1) DIFFERENT INTENTIONS (cont.)

(a) (Continuation of Mishnah): The general rule regarding Kemitzah, Nesinah (putting the Kometz) in another Kli, Holachah or Haktarah (the four Avodos) done with intent to eat something that is normally eaten, or Lehaktir something that is normally Huktar:
1. If he intended Chutz li’Mkomo, the Minchah is Pasul, there is no Kares;
2. If he intended Chutz li’Zmano, it is Pigul, there is Kares, if the Matir (the Kometz, which permits the Shirayim) was offered properly (except for intention of Chutz li’Zmano).
(b) Question: When do we say that the Matir was offered properly?
(c) Answer: Some (or all) of the four Avodos were done (with intent) Chutz li’Zmano and the others were proper.
(d) Question: When do we say that the Matir was not offered properly?
(e) Answer: Some (or all) of the Avodos were done (with intent) Chutz li’Mkomo and the others were Chutz li’Zmano;
1. Alternatively, in Minchas Chotei or Minchas Kena’os, some Avodos were Lo Lishmah (which is Posel these Menachos), the others were Chutz li’Zmano.
(f) In the following cases the Minchah is Pasul, there is no Kares:
1. He intended (during one Avodah) to eat a k’Zayis outside (Chutz li’Mkomo) and a k’Zayis tomorrow (Chutz li’Zmano), or a k’Zayis tomorrow and a k’Zayis outside;
2. He intended for half a k’Zayis tomorrow and half a k’Zayis outside, or half a k’Zayis outside and half a k’Zayis tomorrow.
(g) R. Yehudah says, the rule is, if (the intent) Chutz li’Zmano came before Chutz li’Mkomo, it is Pigul, there is Kares; if Chutz li’Mkomo came before Chutz li’Zmano, it is not Pigul, there is no Kares;
(h) Chachamim say, in both cases it is Pasul, there is no Kares.
2) “HAKTARAH” THAT DOES NOT PERMIT THE “SHIRAYIM”
(a) (Gemara) Question: (According to R. Yochanan, who holds that) if a Minchah became Chaser between Kemitzah and Haktarah, we Maktir the Kometz, but the Shirayim may not be eaten:
1. Does this Haktarah (make it considered as if the Matir was offered properly to) make Pigul (if the only Pasul intentions were Chutz li’Zmano), and rescind Me’ilah from the Shirayim?
(b) Answer #1 (Rav Huna): Even according to R. Akiva, who says that Zerikah rescinds Me’ilah from Yotzei (Kodshim that left the Azarah), only says so regarding Yotzei, for it is intact, an external cause is Posel it – he would agree that Zerikah does not help Chaser.
(c) Objection and Answer #2 (Rava): Just the contrary! Even R. Eliezer, who says that Zerikah does not rescind Me’ilah from Yotzei, only says so regarding Yotzei, for it is outside – he would agree that Zerikah helps Chaser, for it is in the Azarah.
(d) Support (Rava, for himself – Mishnah): If Kemitzah was done with intent to eat the Shirayim or a k’Zayis of the Shirayim outside…
1. (Beraisa – R. Chiya): If Kemitzah was done with intent to eat the Shirayim outside…(the Beraisa teaches all the cases of the Mishnah, but it omits ‘or a k’Zayis’.)
2. Question: Why did R. Chiya omit ‘or a k’Zayis of the Shirayim’?
3. Suggestion: The Mishnah discusses when the Shirayim became Chaserim, only a k’Zayis remains;
i. Since the case cannot be taught regarding Nesinah b’Kli, Holachah or Haktarah (Chisaron after Kemitzah is Posel, it cannot become Pigul), it was not taught regarding Kemitzah either.
12b—————————————12b

ii. The Seifa says that there is Kares – this shows that it is called Haktarah to make Pigul!
(e) Rejection (Abaye): No, R. Chiya holds like R. Eliezer.
1. (Mishnah): If a k’Zayis of any of the following was offered outside, he is liable:
i. A Kometz, Levonah, Ketores, the Minchah of a Kohen, Minchas Chavitim, or Minchas Nesachim;
2. R. Eliezer exempts, unless he offered all of it.
i. R. Chiya could not teach Haktarah of ‘a k’Zayis of a Kometz’ (since he holds like R. Eliezer, that partial Haktarah is not considered Haktarah), he did not teach this regarding any of the Avodos.
(f) (R. Chiya’s Beraisa was just like the Mishnah, which said that intent ‘Lehaktir its Kometz’ causes Pigul.)
(g) Question: If the Beraisa is like R. Eliezer, there is no Pigul unless he intended Lehaktir all the Matitrim, its Kometz *and* Levonah!
1. (Mishnah): If someone offered Kometz *or* Levonah outside, he is liable;
2. R. Eliezer exempts, unless he offered both of them.
(h) Answer: The Beraisa discusses Minchas Chotei (which has no Levonah, therefore Haktaras ha’Kometz alone makes Pigul.)
(i) Question: Did the Tana teach this entire Beraisa only regarding Minchas Chotei?!
(j) Answer: Yes! Rav Dimi explained that the Beraisa discusses Minchas Chotei, it is like R. Eliezer.
(k) Retraction (Rava): I was wrong, a Beraisa disproves me.
1. (Beraisa): “Kodesh Kodoshim Hu” – if one of the Chalos of Lechem ha’Panim became Chaser, they are all invalid.
2. Inference: In the case of Yotzei (all was intact, but part left the Azarah), the Chalos remaining inside would be Kesherim!
3. This is like R. Akiva, who holds that Zerikah takes effect on Yotzei – but it does not take effect on Chaser!
(l) Rejection (Abaye): The Beraisa does not disprove you;
1. It does not say that if part was Yotzei, the Chalos remaining inside would be Kesherim – rather, we infer that if some became Tamei, the Tahor Chalos would be Kesherim;
i. Question: Why are the Tehorim Kesherim?
ii. Answer: The Tzitz is Meratzeh.
2. Indeed, if part was Yotzei, all the Chalos are Pesulim – this is like R. Eliezer, who says that Zerikah does not help for Yotzei.
3. Really, the Beraisa should have also taught Yotzei – it taught Chaser, for this is a bigger Chidush, even though the Chalos are in the Azarah, Haktarah does not permit them.
i. According to R. Akiva, who says that Zerikah helps for Yotzei, Haktarah would permit (the remaining Chalos when some was) Chaser.
3) JOINING HALF-SHIURIM
(a) (Mishnah): If he intended to eat half a k’Zayis (of Shirayim, Chutz li’Mkomo or Chutz li’Zmano) and Lehaktir half a k’Zayis (of Kometz or Levonah, Chutz…), it is Kosher, because eating and burning do not join.
(b) (Gemara) Inference: In a similar case of eating (Shirayim) and eating (Kometz or Levonah), they would join, even though it is not normal to eat the latter!
(c) Contradiction (the previous Mishnah): …Intent to eat something normally eaten (makes Pigul.)
(d) Inference: Things not normally eaten do not make (or join) for Pigul!
(e) Question: Who is the Tana of our Mishnah?
(f) Answer #1 (R. Yirmeyah): Our Mishnah is R. Eliezer, who says that intent for a person to eat something fit for the Mizbe’ach, or vice-versa, is intent.
1. (Mishnah): If Kemitzah was done with intent to eat (Chutz li’Zmano or Chutz li’Mkomo) something which is not normally eaten, or Lehaktir something not normally Huktar, it is Kosher;
2. R. Eliezer says, it is Pasul.
(g) Answer #2 (Abaye): Our Mishnah can be like Chachamim;
1. Do not infer that intent to eat something not normally eaten joins for Pigul, rather, two intents to eat join if both are for something normally eaten.