Menachos Daf 17 מנחוס דַף 17

The חריפי דפומבדיתא – Sharp Ones of Pumbedisa said: הקטרה מפגלת הקטרה – burning of one חצי מתיר can effect piggul in the burning of another חצי מתיר. Thus, burning the kometz with intent to burn the לבונה the next day makes פיגול. Although the Rabbonon hold one cannot effect פיגול with a חצי מתיר, that is where he intended to eat the שירים the next day, but the לבונה is במילתא קיימא – remained in its proper state. But where his פיגול intent was about burning the levonah, כמה דחישב ביה בכוליה מתיר דמי – it is considered like he intended [piggul] about the entire מתיר. Rav Chisda was quoted as saying אין הקטרה מפגלת הקטרה – burning of one חצי מתיר cannot effect piggul in the burning of another חצי מתיר. Even Rebbe Meir, who holds one can effect פיגול with a חצי מתיר, that is only where his intent was about the שירים, דקומץ מתיר דידהו – because the kometz is a permitter of the remnants, but since the kometz is not a מתיר of the לבונה, the הקטרה of the kometz cannot effect פיגול through intent about the הקטרה of the לבונה.

Rav Hamnuna said: הא מילתא אבלע לי רבי חנינא – Rebbe Chanina gave this point over to me, ותקילא לי ככוליה תלמודאי – and it is as valuable to me as all of my learning: if one was מקטיר the kometz with the intent to burn the לבונה and eat the שירים on the next day, it is פיגול. The Gemara asks that if he holds הקטרה of one חצי מתיר can make piggul with the other (like the חריפי דפומבדיתא), or that one can make פיגול with a חצי מתיר (like Rebbe Meir), he should have only mentioned the relevant part of the case. If he was teaching both, he should have discussed a case where he had one intent or the other. Therefore, Rav Adda bar Ahava says that Rav Hamnuna holds אין הקטרה מפגלת הקטרה, and אין מפגלין בחצי מתיר. However, in this case where he had piggul intent about burning the לבונה and eating the שירים, it does become piggul, דפשטא ליה מחשבה בכולה מנחה – because his פיגול intent spread throughout the entire minchah.

The third Perek begins: if one performs kemitzah with the intent לאכול דבר שאין דרכו לאכול – to eat something not meant to be eaten (rather, to be burned on the מזבח, i.e., the kometz or levonah), ולהקטיר דבר שאין דרכו להקטיר – or to burn on the מזבח that which is not meant to be burned (rather, it is meant to be eaten), and intended this to occur חוץ לזמנו or חוץ למקומו, the Tanna Kamma says the korban remains valid (because his intentions were not legitimate), but Rebbe Eliezer invalidates it. Rebbe Yochanan explains Rebbe Eliezer’s source: the double phrase "האכל יאכל" hints to two kinds of consumption, אכילת אדם – human consumption and אכילת מזבח – “consumption” of the mizbeiach (i.e., הקטרה), teaching that פיגול intent also applies to הקטרה. Rebbe Eliezer additionally compares the two, teaching that מחשבין מאכילת אדם למזבח – one can have intent about something meant for human consumption to be consumed by the mizbeiach, and vice versa. Rebbe Zeira objected that if Rebbe Eliezer considers it piggul מדאורייתא, it should incur כרת, yet Rebbe Yochanan said that Rebbe Eliezer does not obligate כרת in this case!? Rav Assi replied that Tannaim disagree whether Rebbe Eliezer’s opinion is דרבנן or דאורייתא. However, the basis for this machlokes Tannaim is rejected.