Menachot 12b — the Talmud in English

Rather,

and

for this reason Rabbi Hiyya did not teach the words “or an olive-sized portion” even in the first clause, because

since

the latter clause, which deals with one who had the thought at the time of

placing the vessel

and

during the carrying and the burning, he did not teach it

exact page location

“or an olive-sized portion” with regard to the remainder

for the reason explained, therefore in the first clause, which deals with one who

had

the thought at the time of the

taking of the handful as well, to eat the remainder

on the following day,

he did not teach “or an olive-sized portion.”

And now, after we have established the Mishna as dealing with one who had a pigul thought concerning remainder that had become diminished,

and it teaches

about this in the

latter clause

that it is

pigul, and one is liable to excision for it, evidently the burning is effective

for remainder that became diminished between the taking of the handful and the burning, and therefore pigul takes effect in it!

The Gemara rejects this:

Abaye said

to Rava: In fact, burning is not effective for remainder that became diminished, to bring it to the status of pigul and to remove it from the status of misuse. And you cannot prove this from Rabbi Hiyya, for in the Mishna

it is not

speaking of a case in which the remainder became diminished and stood at an olive-sized portion, which is why Rabbi Hiyya did not teach “or an olive-sized portion” in the latter clause.

Rather, the reason Rabbi Hiyya did not teach “or an olive-sized portion” in his beraita is that

this

beraita

is according to

Rabbi Elazar

who holds that the burning is not considered burning until he burns all of it.

As we learned: The handful

of an Israelite’s meal-offering,

and the frankincense

of a meal-offering,

and the incense

that they burn every day,

and a meal-offering of priests

which a priest volunteered, whose law is that it is not taken by handful but is burned in its entirety,

and the meal-offering of an anointed priest

the griddle meal-offering brought by the High Priest, which is burned in its entirety,

and the libation meal-offering

whose law likewise is that it is burned in its entirety—

if he offered an olive-sized portion of one of them outside

he is liable, but Rabbi Elazar exempts him until he offers all of it

because Rabbi Elazar holds that burning an olive-sized portion is not considered burning.

And

from now,

since, with regard to burning the handful, he did not teach him “or an olive-sized portion of the handful outside”

for it is impossible to teach this, since once this is not burning, the thought does not render it pigul, for this reason

with regard to the remainder

that is,

“to eat of its remainder outside”—

he likewise did not teach him “or an olive-sized portion.”

And we raise an objection:

If it is Rabbi Elazar

is this

this

thought,

“in order

to burn its handful”

rendering it pigul? But according to Rabbi Elazar, burning the handful alone is not considered burning until he also burns the frankincense; and if so,

“to burn its handful and its frankincense” would have been required

to be written in the Mishna! For the thought renders it pigul only when he thinks about burning both of them.

As we learned: If one offered the handful and the frankincense, one of them outside, he is liable, but Rabbi Elazar exempts him until he offers both of them?

And we answer: Our Mishna, which said that the thought of burning the handful alone renders it pigul, is dealing

with the handful of the meal-offering of a sinner

which has no frankincense, and therefore this meal-offering becomes pigul through the thought of burning the handful alone. And what the Mishna said, that the thought of burning the frankincense alone renders it pigul, refers to the showbread, which has no handful, but only the burning of frankincense.

And we raise an objection:

And

did

he trouble himself

—exert himself—

the tanna

and teach all this only in order

to make known the handful of the meal-offering of a sinner!?

And we answer:

Yes. And when Rav Dimi came, he said that Rabbi Elazar

[ben Pedat, the amora,] said: Our Mishna is

the handful of the meal-offering of a sinner, and it is Rabbi Elazar

[ben Shamua, the tanna,]

that is.

And we say:

Rava then said: What I said is not a matter

that

I said

—that remainder which became diminished, and he burned the handful over it, has the burning render it pigul and remove it from the status of misuse—but certainly it is not effective. And a proof of this is

as it was taught

: It is stated concerning the showbread, “For

it is holy of holies

to Him” [Leviticus 24], and from the word “it” we learn

that if one of them became split

from the loaves of the arrangement of the showbread, then

all its loaves are disqualified

and must be burned. The reason is that the burning of the bowls is valid only when the entire meal-offering is complete; and since one of them was disqualified, there are not two complete arrangements here, and the burning is not effective for them. It follows from here that specifically with this disqualification of becoming split, whose matter is like a meal-offering that became diminished, the burning was disqualified with regard to all of them;

but if one went out

one of its loaves outside the curtains and was disqualified because of going out,

those that are present inside

and did not go out

are valid

and are not disqualified because of the one that went out. For although one of them was disqualified because of going out, nevertheless there is still a burning here for twelve loaves, since the burning of the bowls is considered burning even with regard to the one that went out; and this is according to Rabbi Akiva, who holds that sprinkling is effective for “that which went out,” and the burning of the bowls of the meal-offering stands in place of the sprinkling of the blood of a sacrifice. It is thus explained that sprinkling is effective even for that which is forbidden in eating, to consider it among those that were not disqualified. And now,

who is the one from whom you hear that he says sprinkling is effective for that which went out? It is Rabbi Akiva, and he says

that specifically for “that which went out” the burning is effective, but for

that which became split, it is not

effective; therefore burning is not effective for that which is forbidden in eating because of diminution, and if so, the same law applies to remainder that became diminished: the burning is not effective for it.

Abaye said

: In fact, it is possible that burning is effective for remainder that became diminished, and you cannot bring a proof from this beraita. For

does it teach

explicitly in the beraita

“but if one went out,”

that they are valid, which would force the beraita to follow Rabbi Akiva’s method? After all, this is only an inference; therefore

perhaps

one should infer as follows:

but if it became impure

the loaf,

the remaining ones are valid

. And

what is the reason? Because the forehead-plate effects acceptance

for impurity,

but

with regard to

that which went out

one of them,

not

was permission effected,

and

because this beraita

is Rabbi Eliezer, who says that sprinkling is not effective for that which went out.

And if you say: If so, why did the beraita not also teach this law concerning a loaf that went out? I will tell you:

By rights, it should also have been required to teach

that if

one went out

of them, all of them are disqualified;

and the reason that it teaches “became split,”

and it did not say “went out,” is that

it makes this known to us

the beraita:

even if it became split

a loaf

that is present inside

and did not go out beyond the courtyard, nevertheless

burning is not effective for it.

But

in truth,

according to Rabbi Akiva, who says that sprinkling is effective for that which went out,

then

even

the disqualification of

diminution as well, burning is effective for it

, and this question concerning remainder that became diminished still depends upon the dispute between Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Eliezer as to whether sprinkling is effective for “that which went out” or not.

Mishna:

If, during the services of the meal-offering, he had the intention

to eat half an olive-sized portion

on the following day

and to burn half an olive-sized portion

on the following day,

it is valid, for

the thoughts of

eating and burning do not combine

to reach the measure of an olive-sized portion.

Gemara:

The Gemara infers:

The reason

that these two thoughts do not combine is

that they are “to eat” and “to burn

, and a thought of eating and a thought of burning do not combine;

but

if he had the thought of half an olive-sized portion

to eat

something whose manner is to eat, such as remainder,

and

half an olive-sized portion

to eat something whose manner is not to eat

such as the handful—

they combine!

Since in both of them he had a thought of eating. And it is explained that even a thought to eat on the following day something whose manner is not to eat, namely, a thought of eating the handful, renders it pigul. If so, this is difficult:

But does it not teach in the first clause

: He had the thought

to eat something whose manner is to eat and to burn something whose manner is to burn

—it is pigul, and it is proven that specifically if he had the thought concerning

something whose manner is to eat, yes,

it becomes pigul, but if he had the thought concerning something

whose manner is not to eat

—

not

—it does not become pigul. If so,

who is the

tanna

of the latter clause, who disagrees with the tanna of the first clause!?

And we answer:

Rav Yirmeya said: This

latter clause

is Rabbi Eliezer,

who says that they calculate from the eating of

something designated for a person, such as remainder that is eaten by priests,

to the eating of the altar

—that if he had the thought to burn on the altar on the following day remainder, which is something whose manner is to eat and not to burn, the thought is effective to render it pigul.

And

likewise they calculate

from the eating of

something designated for the

altar

such as the handful, whose manner is to burn,

to the eating of a person

—that if he had the thought to eat it on the following day, he rendered it pigul.

As we learned: If one took the handful of the meal-offering with the intention of eating something whose manner is not to eat and burning something whose manner is not to burn, it is valid; but Rabbi Eliezer disqualifies,

but one is not liable to excision for eating it.

Abaye said: You may even say

that our Mishna

is according to the Rabbis

, and you can resolve and infer it in another way. For

do not say

to infer from what is stated, “He had the thought to eat half an olive-sized portion and to burn half an olive-sized portion”—

this: to eat

half an olive-sized portion of something whose manner is to eat

and to eat

half an olive-sized portion of

something whose manner is not to eat

combine.

Rather, say

to infer as follows: specifically, eating half an olive-sized portion on the following day and burning half an olive-sized portion on the following day do not combine, because this is a thought of eating and that is a thought of burning.

But

if he had two thoughts of eating, such as

to eat

half an olive-sized portion

and to eat

another half an olive-sized portion, and in a manner that he had the thought of half an olive-sized portion outside its time and half an olive-sized portion outside its place, and both thoughts were concerning

something whose manner is to eat

, they combine to disqualify!

And we raise an objection to this answer:

And what does it make known to us

by saying that two thoughts of eating, in two half-olive-sized portions, combine to disqualify? After all, this matter is stated explicitly in the Mishna [above, page 12a]:

to eat an olive-sized portion outside and an olive-sized portion on the following day

—to eat

an olive-sized portion on the following day and an olive-sized portion outside, half an olive-sized portion outside and half an olive-sized portion on the following day, half an olive-sized portion on the following day and half an olive-sized portion outside: it is disqualified, but there is no liability to excision!?