Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

September 4, 2018 | 讻状讚 讘讗诇讜诇 转砖注状讞

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Menachot 25

In what cases does the tzitz聽provide atonement? And in which cases does it not?


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

诪转谞讬壮 谞讟诪讗 讛拽讜诪抓 讜讛拽专讬讘讜 讛爪讬抓 诪专爪讛 讬爪讗 讜讛拽专讬讘讜 讗讬谉 讛爪讬抓 诪专爪讛 砖讛爪讬抓 诪专爪讛 注诇 讛讟诪讗 讜讗讬谞讜 诪专爪讛 注诇 讛讬讜爪讗

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.

讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讜谞砖讗 讗讛专谉 讗转 注讜谉 讛拽讚砖讬诐 讜讻讬 讗讬讝讛 注讜谉 讛讜讗 谞讜砖讗 讗诐 转讗诪专 注讜谉 驻讬讙讜诇 讛专讬 讻讘专 谞讗诪专 诇讗 讬讞砖讘 讗诐 转讗诪专 注讜谉 谞讜转专 讛专讬 讻讘专 谞讗诪专 诇讗 讬专爪讛

GEMARA: The Sages taught in a baraita: It is written with regard to the frontplate: 鈥淎nd it shall be upon Aaron鈥檚 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鈥 (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: 鈥淚t shall not be credited to him鈥 (Leviticus 7:18). If you say he atones for the sin of notar, it is already stated in the same verse: 鈥淚t shall not be accepted.鈥

讛讗 讗讬谞讜 谞讜砖讗 讗诇讗 注讜谉 讟讜诪讗讛 砖讛讜转专讛 诪讻诇诇讛 讘爪讬讘讜专

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.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗讬诪讗 注讜谉 讬讜爪讗 砖讛讜转专 诪讻诇诇讜 讘讘诪讛

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?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 拽专讗 诇专爪讜谉 诇讛诐 诇驻谞讬 讛壮 注讜谉 讚诇驻谞讬 讛壮 讗讬谉 注讜谉 讚讬讜爪讗 诇讗

Abaye said to him: The verse states with regard to the frontplate: 鈥淎nd it shall be always upon his forehead, that they may be accepted before the Lord鈥 (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.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘讬 讗讬诇注讗 讗讬诪讗 注讜谉 砖诪讗诇 砖讛讜转专 诪讻诇诇讜 讘讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐

Rabbi Ile鈥檃 objects to this: Why not say that the frontplate atones for the sin of performing the service using one鈥檚 left hand instead of one鈥檚 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?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 拽专讗 注讜谉 注讜谉 砖讛讬讛 讘讜 讜讚讞讬转讬讜 诇讗驻讜拽讬 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 讚讛讻砖讬专讜 讘砖诪讗诇 讛讜讗

Abaye said to him: The verse states: 鈥淎nd Aaron shall bear the sin committed with the sacred items鈥 (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.

专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 注讜谉 讛拽讚砖讬诐 讜诇讗 注讜谉 讛诪拽讚讬砖讬谉

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: 鈥淎nd Aaron shall bear the sin committed with the sacred items [hakodashim],鈥 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].

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 住讬诪讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬讚讬 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 专讘 住讬诪讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗砖讬 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讜讗讬诪讗 注讜谉 讘注诇 诪讜诐 砖讛讜转专 诪讻诇诇讜 讘注讜驻讜转 讚讗诪专 诪专 转诪讜转 讜讝讻专讜转 讘讘讛诪讛 讜讗讬谉 转诪讜转 讜讝讻专讜转 讘注讜驻讜转

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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 注诇讬讱 讗诪专 拽专讗 诇讗 讬专爪讛 讻讬 诇讗 诇专爪讜谉 讬讛讬讛 诇讻诐

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

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讚诐 砖谞讟诪讗 讜讝专拽讜 讘砖讜讙讙 讛讜专爪讛 讘诪讝讬讚 诇讗 讛讜专爪讛 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘讬讞讬讚 讗讘诇 讘爪讬讘讜专 讘讬谉 讘砖讜讙讙 讘讬谉 讘诪讝讬讚 讛讜专爪讛 讜讘讙讜讬 讘讬谉 讘砖讜讙讙 讘讬谉 讘诪讝讬讚 讘讬谉 讘讗讜谞住 讘讬谉 讘专爪讜谉

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,

诇讗 讛讜专爪讛

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

讜专诪讬谞讛讬 注诇 诪讛 讛爪讬抓 诪专爪讛 注诇 讛讚诐 讜注诇 讛讘砖专 讜注诇 讛讞诇讘 砖谞讟诪讗 讘讬谉 讘砖讜讙讙 讘讬谉 讘诪讝讬讚 讘讬谉 讘讗讜谞住 讘讬谉 讘专爪讜谉 讘讬谉 讘讬讞讬讚 讘讬谉 讘爪讬讘讜专

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鈥檚 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.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讗 专讘谞谉 讚转谞讬讗 讗讬谉 转讜专诪讬谉 诪谉 讛讟诪讗 注诇 讛讟讛讜专 讜讗诐 转专诐 讘砖讜讙讙 转专讜诪转讜 转专讜诪讛 讘诪讝讬讚 讗讬谉 转专讜诪转讜 转专讜诪讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讘讬谉 讘砖讜讙讙 讘讬谉 讘诪讝讬讚 转专讜诪转讜 转专讜诪讛

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.

讗讬诪专 讚砖诪注转 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讚诇讗 拽谞讬住 讚诪专爪讛 爪讬抓 注诇 讗讻讬诇讜转 诪讬 砖诪注转 诇讬讛 讜讛转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讛爪讬抓 诪专爪讛 注诇 讗讻讬诇讜转 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 讛爪讬抓 诪专爪讛 注诇 讗讻讬诇讜转

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鈥檛 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?

讗讬驻讜讱 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 讛爪讬抓 诪专爪讛 注诇 讗讻讬诇讜转 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讛爪讬抓 诪专爪讛 注诇 讗讻讬诇讜转

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.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 砖砖转 讜诪讬 诪爪讬转 讗驻讻转 诇讛 讜讛转谞讬讗 讬讻讜诇 讘砖专 砖谞讟诪讗 诇驻谞讬 讝专讬拽转 讚诪讬诐 讬讛讜 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讛谉 诪砖讜诐 讟讜诪讗讛

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鈥檛 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.

转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讻诇 讟讛讜专 讬讗讻诇 讘砖专 讜讛谞驻砖 讗砖专 转讗讻诇 讘砖专 诪讝讘讞 讛砖诇诪讬诐 讗砖专 诇讛壮 讜讟诪讗转讜 注诇讬讜 讜谞讻专转讛 讛谞讬转专 诇讟讛讜专讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 诪砖讜诐 讟讜诪讗讛

To counter this, the verse states: 鈥淓very one that is ritually pure may eat of it鈥 (Leviticus 7:19), and immediately afterward the verse states: 鈥淏ut 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鈥 (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.

讜砖讗讬谞讜 谞讬转专 诇讟讛讜专讬谉 讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 诪砖讜诐 讟讜诪讗讛

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.

讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 谞讗讻诇 诇讟讛讜专讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 诪砖讜诐 讟讜诪讗讛 讜砖讗讬谞讜 谞讗讻诇 诇讟讛讜专讬谉 讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 诪砖讜诐 讟讜诪讗讛 讗讜爪讬讗 讗谞讬 讗转 讛诇谉 讜讗转 讛讬讜爪讗 砖讗讬谞谉 谞讗讻诇讬谉 诇讟讛讜专讬诐

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.

转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗砖专 诇讛壮 专讬讘讛

Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淭hat belong to the Lord,鈥 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.

讬讻讜诇 砖讗谞讬 诪专讘讛 讗转 讛驻讬讙讜诇讬谉 讜讗转 讛谞讜转专讜转

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

谞讜转专讜转 讛讬讬谞讜 诇谉 讗诇讗 讗祝 讛驻讬讙讜诇讬谉 讻谞讜转专讜转 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诪讝讘讞 讛砖诇诪讬诐 诪讬注讟

The baraita interjects: Isn鈥檛 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: 鈥淥f the meat of the sacrifice of peace offerings,鈥 and the term 鈥渙f the meat鈥 excluded one who is impure who partakes of piggul.

讜诪讛 专讗讬转 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讗诇讜 讜诇讛讜爪讬讗 讗转 讗诇讜 讗讞专 砖专讬讘讛 讛讻转讜讘 讜诪讬注讟 讗诪专转 诪专讘讛 讗谞讬 讗转 讗诇讜 砖讛讬转讛 诇讛谉 砖注转 讛讻讜砖专 讜诪讜爪讬讗 讗谞讬 讗转 讗诇讜 砖诇讗 讛讬转讛 诇讛谉 砖注转 讛讻讜砖专

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.

讜讗诐 转讗诪专 讘砖专 砖谞讟诪讗 诇驻谞讬 讝专讬拽转 讚诪讬诐 讜讗讻诇讜 诇讗讞专 讝专讬拽转 讚诪讬诐 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 诪砖讜诐 讟讜诪讗讛 诪驻谞讬 砖讛爪讬抓 诪专爪讛

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.

谞讟诪讗 讗讬谉 讬讜爪讗 诇讗

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.

诪讗谉 砖诪注转 诇讬讛 讚讗诪专 讗讬谉 讝专讬拽讛 诪讜注诇转 诇讬讜爪讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜拽转谞讬 讚诪专爪讛 爪讬抓 注诇 讗讻讬诇讜转

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鈥檌la (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.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛讗 专讘谞谉

Rather, Rav 岣sda 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.

讗讬诪专 讚砖诪注转 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讚诪专爪讛 爪讬抓 注诇 讗讻讬诇讜转 讚诇讗 拽谞讬住 诪讬 砖诪注转 诇讬讛 讗讬谉 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚砖诪注转 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讬讜住讬 砖诪注转 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讘讬谉 讘砖讜讙讙 讘讬谉 讘诪讝讬讚 转专讜诪转讜 转专讜诪讛

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.

讗讬诪专 讚砖诪注转 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘转专讜诪讛 讚拽讬诇讗 讘拽讚砖讬诐 讚讞诪讬专讬 诪讬 砖诪注转 诇讬讛 讗诐 讻谉 讛讗 讗诪讗谉 转专诪讬讬讛

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.

专讘讬谞讗 讗诪专 讟讜诪讗转讜 讘讬谉 讘砖讜讙讙 讘讬谉 讘诪讝讬讚 讛讜专爪讛 讝专讬拽转讜 讘砖讜讙讙 讛讜专爪讛 讘诪讝讬讚 诇讗 讛讜专爪讛

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.

讜专讘 砖讬诇讗 讗诪专 讝专讬拽转讜 讘讬谉 讘砖讜讙讙 讘讬谉 讘诪讝讬讚 讛讜专爪讛 讟讜诪讗转讜 讘砖讜讙讙 讛讜专爪讛 讘诪讝讬讚 诇讗 讛讜专爪讛

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.

讜诇专讘 砖讬诇讗 讚拽转谞讬 砖谞讟诪讗 讘讬谉 讘砖讜讙讙 讘讬谉 讘诪讝讬讚 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 谞讟诪讗 讘砖讜讙讙 讜讝专拽讜 讘讬谉 讘砖讜讙讙 讘讬谉 讘诪讝讬讚

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.

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Menachot 25

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Menachot 25

诪转谞讬壮 谞讟诪讗 讛拽讜诪抓 讜讛拽专讬讘讜 讛爪讬抓 诪专爪讛 讬爪讗 讜讛拽专讬讘讜 讗讬谉 讛爪讬抓 诪专爪讛 砖讛爪讬抓 诪专爪讛 注诇 讛讟诪讗 讜讗讬谞讜 诪专爪讛 注诇 讛讬讜爪讗

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.

讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讜谞砖讗 讗讛专谉 讗转 注讜谉 讛拽讚砖讬诐 讜讻讬 讗讬讝讛 注讜谉 讛讜讗 谞讜砖讗 讗诐 转讗诪专 注讜谉 驻讬讙讜诇 讛专讬 讻讘专 谞讗诪专 诇讗 讬讞砖讘 讗诐 转讗诪专 注讜谉 谞讜转专 讛专讬 讻讘专 谞讗诪专 诇讗 讬专爪讛

GEMARA: The Sages taught in a baraita: It is written with regard to the frontplate: 鈥淎nd it shall be upon Aaron鈥檚 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鈥 (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: 鈥淚t shall not be credited to him鈥 (Leviticus 7:18). If you say he atones for the sin of notar, it is already stated in the same verse: 鈥淚t shall not be accepted.鈥

讛讗 讗讬谞讜 谞讜砖讗 讗诇讗 注讜谉 讟讜诪讗讛 砖讛讜转专讛 诪讻诇诇讛 讘爪讬讘讜专

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.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗讬诪讗 注讜谉 讬讜爪讗 砖讛讜转专 诪讻诇诇讜 讘讘诪讛

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?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 拽专讗 诇专爪讜谉 诇讛诐 诇驻谞讬 讛壮 注讜谉 讚诇驻谞讬 讛壮 讗讬谉 注讜谉 讚讬讜爪讗 诇讗

Abaye said to him: The verse states with regard to the frontplate: 鈥淎nd it shall be always upon his forehead, that they may be accepted before the Lord鈥 (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.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘讬 讗讬诇注讗 讗讬诪讗 注讜谉 砖诪讗诇 砖讛讜转专 诪讻诇诇讜 讘讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐

Rabbi Ile鈥檃 objects to this: Why not say that the frontplate atones for the sin of performing the service using one鈥檚 left hand instead of one鈥檚 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?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 拽专讗 注讜谉 注讜谉 砖讛讬讛 讘讜 讜讚讞讬转讬讜 诇讗驻讜拽讬 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 讚讛讻砖讬专讜 讘砖诪讗诇 讛讜讗

Abaye said to him: The verse states: 鈥淎nd Aaron shall bear the sin committed with the sacred items鈥 (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.

专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 注讜谉 讛拽讚砖讬诐 讜诇讗 注讜谉 讛诪拽讚讬砖讬谉

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: 鈥淎nd Aaron shall bear the sin committed with the sacred items [hakodashim],鈥 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].

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 住讬诪讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬讚讬 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 专讘 住讬诪讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗砖讬 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讜讗讬诪讗 注讜谉 讘注诇 诪讜诐 砖讛讜转专 诪讻诇诇讜 讘注讜驻讜转 讚讗诪专 诪专 转诪讜转 讜讝讻专讜转 讘讘讛诪讛 讜讗讬谉 转诪讜转 讜讝讻专讜转 讘注讜驻讜转

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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 注诇讬讱 讗诪专 拽专讗 诇讗 讬专爪讛 讻讬 诇讗 诇专爪讜谉 讬讛讬讛 诇讻诐

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

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讚诐 砖谞讟诪讗 讜讝专拽讜 讘砖讜讙讙 讛讜专爪讛 讘诪讝讬讚 诇讗 讛讜专爪讛 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘讬讞讬讚 讗讘诇 讘爪讬讘讜专 讘讬谉 讘砖讜讙讙 讘讬谉 讘诪讝讬讚 讛讜专爪讛 讜讘讙讜讬 讘讬谉 讘砖讜讙讙 讘讬谉 讘诪讝讬讚 讘讬谉 讘讗讜谞住 讘讬谉 讘专爪讜谉

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,

诇讗 讛讜专爪讛

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

讜专诪讬谞讛讬 注诇 诪讛 讛爪讬抓 诪专爪讛 注诇 讛讚诐 讜注诇 讛讘砖专 讜注诇 讛讞诇讘 砖谞讟诪讗 讘讬谉 讘砖讜讙讙 讘讬谉 讘诪讝讬讚 讘讬谉 讘讗讜谞住 讘讬谉 讘专爪讜谉 讘讬谉 讘讬讞讬讚 讘讬谉 讘爪讬讘讜专

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鈥檚 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.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讗 专讘谞谉 讚转谞讬讗 讗讬谉 转讜专诪讬谉 诪谉 讛讟诪讗 注诇 讛讟讛讜专 讜讗诐 转专诐 讘砖讜讙讙 转专讜诪转讜 转专讜诪讛 讘诪讝讬讚 讗讬谉 转专讜诪转讜 转专讜诪讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讘讬谉 讘砖讜讙讙 讘讬谉 讘诪讝讬讚 转专讜诪转讜 转专讜诪讛

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.

讗讬诪专 讚砖诪注转 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讚诇讗 拽谞讬住 讚诪专爪讛 爪讬抓 注诇 讗讻讬诇讜转 诪讬 砖诪注转 诇讬讛 讜讛转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讛爪讬抓 诪专爪讛 注诇 讗讻讬诇讜转 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 讛爪讬抓 诪专爪讛 注诇 讗讻讬诇讜转

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鈥檛 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?

讗讬驻讜讱 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 讛爪讬抓 诪专爪讛 注诇 讗讻讬诇讜转 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讛爪讬抓 诪专爪讛 注诇 讗讻讬诇讜转

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.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 砖砖转 讜诪讬 诪爪讬转 讗驻讻转 诇讛 讜讛转谞讬讗 讬讻讜诇 讘砖专 砖谞讟诪讗 诇驻谞讬 讝专讬拽转 讚诪讬诐 讬讛讜 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讛谉 诪砖讜诐 讟讜诪讗讛

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鈥檛 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.

转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讻诇 讟讛讜专 讬讗讻诇 讘砖专 讜讛谞驻砖 讗砖专 转讗讻诇 讘砖专 诪讝讘讞 讛砖诇诪讬诐 讗砖专 诇讛壮 讜讟诪讗转讜 注诇讬讜 讜谞讻专转讛 讛谞讬转专 诇讟讛讜专讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 诪砖讜诐 讟讜诪讗讛

To counter this, the verse states: 鈥淓very one that is ritually pure may eat of it鈥 (Leviticus 7:19), and immediately afterward the verse states: 鈥淏ut 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鈥 (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.

讜砖讗讬谞讜 谞讬转专 诇讟讛讜专讬谉 讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 诪砖讜诐 讟讜诪讗讛

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.

讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 谞讗讻诇 诇讟讛讜专讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 诪砖讜诐 讟讜诪讗讛 讜砖讗讬谞讜 谞讗讻诇 诇讟讛讜专讬谉 讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 诪砖讜诐 讟讜诪讗讛 讗讜爪讬讗 讗谞讬 讗转 讛诇谉 讜讗转 讛讬讜爪讗 砖讗讬谞谉 谞讗讻诇讬谉 诇讟讛讜专讬诐

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.

转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗砖专 诇讛壮 专讬讘讛

Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淭hat belong to the Lord,鈥 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.

讬讻讜诇 砖讗谞讬 诪专讘讛 讗转 讛驻讬讙讜诇讬谉 讜讗转 讛谞讜转专讜转

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

谞讜转专讜转 讛讬讬谞讜 诇谉 讗诇讗 讗祝 讛驻讬讙讜诇讬谉 讻谞讜转专讜转 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诪讝讘讞 讛砖诇诪讬诐 诪讬注讟

The baraita interjects: Isn鈥檛 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: 鈥淥f the meat of the sacrifice of peace offerings,鈥 and the term 鈥渙f the meat鈥 excluded one who is impure who partakes of piggul.

讜诪讛 专讗讬转 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讗诇讜 讜诇讛讜爪讬讗 讗转 讗诇讜 讗讞专 砖专讬讘讛 讛讻转讜讘 讜诪讬注讟 讗诪专转 诪专讘讛 讗谞讬 讗转 讗诇讜 砖讛讬转讛 诇讛谉 砖注转 讛讻讜砖专 讜诪讜爪讬讗 讗谞讬 讗转 讗诇讜 砖诇讗 讛讬转讛 诇讛谉 砖注转 讛讻讜砖专

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.

讜讗诐 转讗诪专 讘砖专 砖谞讟诪讗 诇驻谞讬 讝专讬拽转 讚诪讬诐 讜讗讻诇讜 诇讗讞专 讝专讬拽转 讚诪讬诐 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 诪砖讜诐 讟讜诪讗讛 诪驻谞讬 砖讛爪讬抓 诪专爪讛

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.

谞讟诪讗 讗讬谉 讬讜爪讗 诇讗

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.

诪讗谉 砖诪注转 诇讬讛 讚讗诪专 讗讬谉 讝专讬拽讛 诪讜注诇转 诇讬讜爪讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜拽转谞讬 讚诪专爪讛 爪讬抓 注诇 讗讻讬诇讜转

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鈥檌la (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.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛讗 专讘谞谉

Rather, Rav 岣sda 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.

讗讬诪专 讚砖诪注转 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讚诪专爪讛 爪讬抓 注诇 讗讻讬诇讜转 讚诇讗 拽谞讬住 诪讬 砖诪注转 诇讬讛 讗讬谉 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚砖诪注转 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讬讜住讬 砖诪注转 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讘讬谉 讘砖讜讙讙 讘讬谉 讘诪讝讬讚 转专讜诪转讜 转专讜诪讛

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.

讗讬诪专 讚砖诪注转 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘转专讜诪讛 讚拽讬诇讗 讘拽讚砖讬诐 讚讞诪讬专讬 诪讬 砖诪注转 诇讬讛 讗诐 讻谉 讛讗 讗诪讗谉 转专诪讬讬讛

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.

专讘讬谞讗 讗诪专 讟讜诪讗转讜 讘讬谉 讘砖讜讙讙 讘讬谉 讘诪讝讬讚 讛讜专爪讛 讝专讬拽转讜 讘砖讜讙讙 讛讜专爪讛 讘诪讝讬讚 诇讗 讛讜专爪讛

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.

讜专讘 砖讬诇讗 讗诪专 讝专讬拽转讜 讘讬谉 讘砖讜讙讙 讘讬谉 讘诪讝讬讚 讛讜专爪讛 讟讜诪讗转讜 讘砖讜讙讙 讛讜专爪讛 讘诪讝讬讚 诇讗 讛讜专爪讛

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.

讜诇专讘 砖讬诇讗 讚拽转谞讬 砖谞讟诪讗 讘讬谉 讘砖讜讙讙 讘讬谉 讘诪讝讬讚 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 谞讟诪讗 讘砖讜讙讙 讜讝专拽讜 讘讬谉 讘砖讜讙讙 讘讬谉 讘诪讝讬讚

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.

Scroll To Top