Menachot Daf 2 (מנחות דף ב׳)
Daf: 2 | Amudim: 2a – 2b | Date: January 13, 2026
📖 Breakdown
Amud Aleph (2a)
Segment 1
TYPE: משנה
The opening Mishnah of Masechet Menachot establishes the fundamental rules of intent (מחשבה) in meal offerings
Hebrew/Aramaic:
כׇּל הַמְּנָחוֹת שֶׁנִּקְמְצוּ שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָן – כְּשֵׁירוֹת, אֶלָּא שֶׁלֹּא עָלוּ לַבְּעָלִים לְשֵׁם חוֹבָה, חוּץ מִמִּנְחַת חוֹטֵא וּמִנְחַת קְנָאוֹת.
English Translation:
All the meal offerings from which a handful was removed not for their sake are fit for sacrifice, but they did not satisfy the obligation of the owner, except for the meal offering of a sinner and the meal offering of jealousy.
What the Gemara is Doing:
The Mishnah establishes a parallel to Masechet Zevachim (which deals with animal sacrifices) for meal offerings. Just as animal offerings slaughtered with improper intent (שלא לשמן) are generally valid but do not fulfill the owner’s obligation, so too with meal offerings. However, two specific meal offerings—the sinner’s meal offering (מנחת חוטא) and the meal offering brought as part of the sotah ritual (מנחת קנאות)—are completely disqualified when the handful is removed with improper intent.
Key Terms:
- קמיצה (Kemitzah) = The act of removing a handful from the meal offering, which is the critical sacrificial act for menachot (parallel to shechitah for animals)
- מנחת חוטא = Meal offering of a sinner; brought by someone too poor to bring an animal sin offering
- מנחת קנאות = Meal offering of jealousy; brought as part of the sotah ritual (suspected adulteress)
- לשמן / שלא לשמן = For its sake / not for its sake; refers to the priest’s intent during the service
Segment 2
TYPE: משנה (continued)
The Mishnah details the four services of a meal offering and the effect of improper intent
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מִנְחַת חוֹטֵא וּמִנְחַת קְנָאוֹת שֶׁקְּמָצָן שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָן, נָתַן בִּכְלִי וְהָלַךְ וְהִקְטִיר שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָן, אוֹ לִשְׁמָן וְשֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָן, אוֹ שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָן וְלִשְׁמָן – פְּסוּלוֹת.
English Translation:
The meal offering of a sinner and the meal offering of jealousy from which the priest removed a handful not for their sake, or placed it in a vessel, or conveyed the handful to the altar, or burned the handful on the altar not for their sake, or for their sake and not for their sake, or not for their sake and for their sake—they are disqualified.
What the Gemara is Doing:
The Mishnah identifies the four essential services (עבודות) of a meal offering: (1) קמיצה—removing the handful, (2) נתינה בכלי—placing in a service vessel, (3) הולכה—conveying to the altar, and (4) הקטרה—burning on the altar. For the sinner’s and jealousy meal offerings, improper intent during ANY of these services disqualifies the entire offering—even if the priest had mixed intentions (both proper and improper).
Key Terms:
- ארבע עבודות = The four services that constitute the sacrificial process
- נתינה בכלי = Placing in a vessel (the service vessel used at the altar)
- הולכה = Conveying/walking the offering to the altar
- הקטרה = Burning on the altar
Segment 3
TYPE: משנה (continued)
Clarification of mixed intentions
Hebrew/Aramaic:
כֵּיצַד לִשְׁמָן וְשֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָן – לְשֵׁם מִנְחַת חוֹטֵא וּלְשֵׁם מִנְחַת נְדָבָה. שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָן וְלִשְׁמָן – לְשֵׁם מִנְחַת נְדָבָה וּלְשֵׁם מִנְחַת חוֹטֵא.
English Translation:
How are these rites performed for their sake and not for their sake? For the sake of the meal offering of a sinner and for the sake of a voluntary meal offering. Not for their sake and for their sake? For the sake of a voluntary meal offering and for the sake of the meal offering of a sinner.
What the Gemara is Doing:
The Mishnah provides concrete examples of what constitutes mixed intentions. Whether the proper intention comes first or second, the offering is still disqualified. This teaches that even partial improper intent is sufficient to invalidate these special meal offerings.
Key Terms:
- מנחת נדבה = Voluntary/freewill meal offering
Segment 4
TYPE: גמרא – שאלה
The Gemara begins its analysis with a textual question
Hebrew/Aramaic:
לְמָה לִי לְמִיתְנָא ״אֶלָּא״? לִיתְנֵי: וְלֹא עָלוּ לַבְּעָלִים לְשֵׁם חוֹבָה!
English Translation:
Why do I need the mishna to teach “but” (אלא)? Let it teach simply: “And they did not (ולא) satisfy the obligation of the owner.”
What the Gemara is Doing:
The Gemara engages in precise textual analysis. The word “אלא” (but/rather) seems superfluous—the Mishnah could have simply said “ולא” (and they did not). The Gemara will extract an additional legal principle from this seemingly unnecessary word.
Segment 5
TYPE: גמרא – תירוץ
Resolution: The word “אלא” teaches an additional halacha
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן: לַבְּעָלִים הוּא דְּלֹא עָלוּ לְשׁוּם חוֹבָה, הָא מִנְחָה גּוּפַהּ כְּשֵׁרָה, וְאָסוּר לְשַׁנּוֹיֵי, כִּדְרָבָא, דְּאָמַר רָבָא: עוֹלָה שֶׁשְּׁחָטָהּ שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָהּ – אָסוּר לִזְרוֹק דָּמָהּ שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָהּ.
English Translation:
This teaches us: They did not satisfy the obligation of the owner, but the meal offering itself is valid and it is prohibited to deviate further from its protocol. This is in accordance with Rava, who says: A burnt offering that one slaughtered not for its own sake—it is still prohibited to sprinkle its blood not for its own sake.
What the Gemara is Doing:
The Gemara derives a critical principle: even though one deviation occurred, additional deviations are still prohibited. Just because you made one mistake doesn’t mean you should compound errors. This principle, attributed to Rava, applies to both animal offerings (זבחים) and meal offerings (מנחות).
Key Terms:
- אסור לשנויי = It is forbidden to deviate
- עולה = Burnt offering
Segment 6
TYPE: גמרא – הוכחה
Two proofs for the prohibition against further deviation
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא סְבָרָא, וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא קְרָא. אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא סְבָרָא: מִשּׁוּם דִּמְשַׁנֵּי בַּהּ, כֹּל הָנֵי לִישַׁנֵּי בָּהּ וְנֵיזִיל?
English Translation:
If you wish, propose a logical argument; and if you wish, cite a verse. If you wish, propose a logical argument: Just because one deviated in its sacrifice once, should he continue to deviate in all the rest of the sacrificial rites?
What the Gemara is Doing:
The Gemara provides two types of support—logical (סברא) and scriptural (קרא). The logical argument is intuitive: one mistake doesn’t justify further mistakes. The scriptural argument follows.
Segment 7
TYPE: גמרא – דרשה
Deriving the principle from Deuteronomy 23:24
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא קְרָא, ״מוֹצָא שְׂפָתֶיךָ תִּשְׁמֹר וְעָשִׂיתָ כַּאֲשֶׁר נָדַרְתָּ לַה׳ אֱלֹהֶיךָ נְדָבָה״, נְדָבָה? נֶדֶר הוּא! קָרֵי לֵיהּ נֶדֶר וְקָרֵי לֵיהּ נְדָבָה! אֶלָּא, אִם כְּמָה שֶׁנָּדַרְתָּ עָשִׂיתָ – יְהֵא נֶדֶר, וְאִם לָאו – יְהֵא נְדָבָה.
English Translation:
And if you wish, cite a verse: “That which has gone out of your lips you shall observe and do; according to what you have vowed as a gift offering to the Lord your God.” Is it a gift offering? It is a vow offering! Why does the verse first call it a vow and then call it a gift? Rather: If you acted in accordance with how you vowed, your obligation to fulfill your vow will be fulfilled; but if not, it will be considered a gift offering.
What the Gemara is Doing:
The Gemara performs a classic drasha, finding tension within the verse itself. An offering can’t be both a “vow” (נדר) and a “gift” (נדבה)—these are different categories. The resolution: it depends on proper execution. Performed correctly, it fulfills the vow; performed improperly, it’s merely a gift that doesn’t satisfy the specific obligation.
Key Terms:
- נדר = Vow offering (obligatory once declared)
- נדבה = Gift/freewill offering (voluntary)
Amud Bet (2b)
Segment 1
TYPE: גמרא – קושיא
A follow-up question on the verse
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּנְדָבָה מִי שְׁרֵי לְשַׁנּוֹיֵי בַּהּ?
English Translation:
And with regard to a gift offering, is it permitted to deviate from its protocol ab initio?
What the Gemara is Doing:
The Gemara completes the proof: even if an offering with improper intent becomes a mere “gift” (נדבה), one still cannot intentionally deviate. Gift offerings must also be performed properly. This clinches the argument that further deviation is always prohibited.
Segment 2
TYPE: גמרא – ברייתא של רבי שמעון
Introducing Rabbi Shimon’s dissenting view
Hebrew/Aramaic:
לֵימָא מַתְנִיתִין דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: כׇּל הַמְּנָחוֹת שֶׁנִּקְמְצוּ שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָן כְּשֵׁירוֹת, וְעָלוּ לַבְּעָלִים לְשֵׁם חוֹבָה.
English Translation:
Let us say that the mishna is not in accordance with Rabbi Shimon, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Shimon says: All the meal offerings from which a handful was removed not for their sake are fit for sacrifice and they even satisfy the obligation of the owner.
What the Gemara is Doing:
The Gemara introduces a major machloket. Rabbi Shimon holds a much more lenient position: meal offerings with improper intent are not only valid but actually satisfy the owner’s obligation! This directly contradicts our Mishnah.
Key Terms:
- ברייתא = Tannaitic teaching not included in the Mishnah
Segment 3
TYPE: גמרא – סברת רבי שמעון
Rabbi Shimon’s reasoning: “מעשיה מוכיחין” – the actions prove the identity
Hebrew/Aramaic:
שֶׁאֵין הַמְּנָחוֹת דּוֹמוֹת לִזְבָחִים, שֶׁהַקּוֹמֵץ מַחֲבַת לְשׁוּם מַרְחֶשֶׁת – מַעֲשֶׂיהָ מוֹכִיחִין עָלֶיהָ לְשׁוּם מַחֲבַת, חֲרֵיבָה לְשׁוּם בְּלוּלָה – מַעֲשֶׂיהָ מוֹכִיחִין עָלֶיהָ לְשׁוּם חֲרֵיבָה.
English Translation:
Meal offerings are not similar to slaughtered offerings. When one removes a handful from a pan meal offering for the sake of a deep-pan meal offering, its mode of preparation proves that it is for the sake of a pan meal offering. A dry meal offering whose handful is removed for the sake of a mixed offering—its mode of preparation proves that it is for the sake of a dry meal offering.
What the Gemara is Doing:
Rabbi Shimon introduces his key principle: מעשיה מוכיחין עליה—“its actions prove what it is.” Unlike animal sacrifices where all types look the same during slaughter, meal offerings have visible differences. A pan meal offering looks different from a deep-pan one; a dry offering looks different from one mixed with oil. The physical reality overrides the mistaken intent.
Key Terms:
- מחבת = Flat pan (shallow frying pan)
- מרחשת = Deep pan (deep frying pan)
- חריבה = Dry meal offering (no oil, like the sinner’s offering)
- בלולה = Mixed/blended meal offering (with oil)
- מעשיה מוכיחין עליה = Its actions/preparation proves its identity
Segment 4
TYPE: גמרא – רבי שמעון (המשך)
Why animal offerings differ from meal offerings
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲבָל בִּזְבָחִים אֵינוֹ כֵן, שְׁחִיטָה אַחַת לְכוּלָּן, וּזְרִיקָה אַחַת לְכוּלָּן, וְקַבָּלָה אַחַת לְכוּלָּן.
English Translation:
But with regard to slaughtered offerings it is not so, as there is one manner of slaughter for all offerings, and one manner of sprinkling the blood for all offerings, and one manner of collection of the blood for all offerings.
What the Gemara is Doing:
Rabbi Shimon explains why meal offerings can be more lenient than animal offerings. Animal sacrifices are differentiated only by intent—the physical act of slaughtering looks identical regardless of what type of offering it is. Meal offerings, by contrast, have visible, physical differences that “announce” their true identity.
Segment 5
TYPE: גמרא – ישוב לפי רב אשי
Can our Mishnah be reconciled with Rabbi Shimon?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הָנִיחָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי, דְּאָמַר: כָּאן בְּקוֹמֵץ מַחֲבַת לְשׁוּם מַרְחֶשֶׁת, כָּאן בְּקוֹמֵץ מִנְחַת מַחֲבַת לְשׁוּם מִנְחַת מַרְחֶשֶׁת – מַתְנִיתִין מִנְחָה לְשׁוּם מִנְחָה הִיא.
English Translation:
This works out well according to Rav Ashi, who says: Here, where Rabbi Shimon says the meal offering satisfies the owner’s obligation, he is referring to a case where one states “I am removing a handful from a pan for the sake of a deep pan” (mentioning only vessels). There, where it doesn’t satisfy the obligation, he refers to “removing a handful from a pan meal offering for the sake of a deep-pan meal offering” (naming the offering type).
What the Gemara is Doing:
Rav Ashi suggests a subtle distinction in Rabbi Shimon’s position based on the exact formulation of the mistaken intent. This could potentially reconcile Rabbi Shimon with our Mishnah.
Segment 6-10
TYPE: גמרא – דיון בתירוצי רבה ורבא
Alternative resolutions by Rabba and Rava
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא לְרַבָּה וְרָבָא מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר? … וְכִי תֵימָא, כִּדְקָא מְשַׁנֵּי רַבָּה: כָּאן בְּשִׁינּוּי קֹדֶשׁ, כָּאן בְּשִׁינּוּי בְּעָלִים …
English Translation:
But according to Rabba and Rava, what can be said? … Rabba resolved: Here [where it satisfies the obligation] refers to a change of sanctity; there [where it doesn’t] refers to a change of owner …
What the Gemara is Doing:
The Gemara explores alternative resolutions:
- Rabba’s approach: Distinguishes between שינוי קודש (change of sanctity—intending a different type of offering) and שינוי בעלים (change of owner—intending the offering for a different person)
- Rava’s approach: Distinguishes between intent for another meal offering vs. intent for an animal offering
The Gemara ultimately concludes that according to Rabba and Rava, our Mishnah does NOT follow Rabbi Shimon.
Segment 11-13
TYPE: גמרא – סתירה בדברי רבי שמעון
Apparent contradiction in Rabbi Shimon’s statements
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְרָמֵי דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אַדְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: ״קֹדֶשׁ קָדָשִׁים הִיא כְּחַטָּאת וּכְאָשָׁם״ – יֵשׁ מֵהֶן כְּחַטָּאת, וְיֵשׁ מֵהֶן כְּאָשָׁם.
English Translation:
And a Sage raises a contradiction from one statement of Rabbi Shimon against another statement of Rabbi Shimon. As it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Shimon says: “It is most sacred, as the sin offering and as the guilt offering” (Leviticus 6:10)—there are some meal offerings whose halacha is like a sin offering, and some whose halacha is like a guilt offering.
What the Gemara is Doing:
The Gemara identifies an internal contradiction in Rabbi Shimon’s teachings. In one baraita, he says all meal offerings satisfy the obligation when performed improperly; in another, he derives from Leviticus 6:10 that different meal offerings have different rules—some like sin offerings (which ARE disqualified by improper intent) and some like guilt offerings (which are NOT).
Key Terms:
- קודש קדשים = Most holy (a category of sacrifices)
- חטאת = Sin offering
- אשם = Guilt offering
Segment 14
TYPE: גמרא – תירוץ רבה
Rabba’s resolution of the contradiction
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַבָּה, לָא קַשְׁיָא: כָּאן בְּשִׁינּוּי קוֹדֶשׁ, כָּאן בְּשִׁינּוּי בְּעָלִים.
English Translation:
Rabba said: This is not difficult. Here, where Rabbi Shimon says the meal offering satisfies the owner’s obligation, he is referring to a change of sanctity; there, where he says it does not satisfy the obligation, he is referring to a change of owner.
What the Gemara is Doing:
Rabba reconciles Rabbi Shimon’s statements by introducing a distinction: when the priest intends a different TYPE of offering (שינוי קודש), the physical appearance proves the true identity; but when he intends a different OWNER (שינוי בעלים), there’s no physical proof, so the offering doesn’t satisfy the obligation.
Segment 15-17
TYPE: גמרא – קושיות על רבה
Abaye challenges Rabba’s distinction
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: מִכְּדֵי מַחְשָׁבָה דִּפְסַל רַחֲמָנָא הֶקֵּישָׁא הִיא, מָה לִי שִׁינּוּי קוֹדֶשׁ, מָה לִי שִׁינּוּי בְּעָלִים?
English Translation:
Abaye said to him: Now, the fact that the Merciful One disqualifies intent is derived from the Torah’s comparison. What difference is there to me if there was a change of sanctity, and what difference is there to me if there was a change of owner?
What the Gemara is Doing:
Abaye challenges Rabba: the disqualifying power of improper intent comes from a scriptural comparison (hekkesh). Why should there be any distinction between types of improper intent?
Rabba responds that Rabbi Shimon’s principle of מעשיה מוכיחין (“its actions prove”) is based on logical reasoning (סברא), not just scripture. Rabbi Shimon interprets the underlying reason for the law: the Torah only disqualifies intent that is NOT recognizably contradicted by physical reality.
Key Terms:
- היקשא = Scriptural comparison/analogy
- מחשבה דמינכרא = Intent that is recognizable (as false)
- מחשבה דלא מינכרא = Intent that is not recognizable (as false)
Segment 18-21
TYPE: גמרא – סימן וקושיות
A mnemonic and series of challenges to Rabba’s principle
Hebrew/Aramaic:
(סִימָן: עוֹלָה, עוֹלָה, מָלַק וּמִיצָּה, חַטַּאת הָעוֹף, קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים, קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים.)
English Translation:
A mnemonic: Burnt offering, burnt offering, pinched and squeezed, bird sin offering, offerings of the most sacred order, offerings of lesser sanctity.
What the Gemara is Doing:
The Gemara provides a mnemonic to remember the series of challenges it will raise against Rabba’s distinction. Each word hints at a case where the physical actions SHOULD prove the offering’s identity, testing the limits of Rabbi Shimon’s principle.
Segment 19-21
TYPE: גמרא – קושיא ותירוץ על עולת העוף
Challenge regarding bird burnt offerings
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, עוֹלַת הָעוֹף שֶׁמְּלָקָהּ לְמַעְלָה מִשּׁוּם חַטַּאת הָעוֹף, תְּרַצֶּה? מַעֲשֶׂיהָ מוֹכִיחִין עָלֶיהָ דְּעוֹלַת הָעוֹף הִיא, דְּאִי חַטַּאת הָעוֹף הִיא – לְמַטָּה הֲוֵי עָבֵיד לַהּ.
English Translation:
If that is so, then a bird burnt offering whose nape was pinched above the red line for the sake of a bird sin offering should satisfy the owner’s obligation! Its actions prove it is a bird burnt offering, because if it were a bird sin offering, he would have performed it below the red line.
What the Gemara is Doing:
The Gemara tests Rabba’s principle: bird burnt offerings have their necks pinched ABOVE a red line on the altar; bird sin offerings are done BELOW. Shouldn’t the location prove the identity? The Gemara responds that melikah (pinching) is actually valid anywhere on the altar, so this isn’t truly recognizable proof.
Key Terms:
- עולת העוף = Bird burnt offering
- חטאת העוף = Bird sin offering
- מליקה = Pinching the nape of a bird’s neck (the method of slaughter for bird offerings)
- חוט הסיקרא = The red line dividing the altar into upper and lower sections
The amud ends with the Gemara continuing to probe Rabba’s distinction with further cases of bird offerings, asking about the squeezing of blood (מיצוי דם), which continues onto daf 3a.
← Previous: Zevachim 120 | Next: Daf 3 →