## Menachot Daf 6a

###### Menachot 6a:1
[Menachot 6a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/6a:1)

מָה לְכִלְאַיִם שֶׁמִּצְוָתוֹ בְּכָךְ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**What** is notable **about diverse kinds?** It is notable **in that its mitzva is in this** manner, since the belt of the priestly vestments must be sewn from diverse kinds. By contrast, there is no mitzva to sacrifice specifically a *tereifa*.


###### Menachot 6a:2
[Menachot 6a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/6a:2)

רַב שִׁישָׁא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אִידִי אָמַר: מִשּׁוּם דְּאִיכָּא לְמֵימַר, לִיהְדַּר דִּינָא וְתֵיתֵי בַּ״מָּה הַצַּד״ – מָה לִמְלִיקָה שֶׁכֵּן קְדוּשָּׁתָהּ אוֹסַרְתָּהּ, חֵלֶב וָדָם יוֹכִיחוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Sheisha, son of Rav Idi, said:** The *halakha* that a *tereifa* is unfit for sacrifice must be derived from the verse, **because it can be said: Let** this claim **be derived by** analogy from **the common element** of two sources, as follows: With regard to the question of the *baraita*: **What** is notable **about pinching?** It is notable **in that its sanctity prohibits it,** one can respond: **Fat and blood prove** that this consideration is not enough to reject the *a fortiori* inference, as these are prohibited before they are sanctified and are nevertheless permitted for the Most High.


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

מָה לְחֵלֶב וָדָם, שֶׁכֵּן בָּאִים מִכְּלַל הֶיתֵּר – מְלִיקָה תּוֹכִיחַ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Similarly, with regard to the question: **What** is notable **about fat and blood?** They are notable **in that they come from** an item that is **generally permitted,** i.e., the animal from which they come is itself permitted for consumption, one can reply: **Pinching proves** that this consideration is insufficient for a rejection of the *a fortiori* inference, as a bird that was killed by pinching is entirely prohibited for eating, and yet a pinched bird is permitted to the altar.


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

וְחָזַר הַדִּין, לֹא רְאִי זֶה כִרְאִי זֶה וְלֹא רְאִי זֶה כִּרְאִי זֶה, הַצַּד הַשָּׁוֶה שֶׁבָּהֶן שֶׁאֲסוּרִין לַהֶדְיוֹט וּמוּתָּרִין לַגָּבוֹהַּ, אַף אֲנִי אָבִיא טְרֵפָה – אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֲסוּרָה לַהֶדְיוֹט תְּהֵא מוּתֶּרֶת לַגָּבוֹהַּ, מָה לְהַצַּד הַשָּׁוֶה שֶׁבָּהֶן שֶׁכֵּן מִצְוָתָהּ בְּכָךְ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Sheisha concludes: **And** accordingly, **the inference has reverted** to its starting point. **The aspect of this** case **is not like the aspect of that** case **and the aspect of that** case **is not like the aspect of this** case; **their common element** is **that they are prohibited** for consumption **to an ordinary person and are** nevertheless **permitted for the Most High.** Therefore, **I will also bring** the case of **a *tereifa*** and say: **Even though is it prohibited** for consumption **to an ordinary person, it should be permitted for the Most High.** It is therefore necessary to derive from a verse that a *tereifa* is unfit for sacrifice. The Gemara rejects this: **What** is notable **about their common element?** It is notable in **that** with regard to fat and blood, and pinching, in both cases **its mitzva** is performed **in this** manner.


###### Menachot 6a:5
[Menachot 6a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/6a:5)

אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי, מִשּׁוּם דְּאִיכָּא לְמֵימַר: מֵעִיקָּרָא דְּדִינָא פִּרְכָא, מֵהֵיכָא קָא מַיְיתֵית לַהּ? מִבַּעַל מוּם –

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Rav Ashi said:** It is necessary to derive the *halakha* of a *tereifa* from a verse **because one can say** that the **refutation of the** *a fortiori* **inference** is present **from the outset.** Rav Ashi elaborates: **From where do you** wish to **derive** the *halakha* that a *tereifa* is unfit for sacrifice? You wish to derive it from an *a fortiori* inference **from** the case of **a blemished** animal, as a blemished animal is permitted for consumption and prohibited for sacrifice. This is problematic.


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

מָה לְבַעַל מוּם, שֶׁכֵּן עָשָׂה בּוֹ מַקְרִיבִין כִּקְרֵיבִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Ashi explains: **What** is notable **about a blemished** animal? It is notable **in that with regard to** blemishes the Torah **rendered those who sacrifice like that which is sacrificed,** i.e., a blemished priest may not sacrifice an offering just as a blemished animal is unfit for sacrifice (see Leviticus, chapter 22). This cannot be said with regard to a *tereifa*, as a priest with a wound that will cause him to die within twelve months may perform the Temple service. It is therefore necessary to derive from the verse the fact that a *tereifa* is unfit for sacrifice.


###### Menachot 6a:7
[Menachot 6a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/6a:7)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַחָא סָבָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: יוֹצֵא דּוֹפֶן יוֹכִיחַ, שֶׁלֹּא עָשָׂה בּוֹ מַקְרִיבִין כִּקְרֵיבִין, וּמוּתָּר לַהֶדְיוֹט וְאָסוּר לַגָּבוֹהַּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Aḥa Sava said to Rav Ashi:** But an animal **born by caesarean section proves** that this *a fortiori* inference cannot be rejected based on that consideration, **as with regard to it** the Torah **did not render those who sacrifice like that which is sacrificed,** since an animal born by caesarean section is unfit for sacrifice whereas a priest born in such a manner may perform the Temple service. **And** yet an animal born by caesarean section is **permitted** for consumption **to an ordinary person and prohibited for the Most High.** If so, one cannot reject the *a fortiori* inference because with regard to blemishes the Torah rendered those who sacrifice like that which is sacrificed. Why then is a verse necessary in order to derive that a *tereifa* is unfit?


###### Menachot 6a:8
[Menachot 6a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/6a:8)

מָה לְיוֹצֵא דּוֹפֶן, שֶׁכֵּן אֵינוֹ קָדוֹשׁ בִּבְכוֹרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Ashi responds: **What** is notable **about** an animal **born by caesarean section?** It is notable **in that** such an animal **is not sanctified with firstborn** status, whereas a firstborn animal that was born as a *tereifa* is sanctified. Accordingly, without the verse one might have concluded that a *tereifa* may be sacrificed.


###### Menachot 6a:9
[Menachot 6a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/6a:9)

בַּעַל מוּם יוֹכִיחַ, מָה לְבַעַל מוּם שֶׁכֵּן עָשָׂה בּוֹ מַקְרִיבִין כִּקְרֵיבִין, יוֹצֵא דּוֹפֶן יוֹכִיחַ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Aḥa Sava answers: **A blemished** animal **proves** that this is not the decisive consideration, as it does become sanctified with the sanctity of a firstborn, and it too is permitted for consumption and prohibited for the Most High. And if you say: **What** is notable **about a blemished** animal? It is notable **in that with regard to it** the Torah **rendered those who sacrifice like that which is sacrificed,** one can respond: An animal **born by caesarean section proves** that this consideration is not decisive, as a priest born by caesarean section may perform the Temple service.


###### Menachot 6a:10
[Menachot 6a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/6a:10)

וְחָזַר הַדִּין, לֹא רְאִי זֶה כִּרְאִי זֶה וְלֹא רְאִי זֶה כִּרְאִי זֶה, הַצַּד הַשָּׁוֶה שֶׁבָּהֶן שֶׁמּוּתָּרִין לַהֶדְיוֹט וַאֲסוּרִים לַגָּבוֹהַּ, וְכׇל שֶׁכֵּן טְרֵפָה שֶׁאֲסוּרָה לַהֶדְיוֹט תְּהֵא אֲסוּרָה לַגָּבוֹהַּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Aḥa Sava concludes: **And** therefore, **the inference has reverted** to its starting point. **The aspect of this** case **is not like the aspect of that** case **and the aspect of that** case **is not like the aspect of this** case; **their common element** is **that they are permitted** for consumption **to an ordinary person and prohibited for the Most High. And all the more so a *tereifa*, which is prohibited to an ordinary person, should be prohibited for the Most High.** If so, the derivation from a verse is unnecessary.


###### Menachot 6a:11
[Menachot 6a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/6a:11)

מָה לְהַצַּד הַשָּׁוֶה שֶׁבָּהֶן, שֶׁכֵּן לֹא הוּתְּרוּ מִכְּלָלָן, תֹּאמַר בִּטְרֵיפָה שֶׁהוּתְּרָה מִכְּלָלָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Ashi refutes the proof of Rav Aḥa Sava: **What** is notable **about their common element?** It is notable **in that their general prohibition was not permitted,** since blemished animals and those born by caesarean section are never permitted for sacrifice. **Will you say** that the same applies **to a *tereifa*, whose general prohibition was permitted,** as will be explained? Accordingly, it is necessary to derive from the verse that a *tereifa* is unfit for sacrifice.


###### Menachot 6a:12
[Menachot 6a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/6a:12)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרָבָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: טְרֵפָה שֶׁהוּתְּרָה מִכְּלָלָהּ מַאי הִיא? אִילֵימָא מְלִיקָה דְּעוֹלַת הָעוֹף לַגָּבוֹהַּ, בַּעַל מוּם נָמֵי בְּעוֹפוֹת אִשְׁתְּרוֹיֵי אִשְׁתְּרִי, תַּמּוּת וְזַכְרוּת בַּבְּהֵמָה, וְאֵין תַּמּוּת וְזַכְרוּת בָּעוֹפוֹת!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi:** This ***tereifa* whose general prohibition was permitted, what is it,** i.e., to what case is this referring? **If we say** that it is referring to the **pinching of a bird burnt offering for the Most High,** whereby the bird is initially rendered a *tereifa* at the start of the pinching process, and nevertheless it is sacrificed upon the altar, then the same may be said of **a blemished** animal **as well.** As **with regard to birds** it is **permitted** to sacrifice a blemished bird. This is in accordance with the *halakha* that the requirement that an offering must be **unblemished and male** applies **to animal** offerings, **but there is no** requirement that an offering must be **unblemished and male in** the case of **bird** offerings.


###### Menachot 6a:13
[Menachot 6a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/6a:13)

אֶלָּא, מְלִיקָה דְּחַטַּאת הָעוֹף לַכֹּהֲנִים – כֹּהֲנִים מִשּׁוּלְחַן גָּבוֹהַּ קָא זָכוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** this permitting the general prohibition found in the context of a *tereifa* is referring to the *halakha* that the **pinching of a bird sin offering** renders it permitted **to the priests** for consumption despite the fact that it was not slaughtered by cutting its neck with a knife. This claim can be refuted as well, as the **priests receive** their portion **from the table of the Most High,** i.e., they may partake of the sin offering only because it was permitted for sacrifice upon the altar. Accordingly, there is no difference between a *tereifa* due to pinching and a blemished bird, as both were released from their general prohibition in this regard, since both are permitted for sacrifice upon the altar and both are therefore permitted for consumption by the priests. Consequently, the *a fortiori* inference remains valid, and the verse is unnecessary.


###### Menachot 6a:14
[Menachot 6a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/6a:14)

וְאֶלָּא פָּרֵיךְ הָכִי: מָה לְהַצַּד הַשָּׁוֶה שֶׁבָּהֶן שֶׁכֵּן מוּמָן נִיכָּר, תֹּאמַר בִּטְרֵיפָה שֶׁכֵּן אֵין מוּמָהּ נִיכָּר! מִשּׁוּם הָכִי אִיצְטְרִיךְ קְרָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, refute** the *a fortiori* inference **like this: What** is notable **about their common element?** It is notable **in that** with regard to both a blemished animal and one born by caesarean section **their blemish is noticeable,** as a blemished animal is visibly blemished and it is well known when an animal is born by caesarean section. **Will you say** that they can serve as the source of the *halakha* **of a *tereifa*, whose blemish is not** necessarily **noticeable? Due to that** reason, **the verse:** “Of the herd” (Leviticus 1:3), **was necessary,** to teach that a *tereifa* is unfit for sacrifice.


###### Menachot 6a:15
[Menachot 6a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/6a:15)

וּטְרֵיפָה מֵהָכָא נָפְקָא? מֵהָתָם נָפְקָא: ״מִמַּשְׁקֵה יִשְׂרָאֵל״ – מִן הַמּוּתָּר לְיִשְׂרָאֵל!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ After trying to prove why a derivation from a verse is necessary, the Gemara questions the very source provided by the *baraita* on 5b for the disqualification of a *tereifa*, i.e., the verse: “Of the herd” (Leviticus 1:3). **But** is the *halakha* that **a *tereifa*** is unfit for sacrifice **derived from here? It is derived from there,** i.e., from the verse: **“From the well-watered pastures of Israel”** (Ezekiel 45:15), from which it is derived that an offering may be brought only **from** that **which is permitted to the Jewish people.**


###### Menachot 6a:16
[Menachot 6a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/6a:16)

מִ״כֹּל אֲשֶׁר יַעֲבוֹר תַּחַת הַשָּׁבֶט״ – נָפְקָא, פְּרָט לַטְּרֵיפָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ עוֹבֶרֶת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Alternatively, this *halakha* can be **derived from** a verse discussing animal tithe offerings: **“Whatever passes under the rod,** the tenth shall be holy for the Lord” (Leviticus 27:32). This teaches that all animals may be sacrificed as the animal tithe, **excluding a *tereifa*, as it does not pass** under the rod on account of its weakness, and the Sages derived from this the *halakha* that a *tereifa* is unfit for any type of offering.


###### Menachot 6a:17
[Menachot 6a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/6a:17)

צְרִיכִי, דְּאִי מִ״מַּשְׁקֵה יִשְׂרָאֵל״ הֲוָה אָמֵינָא לְמַעוֹטֵי הֵיכָא דְּלֹא הָיְתָה לָהּ שְׁעַת הַכּוֹשֶׁר, דֻּמְיָא דְּעׇרְלָה וְכִלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם, אֲבָל הָיְתָה לָהּ שְׁעַת הַכּוֹשֶׁר אֵימָא תִּתַּכְשַׁר, כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״כׇּל אֲשֶׁר יַעֲבוֹר״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: All of these verses **are necessary, because if** the disqualification of a *tereifa* was derived **from** the verse **“the well-watered pastures of Israel,” I would say** that this verse serves **to exclude** a *tereifa* only in a case **where it did not have a period of fitness,** e.g., if it was born a *tereifa* and was therefore never fit for sacrifice. This is **similar to** the case of **the fruit of a tree during the first three years after its planting [*orla*] and diverse kinds** planted **in a vineyard,** whose disqualification is derived from this verse. **But** with regard to a *tereifa* that **had a period of fitness,** one might **say** that **it should be fit.** Therefore, **the Merciful One writes: “Whatever passes** under the rod,” to teach that all animals that do not pass under the rod are unfit for sacrifice, even if they were once fit.


###### Menachot 6a:18
[Menachot 6a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/6a:18)

וְאִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״כׇּל אֲשֶׁר יַעֲבוֹר״, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא לְמַעוֹטֵי הֵיכָא דְּנִטְרְפָה וּלְבַסּוֹף הִקְדִּישָׁהּ, דֻּמְיָא דְּמַעֲשֵׂר. אֲבָל הִקְדִּישָׁהּ וּלְבַסּוֹף נִטְרְפָה, דִּבְעִידָּנָא דְּאַקְדְּשַׁהּ הֲוָה חַזְיָא, אֵימָא תִּתַּכְשַׁר. כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״מִן הַבָּקָר״, צְרִיכִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara continues: **And if the Merciful One had written** only: **“Whatever passes** under the rod,” **I would say** that this verse serves **to exclude** a *tereifa* only **where it was rendered a *tereifa* and** its owner **subsequently sanctified it.** This is **similar to** the case of animal **tithes,** as this verse is teaching that a *tereifa* cannot be subsequently sanctified as a tithe. **But** if the owner **sanctified it and it was subsequently rendered a *tereifa*,** which means **that at the time when it was sanctified it was fit,** one might **say** that **it should be fit.** Therefore, **the Merciful One wrote: “Of the herd,”** to teach that even an animal that became a *tereifa* after it was already sanctified is unfit for sacrifice. Accordingly, all three verses **are necessary.**


###### Menachot 6a:19
[Menachot 6a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/6a:19)

**מַתְנִי׳** אֶחָד מִנְחַת חוֹטֵא וְאֶחָד כׇּל הַמְּנָחוֹת, שֶׁקְּמָצָן זָר, אוֹנֵן, טְבוּל יוֹם, מְחוּסַּר בְּגָדִים, מְחוּסַּר כִּיפּוּרִים, שֶׁלֹּא רָחַץ יָדָיו וְרַגְלָיו, עָרֵל, טָמֵא, יוֹשֵׁב, עוֹמֵד עַל גַּבֵּי כֵלִים, עַל גַּבֵּי בְהֵמָה, עַל גַּבֵּי רַגְלֵי חֲבֵירוֹ – פָּסוּל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** **Both the meal offering of a sinner and all** other **meal offerings** with regard to **which** the one who **removed their handful** was **a non-priest,** or a priest who was **an acute mourner,** i.e., whose relative died and was not yet buried, or a priest who was ritually impure **who immersed that day** and was waiting for nightfall for the purification process to be completed, or a priest **lacking** the requisite priestly **vestments,** or a priest **who had not yet** brought **an atonement** offering to complete the purification process, or a priest **who did not wash his hands and feet** from the water in the Basin prior to performing the Temple service, or **an uncircumcised** priest, or **a ritually impure** priest, or a priest who removed the handful while **sitting,** or while **standing** not on the floor of the Temple but **upon vessels,** or **upon an animal,** or **upon the feet of another** person; in all these cases the meal offerings are **unfit** for sacrifice.


###### Menachot 6a:20
[Menachot 6a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/6a:20)

קָמַץ בִּשְׂמֹאל – פָּסוּל, בֶּן בְּתִירָא אוֹמֵר: יַחְזִיר וְיַחֲזוֹר וְיִקְמוֹץ בְּיָמִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If the priest **removed the handful with** his **left** hand the meal offering is **unfit. Ben Beteira says: He must return** the handful to the vessel that contains the meal offering **and again remove the handful,** this time **with** his **right** hand.


###### Menachot 6a:21
[Menachot 6a:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/6a:21)

קָמַץ וְעָלָה בְּיָדוֹ צְרוֹר, אוֹ גַרְגֵּר מֶלַח, אוֹ קוֹרֶט שֶׁל לְבוֹנָה – פָּסוּל, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאָמְרוּ: הַקּוֹמֶץ הַיָּתֵר וְהֶחָסֵר – פָּסוּל. וְאֵיזֶהוּ הַיָּתֵר – שֶׁקְּמָצוֹ מְבוֹרָץ, וְחָסֵר – שֶׁקְּמָצוֹ בְּרָאשֵׁי אֶצְבְּעוֹתָיו.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If a priest **removed the handful** of flour, **and a stone, a grain of salt, or a pinch [*koret*] of frankincense emerged in his hand,** the meal offering is **unfit due to** the fact **that** the Sages **said: The handful that is outsized or that is lacking** is **unfit.** The existence of one of these foreign items in the handful means that the requisite measure of flour is lacking. **And which is the outsized** handful? It is one **where he removed the handful overflowing [*mevoratz*]** in a manner in which his fingers do not hold the flour. **And** which is the **lacking** handful? It is one **where he removed the handful with the tips of his fingers.**


###### Menachot 6a:22
[Menachot 6a:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/6a:22)

**גְּמָ׳** לְמָה לִי לְמִתְנָא ״אֶחָד מִנְחַת חוֹטֵא וְאֶחָד כׇּל הַמְּנָחוֹת״? לִיתְנֵי ״כׇּל הַמְּנָחוֹת שֶׁקְּמָצָן זָר וְאוֹנֵן״!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The Gemara asks: **Why do I** need the mishna **to teach: Both the meal offering of a sinner and all** other **meal offerings? Let it teach: All the meal offerings** with regard to **which** the one who **removed their handful** was **a non-priest or an acute mourner.** Why does the mishna single out the case of the meal offering of a sinner?


###### Menachot 6a:23
[Menachot 6a:23](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/6a:23)

לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אִיצְטְרִיךְ, דְּתַנְיָא: אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: בְּדִין הוּא שֶׁתְּהֵא מִנְחַת חוֹטֵא טְעוּנָה שֶׁמֶן וּלְבוֹנָה, שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא חוֹטֵא נִשְׂכָּר, וּמִפְּנֵי מָה אֵינָהּ טְעוּנָה? שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא קׇרְבָּנוֹ מְהוּדָּר, וּבַדִּין הוּא שֶׁתְּהֵא חַטַּאת חֵלֶב טְעוּנָה נְסָכִים,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: **It was necessary** for the mishna to teach this *halakha* in this manner **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Shimon. As it is taught** in a *baraita* that **Rabbi Shimon says: By right the meal offering of a sinner should require oil and frankincense** like other meal offerings, **so that** the **sinner will not profit. And for what** reason does **it not require** oil and frankincense? So **that his offering will not be of superior quality. And** likewise, **by right** the **sin offering of** forbidden **fat,** i.e., the offering brought by one who unwittingly ate the forbidden fat of a domesticated animal, **should require libations**