The first states that when a priest takes a handful of the meal-offering intending to to eat the remainder or burn the handful the next day, Rabbi Yosei agrees that this is a case of piggul and he is liable to receive karet. If the priest's intent was to burn the frankincense the next day, Rabbi Yosei says that the meal offering is unfit but eating it does not make him liable to receive karet. The rabbis say that this is piggul with its punishment of karet.
The rabbis ask how this is different from an animal offering when one intends to sacrifice the portions eaten on the altar the next day - is that piggul? Rabbi Yosei says that the difference is the blood and flesh and portions eaten of an animal sacrifice are all one thing. Thus improper intent about one of those parts affects the entire offering. Frankincense, however, is not part of the meal offering and so piggul is not automatically assumed with improper intent.
The second Mishna says that
- when one slaughters two lambs along with the two meal-offering loaves that are sacrificed on Shavuot with the intent to partake of one of the two loaves the next day, or
- if one burned the two bowls of frankincense along with the shewbread with the intent to eat one of the shrewbreads the following day,
- Rabbi Yosei says that both loaves (that one and the arrangement he would eat from the following day) are piggul and one is liable to receive karet for eating them
- further, the second loaf and the arrangement are unfit but there is no liability to receive karet
- The rabbis respond by saying that both loaves and both arrangements are piggul and one is liable to receive karet in both cases
Today's conversation considers the ways that ritual acts might combine. The performance of one might have implications on others. Or not. This is part of a larger consideration of boundaries and limits; how we understand what is this and what is that.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment