Menachos - Daf 13
- Machlokes about kemitzah with intent to burn levonah למחר (אין מתיר מפגל את המתיר)
The second Perek begins: הקומץ את המנחה – one who performs kemitzah on a minchah with the intent to eat its שירים or burn its kometz the next day, Rebbe Yose agrees it is fully פיגול. However, if he performs kemitzah with the intent to burn its levonah למחר, Rebbe Yose says it is פסול, but has no כרת, and the Chochomim say it is fully פיגול. The Gemara explains that the Mishnah’s first case clarifies that Rebbe Yose’s reasoning is not that he holds אין מפגלין בחצי מתיר – one cannot effect piggul with half of the permitter (here, the לבונה alone). Rather, his reason is because אין מתיר מפגל את המתיר – one permitter cannot effect piggul on another permitter. Thus, an avodah with one מתיר (the kometz) with intent about another מתיר (the לבונה) cannot effect פיגול. Although the Rabbonon agree that one מתיר generally cannot effect פיגול in another מתיר, they disagree here, because היכא דאיקבעו בחד מנא – where [the two מתירין] were set together in one כלי (which the קומץ and לבונה are), כחד דמי – they are like one item, so intent about one מתיר during avodah with the other effect פיגול.
- ליקוט לבונה בזר פסול
Rebbe Yannai said: ליקוט לבונה בזר פסול – if the gathering of the levonah from the top of the flour is done by a non-Kohen, [the minchah] is invalid. Rebbe Yirmiyah explains the reason: משום הולכה נגעו בה – they connected this to the law of “bringing” (one of the four essential עבודות of a minchah), since gathering up the לבונה brings it closer to the מזבח. Although the זר did not walk with the לבונה toward the מזבח, Rebbe Yannai holds הולכה שלא ברגל שמה הולכה – bringing not by foot is called “bringing,” and הולכה בזר פסולה – bringing performed by a non-Kohen is invalid.
- Machlokes if פיגול intent about one חלה makes the other פיגול
The next Mishnah states that if one shechted the two כבשים – lambs (of Shavuos) with the intent to eat one of the two חלות the next day, or one burned the two בזיכין of the לחם הפנים with the intent to eat אחד מן הסדרים – one of the two arrangements of loaves the next day, Rebbe Yose says: אותו החלה ואותו הסדר שחישב עליו – that loaf or that arrangement about which he intended is פיגול and incurs כרת, but the other is merely פסול, and does not incur כרת. The Chochomim say both are full פיגול. Rav Huna says that Rebbe Yose’s opinion applies universally, and he would hold that if one had פיגול intent about a korban’s right thigh, לא נתפגל הירך של שמאל – the left thigh does not become piggul. This can be explained logically: לא עדיפא מחשבה ממעשה הטומאה – [piggul] intent is no better than tumah; just as one detached limb which became tamei is not metamei the other limbs of the korban, the same applies to פיגול. Alternatively, this can be derived from a passuk: והנפש האוכלת ממנו עונה תשא – and the person who eats of it shall bear his sin, implying that כרת applies to one who eats "ממנו" – from “it” (the particular limb about which he intended), ולא מחבירו – and not for eating from its fellow (another limb). Rav Huna’s explanation for Rebbe Yose is rejected on the next Daf, and another explanation is given.
