Menachos Daf 2 מנחוס דַף 2

The first Mishnah begins: כל המנחות שנקמצו שלא לשמן כשירות – all menachos whose kemitzah was performed not for its sake are valid, אלא שלא עלו לבעלים לשם חובה – except that they do not count for the owner’s obligation. [A מנחת חוטא and a sotah’s minchah are invalid when performed שלא לשמה.] The Mishnah’s language implies that אסור לשנויי – it is prohibited to make more changes (שלא לשמה).  As Rava taught, if an עולה was shechted שלא לשמה, one may not do its zerikah שלא לשמה. This can be derived logically: משום דשני בה כל הני לישני בה וליזיל – just because he changed it (by performing its first avodah שלא לשמה), should he keep changing it [with the later avodos]?! Alternatively, this can be derived from a passuk: כאשר נדרת לה' אלקיך נדבה – like you vowed to Hashem, your G-d, a donation. These contradictory terms of נדר and נדבה teach that if one shechted his korban לשמה, it counts for his נדר, but if not, נדבה יהא – it will be a nedavah (an additional, donated korban). ונדבה מי שרי לשנויי בה – And is it permitted to make changes to a nedavah? Since a nedavah must certainly be brought לשמה, so too if a sacrifice was begun שלא לשמה, its remaining avodah must likewise be performed לשמה.

In a Baraisa, Rebbe Shimon says that menachos (including מנחת חוטא) whose קמיצה was performed שלא לשמה are valid, and they do count for the owner’s obligation. He explains that menachos are different from korbanos (where one does not fulfill his obligation with avodah שלא לשמה), because if one does kemitzah on a מנחת מחבת (fried on a flat griddle) for the sake of a מנחת מרחשת (fried in a deep pan), מעשיה מוכיחין עליה לשום מחבת – its makeup demonstrates that it is actually being prepared for a machavas. Similarly, if kemitzah of a חריבה – dry minchah is performed for the sake of a בלולה – [minchah] mixed with oil, מעשיה מוכיחין עליה לשום חריבה – its makeup demonstrates that it is being prepared for a dry [minchah]. In contrast, korbanos have no distinctions indicating which type of korban is being sacrificed: שחיטה אחת לכולן – there is only one type of shechitah for all of them, and only one זריקה and קבלה for all of them. The Gemara discusses whether our Mishnah can agree with Rebbe Shimon, depending on the different explanations of his opinion.

In the above Baraisa, Rebbe Shimon says a minchah whose קמיצה was performed שלא לשמה is fully valid and counts for his obligation. This is contradicted by another Baraisa, in which Rebbe Shimon explains that the Torah says a minchah is “like a חטאת and like an אשם” to teach that a מנחת חוטא is like a חטאת, and disqualified שלא לשמה, while a מנחת נדבה is like an אשם, and valid שלא לשמה, and like an אשם, it would not fulfill the owner’s obligation!? Three answers are given, the first of which appears on this Daf. Rabbah answers: כאן בשינוי קודש – [the first Baraisa] is with a change of “holiness,” i.e., intent for a different type of minchah, and Rebbe Shimon rules that since it is readily apparent that his intent is false, it is disregarded, and the minchah is completely valid. כאן בשינוי בעלים – [the second Baraisa] is with a change of owner, i.e., intent for one person’s minchah to be for someone else’s sake; since there is no indication from the minchah that his intention is false, it can invalidate the minchah. Rebbe Shimon is דריש טעמא דקרא – expounds the reason of the Torah’s laws, and says here that מחשבה דלא מינכרא פסל רחמנא – Hashem only invalidated sacrifices brought with an intention which is not recognizable as false.