Gemara Clarity

Menachos 17a

מנחות י״ז ע״א

Menachot 17a

Learn Menachos 17a step by step: Aramaic beside English, every question, answer and proof colour-coded.

Open Menachos 17a in Gemara Clarity

Topic

Whether burning the קומץ with a wrong intent about the לבונה creates פגול; the end of פרק הקומץ את המנחה; and the new משנה on mismatched intents, with רבי אליעזר's source

Overview

This amud deals with a מנחה, whose קומץ and לבונה together act as the מתיר that permits the rest of the offering. The חריפי דפומבדיתא say that burning the קומץ with a plan to burn the לבונה too late makes the מנחה פגול, even according to the רבנן. רבא tries to prove this from a משנה, but the גמרא rejects the proof. רב חסדא, in the name of רב, rules the opposite: the קומץ does not permit the לבונה, so an intent about the לבונה cannot create פגול. A proof for רב from the case of two lambs is pushed aside, because the קומץ and לבונה share one vessel. רבי חנינא rules that a chain of wrong intents covering the whole מנחה makes it פגול, and רב אדא בר אהבה explains why his case had to be worded that way. A ברייתא saying 'everyone agrees it is פגול' is corrected to read 'everyone agrees it is פסול'. The פרק then ends, and a new משנה begins about intents to eat what is normally burned or burn what is normally eaten. The גמרא explains רבי אליעזר's source in the doubled 'האכל יאכל', and asks how the רבנן use that wording; the answer comes on the next amud.

Opening lines

חֲרִיפֵי דְּפוּמְבְּדִיתָא:

The sharp ones of Pumbedita [say]:

הַקְטָרָה מְפַגֶּלֶת הַקְטָרָה,

Burning renders piggul [through intent about] burning,

וַאֲפִילּוּ לְרַבָּנַן דְּאָמְרִי

and even according to the Rabbis, who say

אֵין מְפַגְּלִין בַּחֲצִי מַתִּיר –

one does not render piggul with half a permitting factor —

The steps (27)

  1. StatementThe sharp ones of Pumbedita: burning can create פגול through burning
  2. Proofרבא quotes a משנה listing all four services
  3. Proofרבא's inference: burning works like the other services
  4. RejectionRejection: burning may be different from the other services
  5. StatementBurning does not make burning פגול, even for רבי מאיר
  6. StatementWhy רבי מאיר agrees: the קומץ does not permit the לבונה
  7. Questionאביי asks whether this came from רב
  8. ResponseYes, it is from רב, and it is also recorded that way
  9. ProofSupport from the case of the two lambs
  10. RejectionThe two lambs are separate, but the קומץ and לבונה share one vessel
  11. Statementרבי חנינא's ruling on a chain of wrong intents
  12. ChallengeWhat does רבי חנינא's ruling add?
  13. ResolutionThe wrong intent covered the entire מנחה
  14. StatementA ברייתא says everyone agrees the מנחה is פגול
  15. ChallengeBut רבי מאיר and the חכמים disagree on this case
  16. ResolutionFix the wording: everyone agrees it is פסול
  17. ChallengeWhy not fix it to say 'it is פגול, following רבי מאיר'?
  18. ResolutionA reciter mixes up one word, not a whole phrase
  19. ConclusionHadran — Closing פרק הקומץ את המנחה
  20. StatementNew משנה: intending to eat what isn't eaten, or burn what isn't burned
  21. StatementThe משנה's final cases: less than an olive and half plus half
  22. QuestionWhat is רבי אליעזר's reason?
  23. ResponseTwo kinds of eating in one verse
  24. ResponseCrossing between the person and the altar
  25. QuestionWhy can the two be crossed?
  26. ResponseThe Torah calls burning 'eating'
  27. QuestionWhat do the רבנן learn from the eating language?