מתני׳ כל המנחות שנקמצו שלא לשמן כשירות אלא שלא עלו לבעלים לשם חובה חוץ ממנחת חוטא ומנחת קנאות
MISHNA: When one brings a meal offering to the Temple, the priest removes a handful from it, places the handful into a service vessel, conveys it to the altar, and burns it. At that point, the remainder is permitted to the priests for consumption and the owner has fulfilled his obligation. In this context, the mishna teaches: All the meal offerings from which a handful was removed not for their sake but for the sake of another meal offering are fit for sacrifice. But these offerings did not satisfy the obligation of the owner, who must therefore bring another offering. This is the halakha with regard to all meal offerings except for the meal offering of a sinner and the meal offering of jealousy, which is brought as part of the rite of a woman suspected by her husband of having been unfaithful [sota]. In those cases, if the priest removed the handful not for its own sake, the offering is disqualified.
מנחת חוטא ומנחת קנאות שקמצן שלא לשמן נתן בכלי והלך והקטיר שלא לשמן או לשמן ושלא לשמן או שלא לשמן ולשמן פסולות
With regard to the meal offering of a sinner and the meal offering of jealousy from which the priest removed a handful not for their sake, or where he placed a handful from them 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.
כיצד לשמן ושלא לשמן לשם מנחת חוטא ולשם מנחת נדבה שלא לשמן ולשמן לשם מנחת נדבה ולשם מנחת חוטא:
The mishna elaborates: How are these rites performed for their sake and not for their sake? It is in a case where one removed the handful with two intentions: For the sake of the meal offering of a sinner and for the sake of a voluntary meal offering. How are these rites performed not for their sake and for their sake? It is in a case where one removed the handful with two intentions: For the sake of a voluntary meal offering and for the sake of the meal offering of a sinner.
גמ׳ למה למיתנא אלא ליתני ולא עלו לבעלים לשם חובה
GEMARA: The mishna teaches: All the meal offerings from which a handful was removed not for their sake but for the sake of another meal offering are fit for sacrifice, but these offerings did not satisfy the obligation of the owner. The Gemara asks: Why do I need the mishna to teach: But these offerings did not [ella shelo] satisfy the obligation of the owner? Let it teach simply: And they did not [velo] satisfy the obligation of the owner. What does the word ella add?
הא קמ"ל לבעלים הוא דלא עלו לשום חובה הא מנחה גופה כשרה ואסור לשנויי כדרבא דאמר רבא עולה ששחטה שלא לשמה אסור לזרוק דמה שלא לשמה
The Gemara responds: By adding this word, the mishna teaches us that the only deficiency of these offerings is that they did not satisfy the obligation of the owner; but the meal offering itself is valid and it is still prohibited to deviate from the protocol of its sacrificial process. For example, if a handful was removed from a meal offering not for its own sake, it is prohibited to also burn it not for its own sake. This halakha is in accordance with the statement of Rava, as Rava says: With regard to a burnt offering that one slaughtered not for its own sake, it is still prohibited to sprinkle its blood on the altar not for its own sake.
איבעית אימא סברא ואיבעית אימא קרא איבעית אימא סברא משום דמשני בה כל הני לישני בה וניזיל
The Gemara adds: If you wish, propose a logical argument to support this statement; and if you wish, cite a verse as proof. The Gemara elaborates: If you wish, propose a logical argument: Just because one deviated from protocol in its sacrifice once, by removing the handful, could it be that he should continue to deviate from protocol in all the rest of the sacrificial rites? One deviation does not justify additional deviations.
ואיבעית אימא קרא (דברים כג, כד) מוצא שפתיך תשמור ועשית כאשר נדרת ליי' אלהיך נדבה נדבה נדר הוא קרי ליה נדר וקרי ליה נדבה אלא אם כמה שנדרת עשית יהא נדר ואם לאו יהא נדבה
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, that which you have promised with your mouth” (Deuteronomy 23:24). The Gemara analyzes the verse: Is it a gift offering? It is a vow offering. Why does the verse first call it a vow offering and subsequently call it a gift offering? Rather, the verse teaches that if you acted in accordance with how you vowed, i.e., if you sacrificed the offering for its own sake, your obligation to fulfill your vow will be fulfilled; but if you did not act in accordance with your vow, it does not fulfill the obligation incurred by the vow, and will be considered a gift offering.