Menachot 16a

מַתְנִי׳ פִּיגֵּל בַּקּוֹמֶץ וְלֹא בַּלְּבוֹנָה, בַּלְּבוֹנָה וְלֹא בַּקּוֹמֶץ – רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: פִּיגּוּל וְחַיָּיבִין עָלָיו כָּרֵת, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֵין בּוֹ כָּרֵת עַד שֶׁיְּפַגֵּל בְּכׇל הַמַּתִּיר.

MISHNA: With regard to the burning of the handful of a meal offering and the frankincense, both of which render the meal offering permitted for consumption: If the priest had an intention that can render the offering piggul during the burning of the handful but not during the burning of the frankincense, or during the burning of the frankincense but not during the burning of the handful, i.e., he burned one of them with the intention to eat the remainder of the offering beyond its designated time, Rabbi Meir says: The offering is piggul and one who eats it is liable to receive karet for its consumption. And the Rabbis say: There is no liability to receive karet in this case unless he renders the offering piggul during the sacrifice of the entire permitting factor, i.e., the burning of both the handful and the frankincense.

וּמוֹדִים חֲכָמִים לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר בְּמִנְחַת חוֹטֵא וּבְמִנְחַת קְנָאוֹת, שֶׁאִם פִּיגֵּל בַּקּוֹמֶץ, שֶׁהוּא פִּיגּוּל וְחַיָּיבִין עָלָיו כָּרֵת, שֶׁהַקּוֹמֶץ הוּא הַמַּתִּיר.

And the Rabbis concede to Rabbi Meir in the case of a meal offering of a sinner and in the case of a meal offering of jealousy of a sota that if one had intent of piggul during the burning of the handful, that the meal offering is piggul and one is liable to receive karet for its consumption, as here the handful is the sole permitting factor.

שָׁחַט אֶחָד מִן הַכְּבָשִׂים לֶאֱכוֹל שְׁתֵּי חַלּוֹת לְמָחָר, הִקְטִיר אֶחָד מִן הַבָּזִיכִין לֶאֱכוֹל שְׁנֵי סְדָרִים לְמָחָר – רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: פִּיגּוּל וְחַיָּיבִין עָלָיו כָּרֵת, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֵין בּוֹ כָּרֵת עַד שֶׁיְּפַגֵּל בְּכׇל הַמַּתִּיר.

If one slaughtered one of the two lambs sacrificed with the two loaves on Shavuot with the intent to partake of the two loaves the next day, or if one burned one of the bowls of frankincense with the intent to partake of two arrangements of shewbread the next day, Rabbi Meir says: The meal offering is piggul and one is liable to receive karet for its consumption, and the Rabbis say: There is no liability to receive karet unless he has intent of piggul during the sacrifice of the entire permitting factor.

שָׁחַט אֶחָד מִן הַכְּבָשִׂים לֶאֱכוֹל מִמֶּנּוּ לְמָחָר – הוּא פִּיגּוּל, וַחֲבֵירוֹ כָּשֵׁר; לֶאֱכוֹל מֵחֲבֵירוֹ לְמָחָר – שְׁנֵיהֶם כְּשֵׁרִים.

If one slaughtered one of the lambs with the intent to partake of it the next day, that lamb is piggul and the other is a fit offering. If he slaughtered one lamb with the intent to partake of the other the next day, both lambs are fit offerings, as one permitting factor does not render another permitting factor piggul .

גְּמָ׳ אָמַר רַב: מַחְלוֹקֶת שֶׁנָּתַן אֶת הַקּוֹמֶץ בִּשְׁתִיקָה, וְאֶת הַלְּבוֹנָה בְּמַחְשָׁבָה.

GEMARA: Rav says: The dispute between Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis with regard to a case where one has intent of piggul by either the handful or the frankincense applies only, for instance, when he placed the handful upon the altar in silence, i.e., without specific intent, and thereafter placed the frankincense with intent to partake of the remainder the next day. In such a case, it is evident that his intent relates only to the frankincense.

אֲבָל נָתַן הַקּוֹמֶץ בְּמַחְשָׁבָה, וְאֶת הַלְּבוֹנָה בִּשְׁתִיקָה – דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל פִּיגּוּל, שֶׁכׇּל הָעוֹשֶׂה עַל דַּעַת רִאשׁוֹנָה הוּא עוֹשֶׂה. וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: עֲדַיִין הִוא מַחְלוֹקֶת.

But if he placed the handful with the intent to partake of the remainder the next day and then placed the frankincense in silence, all agree that the meal offering is piggul , as anyone who performs the rites in such a manner performs them in accordance with his initial intent. And Shmuel says: Even in such a case, there is still a dispute between the Rabbis and Rabbi Meir.

יָתֵיב רָבָא וְקָאָמַר לַהּ לְהָא שְׁמַעְתָּא, אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַב אַחָא בַּר רַב הוּנָא לְרָבָא: בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים – בִּקְמִיצָה, וּבְמַתַּן כְּלִי, וּבְהִילּוּךְ.

Rava sat and stated this halakha in accordance with the opinion of Rav. Rav Aḥa bar Rav Huna raised an objection to Rava from a baraita : In what case is this statement, that intent of piggul concerning only the handful renders the meal offering piggul , said? It is stated in a case where one had such intent during the removal of the handful, or during the placement of the handful in a service vessel, or during the conveying of the vessel to the altar. Since these rites are not performed with the frankincense, during these stages the handful is the only relevant permitting factor.

בָּא לוֹ לְהַקְטָרָה, נָתַן אֶת הַקּוֹמֶץ בִּשְׁתִיקָה וְאֶת הַלְּבוֹנָה בְּמַחְשָׁבָה, אֶת הַקּוֹמֶץ בְּמַחְשָׁבָה וְאֶת הַלְּבוֹנָה בִּשְׁתִיקָה – רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: פִּיגּוּל וְחַיָּיבִין עָלָיו כָּרֵת, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֵין בּוֹ כָּרֵת עַד שֶׁיְּפַגֵּל בְּכׇל הַמַּתִּיר.

The baraita continues: But once the priest comes to perform the burning of the handful, then if he placed the handful on the fire of the altar in silence and he placed the frankincense with intent of piggul , or if he placed the handful with intent and the frankincense in silence, Rabbi Meir says: It is piggul and one is liable to receive karet for its consumption, and the Rabbis say: There is no liability to receive karet unless he has intent of piggul during the sacrifice of the entire permitting factor.

קָתָנֵי מִיהָא: נָתַן אֶת הַקּוֹמֶץ בְּמַחְשָׁבָה וְאֶת הַלְּבוֹנָה בִּשְׁתִיקָה, וּפְלִיגִי.

Rav Aḥa bar Rav Huna explains his objection: In any event, the baraita teaches a case where he placed the handful with intent and the frankincense in silence, and yet the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Meir and they do not say that one performs the rite of the frankincense with one’s initial intent.

אֵימָא: וּכְבָר נָתַן אֶת הַלְּבוֹנָה בִּשְׁתִיקָה מֵעִיקָּרָא. שְׁתֵּי תְּשׁוּבוֹת בַּדָּבָר: חֲדָא, דְּהַיְינוּ קַמַּיְיתָא, וְעוֹד, הָתַנְיָא: אַחַר כָּךְ.

Rava answered: Say that this is what the baraita means: If he placed the handful with intent, and he had already placed the frankincense in silence from the outset, then Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis disagree. The Gemara rejects this statement: There are two possible refutations of this statement. One is that if Rava’s answer is accepted, then this case is identical to the first case of the baraita , which already taught that there is a dispute if the initial permitting factor was sacrificed in silence. And furthermore, isn’t it taught explicitly in another baraita : After placing the handful he burned the frankincense.

תַּרְגְּמַהּ רַב חֲנִינָא בִּשְׁתֵּי דֵּיעוֹת.

Rabbi Ḥanina interpreted this baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav: This baraita is referring to a case of two intentions, i.e., there were two priests, the first one of whom burned the handful with intent of piggul , and the second burned the frankincense in silence. Since the intent of one priest is entirely independent of the other, it cannot be said that the second priest burns the frankincense in accordance with the intent of the first priest.

תָּא שְׁמַע: בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים? בְּדָמִים הַנִּיתָּנִין עַל מִזְבֵּחַ הַחִיצוֹן.

The Gemara continues: Come and hear a proof for the opinion of Shmuel from a baraita that addresses piggul during the sprinkling of the blood. In what case is this statement, that the offering is rendered piggul even when he intends only while performing the first placement to eat it beyond its designated time, said? It is rendered piggul in the case of blood that is placed on the external altar, where one placement renders the offering permitted.

אֲבָל דָּמִים הַנִּיתָּנִין עַל מִזְבֵּחַ הַפְּנִימִי, כְּגוֹן אַרְבָּעִים וְשָׁלֹשׁ שֶׁל יוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים, וְאַחַת עֶשְׂרֵה שֶׁל פַּר כֹּהֵן מָשׁוּחַ, וְאַחַת עֶשְׂרֵה שֶׁל פַּר הֶעְלֵם דָּבָר שֶׁל צִיבּוּר, פִּיגֵּל בֵּין בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה בֵּין בַּשְּׁנִיָּה וּבֵין בַּשְּׁלִישִׁית, רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: פִּיגּוּל וְחַיָּיבִין עָלָיו כָּרֵת, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֵין בּוֹ כָּרֵת עַד שֶׁיְּפַגֵּל בְּכׇל הַמַּתִּיר.

But with regard to the blood placed inside, in the Holy of Holies, on the Curtain, and on the inner altar, for example, the forty-three presentations of the blood of the bull and goat of Yom Kippur, and the eleven presentations of the blood of the bull for an unwitting sin of the anointed priest, and the eleven presentations of the blood of the bull for an unwitting communal sin, if the priest had an intention that can render the offering piggul , whether in the first set of presentations, whether in the second set, or whether in the third set, i.e., in any of the requisite sets of presentations, e.g., in the case of the Yom Kippur bull in the Holy of Holies, on the Curtain, and on the inner altar, Rabbi Meir says: The offering is piggul and one is liable to receive karet for its consumption. And the Rabbis say: There is no liability to receive karet unless he had an intention that can render the offering piggul during the performance of the entire permitting factor.

קָתָנֵי מִיהָא: פִּיגֵּל בֵּין בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה, בֵּין בַּשְּׁנִיָּה, וּבֵין בַּשְּׁלִישִׁית, וּפְלִיגִי.

The Gemara explains the proof: In any event, this baraita teaches: If the priest had an intention that can render the offering piggul , whether in the first set of presentations, whether in the second set, or whether in the third set; and Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis disagree in this case as well. Evidently, the Rabbis are not of the opinion that anyone who performs a rite performs it in accordance with his initial intent.

וְכִי תֵּימָא, הָכָא נָמֵי בִּשְׁתֵּי דֵּעוֹת – הָנִיחָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר ״בְּפַר״ וַאֲפִילּוּ בְּדָמוֹ שֶׁל פַּר, אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר ״בְּפַר״ וְלֹא בְּדָמוֹ שֶׁל פַּר, מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר?

And if you would say that here too, the baraita is referring to a case of two intentions, e.g., one High Priest performed the initial presentation and was thereafter disqualified from performing the other presentations, and a second priest replaced him and performed the remaining presentations, there is still a difficulty: This works out well according to the one who says that the verse: “With this shall Aaron come into the sacred place: With a young bull” (Leviticus 16:3), indicates that a High Priest may enter the Sanctuary even with the blood of a bull, i.e., he may continue the presentations with the blood of the offerings slaughtered by another High Priest. But according to the one who says that the verse indicates that a High Priest may enter “with a young bull,” but not with the blood of a bull, i.e., a replacement High Priest must slaughter another bull and begin the presentations again, what can be said? If so, it is impossible for these presentations to be performed by two priests.

אָמַר רָבָא: הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן? כְּגוֹן שֶׁפִּיגֵּל בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה, וְשָׁתַק בַּשְּׁנִיָּה, וּפִיגֵּל בַּשְּׁלִישִׁית, דְּאָמְרִינַן: אִי סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ כׇּל הָעוֹשֶׂה עַל דַּעַת רִאשׁוֹנָה הוּא עוֹשֶׂה, מִיהְדָּר פַּיגּוֹלֵי בַּשְּׁלִישִׁית לְמָה לִי?

Rava said: According to Rav, here, in the baraita , we are dealing with a case where the High Priest had intent of piggul during the first set of presentations and was silent during the second set, and again had intent of piggul during the third set. In such a case, we say: If it enters your mind to say that anyone who performs a rite performs it in accordance with his initial intention, then why do I need the High Priest to repeat his intent of piggul during the third set? The fact that he repeats his intention during the third set indicates that he did not perform the second set in accordance with his initial intent. Accordingly, the Rabbis hold that the offering is not piggul , as he did not have intent of piggul during the presentation of the entire permitting factor.

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב אָשֵׁי: מִידֵּי שָׁתַק קָתָנֵי? אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – כְּגוֹן שֶׁפִּיגֵּל בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה וּבַשְּׁנִיָּה וּבַשְּׁלִישִׁית, דְּאָמְרִינַן: אִי סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ כׇּל הָעוֹשֶׂה עַל דַּעַת רִאשׁוֹנָה הוּא עוֹשֶׂה, מִיהְדָּר פַּגּוֹלֵי בַּשְּׁנִיָּה וּבַשְּׁלִישִׁית לְמָה לִי?

Rav Ashi objects to this explanation: Does the baraita teach that the High Priest was silent? Rather, Rav Ashi said: Here we are dealing with a case where he had explicit intent of piggul during the first, second, and third presentations, and was silent during the subsequent presentations. In such a case, we say: If it enters your mind to say that anyone who performs a rite performs it in accordance with his initial intention, why do I need the High Priest to repeat his intent of piggul during the second and third presentations?