Menachot 16a — the Talmud in English

Mishna:

If he rendered the handful piggul -

while burning the handful, he thought with the intention of eating the remainder the next day,

but not the frankincense.

Or if he rendered

the frankincense piggul but not the handful,

Rabbi Meir says: It is piggul

itself,

and one is liable for it to receive karet,

for Rabbi Meir holds that one renders piggul through half of the permitting element.

And the Sages say: There is no karet for it until he renders piggul through the entire permitting element.

But here he rendered piggul only through half of the permitting element, since the handful and the frankincense, together, permit the meal-offering.

And the Sages concede to Rabbi Meir with regard to the sin-offering meal-offering

and the meal-offering of jealousy,

which do not contain frankincense,

that if he rendered the handful piggul, it is piggul, and one is liable for it to receive karet,

because

the handful is the permitting element

by itself.

And likewise if

he slaughtered one of the sheep

of Shavuot, with the thought

to eat two loaves

of the two loaves

the next day,

or

he burned one of the bowls

that come with the showbread, with the thought

to eat two arrangements

of bread

the next day:

Rabbi Meir says: It is piggul

itself,

and one is liable for it to receive karet. And the Sages say: There is no piggul in it until he renders piggul through the entire permitting element.

And one sheep, and likewise one bowl, are only half of the permitting element of the bread.

If he slaughtered one of the sheep

of Shavuot with the thought

to eat from it the next day,

then

it is piggul

even according to the Sages, because only with regard to permitting the bread is one sheep considered half of the permitting element, but with regard to itself, it is a complete permitting element.

And its fellow -

the second sheep, concerning which he did not think -

is valid.

And if he slaughtered it with the intention

to eat from its fellow the next day -

both are valid [since a permitting element does not render another permitting element piggul, as we said on page 13b].

Gemara:

Rav said: The dispute

between Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis is when

he placed the handful in silence,

without thinking a thought of piggul,

and

only

the frankincense

did he place

with a thought

of piggul.

But

if

he placed the handful with a thought

of piggul,

and the frankincense

he placed afterward

in silence, everyone agrees that it is piggul.

Because

everyone who performs [the service] does so on the basis of the first thought

he performs it,

and therefore he also performed the burning of the frankincense on the basis of the thought of piggul, and it follows that he rendered piggul through the entire permitting element.

And Shmuel said: It is still a dispute

also in this case.

Rava sat and stated this teaching

of Rav.

Rav Aha bar Rav Huna raised an objection to Rava

from what we learned:

In what case are these words said,

that the thought accompanying the service of the handful renders piggul,

with regard to pinching, placing in a vessel, and walking,

for these services are not performed with the frankincense; therefore, the thought concerning them is piggul through the entire permitting element, and not through half of the permitting element.

But

if

he came

with the handful and the frankincense

for burning, he placed

on the altar

the handful in silence, and the frankincense with a thought

of piggul.

Or he placed the handful with a thought, and the frankincense in silence, Rabbi Meir says: It is piggul

itself,

and one is liable for it to receive karet.

And the Sages say: There is no karet for it until he renders piggul through the entire permitting element,

and here, since he thought only concerning one of them, it is half of the permitting element.

And Rav Aha deduces:

It nevertheless teaches, “He placed the handful with a thought, and

afterward

the frankincense in silence,” and

nevertheless

they dispute,

and we do not say that everyone who performs [the service] performs it on the basis of the first thought!

And we reject this:

Say

in this wording: “He placed the handful with a thought,

and he had already placed the frankincense in silence, initially.”

And we challenge this:

There are two answers to the matter

to reject this explanation:

One: For

if so, he first performed [the service] in silence and afterward performed it with a thought,

this is the first case, “

he placed the handful in silence and the frankincense with a thought.”

And further, it was taught

explicitly, “

afterward” the frankincense in silence?

Rather, we explain:

Rav Hanina explained,

here it is speaking

of two people,

that one priest burned the handful with a thought, and afterward his fellow burned the frankincense in silence, and it is not applicable to say that he acts on the basis of the first thought.

Come and hear: In what case are these words said

that if he placed one presentation of blood that is presented on the altar with a thought of piggul, he rendered piggul?

With regard to blood presented on the outer altar.

Since even if he presented only one presentation, he effected atonement, it follows that he rendered piggul through the entire permitting element.

But blood presented on the inner altar, such as the forty-three

sprinklings

of Yom Kippur ,

and some say those of the bull of the anointed priest, and some say those of the bull for the unwitting matter of the community [see Rashi, who gives the details of the sprinklings], if

he rendered piggul whether with the first,

when he sprinkles between the staves,

whether with the second,

when he sprinkles on the curtain,

and whether with the third,

when he sprinkles on the golden altar—

Rabbi Meir says: It is piggul, and one is liable for it to receive karet.

For he holds that one renders piggul through half of the permitting element.

And the Sages say: There is no karet for it until he renders piggul through the entire permitting element 7.

And if he did not render piggul through all of them, this is not piggul.

And the Gemara deduces:

It nevertheless teaches: “He rendered piggul whether with the first, whether with the second, and whether with the third,” and they dispute.

And we do not say that if he rendered piggul with the first, then with the second and third he acts on the basis of the first!

And if you would say

perhaps you would say that

even so

it is speaking

of two people 8.

Perhaps you will ask: How can such a matter be possible? After all, all the sprinklings of Yom Kippur are performed only by the High Priest! It is possible to answer and establish the case where the High Priest performed the first sprinklings and died, or experienced a seminal emission and became impure, and another served in his place for the second sprinklings. In such a case, one cannot say that he acts on the basis of the first.

This works according to the one who says that what is written, “With this shall Aaron come into the Sanctuary,

with a bull,” means

“with the bull” -

and even with the blood of the bull,

that if the High Priest slaughtered the bull and afterward a disqualification occurred to the High Priest, another High Priest may come and perform the service with its blood, and he does not need to slaughter another bull. According to this opinion, it is possible to establish the case as two people, meaning two High Priests: one priest can slaughter and perform the first sprinkling, and another priest can perform the second sprinkling, and he does not need to slaughter another bull.

But according to the one who says, “with the bull,”

specifically

and not with its blood

of the bull, what is there to say?

For according to his opinion, it is impossible for one priest to perform the first sprinkling and another priest the second sprinkling; rather, the second must again slaughter a bull and perform all the sprinklings from the beginning?

Rava said: Here, with what are we dealing? For example, he rendered piggul with the

first

sprinkling, remained silent with the second, and rendered piggul with the third.

In such a case it is impossible to say that with regard to the second, concerning which he remained silent, he acted on the basis of the first, because

we say: If it enters your mind that “everyone who performs [the service] acts on the basis of the first,” why did he return to render piggul with the third!?

After all, he should have relied on what he specified with the first, just as with the second he relied on the first. Rather, it is necessarily the case that he did not act on the basis of the first.

Rav Ashi objected to him: Is it something—

did it say that

he remained silent

with the second

in the teaching?

Rather, Rav Ashi said: Here, with what are we dealing? For example, he rendered piggul with the first and the second,

and it is still half of the permitting element, because with the third he did not render piggul,

for we say

that he certainly did not perform the third on the basis of the earlier ones:

if it enters your mind that everyone who performs [the service] acts on the basis of the first, why did he return to render piggul

with the second?

He should have performed it in silence and relied on the first thought. Rather, it is necessarily the case that this person does not rely on his first thought, and therefore he specified it with the second; consequently, with the third, concerning which he did not specify, he did not intend to act on the basis of the first, and he did not render piggul!