Menachos 1:1 - 1:2

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.

זר ואונן וטבול יום כו' – all of them are explained in the Second Chapter of [Tractate] Zevakhim [Mishnah 1], and we prove them from Scriptural verses that their Divine Service is invalid.

ערל – a Kohen whose brother died on account of ritual circumcision.

יושב – that we require to stand to minister/serve [before God].

על גבי כלים כו' – that we require that there will not be anything that divides/cuts off between him and the floor.

בן בתירא אומר יחזיר – the handful of the meal-offering which the priest takes to be put on the altar into the meal-offering.

ויחזיר ויקמוץ בימין – and same law applies to all of these invalidates that are considered in our Mishnah, Ben Beteyra holds that if someone transgressed one of them and took a fistful, he should return the handful of the meal-offering to its place and a kosher/fit Kohen should take a handful of the meal-offering to be put on the altar into the meal offering. But the Halakha is not according to Ben Beteyra.

עלה בידו צרור – it was found that the handful of meal-offering which the Kohen takes to put on the altar was missing the place of the stone or a grain of salt or a particle of frankincense, for prior to taking a fistful of meal-offering he singles out all of the frankincense to one side and takes a handful of meal-offering and afterwards collects it and places with the handful of meal-offering and burns everything. But if he happens upon a grain of salt or a particle of frankincense, the handful of meal-offering is missing according to the place of the particle [of frankincense].

מבורץ – full and overflowing.

שקמצו בראשי אצבעותיו – he did not stretch them over the entire palm of his hand.

פושט את אצבעותיו על פס ידו – the sides of his fingers enter into the flour and he brings in the flour into his hand and smooths it with his small finger so that the flour will not go outside of the fistful and he he smooths it with his thumb that the flour would not leave outside of his finger. And this he had to do with meal-offerings prepared in a pan (i.e., fried in a flat pan) or [a meal-offering] prepared in a deep pan (i.e., fried in a container full of oil) that their creations are baked and after they their baking, he crumbles it and takes a fistful. But it is impossible to crumble it so much into thin pieces, for they would not go forth from the fistful, therefore, he smooths them with his thumb from above and with the small finger (i.e., pinky) from below. And these were of the most difficult [acts] of Divine service that were in the Temple. That in this great difficulty one is able to compare that he would not be missing or have too much. And Maimonides wrote, that the words of the one of said that this is a difficult [act] of Divine Service were set aside, and he explains and he takes a fistful of the meal-offering as people would take fistfuls that is mentioned in the Gemara [i.e., Tractate Menahot 11a], that he fills his palm from it in the manner that people fill their hands from what they take in their hands. But I say, that that the explanation is not as how people take a fistful [of meal-offering] but rather, causes the sides of his fingers to enter into the flour that he brings in the flour with the sides of his fingers into his hand, but he doesn’t take the flour but rather fills three of his fingers until the palm of his hand and not further, in order that it will be cutting through from end to end and burst forth and come out, he smooths it from below with his small finger (i.e., pinky) and from above with a thumb. And that the words of the one who said that this is a difficult act from the difficult acts of Divine Service that is in the Temple are not set aside and the method of the Gemara is like m words. And such all of my teachers have explained it.