Commento su Menahot 1:5

כל המנחות שנקמצו שלא לשמן – as for example, that he vowed a free-will offering of a meal-offering in a deep and covered pan and the Kohen took a fistful of he meal-offering for the sake of a pan [without a covered lid – which is fried on a flat pan] (and what is baked in it is a thick mass, which is different than that of a deep and covered pan deep-fried in oil (see Tractate Menahot 5:8).

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.

כשרות – and he offers the incense of the fistful [of the meal-offering] and its residue is consumed [by the Kohanim]. For the fistful of the meal-offering stands in place of the ritual slaughter of the sacrifice. And just as regarding all of the animal offerings that were slaughtered not for their own sake are kosher/fit, as we derive from a Biblical verse at the beginning of Tractate Zevakhim (i.e., see Deuteronomy 23:24), here also, all the meal-offerings that are fistfuls which were gathered not for their own sakes are kosher/fit.

אלא שלא עלו לבעלים לשם חובה – It should have taught: “that it does not go to the owner’s credit for the fulfillment of an obligation/שלא עלו לבעלים לשם חובה “ (which is how it is phrased at the beginning of Tractate Zevakhim), but that it teaches here]: אלא" /but” – that implies that all of their laws are like kosher meal-offerings but for this thing, to teach us that it is prohibited to teach regarding it another change, that if he transgressed and took a fistful of it that was not for its sake, it is prohibited to give that fistful in sacred vessels that is not for its own sake.

שלא עלו לבעלים לשם חובתו – and he did not fulfill his vow and he has to bring another meal-offering for the sake of the deep and covered pan.

חוץ ממנחת חוטא – as for example, a meal-offering that comes on one’s ritual defilement from the Holy of Holies, if he could not afford two turtle-doves.

ומנחת קנאות – of the Sotah/the woman accused of infidelity by her husband. For if they took fistfuls that were not for their sake, as for example, for the purpose of a free-will offering, or he gave the handful in sacred vessels that were not for this purpose, or he walked or offered incense not for its sake/name, or he had in mind one of these forms of Divine Service: “I am serving for their sakes/name or not for their sakes/name.” These meal-offerings are invalid and their residues/remnants are not consumed. And the reason is because the All-Merciful calls the sin’s meal offering a sin-offering, and regarding a sin-offering, it is written (Leviticus 4:33): “[He shall lay his hand upon the head of the purification offering,] and it shall be slaughtered as a purification offering (i.e., sin-offering)/ושחט אותה לחטאת [at the spot where the burnt offering is slaughter],” (Leviticus 4:34): “and [the priest] shall take [with his finger] some of the blood of the purification offering,” so that the ritual slaughtering and the taking, that is the receiving of the blood will be for the sake of the sin-offering. But the meal offering of jealousy, since it is written concerning it "עון"/wrongdoing [as in] (Numbers 5:15): “a grain-offering of remembrance which recalls wrongdoing,” the Rabbis compare it to the sin-offering. And the meal-offering of the Omer, even though it is not a sinner’s meal-offering and is not the meal offering of jealousy, if a handful was taken not for its sake/name, it is invalidated from being offered up as incense, and none of its residue is consumed, since it came to permit the new [grain] crop [that ripened before Passover], and it did not permit it. But all of the meal-offerings that were grasped [from the grain] not for its sake/name are kosher, as is taught in our Mishnah, we are speaking especially with meal-offerings that don’t have a fixed time, but not of the meal-offering of the Omer that [the Torah] established a fixed time for it.

או שלא לשמן ולשמן – that you should not say for their sakes/name and not for their sakes/name that it is invalidated, for the latter language takes effect, but [both] not for their sakes/name and for their sakes/name are kosher/fit, this is what it comes to tell us.

זר ואונן וטבול יום כו' – all of them are explained in the Second Chapter of [Tractate] Zevakhim [Mishnah 1], and we prove them from Scriptural verses that their Divine Service is invalid.

Introduction This mishnah continues to teach cases in which the minhah is invalid.

ערל – a Kohen whose brother died on account of ritual circumcision.

As for both a sinner’s minhah and any other minhah if [one of the following] removed the handful: a non-priest; or [a priest] that was an onen; or one who immersed himself during the day; or was not wearing the priestly vestments, or whose atonement was lacking; or who had not washed his hands and feet; or that was uncircumcised; or unclean; or was sitting, or standing upon vessels or upon a beast or upon another's feet, it is invalid. This section contains a list of cases in which a priest who removes the handful from the minhah renders it invalid. The same list appears in Zevahim 2:1, so I am basically replicating my commentary here: Non-priest: only priests can perform these activities. An onen: Someone who had one of their close relatives die is considered an onen on the day of the death. A tebul yom: This is the word for an impure person who has immersed in a mikveh but before the end of the day (before the sun sets after he was made pure). See Leviticus 22:7. One lacking [priestly] vestments: A regular priest must wear four garments and the high priest must wear eight garments (see Yoma 7:5). Without the proper attire, the minhah is invalid. One lacking sacrificial atonement: In certain cases, when one’s period of impurity is over he must bring a sacrifice. If the priest has not brought the required sacrifice, he cannot take part in the sacrificial worship. One who had not washed his hands and feet: See Exodus 30:19. An uncircumcised [priest]: See Ezekiel 44:9. An unclean [priest]: one must be ritually pure to offer sacrifices. One who was sitting, one who was standing on utensils or on an animal or on another’s feet, are disqualified: the sacrificial procedure must be performed while standing on the floor of the Temple’s courtyard, not sitting or standing on something else.

יושב – that we require to stand to minister/serve [before God].

If [a priest] removed the handful with his left hand it is invalid. Ben Batera says: he may put [the handful] back and take it out again with the right hand. The handful should be removed with the right hand. According to the first opinion, if he removes it with his left hand the minhah is invalid, whereas Ben Batera holds that he may put the handful back into the remainder and take it out again with his right hand.

על גבי כלים כו' – that we require that there will not be anything that divides/cuts off between him and the floor.

If on taking the handful there came into his hand a small stone or a grain of salt or a drop of frankincense it is invalid, for they have said: if the handful was too much or too little it is invalid. If when taking the handful the priest removes the correct amount, but then finds that something else was in the handful, a stone, salt or frankincense, it is invalid, because as we shall see, it turns out that he didn’t take enough.

בן בתירא אומר יחזיר – the handful of the meal-offering which the priest takes to be put on the altar into the meal-offering.

What is meant by “too much? If he took an overflowing handful. The mishnah now explains the meaning of the statement, “if the handful was too much or too little it is invalid.” If he took a heaping handful and it was overflowing, then it is too much and the fistful is invalid.

ויחזיר ויקמוץ בימין – and same law applies to all of these invalidates that are considered in our Mishnah, Ben Beteyra holds that if someone transgressed one of them and took a fistful, he should return the handful of the meal-offering to its place and a kosher/fit Kohen should take a handful of the meal-offering to be put on the altar into the meal offering. But the Halakha is not according to Ben Beteyra.

And ‘too little’? If he took the handful with the tips of his fingers only. If he took it just with his fingertips, without using his palm, then it is similarly invalid, because it is not enough.

עלה בידו צרור – it was found that the handful of meal-offering which the Kohen takes to put on the altar was missing the place of the stone or a grain of salt or a particle of frankincense, for prior to taking a fistful of meal-offering he singles out all of the frankincense to one side and takes a handful of meal-offering and afterwards collects it and places with the handful of meal-offering and burns everything. But if he happens upon a grain of salt or a particle of frankincense, the handful of meal-offering is missing according to the place of the particle [of frankincense].

How should he do it? He should stretch out his fingers on to the palm of his hand. The proper way of taking out the fistful is for the priest to use his whole hand, with outstretched fingertips. This way he uses his palm and fingers.

מבורץ – full and overflowing.

שקמצו בראשי אצבעותיו – he did not stretch them over the entire palm of his hand.

פושט את אצבעותיו על פס ידו – the sides of his fingers enter into the flour and he brings in the flour into his hand and smooths it with his small finger so that the flour will not go outside of the fistful and he he smooths it with his thumb that the flour would not leave outside of his finger. And this he had to do with meal-offerings prepared in a pan (i.e., fried in a flat pan) or [a meal-offering] prepared in a deep pan (i.e., fried in a container full of oil) that their creations are baked and after they their baking, he crumbles it and takes a fistful. But it is impossible to crumble it so much into thin pieces, for they would not go forth from the fistful, therefore, he smooths them with his thumb from above and with the small finger (i.e., pinky) from below. And these were of the most difficult [acts] of Divine service that were in the Temple. That in this great difficulty one is able to compare that he would not be missing or have too much. And Maimonides wrote, that the words of the one of said that this is a difficult [act] of Divine Service were set aside, and he explains and he takes a fistful of the meal-offering as people would take fistfuls that is mentioned in the Gemara [i.e., Tractate Menahot 11a], that he fills his palm from it in the manner that people fill their hands from what they take in their hands. But I say, that that the explanation is not as how people take a fistful [of meal-offering] but rather, causes the sides of his fingers to enter into the flour that he brings in the flour with the sides of his fingers into his hand, but he doesn’t take the flour but rather fills three of his fingers until the palm of his hand and not further, in order that it will be cutting through from end to end and burst forth and come out, he smooths it from below with his small finger (i.e., pinky) and from above with a thumb. And that the words of the one who said that this is a difficult act from the difficult acts of Divine Service that is in the Temple are not set aside and the method of the Gemara is like m words. And such all of my teachers have explained it.

ריבה שמנה – for the measurement of [olive] oil is a LOG (i.e., the equivalent of six eggs’ bulk) for every Issaron (i.e., Omer = one-tenth of an Ephah). But if he put in too much, that he gave two LOG or more for an Issaron which appears as two meal-offerings, he has disqualified it.

If he put in too much of its oil or too little of its oil or too little of its frankincense, it is invalid.
One who takes a fistful from the minhah [intending]: To eat the remainder outside [the Temple] or an olive’s worth outside; To burn the fistful or an olive’s worth of the fistful outside; To burn its frankincense outside, It is invalid, but it does not involve karet.
[One who takes a fistful from the minhah intending]: To eat the remainder the next day or an olive’s worth the next day; To burn the fistful the next day or an olive’s worth of the fistful the next day; To burn its frankincense the next day, It is piggul, and involves kareth.
This is the general rule: anyone who removes the fistful, or puts it into a vessel, or carries it to the altar, or burns it, [intending] to eat as much as an olive of that which is normally eaten or to burn [on the altar] as much as an olive of that which is normally burned outside its prescribed place, [the minhah] is invalid, but it does not involve karet; [Intending to eat or burn] after its designated time, it is piggul and it involves karet. Provided that the mattir is offered in accordance with the law.
How is the mattir offered in accordance with the law? If one took out the fistful in silence, and put it in a vessel, or carried it, or burned it, [intending to eat it] after its designated time; Or if one took out the fistful [intending to eat the minhah] after its designated time, and put it in a vessel, and carried it and burned it in silence, or if one took out the fistful, or put it in a vessel, or carried it, or burned it [intending to eat the minhah] after its designated time. That is offering the mattir in accordance with the law.
This mishnah is nearly similar to Zevahim 2:2-5. It deals with various ways in which the minhah offering is disqualified.
Section one: The amount of oil put into a minhah offering is one log for every tenth of an ephah of flour. If he puts in too much or too little oil the minhah is invalid. The amount of frankincense is two karots. If he puts in too little frankincense, the minhah is invalid, but it is not invalidated if he puts in too much.
Sections two-five: These sections are taught nearly word for word in Zevahim 2:2-4, so I have not rewritten my entire commentary here. The one difference is that here the mishnah discusses the four actions relevant to the minhah: taking out the fistful, putting it in a vessel, bringing it to the altar and burning it there. These are parallel to the four main activities with animal and bird sacrifices. Also, the fistful and the frankincense are parallel to the blood and the innards of the animal, such that the remainder of the minhah is parallel to the flesh of the animal.
Everything else in this mishnah is already explained in Zevahim 2:2-4.

חיסר שמנה – less than a LOG of [olive] oil for an Issaron of sifted fine-flour.

חיסר לבונתה – that he didn’t put in it other than a grain/particle/drop of frankincense. But if it has in it two grains, it is fit/kosher, as it is written (Leviticus 6:8): “with all the frankincense that is on the grain offering,” implying even one drop of frankincense, for [the word] "כל"/all [from the verse in Leviticus 6:8:"את כל הלבונה אשר על המנחה" ] implies a little bit, as it is written (2 Kings 4:2): “”Your maidservant has nothing at all, [except for a jug of oil].” [The word] "את" includes another grain/particle/drop of frankincense, that makes two, whereas if he increased its frankincense, this is not taught [in the Mishnah] , and he did not disqualify/invalidate it other than when he increased it more than two handfuls [of meal-offering] for then he increased it too much.

לאכול שייריה בחוץ – outside of the Temple courtyard.

או להקטיר קומצה בחוץ – for thought/plan disqualifies whether that he though about the eating of a person whether he thought about the consumption by the altar, as it is written (Leviticus 7:18): “If any of the flesh of his sacrifice is eaten/אם אכל יאכל מבשר זבח שלמיו ,” Scripture is speaking about two consumptions: one is for that which a person consumes and another is that which the altar consumes, and this Biblical verse speaks of thought/intention, as it is written (Leviticus 7:18): ‘it shall not count for him who offered it/המקריב אתו לא יחשב לו,” and he did not disqualify it other than when he thought about it to consume it on the third day (i.e., see Leviticus 7:18: "ביום השלישי לא ירצה" /”[is eaten] on the third day, it shall not be acceptable”).

פסולה – that the intention/plan outside of its [proper] place invalidates the taking a handful of the meal-offering as it invalidates in the ritual slaughter of the animal offering. And just as one disqualifies an animal offering with ritual slaughter, the receiving of the blood, bring it [to the altar], and sprinkling the blood, one disqualifies the meal-offering through taking a handful, putting it in sacred vessels, and bringing for burning the handful [of meal-offering] and the frankincense on the altar, four [sacred] acts corresponding/parallel to four [sacred acts]. For the taking of a fistful [of grain] and the frankincense themselves are considered concerning the meal-offering like the blood and the sections that are offered on the altar regarding he animal offering. And the residue/remnants of the meal-offering are consumed. And in Chapter two of [Tractate] Zevakhim [the entire chapter] all of these disqualifying factors are explained and there we derive all of them from Scriptural verses.

לאכול דבר שדרכו לאכול – such as the residue/remnants.

דבר שדרכו להקטיר – such as the priest taking a handful of meal-offering to place on the altar. But, if he intended/thought to eat the handful of meal-offering or to offer the residue as incense on the altar outside of its appropriate time, he did not disqualify it, for his thought was disqualified regarding all other people.

ובלבד שיקרב המתיר – the handful of the meal-offering כהלכתו – as if it was kosher, for there was no disqualification other than the offering disqualified because of inappropriate intention alone. But if there is another disqualification, it is no longer considered disqualified because of an inappropriate intention, and there is no extirpation.

בשתיקה – that he did not think any thought at the time of taking a handful of the meal offering.

ונתן והלך והקטיר חוץ לזמנו – that is to say, that in these three acts of Divine service, he thought about consuming the residue outside of the appropriate time [for this act].

קמץ חוץ למקומו – he intended/thought at the time of taking a handful of the meal-offering to consume the residue/remnants outside of the Temple courtyard.

How is the mattir not offered in accordance with the law? If one took out the fistful [intending to eat it] outside the designated place, [and] put it in a vessel, carried it to the altar, and burned [with the intention of eating it] after its designated time; Or if one took out the fistful [intending to eat it] after its designated time, [and] received, carried it to the altar, and burned it [intending to eat it] outside its designated place, or if one took out the fistful, received, carried it to the altar, and burned [intending to eat it] outside its designated time.
If one took out the fistful of a sinner’s minhah or the minhah of jealousy for the sake of something else, and received, carried it to the altar, and burned [intending to eat them] after their designated time; Or if one took out the fistful [from them, intending to eat] after their designated time, [and] received, carried it to the altar, and burned for the sake of something else, or if one took out the fistful, received, carried it to the altar, and burned for the sake of something else;
Rabbi Judah said: this is the general rule: where the [improper] intention of time precedes the [improper] intention of place, [the sacrifice] is piggul, and involves karet; but if the [improper] intention of place precedes the [improper] intention of time, it is invalid and does not involve kareth.
In these cases the mattir was not offered in accordance with the law
But the sages say: in both cases [the sacrifice] is invalid and does not involve karet.
[If one intended] to eat as much as an olive outside its designated place [and] as much as an olive on the next day, [or] as much as an olive on the next day [and] as much as an olive outside its designated place; Half as much as an olive outside its designated place [and] half as much as an olive on the next day; Half as much as an olive on the next day [and] half as much as an olive outside its designated place, [The sacrifice] is unfit, and does not involve karet.
[If one intends] to eat half as much as an olive [after its intended time or outside its intended place] [and] to burn half as much as an olive [similarly] it is valid, for eating and burning do not combine.
This mishnah is nearly identical to Zevahim 2:4-5, with the exception that the actions here are relevant to a minhah whereas Zevahim discussed animal sacrifices. For commentary, see there.

נתן בכלי הילך והקטיר חוץ לזמנו – and in one of these three acts of Divine service, he intended to consume the residue/remnants outside of the [proper] time period.

מנחת חוטא וקנאות – there is in them one other invalidation that removes them from being פיגול /an offering disqualified by having an improper intention, such as not for its own sake/name, as we stated at the beginning of our chapter (i.e., Mishnah 1), that invalid [meal] offerings, if he took a handful of the meal-offering not for its own sake, and he thought/intended regarding the three other acts of Divine service (i.e., the taking of a handful of the meal-offering to consume its residue outside of the Temple courtyard, and to offer it up at the altar at an inappropriate time and to consume it at an inappropriate time) that they would be performed outside of their [proper] time, or even the first [of the three] outside of its appropriate time, and the rest that were not done for their own sake, he removed it from being an offering disqualified by having an improper intention [and being subject to extirpation].

או קמץ או נתן בכלי או הוליך או הקטיר שלא לשמן – that is to say, whichever of these that he did not for its own sake and the remainder in order to consume the residue/remnants outside of the [appropriate] time , he did not offer that which is permitted in accord with its requirement, but there is no extirpation with its residue/remnants.

כזית בחוץ כזית למחר – he intended/thought with one of the acts of Divine service that two intentions would be done outside of the [appropriate] time period and outside of its [appropriate] place (i.e., the Temple courtyard. But until now, we have been speaking about two acts of Divine service that he intended with one of them outside of its [appropriate] time period and with another outside of its proper place, but now we are speaking about [the case] where he intended both of them with one act of Divine service. But for Rabbi Yehuda, it is necessary, that one does not say that Rabbi Yehuda disputes on two [acts] of Divine service, for we follow after the first [act]. But with one [act] of Divine service, he agrees, but it comes to tell us [that this is not the case].

זית למחר וכזית בחוץ – even though that he intended first [to perform the act] outside of the [appropriate] time period, his second act of taking it outside [the Temple courtyard] makes him [liable] for extirpation.

אמר רבי יהודה זה הכלל כו' – Rabbi Yehuda disputes with the first Tanna/teacher, whether with one [act] of Divine service or whether with two [acts] of Divine service. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Yehuda.