Menahot, Chapter Two, Mishnah Five

 

Mishnah Five

1)      If he had an intention which makes piggul [with regard to the remainder of the minhah] during the [burning of the] handful and not during the [burning of the] frankincense, or during the [burning of the] frankincense and not during the [burning of the] incense:

a)      Rabbi Meir says: it is piggul and he is liable for karet for it;

b)      But the sages say: there is no karet unless he had an intention that makes piggul during the service of the whole of the mattir.  

2)      The sages agree with Rabbi Meir with regard to a sinner’s minhah or a minhah of jealousy, that if he had an intention which makes piggul during the [burning of the] handful, [the remainder] is piggul and he is liable for karet for it, since the handful is the entire mattir.

3)      If he slaughtered one of the lambs intending to eat the two loaves the next day, or if he burned one of the dishes of frankincense intending to eat the two rows [of the showbread] on the next day:

a)      Rabbi Meir says: it is piggul and he is liable for karet for it;

b)      But the sages say: it is not piggul, unless he had an intention that makes piggul during the service of the whole of the mattir.

4)      If he slaughtered one of the lambs intending to eat part of it the next day, that [lamb] is piggul but the other [lamb] is valid.

5)      If he intended to eat the other [lamb] the next day, both are valid.

 

Explanation

Section one: As we have explained on several occasions, there are two elements that allow the remainder of the minhah offering to be eaten: the removal of the fistful and its burning on the altar and the burning of the frankincense. These are the two “mattirs” for the remainder. According to Rabbi Meir, if while burning either the handful or the frankincense he has the intention of eating the remainder after its time has expired, the remainder is piggul and one who eats it is liable for karet. The other sages disagree and say that in order for something to be piggul and for one to be liable for karet for eating it, he has to have a disqualifying intention while all of the mattirs are being burned, in this case both the handful and the frankincense.

Section two: There is no frankincense offered with the sinner’s minhah or the minhah of jealousy (that brought by the Sotah). Therefore, the sages agree that if he has a disqualifying intention when burning the handful, the remainder is piggul, because the handful is the only mattir.

Section three:  Again the mishnah makes reference to the two lambs slaughtered on Shavuot and the two bowls of frankincense which allow the showbread to be eaten. The lambs are the “mattir” for the bread that is brought with them on Shavuot and the frankincense is the “mattir” for the showbread. Rabbi Meir holds that if the priest intends to eat the Shavuot bread after its time while sacrificing even one of the two lambs or intends to eat the showbread after its time while burning even one of the two bowls of frankincense, the bread is piggul and one who eats it is liable for karet. The other sages disagree because the bread can’t be piggul unless all of the mattirs (both lambs or both bowls) are offered with a disqualifying intention.

Section four: Having a disqualifying intention with regard to one of the lambs brought on Shavuot does not affect the status of the other lamb. One lamb is not a “mattir” for the other.

Section five: If while slaughtering one of the lambs one has a disqualifying intention with regard to the other lamb, neither lamb is affected. He did not have the wrong intention with regard to the lamb he was actually sacrificing, so it is not affected. And while he did have a wrong intention with regard to the other lamb, he wasn’t actually slaughtering the other lamb when he had that intention.

 

image_print