We are learning the final mishnah of the fifth chapter of Maseches Menachos, and our subject is those menachos that have two matirim (permitting agents) rather than only one.
These menachos have already been mentioned in the earlier mishnayos of the chapter:
The ordinary minchah - it has a kometz and also levonah.
The Two Loaves - the two lambs of Atzeres that are brought with them on Shavuos.
The lechem hapanim - the two dishes of levonah.
The central question around which the mishnah revolves is this: does one render an offering piggul through half a matir, or not? That is, if he performed one of the two matirim with the intention of eating it outside its time or outside its place, does the entire korban become piggul, or perhaps the korban does not become piggul until he has the disqualifying intention in both matirim together?
This subject already came up in the first mishnah of the chapter, in the principle that "one matir does not render another matir piggul." There the discussion concerned an intention regarding the levonah at the time of the kemitzah: since both are matirim, if he intended to burn the levonah outside its time while he was performing the kemitzah - that is a dispute among the Tannaim, but the principle itself is agreed upon by all, that one matir does not render another matir piggul. The dispute there revolved around whether these two halves are considered two separate matirim. In our mishnah this principle is explicit: there are two matirim, and one does not affect the other. The only question is whether piggul intention in one of the two renders the entire korban piggul.
He had piggul intention in the kometz but not in the levonah:
In the ordinary minchah there is a kometz and also a handful of levonah that go up to the mizbe'ach, and both are required in order to permit the remainder for eating. Says the mishnah: "pigel bakometz velo balevonah, balevonah velo bakometz" - he performed the kemitzah with the intention of eating the remainder outside its time, but when burning the levonah he did not have such an intention, or the reverse:
Rabbi Meir says: "piggul vechayav alav kares" - the entire minchah becomes piggul, and one who eats from the remainder is liable to kares, for in his view one does render an offering piggul through half a matir: even if the disqualifying intention was in only one of the two matirim, the entire korban becomes piggul.
And the Chachamim say: "ein bo kares ad sheyefagel es kol hamatir" - one does not render an offering piggul through half a matir, and as long as he did not have the intention in both components the korban does not become piggul. The korban is indeed invalid, but only by rabbinic law, as will be explained below.
And the Chachamim agree with Rabbi Meir regarding the minchas chotei and the minchas kena'os:
The minchas chotei is the offering of one who cannot afford to bring a korban oleh veyored, and the minchas kena'os is the minchah of the sotah, which her husband brings on her account. In these two menachos the Chachamim agree that if he had piggul intention during the kemitzah, the korban is piggul, and one who eats from the remainder is liable to kares, "shehakometz hu hamatir" - because the kometz is the matir. The reason is clear: in these two menachos there is no levonah at all, so the kometz is the only matir.
Seemingly, if the matter is so simple, why did the mishnah need to teach it to us? Rather, this emphasis highlights that there are types of menachos that have no levonah, and this is the reason that according to the Chachamim, even though the disqualifying intention was in only one of the two matirim, which is not enough to make it piggul, the korban nevertheless remains invalid by rabbinic law. For if we were to permit a korban in whose kemitzah there was an intention of outside its time, people would come to permit it even in the minchas chotei and the minchas kena'os, where this is full-fledged piggul.
And the same applies if the disqualifying intention was in the levonah alone, for there is a minchah that has levonah but no kometz - the lechem hapanim, which has two dishes of levonah and has no kemitzah. Therefore the Chachamim said that here too the korban is invalid by rabbinic law, lest people come to permit the lechem hapanim.
The Two Loaves and the Two Rows:
The Mishnah continues with additional meal offerings that have two matirim (permitting agents): the Two Loaves on Shavuos, whose matirim are the two lambs, and the lechem hapanim (showbread) every Shabbos, whose matirim are the two bowls of frankincense. And so we learned: "Shachat echad min hakevasim le'echol shtei hachalos lemachar, hiktir echad min habazichin le'echol shnei sedarim lemachar" - he slaughtered one of the two lambs of Atzeres with the intent to eat the bread that comes with them on the next day rather than today, or he burned one of the two bowls of frankincense with the intent to eat the lechem hapanim after Shabbos. The disqualifying intent was made with only one of the two matirim.
It is worth noting that the Mishnah speaks of an intent regarding both loaves together and both rows together, so as not to become entangled in the distinction mentioned earlier concerning an intent regarding only part of the item.
Rabbi Meir says: "Pigul vechayav alav kares" - according to his view one can render an offering pigul with half a matir, and therefore even if he offered one of the lambs or burned one of the bowls with an intent of eating beyond the proper time, the offering is pigul.
And the Sages say: "Ein bo kares ad sheyefagel es kol hamatir" - one does not render an offering pigul with half a matir, and as long as the disqualifying intent was made with only one of the lambs or only one of the bowls, the offering does not become pigul but is merely disqualified by rabbinic law. Pigul takes effect only if both lambs or both bowls were handled with an intent of beyond the proper time.
"Shachat echad min hakevasim le'echol mimenu lemachar":
The third case in the Mishnah deals with an intent regarding the offering itself and not regarding the meal offering: he slaughtered one of the two lambs of Atzeres with the intent to eat from it tomorrow instead of today. This is an intent of beyond the proper time in every respect, and therefore "hu pigul vechavero kasher" - the first lamb, with which the intent was made, becomes pigul, while the second lamb is unaffected and remains valid.
And here is the novelty of the ruling: ordinarily, if a person brings two offerings, such as an asham and a chatas, and while performing the service of the asham he had an intent of beyond the proper time regarding the chatas, that intent accomplishes nothing. But here, since the two lambs of Atzeres combine and function together as the two matirim of the bread that comes with them, one might have thought that they are bound to one another. The Mishnah teaches that they are not bound together, and when one renders one of them pigul, its counterpart remains valid.
Moreover, their independence extends so far that if, during the blood services of the first lamb - the slaughtering, the receiving and the sprinkling - he had an intent of beyond the proper time regarding the offering of the second lamb or regarding eating it, the intent is entirely irrelevant, since they are two independent offerings. Therefore both remain valid: the first lamb, in which no pigul intent relating to itself was made, remains valid, and certainly the second lamb is unaffected by an intent that was had during the service of the first. And even the Sages agree to this.
As was already noted in the first Mishnah of the chapter, this ruling stands in contrast to the kometz and the frankincense, where the Sages said that one who performs the kemitzah while thinking about the frankincense does render the offering pigul, because they are sanctified together in a single vessel and are like two halves of one whole. Not so with the lambs of Atzeres, which are two separate offerings that stand on their own, except that both must be performed in order to permit the bread.
In summary: in this Mishnah we learned the law of the meal offerings that have two matirim - the kometz and the frankincense, the two lambs of Atzeres and the two bowls of the lechem hapanim - and the dispute between Rabbi Meir and the Sages as to whether one can render an offering pigul with half a matir: according to Rabbi Meir, a pigul intent with one of the matirim makes the entire offering pigul and one is liable to kares for it, while according to the Sages there is no pigul until he renders the entire matir pigul, and in the meantime the offering is disqualified by rabbinic law. We also learned that the Sages agree regarding the sinner's meal offering and the meal offering of jealousy, in which the kometz is the sole matir, and from here comes the reason for the rabbinic decree - lest people come to permit these as well, and likewise the lechem hapanim, which has nothing but frankincense. And finally we learned that the lambs of Atzeres are independent offerings, and a pigul intent with one of them does not disqualify its counterpart.