Menachos Daf 4 מנחוס דַף 4

The Mishnah taught that although most מנחות are valid when the קמיצה is שלא לשמה, a מנחת חוטא and מנחת קנאות are both פסול when their קמיצה was שלא לשמה. The Gemara suggests that a מנחת חוטא is invalid because חטאת קרייה רחמנא – the passuk calls it a chatas, and that מנחת קנאות is derived from a gezeirah shavah (עון עון) from chatas. However, the Gemara proves that this gezeirah shavah does not teach the laws of שלא לשמה, because the passuk about חטאת says "ושחט אותה לחטאת" – and he shall slaughter it as a chatas, teaching אותה לשמה כשירה שלא לשמה פסולה – only it (a chatas), is valid when offered for its own sake and invalid when offered not for its own sake, but all other korbanos are valid even when offered שלא לשמה. Instead, a similar derashah can be made by מנחת חוטא and מנחת קנאות, about which the passuk also says "היא". Although the word "הוא" is also written regarding an אשם, this does not teach that an אשם offered שלא לשמו is invalid, because it is written after הקטרת אימורין – the burning of the sacrificial parts, which itself is not מעכב in the korban.

Rav said: מנחת העומר שקמצה שלא לשמה פסולה – the minchah of the עומר whose קמיצה was performed שלא לשמה is completely invalid, הואיל ובאת להתיר ולא התירה – since it came to permit the new grain and did not permit it. Since the purpose of this מנחה is to permit חדש, and it failed to do so (since a korban brought שלא לשמה does not count for the obligation), it is פסול. Similarly, an אשם נזיר (of a nazir who became tamei, which allows him to restart his count) or אשם מצורע (which allows the מצורע to enter the מחנה), which were shechted שלא לשמן are invalid, הואיל ובאו להכשיר ולא הכשירו – since they came to qualify their owners and did not qualify them (since they were brought שלא לשמן). The Gemara explains why these exceptions were not listed in the first Mishnah of Zevachim and Menachos, respectively. [On the next Daf, a Baraisa teaches that an אשם מצורע which was shechted שלא לשמו is valid, and Rav is refuted.]

Rav said that an אשם נזיר and אשם מצורע which were shechted שלא לשמן are פסול, since they failed to be מכשיר their owners. The Gemara asks that the same should apply to an אשם גזילות – asham for theft and אשם מעילות, that באו לכפרה ולא כפרו – they came for atonement and did not atone!? Rebbe Yirmiyah answers that we find a distinction between מכפרין and מכשירין, in that מכפרין אית בהו דאתו לאחר מיתה – for there are some atoning [korbanos] which are brought after the owner’s death, whereas no מכשירין are ever brought after the owner’s death. This is illustrated by a Mishnah which teaches that if a woman gave birth, brought her חטאת, and died, her יורשין bring her עולה, which is a מכפר. However, if she instead brought her עולה and died, her יורשין do not bring her חטאת, which serves as a מכשיר (to allow her to eat kodashim). The Gemara asks that if a nazir designated funds for each of his korbanos (which are מכשירין, since they end his nazir prohibitions) and died, an עולה is brought from the עולה money, and a שלמים is brought from the שלמים money!? Rav Pappa answers that we never find הכשר קבוע – a set qualifier brought after the owner’s death. A nazir’s korbanos are not a הכשר קבוע, since bringing any one of his three korbanos ends his nazir prohibitions.