## Menachot Daf 17a

###### Menachot 17a:1
[Menachot 17a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/17a:1)

חֲרִיפֵי דְּפוּמְבְּדִיתָא: הַקְטָרָה מְפַגֶּלֶת הַקְטָרָה, וַאֲפִילּוּ לְרַבָּנַן דְּאָמְרִי אֵין מְפַגְּלִין בַּחֲצִי מַתִּיר – הָנֵי מִילֵּי הֵיכָא דְּחַשֵּׁב בֵּיהּ בְּשִׁירַיִם וּלְבוֹנָה בְּמִילְּתָא קָיְימָא, אֲבָל הָכָא דְּחַשֵּׁב לַהּ בִּלְבוֹנָה – כְּמָה דְּחַשֵּׁב בֵּיהּ בְּכוּלֵּיהּ מַתִּיר דָּמֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**the sharp** people in the city **of Pumbedita: Burning renders burning *piggul*,** e.g., burning the handful with the intent to burn the frankincense the next day renders the meal offering *piggul*. **And** this is the *halakha* **even according to the Rabbis, who say** that **one does not render** an offering ***piggul* with** intent occurring during the sacrifice of **half of a permitting factor,** e.g., when sacrificing the handful alone with intent of *piggul*. The reason is that **this statement** applies only **where he had intent during** the sacrifice of the handful to consume **the remainder** the next day, **and** the **frankincense stands intact,** i.e., he had no intent with regard to it. **But here, when he had intent with regard to the frankincense** while burning the handful, **it is considered as though he had intent with regard to the entire permitting factor.**


###### Menachot 17a:2
[Menachot 17a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/17a:2)

אָמַר רָבָא: אַף אֲנַן נָמֵי תְּנֵינָא, זֶה הַכְּלָל: כׇּל הַקּוֹמֵץ וְנוֹתֵן בִּכְלִי, וְהַמּוֹלִיךְ וְהַמַּקְטִיר, לֶאֱכוֹל דָּבָר שֶׁדַּרְכּוֹ לֶאֱכוֹל וּלְהַקְטִיר דָּבָר שֶׁדַּרְכּוֹ לְהַקְטִיר, חוּץ לִמְקוֹמוֹ – פָּסוּל וְאֵין בּוֹ כָּרֵת, חוּץ לִזְמַנּוֹ – פִּגּוּל וְחַיָּיבִין עָלָיו כָּרֵת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said: We learn** this *halakha* in a mishna, **as well** (12a): **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 do so **beyond its** designated **time,** the offering is ***piggul* and one is liable** to receive ***karet* on account of it.**


###### Menachot 17a:3
[Menachot 17a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/17a:3)

מַאי לָאו הַקְטָרָה דּוּמְיָא דְּהָנָךְ, מָה הָנָךְ – בֵּין לֶאֱכוֹל בֵּין לְהַקְטִיר, אַף הַקְטָרָה – בֵּין לֶאֱכוֹל בֵּין לְהַקְטִיר?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rava explains: **What, is it not** correct to say that the *halakha* with regard to **burning** is **similar to these,** i.e., the removal of the handful, its placement in a vessel, and the conveying? Accordingly, **just as** with regard to **these, whether** one’s intent was **to partake** of the remainder the next day **or to burn** the frankincense the next day, the *halakha* is that the offering is *piggul*, **so too** with regard to **burning, whether** one’s intent was **to partake** of the remainder **or to burn** the frankincense the next day, the offering is *piggul*.


###### Menachot 17a:4
[Menachot 17a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/17a:4)

לָא, הָנָךְ – בֵּין לֶאֱכוֹל בֵּין לְהַקְטִיר; הַקְטָרָה – לֶאֱכוֹל אִין, לְהַקְטִיר לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this comparison: **No,** with regard to **these, whether** one’s intent was **to partake** of the remainder **or to burn** the frankincense the next day, the offering is in fact *piggul*. But with regard to **burning,** if one’s intent was **to partake** of the remainder the next day, **yes,** it is *piggul*, but if one’s intent was **to burn** the frankincense the next day, it is **not** *piggul*.


###### Menachot 17a:5
[Menachot 17a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/17a:5)

יָתֵיב רַב מְנַשְּׁיָא בַּר גַּדָּא קַמֵּיהּ דְּאַבָּיֵי, וְיָתֵיב וְקָא אָמַר מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב חִסְדָּא: אֵין הַקְטָרָה מְפַגֶּלֶת הַקְטָרָה, וַאֲפִילּוּ לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר, דְּאָמַר: ״מְפַגְּלִין בַּחֲצִי מַתִּיר״ –

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara relates that **Rav Menashya bar Gadda sat before Abaye, and** while he was **sitting he said in the name of Rav Ḥisda: Burning does not render burning *piggul*,** e.g., burning the handful with the intent to burn the frankincense the next day does not render the offering *piggul*. **And** this is the *halakha* **even according to** the opinion of **Rabbi Meir, who says** in the mishna that one **renders** an offering ***piggul*** through intent **during** the sacrifice of **half** of **a permitting factor,** e.g., when sacrificing the handful but not the frankincense with intent of *piggul*.


###### Menachot 17a:6
[Menachot 17a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/17a:6)

הָנֵי מִילֵּי הֵיכָא דְּחַשֵּׁב בְּהוּ בְּשִׁירַיִם, דְּקוֹמֶץ מַתִּיר דִּידְהוּ, אֲבָל הָכָא דְּקוֹמֶץ לָאו מַתִּיר דִּלְבוֹנָה הוּא – לָא מָצֵי מְפַגֵּל בֵּיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Menashya bar Gadda explains that the reason is that **this statement** of Rabbi Meir applies only **where he had intent during** the sacrifice of the handful to consume **the remainder** the next day, **as the handful** is **their permitting factor. But here, as the handful is not a permitting factor of the frankincense,** the offering **cannot be rendered *piggul* through it.**


###### Menachot 17a:7
[Menachot 17a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/17a:7)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: עֲנִי מָרִי מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִין. אִיתְּמַר נָמֵי, אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא אָמַר רַב: אֵין הַקְטָרָה מְפַגֶּלֶת הַקְטָרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said to** Rav Menashya: **Answer me, my Master,** did Rav Ḥisda state this *halakha* **in the name of Rav?** Rav Menashya **said to** Abaye: **Yes.** The Gemara notes that it **was also stated** explicitly that **Rav Ḥisda says** that **Rav says: Burning does not render burning *piggul*.**


###### Menachot 17a:8
[Menachot 17a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/17a:8)

אָמַר רַב יַעֲקֹב בַּר אִידִי מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּאַבָּיֵי: אַף אֲנַן נָמֵי תְּנֵינָא, שָׁחַט אֶחָד מִן הַכְּבָשִׂים לֶאֱכוֹל מִמֶּנּוּ לְמָחָר – הוּא פִּיגּוּל וַחֲבֵירוֹ כָּשֵׁר, לֶאֱכוֹל מֵחֲבֵירוֹ לְמָחָר – שְׁנֵיהֶם כְּשֵׁרִין. מַאי טַעְמָא? לָאו מִשּׁוּם דְּכֵיוָן דְּלָאו מַתִּיר דִּידֵיהּ הוּא, לָא מָצֵי מְפַגֵּל בֵּיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ya’akov bar Idi said in the name of Abaye: We learn** in the mishna **as well** that the *halakha* is in accordance with the opinion of Rav: If **one slaughtered one of the lambs** with the intent **to partake of it the next day, that** lamb is ***piggul* and the other** lamb is **fit.** If he slaughtered one lamb with the intent **to partake of the other the next day, both** lambs **are fit. What is the reason?** Is it **not due to the fact that since** the first lamb **is not a permitting factor of** the second lamb, **it cannot render** the second lamb ***piggul*?** The same reasoning should apply to the case of the handful and frankincense.


###### Menachot 17a:9
[Menachot 17a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/17a:9)

לָא, הָתָם הוּא דְּלָא אִיקְּבַע בְּחַד מָנָא, אֲבָל הָכָא דְּאִיקְּבַע בְּחַד מָנָא – כִּי חַד דָּמוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this suggestion: **No;** there is a difference between these cases. **It is** only **there,** in the mishna, that one lamb cannot render the other *piggul*, **as it was not fixed in one vessel** with the other lamb, and therefore each animal stands independent of the other. **But here, as** the handful and frankincense **were fixed in one vessel** for the purpose of offering them, **they are considered like one** item and one of them therefore renders the other *piggul*.


###### Menachot 17a:10
[Menachot 17a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/17a:10)

אָמַר רַב הַמְנוּנָא: הָא מִילְּתָא אַבְלַע לִי רַבִּי חֲנִינָא, וּתְקִילָא לִי כְּכוּלֵּיהּ תַּלְמוּדַאי – הִקְטִיר קוֹמֶץ לְהַקְטִיר לְבוֹנָה, וּלְבוֹנָה לֶאֱכוֹל שִׁירַיִם לְמָחָר – פִּגּוּל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rav Hamnuna said: Rabbi Ḥanina helped me internalize this** following **matter, and to me it is equivalent to all** the rest of **my learning,** as it contains a significant novelty: If **one burned** the **handful** with the intent **to burn** the **frankincense** the next day, **and** burned the **frankincense** with the intent **to partake of** the **remainder the next day,** the meal offering is ***piggul*.**


###### Menachot 17a:11
[Menachot 17a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/17a:11)

מַאי קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן? אִי הַקְטָרָה מְפַגֶּלֶת הַקְטָרָה קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן – לֵימָא: ״הִקְטִיר קוֹמֶץ לְהַקְטִיר לְבוֹנָה״! אִי מְפַגְּלִין בַּחֲצִי מַתִּיר קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן – לֵימָא: ״הִקְטִיר קוֹמֶץ לֶאֱכוֹל שִׁירַיִם לְמָחָר״! אִי תַּרְוַיְיהוּ אֲתָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן – לֵימָא: ״הִקְטִיר קוֹמֶץ לְהַקְטִיר לְבוֹנָה וְלֶאֱכוֹל שִׁירַיִם לְמָחָר״!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What** is Rabbi Ḥanina **teaching us? If** he **is teaching us** that **burning renders burning *piggul*,** then **let him** simply **say:** If one **burned** the **handful** with the intent **to burn** the **frankincense,** the offering is *piggul*. **If** he **is teaching us** that one **renders** an offering ***piggul*** through intent **during** the sacrifice of **half of a permitting factor,** then **let him say:** If one **burned** the **handful** with the intent **to partake of** the **remainder the next day,** the offering is *piggul*. **If** he **is coming** to **teach us both of** these *halakhot*, **let him say:** If one **burned** the **handful** with the intent **to burn** the **frankincense or to partake of** the **remainder the next day,** the offering is *piggul*.


###### Menachot 17a:12
[Menachot 17a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/17a:12)

אָמַר רַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה: לְעוֹלָם קָסָבַר אֵין הַקְטָרָה מְפַגֶּלֶת הַקְטָרָה, וְאֵין מְפַגְּלִין בַּחֲצִי מַתִּיר, וְשָׁאנֵי הָכָא דְּפָשְׁטָא לַיהּ מַחְשָׁבָה בְּכוּלַּהּ מִנְחָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Adda bar Ahava said: Actually,** Rabbi Ḥanina **holds** that **burning does not render burning *piggul*,** and therefore if one burned only the handful with the intent to burn the frankincense the next day, the offering is not *piggul*. **And** he also holds that one **does not render** an offering ***piggul*** through intent **during** the sacrifice of **half of a permitting factor,** and consequently if one burned only the handful with the intent to partake of the remainder the next day, the offering is not *piggul* either. **But** it **is different here, as intent** of *piggul* has **extended over the entire meal offering,** as he had intent of *piggul* during the burning of the handful with regard to the frankincense and during the burning of the frankincense with regard to the remainder.


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

תָּנֵי תַּנָּא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב יִצְחָק בַּר אַבָּא: הִקְטִיר קוֹמֶץ לֶאֱכוֹל שִׁירַיִם – לְדִבְרֵי הַכֹּל פִּגּוּל. וְהָא מִיפְלָג פְּלִיגִי? אֶלָּא אֵימָא: לְדִבְרֵי הַכֹּל פָּסוּל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara relates that **a *tanna* taught** a *baraita* **before Rav Yitzḥak bar Abba:** If **one burned** the **handful** with the intent **to partake of** the **remainder** the next day, **everyone agrees** that the meal offering is ***piggul*.** The Gemara raises a difficulty: **But don’t** Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis **disagree** in the mishna with regard to this very case? **Rather, say** that the *baraita* states: **Everyone agrees** that the offering is **disqualified,** as although the Rabbis hold that such intent does not render an offering *piggul*, they concede that it disqualifies the offering.


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

וְלֵימָא: הֲרֵי זֶה פִּגּוּל, וְרַבִּי מֵאִיר הִיא! תַּנָּא ״דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל״ אַתְנְיוּהּ, ״פִּיגּוּל״ בְּ״פָסוּל״ מִיחַלַּף לֵיהּ, ״הֲרֵי זֶה״ בְּ״דִבְרֵי הַכֹּל״ לָא מִיחַלַּף לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges: **But** if one must emend the *baraita*, **let him say** that the *baraita* states: **It is *piggul*, and** that **it is** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Meir.** The Gemara responds: It is reasonable that the ***tanna* taught** that **everyone agrees,** and that he accidentally **exchanged** the word ***piggul* for disqualified.** But **he would not confuse** the phrase: **This is** the opinion of Rabbi Meir, **with** the phrase: **Everyone agrees.**


###### Menachot 17a:15
[Menachot 17a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/17a:15)

**הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ הַקּוֹמֵץ אֶת הַמִּנְחָה.**


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

מַתְנִי׳ **הַקּוֹמֵץ** אֶת הַמִּנְחָה לֶאֱכוֹל דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין דַּרְכּוֹ לֶאֱכוֹל, וּלְהַקְטִיר דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין דַּרְכּוֹ לְהַקְטִיר – כָּשֵׁר, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר פּוֹסֵל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** In the case of **one who removes a handful from the meal offering** with the intent **to consume**, beyond its designated time, **an item whose** typical **manner** is such that one does **not consume** it, i.e., the handful, **or to burn,** beyond its designated time, **an item whose** typical **manner** is such that one does **not burn** it on the altar, i.e., the remainder of the meal offering, the meal offering is **fit. Rabbi Eliezer deems** it **unfit,** although it is not *piggul*, and consuming it is therefore not punishable by excision from the World-to-Come [*karet*].


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

לֶאֱכוֹל דָּבָר שֶׁדַּרְכּוֹ לֶאֱכוֹל, וּלְהַקְטִיר דָּבָר שֶׁדַּרְכּוֹ לְהַקְטִיר פָּחוֹת מִכְּזַיִת – כָּשֵׁר. לֶאֱכוֹל כַּחֲצִי זַיִת וּלְהַקְטִיר כַּחֲצִי זַיִת – כָּשֵׁר, שֶׁאֵין אֲכִילָה וְהַקְטָרָה מִצְטָרְפִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
In the case of one who removes a handful from the meal offering with the intent **to consume,** beyond its designated time, **an item whose** typical **manner** is such that one does **consume** it, **or to burn,** beyond its designated time, **an item whose** typical **manner** is such that one does **burn** it on the altar, but his intent was to consume or burn improperly **less than an olive-bulk,** the offering is **fit.** If his intent was both **to consume half an olive-bulk and to burn half an olive-bulk** beyond its designated time, the meal offering is nevertheless **fit, because eating and burning do not join together.**


###### Menachot 17a:18
[Menachot 17a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/17a:18)

**גְּמָ׳** אָמַר רַבִּי אַסִּי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר? אָמַר קְרָא ״וְאִם הֵאָכֹל יֵאָכֵל מִבְּשַׂר זֶבַח שְׁלָמָיו״ – בִּשְׁתֵּי אֲכִילוֹת הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר, אֶחָד אֲכִילַת אָדָם וְאֶחָד אֲכִילַת מִזְבֵּחַ, לוֹמַר לָךְ: כְּשֵׁם שֶׁמְּחַשְּׁבִין בַּאֲכִילַת אָדָם, כָּךְ מְחַשְּׁבִין בַּאֲכִילַת מִזְבֵּחַ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **Rabbi Asi says** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan says: What is the reason** for the ruling **of Rabbi Eliezer** that the intention to consume, beyond its designated time, an item that is not usually consumed renders the meal offering unfit? **The verse states** with regard to consuming an offering after its designated time: **“And if any of the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace offerings is at all consumed [*he’akhol ye’akhel*]”** (Leviticus 7:18), repeating for emphasis the term for consumption. He derives from the repeated term that **the verse is speaking of two** types of **consumption: One** is **the consumption** of the offering **by a person,** e.g., by the priests or the owner of the offering, **and** the other **one is the consumption** of the sacrificial portions **by** their being burned on the **altar.** This serves **to tell you** that **just as** one’s improper **intention with regard to the consumption of a person** renders the offering unfit, **so too,** one’s improper **intention with regard to the consumption of** the **altar** renders the offering unfit.


###### Menachot 17a:19
[Menachot 17a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/17a:19)

וּכְשֵׁם שֶׁמְּחַשְּׁבִין מֵאֲכִילַת אָדָם לַאֲכִילַת אָדָם, וּמֵאֲכִילַת מִזְבֵּחַ לַאֲכִילַת מִזְבֵּחַ, כָּךְ מְחַשְּׁבִין מֵאֲכִילַת אָדָם לַמִּזְבֵּחַ, וּמֵאֲכִילַת מִזְבֵּחַ לָאָדָם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** furthermore, this serves to tell you that **just as** one’s improper **intention** that a portion of the offering designated for **consumption by a person** will be **consumed** on the following day **by a person** renders the offering unfit, **and** one’s improper **intention** that a portion of the offering designated for **consumption of** the **altar** will be **consumed** on the following day **by** the **altar** renders the offering unfit, **so too,** one’s improper **intention** that a portion of the offering designated for **consumption by a person** will be **consumed on** the **altar** renders the offering unfit, **and** one’s improper intention that a portion of the offering designated for **consumption of** the **altar** will be **consumed** on the following day **by a person** renders the offering unfit.


###### Menachot 17a:20
[Menachot 17a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/17a:20)

מַאי טַעְמָא? מִדְּאַפְּקִינְהוּ רַחֲמָנָא לְהַקְטָרָה בִּלְשׁוֹן אֲכִילָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**What is the reason** for this derivation? It is derived **from** the fact **that the Merciful One expresses** the **burning** of the offering **using the language of consumption.**


###### Menachot 17a:21
[Menachot 17a:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/17a:21)

וְרַבָּנַן, הַאי דְּאַפְּקִינְהוּ רַחֲמָנָא בִּלְשׁוֹן אֲכִילָה,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And the Rabbis,** who disagree with Rabbi Eliezer, maintain the following: **This** fact **that the Merciful One expresses** the burning of the offering **using the language of consumption**