וְאִם־לֹא֩ תַשִּׂ֨יג יָד֜וֹ לִשְׁתֵּ֣י תֹרִ֗ים אוֹ֮ לִשְׁנֵ֣י בְנֵי־יוֹנָה֒ וְהֵבִ֨יא אֶת־קָרְבָּנ֜וֹ אֲשֶׁ֣ר חָטָ֗א עֲשִׂירִ֧ת הָאֵפָ֛ה סֹ֖לֶת לְחַטָּ֑את לֹא־יָשִׂ֨ים עָלֶ֜יהָ שֶׁ֗מֶן וְלֹא־יִתֵּ֤ן עָלֶ֙יהָ֙ לְבֹנָ֔ה כִּ֥י חַטָּ֖את הִֽיא׃
<span class="x" onmousemove="Show('perush','Este es el <b>72do Precepto Positivo</b> enumerado por el Rambam en el Prefacio a Mishné Torá, su “Compendio de la Ley Hebrea” para todo el Pueblo de Israel.',event);" onmouseout="Close();">Mas si su posibilidad no alcanzare</span> para dos tórtolas, o dos palominos, el que pecó traerá por su ofrenda la décima parte de un efa de flor de harina por expiación. <span class="x" onmousemove="Show('perush','Este es el <b>102do Precepto Negativo</b> enumerado por el Rambam en el Prefacio a Mishné Torá, su “Compendio de la Ley Hebrea” para todo el Pueblo de Israel.',event);" onmouseout="Close();">No pondrá sobre ella aceite</span>, ni sobre ella <span class="x" onmousemove="Show('perush','Este es el <b>103er Precepto Negativo</b> enumerado por el Rambam en el Prefacio a Mishné Torá, su “Compendio de la Ley Hebrea” para todo el Pueblo de Israel.',event);" onmouseout="Close();">pondrá incienso</span>, porque es expiación.
English Explanation of Mishnah Menachot
All minhahs from which the handful was taken not in their own name are valid, except that they do not count in fulfilling their owners’ obligation, with the exception of the sinner's minhah and the minhah of jealousy.
A sinner’s minhah and the minhah of jealousy from which he removed the handful not in their own name, or he put into the vessel, or brought [to the altar], or burned not in their own name, or for their own name and not for their own name, or not for their own name and for their own name, they are invalid.
How can they be “for their own name and not for their own name”? [If offered it] as a sinner's minhah and as a voluntary minhah.
And how can they be “not for their own name and for their own name”? [If offered it] as a voluntary minhah and as a sinner's minhah.
Today’s mishnah discusses minhahs that are offered by the priest with the intent of their being a different type of minhah from that which the person bringing them intended them to be. For instance a voluntary minhah is offered with the intent of its being a sinner’s minhah. There are two issues at stake: 1) Does the owner get credit for having brought the sacrifice? 2) Can the sacrifice be eaten?
The discerning reader will note that this mishnah is nearly identical to the mishnah that began Zevahim, and also to Zevahim 1:4. So consider this a great opportunity for some review!
Section one: If the priest removes the handful from the minhah in order to burn it on the altar, but he thinks that the minhah is a different type than what it really was supposed to be, for instance it was supposed to be a voluntary minhah and he thought it was a sinner’s minhah, the minhah is valid. This means that the fistful can be put on the altar and the remainder of the minhah can be eaten. However, it does not discharge the owner of his obligation and the owner will have to bring another in its stead.
There are two exceptions to this rule: the sinner’s minhah (Leviticus 5:11) and the minhah of jealousy, which is the minhah brought by the Sotah, a woman suspected of adultery (Numbers 5:15). In both of these cases if the priest offering the minhah thinks that the minhah is something else, the minhah is disqualified and cannot be offered on the altar, and the remainder cannot be eaten.
Section two: When it comes to the sinner’s minhah or the minhah of jealousy if any of the four critical actions, or even a part thereof, are done with the intent of the minhah being a different sacrifice, the minhah is invalid.
Sections three and four: If while performing one of the four actions the priest had the correct intent and then when performing a subsequent action he thought that the minhah was something else, it is disqualified. The same holds true in the reverse: if he makes a mistake during one of the first actions but then subsequently corrects himself and offers it with the correct intent, it is still disqualified.
A sinner’s minhah and the minhah of jealousy from which he removed the handful not in their own name, or he put into the vessel, or brought [to the altar], or burned not in their own name, or for their own name and not for their own name, or not for their own name and for their own name, they are invalid.
How can they be “for their own name and not for their own name”? [If offered it] as a sinner's minhah and as a voluntary minhah.
And how can they be “not for their own name and for their own name”? [If offered it] as a voluntary minhah and as a sinner's minhah.
Today’s mishnah discusses minhahs that are offered by the priest with the intent of their being a different type of minhah from that which the person bringing them intended them to be. For instance a voluntary minhah is offered with the intent of its being a sinner’s minhah. There are two issues at stake: 1) Does the owner get credit for having brought the sacrifice? 2) Can the sacrifice be eaten?
The discerning reader will note that this mishnah is nearly identical to the mishnah that began Zevahim, and also to Zevahim 1:4. So consider this a great opportunity for some review!
Section one: If the priest removes the handful from the minhah in order to burn it on the altar, but he thinks that the minhah is a different type than what it really was supposed to be, for instance it was supposed to be a voluntary minhah and he thought it was a sinner’s minhah, the minhah is valid. This means that the fistful can be put on the altar and the remainder of the minhah can be eaten. However, it does not discharge the owner of his obligation and the owner will have to bring another in its stead.
There are two exceptions to this rule: the sinner’s minhah (Leviticus 5:11) and the minhah of jealousy, which is the minhah brought by the Sotah, a woman suspected of adultery (Numbers 5:15). In both of these cases if the priest offering the minhah thinks that the minhah is something else, the minhah is disqualified and cannot be offered on the altar, and the remainder cannot be eaten.
Section two: When it comes to the sinner’s minhah or the minhah of jealousy if any of the four critical actions, or even a part thereof, are done with the intent of the minhah being a different sacrifice, the minhah is invalid.
Sections three and four: If while performing one of the four actions the priest had the correct intent and then when performing a subsequent action he thought that the minhah was something else, it is disqualified. The same holds true in the reverse: if he makes a mistake during one of the first actions but then subsequently corrects himself and offers it with the correct intent, it is still disqualified.
Bartenura
כל המנחות טעונות שמן ולבונה – In the Gemara (Tractate Sotah 14b), the objection is raised: But this is the meal offering of sin-offering, as it is written about it (Leviticus 5:11): “he shall not add oil to it or lay frankincense on it, [for it is a sin offering].” But, that which we teach [in this Mishnah]: "כל המנחות באות חטים" –”All meal offerings derive from wheat,” is difficult, for this meal offering of the Omer comes from barley. And the Gemara (Talmud Sotah 14b) resolves the difficulty – one should not teach anything singly but rather, wrapped up–combined and it is taught and this is what it said: all of the meal offerings require oil and frankincense–"כל המנחות טעונות שמן ולבונה", but those that don’t require oil and frankincense come from wheat and the sin meal-offering comes from sifted fine flour, even though it does not require oil and frankincense, it comes from wheat and sifted fine flour.
German Commentary
und dieses bedarf weder des Öls noch des Weihrauchs. Num. 5, 15. Dieser Satz, dass alle Speiseopfer ausser dem Sotaspeiseopfer des Öls und des Weihrauchs bedürfen, besteht nicht zurecht. Das „Speiseopfer des Sünders“ (מנחת חוטא) wurde nach Lev. 5, 11 ebenfalls ohne Öl und Weihrauch dargebracht. Nach der Erklärung der Gemara (15 a, vgl. Raschi z. St.) ist dieser Satz mit den folgenden Sätzen zusammenzuziehen. Darnach besagen die drei Sätze nur, dass alle anderen Speiseopfer gegenüber dem der Sota wenigstens einen Vorzug hatten; entweder den. dass sie mit Öl und Weihrauch zubereitet wurden oder doch den, dass sie aus feinem Weizenmehl oder feinem Gerstenmehl bestanden. Das „Speiseopfer des Sünders“ entbehrte zwar des Öls und des Weihrauchs, bestand aber aus feinem Weizenmehl; das Omerspeiseopfer bestand zwar (s. weiter) aus Gerstenmehl, aber aus fein gesiebtem und wurde überdies auch mit Öl und Weihrauch zubereitet. Das Speiseopfer der Sota hingegen bestand aus einfachem Gerstenmehl und entbehrte auch des Öls und des Weihrauchs.