Study Menachot folio 13B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Therefore, the tanna teaches us that in this case R' Yosei concedes that if the handful is removed with the intent to burn only the handful on the next day, the offering is rendered piggul. Accordingly, R' Yosei holds that one renders an offering piggul with intent that concerns only half of its per
§ The Mishnah teaches that if one removed the handful from a meal offering with the intent to burn its frankincense on the next day, R' Yosei says that the meal offering is unfit but partaking of it does not include liability to receive karet. Concerning this, Reish Lakish says: R' Yosei would say,
Reish Lakish adds: And you would say the same with regard to the two bowls of frankincense of the shewbread, that a permitting factor does not render another permitting factor piggul, and therefore if the priest burned one of the bowls with the intent to burn the other bowl the next day, the shewbr
The Talmud asks: What is the purpose of the apparently superfluous statement: And you would say the same with regard to the two bowls of frankincense? Is there reason to assume that R' Yosei would hold that the shewbread is rendered piggul in such a case? The Talmud responds that it is necessary, le
The Talmud asks: And can you say that the reason for the opinion of R' Yosei in the case of the frankincense in the Mishnah is not due to the fact that the frankincense is not of the same type as a meal offering? But isn’t it taught in the latter clause of the Mishnah that the Rabbis said to R' Yose