Menachot 12a — the Talmud in English

Piggul

is

and those who eat it are liable for

its eaters

karet,

as it is stated: “And the person who eats of it shall bear his iniquity” [Leviticus 7]. And they expounded a gezerah shavah from the eating of notar, concerning which it is stated: “And those who eat it shall bear his iniquity”: just as notar entails karet, so too [an offering eaten] outside its time entails karet.

And the reason that the Mishna did not mention for the frankincense the measure of “an olive-bulk,” as it did with the remainder and the handful, is that the Mishna stated its words anonymously according to the view that holds that the frankincense is valid with one grain, and an olive-bulk is not required for its burning.

They further expounded: Just as in an animal-offering the thought disqualifies through one of its four services, which are slaughtering, receiving [the blood] in a vessel, carrying, and sprinkling the blood, so too in a meal-offering the thought disqualifies through one of its four services. And the Mishna comes to specify through which services a thought disqualifies.

This is the general rule: anyone who takes the handful

of the meal-offering—for the taking of the handful of a meal-offering corresponds to slaughtering in an animal-offering—

or

he

places

it

in a vessel

of holiness, which corresponds to receiving the blood of an animal-offering in a vessel, or

carries

it for burning, which corresponds to carrying the blood of an animal-offering, or

burns

it, corresponding to sprinkling the blood of an animal-offering, and he thought during one of these services

to eat something whose manner is to be eaten

such as the remainder designated for eating

and

or

to burn something whose manner is to be burned

such as the handful—if he thought of doing this

outside its place, it is disqualified and there is no karet for it,

but

outside its time, it is piggul and those who eat it are liable for karet.

But if he thought a thought of burning concerning the remainder designated for human consumption, or thought a thought of human eating concerning the handful and frankincense designated for burning, he did not render it piggul, because his opinion is nullified in relation to the opinion of all people.

Provided, however,

this disqualification of piggul, which comes because of the thought “outside its time” and for which one is liable for karet, applies only on condition

that the permitting element is offered

namely, the handful and the frankincense—

according to its commandment,

as though this were a valid meal-offering, so that there is no other disqualification in it besides piggul. But if, at the time the permitting element of the meal-offering was offered, there was another disqualification in it as well, the disqualification of piggul does not apply to it, and one is not liable for karet for eating it. We learn this from what is stated concerning piggul, “It shall not be accepted,” and what is stated concerning a valid animal-offering, “It shall be accepted as an offering made by fire to the Lord.” And they expounded: Just as the acceptance of a valid offering, so is the acceptance of piggul. And just as the “permitting element” of a valid animal-offering accepts it only if there is no disqualification in it, so too the offering of the “permitting element” of piggul accepts it and establishes in it the disqualification of piggul only if there is no other disqualification in it [the disqualification of piggul that entails karet applies only after the offering of the “permitting element”"].

How was the permitting element offered according to its commandment?

He took the handful in silence,

without thinking a disqualifying thought at the time of taking the handful, and

placed it in a vessel, carried it, and burned it—

all these with a thought of

outside its time,

or he took the handful

with a thought of outside its time

and

placed it in a vessel, carried it, and burned it in silence, or he took the handful, placed it in a vessel, carried it, and burned it—

all these with a thought of

outside its time; this is that the permitting element was offered according to its commandment,

for there was no other disqualification besides the thought of “outside its time.”

How was the permitting element not offered according to its commandment?

He took the handful

with a thought of

outside its place,

and

placed it in a vessel, carried it, and burned it

with a thought of

outside its time, or he took the handful

with a thought of

outside its time

and

placed it in a vessel, carried it, and burned it outside its place, or he took the handful

and

placed it in a vessel, carried it, and burned it outside its place,

that is, he performed one of these with a thought of outside its place and the other three services with a thought of outside its time—

this is that the permitting element was not offered according to its commandment,

for besides the thought of piggul of “outside its time,” he thought another disqualifying thought of outside its place.

There are meal-offerings in which there can be an additional disqualification that removes them from the status of piggul, such as a meal-offering disqualified because it was “not for its sake.” Namely,

a sinner’s meal-offering and a meal-offering of jealousy whose handfuls he took not for their sake

and

placed them in a vessel, carried them, and burned them outside their time, or took the handful outside its time

and

placed it in a vessel, carried it, and burned it not for its sake, or took the handful, placed it in a vessel, carried it, and burned it not for its sake—

for in all these cases the meal-offering is disqualified because it was performed not for its sake, and there is another disqualification in them besides the thought of piggul. Therefore,

this is that the permitting element was not offered according to its commandment,

and the disqualification of piggul did not apply to them, and there is no karet for eating their remainder. However, in the other meal-offerings, a thought of not for its sake does not remove them from piggul, since this thought does not disqualify them.

Until now we dealt with a case in which he thought outside its time during one service and outside its place during another, and we said that in this case the thought of outside its place removes it from piggul. Now the Mishna says that the same law applies if he thought both thoughts during one service, such as if he thought

to eat an olive-bulk outside

and

an olive-bulk tomorrow,

or

an olive-bulk tomorrow

and

an olive-bulk outside—

in all this the meal-offering likewise leaves the status of piggul, since there was here also a thought of outside its place. And likewise if he thought of

approximately half an olive-bulk outside

and

approximately half an olive-bulk tomorrow,

or

approximately half an olive-bulk tomorrow

and

approximately half an olive-bulk outside—

in all these cases it is

disqualified

and there is no karet for it.

Rabbi Judah disagrees with the first tanna regarding an olive-bulk tomorrow and an olive-bulk outside:

Rabbi Judah said: This is the general rule: if the thought of time

that is, outside its time—

preceded the thought of place,

that is, outside its place, the later thought of place does not remove it from the thought of time that preceded it; rather, this is

piggul, and those who eat it are liable for karet,

and only

if the thought of place preceded the thought of time, it is disqualified and there is no karet for it,

like the first tanna, for one always follows the first thought.

And the Sages say: Both this and that are disqualified, and there is no karet for it.

Rabbi Judah’s view is not only in a case where he thought the two thoughts during two services; even if he thought both of them during one service, one follows the first thought. Therefore, the Mishna brought this law of “an olive-bulk tomorrow, an olive-bulk outside” in one service, to tell you that Rabbi Judah also disagrees in this case.

Indeed, regarding one who thinks of half an olive-bulk outside its time and half an olive-bulk outside its place, Rabbi Judah agrees that there is no piggul here, because a thought disqualifies or renders an offering piggul only if he thought of an olive-bulk. And the reason the meal-offering is disqualified is that the two thoughts concerning the two half-olive-bulks combine to disqualify it.

Gemara:

It was raised before them: According to the one who says

that is, Rabbi Yohanan, above 9a—

the remainder

of a meal-offering

that became deficient between the taking of the handful and the burning,

and only an olive-bulk remained of it,

he burns the handful upon it

[for although regarding an animal-offering the law is “if there is no flesh, there is no blood,” and the same applies to a meal-offering—if there is no remainder, there is no burning of the handful—this is specifically when nothing at all remained of it; but when an olive-bulk remained, he is permitted to burn it],

and it is established for us

[there, 9b]

that that remainder is forbidden in eating

[as it is stated: “And what is left of the meal-offering shall be for Aaron and his sons,” and they expounded from this: “but not what is left of what is left”; and this olive-bulk is what remained from the remainder that had remained from the handful].

What is the consequence for them

for this remainder—

of the burning,

such as when he burned the handful with the intention of eating the remainder outside its time—

to establish them as piggul?

Is it to be said that since he burns the handful with authorization, this is like any proper burning, which, if he thought a thought of outside its time regarding the meal-offering, establishes it as piggul through this burning? Or perhaps, since this remainder is not eaten, this is like thinking of eating tomorrow something whose manner is not to be eaten, concerning which the thought does not disqualify.

And

likewise, one must inquire regarding remainder that became deficient, where he burned the handful in silence:

whether this removes it

this burning, with regard to the remainder

from

the law of

misuse of consecrated property.

Is it to be said that since permission was given to burn it, this is like any proper burning that removes the remainder from the prohibition of misuse of consecrated property, as is explained in Meila [9a], that there is no misuse of consecrated property with regard to the remainder, since it has a time when it is permitted to the priests? Or perhaps, since it is not eaten, it is like something that has no permission for the priests, and it does not leave the status of misuse of consecrated property.

Rav Huna said:

Even according to Rabbi Akiva, who says

[in Meila 7a] that

the sprinkling

of the blood

is effective

also

for

flesh that went outside the curtains and was disqualified because of

“that which went outside,”

to consider it something that has permission for the priests and to remove it from liability for misuse of consecrated property, despite the fact that the sprinkling does not permit it in eating, since it is disqualified because of that which went outside—nevertheless, one may not compare this case to our matter [and say that since burning is like sprinkling the blood, just as sprinkling is effective for that which went outside, so too burning is effective for that which is disqualified because the remainder became deficient]. For

these words

apply to the disqualification of

that which went outside,

because

the

flesh

is present as it is

and there is no deficiency in its body,

and it is disqualified because of another matter,

namely, the air of Jerusalem, which disqualifies it when it goes outside.

But

in our case, namely,

the deficiency

of the remainder,

the disqualification of its body

of the meal-offering

is it; burning is not effective for it

to remove it from the law of misuse of consecrated property.

Rava said to him: On the contrary, even according to Rabbi Eliezer,

who disagrees with Rabbi Akiva, and

who says that the sprinkling does not make that which has gone out effective,

to remove it from the law of misuse, you can say that he agrees with regard to remnants that became deficient. For

this applies only to that which has gone out, which is not inside,

for it has gone outside; therefore the sprinkling does not make it effective,

but deficiency

of the meal-offering, since

it is

the meal-offering

inside

and it did not go outside the Temple courtyard, therefore

the burning makes it effective, and Rabbi Eliezer holds that the disqualification of that which has gone out is more severe than the disqualification of remnants that became deficient.

and Rabbi Eliezer holds that the disqualification of an item that went outside is more severe than the disqualification of remnants that became deficient.

Rava said: From where do I say this

to say that a meal-offering that became deficient is made effective by the burning with regard to pigul and misuse?

For we learned: One who takes the handful from the meal-offering

with the intention

of eating its remnants outside, or an olive-size portion of its remnants outside, etc., and Rabbi Hiyya taught

this Mishna as follows: “

One who takes the handful

from the meal-offering

to eat its remnants outside,”

and he did not teach

Rabbi Hiyya the words

“or an olive-size portion”

neither with regard to the handful nor with regard to the remnants, whether concerning the disqualification of outside its place or concerning pigul of outside its time. And apparently,

what is the reason he did not teach “or an olive-size portion”

with regard to the thought of eating the remnants on the following day? Is it

not

because the tanna who taught this holds that the statement later in the Mishna, “And one who places it in a vessel, and one who carries it, and one who burns it, to eat something, etc., outside its time,” also speaks of a case in which he had the thought concerning an olive-size portion or half an olive-size portion, and

for example, the remnants became deficient

between the taking of the handful and the burning

and they were left at an olive-size portion, and he said: “Behold, I am placing it in a vessel, carrying it, and burning it with the intention of eating that olive-size portion of the remnants on the following day.” [Therefore, the tanna taught at the beginning “or an olive-size portion” for the sake of the latter clause, to teach that even when the remnants became deficient and remained at an olive-size portion, the thought makes them pigul]. And although the service of taking the handful included in this latter clause cannot be established in this manner, for if the meal-offering became deficient before the taking of the handful, it is disqualified and can no longer be established as pigul, nevertheless the other three services can be established in this manner, where the remnants became deficient.

And the reason Rabbi Hiyya did not teach it in this manner is that, since we established the thought in the three services as a case in which the meal-offering had already become deficient and the remnants remained at an olive-size portion, it is impossible to teach “or an olive-size portion”—meaning that he had the thought concerning the remaining olive-size portion—except with a thought concerning the eating by a person, meaning the eating of the remnants. But a thought concerning the eating on the altar, mentioned there, meaning that he had the thought concerning the handful, cannot be taught in this manner,

because the law is that a handful that became deficient disqualifies the meal-offering, and a thought concerning it does not make it pigul.

Indeed, the first clause of the Mishna, which deals with the thought at the time of taking the handful, certainly does not speak of a case in which the remnants became deficient, for remnants that became deficient before the taking of the handful disqualify the meal-offering, and if so, it would have been possible to teach in it “or an olive-size portion.”