## Menachot Daf 3a

###### Menachot 3a:1
[Menachot 3a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/3a:1)

אָמְרִי: דִּילְמָא מִיצּוּי דְּבָתַר הַזָּאָה הוּא, דְּאָמַר מָר: מִיצָּה דָּמָהּ בְּכׇל מָקוֹם בַּמִּזְבֵּחַ כְּשֵׁירָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: This is not considered recognizably false intent, as people might **say: Perhaps** it is actually a sin offering and he has already sprinkled its blood below the red line. And as for the fact that he squeezed its blood above the red line, they will say: **It is the squeezing that follows sprinkling,** which may be performed above the red line in the case of a sin offering. **As the Master said:** If one **squeezed the blood of** a bird sin offering **in any place on the altar,** the offering is **valid.** Since people might erroneously think that this bird is actually a sin offering, this intent is not considered recognizably false, so the offering is disqualified.


###### Menachot 3a:2
[Menachot 3a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/3a:2)

חַטַּאת הָעוֹף שֶׁהִזָּה דָּמָהּ לְמַטָּה לְשֵׁם עוֹלַת הָעוֹף תְּרַצֶּה, דְּמַעֲשֶׂיהָ מוֹכִיחִין עָלֶיהָ דְּחַטַּאת עוֹף הִיא, דְּאִי עוֹלַת הָעוֹף הִיא – לְמַעְלָה הֲוָה עָבֵיד לַהּ, וּמִיצּוּי הֲוָה עָבֵיד לַיהּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks another question: According to Rabba’s resolution, **a bird sin offering whose blood** a priest **sprinkled below** the red line **for the sake of a bird burnt offering should effect acceptance, as the actions** performed **on it prove that it is a bird sin offering. Because if it is** in fact **a bird burnt offering, he would have performed it above** the red line, **and he would have performed** the act of **squeezing** instead of sprinkling.


###### Menachot 3a:3
[Menachot 3a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/3a:3)

הָכִי נָמֵי, אֶלָּא לְפִי שֶׁאֵין הַמְּנָחוֹת דּוֹמוֹת לַזְּבָחִים קָאָמַר – לַזְּבָחִים, וְלֹא לָעוֹפוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: **Indeed,** according to Rabbi Shimon such a bird offering effects acceptance and fulfills the obligation of the owner. In fact, bird offerings were not discussed by Rabbi Shimon at all. **Rather, he said: Because meal offerings are not similar to slaughtered offerings,** which means that they are not similar **to slaughtered** animal **offerings, but** he did not say that they are **not** similar **to bird** offerings.


###### Menachot 3a:4
[Menachot 3a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/3a:4)

קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים שֶׁשְּׁחָטָן בַּצָּפוֹן לְשֵׁם קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים, לִירַצּוֹ, מַעֲשֵׂיהֶן מוֹכִיחִין עֲלֵיהֶן דְּקׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים נִינְהוּ, דְּאִי קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים – בַּדָּרוֹם הֲוָה עָבֵיד לְהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: But if so, then **offerings of the most sacred order that one slaughtered in the northern** part of the Temple courtyard, which is a requirement that applies only to offerings of the most sacred order, **for the sake of offerings of lesser sanctity, should effect acceptance** for their owners, as **the actions** performed **on them prove that they are offerings of the most sacred order. Because if** they are in fact **offerings of lesser sanctity, he would have performed their** slaughter **in the southern** part of the Temple courtyard.


###### Menachot 3a:5
[Menachot 3a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/3a:5)

אֵימוֹר דְּאָמַר רַחֲמָנָא אַף בַּדָּרוֹם, בַּדָּרוֹם וְלֹא בַּצָּפוֹן מִי אָמַר? דִּתְנַן: שְׁחִיטָתָן בְּכׇל מָקוֹם בָּעֲזָרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: The slaughter of an offering in the northern part of the Temple courtyard is not indicative of the type of offering one intends it to be, as one can **say that the Merciful One states** that offerings of lesser sanctity may be slaughtered **even in the southern** part of the courtyard. **Did** He **say** that these offerings must be slaughtered specifically **in the southern** part **and not in the northern** part? This is **as we learned** in a mishna (*Zevaḥim* 55a), that **the slaughter of** offerings of lesser sanctity may be performed **in any place within the** Temple **courtyard.**


###### Menachot 3a:6
[Menachot 3a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/3a:6)

קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים שֶׁשְּׁחָטָן בַּדָּרוֹם לְשֵׁם קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים לִירַצּוֹ, מַעֲשֵׂיהֶן מוֹכִיחִין עֲלֵיהֶן, דְּקָדָשִׁים קַלִּים נִינְהוּ, דְּאִי קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים – בַּצָּפוֹן הֲוָה עָבֵיד לְהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: If so, then **offerings of lesser sanctity that one slaughtered in the southern** part of the Temple courtyard **for the sake of offerings of the most sacred order should effect acceptance** for their owners, as **the actions** performed **on them prove that they are offerings of lesser sanctity. Because if** they are in fact **offerings of the most sacred order, he would have performed their** slaughter **in the northern** part of the Temple courtyard.


###### Menachot 3a:7
[Menachot 3a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/3a:7)

אָמְרִי: קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים נִינְהוּ, וּמִיעְבָּר הוּא דַּעֲבַר, וּשְׁחַט לְהוּ בַּדָּרוֹם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: The fact that an offering was slaughtered in the southern part of the Temple courtyard is not a clear indication that it was intended as an offering of lesser sanctity, as people might **say: They are** in fact **offerings of the most sacred order, but** the priest **transgressed** the mitzva to slaughter them in the northern part of the courtyard **and slaughtered them in the southern** part.


###### Menachot 3a:8
[Menachot 3a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/3a:8)

אִי הָכִי, מַחֲבַת לְשֵׁם מַרְחֶשֶׁת נָמֵי, הַאי דְּקָא קָמֵיץ לֵהּ לְמַרְחֶשֶׁת, אֲמַר: הַאי בְּמַרְחֶשֶׁת נְדַר, וְהָא דְּמַיְיתֵי לַהּ בְּמַחֲבַת – דְּמַרְחֶשֶׁת הִיא, וּמִעְבָּר הוּא דַּעֲבַר וְאַתְיַיהּ בְּמַחֲבַת!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **If so,** i.e., if people might suspect an individual of performing the rite of an offering in an improper manner, then if a priest removes a handful from **a pan** meal offering **for the sake of a deep-pan** meal offering **as well,** one who sees **that this** priest **removes a handful for** the sake of **a deep-pan** meal offering might **say: This** owner **took a vow** to bring a meal offering **in a deep pan, and** as for the fact **that he brings it in a pan, it is** actually the meal offering **of a deep pan and** the owner **transgressed** the mitzva to bring it in a deep pan, **and brought it in a pan.** Why, then, does Rabbi Shimon maintain that such a meal offering satisfies the obligation of its owner?


###### Menachot 3a:9
[Menachot 3a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/3a:9)

הָתָם, כִּי נָמֵי בְּמַרְחֶשֶׁת נָדַר, כִּי מַיְיתֵי לַהּ בְּמַחֲבַת – מַחֲבַת הָוְיָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **There,** where the priest removed the handful from a pan meal offering for the sake of a deep-pan meal offering, **even if** the owner **took a vow** to bring a meal offering **in a deep pan, when he brings it in a pan it is** considered a valid **pan** meal offering, and therefore the priest’s intention is recognizably false.


###### Menachot 3a:10
[Menachot 3a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/3a:10)

כְּדִתְנַן: הָאוֹמֵר ״הֲרֵי עָלַי בְּמַחֲבַת״ וְהֵבִיא בְּמַרְחֶשֶׁת, ״בְּמַרְחֶשֶׁת״ וְהֵבִיא בְּמַחֲבַת – מַה שֶּׁהֵבִיא הֵבִיא, וִידֵי נִדְרוֹ לֹא יָצָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
This is **as we learned** in a mishna (102b): **One who says: It** is incumbent **upon me** to bring a meal offering prepared **in a pan, and he brought** it **in a deep pan,** or if he says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a meal offering prepared **in a deep pan, and he brought** it **in a pan,** the meal offering **that he brought, he brought,** i.e., it is valid and the priest performs the rites of the meal offering that he actually brought, **but he did not fulfill** the obligation resulting from **his vow,** and he must bring another meal offering to fulfill that obligation.


###### Menachot 3a:11
[Menachot 3a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/3a:11)

וְדִילְמָא אָמַר ״זוֹ לְהָבִיא בְּמַחֲבַת״ וְהֵבִיא בְּמַרְחֶשֶׁת, כְּדִתְנַן: זוֹ לְהָבִיא בְּמַחֲבַת וְהֵבִיא בְּמַרְחֶשֶׁת, בְּמַרְחֶשֶׁת וְהֵבִיא בְּמַחֲבַת – הֲרֵי זוֹ פְּסוּלָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But** even so, the priest’s improper intent remains indiscernible, as people might think: **Perhaps** the owner **said: This** tenth of an ephah of flour is a meal offering that I must **bring in a pan, and** in spite of this **he brought** it **in a deep pan.** Such a meal offering is disqualified and is not considered a valid pan meal offering, **as we learned** in that same mishna: One who took a vow, saying: **This** tenth of an ephah of flour is a meal offering that I must **bring in a pan, and he brought** it **in a deep pan,** or if he vowed: This tenth of an ephah of flour is a meal offering that I must bring **in a deep pan, and he brought** it **in a pan, it is disqualified,** as he did not fulfill his vow. If so, how can Rabbi Shimon say that such a meal offering satisfies the owner’s obligation, when the intent is not recognizably false?


###### Menachot 3a:12
[Menachot 3a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/3a:12)

לְרַבָּנַן הָכִי נָמֵי, לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, כֵּיוָן דְּאָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: ״אַף יְדֵי נִדְרוֹ יָצָא״, אַלְמָא קְבִיעוּתָא דְמָנָא וְלָא כְּלוּם הוּא, וְלָא שְׁנָא אָמַר ״זוֹ״, וְלָא שְׁנָא אָמַר ״עָלַי״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: **According to the Rabbis,** i.e., according to the opinion of the mishna just cited, there is **indeed** a difficulty. But **according to Rabbi Shimon** there is no difficulty, **since** with regard to a case where one took a vow, saying: It is incumbent upon me to bring a pan meal offering, and then he brought it in a deep pan, **Rabbi Shimon says: He has fulfilled even** the obligation resulting from **his vow. Evidently, the designation of the vessel** for a meal offering **is nothing** according to Rabbi Shimon, **and** there **is no difference** in this regard whether **he said: This** is for a particular type of meal offering, **and there is no difference** whether **he said:** It is incumbent **upon me** to bring a particular meal offering. In both instances the unique actions of each particular meal offering prove its identity, and therefore the owner fulfills his obligation regardless of the priest’s improper intent.


###### Menachot 3a:13
[Menachot 3a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/3a:13)

אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, עוֹלָה שֶׁשָּׁחַט לְשֵׁם חַטָּאת תְּרַצֶּה, דְּהַאי זָכָר וְהַאי נְקֵבָה, כֵּיוָן דְּאִיכָּא שְׂעִיר נָשִׂיא דְּזָכָר הוּא – לָא יְדִיעַ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **If that is so,** that in a case where the manner of its preparation proves the identity of an offering the owner fulfills his obligation, then **a burnt offering that one slaughtered for the sake of a sin offering should effect acceptance.** His actions prove that it is a burnt offering, **as this,** a burnt offering, is always **male, and that,** a sin offering, is **female.** The Gemara answers: **Since there is** one sin offering, **the goat of** the ***Nasi*, which is male, it is unknown** whether this animal was a burnt offering or the sin offering of the *Nasi*, and its gender is not conclusive proof.


###### Menachot 3a:14
[Menachot 3a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/3a:14)

אָמַר: ״לְשֵׁם חַטַּאת יָחִיד״, מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר? וְתוּ, חַטַּאת יָחִיד שֶׁשְּׁחָטָהּ לְשֵׁם עוֹלָה תְּרַצֶּה, דְּחַטָּאת נְקֵבָה וְעוֹלָה זָכָר? מִיכַּסְּיָא בְּאַלְיָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara continues to ask: But in a case where one **said:** I am hereby slaughtering this animal **for the sake of a sin offering of an individual,** which is always female, **what can be said?** Since a male animal cannot be mistaken for such a sin offering, why doesn’t this burnt offering satisfy the obligation of the owner? **And furthermore, a sin offering of an individual that one slaughtered for the sake of a burnt offering should effect acceptance, as** such **a sin offering** is always **female, and a burnt offering** is always **male.** The Gemara responds: It is difficult to discern whether a lamb is male or female, as its genitals are **covered by** its **tail.** Accordingly, its gender is not considered proof of the type of offering being sacrificed.


###### Menachot 3a:15
[Menachot 3a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/3a:15)

הָתִינַח הֵיכָא דְּאַיְיתִי כִּבְשָׂה, אַיְיתִי שְׂעִירָה, מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר? אֶלָּא, בֵּין זְכָרִים לִנְקֵבוֹת לָאו אַדַּעְתַּיְיהוּ דְאִינָשֵׁי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: This **works out well** in a case **where one brought a female lamb** as his sin offering, as its tail makes it difficult to discern its sex. But in a case where he **brought a female goat, what can be said?** Its gender is easily recognized, as goats do not have tails that cover their genitals. The Gemara answers: **Rather,** discerning **between males and females is not on people’s minds,** i.e., they do not take notice of the offering’s gender and therefore this aspect of an animal is not considered discernible.


###### Menachot 3a:16
[Menachot 3a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/3a:16)

פֶּסַח שֶׁשְּׁחָטוֹ לְשֵׁם אָשָׁם לִירַצֵּי, דְּהַאי בֶּן שָׁנָה, וְהַאי בֶּן שְׁתֵּים, כֵּיוָן דְּאִיכָּא אֲשַׁם נָזִיר וַאֲשַׁם מְצוֹרָע, לָא פְּסִיקָא לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara continues to challenge the opinion of Rabba: **A Paschal offering that one slaughtered for the sake of a guilt offering should effect acceptance, as this,** the Paschal offering, is **in its** first **year, and that,** a guilt offering, is **in its second** year. The Gemara answers: **Since there are** two guilt offerings that are brought from lambs in their first year, i.e., **the guilt offering of a nazirite** (see Numbers 6:12) **and the guilt offering of a leper** (see Leviticus 14:10), **it is not definitively** clear **to** an onlooker what type of offering this lamb is.


###### Menachot 3a:17
[Menachot 3a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/3a:17)

אָמַר: ״לְשׁוּם אֲשַׁם גְּזֵילוֹת וּלְשׁוּם אֲשַׁם מְעִילוֹת״, מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר? וְתוּ, אֲשַׁם גְּזֵילוֹת וַאֲשַׁם מְעִילוֹת שֶׁשְּׁחָטָן לְשׁוּם פֶּסַח לִירַצּוֹ, דְּפֶסַח בֶּן שָׁנָה וְהָנֵי בֶּן שְׁתֵּי שָׁנִים!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: But if one **said:** I am hereby slaughtering this lamb **for the sake of a guilt offering for robbery, or** if he said: I am slaughtering it **for the sake of a guilt offering for misuse** of consecrated property, **what can be said?** These guilt offerings must each be brought from an animal in its second year, and therefore they cannot be mistaken for a Paschal offering, which is in its first year. **And furthermore, a guilt offering for robbery or a guilt offering for misuse** of consecrated property **that one slaughtered for the sake of a Paschal offering should effect acceptance, as a Paschal offering is** always **in its** first **year, and these are in their second year.**


###### Menachot 3a:18
[Menachot 3a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/3a:18)

אֶלָּא, בֵּין בֶּן שָׁנָה לְבֵין בֶּן שְׁתֵּי שָׁנִים לָאו אַדַּעְתַּיְיהוּ דְאִינָשֵׁי, דְּאִיכָּא בֶּן שָׁנָה דְּמִיחֲזֵי כְּבֶן שְׁתַּיִם, וְאִיכָּא בֶּן שְׁתַּיִם דְּמִיחֲזֵי כְּבֶן שָׁנָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Rather,** the difference in appearance **between** an animal that is **in its** first **year and** one that is **in its second year is not on people’s minds,** i.e., this is not a clearly recognizable difference, **as there** can **be** an animal **in its** first **year that appears as** though it is **in its second** year, **and there** can **be** an animal **in its second** year **that appears as** though it is **in its** first **year.**


###### Menachot 3a:19
[Menachot 3a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/3a:19)

שָׂעִיר שֶׁשְּׁחָטוֹ לְשׁוּם אָשָׁם לִירַצֵּי, דְּהַאי צֶמֶר וְהַאי שֵׂיעָר, אָמְרִי: דִּיכְרָא אוּכָּמָא הוּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges: **A goat** sin offering **that one slaughtered for the sake of a guilt offering should effect acceptance.** It is clearly not a guilt offering, **as this,** a guilt offering, is a ram, with white **wool, and that,** a goat, has black **hair.** The Gemara responds: People will **say** that this goat **is** actually **a black ram,** and they may indeed mistake it for a guilt offering.


###### Menachot 3a:20
[Menachot 3a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/3a:20)

עֵגֶל וּפַר שֶׁשְּׁחָטָן לְשׁוּם פֶּסַח וְאָשָׁם, לִירַצּוֹ, דְּעֵגֶל וּפַר בְּפֶסַח וְאָשָׁם לֵיכָּא! אִין הָכִי נָמֵי,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges: **A calf or a bull that one slaughtered for the sake of** either **a Paschal offering or a guilt offering should effect acceptance.** It is clear that such animals cannot be either offering, **as a calf or bull** offering **is not** sacrificed either **as a Paschal offering or** as **a guilt offering.** The Gemara responds: **Yes,** it **is indeed so,** as according to Rabbi Shimon such offerings effect acceptance for their owners.