. The Gemara responds: **This** is **not difficult; since** this **conveying is for the purpose of burning, it is called burning** in the *baraita*.


###### Menachot 16b:22
[Menachot 16b:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/16b:22)

אֶלָּא, נָתַן אֶת הַקּוֹמֶץ בִּשְׁתִיקָה – הוֹלִיךְ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ! קַשְׁיָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara further challenges: **But** the *baraita* also states: If he **placed the handful** on the altar **in silence,** and he placed the frankincense with intent of *piggul*. According to Reish Lakish, **it should have** also stated: If **he carried** the handful in silence, and the frankincense with intent of *piggul*, as according to Reish Lakish it is the act of conveying that he is performing at this stage. The Gemara responds: Indeed, this is **a difficulty.**


###### Menachot 16b:23
[Menachot 16b:23](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/16b:23)

הִקְטִיר שׁוּמְשׁוּם לֶאֱכוֹל שׁוּמְשׁוּם, עַד שֶׁכָּלָה קוֹמֶץ כּוּלּוֹ – רַב חִסְדָּא וְרַב הַמְנוּנָא וְרַב שֵׁשֶׁת: חַד אָמַר: פִּיגּוּל, וְחַד אָמַר: פָּסוּל, וְחַד אָמַר: כָּשֵׁר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara continues its discussion of *piggul* intent that occurred during the sacrifice of part of a permitting factor. If one **burned** an amount the size of **a sesame** seed of the handful and frankincense with the intent **to consume** an amount the size of **a sesame** seed from the remainder the next day, and he repeated the same action with the accompanying intent **until** he burned **the entire** measure of the **handful** and frankincense, the *halakha* in this case is a matter of dispute between **Rav Ḥisda, Rav Hamnuna, and Rav Sheshet. One says** that the entire meal offering is ***piggul*, and one says** that the offering is **disqualified** but is not *piggul*, **and one says** that the offering remains **fit.**


###### Menachot 16b:24
[Menachot 16b:24](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/16b:24)

לֵימָא: מַאן דְּאָמַר פִּיגּוּל – כְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר, וּמַאן דְּאָמַר פָּסוּל – כְּרַבָּנַן, וּמַאן דְּאָמַר כָּשֵׁר – כְּרַבִּי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Let us say** that **the one who says** that the meal offering is ***piggul*** holds **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Meir,** who says that one renders an offering *piggul* on account of *piggul* intent during the sacrifice of even part of its permitting factors. **And the one who says** that the offering is **disqualified** holds **in accordance with** the opinion of **the Rabbis,** who say that such intent disqualifies an offering but does not render it *piggul*. **And** finally, **the one who says** that the offering is **fit** holds **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi, who says (14a) that if one slaughters each of the two lambs brought on *Shavuot* with the two loaves, each time intending to consume half an olive-bulk from a different loaf the next day, the offering is fit, as the halves do not combine to render the offering *piggul*.


###### Menachot 16b:25
[Menachot 16b:25](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/16b:25)

מִמַּאי? דִּלְמָא עַד כָּאן לָא קָאָמַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר הָתָם, אֶלָּא דְּחִישֵּׁב בְּשִׁיעוּרוֹ, אֲבָל הָכָא דְּלֹא חִישֵּׁב בְּשִׁיעוּרוֹ – לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this suggestion: **From where** is this conclusion drawn? **Perhaps Rabbi Meir states** that one renders an offering *piggul* on account of *piggul* intent during the sacrifice of part of the permitting factors **only there, where he had intent with regard to its** entire **measure. But here, where he did not have intent with regard to its** entire **measure,** but instead had a series of intentions with regard to a measure equivalent to a sesame seed, it is possible that Rabbi Meir does **not** render the offering *piggul*.


###### Menachot 16b:26
[Menachot 16b:26](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/16b:26)

וְעַד כָּאן לָא קָא אָמְרִי רַבָּנַן הָתָם, אֶלָּא דְּלָא חַשֵּׁב בֵּיהּ בְּכוּלֵּיהּ מַתִּיר, אֲבָל הָכָא דְּחַשֵּׁב בֵּיהּ בְּכוּלֵּיהּ מַתִּיר – הָכִי נָמֵי דְּפַגֵּיל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** furthermore, perhaps **the Rabbis state** that one does not render an offering *piggul* unless he has *piggul* intent during the sacrifice of the entire permitting factor **only there, where he did not have intent concerning it during the entire permitting factor,** but only during the burning of the handful. **But here, where he had intent during the entire permitting factor,** i.e., during the burning of both the handful and the frankincense, **he has indeed rendered** the offering ***piggul*,** despite the fact that each intention referred only to a small portion of the entire measure.


###### Menachot 16b:27
[Menachot 16b:27](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/16b:27)

וְעַד כָּאן לָא קָא אָמַר רַבִּי הָתָם, אֶלָּא דְּלָא הֲדַר מַלְּיֵיהּ מֵאוֹתָהּ עֲבוֹדָה, אֲבָל הָכָא דַּהֲדַר מַלְּיֵיהּ מֵאוֹתָהּ עֲבוֹדָה – הָכִי נָמֵי דְּפָסֵיל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** perhaps **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **states** that the offering is valid if one had intent of *piggul* with regard to half an olive-bulk from each loaf **only there, where he did not subsequently complete** his intention with regard to a full measure **from the same** sacrificial **rite,** as he had *piggul* intent with regard to half an olive-bulk during the slaughter of each lamb independently. **But here, where he subsequently completed** his intention with regard to a full measure **from the same rite,** perhaps **he has indeed disqualified** the offering.


###### Menachot 16b:28
[Menachot 16b:28](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/16b:28)

אֶלָּא, מַאן דְּאָמַר פִּיגּוּל – דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל, מַאן דְּאָמַר פָּסוּל – דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל, מַאן דְּאָמַר כָּשֵׁר – דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, the one who says** that an offering is ***piggul*** when one repeatedly burns an amount the size of a sesame seed from the handful and frankincense with the intent to consume an amount the size of a sesame seed from the remainder the next day, would claim that **all** of the *tanna’im* **agree** that it is *piggul*. Similarly, **the one who says** that it is **disqualified** would contend that **all agree** that it is disqualified, and **the one who says** that it is **fit** would maintain that **all agree** that it is fit.


###### Menachot 16b:29
[Menachot 16b:29](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/16b:29)

מַאן דְּאָמַר פִּיגּוּל דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל, קָסָבַר: דֶּרֶךְ אֲכִילָה בְּכָךְ, וְדֶרֶךְ הַקְטָרָה בְּכָךְ. וּמַאן דְּאָמַר פָּסוּל דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל, קָסָבַר: אֵין דֶּרֶךְ אֲכִילָה בְּכָךְ, וְאֵין דֶּרֶךְ הַקְטָרָה בְּכָךְ, וְהָוְיָא לָהּ כְּמִנְחָה שֶׁלֹּא הוּקְטְרָה. וּמַאן דְּאָמַר כָּשֵׁר דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל, קָסָבַר: דֶּרֶךְ הַקְטָרָה בְּכָךְ, וְאֵין דֶּרֶךְ אֲכִילָה בְּכָךְ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara elaborates: **The one who says** that **all agree** it is ***piggul* maintains** that **the manner of** its **consumption** is **in such** a manner, i.e., in small portions, **and** likewise **the manner of** its **burning is** also **in such** a manner. **And the one who says** that **all agree** it is **disqualified holds** that **the manner of** its **consumption** is **not in such** a manner. Accordingly, this type of *piggul* intent does not render the offering *piggul*. **And the manner of** its **burning** is also **not in such** a manner, **and** consequently **it is like a meal offering** whose handful **was not burned** properly, and is therefore disqualified. **And** finally, **the one who says** that **all agree** it is **fit holds** that **the manner of** its **burning** is **in such** a manner, and therefore the burning was performed properly, **but the manner of** its **consumption** is **not in such** a manner, which means that the *piggul* intent is inconsequential.


###### Menachot 16b:30
[Menachot 16b:30](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/16b:30)

אָמְרִי

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ So **say**