## Menachot Daf 17b

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

דְּלָא שְׁנָא כִּי מְחַשֵּׁב בִּלְשׁוֹן אֲכִילָה לְמִזְבֵּחַ, וְלָא שְׁנָא כִּי מְחַשֵּׁב בִּלְשׁוֹן הַקְטָרָה לַמִּזְבֵּחַ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
demonstrates **that there is no difference if one expresses his intention using the language of: Consumption on** the **altar, and there is no difference if one expresses his intention using the language of: Burning on** the **altar.** Therefore, if the priest removed the handful from the meal offering while expressing the intention that it should be burned on the altar on the following day, whether this intention was phrased as: Consumed on the altar, or: Burned on the altar, the offering is *piggul*.


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

אִי נָמֵי, מָה אֲכִילָה בִּכְזַיִת – אַף הַקְטָרָה בִּכְזַיִת, וּלְעוֹלָם אֲכִילָה דְּאוֹרְחָא מַשְׁמַע.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Alternatively,** the doubled expression serves to teach that **just as** one renders the offering *piggul* only when one’s intention involves the **consumption of an olive-bulk,** as this is the minimal measure for an act to be considered eating, **so too,** one renders the offering *piggul* only when one’s intention involves the **burning of an olive-bulk. But actually,** the expression for **consumption** found in the verse **indicates** consuming it **in the usual manner,** and therefore an offering is rendered unfit only if one’s improper intention involved consuming an item that is usually consumed, or burning an item that is usually burned.


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

וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, אִם כֵּן, לִכְתּוֹב רַחֲמָנָא ״אִם הֵאָכֹל הֵאָכֹל״, אִי נָמֵי ״אִם יֵאָכֵל יֵאָכֵל״, מַאי ״הֵאָכֹל יֵאָכֵל״? שָׁמְעַתְּ מִינַּהּ תַּרְתֵּי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** what would **Rabbi Eliezer** respond? He would say that **if that were so,** that the verse intends to teach only that *halakha*, **let the Merciful One write** either: **If *he’akhol he’akhol*, or: If *ye’akhel ye’akhel*,** repeating the same form of the word twice. **What** is the reason that the verse states **“*he’akhol ye’akhel*,”** employing both repetition and variation? **Learn from** this formulation **two** *halakhot*. One, as the Rabbis explain, is that the offering is rendered unfit whether one uses an expression of consumption or an expression of burning, provided that one’s intention is with regard to at least an olive-bulk. The second is that the offering is rendered unfit if one intends to burn on the altar an item that is usually consumed by a person, or to consume an item that is usually burned on the altar.


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

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי זֵירָא לְרַב אַסִּי: וְאִי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר מִשּׁוּם הָכִי הוּא, כָּרֵת נָמֵי לִיחַיַּיב? וְכִי תֵּימָא הָכִי נָמֵי, וְהָא אַתְּ הוּא דְּאָמְרַתְּ מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מוֹדֶה רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר שֶׁאֵין עָנוּשׁ כָּרֵת!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Zeira said to Rav Asi: But if the reasoning of Rabbi Eliezer is due to that** derivation, and he understands that the verse equates the improper intent to consume an item that is usually consumed with the improper intent to consume an item that is usually burned, then **let one also be liable to** receive ***karet*** for consuming an offering brought with intention to consume, after its designated time, the part of the offering that is burned, or for intention to burn, after its designated time, an item that is usually consumed. Why does Rabbi Eliezer state only that the offering is rendered unfit? **And if you would say** that **indeed,** Rabbi Eliezer does hold that one who consumes such an offering is liable to receive *karet*, that is difficult: **But aren’t you the one who said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: Rabbi Eliezer concedes that** doing so is **not punishable by *karet*?**


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

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: תַּנָּאֵי הִיא אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, אִיכָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר: פְּסוּלָה דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא, וְאִיכָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר: פְּסוּלָה דְּרַבָּנַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Asi **said to him: It is** a dispute between ***tanna’im* as to** the opinion **of Rabbi Eliezer. There is one who says** that Rabbi Eliezer deems the offering to be **unfit by Torah law** and one is liable to receive *karet*. It was in accordance with this opinion that Rabbi Yoḥanan cited the proof from the verse. **And there is one who says** that Rabbi Eliezer deems the offering to be **unfit by rabbinic law,** and it was in accordance with this opinion that Rabbi Yoḥanan said that according to Rabbi Eliezer there is no punishment of *karet* for this transgression.


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

דְּתַנְיָא: הַשּׁוֹחֵט אֶת הַזֶּבַח לִשְׁתּוֹת מִדָּמוֹ לְמָחָר, לְהַקְטִיר מִבְּשָׂרוֹ לְמָחָר, לֶאֱכוֹל מֵאֵימוּרָיו לְמָחָר – כָּשֵׁר, וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר פּוֹסֵל. לְהַנִּיחַ מִדָּמוֹ לְמָחָר – רַבִּי יְהוּדָה פּוֹסֵל. אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: אַף בָּזוֹ רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר פּוֹסֵל וַחֲכָמִים מַכְשִׁירִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**As it is taught** in a *baraita*: In the case of **one who slaughters the offering** with the intention **to drink** some **of its blood,** which is designated to be presented on the altar, **on the next day,** or **to burn** some **of its meat,** which is meant to be eaten, **on the next day,** or **to eat** some **of its sacrificial portions,** which are designated to be burned on the altar, **on the next day,** the offering is **fit,** as his intention is either to eat an item that is usually sacrificed on the altar, or to burn on the altar an item that is usually eaten. **But Rabbi Eliezer deems** the offering **unfit.** If one slaughters the offering with the intention **to leave** some **of its blood for the next day,** but not to present it or consume it, **Rabbi Yehuda deems** the offering **unfit. Rabbi Elazar said: Even in this** case **Rabbi Eliezer deems** the offering **unfit, and the Rabbis deem** it **fit.**


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

רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, אַלִּיבָּא דְּמַאן? אִילֵימָא אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבָּנַן – הַשְׁתָּא, וּמָה הָתָם דְּקָא מְחַשֵּׁב בִּלְשׁוֹן אֲכִילָה מַכְשְׁרִי רַבָּנַן, הָכָא לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara clarifies: **In accordance with whose** opinion is the statement of **Rabbi Yehuda** that the offering is unfit even if he intends only to leave the blood for the next day, but not present it or consume it? **If we say** it is **in accordance with** the opinion **of the Rabbis, now** consider: **And if there, where** the priest **expresses his intention using the language of consumption, the Rabbis** nevertheless **deem** the offering **fit,** despite the fact that if he had used this expression with regard to the portion burned on the altar, the offering would be *piggul*, is it **not all the more so** the case that **here,** when he intends only to leave the blood until the next day, the offering should be fit?


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

אֶלָּא, אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, וְאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: אַף בְּזוֹ רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר פּוֹסֵל וַחֲכָמִים מַכְשִׁירִין. רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר הַיְינוּ רַבִּי יְהוּדָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** it must be that Rabbi Yehuda’s statement is **in accordance with** the opinion **of Rabbi Eliezer. And** yet the *baraita* continues: **Rabbi Elazar said: Even in this** case **Rabbi Eliezer deems** the offering **unfit, and the Rabbis deem** it **fit.** If Rabbi Yehuda’s statement is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, then the explanation of **Rabbi Elazar** of Rabbi Eliezer’s opinion **is** identical to that of **Rabbi Yehuda,** and there does not appear to be any disagreement between the two.


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

אֶלָּא לָאו כָּרֵת אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ, דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה (דְּתַנָּא קַמָּא) סָבַר: לְהַנִּיחַ – פְּסוּלָא בְּעָלְמָא, בְּהָנָךְ כָּרֵת נָמֵי מִיחַיַּיב, וַאֲתָא רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר לְמֵימַר: אִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי פָּסוּל וְאֵין בּוֹ כָּרֵת!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, is it not** so that the difference **between** Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Yehuda is with regard to liability for ***karet*?** The difference lies in **that Rabbi Yehuda holds** that if one’s intention is **to leave** the blood for the next day, then according to Rabbi Eliezer the offering is **only** rendered **unfit,** whereas **in those** cases listed in the mishna, such as where one’s intention is to eat the sacrificial portions on the next day, he would be **liable** to receive ***karet* as well. And Rabbi Elazar comes to say** that according to Rabbi Eliezer, both in **this** case **and** in **that** case, the offering is **unfit but there is no** liability to receive ***karet* for it.**


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

לָא, דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא כָּרֵת לֵיכָּא, וְהָכָא שָׁלֹשׁ מַחְלוֹקֶת בְּדָבָר: תַּנָּא קַמָּא סָבַר בְּהָנָךְ פְּלִיגִי, לְהַנִּיחַ – דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל כָּשֵׁר,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this suggestion: **No,** it may be **that everyone agrees** that according to Rabbi Eliezer in a case where one’s intention is to eat, after its designated time, an item that is usually burned, or to burn an item that is usually eaten, **there is no** liability to receive ***karet*. And here** there are **three disputes with regard to the matter. The first *tanna* holds** that the Rabbis and Rabbi Eliezer **disagree** only **in those** cases, with regard to whether the offering is rendered unfit due to the intention to eat an item that is usually burned or to burn an item that is usually eaten. But with regard **to leaving** of its blood until the next day, **everyone agrees** that the offering is **fit.**