Menachos Daf 5 מנחוס דַף 5

Reish Lakish says that a מנחת העומר whose קמיצה was performed שלא לשמה is valid, ושיריה אין נאכלין – but its remainder may not be eaten עד שתביא מנחת העומר אחרת ותתירנה – until another מנחת העומר is brought and permits it (since the עומר is brought from חדש, and the first עומר did not permit חדש). The Gemara asks, if the grain used in this מנחה remains forbidden in consumption, how can he offer it on the מזבח? But the passuk says: "ממשקה ישראל" – from the feast of Yisroel, teaching that korbanos must be brought מן המותר לישראל – from that which is permitted to Yisroel for consumption!? Rav Adda bar Ahavah answers that Reish Lakish holds: אין מחוסר זמן לבו ביום – there is no disqualification of prematurity for a korban which will become permitted that day. Since this עומר’s שירים will become permitted that day, when another עומר is brought, it is considered "ממשקה ישראל" even beforehand. This explanation is eventually refuted, and Rav Pappa answers instead that Reish Lakish holds: האיר מזרח מתיר – the illuminating of the eastern sky on the sixteenth of Nissan permits the new grain in consumption, not the bringing of the עומר. It is merely a mitzvah not to eat the שירים until the עומר is properly brought, so the grain is considered "ממשקה ישראל".

Rava says that a מנחת העומר whose קמיצה was performed שלא לשמה is כשר, and its שירים may be eaten, and no other מנחת העומר is required to permit it. He explains that שלא לשמה intent is completely ineffective for the מנחת העומר: שאין מחשבה מועלת אלא במי שראוי לעבודה – because disqualifying intent is only effective by someone fit for the avodah, ובדבר הראוי לעבודה – and only with something which is fit for the avodah, ובמקום הראוי לעבודה – and only in a place which is fit for avodah. The Gemara explains each phrase: “Someone fit for avodah” excludes the intent of a בעל מום, who is unfit for avodah. “Something fit for the avodah” excludes intent about the מנחת העומר, which is not fit for any other type of offering, דחדוש הוא – because it is an anomaly, since barley is not ordinarily acceptable as a מנחה. “A place fit for avodah” means to exclude נפגם המזבח - where the mizbeiach was damaged, teaching that פיגול intent while the מזבח was damaged and unfit for avodah is ineffective.

A Baraisa darshens "מן הבקר" – from the cattle להוציא את הטריפה – to exclude a tereifah from being used as a korban. The Baraisa asks that this should be derived from a kal vachomer: ומה בעל מום שמותרת להדיוט – if a blemished [animal], which is permitted in consumption for a commoner, אסורה לגבוה – is forbidden for the “Most High” (i.e., as a korban), then a טריפה, which is forbidden in consumption for a הדיוט, should certainly be forbidden as a korban!? The Baraisa explains why this kal vachomer cannot be disproven from חלב, דם, and מליקה, which are all permitted to גבוה despite being prohibited in consumption. It concludes: ואם השבתה – and if you will respond that the kal vachomer can be undermined, we have the above derashah which disqualifies טריפה. The Gemara attempts to identify the counterargument to the kal vachomer. Suggested proofs from מנחת העומר (which is חדש, and forbidden to a הדיוט), פטום הקטורת (which is forbidden to make for a הדיוט), Shabbos (forbidden for a הדיוט’s מלאכה, but permitted for תמידין and מוספין), and כלאים (permitted in a Kohen’s garments), are all rejected because מצותה בכך – its commandment is such, and cannot be performed otherwise. This discussion continues on the next Daf.