Name: Menachos 3 - NBTD
Uploaded: 2026-01-15T04:01:02.094Z
Duration: 36 min 42 s
Description: Menachos 3 - NBTD

Rabbi Eli Stefansky

Summary

A speaker learning the second day of Menachos from Park City, Utah presents a series of Gemara cases built around רבי שמעון בר יוחאי as explained by רבה, where *taama dekra* leads to treating a stated intent as meaningless when the action clearly contradicts it. A *mincha* can reveal the truth because its form is visibly different, while most *zevachim* look the same in *shechita*, *kabbalat hadam*, and *zerika*, so *machshava* can invalidate them even when the action does not reveal the intent. The Gemara tests when “*maasav mochichin alav*” works for birds and animals, introduces the possibility that a person can be *over* and perform a forbidden act, and then returns to reconcile contradictory rulings within רבי שמעון and to distinguish what invalidates in *menachos* versus *zevachim* and in different types of *chatat*. The shiur closes with a clarification that calling a dry *mincha* “*belula*” is treated as *divrei ruach*, unlike calling a *zevach* “*shelamim*,” because *shelamim* is an actual korban name in the Torah.
Gott מארגן רבותי is said, followed by לעילוי נשמת צימי מרים רסי בת מרדכי. Live from Park City, Utah introduces the shiur and frames the learning as the second day of מנחות with an “easy דף.”
Rabba explains רבי שמעון בר יוחאי as following *taama dekra* and ignoring statements that are exposed as *shtusim* by the act itself. A person who says he brings a flat *mincha* while actually bringing a thick soft one has his words disregarded because the action shows the truth and it “doesn’t ruin it.” A *zevach* cannot be visually distinguished in its core procedures, so saying “I had a mind to bring an *olah* instead of a *shelamim*” can ruin the korban. A cow brought as a קרבן פסח is presented as a case where the action is so contradictory that the words are treated as a joke and ignored.
The shiur frames today’s *sugya* as a sequence of cases asking whether action overrides speech when differences are less obvious, such as one-year versus two-year animals and male versus female requirements. The סימן “עולה, עולה, מלק ומיצה” is given as the organizing cue for upcoming questions.
The shiur explains that birds in the Mikdash are only a חטאת העוף and an עולת העוף, performed via *melika* with the thumb nail rather than knife slaughter. It defines *haza’a* as tossing motion that causes blood to fly onto the mizbeach and *mitzuy* as squeezing the blood onto the wall. It states that an *olah* bird uses only *mitzuy* and is associated with above the red line, while a *chatat* bird uses *haza’a* and then *mitzuy* and is associated with below the red line.
The Gemara proposes that if an עולת העוף is done “לשם חטאת העוף” while performed above the red line, it should be accepted because *maasav mochichin* that it is an *olah*. The Gemara rejects this proof by citing “מליקה בכל מקום במזבח כשירה,” so location of *melika* does not prove the korban type. It then proposes that an עולת העוף whose blood is squeezed above the line “לשם חטאת העוף” should be accepted, and answers that observers can say this is the *mitzuy* after *haza’a* in a *chatat*, since “מיצוי דמה בכל מקום במזבח כשירה.” The Gemara accepts that a חטאת העוף that performs *haza’a* below “לשם עולת העוף” is clearly a *chatat*, and concludes that the earlier contrast is “לזבחים ולא לעופות,” because birds can be identified by the action.
The shiur explains the north-south division of the *azara* by the mizbeach boundary and states that קדשי קדשים such as חטאת, אשם, and עולה require slaughter in the north, while קדשים קלים may be slaughtered in the south and also elsewhere. The Gemara’s idea that slaughtering קדשי קדשים in the north “לשם קדשים קלים” should be accepted as self-proving is refuted because קדשים קלים can also be slaughtered in the north, supported by the משנה “שחיטתן בכל מקום בעזרה.” The reverse case—slaughtering קדשים קלים in the south “לשם קדשי קדשים”—initially appears self-proving because קדשי קדשים cannot be slaughtered in the south, but the Gemara answers that the animal could actually be קדשי קדשים and the person “ומעבר הוא דעבר ושחטו בדרום,” introducing the possibility that action reflects an *aveira* rather than proof of intent.
The shiur applies the “maybe he was *over*” logic back to the case of bringing the wrong vessel, such as saying “הרי עלי במרחשת” and bringing it “במחבת.” The Gemara answers that once it is brought in the other vessel it becomes that form, citing “מה שהביא הביא וידי נדרו לא יצא.” The possibility of saying “זו” is raised, and a *beraita* is brought that “זו להביא במחבת והביא במרחשת… הרי זו פסולה.” The shiur states that “לרבנן הכי נמי,” but for רבי שמעון “כיון דאמר רבי שמעון אף ידי נדרו יצא,” his mouth’s reclassification is “ולא כלום,” and it makes no difference whether he said “זו” or “עלי.”
The Gemara tests whether an עולה slaughtered “לשם חטאת” should be accepted because *olah* is male and *chatat* is female, and it rejects the proof because “איכא שעירי נשיא דזכר הוא.” It then sharpens the case to “חטאת יחיד,” and still continues probing with the reverse scenario of a female *chatat* slaughtered “לשם עולה.” The Gemara answers that sex is not reliably noticed, citing “מיכסיא באליה” for sheep and concluding more generally that distinguishing “בין דכרא לנקבה” is not typically on people’s minds.
The shiur states the rule from the first משנה of זבחים that פסח and חטאת become פסול if designated for another korban, while other korbanos remain offered though the owner must bring another. The Gemara asks why פסח slaughtered “לשם אשם” is not self-proving because פסח is “בן שנה” and אשם is “בן שתים,” and answers that אשם נזיר and אשם מצורע can be year-old. It then tests cases like “אשם גזילות” and “אשם מעילות,” returns to the age distinction, and answers that people are not expert at recognizing “בין בן שנה לבין שתי שנים,” including cases where a one-year looks like a two-year and the reverse.
The Gemara asks why a goat slaughtered “לשם אשם” is not self-proving since *asham* requires a sheep, and answers that observers can claim it is a black male sheep or that a sheep could appear goat-like, as described by Rashi.
A case of “עגל ופר ששחטן לשום פסח” is presented as impossible because there is no פסח or אשם brought from a calf or bull. The Gemara concedes “אי הכי נמי,” and then reframes the earlier rule as applying to “רוב זבחים,” with this as an exception where the action clearly exposes the claim as nonsense.
Rava resolves a contradiction by distinguishing “כאן בקומץ מנחה לשום מנחה” as valid from “כאן בקומץ מנחה לשום זבח” as invalid. The shiur explains that “וזאת תורת המנחה” implies “תורה אחת לכל המנחות,” so confusion within *menachos* does not invalidate, but switching to *zevach* does because “וזבח לא כתיב.” A *beraita* is cited that attributes the leniency to “מפני שמעשיהם מוכיחים עליהן,” with an explanation that even where *machshava* is not externally visible, the action makes the intent recognizable for *menachos*.
The Gemara asks whether mixing intentions among *chatat* types like חטאת חלב, חטאת דם, חטאת עבודה זרה, חטאת נזיר, and חטאת מצורע should be accepted based on “וזאת תורת החטאת.” It states that according to רבי שמעון, “אכן נמי” it would be valid. It reports that for רבנן, Rava says mixing חטאת חלב/דם/עבודה זרה is כשר because they share a category of כרת, but mixing with חטאת נזיר and חטאת מצורע is פסולה because those come with other korbanos including עולה and create confusion. It reports that רב אחא בריה דרבא teaches all of them פסולה based on “ושחט אותה לחטאת,” requiring intent for “אותה חטאת.”
Rav Ashi resolves the contradiction by distinguishing intent stated as “מחבת לשם מרחשת” from “מנחת מחבת לשם מנחת מרחשת.” The shiur states that thinking in vessel-terms alone does not invalidate because *machshava* in that framing does not pasul a *mincha*, while explicitly framing it as a different *mincha* type invokes invalidating *machshava*. It returns to the line that רבי שמעון grounds the rule in *maasav mochichin*, and explains that in *zevachim* *machshava* invalidates precisely because the mistaken thought is in the area where *machshava* is *posel*.
Rav Acha asks Rav Ashi why a dry *mincha* (*chariva*) intended as *belula* is still כשר according to רבי שמעון, and Rav Ashi answers that it is “לשום בילה בעלמא,” treated by Rashi as *divrei ruach* and *shtuta*. The Gemara rejects the analogy to saying “לשום שלמים” by explaining that a *zevach* is actually called שלמים in the Torah, citing “המקריב את דם השלמים” and “הזורק את דם השלמים.” It concludes that a *mincha* is not inherently called *belula*, because “בלולה בשמן” appears only as a description when mixed with oil and “סתמא לא איקרי בלולה.”
Rabbosai, have a wonderful day is stated, along with an encouragement to merit the *zechus* of spreading Torah and an invitation to sponsor via MDYsponsor.com or mdy.com.

Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.

Click to open the daf in a new window

Suggestions

Different Daf?

Menachos 3

Menachos 3 - NBTD

Summary