הקומץ את המנחה. מודה ר' יוסי שהוא פגול (Rabbi Yossi’s statement is equivalent to what is found in Tractate Menahot, Chapter 1, Mishnah 3) – because it is necessary to teach the ending clause: “to burn its frankincense on the morrow, Rabbi Yossi states that it is invalid, but there is no extirpation,” you might have thought that the reason of Rabbi Yossi is because that he holds that he does not make a sacrifice rejectable through improper mental disposal (see Leviticus 19:7) with the half which fits the sacrifices for eating, that is to say, that if he thought to perform the act of Divine service on the morrow that the act of Divine service of half permits it, he did not have an inappropriate intention, and this frankincense is one-half makes the object permissible for enjoyment, for whether it is the burning on the altar of the handful of meal-offering and the frankincense which permit the residue, but even the first clause of the Mishnah, when he thought with the burning on the altar of the handful of meal-offering is an act of Divine service which is half permissible, and Rabbi Yossi disputes, this comes to teach us that in this he agrees. For the reason is not because of this, but rather because that which permits does not invalidate by inappropriate intention that which is permitted.

מה שנה זו מן הזבח – that he ritually slaughters it in order to offer up those parts of the sacrifice on the altar on the morrow, it is an offering disqualified by inappropriate intention.

אינה מן המנחה – it is not from the species of the meal-offering like the taking of a fistful of meal-offering, and even though it is from those that permit the meal-offering. For Rabbi Yossi holds that what makes an object permitted for eating cannot unfit another act of the same nature (i.e., if the priest on offering a handful of flour had in mind an unlawful application of the frankincense, the latter is not hereby made rejectable – see Talmud Menahot 13b, for the act of Divine service with that which is permitted which is the taking of a handful of the meal-offering have any effect to invalidate by inappropriate intention something else that is permitted which is the frankincense, which is a thought on the frankincense while performing the act of taking the handful of meal-offering. But the Rabbis say to him: just as we state , that what makes an object permitted for eating cannot unit an other act of the same nature, where he did not establish with one of them, as for example, the two lambs for Atzeret/Shavuot, where both of them permit the bread, but if he ritually slaughtered one of them in order to eat its companion on the morrow, both of them are kosher, but where he established with one of them, such as the handful of the meal-offering and the frankincense in one utensil, his thought-process [to eat one of them at a different time] of one act which fits the sacrifice for eating makes unfit by inappropriate intention another act of the same nature. And the Halakha is according to the Sages.

שחט שני כבשים – of Atzeret/Shavuot, as it is written regarding them (Leviticus 23:19): “[You shall also offer one as a he-goat as a purification offering] and two yearling lambs as a sacrifice of well-being,” and those yearling lambs permit and sanctify the two loaves, for the bread is not holy other than with the slaughtering of the two yearling lambs, since they were needed with it in waving. But the rest of the lambs of Atzeret/Shavuot, are of the Musaf [sacrifice].

לאכול אחת מן החלות למחר – for the time for the eating of the loaves is none other than during that day and night, like the law of the meal-offering, where it states concerning it (Leviticus 7:7): “The reparation offering/כחטאת is like the purification offering/כאשם. [The same rule applies to both: it shall belong to the priest who makes expiation thereby].”

הקטיר שני בזיכים – for two piles of wood on the altar in the Temple of the shewbread , as it is written (Leviticus 24:6): “Place them on the pure table before the LORD in two rows, six to a row,” there was on each pile of wood one spoon which has in it frankincense, as it is written (Leviticus 24:7): “With each row you shall place pure frankincense, [which is to be the a token offering for the bread, as a gift to the LORD].” And these two spoons which in them is placed the frankincense are called the two censers/vessels. And the frankincense is burned as it is written (Leviticus 24:7): “which is to be token offering for the bread, And the bread is consumed, and the time for its consumption is only all of that week that they remove it from the table. But if at the time when the two censers of frankincense are offered, he thought of one of the other piles of wood on the altar of bread to eat it on the morrow, that is to say, not at its appropriate time.

אותה חלה – of the two loaves of Atzeret/Shavuot.

ואותו הסדר – of the shewbread.

זה וזה פגול – for all of them are considered as one body.

נטמאת אחת מן החלות – and specifically when one of the two loaves are defiled before the sprinkling of the blood of the lambs, or one from the rows prior to the burning of [on the altar] of the dishes/censers, is what Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis disagree upon. But if it was defiled after the sprinkling of the blood or after the burning of the dishes/censers, everyone agrees that what is defiled remains in its defiled state and that which is pure can be eaten.

שאין קרבן צבור חלוק – in the Gemara (Tractate Menahot 15a) it reaches a definite conclusion that Rabbi Yehuda stated that this matter is not from a Scriptural verse nor from logic, but rather it is an accepted teaching in the mouth of Rabbi Yehuda, and such it was received from his Rabbis/teachers that an offering of the congregation may not be divided, and if half of it was disqualified, all of it is disqualified.

התודה מפגלת את הלחם – that the bread (i.e., loaves) comes for the thanksgiving offering and it is of secondary import to it, but the thanksgiving offering is not of secondary import to the bead. And similarly, the two lambs of Atzeret/Shavuot, the two loaves that come with them are of secondary import to the lambs but the lambs are not of secondary import to the bread, but the principal [item(s)] make the sacrifice rejectable through improper mental disposal but that of secondary import do not make the sacrifice rejectable through improper mental disposal. But if it was necessary for the Tanna/teacher to teach this law regarding the thanksgiving offering but it was not necessary [to teach this law with regard] to the lams of Atzeret/Shavuot, I would think that it is there that the when the bread makes the sacrifice rejectable through improper mental disposal, the thanksgiving-offering does not make the sacrifice rejectable through improper mental disposal because it was not dependent upon the waving with the loaves, but the lambs [for Atzeret/Shavuot] which were dependent upon the waving with the loaves, as it is written (Leviticus 23:20): “The priest shall elevate these – the two lambs- together with the bread [of first fruits as an elevation offering before the LORD],”I would say that the bread makes the sacrifice rejectable through improper mental disposal to also make the lambs rejectable through improper mental disposal. But if the Tanna/teacher taught [only] the lambs, I would state there that when the lambs make the sacrifice rejectable through improper mental disposal, it makes the bread rejectable through improper mental disposal because they were dependent upon each other in waving, but the thanksgiving-offering which were not dependent, I would state that when the thanksgiving offering makes the sacrifice rejectable through improper mental disposal, it does not make the loaves rejectable through improper mental disposal, hence, they are both necessary.

הזבח מפגל את הנכסים – and a person who drinks from them is punished with extirpation.

משקדשו בכלי – after they placed them in the sacred vessels, for the vessel sanctifies them with an eternal holiness, and furthermore they don’t have any redemption.

דברי ר' מאיר – for Rabbi Meir holds that the libations make the sacrifice rejectable, because the blood of the offering is what makes it appropriate and permits them for the altar. And since they have something that makes it permitted, it becomes rejectable through an intention/thought outside of its proper time. But the Sages dispute him in the Tractate Zevakhim in the chapter “The School of Shammai” (Chapter 4, Mishnah 3 – Talmud Zevakhim) [44a] and they (i.e., the Sages] state that the libations do not have that which makes them permissible [for consumption], therefore they do not become rejectable. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Meir.

פיגל בקומץ – in the burning on the altar of the handful of meal-offering, he thought about the eating the residue/remnants not at their appropriate time.

עד שיפגל בכל המתיר – for the burning on the altar of one of them is half of what makes an object permitted for enjoyment, for there is also the burning on the altar of its partner, for the residue of the meal-offering is not permitted for consumption by a Kohen until he burns on the altar the handful of the meal-offering and the frankincense.

במנחת חוטא ובמנחת קנאות – which do not have frankincense, and the handful of meal-offering alone is what is permitted [for consumption].

שחט אחד מן הכבשים – [he slaughtered one] of the lambs of Atzeret/Shavuot. But the bread is not permitted other than after both of them (i.e., the lambs) have been ritually slaughtered.

הקטיר אחד מן הבזיכין – for behold it does not permit the bread other than through the burning of both of them on the altar.

ר' מאיר אומר פגול – for he holds that half of what is permitted also makes improper intention. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Meir.