A Zeman Nakat Project
From the Omer to Shavuos · Mishnah 42 of 43 · Interactive Edition
Movement IV · The Kisvei Atzeres and Technical Laws
42 · מְנָחוֹת ב:ב · Menachos 2:2
שָׁחַט שְׁנֵי כְבָשִׂים לֶאֱכֹל אַחַת מִן הַחַלּוֹת לְמָחָר, הִקְטִיר שְׁנֵי בְזִיכִין לֶאֱכֹל אַחַד מִן הַסְּדָרִים לְמָחָר, רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר, אוֹתָהּ הַחַלָּה וְאוֹתוֹ הַסֵּדֶר שֶׁחִשַּׁב עָלָיו — פִּגּוּל וְחַיָּבִין עָלָיו כָּרֵת, וְהַשֵּׁנִי פָּסוּל וְאֵין בּוֹ כָרֵת. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, זֶה וָזֶה פִּגּוּל וְחַיָּבִין עָלָיו כָּרֵת. נִטְמֵאת אַחַת מִן הַחַלּוֹת אוֹ אַחַד מִן הַסְּדָרִים — רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, שְׁנֵיהֶם יֵצְאוּ לְבֵית הַשְּׂרֵפָה, שֶׁאֵין קָרְבַּן צִבּוּר חָלוּק. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, הַטָּמֵא בְטֻמְאָתוֹ, וְהַטָּהוֹר יֵאָכֵל.
He slaughtered the two lambs with intent to eat one of the loaves the next day; he burned the two frankincense bowls with intent to eat one of the Lechem HaPanim arrangements the next day. R' Yose: that loaf and that arrangement are pigul with karet liability; the second is pasul without karet. Chachamim: both are pigul with karet. [Tumah case:] One loaf or one arrangement became impure. R' Yehuda: both go to burning — a communal offering is not divided. Chachamim: the impure stays impure, the pure is eaten.
Fuchsia — Pigul (karet)
Green — Pasul only / eaten
Gold — Tana
Listen with Ephraim Diamond · 6:00 0:00 / 6:00
0:00
6:00
Speed
Click any Hebrew phrase above to jump to where Ephraim reads it · Highlight holds while he discusses each phrase
A picture is worth a thousand words ▾
Menachos 2:2 — two children debating whether pigul intent for one loaf invalidates only that loaf (R' Yose) or both loaves (Chachamim, halacha); on the Shulchan, two Shtei HaLechem loaves with the bezichin of frankincense in the background.
Case 1 — Improper intent (pigul): which loaf is affected?
He slaughtered BOTH lambs with intent to eat ONE loaf the next day
Which loaf becomes pigul?
פִּגּוּל בְּחַלָּה אַחַת?
R' Yose: Only the loaf he thought about is pigul + karet. The second loaf is pasul (invalid) but no karet — the improper intent was directed at one loaf specifically.
Chachamim (halacha): Both loaves are pigul + karet. The lambs' blood-sprinkling is a single permitting act for both loaves together. A pigul intent during that act contaminates both, since the permitting act is indivisible.
Case 2 — Tumah: does impurity of one loaf disqualify both?
R' Yehuda — both burned
שְׁנֵיהֶם יֵצְאוּ לְבֵית הַשְּׂרֵפָה
A communal offering (korban tzibbur) cannot be divided — it is either valid entirely or invalid entirely. If one loaf becomes tamei, the offering as a whole is disqualified and both loaves go to burning. This is R' Yehuda's consistent principle about communal offerings.
Chachamim — pure loaf is eaten · Halacha
הַטָּמֵא בְטֻמְאָתוֹ, וְהַטָּהוֹר יֵאָכֵל
Tumah is physical and local — it attaches to the specific loaf that became impure, not to the entire offering. The pure loaf retains its validity and may be eaten. This is the key difference between tumah and pigul: pigul spreads through the permitting act (which covers both); tumah stays local to what it touches.
R' Yehuda's source and method — tradition, not logic
R' Yehuda's principle that "a communal offering cannot be divided" is not derived through ordinary reasoning — he received it as a tradition from his teachers, who received it from theirs. The Gemara (Menachos 26b) confirms: "R' Yehuda did not state this from his own reasoning but from a tradition." This marks it as a halacha l'Moshe miSinai tradition — something preserved through the chain of transmission without a textual derivation. Chachamim, working from first principles (tumah is local; it attaches physically), reach the opposite conclusion for the tumah case.
Position in the Omer to Shavuos arc — 43 mishnayos
Preceding · Mishnah 41
Me'ilah 2:6
Three-stage kedushah for the bread — karmu, linah built in, blood sprinkled
Current · Mishnah 42
Menachos 2:2 — Pigul and Tumah in the Loaves
Movement IV
Applying the permitting-factor principle to pigul: the lambs' blood-sprinkling permits both loaves simultaneously (Chachamim), so pigul intent during that act spreads to both. Tumah, by contrast, is local and physical — it does not spread through the permitting act. These two cases embody a deep principle about how communal offerings work and how different types of invalidation attach differently.
Following · Mishnah 42b
Menachos 2:3
Piggul between paired offerings — the asymmetry between Todah / Kvasim and their loaves
‹PreviousMe'ilah 2:6›NextMenachos 2:3