## Menachot Daf 4a

###### Menachot 4a:1
[Menachot 4a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/4a:1)

מָה לִי אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן? טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מִשּׁוּם מַחְשָׁבָה דְּמִינַּכְרָא לָא פָּסְלָה, וְהָא מַחְשָׁבָה דְּמִינַּכְרָא הוּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**what** should **I** understand that **Rabbi Shimon says** with regard to such a case? Is **the reason of Rabbi Shimon,** who says that a meal offering from which a handful was removed for the sake of another meal offering is valid and effects acceptance, **that intent that is recognizably** false **does not disqualify** an offering? **And** if so, **this** meal offering from which a handful is removed for the sake of an animal offering **is** also a case of **intent that is recognizably** false, and therefore the meal offering should not be disqualified.


###### Menachot 4a:2
[Menachot 4a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/4a:2)

אוֹ דִילְמָא טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מִשּׁוּם דִּכְתִיב: ״וְזֹאת תּוֹרַת הַמִּנְחָה״, וְזֶבַח לָא כְּתִיב. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: כְּלוּם הִגַּעְנוּ לְסוֹף דַּעְתּוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Or perhaps the reason of Rabbi Shimon is that it is written: “And this is the law of the meal offering”** (Leviticus 6:7), which indicates that there is one law for all meal offerings. If so, then a meal offering from which a handful was removed for the sake of an animal offering should be disqualified, since it **is not written:** And this is the law of the meal offering **and a slaughtered offering.** Rav Asi **said to** Rav Hoshaya: **Have we ascertained the depth of the opinion of Rabbi Shimon** in this matter? In other words, Rabbi Shimon’s reasoning is not known.


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

כְּרַבָּה לָא מְשַׁנֵּי לֵיהּ, מִשּׁוּם קוּשְׁיָא דְאַבָּיֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains why Rav Asi did not resolve this dilemma. Rav Asi **did not resolve** the dilemma of Rav Hoshaya in accordance **with** the resolution stated by **Rabba,** that there is a distinction between one who removes the handful of a meal offering for the sake of another meal offering and one who removes it for the sake of another owner, **because of the difficulty** posed by **Abaye** (2b), that the *halakha* of both these cases is derived from the same comparison in the Torah between meal offerings and animal offerings.


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

כְּרָבָא לָא מְשַׁנֵּי לֵיהּ, מִשּׁוּם קוּשְׁיָא ״וְזֹאת תּוֹרַת הַחַטָּאת״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Likewise, Rav Asi **did not resolve** the dilemma **in accordance with** the resolution stated by **Rava,** that the verse “And this is the law of the meal offering” teaches that a meal offering from which a handful was removed for the sake of another meal offering is valid, whereas a meal offering from which a handful was removed for the sake of an animal offering is disqualified. This is **because of the difficulty** arising from the verse: **“And this is the law of the sin offering”** (Leviticus 6:18), i.e., despite this verse, the *halakha* is that a sin offering that was slaughtered for the sake of another sin offering is not valid.


###### Menachot 4a:5
[Menachot 4a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/4a:5)

כְּרַב אָשֵׁי לָא מְשַׁנֵּי לֵיהּ, מִשּׁוּם קוּשְׁיָא דְּרַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרָבָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Finally, Rav Asi **did not resolve** the dilemma **in accordance with** the resolution stated by **Rav Ashi,** that there is a distinction between one who removes the handful of a meal offering prepared in one vessel for the sake of a different vessel, and one who removes it for the sake of a meal offering prepared in a different vessel, **because of the difficulty** posed by **Rav Aḥa, son of Rava.** This difficulty concerns a case where one removes the handful of a dry meal offering for the sake of one mixed with oil; Rabbi Shimon holds that such a meal offering is valid despite the fact that the person’s intent referred to the meal offering itself, not the vessel.


###### Menachot 4a:6
[Menachot 4a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/4a:6)

חוּץ מִמִּנְחַת חוֹטֵא וּמִנְחַת קְנָאוֹת. בִּשְׁלָמָא מִנְחַת חוֹטֵא – ״חַטָּאת״ קַרְיַיהּ רַחֲמָנָא, ״לֹא יָשִׂים עָלֶיהָ שֶׁמֶן וְלֹא יִתֵּן עָלֶיהָ לְבוֹנָה כִּי חַטָּאת הִיא וְגוֹ׳״, אֶלָּא מִנְחַת קְנָאוֹת מְנָלַן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches that all meal offerings from which a handful was removed not for their sake but for the sake of another meal offering are fit for sacrifice, **except for the meal offering of a sinner and the meal offering of jealousy.** The Gemara asks: **Granted, the meal offering of a sinner** is disqualified when a handful is removed from it not for its own sake, as **the Merciful One calls it a sin offering,** in the verse: **“He shall put no oil upon it, neither shall he put any frankincense upon it, for it is a sin offering.** And he shall bring it to the priest, and the priest shall take his handful” (Leviticus 5:11–12). This verse indicates that just as a sin offering is disqualified when sacrificed not for its own sake, so too, the meal offering of a sinner is disqualified when a handful is removed from it not for its own sake. **But** with regard to **the meal offering of jealousy, from where do we** derive that this is the *halakha*?


###### Menachot 4a:7
[Menachot 4a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/4a:7)

דְּתָנֵי תַּנָּא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב נַחְמָן: מִנְחַת קְנָאוֹת מוֹתָרָהּ נְדָבָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers that this *halakha* may be derived from a *baraita*, **as a *tanna* taught** a *baraita* **before Rav Naḥman:** With regard to money that was designated for **a meal offering of jealousy, its surplus,** i.e., the money remaining after the purchase of the meal offering, is used to purchase communal **gift** offerings.


###### Menachot 4a:8
[Menachot 4a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/4a:8)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: שַׁפִּיר קָאָמְרַתְּ, ״מַזְכֶּרֶת עָוֹן״ כְּתִיב בָּהּ, וּבְחַטָּאת כְּתִיב: ״וְאֹתָהּ נָתַן לָכֶם לָשֵׂאת אֶת עֲוֹן הָעֵדָה״, מָה חַטָּאת מוֹתָרָהּ נְדָבָה – אַף מִנְחַת קְנָאוֹת מוֹתָרָהּ נְדָבָה. וְכַחַטָּאת, מָה חַטָּאת פְּסוּלָה שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָהּ – אַף מִנְחַת קְנָאוֹת פְּסוּלָה שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Naḥman **said to him: You are saying well,** as **it is written with regard to** a meal offering of jealousy: **“Bringing iniquity to remembrance”** (Numbers 5:15), **and it is written with regard to a sin offering: “And He has given it you to bear the iniquity of the congregation”** (Leviticus 10:17). A verbal analogy is drawn between the two uses of the term “iniquity” in these verses. This teaches that **just as** in the case of **a sin offering, its surplus** is used to purchase communal **gift** offerings, **so too,** with regard to **a meal offering of jealousy, its surplus** is used to purchase communal **gift** offerings. **And** a meal offering of jealousy is also **like a sin offering** in another aspect: **Just as a sin offering is disqualified** when sacrificed **not for its own sake, so too, a meal offering of jealousy is disqualified** when a handful is removed from it **not for its own sake.**


###### Menachot 4a:9
[Menachot 4a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/4a:9)

אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, אָשָׁם יְהֵא פָּסוּל שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ, דְּגָמַר ״עָוֹן״ ״עָוֹן״ מֵחַטָּאת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **If that is so,** that the *halakha* of a meal offering of jealousy is derived from a verbal analogy to a sin offering based on the word “iniquity,” then **a guilt offering should** also **be disqualified** if it was sacrificed **not for its own sake, as** a similar verbal analogy may be **derived from** the verse that states: “The **iniquity [*avon*]** of the congregation” (Leviticus 10:17), with regard to **a sin offering,** and the verse that states: “And shall bear his **iniquity”** (Leviticus 5:17), in connection with a guilt offering.


###### Menachot 4a:10
[Menachot 4a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/4a:10)

דָּנִין ״עָוֹן״ מֵ״עָוֹן״, וְאֵין דָּנִין ״עֲוֹנוֹ״ מֵ״עָוֹן״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: **One derives** a verbal analogy based on the word **“iniquity” from** a verse that likewise uses the term **“iniquity,” but one does not derive** a verbal analogy based on the term **“his iniquity [*avono*]” from** a verse that uses the term **“iniquity.”**


###### Menachot 4a:11
[Menachot 4a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/4a:11)

מַאי נָפְקָא מִינַּהּ? וְהָא תָּנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: ״וְשָׁב הַכֹּהֵן״ ״וּבָא הַכֹּהֵן״ – זוֹ הִיא שִׁיבָה זוֹ הִיא בִּיאָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What difference is** there? **Didn’t the school of Rabbi Yishmael teach** the following verbal analogy with regard to leprosy of houses? The verse states: **“And the priest shall return [*veshav*]** on the seventh day” (Leviticus 14:39), and another verse concerning the priest’s visit seven days later states: **“And the priest shall come [*uva*]** and look” (Leviticus 14:44). **This returning** and **this coming** have the same meaning, and one can therefore derive by verbal analogy that the *halakha* that applies if the leprosy had spread at the conclusion of the first week applies if it had spread again by the end of the following week. All the more so should a less pronounced difference of one letter between *avon* and *avono* not prevent the teaching of a verbal analogy.


###### Menachot 4a:12
[Menachot 4a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/4a:12)

וְעוֹד, לִיגְמַר ״עֲוֹנוֹ״ ״עֲוֹנוֹ״ מֵעָוֹן דִּשְׁמִיעַת הַקּוֹל, דִּכְתִיב: ״אִם לֹא יַגִּיד וְנָשָׂא עֲוֹנוֹ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And furthermore, let one derive** a verbal analogy through the term **“his iniquity”** stated with regard to a guilt offering, and the term **“his iniquity” from** the verse concerning the sin offering brought for the **iniquity for hearing the voice,** i.e., the sin offering of one who takes a false oath that he does not have any information relevant to a matter when another requests that he testify about it, **as it is written: “If he does not utter it, then he shall bear his iniquity”** (Leviticus 5:1).


###### Menachot 4a:13
[Menachot 4a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/4a:13)

אֶלָּא, כִּי גָמְרִי גְּזֵירָה שָׁוָה, לְמוֹתַר נְדָבָה הוּא דְּגָמְרִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** it must be that **when the verbal analogy was derived, it was derived** only with regard **to** the *halakha* that the **surplus** from the money designated for a meal offering of jealousy is used to purchase communal **gift** offerings, and not with regard to the *halakha* that a meal offering of jealousy from which a handful was removed not for its own sake is disqualified.


###### Menachot 4a:14
[Menachot 4a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/4a:14)

וְכִי תֵימָא: אֵין גְּזֵירָה שָׁוָה לְמֶחֱצָה – גַּלִּי רַחֲמָנָא גַּבֵּי חַטָּאת, ״וְשָׁחַט אוֹתָהּ לְחַטָּאת״ – אוֹתָהּ לִשְׁמָהּ כְּשֵׁירָה, שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָהּ פְּסוּלָה. אֲבָל כׇּל קָדָשִׁים, בֵּין לִשְׁמָן בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָן – כְּשֵׁרִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you would say** that there is a principle that **there is no partial verbal analogy,** that principle does not apply in this instance. As **the Merciful One revealed with regard to a sin offering** that the *halakha* of other offerings may not be derived from this case, as the verse states: **“And slaughter it for a sin offering”** (Leviticus 4:33). This verse indicates that **it,** i.e., a sin offering, when slaughtered **for its own sake** is **valid,** and when slaughtered **not for its own sake** is **disqualified. But all** other **sacrificial** animals, **whether** sacrificed **for their sake or not for their sake, are valid.**


###### Menachot 4a:15
[Menachot 4a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/4a:15)

אֶלָּא, מִנְחַת חוֹטֵא וּמִנְחַת קְנָאוֹת דִּפְסוּלִין שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָן, מְנָלַן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But** if the Merciful One revealed that one cannot derive the *halakha* of other offerings that were sacrificed not for their sake from a sin offering, then **from where do we** derive the *halakha* **that the meal offering of a sinner and the meal offering of jealousy are disqualified** when a handful is removed from them **not for their sake?**


###### Menachot 4a:16
[Menachot 4a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/4a:16)

חַטָּאת טַעְמָא מַאי, מִשּׁוּם דִּכְתִיב בַּהּ ״הִיא״, הָכִי נָמֵי, הָא כְּתִיב בְּהוּ ״הִיא״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: With regard to **a sin offering, what is the reason** that it is disqualified when sacrificed not for its own sake? It is **because it is written with regard to** this offering: **“It,”** in a verse discussing the sin offering of the *Nasi*: “It is a sin offering” (Leviticus 4:24). This indicates that a sin offering is valid only when it is sacrificed for its own sake. **So too, it is written with regard to them,** i.e., the meal offering of a sinner and the meal offering of jealousy: **“It.”** In the case of the meal offering of a sinner the verse states: “It is a sin offering” (Leviticus 5:11), and with regard to the meal offering of jealousy it is written: “It is a meal offering of jealousy” (Numbers 5:15).


###### Menachot 4a:17
[Menachot 4a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/4a:17)

אָשָׁם נָמֵי, הָא כְּתִיב בֵּיהּ ״הוּא״, הָהוּא ״הוּא״ לְאַחַר הַקְטָרַת אֵימוּרִין הוּא דִּכְתִיב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges: But if so, concerning **a guilt offering as well, it is written about** this offering: **“It,”** as the verse states: “It is a guilt offering” (Leviticus 7:5). Accordingly, a guilt offering should likewise be disqualified if it is slaughtered not for its own sake. The Gemara responds: **That** term **“it” is written with regard to** the stage **after the burning of** the **sacrificial portions [*eimurin*]** of a guilt offering, which are intended for burning upon the altar.


###### Menachot 4a:18
[Menachot 4a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/4a:18)

כִּדְתַנְיָא: אֲבָל אָשָׁם לֹא נֶאֱמַר בּוֹ ״הוּא״ אֶלָּא לְאַחַר הַקְטָרַת אֵימוּרִין, הוּא עַצְמוֹ שֶׁלֹּא הוּקְטְרוּ אֵימוּרָיו כָּשֵׁר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**As it is taught** in a *baraita*: One derives from the word “it” that if the offering was slaughtered not for its own sake it is disqualified only in the case of a sin offering. **But** concerning **a guilt offering, it is stated about** this offering: **“It** is a guilt offering,” **only** with regard to the stage **after the burning of** the **sacrificial portions.** The *baraita* adds: One cannot derive that if these portions were burned not for the sake of a guilt offering then the offering is disqualified, since the guilt offering **itself** is **valid** if **its sacrificial portions were not burned** upon the altar at all.


###### Menachot 4a:19
[Menachot 4a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/4a:19)

וְאֶלָּא ״הוּא״ לְמָה לִי? לְכִדְרַב הוּנָא אָמַר רַב: אָשָׁם שֶׁנִּיתַּק לִרְעִיָּיה, וּשְׁחָטוֹ סְתָם – כָּשֵׁר לְשׁוּם עוֹלָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But** if so, **why do I** need the word **“it”** stated with regard to a guilt offering? The Gemara answers: It is necessary **for that which Rav Huna** says that **Rav says:** With regard to **a guilt offering** whose owner died or whose transgression was otherwise atoned for, and **that was** therefore **consigned** by the court **to grazing** until it develops a blemish so that it can be sold and the proceeds used to purchase a burnt offering, if, before it developed a blemish, someone **slaughtered it without specification** of its purpose, it is **fit** if it was sacrificed **as a burnt offering.**


###### Menachot 4a:20
[Menachot 4a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/4a:20)

נִיתַּק – אִין, לֹא נִיתַּק – לָא. אָמַר קְרָא: ״הוּא״, בַּהֲוָיָיתוֹ יְהֵא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara infers: If **it was consigned** to grazing, **yes,** it is fit if it was sacrificed as a burnt offering if slaughtered. By inference, if **it was not consigned** to grazing, it is **not** fit. What is the reason for this? **The verse states: “It** is a guilt offering,” indicating that **it shall** remain **as it is,** i.e., as a guilt offering, unless it is consigned by the court to another purpose.


###### Menachot 4a:21
[Menachot 4a:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/4a:21)

אָמַר רַב: מִנְחַת הָעוֹמֶר שֶׁקְּמָצָהּ שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָהּ – פְּסוּלָה, הוֹאִיל וּבָאת לְהַתִּיר וְלֹא הִתִּירָה. וְכֵן אַתָּה אוֹמֵר בַּאֲשַׁם נָזִיר

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches that all the meal offerings from which a handful was removed not for their sake are fit for sacrifice but they do not fulfill the owner’s obligation. Concerning this, **Rav says:** With regard to **the *omer* meal offering,** i.e., the measure of barley brought as a communal offering on the sixteenth of Nisan (see Leviticus 23:9–14), if the priest **removed a handful** from it **not for its own sake** it is **disqualified.** It is disqualified **since** an *omer* meal offering **came** for a specific purpose, namely, **to permit** the consumption of the new crop, **and** this meal offering **did not permit** the consumption of the new crop because its rites were performed not for its own sake. **And so you say with regard to the guilt offering of a nazirite** who became ritually impure, whose proper sacrifice enables the nazirite to restart his naziriteship afresh in purity,