Menachot 12

Sugya Map

• Issue: Does the intent to consume a chaser (lacking) shiyarayim (remainder) of a menachah paggel the offering, and is one liable for karet?
• Nafkah Mina: Liability for karet on the shiyarayim and removal of the korban from me'ilah (misuse of consecrated property).
• Primary Sources: Menachot 12a (Mishnah & Gemara), Vayikra 7:18.

Text Snapshot

"הני מילי ביוצא דאיתיה בעיניה ופסולו מחמת דבר אחר, אבל חסרון דפסולו מחמת גופו, אין שריפה מועלת בו." (Menachot 12a) Rav Huna distinguishes between a yotzei (leaving the courtyard) offering, whose disqualification is external ("מחמת דבר אחר"), and a chaser (lacking) offering, whose disqualification is inherent ("מחמת גופו"). This distinction is pivotal for whether shreifas kometz (burning the handful) can establish piggul or remove me'ilah.

Readings

Rav Huna's Distinction

Rav Huna posits that shreifah cannot establish piggul for a chaser menachah. He argues that an inherent flaw ("פסול מחמת גופו") prevents the shreifah from having its full hatarah (permitting) effect, unlike a yotzei, which is disqualified by an external factor but otherwise intact. As Rashi clarifies regarding yotzei, "דבאימורין גופייהו ליכא שום פסול" (Menachot 12a s.v. "מחמת דבר אחר").

Rava's Retraction

Rava initially argues that chaser shiyarayim can be piggul, drawing an analogy from R' Chiyya's mishna. However, he later retracts this, agreeing with Rav Huna based on a baraita concerning lechem hapanim. This baraita implies that a broken loaf (a chaser state) disqualifies the whole set, even if other loaves remain within the azara, whereas a yotzei loaf might not disqualify the ones inside.

Friction

The Kushya from Rabbi Chiyya's Mishna

Rava's initial argument leverages Rabbi Chiyya's mishna, which omits "או כזית" ("or an olive-bulk") when discussing intent for the shiyarayim. Rava suggests this implies the mishna refers to a chaser shiyarayim that became an kezayit (olive-bulk), yet still becomes piggul. This would prove shreifah is effective for chaser.

Abaye's Terutz

Abaye refutes Rava by attributing R' Chiyya's mishna to R' Elazar, who exempts karet until the entire kometz (handful) is burned. Thus, the omission of "או כזית" is consistent with R' Elazar's view on the kometz itself, not necessarily implying a chaser shiyarayim (Menachot 12a).

Intertext

The Gemara's discussion (Menachot 12a) frequently references the baraita regarding lechem hapanim (shewbread) (Vayikra 24:9), highlighting that a single broken loaf (a form of chaser) disqualifies the entire set, whereas a yotzei loaf might not disqualify the others. This underscores the severity of פסול מחמת גופו versus פסול מחמת דבר אחר.

Psak/Practice

The Gemara's conclusion, influenced by Rava's retraction, implies that piggul generally requires a valid act of hakravah for a tamim (whole) offering. A menachah whose shiyarayim are chaser lacks this essential wholeness, thus shreifas kometz cannot establish piggul status upon them. This aligns with the principle that an offering must be fit for its purpose to become piggul.

Takeaway

The debate clarifies a fundamental distinction: piggul applies when a valid sacrificial act is performed with improper intent. An inherent flaw (חסרון) in the offering itself, rather than merely an external disqualification (יוצא), can preclude the entire piggul process.