Menachos 4
Summary
- A Mishnah in Menachos rules that a *kometz* taken from a *minchah* *shelo lishmah* remains *kasher* but does not fulfill the owner’s obligation, except for *minchat chotei* and *minchat k’naot*, which become completely *pasul* *shelo lishmah*. The Gemara first grounds *minchat chotei* in the Torah’s calling it *chatat*, then seeks the source for *minchat k’naot* and explores possible derivations from the word *avon* and from the limiting term *hi*, while excluding *asham* from those inferences and explaining what *hu* teaches by *asham*. Rav then proposes additional cases that would be *pasul* *shelo lishmah* because they come to permit or to render someone fit, but the Gemara ultimately refutes Rav from a *beraita* about *asham metzora*.
- A Daf is sponsored לעלוי נשמת מרת מרים שרה בת יעקב משה, her נשמה should have an עליה.
- A Mishnah states that all *menachot* whose *kometz* is taken *shelo lishmah* are *kesherot* and simply do not count for the owner *leshem chovah*, so the owner must bring another. A Mishnah excludes *minchat chotei* and *minchat k’naot* and rules that if their *kometz* is taken *shelo lishmah* they are totally *pesulot*.
- A Gemara explains that the Torah calls *minchat chotei* a *chatat*, as stated: לא ישים עליה שמן ולא יתן עליה לבונה כי חטאת היא. A Gemara applies the rule that a *korban chatat* done *shelo lishmah* is *pasul*, so *minchat chotei* done *shelo lishmah* is *pasul*.
- A Gemara asks for the source that *minchat k’naot* is *pasul* *shelo lishmah*. A *tanna* teaches before Rav Nachman that מנחת קנאות מותרה נדבה, meaning surplus designated funds go to a *nedavah* fund used for *korbanot* of קיץ המזבח. Rav Nachman accepts this and connects it to the appearance of עון, aligning it with *chatat* where *motar chatat* goes to *nedavah*, and then extends the comparison to claim that just as *chatat* is *pesulah* *shelo lishmah*, so too *minchat k’naot* is *pesulah* *shelo lishmah*.
- A Gemara challenges that this would imply *asham* should be *pasul* *shelo lishmah* because *asham* also contains the language of sin. A Gemara answers with the distinction דנין עון מעון ואין דנין עונו מעון, and then questions that distinction by citing teachings that different words can be treated as equivalent and that *avono* can be learned from *avono* elsewhere. A Gemara concludes instead that the *gezera shava* was accepted only regarding *motar* going to *nedavah*, and it then confronts the principle that there is no *gezera shava* “halfway” by pointing to an explicit limitation by *chatat* from ושחט אותה לחטאת, teaching אותה לשמה כשירה שלא לשמה פסולה while other *kodashim* remain *kesherim* whether *lishmah* or *shelo lishmah*.
- A Gemara returns to the Mishnah’s rule and derives the invalidation from the logic that *chatat* is *pasul* *shelo lishmah* because it says the word היא. A Gemara states that by *minchat chotei* and *minchat k’naot* the Torah likewise writes הוא/היא, and it uses that to establish their being *pesulot* *shelo lishmah*.
- A Gemara asks that *asham* also has the word הוא. A Gemara answers that by *asham* this הוא appears only לאחר הקטרת אימורין, and a *beraita* teaches that an *asham* whose *emurim* were not offered remains *kasher*, so that הוא cannot serve to invalidate *shelo lishmah*. A Gemara asks what הוא does teach by *asham* and answers with Rav Huna in the name of Rav that an *asham* שניתק לרעיה, if slaughtered סתם, is *kasher* לשום עולה, with the inference ניתק אין לא ניתק לא because the verse’s הוא teaches הווייתו יהא.
- Rav rules that *minchat ha-omer* whose *kemitza* is done *shelo lishmah* is *pesulah* because it comes להתיר and it did not permit. Rav extends the same logic to *asham nazir* and *asham metzora*, stating they are *pesulim* when slaughtered *shelo lishmah* because they come להכשיר and they did not render fit.
- A Gemara challenges Rav from the Mishnah in Menachos that lists only *minchat chotei* and *minchat k’naot* as exceptions, and it answers that the Mishnah speaks of *yachid* offerings, of a *minchah* brought on its own, and of offerings without a fixed time, excluding *minchat ha-omer* as *tzibbur*, accompanied by another offering, and fixed-time. A Gemara then challenges Rav from the opening Mishnah in Zevachim that only *Pesach* and *chatat* are *pesulim* *shelo lishmah*, and it answers that since there are *asham gezelot* and *asham me’ilot* that come לכפרה, the Mishnah does not present *asham* as a uniform category for invalidation *shelo lishmah*. A Gemara presses that those *ashamot* for atonement also fail to atone *shelo lishmah*, and Rav Yirmiyah answers that the Torah distinguishes between *mechaperim* and *machshirin*, with *mechaperim* having cases that come after the owner’s death while *machshirin* do not, and it supports this with the case of a woman’s post-birth offerings where heirs bring the *olah* after she brought the *chatat* and died, but do not bring the *chatat* if she brought the *olah* and died.
- Rav Yehudah the son of Rav Shimon ben Pazi objects that *machshirin* do come after death, citing the Mishnah about one who set aside money for his *nezirus* where unspecified funds fall to *nedavah* upon death and specified funds are directed to *yam ha-melach* for *chatat* money while *olah* and *shelamim* money are used to bring those offerings. Rav Pappa explains that Rav Yirmiyah meant no *machshir kavua* comes after death, while a Nazir’s *machshir* is not fixed because גילח על אחת משלשתן יצא, so any one of the three offerings can complete that enabling function.
- A *beraita* states that an *asham metzora* slaughtered *shelo lishmah* or whose blood was not placed on the right thumb and right big toe still goes on the altar and requires *nesachim*, but it also requires another *asham* to render him fit. A Gemara concludes from this that Rav’s position is refuted and states תיובתא דרב.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions