Menachos 2b

מנחות ב׳ ע״ב

Menachot 2b

Learn Menachos 2b step by step: Aramaic beside English, every question, answer and proof colour-coded.

Open Menachos 2b in Gemara Clarity

Topic

Does a מנחה offered שלא לשמה count for its owner according to רבי שמעון, and what is the logic behind his rule that a visibly false intent does no harm?

Overview

The amud opens by finishing a proof from a פסוק: even a נדבה may not be deliberately changed, so after one service of a מנחה was done for the wrong purpose, the rest must still be done properly. Our משנה says a מנחה whose handful was taken שלא לשמה is כשר but does not count for the owner. A ברייתא quotes רבי שמעון, who says it does count, because a מנחה's form shows what it really is, while all זבחים look alike. According to רב אשי's reading of רבי שמעון, our משנה can still follow him. According to רבה and רבא, it clearly does not. The גמרא then shows the contradiction in רבי שמעון's own words: another ברייתא says a voluntary מנחה is like an אשם, valid but not counting for the owner. רבה answers that a change of offering type still counts, but a change of owner does not. When אביי objects that the הקש makes no such distinction, רבה explains that רבי שמעון works from logic: a wrong intent the act proves false does no harm, while a hidden one disqualifies. The גמרא then tests this rule with cases of bird offerings, and the discussion continues on the next amud.

Opening lines

The steps (22)

1. ProofEven a voluntary offering may not be changed
2. ChallengeDoes our משנה disagree with רבי שמעון?
3. Statementרבי שמעון's reason: each מנחה looks different
4. StatementWith animal offerings, only intention tells them apart
5. ResolutionAccording to רב אשי, the משנה can still follow רבי שמעון
6. ChallengeBut what about רבה and רבא?
7. ResolutionSuggested answer: use רבה's distinction
8. RejectionRejected: the משנה is clearly about a change of offering type
9. ResolutionTrying again with רבא's way of settling רבי שמעון
10. RejectionOur משנה is exactly a meal-for-meal case
11. ConclusionAccording to רבה and רבא, the משנה is not like רבי שמעון
12. ChallengeThe ברייתא behind the contradiction in רבי שמעון's words
13. StatementSinner's מנחה is like a חטאת, voluntary מנחה is like an אשם
14. StatementA voluntary מנחה is like an אשם: valid but does not count
15. Resolutionרבה: wrong type of offering versus wrong owner
16. Challengeאביי: the הקש does not make that distinction
17. Resolutionרבה: the distinction comes from logic, not from the הקש
18. ResolutionHidden wrong intent disqualifies, visible wrong intent does not
19. StatementA memory aid for the coming challenges
20. ChallengeA bird עולה pinched above for the sake of a bird חטאת should count
21. ResolutionA bird חטאת pinched above is also valid, so nothing is proven
22. ChallengeA bird burnt offering whose blood was squeezed above for the sake of a sin offering