Menachot 25

מתני׳ נטמא הקומץ והקריבו הציץ מרצה יצא והקריבו אין הציץ מרצה שהציץ מרצה על הטמא ואינו מרצה על היוצא

MISHNA: If the handful became ritually impure and despite this the priest sacrificed it, the frontplate worn by the High Priest effects acceptance of the meal offering, and the remainder is eaten by the priests. If the handful left its designated area and despite this the priest then sacrificed it, the frontplate does not effect acceptance. The reason is that the frontplate effects acceptance for offerings sacrificed when ritually impure and does not effect acceptance for offerings that leave their designated areas.

גמ׳ תנו רבנן ונשא אהרן את עון הקדשים וכי איזה עון הוא נושא אם תאמר עון פיגול הרי כבר נאמר לא יחשב אם תאמר עון נותר הרי כבר נאמר לא ירצה

GEMARA: The Sages taught in a baraita: It is written with regard to the frontplate: “And it shall be upon Aaron’s forehead, and Aaron shall bear the sin committed with the sacred items, which the children of Israel shall hallow, even all their sacred gifts; and it shall be always upon his forehead, that they may be accepted before the Lord” (Exodus 28:38). The Sages expounded: But which sin does he bear? If you say he atones for the sin of piggul, it is already stated: “It shall not be credited to him” (Leviticus 7:18). If you say he atones for the sin of notar, it is already stated in the same verse: “It shall not be accepted.”

הא אינו נושא אלא עון טומאה שהותרה מכללה בציבור

Evidently, the High Priest wearing the frontplate bears only the sin of impurity in the offering of an individual. The frontplate is understood to atone for the sin of sacrificing an impure offering, as its general prohibition was permitted in certain circumstances, specifically in the case of the community, since in a situation where the entire community is impure it is permitted to sacrifice impure communal offerings ab initio.

מתקיף לה רבי זירא אימא עון יוצא שהותר מכללו בבמה

Rabbi Zeira objects to this: Why not say that the frontplate atones for the sin of sacrificing offerings that leave the courtyard and are thereby disqualified, as its general prohibition was permitted in certain circumstances, specifically in the case of an offering sacrificed on a private altar during the period after the Jewish people had entered Eretz Yisrael and before there was an established location for the Tabernacle?

אמר ליה אביי אמר קרא לרצון להם לפני ה׳ עון דלפני ה׳ אין עון דיוצא לא

Abaye said to him: The verse states with regard to the frontplate: “And it shall be always upon his forehead, that they may be accepted before the Lord” (Exodus 28:38), teaching that in the case of a sin whose general prohibition is permitted before the Lord, i.e., in the Temple, yes, the frontplate atones for it. But in the case of the sin of offerings that leave the courtyard, whose general prohibition is not permitted before the Lord, the frontplate does not atone for it.

מתקיף לה רבי אילעא אימא עון שמאל שהותר מכללו ביום הכפורים

Rabbi Ile’a objects to this: Why not say that the frontplate atones for the sin of performing the service using one’s left hand instead of one’s right, as its general prohibition was permitted in certain circumstances, specifically in the case of Yom Kippur, when the High Priest carries the spoon bearing the incense into the Holy of Holies with his left hand?

אמר ליה אביי אמר קרא עון עון שהיה בו ודחיתיו לאפוקי יום הכפורים דהכשירו בשמאל הוא

Abaye said to him: The verse states: “And Aaron shall bear the sin committed with the sacred items” (Exodus 28:38), to say that the frontplate atones for a sin that was committed with the offering and I deferred it. This serves to exclude the spoon bearing the incense of Yom Kippur, where there is no sin that was deferred, since its proper performance is for the High Priest to hold it with his left hand, as he must hold both the coal pan and the spoon of incense.

רב אשי אמר עון הקדשים ולא עון המקדישין

Rav Ashi said: The frontplate does not atone for the sin of sacrificing an offering with the left hand for a different reason: The verse states: “And Aaron shall bear the sin committed with the sacred items [hakodashim],” demonstrating that the frontplate atones for a sin inherent in the offering itself, and not for a sin committed by those who bring the offering [hamakdishin].

אמר ליה רב סימא בריה דרב אידי לרב אשי ואמרי לה רב סימא בריה דרב אשי לרב אשי ואימא עון בעל מום שהותר מכללו בעופות דאמר מר תמות וזכרות בבהמה ואין תמות וזכרות בעופות

Rav Sima, son of Rav Idi, said to Rav Ashi; and some say that it was Rav Sima, son of Rav Ashi, who said to Rav Ashi: But why not say that the frontplate atones for the sin of a blemished animal that is sacrificed, as its general prohibition was permitted in certain circumstances, specifically in the case of birds? As the Master says: The halakha that an offering must be unblemished and the halakha that a burnt offering must be male are taught with regard to animal offerings, but there is no requirement that an offering must be unblemished and male with regard to birds.

אמר ליה עליך אמר קרא לא ירצה כי לא לרצון יהיה לכם

Rav Ashi said to him: With regard to your claim, the verse states about blemished animals: “It shall not be accepted” (Leviticus 22:23), and: “But whatsoever has a blemish that you shall not bring; for it shall not be acceptable for you” (Leviticus 22:20), teaching that in no case are blemished animals accepted as offerings, even due to the frontplate.

תנו רבנן דם שנטמא וזרקו בשוגג הורצה במזיד לא הורצה במה דברים אמורים ביחיד אבל בציבור בין בשוגג בין במזיד הורצה ובגוי בין בשוגג בין במזיד בין באונס בין ברצון

§ The Sages taught in a baraita: In the case of blood of an offering that became impure and a priest sprinkled it on the altar, if he did so unwittingly, the offering is accepted and effects atonement for the owner of the offering. If he sprinkled the blood intentionally, the offering is not accepted. In what case is this statement said? In the case of the offering of an individual. But in the case of a communal offering, whether he sprinkled the blood unwittingly or whether he did so intentionally, the offering is accepted. And in the case of an offering of a gentile where the blood of the offering became impure, whether the priest sprinkled the blood unwittingly or whether he did so intentionally, whether he did so due to circumstances beyond his control or whether he did so willingly,

לא הורצה

the offering is not accepted, as the verse states with regard to the frontplate: “That it may be accepted for them before the Lord” (Exodus 28:38), with the term “for them” teaching that this applies only for Jews, not for gentiles.

ורמינהי על מה הציץ מרצה על הדם ועל הבשר ועל החלב שנטמא בין בשוגג בין במזיד בין באונס בין ברצון בין ביחיד בין בציבור

And the Gemara raises a contradiction from another baraita: For what does the frontplate worn by the High Priest effect acceptance? It effects acceptance for the blood, for the flesh, and for the fat of an offering that became impure in the Temple, whether they were rendered impure unwittingly or intentionally, whether due to circumstances beyond one’s control or willfully, whether in the case of the offering of an individual or in the case of a communal offering. In contrast to the statement of the previous baraita, this baraita teaches that the frontplate does effect acceptance in the case of an individual offering for blood that became impure and was sprinkled intentionally.

אמר רב יוסף לא קשיא הא רבי יוסי הא רבנן דתניא אין תורמין מן הטמא על הטהור ואם תרם בשוגג תרומתו תרומה במזיד אין תרומתו תרומה רבי יוסי אומר בין בשוגג בין במזיד תרומתו תרומה

Rav Yosef said: This is not difficult. This baraita, which teaches that the frontplate effects acceptance for impure blood of an individual offering that was sprinkled intentionally, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, whereas that baraita, which teaches that the frontplate does not effect acceptance, is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. As it is taught in a baraita: One may not separate teruma from ritually impure produce for ritually pure produce. And if he separated teruma from impure produce unwittingly, his teruma is considered teruma, but if he did so intentionally, the Sages penalize him and his teruma is not teruma. Rabbi Yosei says: Whether he did so unwittingly or intentionally, his teruma is teruma. Like the ruling found in the second baraita, Rabbi Yosei does not distinguish between a case where one acted unwittingly and where one acted intentionally.

אימר דשמעת ליה לרבי יוסי דלא קניס דמרצה ציץ על אכילות מי שמעת ליה והתניא רבי אליעזר אומר הציץ מרצה על אכילות רבי יוסי אומר אין הציץ מרצה על אכילות

The Gemara objects to the comparison: You can say that you heard that Rabbi Yosei holds that the Sages do not penalize him. Did you hear him say, as the baraita teaches, that the frontplate effects acceptance for the impurity of the portions of offerings that are to be eaten? But isn’t it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer says: The frontplate effects acceptance for the impurity of the portions of offerings that are to be eaten, and Rabbi Yosei says: The frontplate does not effect acceptance for the impurity of portions of offerings that are to be eaten?

איפוך רבי אליעזר אומר אין הציץ מרצה על אכילות רבי יוסי אומר הציץ מרצה על אכילות

The Gemara answers: Reverse the opinions, so that Rabbi Eliezer says: The frontplate does not effect acceptance for the impurity of the portions of offerings that are to be eaten, and Rabbi Yosei says: The frontplate does effect acceptance for the impurity of portions of offerings that are to be eaten.

מתקיף לה רב ששת ומי מצית אפכת לה והתניא יכול בשר שנטמא לפני זריקת דמים יהו חייבין עליהן משום טומאה

Rav Sheshet objects to this: And are you able to reverse the opinions and say that according to Rabbi Eliezer the frontplate does not effect acceptance for the impurity of portions that are to be eaten? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: One might have thought that one who partakes of impure sacrificial meat, i.e., one who partakes of the meat while in a state of ritual impurity, before the sprinkling of the blood takes place, is liable for eating it due to violation of the prohibition against partaking of the meat while ritually impure.

תלמוד לומר כל טהור יאכל בשר והנפש אשר תאכל בשר מזבח השלמים אשר לה׳ וטמאתו עליו ונכרתה הניתר לטהורין חייבין עליו משום טומאה

To counter this, the verse states: “Every one that is ritually pure may eat of it” (Leviticus 7:19), and immediately afterward the verse states: “But the soul that eats of the meat of the sacrifice of peace offerings, that belong to the Lord, having his impurity upon him, that soul shall be cut off from his people” (Leviticus 7:20). The juxtaposition of these verses teaches that if one who is impure partakes of that which has become permitted to those who are ritually pure, he is liable for eating it due to violation of the prohibition against partaking of the meat while ritually impure.

ושאינו ניתר לטהורין אין חייבין עליו משום טומאה

But if one who is impure partakes of that which is not permitted to those who are pure, he is not liable for eating it due to violation of the prohibition against partaking of the meat while ritually impure. Since it is not permitted to eat the sacrificial meat before the sprinkling of the blood, one who partakes of it at that point is not liable to receive karet for eating it while ritually impure.

או אינו אלא נאכל לטהורין חייבין עליו משום טומאה ושאינו נאכל לטהורין אין חייבין עליו משום טומאה אוציא אני את הלן ואת היוצא שאינן נאכלין לטהורים

The baraita continues: Or perhaps, is the verse teaching only that if one who is impure partakes of that which is eaten by those who are ritually pure, he is liable for eating it due to violation of the prohibition against partaking of the meat while ritually impure; but in a case where he partakes of that which is not eaten by those who are ritually pure, he is not liable for eating it due to violation of the prohibition against partaking of the meat while ritually impure despite the fact that its blood has already been sprinkled? I would then exclude sacrificial meat that was left overnight and meat that leaves the Temple courtyard, which are not permitted to be eaten by those who are ritually pure, and I would derive that one who is impure who partakes of them is not liable for eating them.

תלמוד לומר אשר לה׳ ריבה

Therefore, the verse states: “That belong to the Lord,” which teaches that the verse included leftover meat and meat that leaves the Temple courtyard in the prohibition, and one who partakes of them while impure is liable for partaking of them.

יכול שאני מרבה את הפיגולין ואת הנותרות

One might have thought that I include in the prohibition the meat that was rendered piggul through one’s intention of consuming it after its designated time and the meat that was rendered notar.

נותרות היינו לן אלא אף הפיגולין כנותרות תלמוד לומר מזבח השלמים מיעט

The baraita interjects: Isn’t notar identical to meat that was left overnight, and it has already been established that one is liable for partaking of leftover meat while in an impure state? Rather, what is meant is as follows: One might have thought to include in the prohibition even the meats that were rendered piggul, just as notar is included. Therefore, the verse states: “Of the meat of the sacrifice of peace offerings,” and the term “of the meat” excluded one who is impure who partakes of piggul.

ומה ראית לרבות את אלו ולהוציא את אלו אחר שריבה הכתוב ומיעט אמרת מרבה אני את אלו שהיתה להן שעת הכושר ומוציא אני את אלו שלא היתה להן שעת הכושר

The baraita asks: And what did you see to include these, i.e., leftover meat and meat that leaves the courtyard, and to exclude those, i.e., piggul? It answers: After the verse included some offerings and excluded others, you should say the following: I include these, the leftover meat and the meat that leaves the Temple courtyard, as they had a period of fitness after their blood was sprinkled, before they were rendered unfit by being left over or by leaving the Temple courtyard. And I exclude those, piggul, as they never had a period of fitness, as they were already unfit when the blood was sprinkled.

ואם תאמר בשר שנטמא לפני זריקת דמים ואכלו לאחר זריקת דמים מפני מה חייבין עליו משום טומאה מפני שהציץ מרצה

The baraita concludes: And if you say that if that is the case, then with regard to sacrificial meat that became impure before the sprinkling of the blood, and one who was impure ate it after the sprinkling of the blood, for what reason is he liable for eating it due to violation of the prohibition against partaking of the meat while ritually impure if it never had a period of fitness? The answer is that he is liable because the frontplate effects acceptance and the sprinkling is valid.

נטמא אין יוצא לא

It arises from this baraita that if the offering became impure, then yes, the frontplate effects acceptance; but in the case of sacrificial meat that leaves the Temple courtyard, the frontplate does not effect acceptance, and therefore it was never considered to have a period of fitness.

מאן שמעת ליה דאמר אין זריקה מועלת ליוצא רבי אליעזר וקתני דמרצה ציץ על אכילות

Rav Sheshet now states his question: Who did you hear who says that the sprinkling of the blood is not effective in the case of sacrificial meat that leaves the Temple courtyard? This is the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, as seen in tractate Me’ila (6b), and yet although this baraita is then clearly in accordance with his opinion, it teaches that the frontplate effects acceptance for the impurity of the portions of offerings that are to be eaten. Therefore, this too is the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, and the opinions in the baraita cited above should not be reversed.

אלא אמר רב חסדא לא קשיא הא רבי אליעזר הא רבנן

Rather, Rav Ḥisda said: It is not difficult. This baraita, which teaches that the frontplate effects acceptance for the impurity of the portions of offerings that are to be eaten, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, whereas that baraita, which teaches that the frontplate does not effect acceptance, is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis.

אימר דשמעת ליה לרבי אליעזר דמרצה ציץ על אכילות דלא קניס מי שמעת ליה אין כי היכי דשמעת ליה לרבי יוסי שמעת ליה לרבי אליעזר דתניא רבי אליעזר אומר בין בשוגג בין במזיד תרומתו תרומה

The Gemara asks: You can say that you heard that Rabbi Eliezer holds that the frontplate effects acceptance for the impurity of the portions of offerings that are to be eaten, but did you hear him say that the Sages did not penalize one who acted willfully? The Gemara answers: Yes. Just as you heard that Rabbi Yosei holds with regard to teruma that one who separated impure produce on behalf of pure produce is not penalized, you heard that Rabbi Eliezer holds the same. This is as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Eliezer says: Whether one acted unwittingly or intentionally, his teruma is teruma.

אימר דשמעת ליה לרבי אליעזר בתרומה דקילא בקדשים דחמירי מי שמעת ליה אם כן הא אמאן תרמייה

The Gemara objects: You can say that you heard Rabbi Eliezer state this halakha with regard to teruma, which is lenient, but did you hear him say this with regard to consecrated items, which are more severe? The Gemara answers: If it is so that Rabbi Eliezer does not hold the same opinion with regard to consecrated items, to whom will you attribute this baraita that rules that the Sages did not penalize one who acted willfully? Rather, it must be that this is the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer.

רבינא אמר טומאתו בין בשוגג בין במזיד הורצה זריקתו בשוגג הורצה במזיד לא הורצה

Ravina said that the contradiction between the two baraitot should be resolved as follows: With regard to the circumstances of the contraction of its ritual impurity, regardless of whether the blood was rendered impure unwittingly or intentionally, the frontplate effects acceptance for the impurity and the offering is accepted, as the second baraita teaches. By contrast, with regard to the sprinkling of the blood, if it was unwittingly sprinkled after becoming ritually impure, meaning that the priest was unaware that it was impure, then the offering is accepted, but if it was intentionally sprinkled after becoming impure, it is not accepted, as the first baraita teaches.

ורב שילא אמר זריקתו בין בשוגג בין במזיד הורצה טומאתו בשוגג הורצה במזיד לא הורצה

And Rabbi Sheila said the opposite resolution: With regard to the sprinkling of the blood, whether it was performed unwittingly or intentionally, the offering is accepted. By contrast, with regard to the circumstances of the contraction of its ritual impurity, if it was rendered impure unwittingly the offering is accepted, and if it was rendered impure intentionally it is not accepted.

ולרב שילא דקתני שנטמא בין בשוגג בין במזיד הכי קאמר נטמא בשוגג וזרקו בין בשוגג בין במזיד

The Gemara explains: And according to Rav Sheila, concerning that which is taught in the second baraita, that the frontplate effects acceptance for blood that was rendered impure regardless of whether it happened unwittingly or intentionally, this is what it is saying: If the blood was rendered impure unwittingly and one sprinkled its blood, whether it was sprinkled unwittingly or intentionally, it is accepted.