Menachot Daf 17 (מנחות דף י״ז)
Daf: 17 | Amudim: 17a – 17b
📖 Breakdown
Amud Aleph (17a)
Segment 1
TYPE: גמרא
Pumbedita scholars: burning renders burning piggul
Hebrew/Aramaic:
חֲרִיפֵי דְּפוּמְבְּדִיתָא: הַקְטָרָה מְפַגֶּלֶת הַקְטָרָה, וַאֲפִילּוּ לְרַבָּנַן דְּאָמְרִי אֵין מְפַגְּלִין בַּחֲצִי מַתִּיר – הָנֵי מִילֵּי הֵיכָא דְּחַשֵּׁב בֵּיהּ בְּשִׁירַיִם וּלְבוֹנָה בְּמִילְּתָא קָיְימָא, אֲבָל הָכָא דְּחַשֵּׁב לַהּ בִּלְבוֹנָה – כְּמָה דְּחַשֵּׁב בֵּיהּ בְּכוּלֵּיהּ מַתִּיר דָּמֵי.
English Translation:
The sharp scholars of Pumbedita say: Burning renders burning piggul, e.g., burning the handful with the intent to burn the frankincense the next day renders the meal offering piggul. And this is the halakha even according to the Rabbis, who say that one does not render an offering piggul with intent occurring during the sacrifice of half of a permitting factor, e.g., when sacrificing the handful alone with intent of piggul. The reason is that this statement applies only where he had intent during the sacrifice of the handful to consume the remainder the next day, and the frankincense stands intact, i.e., he had no intent with regard to it. But here, when he had intent with regard to the frankincense while burning the handful, it is considered as though he had intent with regard to the entire permitting factor.
קלאוד על הדף:
This continues from the previous daf’s discussion about whether one matir (permitting factor) can render another matir piggul. The scholars of Pumbedita propose that when the service is burning (haktarah), intent about burning another item tomorrow creates piggul. This would mean that even according to the Rabbis (who normally require intent during all matirin), burning the handful with intent about the frankincense creates piggul. Their reasoning: the Rabbis’ rule about “half a matir” only applies when intent is about the shirayim while the frankincense remains untouched. But here, where intent is directly about the frankincense, it’s as if he had intent about the entire permitting factor.
Key Terms:
- חֲרִיפֵי דְּפוּמְבְּדִיתָא = Sharp scholars of Pumbedita (a Babylonian academy)
- הַקְטָרָה מְפַגֶּלֶת הַקְטָרָה = Burning renders burning piggul
- שִׁירַיִם = Remainder (of the meal offering, eaten by priests)
Segment 2
TYPE: גמרא – ראיה
Rava’s support from a Mishna
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רָבָא: אַף אֲנַן נָמֵי תְּנֵינָא, זֶה הַכְּלָל: כׇּל הַקּוֹמֵץ וְנוֹתֵן בִּכְלִי, וְהַמּוֹלִיךְ וְהַמַּקְטִיר, לֶאֱכוֹל דָּבָר שֶׁדַּרְכּוֹ לֶאֱכוֹל וּלְהַקְטִיר דָּבָר שֶׁדַּרְכּוֹ לְהַקְטִיר, חוּץ לִמְקוֹמוֹ – פָּסוּל וְאֵין בּוֹ כָּרֵת, חוּץ לִזְמַנּוֹ – פִּגּוּל וְחַיָּיבִין עָלָיו כָּרֵת.
English Translation:
Rava said: We learn this halakha in a mishna, as well (12a): This is the principle: In the case of anyone who removes the handful, or places the handful in the vessel, or who conveys the vessel with the handful to the altar, or who burns the handful on the altar, with the intent to partake of an item whose typical manner is such that one partakes of it, or to burn an item whose typical manner is such that one burns it on the altar, outside its designated area, the meal offering is unfit but there is no liability for karet. If his intent was to do so beyond its designated time, the offering is piggul and one is liable to receive karet on account of it.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rava brings proof from a Mishna (from 12a). The Mishna establishes a general principle listing all four services (removal, placement, conveying, burning) and states that intent to burn something normally burned beyond its time creates piggul with karet. This supports the Pumbedita scholars – burning the handful with intent about burning the frankincense tomorrow should create piggul.
Key Terms:
- דָּבָר שֶׁדַּרְכּוֹ לֶאֱכוֹל = Something normally consumed
- דָּבָר שֶׁדַּרְכּוֹ לְהַקְטִיר = Something normally burned
- חוּץ לִמְקוֹמוֹ = Outside its designated area
- חוּץ לִזְמַנּוֹ = Beyond its designated time
Segment 3
TYPE: גמרא – ניתוח
Analysis of the Mishna
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַאי לָאו הַקְטָרָה דּוּמְיָא דְּהָנָךְ, מָה הָנָךְ – בֵּין לֶאֱכוֹל בֵּין לְהַקְטִיר, אַף הַקְטָרָה – בֵּין לֶאֱכוֹל בֵּין לְהַקְטִיר?
English Translation:
Rava explains: What, is it not correct to say that the halakha with regard to burning is similar to these, i.e., the removal of the handful, its placement in a vessel, and the conveying? Accordingly, just as with regard to these, whether one’s intent was to partake of the remainder the next day or to burn the frankincense the next day, the halakha is that the offering is piggul, so too with regard to burning, whether one’s intent was to partake of the remainder or to burn the frankincense the next day, the offering is piggul.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rava analyzes the Mishna’s parallel structure. The Mishna treats all four services (removal, placement, conveying, burning) equivalently. For the first three services, everyone agrees that intent to burn frankincense tomorrow creates piggul. Rava argues by analogy: just as those services trigger piggul with burning-intent, so too the burning service itself should trigger piggul with intent about burning the frankincense.
Segment 4
TYPE: גמרא – דחייה
Rejection of the proof
Hebrew/Aramaic:
לָא, הָנָךְ – בֵּין לֶאֱכוֹל בֵּין לְהַקְטִיר; הַקְטָרָה – לֶאֱכוֹל אִין, לְהַקְטִיר לָא.
English Translation:
The Gemara rejects this comparison: No, with regard to these, whether one’s intent was to partake of the remainder or to burn the frankincense the next day, the offering is in fact piggul. But with regard to burning, if one’s intent was to partake of the remainder the next day, yes, it is piggul, but if one’s intent was to burn the frankincense the next day, it is not piggul.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara rejects Rava’s proof. The Mishna’s parallel might not be complete. For the early services (removal, placement, conveying), both eating-intent and burning-intent create piggul. But for the burning service itself, only eating-intent (about the shirayim) creates piggul – not burning-intent (about the frankincense). This maintains the distinction that one matir cannot render another matir piggul.
Segment 5
TYPE: גמרא – שיטת רב חסדא בשם רב
Rav Menashya reports Rav Chisda’s teaching in Rav’s name
Hebrew/Aramaic:
יָתֵיב רַב מְנַשְּׁיָא בַּר גַּדָּא קַמֵּיהּ דְּאַבָּיֵי, וְיָתֵיב וְקָאָמַר מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב חִסְדָּא: אֵין הַקְטָרָה מְפַגֶּלֶת הַקְטָרָה, וַאֲפִילּוּ לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר, דְּאָמַר: ״מְפַגְּלִין בַּחֲצִי מַתִּיר״ – הָנֵי מִילֵּי הֵיכָא דְּחַשֵּׁב בְּהוּ בְּשִׁירַיִם, דְּקוֹמֶץ מַתִּיר דִּידְהוּ, אֲבָל הָכָא דְּקוֹמֶץ לָאו מַתִּיר דִּלְבוֹנָה הוּא – לָא מָצֵי מְפַגֵּל בֵּיהּ.
English Translation:
The Gemara relates that Rav Menashya bar Gadda sat before Abaye, and while he was sitting he said in the name of Rav Ḥisda: Burning does not render burning piggul, e.g., burning the handful with the intent to burn the frankincense the next day does not render the offering piggul. And this is the halakha even according to the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who says in the mishna that one renders an offering piggul through intent during the sacrifice of half of a permitting factor, e.g., when sacrificing the handful but not the frankincense with intent of piggul. Rav Menashya bar Gadda explains that the reason is that this statement of Rabbi Meir applies only where he had intent during the sacrifice of the handful to consume the remainder the next day, as the handful is their permitting factor. But here, as the handful is not a permitting factor of the frankincense, the offering cannot be rendered piggul through it.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Chisda’s position (reported by Rav Menashya) contradicts the Pumbedita scholars. Even Rabbi Meir, who is lenient about creating piggul with half a matir, agrees that burning doesn’t render burning piggul. The reason: Rabbi Meir’s leniency only applies when intent is about the shirayim, which the handful actually permits. But the handful doesn’t permit the frankincense – they are independent matirin. One cannot render piggul something it doesn’t permit.
Segment 6
TYPE: גמרא – שאלת אביי
Abaye’s question and confirmation
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: עֲנִי מָרִי מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִין. אִיתְּמַר נָמֵי, אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא אָמַר רַב: אֵין הַקְטָרָה מְפַגֶּלֶת הַקְטָרָה.
English Translation:
Abaye said to Rav Menashya: Answer me, my Master, did Rav Ḥisda state this halakha in the name of Rav? Rav Menashya said to Abaye: Yes. The Gemara notes that it was also stated explicitly that Rav Ḥisda says that Rav says: Burning does not render burning piggul.
קלאוד על הדף:
Abaye asks Rav Menashya to confirm the chain of transmission – did Rav Chisda really say this in Rav’s name? When confirmed, the Gemara notes that this teaching was also independently transmitted: Rav Chisda explicitly stated in Rav’s name that burning does not render burning piggul.
Segment 7
TYPE: גמרא – ראיה לרב מהמשנה
Support for Rav’s position from the Mishna
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב יַעֲקֹב בַּר אִידִי מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּאַבָּיֵי: אַף אֲנַן נָמֵי תְּנֵינָא, שָׁחַט אֶחָד מִן הַכְּבָשִׂים לֶאֱכוֹל מִמֶּנּוּ לְמָחָר – הוּא פִּיגּוּל וַחֲבֵירוֹ כָּשֵׁר, לֶאֱכוֹל מֵחֲבֵירוֹ לְמָחָר – שְׁנֵיהֶם כְּשֵׁרִין. מַאי טַעְמָא? לָאו מִשּׁוּם דְּכֵיוָן דְּלָאו מַתִּיר דִּידֵיהּ הוּא, לָא מָצֵי מְפַגֵּל בֵּיהּ.
English Translation:
Rav Ya’akov bar Idi said in the name of Abaye: We learn in the mishna as well that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav: If one slaughtered one of the lambs with the intent to partake of it the next day, that lamb is piggul and the other lamb is fit. If he slaughtered one lamb with the intent to partake of the other the next day, both lambs are fit. What is the reason? Is it not due to the fact that since the first lamb is not a permitting factor of the second lamb, it cannot render the second lamb piggul? The same reasoning should apply to the case of the handful and frankincense.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Yaakov bar Idi brings proof from the Mishna about the Shavuot lambs. When slaughtering one lamb with intent about the other lamb, both remain fit – because one lamb isn’t the matir for the other. This supports Rav’s position: just as one matir cannot affect another matir among the lambs, so too the handful (a matir) cannot render the frankincense (another matir) piggul.
Segment 8
TYPE: גמרא – דחיית הראיה
Rejection of the proof
Hebrew/Aramaic:
לָא, הָתָם הוּא דְּלָא אִיקְּבַע בְּחַד מָנָא, אֲבָל הָכָא דְּאִיקְּבַע בְּחַד מָנָא – כִּי חַד דָּמוּ.
English Translation:
The Gemara rejects this suggestion: No; there is a difference between these cases. It is only there, in the mishna, that one lamb cannot render the other piggul, as it was not fixed in one vessel with the other lamb, and therefore each animal stands independent of the other. But here, as the handful and frankincense were fixed in one vessel for the purpose of offering them, they are considered like one item and one of them therefore renders the other piggul.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara rejects the proof from the lambs. The two Shavuot lambs are independent – they were never placed in a single vessel together. But the handful and frankincense are different: they are placed together in one service vessel (the kaf). This shared vessel unifies them, so perhaps one can affect the other. The proof is therefore inconclusive.
Segment 9
TYPE: גמרא – רב המנונא ור’ חנינא
Rav Hamnuna’s teaching from Rabbi Chanina
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב הַמְנוּנָא: הָא מִילְּתָא אַבְלַע לִי רַבִּי חֲנִינָא, וּתְקִילָא לִי כְּכוּלֵּיהּ תַּלְמוּדַאי – הִקְטִיר קוֹמֶץ לְהַקְטִיר לְבוֹנָה, וּלְבוֹנָה לֶאֱכוֹל שִׁירַיִם לְמָחָר – פִּגּוּל.
English Translation:
Rav Hamnuna said: Rabbi Ḥanina helped me internalize this following matter, and to me it is equivalent to all the rest of my learning, as it contains a significant novelty: If one burned the handful with the intent to burn the frankincense the next day, and burned the frankincense with the intent to partake of the remainder the next day, the meal offering is piggul.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Hamnuna reports a profound teaching from Rabbi Chanina that he valued as highly as all his other learning. The case involves two stages: (1) burning the handful with intent about the frankincense, then (2) burning the frankincense with intent about eating the shirayim. The result is piggul. This teaches something significant about how intent works across the offering.
Key Terms:
- אַבְלַע לִי = He helped me internalize (lit. “swallowed into me”)
- תְקִילָא לִי כְּכוּלֵּיהּ תַּלְמוּדַאי = It is equivalent to me as all my learning
Segment 10
TYPE: גמרא – שאלה על החידוש
Question about what the teaching adds
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַאי קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן? אִי הַקְטָרָה מְפַגֶּלֶת הַקְטָרָה קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן – לֵימָא: ״הִקְטִיר קוֹמֶץ לְהַקְטִיר לְבוֹנָה״! אִי מְפַגְּלִין בַּחֲצִי מַתִּיר קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן – לֵימָא: ״הִקְטִיר קוֹמֶץ לֶאֱכוֹל שִׁירַיִם לְמָחָר״! אִי תַּרְוַיְיהוּ אֲתָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן – לֵימָא: ״הִקְטִיר קוֹמֶץ לְהַקְטִיר לְבוֹנָה וְלֶאֱכוֹל שִׁירַיִם לְמָחָר״!
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: What is Rabbi Ḥanina teaching us? If he is teaching us that burning renders burning piggul, then let him simply say: If one burned the handful with the intent to burn the frankincense, the offering is piggul. If he is teaching us that one renders an offering piggul through intent during the sacrifice of half of a permitting factor, then let him say: If one burned the handful with the intent to partake of the remainder the next day, the offering is piggul. If he is coming to teach us both of these halakhot, let him say: If one burned the handful with the intent to burn the frankincense or to partake of the remainder the next day, the offering is piggul.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara analyzes what novelty Rabbi Chanina’s complex case teaches. If it’s about “burning renders burning piggul” – a simpler case would suffice. If it’s about “piggul with half a matir” – again, a simpler case would work. Even if teaching both principles, why the specific two-stage formulation? There must be something unique about this exact case.
Segment 11
TYPE: גמרא – תירוץ רב אדא בר אהבה
Rav Adda bar Ahava’s resolution
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה: לְעוֹלָם קָסָבַר אֵין הַקְטָרָה מְפַגֶּלֶת הַקְטָרָה, וְאֵין מְפַגְּלִין בַּחֲצִי מַתִּיר, וְשָׁאנֵי הָכָא דְּפָשְׁטָא לַיהּ מַחְשָׁבָה בְּכוּלַּהּ מִנְחָה.
English Translation:
Rav Adda bar Ahava said: Actually, Rabbi Ḥanina holds that burning does not render burning piggul, and therefore if one burned only the handful with the intent to burn the frankincense the next day, the offering is not piggul. And he also holds that one does not render an offering piggul through intent during the sacrifice of half of a permitting factor, and consequently if one burned only the handful with the intent to partake of the remainder the next day, the offering is not piggul either. But it is different here, as intent of piggul has extended over the entire meal offering, as he had intent of piggul during the burning of the handful with regard to the frankincense and during the burning of the frankincense with regard to the remainder.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Adda bar Ahava explains the novelty. Rabbi Chanina actually holds BOTH stringent positions: (1) burning doesn’t render burning piggul, and (2) one doesn’t create piggul with half a matir. So why is this case piggul? Because the improper intent has “spread” (pashta) over the entire offering – the first intent covered the frankincense, the second covered the shirayim. Together, improper intent has touched every part of the offering.
Key Terms:
- פָשְׁטָא לַיהּ מַחְשָׁבָה = Intent has extended/spread
- בְּכוּלַּהּ מִנְחָה = Over the entire meal offering
Segment 12
TYPE: גמרא – ברייתא לפני רב יצחק
Baraita taught before Rav Yitzchak bar Abba
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּנֵי תַּנָּא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב יִצְחָק בַּר אַבָּא: הִקְטִיר קוֹמֶץ לֶאֱכוֹל שִׁירַיִם – לְדִבְרֵי הַכֹּל פִּגּוּל. וְהָא מִיפְלָג פְּלִיגִי? אֶלָּא אֵימָא: לְדִבְרֵי הַכֹּל פָּסוּל.
English Translation:
The Gemara relates that a tanna taught a baraita before Rav Yitzḥak bar Abba: If one burned the handful with the intent to partake of the remainder the next day, everyone agrees that the meal offering is piggul. The Gemara raises a difficulty: But don’t Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis disagree in the mishna with regard to this very case? Rather, say that the baraita states: Everyone agrees that the offering is disqualified, as although the Rabbis hold that such intent does not render an offering piggul, they concede that it disqualifies the offering.
קלאוד על הדף:
A baraita was recited before Rav Yitzchak bar Abba claiming that everyone agrees this case is piggul. The Gemara objects: but Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis clearly dispute this! The correction: everyone agrees it’s disqualified (pasul) – the Rabbis agree it’s pasul even though they don’t call it piggul with karet.
Segment 13
TYPE: גמרא – תיקון הברייתא
Correcting the baraita’s wording
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְלֵימָא: הֲרֵי זֶה פִּגּוּל, וְרַבִּי מֵאִיר הִיא! תַּנָּא ״דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל״ אַתְנְיוּהּ, ״פִּיגּוּל״ בְּ״פָסוּל״ מִיחַלַּף לֵיהּ, ״הֲרֵי זֶה״ בְּ״דִבְרֵי הַכֹּל״ לָא מִיחַלַּף לֵיהּ.
English Translation:
The Gemara challenges: But if one must emend the baraita, let him say that the baraita states: It is piggul, and that it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir. The Gemara responds: It is reasonable that the tanna taught that everyone agrees, and that he accidentally exchanged the word piggul for disqualified. But he would not confuse the phrase: This is the opinion of Rabbi Meir, with the phrase: Everyone agrees.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara considers an alternative correction: maybe the baraita should say “it is piggul” following Rabbi Meir. But the Gemara rejects this. The tanna likely said “everyone agrees” (divrei hakol) – this is a distinctive phrase not easily confused. The error was simply swapping “piggul” for “pasul.” This shows the transmission preserved the structure while a technical term got exchanged.
Segment 14
TYPE: משנה
New Mishna: Intent regarding items not normally consumed
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַתְנִי׳ הַקּוֹמֵץ אֶת הַמִּנְחָה לֶאֱכוֹל דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין דַּרְכּוֹ לֶאֱכוֹל, וּלְהַקְטִיר דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין דַּרְכּוֹ לְהַקְטִיר – כָּשֵׁר, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר פּוֹסֵל.
English Translation:
MISHNA: 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].
קלאוד על הדף:
This Mishna introduces a new question: what if the priest’s intent is about things not normally eaten or burned? Examples: intending to eat the handful (which is burned) or to burn the shirayim (which are eaten). The Rabbis say such intent is ineffective – the offering remains fit. Rabbi Eliezer disagrees and disqualifies the offering (though it doesn’t create full piggul with karet).
Key Terms:
- דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין דַּרְכּוֹ לֶאֱכוֹל = Something not normally consumed
- דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין דַּרְכּוֹ לְהַקְטִיר = Something not normally burned
Segment 15
TYPE: משנה – המשך
Less than an olive-bulk
Hebrew/Aramaic:
לֶאֱכוֹל דָּבָר שֶׁדַּרְכּוֹ לֶאֱכוֹל, וּלְהַקְטִיר דָּבָר שֶׁדַּרְכּוֹ לְהַקְטִיר פָּחוֹת מִכְּזַיִת – כָּשֵׁר. לֶאֱכוֹל כַּחֲצִי זַיִת וּלְהַקְטִיר כַּחֲצִי זַיִת – כָּשֵׁר, שֶׁאֵין אֲכִילָה וְהַקְטָרָה מִצְטָרְפִין.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Mishna adds related rules about insufficient quantities. First, intent to consume or burn less than an olive-bulk doesn’t create piggul – the minimum measure is required. Second, even if consumption-intent and burning-intent each involve half an olive-bulk, they don’t combine. These are separate categories that can’t be added together to reach the required measure.
Key Terms:
- פָּחוֹת מִכְּזַיִת = Less than an olive-bulk
- כַּחֲצִי זַיִת = Half an olive-bulk
- אֵין אֲכִילָה וְהַקְטָרָה מִצְטָרְפִין = Consumption and burning do not combine
Segment 16
TYPE: גמרא
R’ Asi explains Rabbi Eliezer’s source
Hebrew/Aramaic:
גְּמָ׳ אָמַר רַבִּי אַסִּי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר? אָמַר קְרָא ״וְאִם הֵאָכֹל יֵאָכֵל מִבְּשַׂר זֶבַח שְׁלָמָיו״ – בִּשְׁתֵּי אֲכִילוֹת הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר, אֶחָד אֲכִילַת אָדָם וְאֶחָד אֲכִילַת מִזְבֵּחַ, לוֹמַר לָךְ: כְּשֵׁם שֶׁמְּחַשְּׁבִין בַּאֲכִילַת אָדָם, כָּךְ מְחַשְּׁבִין בַּאֲכִילַת מִזְבֵּחַ.
English Translation:
GEMARA: Rabbi Asi says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: What is the reason for the ruling of Rabbi Eliezer that the intention to consume, beyond its designated time, an item that is not usually consumed renders the meal offering unfit? The verse states with regard to consuming an offering after its designated time: “And if any of the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace offerings is at all consumed [he’akhol ye’akhel]” (Leviticus 7:18), repeating for emphasis the term for consumption. He derives from the repeated term that the verse is speaking of two types of consumption: One is the consumption of the offering by a person, e.g., by the priests or the owner of the offering, and the other one is the consumption of the sacrificial portions by their being burned on the altar. This serves to tell you that just as one’s improper intention with regard to the consumption of a person renders the offering unfit, so too, one’s improper intention with regard to the consumption of the altar renders the offering unfit.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Yochanan explains Rabbi Eliezer’s source. The verse about piggul uses “eating” language twice (“he’akhol ye’akhel”). Rabbi Eliezer derives from this doubling that “eating” includes both human consumption and altar “consumption” (burning). Just as intent about human consumption creates piggul, so too intent about altar consumption creates piggul – even for items not normally destined for that recipient.
Key Terms:
- אֲכִילַת אָדָם = Consumption by a person
- אֲכִילַת מִזְבֵּחַ = Consumption of the altar (burning)
Segment 17
TYPE: גמרא – המשך ביאור ר’ אליעזר
Continuation of Rabbi Eliezer’s explanation
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּכְשֵׁם שֶׁמְּחַשְּׁבִין מֵאֲכִילַת אָדָם לַאֲכִילַת אָדָם, וּמֵאֲכִילַת מִזְבֵּחַ לַאֲכִילַת מִזְבֵּחַ, כָּךְ מְחַשְּׁבִין מֵאֲכִילַת אָדָם לַמִּזְבֵּחַ, וּמֵאֲכִילַת מִזְבֵּחַ לָאָדָם.
English Translation:
And furthermore, this serves to tell you that just as one’s improper intention that a portion of the offering designated for consumption by a person will be consumed on the following day by a person renders the offering unfit, and one’s improper intention that a portion of the offering designated for consumption of the altar will be consumed on the following day by the altar renders the offering unfit, so too, one’s improper intention that a portion of the offering designated for consumption by a person will be consumed on the altar renders the offering unfit, and one’s improper intention that a portion of the offering designated for consumption of the altar will be consumed on the following day by a person renders the offering unfit.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Eliezer extends his derivation further. Not only do both types of consumption count, but cross-category intent also counts. Intent to burn (on altar) something meant for human consumption, or intent to eat (by humans) something meant for the altar – all create disqualification. The verse’s doubling creates full equivalence between human and altar consumption.
Segment 18
TYPE: גמרא – ביאור הסיבה
Explanation of the reasoning
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַאי טַעְמָא? מִדְּאַפְּקִינְהוּ רַחֲמָנָא לְהַקְטָרָה בִּלְשׁוֹן אֲכִילָה.
English Translation:
What is the reason for this derivation? It is derived from the fact that the Merciful One expresses the burning of the offering using the language of consumption.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara explains the underlying logic. The Torah deliberately calls altar burning “eating” (as in “the fire consumes”). This linguistic choice equates human consumption and altar consumption. Therefore, intent about either – even when crossing categories – is legally significant.
Segment 19
TYPE: גמרא – שיטת רבנן
The Rabbis’ interpretation
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְרַבָּנַן, הַאי דְּאַפְּקִינְהוּ רַחֲמָנָא בִּלְשׁוֹן אֲכִילָה,
English Translation:
And the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Eliezer, maintain the following: This fact that the Merciful One expresses the burning of the offering using the language of consumption
Amud Bet (17b)
Segment 1
TYPE: גמרא – המשך שיטת רבנן
Continuation: The Rabbis’ interpretation
Hebrew/Aramaic:
דְּלָא שְׁנָא כִּי מְחַשֵּׁב בִּלְשׁוֹן אֲכִילָה לְמִזְבֵּחַ, וְלָא שְׁנָא כִּי מְחַשֵּׁב בִּלְשׁוֹן הַקְטָרָה לַמִּזְבֵּחַ.
English Translation:
demonstrates that there is no difference if one expresses his intention using the language of: Consumption on the altar, and there is no difference if one expresses his intention using the language of: Burning on the altar. Therefore, if the priest removed the handful from the meal offering while expressing the intention that it should be burned on the altar on the following day, whether this intention was phrased as: Consumed on the altar, or: Burned on the altar, the offering is piggul.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Rabbis derive something different from the Torah’s use of “eating” language for burning. It teaches that the terminology used doesn’t matter – whether the priest says “may the altar consume it” or “may this be burned,” the legal effect is identical. This is about language equivalence, not about extending piggul to unusual items.
Segment 2
TYPE: גמרא – שיעור
The olive-bulk requirement
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִי נָמֵי, מָה אֲכִילָה בִּכְזַיִת – אַף הַקְטָרָה בִּכְזַיִת, וּלְעוֹלָם אֲכִילָה דְּאוֹרְחָא מַשְׁמַע.
English Translation:
Alternatively, the doubled expression serves to teach that just as one renders the offering piggul only when one’s intention involves the consumption of an olive-bulk, as this is the minimal measure for an act to be considered eating, so too, one renders the offering piggul only when one’s intention involves the burning of an olive-bulk. But actually, the expression for consumption found in the verse indicates consuming it in the usual manner, and therefore an offering is rendered unfit only if one’s improper intention involved consuming an item that is usually consumed, or burning an item that is usually burned.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Rabbis offer another interpretation. The doubled language teaches the minimum measure: just as human consumption requires an olive-bulk, so does altar “consumption.” And critically, “consumption” in the verse refers to the normal manner – eating what’s normally eaten, burning what’s normally burned. Unusual combinations don’t create piggul.
Segment 3
TYPE: גמרא – קושיא לר’ אליעזר
Challenge to Rabbi Eliezer from the verse’s wording
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, אִם כֵּן, לִכְתּוֹב רַחֲמָנָא ״אִם הֵאָכֹל הֵאָכֹל״, אִי נָמֵי ״אִם יֵאָכֵל יֵאָכֵל״, מַאי ״הֵאָכֹל יֵאָכֵל״? שָׁמְעַתְּ מִינַּהּ תַּרְתֵּי.
English Translation:
And what would Rabbi Eliezer respond? He would say that if that were so, that the verse intends to teach only that halakha, let the Merciful One write either: If he’akhol he’akhol, or: If ye’akhel ye’akhel, repeating the same form of the word twice. What is the reason that the verse states “he’akhol ye’akhel,” employing both repetition and variation? Learn from this formulation two halakhot.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara asks what Rabbi Eliezer does with the variation in verb forms. The verse doesn’t just repeat the same word – it uses two different forms (“he’akhol” and “ye’akhel”). If the Torah just wanted to teach about altar consumption, one form repeated would suffice. The variation teaches TWO things: the Rabbis’ point about language equivalence AND Rabbi Eliezer’s point about unusual items.
Segment 4
TYPE: גמרא – קושיא מר’ זירא
Rabbi Zeira’s challenge about karet
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי זֵירָא לְרַב אַסִּי: וְאִי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר מִשּׁוּם הָכִי הוּא, כָּרֵת נָמֵי לִיחַיַּיב? וְכִי תֵּימָא הָכִי נָמֵי, וְהָא אַתְּ הוּא דְּאָמְרַתְּ מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מוֹדֶה רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר שֶׁאֵין עָנוּשׁ כָּרֵת!
English Translation:
Rabbi Zeira said to Rav Asi: But if the reasoning of Rabbi Eliezer is due to that derivation, and he understands that the verse equates the improper intent to consume an item that is usually consumed with the improper intent to consume an item that is usually burned, then let one also be liable to receive karet for consuming an offering brought with intention to consume, after its designated time, the part of the offering that is burned, or for intention to burn, after its designated time, an item that is usually consumed. Why does Rabbi Eliezer state only that the offering is rendered unfit? And if you would say that indeed, Rabbi Eliezer does hold that one who consumes such an offering is liable to receive karet, that is difficult: But aren’t you the one who said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: Rabbi Eliezer concedes that doing so is not punishable by karet?
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Zeira raises a powerful challenge. If Rabbi Eliezer’s derivation fully equates unusual consumption with normal consumption, then karet should apply too! But Rav Asi himself reported that Rabbi Yochanan said Rabbi Eliezer agrees there’s no karet in these cases. How can both be true?
Key Terms:
- כָּרֵת = Spiritual excision (severe punishment for eating piggul)
Segment 5
TYPE: גמרא – תשובת רב אסי
Rav Asi’s response: Tannaitic dispute
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: תַּנָּאֵי הִיא אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, אִיכָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר: פְּסוּלָה דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא, וְאִיכָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר: פְּסוּלָה דְּרַבָּנַן.
English Translation:
Rav Asi said to him: It is a dispute between tanna’im as to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer. There is one who says that Rabbi Eliezer deems the offering to be unfit by Torah law and one is liable to receive karet. It was in accordance with this opinion that Rabbi Yoḥanan cited the proof from the verse. And there is one who says that Rabbi Eliezer deems the offering to be unfit by rabbinic law, and it was in accordance with this opinion that Rabbi Yoḥanan said that according to Rabbi Eliezer there is no punishment of karet for this transgression.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Asi resolves the contradiction: there’s a Tannaitic dispute about what Rabbi Eliezer himself meant! Some Tannaim understand Rabbi Eliezer’s disqualification as Torah-level (with full piggul consequences). Others understand it as rabbinic. Rabbi Yochanan’s two statements reflect these two interpretations of Rabbi Eliezer.
Segment 6
TYPE: גמרא – ברייתא ראיה
Baraita as evidence
Hebrew/Aramaic:
דְּתַנְיָא: הַשּׁוֹחֵט אֶת הַזֶּבַח לִשְׁתּוֹת מִדָּמוֹ לְמָחָר, לְהַקְטִיר מִבְּשָׂרוֹ לְמָחָר, לֶאֱכוֹל מֵאֵימוּרָיו לְמָחָר – כָּשֵׁר, וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר פּוֹסֵל. לְהַנִּיחַ מִדָּמוֹ לְמָחָר – רַבִּי יְהוּדָה פּוֹסֵל. אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: אַף בָּזוֹ רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר פּוֹסֵל וַחֲכָמִים מַכְשִׁירִין.
English Translation:
As it is taught in a baraita: In the case of one who slaughters the offering with the intention to drink some of its blood, which is designated to be presented on the altar, on the next day, or to burn some of its meat, which is meant to be eaten, on the next day, or to eat some of its sacrificial portions, which are designated to be burned on the altar, on the next day, the offering is fit, as his intention is either to eat an item that is usually sacrificed on the altar, or to burn on the altar an item that is usually eaten. But Rabbi Eliezer deems the offering unfit. If one slaughters the offering with the intention to leave some of its blood for the next day, but not to present it or consume it, Rabbi Yehuda deems the offering unfit. Rabbi Elazar said: Even in this case Rabbi Eliezer deems the offering unfit, and the Rabbis deem it fit.
קלאוד על הדף:
A baraita lists several unusual intents: drinking blood, burning meat, eating fats, and simply leaving blood overnight. The Rabbis say the offering is fit in all cases. Rabbi Eliezer disqualifies. Rabbi Yehuda specifically disqualifies for intent to leave blood. Rabbi Elazar clarifies that Rabbi Eliezer also disqualifies in that case.
Segment 7
TYPE: גמרא – ניתוח שיטת ר’ יהודה
Analysis of Rabbi Yehuda’s position
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, אַלִּיבָּא דְּמַאן? אִילֵימָא אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבָּנַן – הַשְׁתָּא, וּמָה הָתָם דְּקָא מְחַשֵּׁב בִּלְשׁוֹן אֲכִילָה מַכְשְׁרִי רַבָּנַן, הָכָא לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן?
English Translation:
The Gemara clarifies: In accordance with whose opinion is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda that the offering is unfit even if he intends only to leave the blood for the next day, but not present it or consume it? If we say it is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, now consider: And if there, where the priest expresses his intention using the language of consumption, the Rabbis nevertheless deem the offering fit, despite the fact that if he had used this expression with regard to the portion burned on the altar, the offering would be piggul, is it not all the more so the case that here, when he intends only to leave the blood until the next day, the offering should be fit?
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara analyzes Rabbi Yehuda’s position. He disqualifies even for intent to simply leave blood overnight (not consume or present it). This can’t follow the Rabbis – if they permit consumption-intent for unusual items, surely passive leaving-intent should also be permitted! Rabbi Yehuda must follow Rabbi Eliezer’s stricter approach.
Segment 8
TYPE: גמרא – ר’ אלעזר כר’ יהודה
Rabbi Elazar’s statement equals Rabbi Yehuda
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא, אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, וְאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: אַף בְּזוֹ רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר פּוֹסֵל וַחֲכָמִים מַכְשִׁירִין. רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר הַיְינוּ רַבִּי יְהוּדָה!
English Translation:
Rather, it must be that Rabbi Yehuda’s statement is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer. And yet the baraita continues: Rabbi Elazar said: Even in this case Rabbi Eliezer deems the offering unfit, and the Rabbis deem it fit. If Rabbi Yehuda’s statement is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, then the explanation of Rabbi Elazar of Rabbi Eliezer’s opinion is identical to that of Rabbi Yehuda, and there does not appear to be any disagreement between the two.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara notes a problem. If Rabbi Yehuda follows Rabbi Eliezer, and Rabbi Elazar also explains Rabbi Eliezer as disqualifying this case – then Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Yehuda are saying the same thing! What’s the difference between them?
Segment 9
TYPE: גמרא – ההבדל בכרת
The difference: karet liability
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא לָאו כָּרֵת אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ, דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה (דְּתַנָּא קַמָּא) סָבַר: לְהַנִּיחַ – פְּסוּלָא בְּעָלְמָא, בְּהָנָךְ כָּרֵת נָמֵי מִיחַיַּיב, וַאֲתָא רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר לְמֵימַר: אִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי פָּסוּל וְאֵין בּוֹ כָּרֵת!
English Translation:
Rather, is it not so that the difference between Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Yehuda is with regard to liability for karet? The difference lies in that Rabbi Yehuda holds that if one’s intention is to leave the blood for the next day, then according to Rabbi Eliezer the offering is only rendered unfit, whereas in those cases listed in the mishna, such as where one’s intention is to eat the sacrificial portions on the next day, he would be liable to receive karet as well. And Rabbi Elazar comes to say that according to Rabbi Eliezer, both in this case and in that case, the offering is unfit but there is no liability to receive karet for it.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara proposes: the difference is about karet. Rabbi Yehuda understands Rabbi Eliezer as distinguishing between passive intent (leaving = only pasul) and active intent (eating altar-portions = full piggul with karet). Rabbi Elazar says Rabbi Eliezer treats both the same – disqualified without karet.
Segment 10
TYPE: גמרא – דחייה
Alternative: three disputes without karet
Hebrew/Aramaic:
לָא, דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא כָּרֵת לֵיכָּא, וְהָכָא שָׁלֹשׁ מַחְלוֹקֶת בְּדָבָר: תַּנָּא קַמָּא סָבַר בְּהָנָךְ פְּלִיגִי, לְהַנִּיחַ – דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל כָּשֵׁר,
English Translation:
The Gemara rejects this suggestion: No, it may be that everyone agrees that according to Rabbi Eliezer in a case where one’s intention is to eat, after its designated time, an item that is usually burned, or to burn an item that is usually eaten, there is no liability to receive karet. And here there are three disputes with regard to the matter. The first tanna holds that the Rabbis and Rabbi Eliezer disagree only in those cases, with regard to whether the offering is rendered unfit due to the intention to eat an item that is usually burned or to burn an item that is usually eaten. But with regard to leaving of its blood until the next day, everyone agrees that the offering is fit.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara offers an alternative resolution: everyone agrees there’s no karet. The three opinions differ on the scope of disqualification. The first Tanna: Rabbi Eliezer only disqualifies for active consumption/burning intent, not for passive leaving-intent.
Segment 11
TYPE: גמרא – שלוש מחלוקות
The three positions explained
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַבִּי יְהוּדָה סָבַר: לְהַנִּיחַ נָמֵי פְּלִיגִי. רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר סָבַר: לְהַנִּיחַ – דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל פָּסוּל.
English Translation:
Rabbi Yehuda holds: They also dispute regarding intent to leave it. Rabbi Elazar holds: Regarding intent to leave it, everyone agrees that it is disqualified.
קלאוד על הדף:
The three-way dispute about the scope of Rabbi Eliezer vs. Rabbis disagreement: (1) First Tanna: they dispute only about active consumption/burning intent, not leaving; (2) Rabbi Yehuda: they also dispute about leaving-intent; (3) Rabbi Elazar: everyone agrees leaving-intent disqualifies. None involve karet.