Study Menachot folio 17B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
demonstrates that there is no difference if one expresses his intention using the language of: Consumption on the altar, and there is no difference if one expresses his intention using the language of: Burning on the altar. Therefore, if the priest removed the handful from the meal offering while e
Alternatively, the doubled expression serves to teach that just as one renders the offering piggul only when one’s intention involves the consumption of an olive-bulk, as this is the minimal measure for an act to be considered eating, so too, one renders the offering piggul only when one’s intent
And what would R' Eliezer respond? He would say that if that were so, that the verse intends to teach only that halakha, let God write either: If he’akhol he’akhol, or: If ye’akhel ye’akhel, repeating the same form of the word twice. What is the reason that the verse states “he’akhol ye’akhel,” e
R' Zeira said to Rav Asi: But if the reasoning of R' Eliezer is due to that derivation, and he understands that the verse equates the improper intent to consume an item that is usually consumed with the improper intent to consume an item that is usually burned, then let one also be liable to receive
Rav Asi said to him: It is a dispute between tanna’im as to the opinion of R' Eliezer. There is one who says that R' Eliezer deems the offering to be unfit by Torah law and one is liable to receive karet. It was in accordance with this opinion that R' Yoḥanan cited the proof from the verse. And ther