In the case of a priest who removes a handful from the meal offering with the intent to partake of its remainder or to burn its handful on the next day, Rabbi Yosei concedes in this instance that it is a case of piggul and he is liable to receive karet for partaking of it. But if the priest’s intent was to burn its frankincense the next day, Rabbi Yosei says: The meal offering is unfit but partaking of it does not include liability to receive karet. And the Rabbis say: It is a case of piggul and he is liable to receive karet for partaking of the meal offering. The Rabbis said to Rabbi Yosei: In what manner does this differ from an animal offering, where if one slaughtered it with the intent to sacrifice the portions consumed on the altar the next day, it is piggul? Rabbi Yosei said to the Rabbis: There is a difference, as in the case of an animal offering, its blood, and its flesh, and its portions consumed on the altar are all one entity. Consequently, intent with regard to any one of them renders the entire offering piggul. But the frankincense is not part of the meal offering.
If one slaughtered the two lambs that accompany the two meal offering loaves sacrificed on Shavuot with the intent to partake of one of the two loaves the next day, or if one burned the two bowls of frankincense accompanying the shewbread with the intent to partake of one of the arrangements of the shewbread the next day, Rabbi Yosei says: That loaf and that arrangement of which he intended to partake the next day are piggul and one is liable to receive karet for their consumption, and the second loaf and arrangement are unfit, but there is no liability to receive karet for their consumption. And the Rabbis say: This loaf and arrangement and that loaf and arrangement are both piggul and one is liable to receive karet for their consumption. If one of the two loaves of Shavuotor one of the two arrangements of the shewbread became ritually impure, Rabbi Yehuda says: Both must be taken to the place of burning like any other disqualified offering, as no communal offering is divided. That is, it is either fit in its entirety or unfit in its entirety. And the Rabbis say: The impure one remains in its state of impurity and the pure one shall be eaten.
The thanks offering renders the accompanying loaves piggul but the loaves do not render the thanks offering piggul. How so? If one slaughtered the thanks offering, which may be consumed only during the day it is slaughtered and the night thereafter, with the intent to partake of it the next day, the offering and the accompanying loaves are rendered piggul. If he slaughtered it with the intent to partake of the loaves the next day, the loaves are rendered piggul and the thanks offering is not piggul. Likewise, the lambs sacrificed with the two loaves meal offering on Shavuotrender the accompanying loaves piggul, but the loaves do not render the lambs piggul. How so? If one slaughtered the lambs, which may be consumed only during the day they are slaughtered and the night thereafter, with the intent to partake of them the next day, the lambs and the accompanying loaves are rendered piggul. If he did so with the intent to partake of the loaves the next day, the loaves are rendered piggul and the lambs are not piggul.
The animal offering renders the accompanying libations and meal offerings piggul from the moment that they were consecrated in the vessel, but not before; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. The libations do not render the animal offering piggul. How so? In the case of one who slaughters the offering with the intent to partake of it the next day, the offering and its libations are rendered piggul. But if one slaughters the offering with the intent to sacrifice its libations the next day, the libations are rendered piggul, while the offering is not piggul.
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 sotathat 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.
הַקּוֹמֵץ אֶת הַמִּנְחָה לֶאֱכֹל שְׁיָרֶיהָ אוֹ לְהַקְטִיר קֻמְצָהּ לְמָחָר, מוֹדֶה רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בָּזֶה, שֶׁהוּא פִגּוּל וְחַיָּבִין עָלָיו כָּרֵת. לְהַקְטִיר לְבוֹנָתָהּ לְמָחָר, רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר, פָּסוּל וְאֵין בּוֹ כָרֵת, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, פִּגוּל וְחַיָּבִין עָלָיו כָּרֵת. אָמְרוּ לוֹ, מַה שָּׁנָה זוֹ מִן הַזָּבַח. אָמַר לָהֶם, שֶׁהַזֶּבַח דָּמוֹ וּבְשָׂרוֹ וְאֵמוּרָיו אֶחָד, וּלְבוֹנָה אֵינָהּ מִן הַמִּנְחָה:
In the case of a priest who removes a handful from the meal offering with the intent to partake of its remainder or to burn its handful on the next day, Rabbi Yosei concedes in this instance that it is a case of piggul and he is liable to receive karet for partaking of it. But if the priest’s intent was to burn its frankincense the next day, Rabbi Yosei says: The meal offering is unfit but partaking of it does not include liability to receive karet. And the Rabbis say: It is a case of piggul and he is liable to receive karet for partaking of the meal offering. The Rabbis said to Rabbi Yosei: In what manner does this differ from an animal offering, where if one slaughtered it with the intent to sacrifice the portions consumed on the altar the next day, it is piggul? Rabbi Yosei said to the Rabbis: There is a difference, as in the case of an animal offering, its blood, and its flesh, and its portions consumed on the altar are all one entity. Consequently, intent with regard to any one of them renders the entire offering piggul. But the frankincense is not part of the meal offering.
שָׁחַט שְׁנֵי כְבָשִׂים לֶאֱכֹל אַחַת מִן הַחַלּוֹת לְמָחָר, הִקְטִיר שְׁנֵי בְזִיכִין לֶאֱכֹל אַחַד מִן הַסְּדָרִים לְמָחָר, רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר, אוֹתָהּ הַחַלָּה וְאוֹתוֹ הַסֵּדֶר שֶׁחִשַּׁב עָלָיו, פִּגּוּל וְחַיָּבִין עָלָיו כָּרֵת, וְהַשֵּׁנִי פָּסוּל וְאֵין בּוֹ כָרֵת. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, זֶה וָזֶה פִּגּוּל וְחַיָּבִין עָלָיו כָּרֵת. נִטְמֵאת אַחַת מִן הַחַלּוֹת אוֹ אַחַד מִן הַסְּדָרִים, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, שְׁנֵיהֶם יֵצְאוּ לְבֵית הַשְּׂרֵפָה, שֶׁאֵין קָרְבַּן צִבּוּר חָלוּק. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, הַטָּמֵא בְטֻמְאָתוֹ, וְהַטָּהוֹר יֵאָכֵל:
If one slaughtered the two lambs that accompany the two meal offering loaves sacrificed on Shavuot with the intent to partake of one of the two loaves the next day, or if one burned the two bowls of frankincense accompanying the shewbread with the intent to partake of one of the arrangements of the shewbread the next day, Rabbi Yosei says: That loaf and that arrangement of which he intended to partake the next day are piggul and one is liable to receive karet for their consumption, and the second loaf and arrangement are unfit, but there is no liability to receive karet for their consumption. And the Rabbis say: This loaf and arrangement and that loaf and arrangement are both piggul and one is liable to receive karet for their consumption. If one of the two loaves of Shavuot or one of the two arrangements of the shewbread became ritually impure, Rabbi Yehuda says: Both must be taken to the place of burning like any other disqualified offering, as no communal offering is divided. That is, it is either fit in its entirety or unfit in its entirety. And the Rabbis say: The impure one remains in its state of impurity and the pure one shall be eaten.
הַתּוֹדָה מְפַגֶּלֶת אֶת הַלֶּחֶם, וְהַלֶּחֶם אֵינוֹ מְפַגֵּל אֶת הַתּוֹדָה. כֵּיצַד. הַשּׁוֹחֵט אֶת הַתּוֹדָה לֶאֱכֹל מִמֶּנָּה לְמָחָר, הִיא וְהַלֶּחֶם מְפֻגָּלִין. לֶאֱכֹל מִן הַלֶּחֶם לְמָחָר, הַלֶּחֶם מְפֻגָּל וְהַתּוֹדָה אֵינָהּ מְפֻגָּלֶת. הַכְּבָשִׂים מְפַגְּלִין אֶת הַלֶּחֶם, וְהַלֶּחֶם אֵינוֹ מְפַגֵּל אֶת הַכְּבָשִׂים. כֵּיצַד. הַשּׁוֹחֵט אֶת הַכְּבָשִׂים לֶאֱכֹל מֵהֶם לְמָחָר, הֵם וְהַלֶּחֶם מְפֻגָּלִים. לֶאֱכֹל מִן הַלֶּחֶם לְמָחָר, הַלֶּחֶם מְפֻגָּל, וְהַכְּבָשִׂים אֵינָן מְפֻגָּלִין:
The thanks offering renders the accompanying loaves piggul but the loaves do not render the thanks offering piggul. How so? If one slaughtered the thanks offering, which may be consumed only during the day it is slaughtered and the night thereafter, with the intent to partake of it the next day, the offering and the accompanying loaves are rendered piggul. If he slaughtered it with the intent to partake of the loaves the next day, the loaves are rendered piggul and the thanks offering is not piggul. Likewise, the lambs sacrificed with the two loaves meal offering on Shavuot render the accompanying loaves piggul, but the loaves do not render the lambs piggul. How so? If one slaughtered the lambs, which may be consumed only during the day they are slaughtered and the night thereafter, with the intent to partake of them the next day, the lambs and the accompanying loaves are rendered piggul. If he did so with the intent to partake of the loaves the next day, the loaves are rendered piggul and the lambs are not piggul.
הַזֶּבַח מְפַגֵּל אֶת הַנְּסָכִין מִשֶּׁקָּדְשׁוּ בִכְלִי, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וְהַנְּסָכִין אֵינָן מְפַגְּלִין אֶת הַזָּבַח. כֵּיצַד. הַשּׁוֹחֵט אֶת הַזֶּבַח לֶאֱכֹל מִמֶּנּוּ לְמָחָר, הוּא וּנְסָכָיו מְפֻגָּלִין. לְהַקְרִיב מִן הַנְּסָכִין לְמָחָר, הַנְּסָכִין מְפֻגָּלִין, וְהַזֶּבַח אֵינוֹ מְפֻגָּל:
The animal offering renders the accompanying libations and meal offerings piggul from the moment that they were consecrated in the vessel, but not before; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. The libations do not render the animal offering piggul. How so? In the case of one who slaughters the offering with the intent to partake of it the next day, the offering and its libations are rendered piggul. But if one slaughters the offering with the intent to sacrifice its libations the next day, the libations are rendered piggul, while the offering is not 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:
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.