Komentarz do Menachot 1:1

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.