Traité Menachot

Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : Or an olive-bulk, in the case of one’s intent with regard to the consumption of the remainder, because the remainder is already the size of an olive-bulk. Therefore, in the case of the removal of the handful as well, i.e., when he teaches: One who removes a handful to partake of its remainder, Rabbi Ḥiyya did not teach: Or to consume an olive-bulk of its remainder, despite the fact that he could have done so in that clause. Rava concludes his proof: And yet the latter clause teaches that if one burned the handful with the intent to consume the remainder after its designated time, the offering is piggul and one is liable to receive karet on account of it. Evidently, burning is effective in rendering a lacking remainder as piggul.

Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : Abaye said to Rava: No, one cannot prove from here that the mishna is discussing the case of a remainder that became lacking. The reason for this is: In accordance with whose opinion is this mishna of Rabbi Ḥiyya? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, as we learned in a mishna (Zevaḥim 109b): With regard to the handful of flour, and the frankincense, and the incense, and the meal offering of priests (see Leviticus 6:16), and the meal offering of the anointed priest (see Leviticus 6:12–15), and the meal offering that accompanies the libations brought with animal offerings (see Numbers 15:1–16), where one sacrificed an olive-bulk from one of them outside the Temple courtyard, he is liable for sacrificing outside the courtyard. And Rabbi Elazar exempts one from liability until he sacrifices them in their entirety rather than just an olive-bulk from them.

Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : Abaye concludes: Since with regard to the burning of the handful he could not teach: Or burn an olive-bulk of its handful outside the Temple, as according to Rabbi Elazar one is not liable for burning anything less than the full handful and therefore intent to burn only an olive-bulk does not render the offering piggul, with regard to the remainder as well, he did not teach: Or an olive-bulk.

Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : The Gemara asks: If the mishna of Rabbi Ḥiyya is really in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, then this statement: To burn its handful outside the Temple courtyard, should have been phrased: To burn its handful and its frankincense outside the Temple courtyard, as we learned in a mishna (Zevaḥim 110a): With regard to the handful and the frankincense, in a case where one sacrificed only one of them outside the Temple courtyard, he is liable. Rabbi Elazar exempts from liability one who burns only one of them until he sacrifices both of them together.

Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : The Gemara responds: The mishna of Rabbi Ḥiyya is necessary only for the handful of the meal offering of a sinner, which has no frankincense. Since only the burning of the handful permits the remainder of the sinner’s meal offering for consumption, one’s intent to burn it the next day renders the offering piggul. With regard to this meal offering, one is not liable for burning anything less than the full handful, according to Rabbi Elazar, and therefore it does not teach: Or an olive-bulk.

Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : The Gemara asks: And did the tanna go to all that trouble [ve’ikhpal] just to teach us a halakha that is applicable only in the case of the handful of the meal offering of a sinner? The Gemara responds: Yes, he did. And similarly, when Rav Dimi came to Babylonia from Eretz Yisrael, he said that Rabbi Elazar ben Pedat said: When the mishna discusses an instance where one has intent to sacrifice the handful of a meal offering outside, it is referring to the handful of the meal offering of a sinner, and it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar.

Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : Rava then said: That which I said, that the burning of the handful with the intent to consume the remainder the next day is effective in rendering even a remainder that became lacking in measure as piggul and to remove it from being subject to misuse of consecrated property is nothing, as it is taught in a baraita: The verse states with regard to the shewbread: “It is most holy” (Leviticus 24:9). The restrictive term “it” teaches that the shewbread must remain whole, so that if one of the loaves of the shewbread broke and consequently became lacking in measure, then all of its loaves are disqualified, and the burning of the bowls of frankincense does not render them permitted for consumption.

Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : Rava continues: It can be inferred from the baraita that if the loaves remained whole but one of them left the Temple, those that are inside the Temple are still fit. And whom have you heard who says: The sprinkling of the blood is effective in rendering piggul an item that left the Temple? It is Rabbi Akiva. And yet he says in this baraita that if one of the loaves broke, the burning of the frankincense is not effective for them. Similarly, with regard to the remainder of a meal offering that became lacking in measure, even Rabbi Akiva agrees that the burning of the handful is ineffective in rendering it piggul.

Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : Abaye said to Rava: How can you cite a proof from this baraita? Is it taught in this baraita: But if a loaf of shewbread left, those loaves that remain inside are fit? Perhaps all of the loaves are disqualified if even one of them left, and one should infer a different halakha from the baraita, that if one of the loaves became ritually impure, these that remain pure are fit.

Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : Abaye explains: What is the reason for such a distinction? The reason is that the frontplate of the High Priest effects acceptance for ritually impure offerings. But in a case where a loaf of shewbread left, the frontplate does not effect acceptance, and therefore all of the loaves are disqualified, as in a case where one loaf breaks. And if so, the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who says that sprinkling is not effective with regard to an item that left the Temple courtyard.

Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : Abaye continues: And by right the baraita should have also taught that if one of the loaves of shewbread left, all the loaves are disqualified. And as for the fact that it teaches the halakha specifically with regard to a loaf that broke, this is what the baraita teaches us: That even if the loaf broke, in which case the loaf is still inside the Temple, burning is not effective with regard to it. But according to Rabbi Akiva, who says that sprinkling is effective with regard to an item that left the Temple, even in the case of a lacking measure, burning is effective with regard to it.

Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : MISHNA: If one’s intent was to partake of half an olive-bulk of the remainder and to burn half an olive-bulk of it not at the appropriate time or not in the appropriate area, the offering is fit, because eating and burning do not join together.