Menachos Daf 3 מנחוס דַף 3

On the previous Daf, Rabbah explained that Rebbe Shimon validates a minchah brought שלא לשמה when it is obvious from its makeup that the intent is false, as opposed to korbanos, whose עבודות are identical. The Gemara asks a series of questions from cases of korbanos where it seems likewise obvious that his intent שלא לשמה is false. Most are deflected as not readily apparent, but the Gemara concedes that some questions are correct: a חטאת העוף whose blood was sprinkled למטה – below the middle line of the mizbeiach לשם עולה is fully valid (and counts for the owner’s obligation) according to Rebbe Shimon, since an עולה’s blood would be squeezed למעלה. Also, if one shechts a calf or bull for the sake of a korban pesach or asham (which must be a lamb or ram, respectively), it is fully valid, דעגל ופר בפסח ואשם ליכא – because there is no such thing as a calf and bull used as a pesach or asham. When Rebbe Shimon said that "זבחים" – [animal] korbanos are different from מנחות (that their intent שלא לשמה invalidates them), he meant רוב זבחים – most korbanos.

Rava offers another answer to the contradiction between Rebbe Shimon’s rulings about a minchah whose kemitzah was performed שלא לשמה: if he performed the kemitzah לשום מנחה – for the sake of another type of minchah, it is fully valid, because the passuk says "וזאת תורת המנחה" – and this is the law of the minchah, teaching תורה אחת לכל המנחות – there is one law for all different types of menachos. However, מנחה לשום זבח – if he offers a minchah for the sake of a korban, it is invalid, because the passuk does not say “this is the law of the minchah and the זבח – korban.” After the Gemara explains how to interpret Rebbe Shimon’s given rationale in the Baraisa, it points out that if one shechts a חטאת חלב (i.e., brought for eating חלב) for the sake of a חטאת דם, or for the sake of a חטאת עבודת כוכבים, Rebbe Shimon would rule it valid (contrary to the standard halachah of a חטאת שלא לשמה), since the passuk says"וזאת תורת החטאת" – and this is the law of the chatas, teaching תורה אחת לכל חטאות – there is one law for all types of chataos.

Rav Ashi offers a final answer to the contradiction between Rebbe Shimon’s rulings: if the kemitzah of a מחבת was performed לשום מרחשת – for the sake of a marcheshes, it is valid, because במנא קא מחשב – he is intending for it to be for the sake of a particular vessel, ומחשבה במנא לא פסלה – and intent for the sake of a vessel does not invalidate, because it is a meaningless intent. However, if the kemitzah was made לשום מנחת מרחשת – for the sake of a minchas marcheshes, במנחה דפסלה בה מחשבה קא מחשב – then he is intending for a minchah, whose intention does invalidate. The Gemara proceeds to explain how to interpret Rebbe Shimon’s given rationale in the Baraisa. The Gemara asks that in the Baraisa’s case of a dry minchah for a "בלולה" – [minchah] mixed with oil, it is obvious that he is referring to a type of minchah, since he did not mention any type of כלי. It answers that he may mean לשום בילה בעלמא – for the sake of some [non-minchah] mixture (in contrast to an intent for the sake of a “shelamim,” which is the name of a type of a korban).