Mishnah.org Logo

המשנה היומית של היום

מנחות ב׳:ה׳ - ג׳:א׳

The Mishnah Yomi for Friday, June 6, 2031 is מנחות ב׳:ה׳ - ג׳:א׳

＜ היום הקודםהיוםלמחרת ＞

משנה א

Mishnayos Menachos Perek 2 Mishnah 5

מנחות פרק ב׳ משנה ה׳

5
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. 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. 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. 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.
פִּגֵּל בַּקֹּמֶץ וְלֹא בַלְּבוֹנָה, בַּלְּבוֹנָה וְלֹא בַקֹּמֶץ, רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר, פִּגּוּל וְחַיָּבִין עָלָיו כָּרֵת. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, אֵין בּוֹ כָרֵת, עַד שֶׁיְּפַגֵּל אֶת כָּל הַמַּתִּיר. מוֹדִים חֲכָמִים לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר בְּמִנְחַת חוֹטֵא וּבְמִנְחַת קְנָאוֹת, שֶׁאִם פִּגֵּל בַּקֹּמֶץ, שֶׁהוּא פִגּוּל וְחַיָּבִין עָלָיו כָּרֵת, שֶׁהַקֹּמֶץ הוּא הַמַּתִּיר. שָׁחַט אַחַד מִן הַכְּבָשִׂים לֶאֱכֹל שְׁתֵּי חַלּוֹת לְמָחָר, הִקְטִיר אַחַד מִן הַבְּזִיכִים לֶאֱכֹל שְׁנֵי סְדָרִים לְמָחָר, רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר, פִּגּוּל וְחַיָּבִים עָלָיו כָּרֵת. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, אֵין פִּגּוּל, עַד שֶׁיְּפַגֵּל אֶת כָּל הַמַּתִּיר. שָׁחַט אַחַד מִן הַכְּבָשִׂים לֶאֱכֹל מִמֶּנּוּ לְמָחָר, הוּא פִגּוּל, וַחֲבֵרוֹ כָשֵׁר. לֶאֱכֹל מֵחֲבֵרוֹ לְמָחָר, שְׁנֵיהֶם כְּשֵׁרִים:
ה׳
ברטנורא

פיגל בקומץ – in the burning on the altar of the handful of meal-offering, he thought about the eating the residue/remnants not at their appropriate time.

עד שיפגל בכל המתיר – for the burning on the altar of one of them is half of what makes an object permitted for enjoyment, for there is also the burning on the altar of its partner, for the residue of the meal-offering is not permitted for consumption by a Kohen until he burns on the altar the handful of the meal-offering and the frankincense.

במנחת חוטא ובמנחת קנאות – which do not have frankincense, and the handful of meal-offering alone is what is permitted [for consumption].

שחט אחד מן הכבשים – [he slaughtered one] of the lambs of Atzeret/Shavuot. But the bread is not permitted other than after both of them (i.e., the lambs) have been ritually slaughtered.

הקטיר אחד מן הבזיכין – for behold it does not permit the bread other than through the burning of both of them on the altar.

ר' מאיר אומר פגול – for he holds that half of what is permitted also makes improper intention. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Meir.

פיגל בקומץ. בהקטרת הקומץ חשב על השיריים לאכלן שלא בזמנן:

עד שיפגל בכל המתיר. והקטרת אחד מהן חצי מתיר הוא, דאיכא נמי הקטרת חבירו, שאין שיירי המנחה מותרים באכילה לכהן עד שיקטירו הקומץ והלבונה:

במנחת חוטא ובמנחת קנאות. שאין בהן לבונה, והקומץ לבדו הוא המתיר:

שחט אחד מן הכבשים. של כבשי עצרת. ואין הלחם מותר אלא אחר שישחטו שניהן:

הקטיר אחד מן הבזיכין. והרי אין מתיר הלחם אלא הקטרת שניהם:

ר׳ מאיר אומר פגול. דסבר חצי מתיר נמי מפגל. ואין הלכה כרבי מאיר:

משנה ב

Mishnayos Menachos Perek 3 Mishnah 1

מנחות פרק ג׳ משנה א׳

1
In the case of one who removes a handful from the meal offering with the intent to consume, beyond its designated time, an item whose typical manner is such that one does not consume it, i.e., the handful, or to burn, beyond its designated time, an item whose typical manner is such that one does not burn it on the altar, i.e., the remainder of the meal offering, the meal offering is fit. Rabbi Eliezer deems it unfit, although it is not piggul, and consuming it is therefore not punishable by excision from the World-to-Come [karet]. In the case of one who removes a handful from the meal offering with the intent to consume, beyond its designated time, an item whose typical manner is such that one does consume it, or to burn, beyond its designated time, an item whose typical manner is such that one does burn it on the altar, but his intent was to consume or burn improperly less than an olive-bulk, the offering is fit. If his intent was both to consume half an olive-bulk and to burn half an olive-bulk beyond its designated time, the meal offering is nevertheless fit, because eating and burning do not join together.
הַקּוֹמֵץ אֶת הַמִּנְחָה לֶאֱכֹל דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין דַּרְכּוֹ לֶאֱכֹל, לְהַקְטִיר דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין דַּרְכּוֹ לְהַקְטִיר, כָּשֵׁר. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר פּוֹסֵל. לֶאֱכֹל דָּבָר שֶׁדַּרְכּוֹ לֶאֱכֹל, לְהַקְטִיר דָּבָר שֶׁדַּרְכּוֹ לְהַקְטִיר, פָּחוֹת מִכַּזַּיִת, כָּשֵׁר. לֶאֱכֹל כַּחֲצִי זַיִת וּלְהַקְטִיר כַּחֲצִי זַיִת, כָּשֵׁר, שֶׁאֵין אֲכִילָה וְהַקְטָרָה מִצְטָרְפִין:
א׳
ברטנורא

הקומץ את המנחה לאכול – outside of its appropriate time period.

דבר שאין דרכו לאכול – as for example, the handful of meal-offering and the frankincense.

ולהקטיר – outside of its appropriate time period.

דבר שאין דרכו להקטיר – the residue/remnants are accustomed to be consumed but are not accustomed to be offered as incense upon the altar.

כשר – that this is not considered thought/intention, for he has rescinded his thought regarding all people.

רבי אליעזר פוסל – as it is written (Leviticus 7:18): “If any of the flesh of his sacrifice is eaten [on the third day, it shall not be acceptable],” Scripture speaks of two consumptions (i.e., האכל יאכל), one is the consumption of a human being and one is the consumption of the altar, to tell you that just as the consumption of a human being invalidates it for a person, as for example, residue/remnants if a person thought of consuming them outside of the appropriate time, and the consumption of the altar for the altar, as for example, a handful of meal-offering, if he considered/intended to offer it up on the altar not at its appropriate time, such his intention/thought invalidates the consumption of a human being if he thought about them regarding the altar to offer them up outside of their appropriate time, since the All-Merciful excluded both of them in the language of “eating,” we learn from this that they are the same, and we account from this one (i.e., food from sacrifices) to that one (i.e., “food” for the altar). But the Rabbis hold, that for thus, the All-Merciful excluded for burning on the altar in the language of “consuming/eating”, to tell you that just as eating is an olive’s bulk, so also consideration of burning on the altar is an olive’s bulk. But always, “eating” is in its manner is implied, the taking of a handful of meal-offering to the altar and the residue/remnants is for a person [for consumption]. And the Halakha is according to the Sages.

הקומץ את המנחה לאכול. חוץ לזמנו:

דבר שאין דרכו לאכול. כגון הקומץ והלבונה:

ולהקטיר. חוץ לזמנו:

דבר שאין דרכו להקטיר. השיריים שדרכן לאכול ואין דרכן להקטיר:

כשר. דאין זו חשובה מחשבה, דבטלה דעתו אצל כל אדם:

רבי אליעזר פוסל. דכתיב (ויקרא ז׳:י״ח) ואם האכול יאכל מבשר זבח שלמיו, בשתי אכילות הכתוב מדבר, אחת אכילת אדם ואחת אכילת מזבח, לומר לך כשם שפוסלת אכילת אדם לאדם כגון שיריים אם חשב עליהם לאדם לאכלם חוץ לזמנו, ואכילת מזבח למזבח כגון קומץ אם חשב עליו להקטירו שלא בזמנו, כך פוסלת מחשבת אכילת אדם כגון שיריים אם חשב עליהם למזבח להקטירן חוץ לזמנן, מדאפקינהו רחמנא לתרווייהו בלשון אכילה שמע מינה כי הדדי נינהו, ומחשבים מזו לזו. ורבנן סברי, להכי אפקה רחמנא להקטרה בלשון אכילה, לומר לך מה אכילה בכזית אף מחשבת הקטרה בכזית. ולעולם אכילה כאורחיה משמע, קומץ למזבח ושיריים לאדם. והלכה כחכמים:

שאלות נפוצות על משנה יומית

עדיין יש לכם שאלה? צרו קשר