Menachot 2a (ב.) — the Talmud in English

Introduction to the First Mishna We learned at the beginning of tractate Zevachim that one who entertains an inappropriate intention during the service of an offering—for example, shinui kodesh, a change of sacred designation, meaning that he had the intention during its service that it be for the sake of another offering; or shinui ba'alim, a change of ownership, meaning that he had the intention that someone other than the offering's owner achieve atonement through this offering—such an intention does not disqualify an olah or a shelamim, but does disqualify a sin offering. However, even if this intention does not disqualify an olah or a shelamim, the owners do not fulfill their obligation through such an offering. Rather, they must bring another offering, which must be sacrificed properly, for its own sake and for the sake of its owners. The same halakha was stated regarding the four services of a meal offering, which correspond to the four services involving the blood: kemitza corresponds to slaughter; placing the kometz in a service vessel corresponds to receiving the blood; carrying corresponds to carrying; and burning the kometz corresponds to sprinkling the blood. An intention involving a change of designation does not disqualify the offering, but the owners do not fulfill their obligation—except in the case of an inappropriate intention concerning a sinner's meal offering [and the meal offering of a sotah brought as a jealousy offering, whose law is also like that of a sinner's meal offering], in which such an intention disqualifies the offering, just as it disqualifies a sin-offering sacrifice. Mishna:

All meal offerings

that require kemitza, such as a meal offering prepared in a deep pan,

that were pinched not for their own sake,

meaning that the priest had the intention, while performing kemitza on the meal offering prepared in a deep pan, that it be for the sake of a meal offering prepared on a griddle,

are valid,

and the kometz is burned, while the remainder is eaten by the priests,

but they do not count for the owners as fulfillment of their obligation,

and the owners must bring another meal offering for its own sake, in order to fulfill the obligation of their vow.

Except for a sinner's meal offering,

such as in the case of one who swore falsely [and that sinner was extremely poor, unable even to afford turtledoves or young pigeons for his sin offering, in which case his law is to bring a sinner's meal offering],

and a jealousy offering,

which the sotah brings, and concerning which the verse says “iniquity.” In these meal offerings, if the priest had the intention that they not be for their own sake, they are disqualified, just as when one has an intention concerning a sin-offering sacrifice that it not be for its own sake, in which case the sacrifice is disqualified.

The Mishna explains which services of the meal offering disqualify it if one had an intention that it not be for its own sake; these four services correspond to the four services involving the blood of a sacrifice.

a.

A sinner's meal offering and a jealousy offering whose kometz he pinched

the priest with the intention

that they not be for their own sake,

analogous to slaughtering a sin-offering sacrifice not for its own sake.

b. And

placed

the kometz

in a vessel

of service in order to sanctify it, with the intention that it not be for its own sake, analogous to receiving the blood of a sin-offering sacrifice not for its own sake.

c.

And carried

the kometz to the altar with the intention that it not be for its own sake, analogous to carrying the blood of a sin-offering sacrifice not for its own sake.

d.

And burned

their kometz on the altar with the intention

that they not be for their own sake,

analogous to sprinkling the blood of a sin-offering sacrifice not for its own sake.

Or

he performed some of these four services of the sinner's and sotah's meal offerings

for their own sake and

some of them

not for their own sake; or

he performed some of them with the intention

that they not be for their own sake and

some of them

for their own sake—

they are

disqualified!

The kometz may not be burned, and their remainder may not be eaten by the priests, because it is not necessary to corrupt the offering specifically in all four services; it is sufficient even to do so in only some of them.

How

does he perform the meal offering with the intention

that it be for its own sake and

with the intention

that it not be for its own sake?

If at first he has the intention

that it be for the sake of a sinner's meal offering and

afterward has the intention

that it be for the sake of a voluntary meal offering!

And how does he perform the meal offering

not for its own sake and for its own sake?

If at first he has the intention

that it be for the sake of a voluntary meal offering and

afterward

for the sake of a sinner's meal offering!

In all these cases, he disqualifies the meal offering.

Gemara:

The Gemara raises a difficulty: Since the Mishna teaches, “All meal offerings whose kometz was pinched not for their own sake are valid, but they do not count for the owners as fulfillment of their obligation,” it implies that a meal offering whose kometz was not pinched for its own sake is valid in all respects, except for this one matter alone—that it does not count for its owners as fulfillment of their obligation.

Why do I need it to teach

this at length, saying,

“but

they do not count for the owners as fulfillment of their obligation”?

Let it teach

concisely,

“and they do not count for the owners as fulfillment of their obligation”!

And from the fact that the tanna added the word “but” in the Mishna, it appears that

this teaches us:

specifically

for the owners they do not count,

the meal offerings,

as fulfillment of any obligation,

because they were performed for the sake of another meal offering;

but the meal offering itself is valid,

the meal offering itself remains valid even though he did not have the proper intention concerning it.

And

since we have learned that the meal offering itself remains completely valid, the law is that

it is prohibited to make another change

to it: Even if he performed one service of it not for its own sake, it is prohibited to continue and perform another service of it not for its own sake.

This law—that even after having an intention concerning one of its services not for its own sake, it is nevertheless prohibited to make another change to it—was

as

stated by

Rava

with regard to sacrifices.

For Rava said: An olah

in which he made a change when he

slaughtered it

with the intention

that it not be for its own sake,

so that it does not count for the owners as fulfillment of their obligation,

is prohibited

to continue and

sprinkle

its

blood not for its own sake!

The reason for this law can be learned in either of two ways:

One might say—

from

reasoning; or one might say, from a verse—

there is a verse that teaches us this!

The Gemara explains

“one might say, from reasoning”:

But is it the case that

because he made a change in it,

because he changed it by having an intention not for its own sake in one of the services,

all these

additional services

should he continue to change in it?

Should he continue to make such changes in them? But the meal offering is valid, and he is obligated to complete its services with the intention for its own sake, as required of it!?

And one might say, from a verse:

As it is written:

“That which has issued from your lips

you shall observe and perform, as you have vowed to the Lord your God—a freewill offering.”

The Gemara analyzes the wording of the verse:

“A freewill offering”?

Is it a voluntary offering [for which there is no further obligation of responsibility]? But at the beginning of the verse it says that

it is a vow! [

and he is liable for its responsibility].

Rather,

the verse comes to teach us:

If you performed it as you vowed,

meaning that you had the proper intention concerning it, for its own sake—

there shall be

in offering it properly the fulfillment of the

vow

that you made.

But if not,

meaning that you had an intention concerning it not for its own sake—

there shall be

that offering, valid and sacrificed as a

freewill offering,

but you will not fulfill through it the obligation of your vow.