Menachos 3a

מנחות ג׳ ע״א

Menachot 3a

Learn Menachos 3a step by step: Aramaic beside English, every question, answer and proof colour-coded.

Open Menachos 3a in Gemara Clarity

Topic

When 'the actions prove' an offering's identity (מעשיה מוכיחין עליה), so that wrong intent does not stop it from counting: מנחות, bird offerings, and the visible features of animals

Overview

רבה explained רבי שמעון's view this way: a מנחה brought with the wrong intent still counts for its owner when its actions clearly show what it really is (מעשיה מוכיחין עליה). This amud tests that idea again and again. A bird offering's blood rites are not always clear proof, but when they are, רבה says the bird offering counts too, because רבי שמעון only contrasted מנחות with animal offerings. The place where an animal was slaughtered, north or south, proves nothing, because onlookers could think the כהן did something wrong. The גמרא then asks whether the same doubt applies to the pan of a מנחה. It answers that, for רבי שמעון, the pan actually used always decides what the מנחה is. Next the גמרא tries animal features one by one: gender, age, and wool versus hair. Each time it explains that people do not notice the difference, or could easily be mistaken. Finally, for a calf or bull slaughtered as a פסח or אשם, the mistake is impossible to miss, and the גמרא agrees that such an offering does count. That sentence continues on the next amud.

Opening lines

The steps (28)

1. ResolutionSqueezing above could be mistaken for the squeezing that follows sprinkling
2. ChallengeA bird חטאת sprinkled below for the sake of an עולה should be valid
3. ResolutionYes, it is valid; רבי שמעון only contrasted מנחות with animal offerings
4. Challengeקדשי קדשים slaughtered in the north for the sake of קדשים קלים
5. ResolutionSlaughtering in the north proves nothing, because קדשים קלים may be slaughtered anywhere
6. ChallengeThen קדשים קלים slaughtered in the south should be valid
7. ResolutionPeople may think he slaughtered קדשי קדשים in the wrong place
8. ChallengeBy that logic, a מחבת for the sake of a מרחשת proves nothing either
9. ResolutionA pan offering is a pan offering, whatever was vowed
10. ProofA משנה shows the offering counts as what was brought
11. ChallengeBut maybe he said 'this one,' which makes it invalid
12. ResolutionFor רבי שמעון, naming the vessel means nothing
13. ChallengeA male עולה slaughtered as a חטאת should count
14. ResolutionThe נשיא's goat is a male חטאת
15. ChallengeWhat if he named a private person's חטאת
16. ChallengeThe reverse case: a female חטאת slaughtered as a עולה
17. ResolutionThe tail hides the gender
18. ChallengeA female goat has no covering tail
19. ResolutionPeople don't pay attention to gender
20. ChallengeA one-year פסח slaughtered as a two-year אשם
21. ResolutionSome אשם offerings are also one year old
22. ChallengeWhat if he named a two-year-old guilt offering?
23. ChallengeThe reverse case: a two-year-old guilt offering slaughtered as a פסח
24. ResolutionPeople cannot tell one-year-olds from two-year-olds
25. ChallengeA goat has hair, a ram has wool
26. ResolutionPeople think it is a black ram
27. ChallengeA calf or bull could never be a פסח or אשם
28. ResolutionYes, such an offering is indeed accepted