Menachot 16b — the Talmud in English

And we challenge it:

But “both

in the first

and

in the second

it teaches,”

which implies that he formulated a piggul intention in one of the sprinklings, and not in two?

And we say:

Difficult!

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

And we challenge: Since,

behold,

for karet

one is not liable

for piggul

until all the permitting factors have been brought near,

that he completes all the services that permit it,

as the Master said:

it is written, “It is piggul; it shall not

be accepted,”

and since with regard to a valid offering it is also stated, “It shall be accepted as an offering of fire,”

just as the acceptance of a valid offering, so is the acceptance of an invalid offering. Just as with the acceptance of a valid offering,

it is not valid

until all the permitting factors have been brought near, so too with the acceptance of an invalid offering,

the liability of karet for piggul does not take effect upon eating it

until all the permitting factors have been brought near,

that is, until all the sprinklings have been performed.

But this one, since he considered in it inside

a piggul intention,

he invalidated it,

and afterward,

when he sprinkles [

some of the blood]

in the Sanctuary, it is merely water that he is sprinkling!

It is considered an invalid offering, and the sprinkling of its blood is not considered a sprinkling at all [and this is not similar to one who formulated a piggul intention during slaughter, where we do not say that the sprinkling which he performs afterward is merely water that he is sprinkling, since there the service in which he formulated the piggul intention is entirely performed in its sanctity. But here, all the sprinklings are one service]!?

And we answer:

Rabba said: You can find it

that all the permitting factors were brought near

with four bulls and four goats.

For he brought a bull and a goat, and formulated a piggul intention concerning them inside, and the blood was spilled after the sprinklings between the staves, and he brought another bull and goat for the sprinklings toward the curtain, and formulated an intention concerning them, and after the sprinklings the blood was spilled, and he again brought another bull and goat for the corners of the altar, and formulated an intention concerning them, and after the sprinklings the blood was spilled. And likewise he brought another bull and goat for the sprinklings upon the purity of the altar, through which all the permitting factors were brought near [and he does not need to return and sprinkle from the second bull between the staves; rather, at the place where he stopped, from there he begins].

Rava said: Even if you say it was one bull and one goat, with regard to

the matter of

the piggulei,

that it should become piggul,

these sprinklings

grant acceptance.

And the Gemara returns and raises a difficulty against the beraita in which it is written that there are forty-three sprinklings on the Day of Atonement, and asks: Is it indeed only

forty-three

sprinklings that the High Priest performs on the Day of Atonement?

But it was taught: Forty-seven

sprinklings he performs!?

And we answer:

It is not difficult. This

our beraita,

is according to the one who says that they mix

the blood of the bull and the blood of the goat

for

the giving of the blood on the

corners

of the inner altar.

And that

beraita in which it is written that there are forty-seven sprinklings

is according to the one who says that they do not mix

the blood of the bull and the blood of the goat, and if so, four additional sprinklings were added: there are four sprinklings from the blood of the bull and four sprinklings from the blood of the goat, each separately, and not merely four from both of them together.

And we challenge:

But it was taught

in another beraita

forty-eight

sprinklings?

And we answer:

It is not difficult. This

which states forty-eight

is according to the one who says

that the pouring of the

remainder

of all the sprinklings onto the base of the altar

is indispensable

and the pouring of the remainder was added, making forty-eight;

and that which was taught as forty-seven is according to the one who says

the remainder is not indispensable.

And therefore it is not counted among the sprinklings.

They raised a question before them: If he formulated a piggul intention during the carrying

of the handful,

what is the law?

Is this half of a permitting factor, since there is also carrying of the frankincense, and Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis disagree in this as well, or not?

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Carrying is like taking the handful 13 .

Just as taking the handful is a complete permitting factor and not half a permitting factor, since there is no taking of a handful with the frankincense, so is the law with carrying.

And Reish Lakish said: Carrying is like burning.

Just as there is burning with both of them, with the handful and with the frankincense, and if he formulated a piggul intention concerning one of them, it is half a permitting factor, so is the law with carrying, which is only half a permitting factor.

And we say:

Granted, according to Reish Lakish,

there is

also carrying of the frankincense,

and therefore it is understandable that he holds that Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis disagree in this as well.

But according to Rabbi Yoḥanan, what is his reason?

After all, there is also carrying with the frankincense, and if so, this is half a permitting factor!?

Rava said: Rabbi Yoḥanan holds that every service that does not permit

something, such as carrying, which is not indispensable, since one can hand it from one person to another without walking, or slaughter beside the altar,

is an important service in its own right for formulating a piggul intention,

for it is not applicable to say concerning it, “until he formulates a piggul intention concerning the entire permitting factor”; this is not a permitting factor, since it is not indispensable.

Abaye said to him: But the slaughter of one of the

two

lambs

of the festival,

which is a service that does not permit

anything, since only the sprinkling permits the sacrificial portions and the meat,

and

nevertheless

they disagree.

For we learned: If he slaughtered one of the lambs

with the intention

of eating two loaves on the following day,

or

burned one of the bowls

of the showbread

to eat two arrangements

of bread

on the following day,

Rabbi Meir says: It is piggul

and

one is liable for it to receive karet. And the Sages say: There is no karet for it until he formulates a piggul intention concerning the entire permitting factor.

He said to him,

Rava:

Do you maintain that the bread in the oven

becomes

consecrated?

That is not so. Rather,

the slaughter of the lambs consecrates it, and one who comes to consecrate is considered like one who comes to permit,

and therefore the Rabbis hold that if he formulated a piggul intention concerning one of the lambs, this is not piggul, since he must formulate a piggul intention concerning all that consecrates it, that is, specifically both lambs, and not one.

Rav Shimi bar Ashi raised an objection: Others say: If he preceded

during the slaughter of the Paschal offering

the circumcised [

those who are circumcised]

to the uncircumcised,

that is, he slaughtered the first sign of the animal for the sake of the circumcised and the second sign for the sake of the uncircumcised,

it is valid; if he preceded the uncircumcised to the circumcised—

it is invalid,

and the Sages disagree.

And it is established [

in Pesaḥim 63a, where the distinction between preceding the circumcised to the uncircumcised and preceding the uncircumcised to the circumcised is also explained]

that they disagree concerning half a permitting factor,

for one sign is half a permitting factor. Yet here this slaughter does not permit and does not consecrate, since with a Paschal offering there is no bread that this slaughter would consecrate, and they disagree?

He said to him,

Rava:

Do you maintain that the blood in the neck of the animal

becomes

consecrated?

Not so. Rather,

the blood of the knife

consecrates it,

and therefore the slaughter is considered to come to consecrate,

and one who comes to consecrate is considered like one who comes to permit.

Come and hear

from the earlier beraita:

When are these words said,

that for all of them it is piggul even though he formulated the intention only during the service of the handful?

With taking the handful, placing it in a vessel, and carrying!

And in its straightforward sense, this carrying that is written—the intention is that

the carrying of the burning

is meant, and the Rabbis do not disagree; this is proof for Rabbi Yoḥanan.

And we reject this:

No,

it is

the carrying of

bringing it to

the placing in a vessel

that is meant, which is not considered half a permitting factor, since there is no placing in a vessel with the frankincense.

And we challenge:

If so,

how is it written, “

with the placing in a vessel and with the carrying,”

when, according to your words,

it should have said, ‘with the carrying and with the placing in a vessel,’

since it is speaking of carrying that precedes placing in a vessel?

And we say:

This is not difficult; teach it thus:

with the carrying, and with the placing in a vessel.

We further challenge: That which is written at the end of the beraita, “

he came to the burning,”

and according to your words,

it should have said, ‘he came to the carrying,’

to say that, since they also disagree concerning the carrying of the burning?

And he answers:

This is not difficult: Since carrying is required for burning, he calls it burning,

but in truth the intention is also to carrying.

And we challenge: Rather, that which is written, “

he placed”

the handful silently, and so on—that is, he placed it upon the altar for burning; according to your words,

it should have said, ‘he carried it,’

to say that, since you said that they also disagree concerning the carrying of the burning?

And the Gemara’s conclusion is: Indeed,

difficult!

He burned

an amount of

sesame

with the intention

of eating

an amount of sesame

on the following day,

and he again burned an amount of sesame with the intention of eating an amount of sesame on the following day,

and he did so until the entire handful was consumed

through such burnings, and he likewise did so with the burning of the frankincense;

Rav Ḥisda, Rav Hamnuna, and Rav Sheshet disagreed about this.

One said—

it is piggul, and one said—

it is invalid,

but it is not piggul, and there is no karet for it;

and one said—

it is valid.

And we say:

Let us say that the one who says it is piggul follows Rabbi Meir,

who holds that one formulates a piggul intention with half a permitting factor, and here too each sesame-sized amount concerning which he formulated a piggul intention is considered half a permitting factor;

and the one who says it is invalid—

follows the Rabbis,

who hold that, with half a permitting factor, they said that it is invalid but not piggul;

and the one who says it is valid—

follows Rabbi,

who holds that he said earlier [14a]: If one slaughters the lamb with the intention of eating half an olive-bulk of this loaf, and likewise its companion, with the intention of eating half an olive-bulk of this loaf, it is valid, for the two halves do not combine to constitute piggul?

And we reject this:

From where

is this the explanation?

Perhaps, Rabbi Meir said this only there

that it is piggul,

because he formulated

a piggul intention

in its measure,

in an amount of the measure of burning;

but here, where he did not formulate an intention in its measure,

since each intention was only concerning a sesame-sized amount—

not,

it will not be piggul.

And the Rabbis said this only there

that it is invalid,

because he did not formulate an intention concerning the entire permitting factor,

but only concerning the handful or the frankincense, which is half a permitting factor.

But here, where he formulated an intention concerning the entire permitting factor,

since he completed the entire handful and the frankincense with piggul intentions,

here too it is piggul.

And Rabbi said this only there

that it is valid,

because he did not complete it again

to the measure of eating an olive-bulk from that same service of the first lamb and the first loaf; rather, he formulated an intention concerning half an olive-bulk in the second loaf with the second lamb.

But here, where he completed it again from that same service,

since in the end he formulated an intention concerning the entire handful and the frankincense,

here too it is invalid.

Rather, the one who says it is piggul

holds that

everyone

agrees with him.

And the one who says it is invalid

holds that

everyone agrees with him.

And the one who says it is valid

holds that

everyone agrees with him.

And now we explain: The one who says it is piggul, everyone agreeing, holds that this is the manner of eating

to eat several times a sesame-sized measure until he completes the eating,

and this is the manner of burning

to burn several times a sesame-sized measure. If so, it is complete piggul, like one who burns an olive-bulk with the intention of eating an olive-bulk on the following day.

And the one who says it is invalid, everyone agreeing, holds that this is the manner of eating but this is not the manner of burning, and it is therefore like a meal-offering that was not burned.

Therefore it did not become piggul, since an intention concerning burning is not considered to have been formulated. And the remnants were also not permitted to be eaten, since it is as though the meal-offering was not burned.

And the one who says it is valid, everyone agreeing, holds that this is the manner of burning,

and therefore the remnants were permitted to be eaten,

but this is not the manner of eating,

and this is not an intention of “eating”; therefore this is not piggul.