Mishna Yomit Sunday March 16 PURIM Menachot MENAHOT: CHAPTER 1: MISHNAH 3 If he put in too much oil, or he put in too little oil, or he put in too little frankincense - it is invalid. If he took the Handful from the meal-offering to eat its remnants outside, or an olives bulk of its remnants outside, or to burn its Handful outside, or an olives bulk outside, or to burn its frankincense outside - it is invalid, but no karet is incurred. To eat its remnants on the next day, or an olives bulk on the next day, or to burn its Handful on the next day, or an olives bulk of its Handful on the next day, or burn its frankincense on the next day - it is pigul, and karet is incurred. This is the general principle: If one takes the Handful, or puts it into a vessel, or conveys it, or burns it to eat that which it is usual to eat, or to burn that which it is usual to burn, outside its place, it is invalid but no karet is incurred; after its time, it is pigul, and karet is incurred, provided he offered the matir according to its rite. How is the matir offered according to its rite? If he took the Handful in silence and put it in a vessel and conveyed it and burnt it after its time, or took the Handful after its time and put it into a vessel and conveyed it and burnt it in silence, or he took the Handful and put it into a vessel and conveyed it and burnt it after its time such is a case where he offered the matir according to its prescribed rite. Kehati If he put in too much oil - whose prescribed measure is one log per isaron of fine flour, or he put in too little oil - less than one log per one isaron of fine flour or he put in too little frankincense - less than the minimum of two drops, it - the meal-offering - is invalid. However, only if more than two handfuls of frankincense are put in is it considered excessive. If he took the Handful from the meal-offering intending to eat its remnants outside the Temple Court, or intending to eat an olives bulk of its remnants outside the Temple court, or intending to burn its Handful outside or burn an olives bulk outside the Temple Court, or intending to burn its frankincense outside the Temple Court, it - the meal-offering - is invalid, but no karet is incurred for eating thereof. But if intending to eat its remnants on the next day, i.e., after the time limit of one day and a night or intending to eat an olives bulk on the next day, or intending to burn its Handful on the next day, or an olives bulk of its Handful on the next day, or to burn its frankincense on the next day, after its prescribed time, it - the meal offering - is pigul, and karet is incurred thereby if eaten even within the prescribed time. This is the general principle regarding outside its prescribed place and after its prescribed time: If one takes the Handful from the meal-offering, or puts it into a service vessel, or conveys it to the altar, or burns it, on the altar intending to eat that which it is usual to eat, i.e., the remnants of the meal-offering, or intending to burn that - the Handful - which it is usual to burn, outside its place - the Temple Court, it is invalid, the meal-offering must not be eaten, but if one eats it no karet is incurred thereby; But if any meal-offering rite is performed with the intention to eat the remnants or burn the Handful after its time - on the next day, by which the time limit for eating and burning expires, it - the meal-offering - is pigul, and karet is incurred - thereby for eating it, provided he offered the matir - the kometz that renders the meal-offering permissible - according to its rite as if it were valid, i.e., without disability other than the pigul factor, since an additional negative agent renders the meal-offering insusceptible to pigul, as the mishnah proceeds to explain. How is the matir offered according to its rite - when the meal-offering is subject to pigul? If he took the Handful in silence - without an invalidating intention - and put it in a vessel and conveyed it and burnt it - performing all the three rites while intending to eat the remnants after its time or took the Handful while intending to eat or burn it after its time and put it into a vessel and conveyed it and burnt it in silence - without any invalidating intention - performing all the four rites while intending to eat the remnants after its time - such is a case where he offered the matir according to its prescribed rite, since after its time was the sole invalidating intention during the performance of the meal-offering rites, the meal-offering is rendered pigul. MENAHOT: CHAPTER 1: MISHNAH 4 How is the matir offered not according to its rite? If he took the Handful outside its place, and put it in a vessel and conveyed it and burnt it after its time; or he took the Handful after its time, and put it in a vessel and conveyed it and burnt it outside its place; or he took the Handful, and put it in a vessel and conveyed it and burnt it outside its place. A sinners meal-offering and a meal-offering of jealousy whose Handful he took not under their own name, and put it in a vessel, and conveyed it and burnt it after their time, or whose Handful he took after their time, and put it in a vessel and conveyed it and burnt it not under their name; or he took the Handful and put it in a vessel and conveyed it and burnt it not under their own name - such is a case where the matir was offered not according to its rite. To eat an olives bulk outside and an olives bulk on the next day, an olives bulk on the next day, and olives bulk outside, half an olives bulk outside and half an olives bulk on the next day, half an olives bulk on the next day and half an olives bulk outside - it is invalid, but no karet is incurred. R. Yehudah said, This is the general principle: If the intention concerning the time preceded the intention concerning the place, it is pigul and one is liable to karet on account of it; but if the intention concerning the place preceded the intention concerning the time, it is invalid but no karet is incurred. But the Sages say, this and that is invalid but no karet is incurred. To eat half an olives bulk and to burn half an olives bulk, it is valid, since eating and burning do not combine. Kehati How is the matir offered not according to its rite but the meal-offering does thus not become pigul? If he took the Handful with the intention of eating the remainder outside its place, i.e., the Temple courtyard, and put it in a vessel and conveyed it and burnt it - performing one of these three rites with the intention of eating the remainder after its time; or he took the Handful with an intention of after its time and put it in a vessel and conveyed it and burnt it with an intention of outside its place or he took the Handful, and put it in a vessel and conveyed it and burnt it - having performed one of these three rites with an intention of outside its place and the other rites with an intention of after its time. A sinners meal-offering and a meal-offering of jealousy - which are invalidated if any one of the meal-offering rites is performed under the wrong name whose Handful he took not under their own name, and put in a vessel and conveyed it and burnt it after their time - i.e., apart from taking the Handful under another name, he performed the other rites with an intention of after its time; or whose Handful he took with an-intention of after their time, and put in a vessel and conveyed it and burnt it not under their name - i.e., not that of a sinners meal-offering or that of jealousy, but that of a freewill meal-offering; or he took the Handful and put it in a vessel and conveyed it and burnt it not under their own name - he performed any one of these rites under another name and the other rites he performed with an intention of after its time - such is a case where the matir was offered not according to its rite - since the meal-offering is disqualified by an additional factor beside the intention of after its time, it is not susceptible to pigul, i.e., it is unfit but not punishable by karet. If one performed any one of the four meal-offering rites while intending, to eat an olives bulk outside the Temple Court and an olives bulk on the next day - i.e., after its prescribed time, or intends to eat an olives bulk on the next day and an olives bulk outside - i.e., the time-intention preceded that concerning the place; or he intends to eat half an olives bulk outside and half an olives bulk on the next day, or half an olives bulk on the next day and half an olives bulk outside - then the meal-offering is not rendered pigul - since it is disqualified by the additional factor of the outside-its-place intention, and therefore it - the meal-offering - is invalid, but no karet is incurred by the person who eats of it. R. Yehudah, who disagrees with the First Tanna said, This is the general principle: If the intention concerning the unlawful time preceded the intention concerning the unlawful place, it is pigul and one is liable to karet on account of it - in this case the wrong place intention does not release the meal-offering from the pigul liability; but if the intention concerning the place preceded the intention concerning the time, then the pigul intention does not affect the meal-offering, and therefore it is invalid but no karet is incurred - since R. Yehudah considers the first thought decisive. But the Sages say, this and that - whether the intention concerning the time or concerning the place preceded, the pigul intention does not affect the meal-offering, and it is invalid but no karet is incurred. However, if he performed any one of the rites with intention to eat half an olives bulk and to burn half an olives bulk - both of them after time or out of place, it - the meal-offering - is valid, since eating and burning do not combine to make up the minimum measure of an olives bulk to render the meal-offering unfit on account of an invalidating intention.
Posted on: Sun, 16 Mar 2014 07:06:37 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015