Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 16

1We have already explained1 that when a person has a disqualifying intent with regard to the place a sacrifice will be offered or eaten while performing one of the four specified services,2 the sacrifice is disqualified, but it is not piggul. If he had a disqualifying intent with regard to the time the sacrifice would be offered or eaten, it is piggul.אכְּבָר בֵּאַרְנוּ שֶׁהַמְּחַשֵּׁב בְּאַחַת מֵאַרְבַּע הָעֲבוֹדוֹת מַחֲשֶׁבֶת הַמָּקוֹם - הַקָּרְבָּן פָּסוּל, וְאֵינוֹ פִּגּוּל. וְאִם חִשֵּׁב מַחֲשֶׁבֶת הַזְמַן, הַקָּרְבָּן פִּגּוּל.

When does the above apply? When no other intent is combined together with the concerning time. If, however, an intent concerning the place—or with regard to the Paschal sacrifice or a sin-offering, an intent concerning the type of sacrifice3 —was combined with the intent concerning time, the sacrifice is disqualified, but it is not piggul.4בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים? בְּשֶׁלֹּא עֵרַב עִם מַחֲשֶׁבֶת הַזְמַן, מַחֲשָׁבָה אַחֶרֶת; אֲבָל אִם עֵרַב מַחֲשֶׁבֶת הַמָּקוֹם, אוֹ מַחֲשֶׁבֶת שִׁנּוּי הַשֵּׁם בַּפֶּסַח וּבַחַטָּאת, עִם מַחֲשֶׁבֶת הַזְמַן - הַקָּרְבָּן פָּסוּל, וְאֵינוֹ פִּגּוּל.

What is implied? If one slaughtered, received the blood, brought it to the altar, and cast on the altar with a disqualifying intent concerning time or even if he had a disqualifying intent concerning time while perfoming one of these services and his intent was proper or he had no intent while performing the other services, the sacrifice was piggul.כֵּיצַד? שָׁחַט וְקִבֵּל וְהוֹלִיךְ וְזָרַק, וּמַחֲשַׁבְתּוֹ בְּאַרְבַּע עֲבוֹדוֹת אֵלּוּ מַחֲשֶׁבֶת הַזְמַן, אוֹ שֶׁהָיְתָה מַחֲשַׁבְתּוֹ בְּאַחַת מֵאַרְבַּעְתָּן מַחֲשֶׁבֶת הַזְמַן, וּבִשְׁאָר הָעֲבוֹדוֹת הָיְתָה מַחֲשַׁבְתּוֹ נְכוֹנָה, אוֹ לֹא הָיְתָה שָׁם מַחֲשָׁבָה כְּלָל בִּשְׁאָר הָעֲבוֹדוֹת - הֲרֵי זֶה פִּגּוּל.

If, however, If one slaughtered with a disqualifying intent concerning time, but received the blood, brought it to the altar, and cast on the altar with a disqualifying intent concerning place or slaughtered with a disqualifying intent concerning place, but received the blood, brought it to the altar, and cast on the altar with a disqualifying intent concerning time, the sacrifice is not piggul, merely disqualified.5אֲבָל אִם שָׁחַט בְּמַחֲשֶׁבֶת הַזְמַן, וְקִבֵּל אוֹ הוֹלִיךְ אוֹ זָרַק בְּמַחֲשֶׁבֶת הַמָּקוֹם, אוֹ שֶׁשָּׁחַט בְּמַחֲשֶׁבֶת הַמָּקוֹם, וְקִבֵּל אוֹ הוֹלִיךְ אוֹ זָרַק בְּמַחֲשֶׁבֶת הַזְמַן - אֵין זֶה פִּגּוּל, אֶלָא פָּסוּל בִּלְבַד.

Similarly, if a Paschal sacrifice or sin-offering were slaughtered for a different purpose, but one received the blood, brought it to the altar, and cast on the altar with a disqualifying intent concerning time, or one slaughtered with a disqualifying intent concerning time, but received the blood, brought it to the altar, and cast on the altar for a different purpose, the sacrifice is not piggul, merely disqualified.וְכֵן הַפֶּסַח וְהַחַטָּאת שֶׁשְּׁחָטָן בְּמַחֲשֶׁבֶת שִׁנּוּי הַשֵּׁם, וְקִבֵּל וְהוֹלִיךְ וְזָרַק בְּמַחֲשֶׁבֶת הַזְמַן, אוֹ שֶׁשָּׁחַט בְּמַחֲשֶׁבֶת הַזְמַן, וְקִבֵּל אוֹ הוֹלִיךְ אוֹ זָרַק בְּמַחֲשֶׁבֶת שִׁנּוּי הַשֵּׁם - אֵין זֶה פִּגּוּל, אֶלָא פָּסוּל.

The same principles apply with regard to offerings of fowl and meal-offerings.וְהוּא הַדִּין בָּעוֹפוֹת וּבַמְּנָחוֹת.

The term piggul applies only when a sacrifice is disqualified because of an intent concerning time, without a disqualifying intent concerning place is combined with it, neither at the outset or at the end, nor is an intent concerning the type of sacrifice combined with it with regard to those sacrifices that are disqualified when offered for a different purpose.אֵין שָׁם פִּגּוּל, אֶלָא קָרְבָּן שֶׁנִּפְסַל בְּמַחֲשֶׁבֶת הַזְמַן וְלֹא עֵרֵַב עִמָּהּ מַחֲשֶׁבֶת מָקוֹם לֹא בַּתְּחִלָּה וְלֹא בַּסּוֹף, וְלֹא עֵרֵב עִמָּהּ מַחֲשֶׁבֶת שִׁנּוּי הַשֵּׁם בַּקָּרְבָּנוֹת שֶׁנִּפְסָלִין בְּמַחֲשֶׁבֶת שִׁנּוּי הַשֵּׁם.

2When, while performing one or all of the four services, a person has the intent to eat6 an olive-sized portion of a substance that is fit to be eaten7 outside the limits of where it may be eaten and an olive-sized portion on the following day; an olive-sized portion on the following day and an olive-sized portion outside the limits of where it may be eaten,8 half an olive-sized portion outside the limits of where it may be eaten and half an olive-sized portion on the following day, or half an olive-sized portion on the following day and half an olive-sized portion outside the limits of where it may be eaten,9 the sacrifice is disqualified, but not piggul.בהַמְּחַשֵּׁב בְּאַחַת מֵאַרְבַּע הָעֲבוֹדוֹת, אוֹ בְּכֻלָּם, לֶאֱכֹל כְּזַּיִת מִדָּבָר הָרָאוּי לַאֲכִילָה בַּחוּץ וְכַזַּיִת לְמָחָר, אוֹ כְּזַּיִת לְמָחָר וְכַזַּיִת בַּחוּץ, אוֹ כַּחֲצִי זַיִת בַּחוּץ וְכַחֲצִי זַיִת לְמָחָר, אוֹ כַּחֲצִי זַיִת לְמָחָר וְכַחֲצִי זַיִת בַּחוּץ - הֲרֵי הַקָּרְבָּן פָּסוּל, וְאֵינוֹ פִּגּוּל.

Similarly, if one combined another disqualifying intent regarding offering a sacrifice with one regarding time, the sacrifice is disqualified, but not piggul.וְכֵן אִם עֵרֵב הַמַּחֲשָׁבוֹת בְּהַקְטָרָה - הֲרֵי זֶה פָּסוּל, וְאֵינוֹ פִּגּוּל.

3If one had the intent to eat or to offer half an olive-sized portion with a disqualifying intent concerning place and to eat or to offer an olive-sized portion with a disqualifying intent concerning time, the sacrifice is piggul.גחִשֵּׁב לֶאֱכֹל אוֹ לְהַקְטִיר כַּחֲצִי זַיִת בְּמַחֲשֶׁבֶת הַמָּקוֹם, וְלֶאֱכֹל אוֹ לְהַקְטִיר כְּזַּיִת בְּמַחֲשֶׁבֶת הַזְמַן - הֲרֵי זֶה פִּגּוּל.

This applies whether the disqualifying intent concerning the olive-sized portion was first or last. The rationale is that half an olive-sized portion is not significant in relation to an olive-sized portion.10בֵּין שֶׁהִקְדִּים מַחֲשֶׁבֶת כְּזַּיִת בֵּין שֶׁאִחֵר אוֹתָהּ; שֶׁאֵין חֲצִי זַיִת חָשׁוּב אֵצֶל כְּזַּיִת.

4If he had a disqualifying intent concerning time with regard to half an olive-sized portion and a disqualifying intent concerning place with regard to another half an olive-sized portion, and then a disqualifying intent concerning time with regard to another half an olive-sized portion, the sacrifice is piggul.11דחִשֵּׁב עַל חֲצִי זַיִת בְּמַחֲשֶׁבֶת הַזְמַן וְעַל חֲצִי זַיִת בְּמַחֲשֶׁבֶת הַמָּקוֹם, וְחָזַר וְחָשַּׁב עַל חֲצִי זַיִת אַחֵר בְּמַחֲשֶׁבֶת הַזְמַן - הֲרֵי זֶה פִּגּוּל.

Similarly, if one had a disqualifying intent concerning time with regard to half an olive-sized portion and then a disqualifying intent with regard to an olive-sized portion: with regard to half, a disqualifying intent concerning time, and with regard to the other half, a disqualifying intent concerning place, the sacrifice is piggul.12וְכֵן אִם חָשַּׁב עַל חֲצִי זַיִת בְּמַחֲשֶׁבֶת הַזְמַן, וְחָזַר וְחָשַּׁב עַל כְּזַּיִת חֶצְיוֹ בְּמַחֲשֶׁבֶת הַזְמַן וְחֶצְיוֹ בְּמַחֲשֶׁבֶת הַמָּקוֹם - הֲרֵי זֶה פִּגּוּל.

5If one had an intent to present blood that should be presented on the lower portion of the altar on the upper portion of the altar or he had an intent to present blood that should be presented on the upper portion of the altar on the lower portion of the altar or the like, these intents that do not disqualify a sacrifice, as explained.13 If one combined a disqualifying intent concerning time, the sacrifice is piggul.14החָשַּׁב עַל הַדָּמִים הַנִּתָּנִין לְמַטָּה לִתֵּן אוֹתָם לְמַעְלָה, אוֹ עַל הַנִּתָּנִין לְמַעְלָה לִתֵּן אוֹתָם לְמַטָּה, וְכַיּוֹצֵא בְּמַחֲשָׁבוֹת אֵלּוּ שֶׁאֵינָן פּוֹסְלִין כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ, וְעֵרֵב עִמָּהֶן מַחֲשֶׁבֶת הַזְמַן - הֲרֵי זֶה פִּגּוּל.

If he combined a disqualifying intent concerning place alone,15 the sacrifice is unacceptable, but it is not piggul.וְאִם חָשַּׁב עִמָּהֶן מַחֲשֶׁבֶת הַמָּקוֹם לְבַדָּהּ - הֲרֵי זֶה פָּסוּל, וְאֵינוֹ פִּגּוּל.

6If one had an intent to present blood that should be presented on the upper portion of the altar on the lower portion on the following day, an intent to present blood that should be presented on the upper portion of the altar on the lower portion on the following day, he had an intent to present blood that should be presented in the Sanctuary on the outer altar on the following day, or he had an intent to present blood that should be presented on the outer altar in the Sanctuary on the following day, the sacrifice is not piggul. Even though he had an intent concerning the time, since he changed the place where the blood was presented in his mind, the sacrifice is disqualified, but is not piggul.16וחָשַּׁב עַל הַדָּם הַנִּתָּן לְמַעְלָה לִתֵּן אוֹתוֹ לְמָחָר לְמַטָּה, אוֹ עַל הַדָּם הַנִּתָּן לְמַטָּה לִתֵּן אוֹתוֹ לְמָחָר לְמַעְלָה, אוֹ שֶׁחָשַּׁב עַל הַדָּם הַנִּתָּן בִּפְנִים בַּהֵיכָל לִתֵּן אוֹתוֹ לְמָחָר בְּמִזְבֵּחַ הַחִיצוֹן, אוֹ שֶׁחָשַּׁב עַל הַדָּם הַנִּתָּן בְּמִזְבֵּחַ הַחִיצוֹן לִתֵּן אוֹתוֹ לְמָחָר בִּפְנִים - אֵינוֹ פִּגּוּל, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁחָשַּׁב מַחֲשֶׁבֶת הַזְמַן; הוֹאִיל וְשִׁנָּה מָקוֹם נְתִינַת הַדָּם בְּמַחֲשַׁבְתּוֹ - הֲרֵי זֶה פָּסוּל, וְאֵינוֹ פִּגּוּל.

Since we have explained in these halachot that when blood is presented in a place other than the desired place, it is considered as if it was presented in the desired place, why is the sacrifice not considered as piggul because of this intent to present the blood outside of its desired place on the following day? The rationale is that even though the sacrifice is acceptable, since the blood which was not presented in its proper place, it does not cause the meat to be permitted to be eaten, as we explained.17וּמֵאַחַר שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ בַּהֲלָכוֹת אֵלּוּ שֶׁהַדָּם שֶׁנִּתַּן שֶׁלֹּא בִּמְקוֹמוֹ כְּאִלּוּ נִתַּן בִּמְקוֹמוֹ, לָמָּה לֹא יִהְיֶה זֶה פִּגּוּל בְּמַחֲשָׁבָה זוֹ שֶׁחָשַּׁב לִתֵּן הַדָּם שֶׁלֹּא בִּמְקוֹמוֹ לְמָחָר? מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהַדָּם הַנִּתָּן שֶׁלֹּא בִּמְקוֹמוֹ, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהַזֶּבַח כָּשֵׁר, אֵינוֹ מַתִּיר הַבָּשָׂר בַּאֲכִילָה, כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ.

There is a general principle: In any situation where blood is cast upon the altar, but it does cause the meat to be permitted to be eaten, if one had the intent to present it at a time after the prescribed time, it is not piggul.וְכָל זְרִיקָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ מַתֶּרֶת הַבָּשָׂר בַּאֲכִילָה, אִם חָשַּׁב לִתֵּן אוֹתָהּ חוּץ לִזְמַנּוֹ - לֹא פִגַּל.

Therefore, in the circumstances mentioned above, if one had a disqualifying intent concerning time with regard to this sacrifice, it is unacceptable, but it is not piggul.לְפִיכָךְ אִם חָזַר וְחָשַּׁב בְּזֶבַח זֶה מַחֲשֶׁבֶת הַזְמַן - הֲרֵי זֶה פָּסוּל, וְאֵינוֹ פִּגּוּל.

7If a person had a disqualifying intent concerning time at the time he took the handful of flour from a meal-offering, but did not have such an intent at the time he collected the frankincense or he had a disqualifying intent concerning time at the time he collected the frankincense, but did not have such an intent at the time he took the handful of flour, the meal-offering is disqualified, but is not piggul.18זחָשַּׁב מַחֲשֶׁבֶת זְמַן בִּשְׁעַת קְמִיצָה אֲבָל לֹא בִּשְׁעַת לִקּוּט הַלְּבוֹנָה, אוֹ שֶׁחָשַּׁב מַחֲשֶׁבֶת הַזְמַן בִּשְׁעַת לִקּוּט הַלְּבוֹנָה אֲבָל לֹא בִּשְׁעַת קְמִיצָה - הֲרֵי זוֹ פְּסוּלָה, וְאֵינָהּ פִּגּוּל.

An offering becomes piggul only when one has a disqualifying intent with regard to all the substances which cause it to be permitted to be eaten, i.e., the handful of meal and the frankincense, at the time the handful is taken and the frankincense is collected, or when they are both placed into a sacred utensil, brought to the altar, or cast upon its pyre.עַד שֶׁיַּחְשֹּׁב מַחֲשֶׁבֶת הַזְמַן בְּכָל הַמַּתִּיר, שֶׁהוּא הַקֹּמֶץ עִם הַלְּבוֹנָה, בִּשְׁעַת קְמִיצַת הַקֹּמֶץ וְלִקּוּט הַלְּבוֹנָה, אוֹ בִּשְׁעַת נְתִינַת שְׁנֵיהֶן בַּכְּלִי, אוֹ בִּשְׁעַת הוֹלָכָתָן, אוֹ בִּשְׁעַת זְרִיקָתָן.

8If at the time he cast the handful of meal on the altar’s pyre, he had the intent to offer the frankincense on the following day, it is not piggul, because an intent to offer something on the altar’s pyres while offering something else on the pyre does not cause the offering to be piggul.19חחָשַּׁב בִּשְׁעַת הַקְטָרַת הַקֹּמֶץ שֶׁיַּקְטִיר הַלְּבוֹנָה לְמָחָר - אֵינָהּ פִּגּוּל, שֶׁאֵין הַקְטָרָה מְפַגֶּלֶת הַקְטָרָה.

Similarly, if one offered only the frankincense or only the handful of meal and had the intent to eat the remainder on the following day, the meal-offering is disqualified, but is not piggul. The rationale is that a disqualifying intent involving only half the substances which cause an offering to be permitted to be eaten, does not cause it to be considered as piggul.וְכֵן אִם הִקְטִיר הַלְּבוֹנָה לְבַדָּהּ אוֹ הַקֹּמֶץ לְבַדּוֹ, וְהוּא מְחַשֵּׁב לֶאֱכֹל שְׁיָרִים לְמָחָר - הֲרֵי זוֹ פְּסוּלָה וְאֵינָהּ פִּגּוּל, שֶׁאֵין מְפַגְּלִין בַּחֲצִי מַתִּיר.

If, by contrast, one offered only the handful of meal and had the intent to offer the frankincense on the following day and afterwards offered the frankincense and had the intent to partake of the remainder of the offering on the following day, the offering is piggul, for the disqualifying intent concerning time has spread throughout the entire meal-offering.20אֲבָל אִם הִקְטִיר אֶת הַקֹּמֶץ לְבַדּוֹ וְחָשַּׁב שֶׁיַּקְטִיר לְבוֹנָה לְמָחָר, וְאַחַר כָּךְ הִקְטִיר הַלְּבוֹנָה וְחָשַּׁב שֶׁיֹּאכַל הַשְּׁיָרִים לְמָחָר - הֲרֵי זֶה פִּגּוּל, שֶׁהֲרֵי פָּשְׁטָה מַחֲשֶׁבֶת זְמַן בְּכָל הַמִּנְחָה.

9If one offered a portion of the handful of meal the size of a sesame seed together with the frankincense with the intent that he eat a sesame seed-sized portion of the remainder of the offering on the following day, even if he continues offering the entire handful of meal with the frankincense with the same disqualifying intent concerning time, the meal-offering is disqualified, but is not piggul.טהִקְטִיר כְּדֵי שֻׁמְשֻׁם מִן הַקֹּמֶץ עִם הַלְּבוֹנָה, וְהוּא מְחַשֵּׁב שֶׁיֹּאכַל כְּדֵי שֻׁמְשֻׁם מִן הַשְּׁיָרִים לְמָחָר, עַד שֶׁהִשְׁלִים כָּל הַקֹּמֶץ עִם הַלְּבוֹנָה בְּמַחֲשֶׁבֶת הַזְמַן - הֲרֵי זוֹ פְּסוּלָה, וְאֵינָהּ פִּגּוּל.

The rationale is that even though eating little by little is an ordinary manner of eating,21 this is not the ordinary manner in which entities are offered on the altar. Instead, it is like a meal-offering whose handful was not offered on the altar’s pyre.22שֶׁאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁדֶּרֶךְ אֲכִילָה בְּכָּךְ מְעַט מְעַט, אֵין דֶּרֶךְ הַקְטָרָה בְּכָּךְ, אֶלָא הֲרֵי זוֹ כְּמִנְחָה שֶׁלֹּא הֻקְטַר קֻמְצָהּ.

10When there was frankincense placed on the meal-offering of a sinner or that of a sotah23 and one had a disqualifying intent involving time before the frankincense was removed, the offerings are disqualified, but are not piggul.24ימִנְחַת חוֹטֵא אוֹ מִנְחַת קְנָאוֹת שֶׁהָיָה עָלֶיהָ לְבוֹנָה, וְחָשַּׁב בָּהּ מַחֲשֶׁבֶת הַזְמַן קֹדֶם שֶׁיְּלַקֵּט הַלְּבוֹנָה - הֲרֵי זוֹ פְּסוּלָה, וְאֵינָהּ פִּגּוּל.

If after he collected the frankincense he had a disqualifying intent concerning time with regard to the offering, it is piggul.25וְאִם אַחַר שֶׁלִּקֵּט הַלְּבוֹנָה חָשַּׁב עָלֶיהָ מַחֲשֶׁבֶת הַזְמַן - הֲרֵי זֶה פִּגּוּל.

11If the remaining portion of a meal-offering was diminished between the time the handful was taken and it was offered on the altar and then the handful was offered with a disqualifying intent concerning time, there is a doubt whether it was established as fit to become piggul26 and thus it is piggul or it was not established27 and it is not piggul.יאשְׁיָרִים שֶׁחָסְרוּ בֵּין קְמִיצָה לְהַקְטָרָה, וְהִקְטִיר הַקֹּמֶץ בְּמַחֲשֶׁבֶת הַזְמַן - הֲרֵי זֶה סָפֵק אִם נִקְבְּעוּ לְפִגּוּל וַהֲרֵי הֵן פִּגּוּל, אוֹ לֹא נִקְבְּעוּ וְאֵינָהּ פִּגּוּל.

« Previous

Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 15

Pesulei Hamukdashim - Chapter 17

Footnotes

Chapter 13, Halachah 1.

Slaughter, receiving the blood, bringing it to the altar, and casting it on the altar, as stated in Chapter 13, Halachah 4, and in the following halachah.

Implied is that with regard to other sacrifices which are not disqualified when slaughtered for another purpose, if there was a disqualifying intent concerning time, the fact that they were slaughtered for a different purpose does not prevent them from being considered as piggul.

As stated in Chapter 18, Halachot 3 and 6, when a sacrifice is merely disqualified, a person who partakes of its meat is liable for lashes. If, however, it is deemed piggul, he is liable for karet, a much more serious punishment.

I.e., there is no difference which disqualifying intent a person has first; as long as another intent is mixed together with the intent involving time, the sacrifice is disqualified, but not piggul. In Zevachim 29b, there is a differing opinion which maintains that if the intent involving time is first, the sacrifice is deemed piggul even if there is another disqualifying intent afterwards.

More precisely, that the meat be eaten, whether by himself or by someone else.

See Chapter 14, Halachah 8.

Both of these situations are examples where a disqualifying intent involving place is combined with a disqualifying intent concerning time.

As mentioned in Chapter 14, Halachah 10, to disqualify a sacrifice one must have an intent concerning an olive-sized portion. Here the Rambam is emphasizing that even though two different intents are involved, they may be combined.

10.

In the previous halachah, the half portion was considered significant, because there was no olive-sized portion present and it can be combined with another half portion. In this halachah, there is an olive-sized portion present. Hence, nothing concerning the smaller portion is significant.
The commentaries note that the Rambam apparently had a slightly different version of the Talmudic passage that serves as the source for this law than the standard printed text.

11.

I.e., the same law mentioned in the previous halacbah applies in this instance as well. The fact that the first half portion would have been combined with the second half portion had the person not had the second disqualifying intent concerning time, is not of consequence. Rava (Zevachim 31a) states lyrically: “The piggul arises, like one rising from sleep.”

12.

Although the second disqualifying intent combines an intent concerning place and one concerning time and thus there is room to think that they cannot be separated from each other, the two intents concerning time are considered as one unit and the intent concerning place is disregarded.

13.

Chapter 2, Halachah 10.

14.

Since these intents are not significant, they do not prevent the sacrifice from being considered as piggul.

15.

The Kessef Mishneh notes that this word is problematic, because even if a disqualifying intent concerning time is also combined, the sacrifice is not piggul.

16.

The Ra’avad objects to the Rambam’s ruling. The Kessef Mishneh explains that the Ra’avad’s objection follows the interpretation of Zevachim 27a advanced by Rashi. The Rambam, he maintains, has a different understanding of that Talmudic passage.
It is possible to distinguish between the situations mentioned in this halachah and those mentioned in the previous halachah as follows: In the situations mentioned here, the very same thought which concerned the place where the blood of the sacrifice would be offered concerned also its time.

17.

Chapter 2, Halachah 10.

18.

Although the priest had a disqualifying intent while performing one of these acts, we do not say that he had the same intent concerning the other unless he explicitly had such a thought.

19.

For, as stated in Chapter 13, Halachah 6, a disqualifying intent concerning time causes a meal-offering to be considered piggul only when one has this intent while performing one of the four services mentioned in the previous halachah.

20.

Even though neither of the intents in their own right would cause the sacrifice to be considered as piggul, when combined, they have this effect.
To explain: Until the frankincense is offered, it is forbidden to partake of the remaining portions of the meal-offering. Thus having the intent to offer the frankincense on the following day is equivalent to having the intent to partake of the remainder of the offering on the following day.

21.

As indicated by Chapter 14, Halachah 10, which states that if one had the intent to eat an olive-sized portion in an extended interval, he can be held liable.

22.

There is a difference of opinion concerning this instance in Menachot 16b. One sage maintains that the offering is acceptable. Another maintains that it is piggul, and a third rules as the Rambam rules here. The Rambam accepts that view, because there are a majority of opinions negating either of the extremes (see Kessef Mishneh).

23.

Even though there are explicit negative commandments not to place frankincense on these offerings. See Chapter 14, Halachah 3; Chapter 11, Halachah 10.

24.

Because the offering is not fit to be brought on the altar until the frankincense is removed.

25.

Because the offering is fit to be brought on the altar.

26.

For the handful is fit to be offered on the altar. Hence if one has a disqualifying intent while placing the handful in a sacred vessel, bringing it to the altar, or offering it on the altar's pyre, there is room to say that it is piggul. (See Rashi, Menachot 12a.)

27.

For it is unfit to partake of such a meal-offering.

Rabbi Eliyahu Touger is a noted author and translator, widely published for his works on Chassidut and Maimonides.

The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard.

Vowelized Hebrew text courtesy Torat Emet under CC 2.5 license.

More in this section

You may also be interested in...