Let's finish Mishnayos in memory of those who were murdered in Israel.
Pledge Mishnayos
Mishnah.org Logo

Mishnayos Menachos Perek 1 Mishnah 1

מנחות פרק א׳ משנה א׳


When one brings a meal offering to the Temple, the priest removes a handful from it, places the handful into a service vessel, conveys it to the altar, and burns it. At that point, the remainder is permitted to the priests for consumption and the owner has fulfilled his obligation. In this context, the mishna teaches: All the meal offerings from which a handful was removed not for their sake but for the sake of another meal offering are fit for sacrifice. But these offerings did not satisfy the obligation of the owner, who must therefore bring another offering. This is the halakha with regard to all meal offerings except for the meal offering of a sinner and the meal offering of jealousy, which is brought as part of the rite of a woman suspected by her husband of having been unfaithful [sota]. In those cases, if the priest removed the handful not for its own sake, the offering is disqualified. With regard to the meal offering of a sinner and the meal offering of jealousy from which the priest removed a handful not for their sake, or where he placed a handful from them in a vessel, or conveyed the handful to the altar, or burned the handful on the altar, not for their sake, or for their sake and not for their sake, or not for their sake and for their sake, they are disqualified. The mishna elaborates: How are these rites performed for their sake and not for their sake? It is in a case where one removed the handful with two intentions: For the sake of the meal offering of a sinner and for the sake of a voluntary meal offering. How are these rites performed not for their sake and for their sake? It is in a case where one removed the handful with two intentions: For the sake of a voluntary meal offering and for the sake of the meal offering of a sinner.

כָּל הַמְּנָחוֹת שֶׁנִּקְמְצוּ שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָן, כְּשֵׁרוֹת, אֶלָּא שֶׁלֹּא עָלוּ לַבְּעָלִים מִשּׁוּם חוֹבָה, חוּץ מִמִּנְחַת חוֹטֵא, וּמִנְחַת קְנָאוֹת. מִנְחַת חוֹטֵא וּמִנְחַת קְנָאוֹת שֶׁקְּמָצָן שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָן, נָתַן בַּכְּלִי, וְהִלֵּךְ, וְהִקְטִיר שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָן, אוֹ לִשְׁמָן וְשֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָן, אוֹ שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָן וְלִשְׁמָן, פְּסוּלוֹת. כֵּיצַד לִשְׁמָן וְשֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָן, לְשֵׁם מִנְחַת חוֹטֵא וּלְשֵׁם מִנְחַת נְדָבָה, אוֹ שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָן וְלִשְׁמָן, לְשֵׁם מִנְחַת נְדָבָה וּלְשֵׁם מִנְחַת חוֹטֵא:


כל המנחות שנקמצו שלא לשמן – as for example, that he vowed a free-will offering of a meal-offering in a deep and covered pan and the Kohen took a fistful of he meal-offering for the sake of a pan [without a covered lid – which is fried on a flat pan] (and what is baked in it is a thick mass, which is different than that of a deep and covered pan deep-fried in oil (see Tractate Menahot 5:8).

כשרות – and he offers the incense of the fistful [of the meal-offering] and its residue is consumed [by the Kohanim]. For the fistful of the meal-offering stands in place of the ritual slaughter of the sacrifice. And just as regarding all of the animal offerings that were slaughtered not for their own sake are kosher/fit, as we derive from a Biblical verse at the beginning of Tractate Zevakhim (i.e., see Deuteronomy 23:24), here also, all the meal-offerings that are fistfuls which were gathered not for their own sakes are kosher/fit.

אלא שלא עלו לבעלים לשם חובה – It should have taught: “that it does not go to the owner’s credit for the fulfillment of an obligation/שלא עלו לבעלים לשם חובה “ (which is how it is phrased at the beginning of Tractate Zevakhim), but that it teaches here]: אלא" /but” – that implies that all of their laws are like kosher meal-offerings but for this thing, to teach us that it is prohibited to teach regarding it another change, that if he transgressed and took a fistful of it that was not for its sake, it is prohibited to give that fistful in sacred vessels that is not for its own sake.

שלא עלו לבעלים לשם חובתו – and he did not fulfill his vow and he has to bring another meal-offering for the sake of the deep and covered pan.

חוץ ממנחת חוטא – as for example, a meal-offering that comes on one’s ritual defilement from the Holy of Holies, if he could not afford two turtle-doves.

ומנחת קנאות – of the Sotah/the woman accused of infidelity by her husband. For if they took fistfuls that were not for their sake, as for example, for the purpose of a free-will offering, or he gave the handful in sacred vessels that were not for this purpose, or he walked or offered incense not for its sake/name, or he had in mind one of these forms of Divine Service: “I am serving for their sakes/name or not for their sakes/name.” These meal-offerings are invalid and their residues/remnants are not consumed. And the reason is because the All-Merciful calls the sin’s meal offering a sin-offering, and regarding a sin-offering, it is written (Leviticus 4:33): “[He shall lay his hand upon the head of the purification offering,] and it shall be slaughtered as a purification offering (i.e., sin-offering)/ושחט אותה לחטאת [at the spot where the burnt offering is slaughter],” (Leviticus 4:34): “and [the priest] shall take [with his finger] some of the blood of the purification offering,” so that the ritual slaughtering and the taking, that is the receiving of the blood will be for the sake of the sin-offering. But the meal offering of jealousy, since it is written concerning it "עון"/wrongdoing [as in] (Numbers 5:15): “a grain-offering of remembrance which recalls wrongdoing,” the Rabbis compare it to the sin-offering. And the meal-offering of the Omer, even though it is not a sinner’s meal-offering and is not the meal offering of jealousy, if a handful was taken not for its sake/name, it is invalidated from being offered up as incense, and none of its residue is consumed, since it came to permit the new [grain] crop [that ripened before Passover], and it did not permit it. But all of the meal-offerings that were grasped [from the grain] not for its sake/name are kosher, as is taught in our Mishnah, we are speaking especially with meal-offerings that don’t have a fixed time, but not of the meal-offering of the Omer that [the Torah] established a fixed time for it.

או שלא לשמן ולשמן – that you should not say for their sakes/name and not for their sakes/name that it is invalidated, for the latter language takes effect, but [both] not for their sakes/name and for their sakes/name are kosher/fit, this is what it comes to tell us.

כל המנחות שנקמצו שלא לשמן. כגון שהתנדב מנחת מרחשת והביאה, וקמצה הכהן לשם מחבת:

כשרות. ומקטיר הקומץ ושייריה נאכלים. שקמיצת המנחה במקום שחיטת הקרבן עומדת, וכשם שכל הזבחים שנשחטו שלא לשמן כשרים כדילפינן מקרא בריש מסכת זבחים, הכי נמי כל המנחות שנקמצו שלא לשמן כשרות:

אלא שלא עלו לבעלים לשם חובה. הוה מצי למתני ולא עלו לבעלים לשם חובה, והא דקתני אלא דמשמע דכל דינם כמנחות כשרות אלא דבר זה, לאשמועינן דאסור לשנויי בה שינוי אחר, שאם עבר וקמצה שלא לשמה אסור לתת הקומץ בכלי שרת שלא לשמה:

שלא עלו לבעלים לשם חובתו. ולא יצא ידי נדרו וצריך להביא מנחה אחרת לשם מרחשת:

חוץ ממנחת חוטא. כגון מנחה הבאה על טומאת מקדש וקדשיו, אם לא תשיג ידו לשתי תורים:

ומנחת קנאות. של סוטה. שאם קמצן שלא לשמן, כגון לשם נדבה, או נתן בכלי שרת את הקומץ שלא לשמו, או הלך או הקטיר שלא לשמו, או חישב באחת מן העבודות הללו הריני עובד לשמן ושלא לשמן. אלו מנחות פסולות ואין שייריהן נאכלים. וטעמא הוי משום דמנחת חוטא חטאת קרייה רחמנא. ובחטאת כתיב ושחט אותה לחטאת, ולקח מדם החטאת, שתהא שחיטה ולקיחה דהיינו קבלת הדם לשם חטאת. ומנחת קנאות הואיל וכתיב בה עון דכתיב מנחת זכרון מזכרת עון, כחטאת שויוה רבנן. ומנחת העומר, אע״ג דלאו מנחת חוטא היא ולאו מנחת קנאות היא, קמצה שלא לשמה פסולה מהקטיר, ואין שייריה נאכלים, הואיל ובאה להתיר החדש ולא התירה. וכל המנחות שנקמצו שלא לשמן כשרות דתנן במתניתין, דוקא במנחות שאין להם זמן קבוע איירי, ולא במנחת העומר שקבע לה זמן:

או שלא לשמן ולשמן. דלא תימא לשמן ושלא לשמן הוא דפסולה, דתפוס לשון אחרון, אבל שלא לשמן ולשמן כשרות, קמ״ל: