Mishnayos Menachos Perek 1 Mishnah 4
Change text layout:
מנחות פרק א׳ משנה ד׳
How is the permitting factor not sacrificed in accordance with its mitzva? If one removed the handful with the intent to partake of the remainder or burn the handful or frankincense outside its designated area, or placed it in the vessel, conveyed it, and burned the handful on the altar, with the intent to partake of the remainder beyond its designated time; or if one removed the handful with the intent to partake of the remainder or burn the handful or frankincense beyond its designated time, and placed it in the vessel, conveyed it, and burned the handful on the altar, with the intent to partake of the remainder outside its designated area; or if one removed the handful and placed it in the vessel, and conveyed it, and burned the handful on the altar, with the intent to partake of the remainder outside its designated area, that is the case of an offering whose permitting factor was not sacrificed in accordance with its mitzva. The meal offering of a sinner and the meal offering of jealousy brought by a sota that one removed their handful not for their sake and placed it in the vessel, conveyed it, and burned the handful on the altar, with the intent to partake of the remainder or burn the handful beyond its designated time; or that one removed the handful with the intent to partake of the remainder or burn the handful beyond its designated time or placed it in the vessel, conveyed it, and burned the handful on the altar, not for their sake; or that one removed the handful, and placed it in the vessel, and conveyed it, and burned the handful on the altar, not for their sake, that is the case of an offering whose permitting factor was not sacrificed in accordance with its mitzva. If one performed one of these rites with the intent to partake of an olive-bulk outside its designated area and an olive-bulk the next day, or an olive-bulk the next day and an olive-bulk outside its designated area, or half an olive-bulk outside its designated area and half an olive-bulk the next day, or half an olive-bulk the next day and half an olive-bulk outside its designated area, the offering is unfit but there is no liability for karet. Rabbi Yehuda says that this is the principle: If the intent with regard to the time preceded the intent with regard to the area, the offering is piggul and one is liable to receive karet on account of it. If the intent with regard to the area preceded the intent with regard to the time, the offering is unfit but there is no liability for karet. And the Rabbis say: In both this case, where the intent with regard to time was first, and that case, where the intent with regard to area came first, the offering is unfit but there is no liability for karet. If one’s intent was to partake of half an olive-bulk of the remainder and to burn half an olive-bulk of it not at the appropriate time or not in the appropriate area, the offering is fit, because eating and burning do not join together.
כֵּיצַד לֹא קָרַב הַמַּתִּיר כְּמִצְוָתוֹ. קָמַץ חוּץ לִמְקוֹמוֹ, וְנָתַן בַּכְּלִי וְהִלֵּךְ וְהִקְטִיר חוּץ לִזְמַנּוֹ, אוֹ שֶׁקָּמַץ חוּץ לִזְמַנּוֹ וְנָתַן בַּכְּלִי וְהִלֵּךְ וְהִקְטִיר חוּץ לִמְקוֹמוֹ, אוֹ שֶׁקָּמַץ וְנָתַן בַּכְּלִי וְהִלֵּךְ וְהִקְטִיר חוּץ לִמְקוֹמוֹ, מִנְחַת חוֹטֵא וּמִנְחַת קְנָאוֹת שֶׁקְּמָצָן שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָן וְנָתַן בַּכְּלִי וְהִלֵּךְ וְהִקְטִיר חוּץ לִזְמַנָּן, אוֹ שֶׁקָּמַץ חוּץ לִזְמַנָּן, וְנָתַן בַּכְּלִי וְהִלֵּךְ וְהִקְטִיר שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָן, אוֹ שֶׁקָּמַץ וְנָתַן בַּכְּלִי וְהִלֵּךְ וְהִקְטִיר שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָן, זֶה הוּא שֶׁלֹּא קָרַב הַמַּתִּיר כְּמִצְוָתוֹ. לֶאֱכֹל כַּזַּיִת בַּחוּץ וְכַזַּיִת לְמָחָר, כַּזַּיִת לְמָחָר וְכַזַּיִת בַּחוּץ, כַּחֲצִי זַיִת בַּחוּץ וְכַחֲצִי זַיִת לְמָחָר, כַּחֲצִי זַיִת לְמָחָר וְכַחֲצִי זַיִת בַּחוּץ, פָּסוּל וְאֵין בּוֹ כָרֵת. אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, זֶה הַכְּלָל, אִם מַחֲשֶׁבֶת הַזְּמָן קָדְמָה לְמַחֲשֶׁבֶת הַמָּקוֹם, פִּגּוּל וְחַיָּבִים עָלָיו כָּרֵת. וְאִם מַחֲשֶׁבֶת הַמָּקוֹם קָדְמָה לְמַחֲשֶׁבֶת הַזְּמָן, פָּסוּל וְאֵין בּוֹ כָרֵת. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, זֶה וָזֶה פָּסוּל וְאֵין בּוֹ כָרֵת. לֶאֱכֹל כַּחֲצִי זַיִת וּלְהַקְטִיר כַּחֲצִי זַיִת, כָּשֵׁר, שֶׁאֵין אֲכִילָה וְהַקְטָרָה מִצְטָרְפִין:
Bartenura
קמץ חוץ למקומו. חשב בשעת קמיצה לאכול השיריים חוץ לעזרה:
נתן בכלי הלך והקטיר חוץ לזמנו. ובאחת משלשת עבודות הללו חשב על השיריים לאכלן חוץ לזמנו:
מנחת חוטא וקנאות. יש בהן עוד פסול אחר המוציאן מידי פגול, כגון שלא לשמן, דאמרינן בריש פרקין דפסולות אם קמצן שלא לשמן, ושלשת שאר העבודות חשב עליהן חוץ לזמנן, או אפילו הראשונה חוץ לזמנה והשאר שלא לשמן, הוציאו מידי פגול:
או שקמץ או נתן בכלי או הוליך או הקטיר שלא לשמן. כלומר אי זו מאלו שעשה שלא לשמן והשאר על מנת לאכול לשיריים חוץ לזמנו לא קרב המתיר כמצותו ואין בשיריים כרת:
כזית בחוץ כזית למחר. חשב באחת מן העבודות שתי מחשבות חוץ לזמנו וחוץ למקומו. ועד השתא איירינן בשתי עבודות שחשב באחת חוץ לזמנו ובאחרת חוץ למקומו, ועכשיו מיירי שחשב בשתיהן בעבודה אחת. ולרבי יהודה איצטריך, דלא תימא בשתי עבודות הוא דפליג רבי יהודה דבתר קמייתא אזלינן, אבל בחדא עבודה מודה, קמשמע לן:
כזית למחר וכזית בחון. אף על פי שחשב תחלה לחוץ לזמנו הוציאתו שניה מידי כרת:
אמר רבי יהודה זה הכלל כו׳ ר׳ יהודה פליג אתנא קמא בין בעבודה אחת בין בשתי עבודות. ואין הלכה כר׳ יהודה:
קמץ חוץ למקומו – he intended/thought at the time of taking a handful of the meal-offering to consume the residue/remnants outside of the Temple courtyard.
נתן בכלי הילך והקטיר חוץ לזמנו – and in one of these three acts of Divine service, he intended to consume the residue/remnants outside of the [proper] time period.
מנחת חוטא וקנאות – there is in them one other invalidation that removes them from being פיגול /an offering disqualified by having an improper intention, such as not for its own sake/name, as we stated at the beginning of our chapter (i.e., Mishnah 1), that invalid [meal] offerings, if he took a handful of the meal-offering not for its own sake, and he thought/intended regarding the three other acts of Divine service (i.e., the taking of a handful of the meal-offering to consume its residue outside of the Temple courtyard, and to offer it up at the altar at an inappropriate time and to consume it at an inappropriate time) that they would be performed outside of their [proper] time, or even the first [of the three] outside of its appropriate time, and the rest that were not done for their own sake, he removed it from being an offering disqualified by having an improper intention [and being subject to extirpation].
או קמץ או נתן בכלי או הוליך או הקטיר שלא לשמן – that is to say, whichever of these that he did not for its own sake and the remainder in order to consume the residue/remnants outside of the [appropriate] time , he did not offer that which is permitted in accord with its requirement, but there is no extirpation with its residue/remnants.
כזית בחוץ כזית למחר – he intended/thought with one of the acts of Divine service that two intentions would be done outside of the [appropriate] time period and outside of its [appropriate] place (i.e., the Temple courtyard. But until now, we have been speaking about two acts of Divine service that he intended with one of them outside of its [appropriate] time period and with another outside of its proper place, but now we are speaking about [the case] where he intended both of them with one act of Divine service. But for Rabbi Yehuda, it is necessary, that one does not say that Rabbi Yehuda disputes on two [acts] of Divine service, for we follow after the first [act]. But with one [act] of Divine service, he agrees, but it comes to tell us [that this is not the case].
זית למחר וכזית בחוץ – even though that he intended first [to perform the act] outside of the [appropriate] time period, his second act of taking it outside [the Temple courtyard] makes him [liable] for extirpation.
אמר רבי יהודה זה הכלל כו' – Rabbi Yehuda disputes with the first Tanna/teacher, whether with one [act] of Divine service or whether with two [acts] of Divine service. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Yehuda.