## Menachot Daf 6b

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

שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא חוֹטֵא נִשְׂכָּר, וּמִפְּנֵי מָה אֵינָהּ טְעוּנָה? שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא קׇרְבָּנוֹ מְהוּדָּר. סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: הוֹאִיל וְאָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא קׇרְבָּנוֹ מְהוּדָּר, כִּי קָמְצִי לַהּ פְּסוּלִין נָמֵי תִּתַּכְשַׁר, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**so that** the **sinner will not profit. And for what** reason **does** his offering **not require** libations? So **that his offering will not be of superior quality.** Accordingly, it might **enter your mind to say** that **since Rabbi Shimon says:** In order **that his offering will not be of superior quality, when the handful is removed** by one of those **unfit** for performing the Temple service, the offering **should also be valid,** as it too is of inferior quality. Therefore, the mishna **teaches us** the *halakha* in a manner that emphasizes that even according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon the meal offering of a sinner is disqualified when the handful is removed by one who is unfit.


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

אִי הָכִי, הָתָם נָמֵי לִיתְנֵי: אֶחָד חַטַּאת חֵלֶב וְאֶחָד כׇּל הַזְּבָחִים שֶׁקִּבְּלוּ דָּמָן זָר וְאוֹנֵן, וְלֵימָא: לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אִצְטְרִיךְ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **If so,** then **there as well,** i.e., with regard to slaughtered offerings, **let** the mishna (*Zevaḥim* 15b) **teach: Both the sin offering of** forbidden **fat and all the slaughtered offerings** with regard to **which** the one who **collected their blood** was **a non-priest or** a priest who is **an acute mourner,** are disqualified. **And let us say** that **it was necessary** to teach the mishna in this manner **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Shimon,** to emphasize that although the sin offering is not of superior quality, in that it does not require that libations be brought with it, nevertheless it is disqualified if its blood was collected by one unfit for Temple service. Why then does that mishna teach simply: All the slaughtered offerings with regard to which the one who collected their blood was a non-priest are disqualified?


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

אַלְמָא, כֵּיוָן דִּתְנָא לֵיהּ ״כׇּל״ וְלָא קָתָנֵי ״חוּץ״ – כּוּלְּהוּ מַשְׁמַע, הָכָא נָמֵי, כֵּיוָן דִּתְנָא ״כׇּל״ וְלָא קָתָנֵי ״חוּץ״ – כּוּלְּהוּ מַשְׁמַע.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara concludes its question: **Apparently, since** the *tanna* **teaches** that mishna with the term: **All, and he does not teach: Except, all** offerings **are indicated** by the general disqualification, and there is no need to emphasize the *halakha* with regard to a sin offering, even in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. **Here too,** with regard to meal offerings, **since** the *tanna* **teaches** the mishna with the term: **All, and he does not teach: Except,** this means that **all of them are indicated,** even the meal offering of a sinner. Why then does the mishna specifically mention the meal offering of a sinner?


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

אִצְטְרִיךְ, סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: הוֹאִיל וְאוֹקֵימְנָא לְרֵישָׁא דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, סֵיפָא נָמֵי דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **It was necessary** to teach the mishna in this manner as it might **enter your mind to say: Since I have established that the first clause,** i.e., the mishna on 2a, is **not in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Shimon,** with regard to **the last clause as well,** i.e., the mishna here, it may be concluded **that** it is **not in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Shimon.** Therefore, the mishna **teaches us** the *halakha* in this manner, to emphasize that it is in accordance with his opinion.


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

אָמַר רַב: זָר שֶׁקָּמַץ – יַחְזִיר, וְהָא אֲנַן ״פָּסַל״ תְּנַן? מַאי ״פָּסַל״? פָּסַל עַד שֶׁיַּחֲזִיר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rav says:** In the case of **a non-priest who removed a handful, he should return** the handful to the meal offering. The Gemara challenges: **But we learned** in the mishna that a non-priest **disqualified** the meal offering by removing a handful from it. The Gemara responds: **What** does the mishna mean when it says: **Disqualified?** It means that the non-priest has **disqualified** the meal offering **until** such time as **he returns** the handful to the meal offering, whereupon a priest fit for the Temple service should again remove a handful from the meal offering and sacrifice it.


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

אִי הָכִי, הַיְינוּ בֶּן בְּתִירָא? אִי דְּאִיתֵיהּ לְקוֹמֶץ בְּעֵינֵיהּ – לָא פְּלִיגִי רַבָּנַן עֲלֵיהּ דְּבֶן בְּתִירָא, כִּי פְּלִיגִי – דַּחֲסַר קוֹמֶץ. רַבָּנַן סָבְרִי: לָא יָבִיא מִתּוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ וִימַלְּאֶנּוּ, בֶּן בְּתִירָא סָבַר: יָבִיא מִתּוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ וִימַלְּאֶנּוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges: **If so,** then **this is** identical to the opinion of **ben Beteira** in the mishna, who says that if a priest removed a handful with his left hand it is returned to the meal offering whereupon the priest removes a handful from the offering with his right hand. What difference is there between the two opinions in the mishna? The Gemara explains: **If the handful** that was removed by one unfit for Temple service **is in its unadulterated form,** then **the Rabbis do not disagree with** the opinion of **ben Beteira,** and the handful is returned to the meal offering. **They disagree when** the **handful is lacking. The Rabbis hold: One does not bring** flour **from within his house and refill** the vessel containing the handful, whereas **ben Beteira holds** that **one brings** flour **from within his house and refills it.**


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

אִי הָכִי, בֶּן בְּתִירָא אוֹמֵר: יַחְזִיר וְיַחֲזוֹר וְיִקְמוֹץ בְּיָמִין?! בֶּן בְּתִירָא אוֹמֵר: יַחְזִיר וְיָבִיא מִתּוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ וִימַלְּאֶנּוּ, וְיַחֲזוֹר וְיִקְמוֹץ בְּיָמִין, מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **If so,** i.e., if the mishna is referring to a handful that is lacking, then the statement of the mishna: **Ben Beteira says he must return** the handful to the vessel with the meal offering **and again remove a handful with** his **right** hand, is imprecise, as the mishna **should have** taught: **Ben Beteira says he must return** the handful to the vessel with the meal offering **and bring** flour **from within his house and refill** the missing amount, **and again remove a handful with** his **right** hand.


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

כִּי קָא אָמַר רַב לְבֶן בְּתִירָא, פְּשִׁיטָא! מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: עַד כָּאן לָא קָא מַכְשַׁר בֶּן בְּתִירָא אֶלָּא בִּשְׂמֹאל, אֲבָל בִּשְׁאָר פְּסוּלִין לָא, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara therefore suggests a different answer: **When Rav said** that the handful is returned to the meal offering, he said this only **according to** the opinion of **ben Beteira.** The Gemara asks: But isn’t it **obvious** that this is the opinion of ben Beteira? The Gemara responds: Rav’s statement is necessary **lest you say** that **ben Beteira deems** the meal offering **fit only** when the handful was removed **with** one’s **left** hand, **but with regard to other disqualifications,** he does **not** deem it fit. Therefore, Rav **teaches us** that with regard to all of the disqualifications cited in the mishna, ben Beteira holds that the handful is returned to the meal offering whereupon a new handful is removed from it and sacrificed upon the altar.


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

מַאי שְׁנָא שְׂמֹאל, דְּאַשְׁכְּחַן לֵהּ הֶכְשֵׁירָא בְּיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים? זָר נָמֵי אַשְׁכְּחַן לֵהּ הֶכְשֵׁירָא בִּשְׁחִיטָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What is different** in the case of a handful removed with a priest’s **left** hand that one might have thought that ben Beteira’s opinion applies only in this case? Perhaps the reason is **that we find** that the Temple service performed with the priest’s left hand is **fit on Yom Kippur,** i.e., when the High Priest would enter the Holy of Holies holding the vessel containing the incense in his left hand. But with regard to **a non-priest as well, we find** that the Temple service is **fit with regard to slaughter,** as an offering may be slaughtered by a non-priest. Why then is it necessary for Rav to teach that the opinion of ben Beteira applies to the case of a non-priest as well?


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

שְׁחִיטָה לָאו עֲבוֹדָה הִיא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: **Slaughter is not** considered a sacrificial **rite,** and it is for that reason that a non-priest may slaughter an offering. Accordingly, without the statement of Rav one would not have concluded that ben Beteira holds that a handful removed by a non-priest may be returned, as the Temple service is never fit when performed by a non-priest.


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

וְלָא? וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא אָמַר רַב: שְׁחִיטַת פָּרָה בְּזָר פְּסוּלָה, וְאָמַר רַב עֲלַהּ: ״אֶלְעָזָר״ וְ״חוּקָּה״ כְּתִיב בַּהּ. שָׁאנֵי פָּרָה, דְּקׇדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת הִיא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** is slaughter really **not** considered a sacrificial rite? **But doesn’t Rabbi Zeira say** that **Rav says: The slaughter of** a red **heifer by a non-priest** is **not valid? And Rav said with regard to this** *halakha*: This is because both the term: **“Elazar** the priest” (Numbers 19:3), **and** the term: **“Statute”** (Numbers 19:2), **are written in** the Torah’s description of the slaughter of the red heifer. The term “statute” indicates that if one deviates from any of the details of the service as delineated in the verses, the service is not valid. The Gemara answers: The *halakhot* of the red **heifer are different, as** the heifer **is** considered **sanctified for** the purpose of **Temple maintenance,** not for sacrifice upon the altar. Accordingly, one cannot derive from the case of the red heifer that the slaughter of an offering is considered a sacrificial rite.


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

וְלָאו כָּל דְּכֵן הוּא? קׇדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת בָּעוּ כְּהוּנָּה, קׇדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ לָא בָּעוּ כְּהוּנָּה?! אָמַר רַב שִׁישָׁא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אִידִי: מִידֵּי דְּהָוֵה אַמַּרְאוֹת נְגָעִים, דְּלָאו עֲבוֹדָה נִינְהוּ וּבָעֵי כְּהוּנָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But is it not all the more so?** If items **sanctified for** the purpose of **Temple maintenance require** that the performance of rites relevant to them be performed by a member of the **priesthood,** then with regard to items **sanctified for** sacrifice upon the **altar, shouldn’t they** certainly **require** that their rites be performed by a member of the **priesthood? Rav Sheisha, son of Rav Idi, said** in response: The requirement that the red heifer be slaughtered by a priest is not proof that its slaughter is a sacrificial rite. Rather, that requirement is **just as it is in** the case of examination of the **shades of** leprous **marks, which is** obviously **not** considered a sacrificial **rite, and** yet the Torah **requires** that these marks be examined by a member of the **priesthood.**


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

וְנֵילַף מִבָּמָה?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: Nevertheless, why was it necessary for Rav to teach that the removal of a handful by a non-priest does not disqualify the meal offering according to ben Beteira? **Let us derive** it **from** the fact that there was a period of fitness for rites performed by a non-priest, as before the construction of the Temple it was permitted for non-priests to sacrifice offerings upon a private **altar.**


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

וְכִי תֵימָא, מִבָּמָה לָא יָלְפִינַן, וְהָתַנְיָא: מִנַּיִן לַיּוֹצֵא, שֶׁאִם עָלָה לֹא יֵרֵד, שֶׁהֲרֵי יוֹצֵא כָּשֵׁר בְּבָמָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you would say** that **we do not derive** *halakhot* of the rites performed in the Temple **from** those performed on a private **altar,** one can respond: **But isn’t it taught** in a *baraita*: **From where** is it derived with regard to an item, e.g., the limbs of an offering, **that emerged** from the Temple courtyard and was thereby rendered unfit for sacrifice upon the altar, **that if** it nevertheless **ascended** upon the altar **it shall not descend?** It is derived from the fact **that** an item that **emerged is valid** for sacrifice **on** a private **altar.** This indicates that one can learn the *halakhot* of offerings in the Temple from the *halakhot* of a private altar.


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

תְּנָא אַ״זֹּאת תּוֹרַת הָעֹלָה״ סְמִיךְ לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this: The ***tanna*** of that *baraita* **relies on** the verse: **“This is the law of the burnt offering”** (Leviticus 6:2), from which it is derived that any item that ascends upon the altar shall not descend from it, even if it was disqualified. In other words, the verse is the source for the *halakha* of the *baraita*, whereas the case of a private altar is cited merely as a support for this ruling.


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

אֶלָּא טַעְמָא דְּאַשְׁמְעִינַן רַב, הָא לָאו הָכִי הֲוָה אָמֵינָא בִּשְׁאָר פְּסוּלִין פָּסַל בֶּן בְּתִירָא? וְהָתַנְיָא: רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמְרִים: מַכְשִׁיר הָיָה בֶּן בְּתִירָא בְּכׇל הַפְּסוּלִין כּוּלָּן!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Rather, the reason** it is known that ben Beteira permits the return to the meal offering of a handful removed by a non-priest is **that Rav taught us** so. Were it **not** for **this, I would say** that **with regard to other disqualifications,** i.e., other than a handful removed with the left hand, **ben Beteira invalidates** the meal offering. **But isn’t it taught** in a *baraita* that **Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, and Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon,** both **say: Ben Beteira would deem fit in** the case of **all the** other **disqualifications** listed in the mishna?


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

וְתַנְיָא: ״וְקָמַץ מִשָּׁם״ – מִמָּקוֹם שֶׁרַגְלֵי הַזָּר עוֹמְדוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara continues: **And it is taught** in a *baraita* with regard to the verse: “And he shall bring it to Aaron’s sons the priests; **and he shall remove from there** his handful” (Leviticus 2:2), that this verse indicates that the removal of a handful from a meal offering may be performed **from the place where the feet of the non-priest stand,** i.e., anywhere within the Temple courtyard.


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

בֶּן בְּתִירָא אוֹמֵר, מִנַּיִן שֶׁאִם קָמַץ בִּשְׂמֹאל שֶׁיַּחֲזִיר וְיַחֲזוֹר וְיִקְמוֹץ בְּיָמִין? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְקָמַץ מִשָּׁם״, מִמָּקוֹם שֶׁקָּמַץ כְּבָר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: **Ben Beteira says** that the verse should be interpreted as follows: **From where** is it derived **that if** one **removed a handful with** his **left** hand, **that he must return** the handful to the vessel with the meal offering **and again remove the handful with** his **right** hand? It is derived from that which **the verse states: “And he shall remove from there,”** indicating that the handful is removed **from the place where he already removed** it, i.e., the handful is returned to the meal offering and thereupon removed from the same meal offering with the right hand. This concludes the *baraita*.


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

וְכֵיוָן דִּקְרָא סְתָמָא כְּתִיב בַּהּ, מָה לִי שְׂמֹאל, וּמָה לִי שְׁאָר הַפְּסוּלִין?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains the difficulty from the *baraita*: **And since the verse is written** in an **unspecified** manner, i.e., it does not mention which handfuls are returned, **what** difference is it **to me** if the handful was removed with the **left** hand, **and what** difference is it **to me** if it was removed by means of one of **the other disqualifications?**


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

אֶלָּא, הָא קָמַשְׁמַע לַן רַב: קָמַץ וַאֲפִילּוּ קִידֵּשׁ, וּלְאַפּוֹקֵי מֵהָנֵי תַּנָּאֵי דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן יוֹסֵי בֶּן יָאסְיָין וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה הַנַּחְתּוֹם אָמְרוּ: בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים – שֶׁקָּמַץ וְלֹא קִידֵּשׁ, אֲבָל קִידֵּשׁ – פָּסַל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara therefore suggests an alternative explanation: **Rather, this** is what **Rav teaches us:** Ben Beteira holds that if one unfit for Temple service **removed a handful** it may be returned to the meal offering **even** if **he sanctified** the handful by placing it in a service vessel. **And** the statement of Rav serves **to exclude** the opinion **of these *tanna’im*: As it is taught** in a *baraita*: **Rabbi Yosei ben Yosei ben Yasiyyan and Rabbi Yehuda the baker said: In what** case **is this statement** of ben Beteira **said,** i.e., in which case does he rule that the handful may be returned to the meal offering? It is in a case **where** the unfit individual **removed a handful and did not sanctify** it by placing it inside a service vessel. **But** if **he sanctified** it then **he** has **disqualified** it, even according to ben Beteira, and it may not be returned to the meal offering.


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

וְאִיכָּא דְאָמְרִי: קָמַץ – אִין, קִידֵּשׁ – לָא. כְּמַאן? כְּהָנֵי תַּנָּאֵי, וּלְאַפּוֹקֵי מִתַּנָּא קַמָּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And there are** those **who say** that Rav teaches the opposite, that if an unfit person merely **removed a handful, yes,** ben Beteira permits such a handful to be returned to the meal offering from which it was removed, but if he already **sanctified** the handful by placing it inside a service vessel, it may **not** be returned. **In accordance with whose** opinion is this explanation? It is **in accordance with** the opinion of **these *tanna’im*,** i.e., Rabbi Yosei ben Yosei ben Yasiyyan and Rabbi Yehuda the baker, **and** it is **to exclude** the opinion **of the first *tanna*** in that *baraita*, who disagrees with the ruling of Rabbi Yosei ben Yosei ben Yasiyyan and Rabbi Yehuda the baker and maintains that a handful may be returned even after it was sanctified by a service vessel.


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

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב נַחְמָן: מַאי קָא סָבְרִי הָנֵי תַּנָּאֵי? אִי קְמִיצַת פְּסוּלִין עֲבוֹדָה הִיא, אַף עַל גַּב דְּלָא עָבֵיד לֵיהּ מַתַּן כְּלִי! אִי קְמִיצַת פְּסוּלִין לָאו עֲבוֹדָה הִיא, כִּי עֲבַד לֵהּ מַתַּן כְּלִי מַאי הֲוָה?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Naḥman objects to this: What do these *tanna’im*** of the *baraita* **hold? If** they hold that **the removal of a handful by** one **unfit** for Temple service **is** considered the performance of a sacrificial **rite** to the extent that it disqualifies the offering, then the meal offering should be disqualified **even though he did not perform** the stage of the **placement** of the handful **in a vessel.** And **if** they hold that **the removal of a handful by an unfit** individual **is not** considered the performance of a **rite,** then **when he performed** the stage of **its placement in a vessel, what** significance **was** there to this action? He can still return the handful to the meal offering.


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

הֲדַר אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: לְעוֹלָם עֲבוֹדָה הִיא, וְלָא גָּמְרָה עֲבוֹדָתָהּ עַד דְּעָבֵיד לֵהּ מַתַּן כְּלִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Naḥman** reconsidered and **then said: Actually,** those *tanna’im* hold that the removal of a handful by one unfit for Temple service **is** considered the performance of a sacrificial **rite, but the rite of** the handful **is not complete until he performs** the stage of **its placement in a vessel.** Consequently, the meal offering is disqualified only after a person unfit for Temple service places the handful inside a service vessel.


###### Menachot 6b:24
[Menachot 6b:24](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/6b:24)

אִי הָכִי, אֲפִילּוּ לֹא קִידֵּשׁ,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges: **If so,** i.e., if the placement of the handful inside a service vessel completes the rite that begins with the handful’s removal, then **even** if the handful was removed by an unfit individual who has **not** yet **sanctified** it in the service vessel designated for the handful,