Mishnah.org Logo

Today's Mishnah Yomi

Menachos 1:3 - 1:4

The Mishnah Yomi for Saturday, September 6, 2025 is Menachos 1:3 - 1:4

＜ Previous DayTodayNext Day ＞

Mishnah 1

Mishnayos Menachos Perek 1 Mishnah 3

מנחות פרק א׳ משנה ג׳

3
If one increased its oil, decreased its oil, or decreased its frankincense, beyond the appropriate measures, the meal offering is unfit. With regard to one who removes a handful from the meal offering with the intent to partake of its remainder outside the Temple courtyard or to partake of an olive-bulk of its remainder outside the Temple courtyard, to burn its handful outside the Temple courtyard or to burn an olive-bulk of its handful outside the Temple courtyard, or to burn its frankincense outside the Temple courtyard, in all these cases the offering is unfit, but there is no liability for karet for one who partakes of it. If one had the intent to partake of its remainder on the next day or to partake of an olive-bulk of its remainder on the next day, to burn its handful on the next day or to burn an olive-bulk of its handful on the next day, or to burn its frankincense on the next day, the offering is piggul, and one is liable to receive karet for partaking of the remainder of that meal offering. This is the principle: In the case of anyone who removes the handful, or places the handful in the vessel, or who conveys the vessel with the handful to the altar, or who burns the handful on the altar, with the intent to partake of an item whose typical manner is such that one partakes of it, e.g., the remainder, or to burn an item whose typical manner is such that one burns it on the altar, e.g., the handful or the frankincense, outside its designated area, the meal offering is unfit but there is no liability for karet. If his intent was to do so beyond its designated time, the offering is piggul and one is liable to receive karet on account of it, provided that the permitting factor, i.e., the handful, was sacrificed in accordance with its mitzva. If the permitting factor was not sacrificed in accordance with its mitzva, although the meal offering is unfit, the prohibition of piggul does not apply to it. How is the permitting factor considered to have been sacrificed in accordance with its mitzva? If one removed the handful in silence, i.e., with no specific intent, and placed it in the vessel, conveyed it, and burned the handful on the altar, with the intent to partake of the remainder beyond its designated time; or if one removed the handful with the intent to partake of the or burn the handful or frankincense beyond its designated time, and placed it in the vessel, and conveyed it, and burned the handful on the altar in silence, with no specific intent; or if one removed the handful and placed it in the vessel, conveyed it, and burned the handful on the altar, with the intent to partake of the remainder beyond its designated time, that is the case of an offering whose permitting factor was sacrificed in accordance with its mitzva, and one is liable to receive karet for partaking of it due to piggul.
רִבָּה שַׁמְנָהּ, וְחִסַּר שַׁמְנָהּ, חִסַּר לְבוֹנָתָהּ, פְּסוּלָה. הַקּוֹמֵץ אֶת הַמִּנְחָה לֶאֱכֹל שְׁיָרֶיהָ בַחוּץ, אוֹ כַזַּיִת מִשְּׁיָרֶיהָ בַחוּץ, לְהַקְטִיר קֻמְצָהּ בַּחוּץ, אוֹ כַזַּיִת מִקֻּמְצָהּ בַּחוּץ, אוֹ לְהַקְטִיר לְבוֹנָתָהּ בַּחוּץ, פָּסוּל וְאֵין בּוֹ כָרֵת. לֶאֱכֹל שְׁיָרֶיהָ לְמָחָר, אוֹ כַזַּיִת מִשְּׁיָרֶיהָ לְמָחָר, לְהַקְטִיר קֻמְצָהּ לְמָחָר, אוֹ כַזַּיִת מִקֻּמְצָהּ לְמָחָר, אוֹ לְהַקְטִיר לְבוֹנָתָהּ לְמָחָר, פִּגּוּל וְחַיָּבִין עָלָיו כָּרֵת. זֶה הַכְּלָל, כָּל הַקּוֹמֵץ, וְהַנּוֹתֵן בִּכְלִי, וְהַמְהַלֵּךְ, וְהַמַּקְטִיר, לֶאֱכֹל דָּבָר שֶׁדַּרְכּוֹ לֶאֱכֹל, וּלְהַקְטִיר דָּבָר שֶׁדַּרְכּוֹ לְהַקְטִיר, חוּץ לִמְקוֹמוֹ, פָּסוּל וְאֵין בּוֹ כָרֵת. חוּץ לִזְמַנּוֹ, פִּגּוּל וְחַיָּבִין עָלָיו כָּרֵת, וּבִלְבַד שֶׁיִּקְרַב הַמַּתִּיר כְּמִצְוָתוֹ. כֵּיצַד קָרַב הַמַּתִּיר כְּמִצְוָתוֹ. קָמַץ בִּשְׁתִיקָה וְנָתַן בַּכְּלִי וְהִלֵּךְ וְהִקְטִיר חוּץ לִזְמַנּוֹ, אוֹ שֶׁקָּמַץ חוּץ לִזְמַנּוֹ וְנָתַן בַּכְּלִי וְהִלֵּךְ וְהִקְטִיר בִּשְׁתִיקָה, אוֹ שֶׁקָּמַץ וְנָתַן בַּכְּלִי וְהִלֵּךְ וְהִקְטִיר חוּץ לִזְמַנּוֹ, זֶה הוּא שֶׁקָּרַב הַמַּתִּיר כְּמִצְוָתוֹ:
ג׳

ריבה שמנה – for the measurement of [olive] oil is a LOG (i.e., the equivalent of six eggs’ bulk) for every Issaron (i.e., Omer = one-tenth of an Ephah). But if he put in too much, that he gave two LOG or more for an Issaron which appears as two meal-offerings, he has disqualified it.

חיסר שמנה – less than a LOG of [olive] oil for an Issaron of sifted fine-flour.

חיסר לבונתה – that he didn’t put in it other than a grain/particle/drop of frankincense. But if it has in it two grains, it is fit/kosher, as it is written (Leviticus 6:8): “with all the frankincense that is on the grain offering,” implying even one drop of frankincense, for [the word] "כל"/all [from the verse in Leviticus 6:8:"את כל הלבונה אשר על המנחה" ] implies a little bit, as it is written (2 Kings 4:2): “”Your maidservant has nothing at all, [except for a jug of oil].” [The word] "את" includes another grain/particle/drop of frankincense, that makes two, whereas if he increased its frankincense, this is not taught [in the Mishnah] , and he did not disqualify/invalidate it other than when he increased it more than two handfuls [of meal-offering] for then he increased it too much.

לאכול שייריה בחוץ – outside of the Temple courtyard.

או להקטיר קומצה בחוץ – for thought/plan disqualifies whether that he though about the eating of a person whether he thought about the consumption by the altar, as it is written (Leviticus 7:18): “If any of the flesh of his sacrifice is eaten/אם אכל יאכל מבשר זבח שלמיו ,” Scripture is speaking about two consumptions: one is for that which a person consumes and another is that which the altar consumes, and this Biblical verse speaks of thought/intention, as it is written (Leviticus 7:18): ‘it shall not count for him who offered it/המקריב אתו לא יחשב לו,” and he did not disqualify it other than when he thought about it to consume it on the third day (i.e., see Leviticus 7:18: "ביום השלישי לא ירצה" /”[is eaten] on the third day, it shall not be acceptable”).

פסולה – that the intention/plan outside of its [proper] place invalidates the taking a handful of the meal-offering as it invalidates in the ritual slaughter of the animal offering. And just as one disqualifies an animal offering with ritual slaughter, the receiving of the blood, bring it [to the altar], and sprinkling the blood, one disqualifies the meal-offering through taking a handful, putting it in sacred vessels, and bringing for burning the handful [of meal-offering] and the frankincense on the altar, four [sacred] acts corresponding/parallel to four [sacred acts]. For the taking of a fistful [of grain] and the frankincense themselves are considered concerning the meal-offering like the blood and the sections that are offered on the altar regarding he animal offering. And the residue/remnants of the meal-offering are consumed. And in Chapter two of [Tractate] Zevakhim [the entire chapter] all of these disqualifying factors are explained and there we derive all of them from Scriptural verses.

לאכול דבר שדרכו לאכול – such as the residue/remnants.

דבר שדרכו להקטיר – such as the priest taking a handful of meal-offering to place on the altar. But, if he intended/thought to eat the handful of meal-offering or to offer the residue as incense on the altar outside of its appropriate time, he did not disqualify it, for his thought was disqualified regarding all other people.

ובלבד שיקרב המתיר – the handful of the meal-offering כהלכתו – as if it was kosher, for there was no disqualification other than the offering disqualified because of inappropriate intention alone. But if there is another disqualification, it is no longer considered disqualified because of an inappropriate intention, and there is no extirpation.

בשתיקה – that he did not think any thought at the time of taking a handful of the meal offering.

ונתן והלך והקטיר חוץ לזמנו – that is to say, that in these three acts of Divine service, he thought about consuming the residue outside of the appropriate time [for this act].

ריבה שמנה. ששיעור השמן. לוג לכל עשרון. ואם ריבה, שנתן שני לוגין או יותר לעשרון דחזו לשתי מנחות, פסול:

חיסר שמנה. פחות מלוג שמן לעשרון סולת:

חיסר לבונתה. שלא נתן בה אלא קורט אחד של לבונה. אבל אם יש בה שני קרטין כשרה, דכתיב (ויקרא ו׳:ח׳) את כל הלבונה אשר על המנחה, כל, משמע אפילו קורט אחד, דכל משמע כל דהוא כדכתיב (מלכים ב ד׳:ב׳) אין לשפחתך כל בבית. את, לרבות עוד קורט אחד, הרי שנים. ואילו ריבה לבונתה לא קתני, דלא פסל אלא כשריבה יותר על שני קומצים דאז ריבה יותר מדאי:

לאכול שייריה בחוץ. חוץ לעזרה:

או להקטיר קומצה בחוץ. דמחשבה פוסלת בין שחשב על אכילת אדם בין שחשב על אכילת מזבח, דכתיב (ויקרא ז׳:י״ח) ואם האכל יאכל, בשתי אכילות הכתוב מדבר אחת לאכילת אדם ואחת לאכילת מזבח, וההוא קרא במחשבה מיירי דכתיב (שם) המקריב אותו לא יחשב, בשעת הקרבה הוא נפגל ואינו נפגל ביום השלישי, אלמא במחשבה מיירי שחשב עליו לאכלו ביום השלישי:

פסולה. דמחשבת חוץ למקומו פוסלת בקמיצת המנחה כמו שפוסלת בשחיטת הזבח. ומה שפוסל בזבח בשחיטה בקבלת הדם בהולכה בזריקת הדם, פוסל המנחה בקמיצה בנתינה בכלי שרת בהולכה בהקטרת הקומץ ולבונה, ארבעה כנגד ארבעה. והקומץ והלבונה עצמן חשובים גבי מנחה כמו הדם והאימורים אצל הזבח. ושיירי מנחה הנאכלים, כבשר הזבח הנאכל. ובפרק ב׳ דזבחים מפורשים כל הני פסולי והתם ילפינן להו כולהו מקראי:

לאכול דבר שדרכו לאכול. כגון שיריים:

דבר שדרכו להקטיר. כגון הקומץ. אבל אם חשב לאכול הקומץ או להקטיר השיריים חוץ לזמנו, לא פסל, דבטלה דעתו אצל כל אדם:

ובלבד שיקרב המתיר. הקומץ כהלכתו. כאילו היה כשר, שלא יהא שם שום פסול אלא הפגול בלבד. אבל אם יש בו פסול אחר אינו חשוב יותר פגול ואין בו כרת:

קמץ בשתיקה. שלא חשב שום מחשבת פסול בשעת קמיצה:

ונתן בכלי והלך והקטיר חוץ לזמנו. כלומר, שבשלשת עבודות הללו חשב על השיריים לאכלן חוץ לזמנו:

Mishnah 2

Mishnayos Menachos Perek 1 Mishnah 4

מנחות פרק א׳ משנה ד׳

4
How is the permitting factor not sacrificed in accordance with its mitzva? If one removed the handful with the intent to partake of the remainder or burn the handful or frankincense outside its designated area, or placed it in the vessel, conveyed it, and burned the handful on the altar, with the intent to partake of the remainder beyond its designated time; or if one removed the handful with the intent to partake of the remainder or burn the handful or frankincense beyond its designated time, and placed it in the vessel, conveyed it, and burned the handful on the altar, with the intent to partake of the remainder outside its designated area; or if one removed the handful and placed it in the vessel, and conveyed it, and burned the handful on the altar, with the intent to partake of the remainder outside its designated area, that is the case of an offering whose permitting factor was not sacrificed in accordance with its mitzva. The meal offering of a sinner and the meal offering of jealousy brought by a sota that one removed their handful not for their sake and placed it in the vessel, conveyed it, and burned the handful on the altar, with the intent to partake of the remainder or burn the handful beyond its designated time; or that one removed the handful with the intent to partake of the remainder or burn the handful beyond its designated time or placed it in the vessel, conveyed it, and burned the handful on the altar, not for their sake; or that one removed the handful, and placed it in the vessel, and conveyed it, and burned the handful on the altar, not for their sake, that is the case of an offering whose permitting factor was not sacrificed in accordance with its mitzva. If one performed one of these rites with the intent to partake of an olive-bulk outside its designated area and an olive-bulk the next day, or an olive-bulk the next day and an olive-bulk outside its designated area, or half an olive-bulk outside its designated area and half an olive-bulk the next day, or half an olive-bulk the next day and half an olive-bulk outside its designated area, the offering is unfit but there is no liability for karet. Rabbi Yehuda says that this is the principle: If the intent with regard to the time preceded the intent with regard to the area, the offering is piggul and one is liable to receive karet on account of it. If the intent with regard to the area preceded the intent with regard to the time, the offering is unfit but there is no liability for karet. And the Rabbis say: In both this case, where the intent with regard to time was first, and that case, where the intent with regard to area came first, the offering is unfit but there is no liability for karet. 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.
כֵּיצַד לֹא קָרַב הַמַּתִּיר כְּמִצְוָתוֹ. קָמַץ חוּץ לִמְקוֹמוֹ, וְנָתַן בַּכְּלִי וְהִלֵּךְ וְהִקְטִיר חוּץ לִזְמַנּוֹ, אוֹ שֶׁקָּמַץ חוּץ לִזְמַנּוֹ וְנָתַן בַּכְּלִי וְהִלֵּךְ וְהִקְטִיר חוּץ לִמְקוֹמוֹ, אוֹ שֶׁקָּמַץ וְנָתַן בַּכְּלִי וְהִלֵּךְ וְהִקְטִיר חוּץ לִמְקוֹמוֹ, מִנְחַת חוֹטֵא וּמִנְחַת קְנָאוֹת שֶׁקְּמָצָן שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָן וְנָתַן בַּכְּלִי וְהִלֵּךְ וְהִקְטִיר חוּץ לִזְמַנָּן, אוֹ שֶׁקָּמַץ חוּץ לִזְמַנָּן, וְנָתַן בַּכְּלִי וְהִלֵּךְ וְהִקְטִיר שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָן, אוֹ שֶׁקָּמַץ וְנָתַן בַּכְּלִי וְהִלֵּךְ וְהִקְטִיר שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָן, זֶה הוּא שֶׁלֹּא קָרַב הַמַּתִּיר כְּמִצְוָתוֹ. לֶאֱכֹל כַּזַּיִת בַּחוּץ וְכַזַּיִת לְמָחָר, כַּזַּיִת לְמָחָר וְכַזַּיִת בַּחוּץ, כַּחֲצִי זַיִת בַּחוּץ וְכַחֲצִי זַיִת לְמָחָר, כַּחֲצִי זַיִת לְמָחָר וְכַחֲצִי זַיִת בַּחוּץ, פָּסוּל וְאֵין בּוֹ כָרֵת. אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, זֶה הַכְּלָל, אִם מַחֲשֶׁבֶת הַזְּמָן קָדְמָה לְמַחֲשֶׁבֶת הַמָּקוֹם, פִּגּוּל וְחַיָּבִים עָלָיו כָּרֵת. וְאִם מַחֲשֶׁבֶת הַמָּקוֹם קָדְמָה לְמַחֲשֶׁבֶת הַזְּמָן, פָּסוּל וְאֵין בּוֹ כָרֵת. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, זֶה וָזֶה פָּסוּל וְאֵין בּוֹ כָרֵת. לֶאֱכֹל כַּחֲצִי זַיִת וּלְהַקְטִיר כַּחֲצִי זַיִת, כָּשֵׁר, שֶׁאֵין אֲכִילָה וְהַקְטָרָה מִצְטָרְפִין:
ד׳

קמץ חוץ למקומו – he intended/thought at the time of taking a handful of the meal-offering to consume the residue/remnants outside of the Temple courtyard.

נתן בכלי הילך והקטיר חוץ לזמנו – and in one of these three acts of Divine service, he intended to consume the residue/remnants outside of the [proper] time period.

מנחת חוטא וקנאות – there is in them one other invalidation that removes them from being פיגול /an offering disqualified by having an improper intention, such as not for its own sake/name, as we stated at the beginning of our chapter (i.e., Mishnah 1), that invalid [meal] offerings, if he took a handful of the meal-offering not for its own sake, and he thought/intended regarding the three other acts of Divine service (i.e., the taking of a handful of the meal-offering to consume its residue outside of the Temple courtyard, and to offer it up at the altar at an inappropriate time and to consume it at an inappropriate time) that they would be performed outside of their [proper] time, or even the first [of the three] outside of its appropriate time, and the rest that were not done for their own sake, he removed it from being an offering disqualified by having an improper intention [and being subject to extirpation].

או קמץ או נתן בכלי או הוליך או הקטיר שלא לשמן – that is to say, whichever of these that he did not for its own sake and the remainder in order to consume the residue/remnants outside of the [appropriate] time , he did not offer that which is permitted in accord with its requirement, but there is no extirpation with its residue/remnants.

כזית בחוץ כזית למחר – he intended/thought with one of the acts of Divine service that two intentions would be done outside of the [appropriate] time period and outside of its [appropriate] place (i.e., the Temple courtyard. But until now, we have been speaking about two acts of Divine service that he intended with one of them outside of its [appropriate] time period and with another outside of its proper place, but now we are speaking about [the case] where he intended both of them with one act of Divine service. But for Rabbi Yehuda, it is necessary, that one does not say that Rabbi Yehuda disputes on two [acts] of Divine service, for we follow after the first [act]. But with one [act] of Divine service, he agrees, but it comes to tell us [that this is not the case].

זית למחר וכזית בחוץ – even though that he intended first [to perform the act] outside of the [appropriate] time period, his second act of taking it outside [the Temple courtyard] makes him [liable] for extirpation.

אמר רבי יהודה זה הכלל כו' – Rabbi Yehuda disputes with the first Tanna/teacher, whether with one [act] of Divine service or whether with two [acts] of Divine service. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Yehuda.

קמץ חוץ למקומו. חשב בשעת קמיצה לאכול השיריים חוץ לעזרה:

נתן בכלי הלך והקטיר חוץ לזמנו. ובאחת משלשת עבודות הללו חשב על השיריים לאכלן חוץ לזמנו:

מנחת חוטא וקנאות. יש בהן עוד פסול אחר המוציאן מידי פגול, כגון שלא לשמן, דאמרינן בריש פרקין דפסולות אם קמצן שלא לשמן, ושלשת שאר העבודות חשב עליהן חוץ לזמנן, או אפילו הראשונה חוץ לזמנה והשאר שלא לשמן, הוציאו מידי פגול:

או שקמץ או נתן בכלי או הוליך או הקטיר שלא לשמן. כלומר אי זו מאלו שעשה שלא לשמן והשאר על מנת לאכול לשיריים חוץ לזמנו לא קרב המתיר כמצותו ואין בשיריים כרת:

כזית בחוץ כזית למחר. חשב באחת מן העבודות שתי מחשבות חוץ לזמנו וחוץ למקומו. ועד השתא איירינן בשתי עבודות שחשב באחת חוץ לזמנו ובאחרת חוץ למקומו, ועכשיו מיירי שחשב בשתיהן בעבודה אחת. ולרבי יהודה איצטריך, דלא תימא בשתי עבודות הוא דפליג רבי יהודה דבתר קמייתא אזלינן, אבל בחדא עבודה מודה, קמשמע לן:

כזית למחר וכזית בחון. אף על פי שחשב תחלה לחוץ לזמנו הוציאתו שניה מידי כרת:

אמר רבי יהודה זה הכלל כו׳ ר׳ יהודה פליג אתנא קמא בין בעבודה אחת בין בשתי עבודות. ואין הלכה כר׳ יהודה:

Mishnah Yomi FAQ

Still have a question? Contact Us