Mishnayos Menachos Perek 2 Mishnah 1

הקומץ את המנחה. מודה ר' יוסי שהוא פגול (Rabbi Yossi’s statement is equivalent to what is found in Tractate Menahot, Chapter 1, Mishnah 3) – because it is necessary to teach the ending clause: “to burn its frankincense on the morrow, Rabbi Yossi states that it is invalid, but there is no extirpation,” you might have thought that the reason of Rabbi Yossi is because that he holds that he does not make a sacrifice rejectable through improper mental disposal (see Leviticus 19:7) with the half which fits the sacrifices for eating, that is to say, that if he thought to perform the act of Divine service on the morrow that the act of Divine service of half permits it, he did not have an inappropriate intention, and this frankincense is one-half makes the object permissible for enjoyment, for whether it is the burning on the altar of the handful of meal-offering and the frankincense which permit the residue, but even the first clause of the Mishnah, when he thought with the burning on the altar of the handful of meal-offering is an act of Divine service which is half permissible, and Rabbi Yossi disputes, this comes to teach us that in this he agrees. For the reason is not because of this, but rather because that which permits does not invalidate by inappropriate intention that which is permitted.

מה שנה זו מן הזבח – that he ritually slaughters it in order to offer up those parts of the sacrifice on the altar on the morrow, it is an offering disqualified by inappropriate intention.

אינה מן המנחה – it is not from the species of the meal-offering like the taking of a fistful of meal-offering, and even though it is from those that permit the meal-offering. For Rabbi Yossi holds that what makes an object permitted for eating cannot unfit another act of the same nature (i.e., if the priest on offering a handful of flour had in mind an unlawful application of the frankincense, the latter is not hereby made rejectable – see Talmud Menahot 13b, for the act of Divine service with that which is permitted which is the taking of a handful of the meal-offering have any effect to invalidate by inappropriate intention something else that is permitted which is the frankincense, which is a thought on the frankincense while performing the act of taking the handful of meal-offering. But the Rabbis say to him: just as we state , that what makes an object permitted for eating cannot unit an other act of the same nature, where he did not establish with one of them, as for example, the two lambs for Atzeret/Shavuot, where both of them permit the bread, but if he ritually slaughtered one of them in order to eat its companion on the morrow, both of them are kosher, but where he established with one of them, such as the handful of the meal-offering and the frankincense in one utensil, his thought-process [to eat one of them at a different time] of one act which fits the sacrifice for eating makes unfit by inappropriate intention another act of the same nature. And the Halakha is according to the Sages.