Rav Nachman and Rav Sheshet disagree regarding whether impurity is pushed aside or entirely permitted in cases involving the public. The gemara brings three tannaitic sources (including Tosefta Menachot Chapter 3) to raise difficulties against Rav Nachman, but answers them. From the answers, it becomes clear that Rav Nachman held that there were a few exceptions to the rule and there are cases where the impurity is not entirely permitted. Then they bring one source against Rav Sheshet and answer it by saying that it’s a tannaitic debate whether or not impurity is pushed aside or entirely permitted. The tannaitic debate relates to the tzitz of the Kohen Gadol and whether it worked while it was on his forehead only or even if it were hanging on a peg. Some of the other sources brought also mentioned the tzitz and discussed when it was needed.
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Yoma 7
דְּכֹל טוּמְאַת מֵת בְּצִיבּוּר רַחֲמָנָא שַׁרְיַיהּ.
as in all situations of impurity imparted by corpses in cases involving the public, the Merciful One permits those who are impure to perform the Temple service.
אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: מְנָא אָמֵינָא לַהּ, דְּתַנְיָא: הָיָה עוֹמֵד וּמַקְרִיב מִנְחַת הָעוֹמֶר וְנִטְמֵאת בְּיָדוֹ, אוֹמֵר וּמְבִיאִין אַחֶרֶת תַּחְתֶּיהָ. וְאִם אֵין שָׁם אֶלָּא הִיא, אוֹמְרִין לוֹ: הֱוֵי פִּקֵּחַ וּשְׁתוֹק.
The Gemara analyzes the rationale behind the two opinions. Rav Sheshet said: From where do I derive to say that impurity is overridden in cases involving the public? It is as it was taught in a baraita: If a priest was standing and sacrificing the omer meal-offering and it became impure in his hand, the priest, who was aware of what transpired, says that it is impure and the priests bring another meal-offering in its stead. And if the meal-offering in his hand is the only meal-offering available there, the other priests say to him: Be shrewd and keep silent; do not tell anyone that it is impure.
קָתָנֵי מִיהַת אוֹמֵר וּמְבִיאִין אַחֶרֶת תַּחְתֶּיהָ! אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: מוֹדֵינָא הֵיכָא דְּאִיכָּא שִׁירַיִים לַאֲכִילָה.
In any case, it is teaching that he says that it is impure and the priests bring another meal-offering in its place. Apparently, when it is possible to perform the service in a state of purity, even in cases involving the public, it is preferable to do so, and the prohibition of ritual impurity is not permitted. Rav Naḥman rejected the proof and said: I concede that in a case where there are remnants of the offering designated for eating it must be performed in purity wherever possible. Although it is permitted to sacrifice an offering when impure, the mitzva to eat portions of the offering must be performed in a state of purity. Therefore, in cases where portions of the offering are eaten, the preference is to sacrifice the offering in a state of purity.
מֵיתִיבִי: הָיָה מַקְרִיב מִנְחַת פָּרִים וְאֵילִים וּכְבָשִׂים, וְנִטְמֵאת בְּיָדוֹ, אוֹמֵר וּמְבִיאִין אַחֶרֶת תַּחְתֶּיהָ. וְאִם אֵין שָׁם אֶלָּא הִיא, אוֹמְרִין לוֹ: הֱוֵי פִּקֵּחַ וּשְׁתוֹק.
The Gemara raises an objection to the opinion of Rav Naḥman from the Tosefta: If a priest was sacrificing the meal-offering accompanying the sacrifice of bulls, rams, or sheep, and the meal-offering became impure in his hand, the priest says that it is impure and the priests bring another meal–offering in its stead. And if the meal-offering in his hand is the only meal-offering available there, the other priests say to him: Be shrewd and keep silent; do not tell anyone that it is impure.
מַאי לָאו, פָּרִים אֵילִים וּכְבָשִׂים דְּחַג!
What, is it not referring to the bulls, rams, and sheep of the festival of Sukkot, which are communal offerings that are not eaten? Apparently, even in cases of communal offerings, the priests seek to perform the service in a state of purity and the prohibition of impurity is not permitted but merely overridden.
אָמַר לְךָ רַב נַחְמָן: לָא: פָּרִים — פַּר עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, אַף עַל גַּב דְּצִיבּוּר הוּא, כֵּיוָן דְּלָא קְבִיעַ לֵיהּ זְמַן — מַהְדְּרִינַן. אֵילִים — בְּאֵילוֹ שֶׁל אַהֲרֹן, דְּאַף עַל גַּב דִּקְבִיעַ לֵיהּ זְמַן, כֵּיוָן דְּיָחִיד הוּא — מְהַדְּרִינַן. כְּבָשִׂים — בְּכֶבֶשׂ הַבָּא עִם הָעוֹמֶר, דְּאִיכָּא שִׁירַיִים לַאֲכִילָה.
Rav Naḥman could have said to you: No, the bulls mentioned in the Tosefta are not standard communal offerings. Rather, the reference is to the bull sacrificed when the entire community engages in idolatry unwittingly. Although this offering is a communal offering, since it has no specific time fixed for its sacrifice, we seek out a pure meal-offering in its stead.
Similarly, the rams mentioned in the Tosefta are not additional offerings of the Festival. Rather, the reference is to the ram of Aaron sacrificed on Yom Kippur. Although it has a specific time fixed for its sacrifice, since it is an offering brought by an individual, the High Priest, we seek out a pure meal-offering in its stead, as service in a state of impurity is permitted only for communal offerings.
The sheep mentioned are not those for the daily offerings or the additional offerings of the Festival. Rather, the reference is to the sheep that accompanies the omer meal-offering, as in that case, there are remnants designated for eating. Therefore, the meal-offering must be offered in purity.
מֵיתִיבִי: דָּם שֶׁנִּטְמָא וּזְרָקוֹ, בְּשׁוֹגֵג — הוּרְצָה, בְּמֵזִיד — לֹא הוּרְצָה. כִּי תַּנְיָא הָהִיא דְּיָחִיד.
The Gemara raises an additional objection to the opinion of Rav Naḥman: With regard to blood that became impure and a priest sprinkled it on the altar, if he did so unwittingly, the offering is accepted. If he sprinkled the blood intentionally, the offering is not accepted. Apparently, even in cases involving the public, performing service in the Temple in a state of impurity is not permitted. This objection is rejected: When that baraita was taught, it was with regard to the offering of an individual, where the prohibition of impurity is certainly in effect.
תָּא שְׁמַע: עַל מָה הַצִּיץ מְרַצֶּה, עַל הַדָּם וְעַל הַבָּשָׂר וְעַל הַחֵלֶב שֶׁנִּטְמָא, בֵּין בְּשׁוֹגֵג בֵּין בְּמֵזִיד, בֵּין בְּאוֹנֶס בֵּין בְּרָצוֹן, בֵּין בְּיָחִיד בֵּין בְּצִיבּוּר. וְאִי סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ טוּמְאָה הֶיתֵּר הִיא בְּצִיבּוּר — לְמָה לִי לְרַצּוֹיֵי?
The Gemara continues: Come and hear a different argument based on that which was taught in a 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 it became impure unwittingly or whether it became impure intentionally, whether it was due to circumstances beyond his control or whether it was done willfully, whether it was in the framework of an individual offering or whether it was in the framework of a communal offering. And if it enters your mind that impurity is permitted in cases involving the public, why do I need the frontplate to effect acceptance? If the prohibition of impurity is permitted, no pardon is necessary.
אָמַר לְךָ רַב נַחְמָן: כִּי קָתָנֵי ״הַצִּיץ מְרַצֶּה״ אַדְּיָחִיד. וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא בְּצִיבּוּר, בְּהָנָךְ דְּלָא קְבִיעַ לָהּ זְמַן.
The Gemara responds that Rav Naḥman could have said to you: When the baraita teaches that the frontplate effects acceptance it is not referring to the entire list of items cited in the baraita; it is referring to an individual offering brought in impurity, not to a communal offering. The communal offering is mentioned only in the sense that in that case too, impurity is permitted, albeit for a different reason. Or if you wish, say instead: Even if you say that the frontplate effects acceptance for a communal offering, it is only for those offerings that lack a fixed time. Rav Naḥman concedes that with regard to those communal offerings that have no specific time fixed for their sacrifice, the prohibition of performing the service in impurity remains in effect and requires the acceptance effected by the frontplate.
מֵיתִיבִי: ״וְנָשָׂא אַהֲרֹן אֶת עֲוֹן הַקֳּדָשִׁים״, וְכִי אֵיזֶה עָוֹן הוּא נוֹשֵׂא? אִם עֲוֹן פִּיגּוּל — הֲרֵי כְּבָר נֶאֱמַר: ״לֹא יֵרָצֶה״, וְאִם עֲוֹן נוֹתָר — הֲרֵי כְּבָר נֶאֱמַר: ״לֹא יֵחָשֵׁב״,
The Gemara raises an objection. It is stated: “And Aaron will gain forgiveness for the sin committed in the sacred things that the children of Israel shall hallow in all their sacred gifts, and it shall be always upon his forehead that they may be accepted favorably before the Lord” (Exodus 28:38). And for which sin does the frontplate gain forgiveness? If it is for the sin of piggul, an offering disqualified by the intention to sacrifice or eat it after the permitted time, it has already been stated: “And if it is eaten at all on the third day, it is piggul; it shall not be accepted” (Leviticus 19:7). There is no acceptance of an offering that became piggul. And if it is for the sin of notar, meat of an offering left after the permitted time for eating it passed, it has already been stated: “And if any of the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace-offerings is eaten on the third day, it shall not be accepted, neither shall it be credited to he who offered it” (Leviticus 7:18).
הָא אֵינוֹ נוֹשֵׂא אֶלָּא עֲוֹן טוּמְאָה שֶׁהוּתְּרָה מִכְּלָלָהּ בְּצִיבּוּר. וְקַשְׁיָא לְרַב שֵׁשֶׁת! תַּנָּאֵי הִיא. דְּתַנְיָא: צִיץ, בֵּין שֶׁיֶּשְׁנוֹ עַל מִצְחוֹ בֵּין שֶׁאֵינוֹ עַל מִצְחוֹ — מְרַצֶּה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן.
Apparently, the frontplate gains forgiveness only for the sin of impurity, which was exempted from its general prohibition in cases involving the public. This poses a difficulty to the opinion of Rav Sheshet, who said that the prohibition of impurity is overridden in cases involving the public, as the baraita clearly states that impurity is permitted. The Gemara responds: According to Rav Sheshet, the question of whether the prohibition of impurity is permitted or overridden in cases involving the public is the subject of a dispute between tanna’im, as it was taught in a baraita: The frontplate effects acceptance whether it is on the High Priest’s forehead or whether it is not on the High Priest’s forehead when the offering becomes impure. This is the statement of Rabbi Shimon.
רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: עוֹדֵהוּ עַל מִצְחוֹ — מְרַצֶּה. אֵין עוֹדֵהוּ עַל מִצְחוֹ — אֵינוֹ מְרַצֶּה. אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל בְּיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים יוֹכִיחַ, שֶׁאֵין עוֹדֵהוּ עַל מִצְחוֹ, וּמְרַצֶּה!
Rabbi Yehuda says: As long as it is on his forehead it effects acceptance; if it is no longer on his forehead it does not effect acceptance. Rabbi Shimon said to Rabbi Yehuda: The case of the High Priest on Yom Kippur can prove that your statement is incorrect, as on Yom Kippur when the High priest wears only four linen garments the frontplate is no longer on his forehead, and it still effects acceptance.
אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: הַנַּח לְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל בְּיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים, שֶׁטּוּמְאָה הוּתְּרָה לוֹ בְּצִיבּוּר. מִכְּלָל דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן סָבַר טוּמְאָה דְּחוּיָה הִיא בְּצִיבּוּר.
Rabbi Yehuda said to him: Leave the case of the High Priest on Yom Kippur, as the atonement of the frontplate is unnecessary because the prohibition of performing the Temple service in impurity is permitted in cases involving the public. Learn by inference that Rabbi Shimon holds that impurity is overridden in cases involving the public, and that is why the atonement of the frontplate is necessary. The dispute between Rav Sheshet and Rav Naḥman is based on a tannaitic dispute, and the baraita cited above is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: בְּנִשְׁבַּר הַצִּיץ דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי דְּלָא מְרַצֶּה. כִּי פְּלִיגִי דִּתְלֵי בְּסִיכְּתָא, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה סָבַר: ״עַל מֵצַח … וְנָשָׂא״,
The Gemara proceeds to analyze the tannaitic dispute between Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Yehuda. Abaye said: In a case where the frontplate broke, everyone, including Rabbi Shimon, agrees that the frontplate no longer effects acceptance. When they disagree is in a case where the frontplate is not on his forehead but is hanging on a peg. Rabbi Yehuda holds that the verse: “And it shall be on the forehead of Aaron and Aaron shall gain forgiveness for the sin committed in the sacred things” (Exodus 28:38) means that the frontplate atones for sin as long as it is on his forehead.
וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן סָבַר ״תָּמִיד לְרָצוֹן לִפְנֵי ה׳״. מַאי ״תָּמִיד״? אִילֵּימָא: תָּמִיד עַל מִצְחוֹ, מִי מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ?! מִי לָא בָּעֵי מֵיעַל לְבֵית הַכִּסֵּא, וּמִי לָא בָּעֵי מֵינַם?! אֶלָּא: תָּמִיד מְרַצֶּה הוּא.
And Rabbi Shimon holds that emphasis should be placed on the end of that verse: “It shall be always upon his forehead that they may be accepted before the Lord.” From this, Rabbi Shimon derived that the frontplate always effects acceptance, even when it is not upon the High Priest’s forehead, as what is the meaning of the word always in the verse? If we say that it means that the frontplate must always be on the High Priest’s forehead, do you find that situation in reality? Doesn’t he need to enter the bathroom, when he must remove the frontplate bearing the name of God? Similarly, doesn’t he need to sleep, at which time he removes the priestly vestments? Rather, it means that the frontplate always effects acceptance, whether or not it is on his forehead.
וּלְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה נָמֵי, הָא כְּתִיב ״תָּמִיד״! הָהוּא תָּמִיד שֶׁלֹּא יַסִּיחַ דַּעְתּוֹ מִמֶּנּוּ, כִּדְרַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא. דְּאָמַר רַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא: חַיָּיב אָדָם לְמַשְׁמֵשׁ בִּתְפִילָּיו בְּכׇל שָׁעָה וְשָׁעָה, קַל וָחוֹמֶר מִצִּיץ:
The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Yehuda as well, isn’t it written: “Always”? Clearly it does not mean that the frontplate must always be on his forehead. The Gemara answers: That term: “Always,” teaches that the High Priest must always be aware that the frontplate is on his head, and that he should not be distracted from it. This is in accordance with the statement of Rabba bar Rav Huna, as Rabba bar Rav Huna said: A person must touch the phylacteries on his head and on his arm each and every hour, to maintain awareness of their presence. This is derived by means of an a fortiori inference from the frontplate:
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
I started learning daf yomi at the beginning of this cycle. As the pandemic evolved, it’s been so helpful to me to have this discipline every morning to listen to the daf podcast after I’ve read the daf; learning about the relationships between the rabbis and the ways they were constructing our Jewish religion after the destruction of the Temple. I’m grateful to be on this journey!
Teaneck NJ, United States
I started learning when my brother sent me the news clip of the celebration of the last Daf Yomi cycle. I was so floored to see so many women celebrating that I wanted to be a part of it. It has been an enriching experience studying a text in a language I don’t speak, using background knowledge that I don’t have. It is stretching my learning in unexpected ways, bringing me joy and satisfaction.
Warwick, Rhode Island, United States
After all the hype on the 2020 siyum I became inspired by a friend to begin learning as the new cycle began.with no background in studying Talmud it was a bit daunting in the beginning. my husband began at the same time so we decided to study on shabbat together. The reaction from my 3 daughters has been fantastic. They are very proud. It’s been a great challenge for my brain which is so healthy!
Modi’in, Israel
After being so inspired by the siyum shas two years ago, I began tentatively learning daf yomi, like Rabbanut Michelle kept saying – taking one daf at a time. I’m still taking it one daf at a time, one masechet at a time, but I’m loving it and am still so inspired by Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran community, and yes – I am proud to be finishing Seder Mo’ed.
Bet Shemesh, Israel
Ive been learning Gmara since 5th grade and always loved it. Have always wanted to do Daf Yomi and now with Michelle Farber’s online classes it made it much easier to do! Really enjoying the experience thank you!!
Neve Daniel, Israel
I learned daf more off than on 40 years ago. At the beginning of the current cycle, I decided to commit to learning daf regularly. Having Rabanit Michelle available as a learning partner has been amazing. Sometimes I learn with Hadran, sometimes with my husband, and sometimes on my own. It’s been fun to be part of an extended learning community.
Honolulu, Hawaii, United States
In January 2020, my chevruta suggested that we “up our game. Let’s do Daf Yomi” – and she sent me the Hadran link. I lost my job (and went freelance), there was a pandemic, and I am still opening the podcast with my breakfast coffee, or after Shabbat with popcorn. My Aramaic is improving. I will need a new bookcase, though.
Atlanta, Georgia, United States
Hadran entered my life after the last Siyum Hashaas, January 2020. I was inspired and challenged simultaneously, having never thought of learning Gemara. With my family’s encouragement, I googled “daf yomi for women”. A perfecr fit!
I especially enjoy when Rabbanit Michelle connects the daf to contemporary issues to share at the shabbat table e.g: looking at the Kohen during duchaning. Toda rabba
Jerusalem, Israel
Ontario, Canada
Raanana, Israel
It happened without intent (so am I yotzei?!) – I watched the women’s siyum live and was so moved by it that the next morning, I tuned in to Rabbanit Michelle’s shiur, and here I am, still learning every day, over 2 years later. Some days it all goes over my head, but others I grasp onto an idea or a story, and I ‘get it’ and that’s the best feeling in the world. So proud to be a Hadran learner.
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
I heard the new Daf Yomi cycle was starting and I was curious, so I searched online for a women’s class and was pleasently surprised to find Rabanit Michelle’s great class reviews in many online articles. It has been a splendid journey. It is a way to fill my days with Torah, learning so many amazing things I have never heard before during my Tanach learning at High School. Thanks so much .
Panama, Panama
Jerusalem, Israel
I started learning with rabbis. I needed to know more than the stories. My first teacher to show me “the way of the Talmud” as well as the stories was Samara Schwartz.
Michelle Farber started the new cycle 2 yrs ago and I jumped on for the ride.
I do not look back.
Houston, United States
Inspired by Hadran’s first Siyum ha Shas L’Nashim two years ago, I began daf yomi right after for the next cycle. As to this extraordinary journey together with Hadran..as TS Eliot wrote “We must not cease from exploration and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we began and to know the place for the first time.
Jerusalem, Israel
Blacksburg, United States
I started last year after completing the Pesach Sugiyot class. Masechet Yoma might seem like a difficult set of topics, but for me made Yom Kippur and the Beit HaMikdash come alive. Liturgy I’d always had trouble connecting with took on new meaning as I gained a sense of real people moving through specific spaces in particular ways. It was the perfect introduction; I am so grateful for Hadran!
Minnesota, United States
I began learning with Rabbanit Michelle’s wonderful Talmud Skills class on Pesachim, which really enriched my Pesach seder, and I have been learning Daf Yomi off and on over the past year. Because I’m relatively new at this, there is a “chiddush” for me every time I learn, and the knowledge and insights of the group members add so much to my experience. I feel very lucky to be a part of this.
Karmiel, Israel
Shortly after the death of my father, David Malik z”l, I made the commitment to Daf Yomi. While riding to Ben Gurion airport in January, Siyum HaShas was playing on the radio; that was the nudge I needed to get started. The “everyday-ness” of the Daf has been a meaningful spiritual practice, especial after COVID began & I was temporarily unable to say Kaddish at daily in-person minyanim.
Wynnewood, United States
I began my journey with Rabbanit Michelle more than five years ago. My friend came up with a great idea for about 15 of us to learn the daf and one of us would summarize weekly what we learned.
It was fun but after 2-3 months people began to leave. I have continued. Since the cycle began Again I have joined the Teaneck women.. I find it most rewarding in so many ways. Thank you
New Jersey, United States
Yoma 7
דְּכֹל טוּמְאַת מֵת בְּצִיבּוּר רַחֲמָנָא שַׁרְיַיהּ.
as in all situations of impurity imparted by corpses in cases involving the public, the Merciful One permits those who are impure to perform the Temple service.
אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: מְנָא אָמֵינָא לַהּ, דְּתַנְיָא: הָיָה עוֹמֵד וּמַקְרִיב מִנְחַת הָעוֹמֶר וְנִטְמֵאת בְּיָדוֹ, אוֹמֵר וּמְבִיאִין אַחֶרֶת תַּחְתֶּיהָ. וְאִם אֵין שָׁם אֶלָּא הִיא, אוֹמְרִין לוֹ: הֱוֵי פִּקֵּחַ וּשְׁתוֹק.
The Gemara analyzes the rationale behind the two opinions. Rav Sheshet said: From where do I derive to say that impurity is overridden in cases involving the public? It is as it was taught in a baraita: If a priest was standing and sacrificing the omer meal-offering and it became impure in his hand, the priest, who was aware of what transpired, says that it is impure and the priests bring another meal-offering in its stead. And if the meal-offering in his hand is the only meal-offering available there, the other priests say to him: Be shrewd and keep silent; do not tell anyone that it is impure.
קָתָנֵי מִיהַת אוֹמֵר וּמְבִיאִין אַחֶרֶת תַּחְתֶּיהָ! אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: מוֹדֵינָא הֵיכָא דְּאִיכָּא שִׁירַיִים לַאֲכִילָה.
In any case, it is teaching that he says that it is impure and the priests bring another meal-offering in its place. Apparently, when it is possible to perform the service in a state of purity, even in cases involving the public, it is preferable to do so, and the prohibition of ritual impurity is not permitted. Rav Naḥman rejected the proof and said: I concede that in a case where there are remnants of the offering designated for eating it must be performed in purity wherever possible. Although it is permitted to sacrifice an offering when impure, the mitzva to eat portions of the offering must be performed in a state of purity. Therefore, in cases where portions of the offering are eaten, the preference is to sacrifice the offering in a state of purity.
מֵיתִיבִי: הָיָה מַקְרִיב מִנְחַת פָּרִים וְאֵילִים וּכְבָשִׂים, וְנִטְמֵאת בְּיָדוֹ, אוֹמֵר וּמְבִיאִין אַחֶרֶת תַּחְתֶּיהָ. וְאִם אֵין שָׁם אֶלָּא הִיא, אוֹמְרִין לוֹ: הֱוֵי פִּקֵּחַ וּשְׁתוֹק.
The Gemara raises an objection to the opinion of Rav Naḥman from the Tosefta: If a priest was sacrificing the meal-offering accompanying the sacrifice of bulls, rams, or sheep, and the meal-offering became impure in his hand, the priest says that it is impure and the priests bring another meal–offering in its stead. And if the meal-offering in his hand is the only meal-offering available there, the other priests say to him: Be shrewd and keep silent; do not tell anyone that it is impure.
מַאי לָאו, פָּרִים אֵילִים וּכְבָשִׂים דְּחַג!
What, is it not referring to the bulls, rams, and sheep of the festival of Sukkot, which are communal offerings that are not eaten? Apparently, even in cases of communal offerings, the priests seek to perform the service in a state of purity and the prohibition of impurity is not permitted but merely overridden.
אָמַר לְךָ רַב נַחְמָן: לָא: פָּרִים — פַּר עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, אַף עַל גַּב דְּצִיבּוּר הוּא, כֵּיוָן דְּלָא קְבִיעַ לֵיהּ זְמַן — מַהְדְּרִינַן. אֵילִים — בְּאֵילוֹ שֶׁל אַהֲרֹן, דְּאַף עַל גַּב דִּקְבִיעַ לֵיהּ זְמַן, כֵּיוָן דְּיָחִיד הוּא — מְהַדְּרִינַן. כְּבָשִׂים — בְּכֶבֶשׂ הַבָּא עִם הָעוֹמֶר, דְּאִיכָּא שִׁירַיִים לַאֲכִילָה.
Rav Naḥman could have said to you: No, the bulls mentioned in the Tosefta are not standard communal offerings. Rather, the reference is to the bull sacrificed when the entire community engages in idolatry unwittingly. Although this offering is a communal offering, since it has no specific time fixed for its sacrifice, we seek out a pure meal-offering in its stead.
Similarly, the rams mentioned in the Tosefta are not additional offerings of the Festival. Rather, the reference is to the ram of Aaron sacrificed on Yom Kippur. Although it has a specific time fixed for its sacrifice, since it is an offering brought by an individual, the High Priest, we seek out a pure meal-offering in its stead, as service in a state of impurity is permitted only for communal offerings.
The sheep mentioned are not those for the daily offerings or the additional offerings of the Festival. Rather, the reference is to the sheep that accompanies the omer meal-offering, as in that case, there are remnants designated for eating. Therefore, the meal-offering must be offered in purity.
מֵיתִיבִי: דָּם שֶׁנִּטְמָא וּזְרָקוֹ, בְּשׁוֹגֵג — הוּרְצָה, בְּמֵזִיד — לֹא הוּרְצָה. כִּי תַּנְיָא הָהִיא דְּיָחִיד.
The Gemara raises an additional objection to the opinion of Rav Naḥman: With regard to blood that became impure and a priest sprinkled it on the altar, if he did so unwittingly, the offering is accepted. If he sprinkled the blood intentionally, the offering is not accepted. Apparently, even in cases involving the public, performing service in the Temple in a state of impurity is not permitted. This objection is rejected: When that baraita was taught, it was with regard to the offering of an individual, where the prohibition of impurity is certainly in effect.
תָּא שְׁמַע: עַל מָה הַצִּיץ מְרַצֶּה, עַל הַדָּם וְעַל הַבָּשָׂר וְעַל הַחֵלֶב שֶׁנִּטְמָא, בֵּין בְּשׁוֹגֵג בֵּין בְּמֵזִיד, בֵּין בְּאוֹנֶס בֵּין בְּרָצוֹן, בֵּין בְּיָחִיד בֵּין בְּצִיבּוּר. וְאִי סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ טוּמְאָה הֶיתֵּר הִיא בְּצִיבּוּר — לְמָה לִי לְרַצּוֹיֵי?
The Gemara continues: Come and hear a different argument based on that which was taught in a 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 it became impure unwittingly or whether it became impure intentionally, whether it was due to circumstances beyond his control or whether it was done willfully, whether it was in the framework of an individual offering or whether it was in the framework of a communal offering. And if it enters your mind that impurity is permitted in cases involving the public, why do I need the frontplate to effect acceptance? If the prohibition of impurity is permitted, no pardon is necessary.
אָמַר לְךָ רַב נַחְמָן: כִּי קָתָנֵי ״הַצִּיץ מְרַצֶּה״ אַדְּיָחִיד. וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא בְּצִיבּוּר, בְּהָנָךְ דְּלָא קְבִיעַ לָהּ זְמַן.
The Gemara responds that Rav Naḥman could have said to you: When the baraita teaches that the frontplate effects acceptance it is not referring to the entire list of items cited in the baraita; it is referring to an individual offering brought in impurity, not to a communal offering. The communal offering is mentioned only in the sense that in that case too, impurity is permitted, albeit for a different reason. Or if you wish, say instead: Even if you say that the frontplate effects acceptance for a communal offering, it is only for those offerings that lack a fixed time. Rav Naḥman concedes that with regard to those communal offerings that have no specific time fixed for their sacrifice, the prohibition of performing the service in impurity remains in effect and requires the acceptance effected by the frontplate.
מֵיתִיבִי: ״וְנָשָׂא אַהֲרֹן אֶת עֲוֹן הַקֳּדָשִׁים״, וְכִי אֵיזֶה עָוֹן הוּא נוֹשֵׂא? אִם עֲוֹן פִּיגּוּל — הֲרֵי כְּבָר נֶאֱמַר: ״לֹא יֵרָצֶה״, וְאִם עֲוֹן נוֹתָר — הֲרֵי כְּבָר נֶאֱמַר: ״לֹא יֵחָשֵׁב״,
The Gemara raises an objection. It is stated: “And Aaron will gain forgiveness for the sin committed in the sacred things that the children of Israel shall hallow in all their sacred gifts, and it shall be always upon his forehead that they may be accepted favorably before the Lord” (Exodus 28:38). And for which sin does the frontplate gain forgiveness? If it is for the sin of piggul, an offering disqualified by the intention to sacrifice or eat it after the permitted time, it has already been stated: “And if it is eaten at all on the third day, it is piggul; it shall not be accepted” (Leviticus 19:7). There is no acceptance of an offering that became piggul. And if it is for the sin of notar, meat of an offering left after the permitted time for eating it passed, it has already been stated: “And if any of the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace-offerings is eaten on the third day, it shall not be accepted, neither shall it be credited to he who offered it” (Leviticus 7:18).
הָא אֵינוֹ נוֹשֵׂא אֶלָּא עֲוֹן טוּמְאָה שֶׁהוּתְּרָה מִכְּלָלָהּ בְּצִיבּוּר. וְקַשְׁיָא לְרַב שֵׁשֶׁת! תַּנָּאֵי הִיא. דְּתַנְיָא: צִיץ, בֵּין שֶׁיֶּשְׁנוֹ עַל מִצְחוֹ בֵּין שֶׁאֵינוֹ עַל מִצְחוֹ — מְרַצֶּה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן.
Apparently, the frontplate gains forgiveness only for the sin of impurity, which was exempted from its general prohibition in cases involving the public. This poses a difficulty to the opinion of Rav Sheshet, who said that the prohibition of impurity is overridden in cases involving the public, as the baraita clearly states that impurity is permitted. The Gemara responds: According to Rav Sheshet, the question of whether the prohibition of impurity is permitted or overridden in cases involving the public is the subject of a dispute between tanna’im, as it was taught in a baraita: The frontplate effects acceptance whether it is on the High Priest’s forehead or whether it is not on the High Priest’s forehead when the offering becomes impure. This is the statement of Rabbi Shimon.
רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: עוֹדֵהוּ עַל מִצְחוֹ — מְרַצֶּה. אֵין עוֹדֵהוּ עַל מִצְחוֹ — אֵינוֹ מְרַצֶּה. אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל בְּיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים יוֹכִיחַ, שֶׁאֵין עוֹדֵהוּ עַל מִצְחוֹ, וּמְרַצֶּה!
Rabbi Yehuda says: As long as it is on his forehead it effects acceptance; if it is no longer on his forehead it does not effect acceptance. Rabbi Shimon said to Rabbi Yehuda: The case of the High Priest on Yom Kippur can prove that your statement is incorrect, as on Yom Kippur when the High priest wears only four linen garments the frontplate is no longer on his forehead, and it still effects acceptance.
אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: הַנַּח לְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל בְּיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים, שֶׁטּוּמְאָה הוּתְּרָה לוֹ בְּצִיבּוּר. מִכְּלָל דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן סָבַר טוּמְאָה דְּחוּיָה הִיא בְּצִיבּוּר.
Rabbi Yehuda said to him: Leave the case of the High Priest on Yom Kippur, as the atonement of the frontplate is unnecessary because the prohibition of performing the Temple service in impurity is permitted in cases involving the public. Learn by inference that Rabbi Shimon holds that impurity is overridden in cases involving the public, and that is why the atonement of the frontplate is necessary. The dispute between Rav Sheshet and Rav Naḥman is based on a tannaitic dispute, and the baraita cited above is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: בְּנִשְׁבַּר הַצִּיץ דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי דְּלָא מְרַצֶּה. כִּי פְּלִיגִי דִּתְלֵי בְּסִיכְּתָא, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה סָבַר: ״עַל מֵצַח … וְנָשָׂא״,
The Gemara proceeds to analyze the tannaitic dispute between Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Yehuda. Abaye said: In a case where the frontplate broke, everyone, including Rabbi Shimon, agrees that the frontplate no longer effects acceptance. When they disagree is in a case where the frontplate is not on his forehead but is hanging on a peg. Rabbi Yehuda holds that the verse: “And it shall be on the forehead of Aaron and Aaron shall gain forgiveness for the sin committed in the sacred things” (Exodus 28:38) means that the frontplate atones for sin as long as it is on his forehead.
וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן סָבַר ״תָּמִיד לְרָצוֹן לִפְנֵי ה׳״. מַאי ״תָּמִיד״? אִילֵּימָא: תָּמִיד עַל מִצְחוֹ, מִי מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ?! מִי לָא בָּעֵי מֵיעַל לְבֵית הַכִּסֵּא, וּמִי לָא בָּעֵי מֵינַם?! אֶלָּא: תָּמִיד מְרַצֶּה הוּא.
And Rabbi Shimon holds that emphasis should be placed on the end of that verse: “It shall be always upon his forehead that they may be accepted before the Lord.” From this, Rabbi Shimon derived that the frontplate always effects acceptance, even when it is not upon the High Priest’s forehead, as what is the meaning of the word always in the verse? If we say that it means that the frontplate must always be on the High Priest’s forehead, do you find that situation in reality? Doesn’t he need to enter the bathroom, when he must remove the frontplate bearing the name of God? Similarly, doesn’t he need to sleep, at which time he removes the priestly vestments? Rather, it means that the frontplate always effects acceptance, whether or not it is on his forehead.
וּלְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה נָמֵי, הָא כְּתִיב ״תָּמִיד״! הָהוּא תָּמִיד שֶׁלֹּא יַסִּיחַ דַּעְתּוֹ מִמֶּנּוּ, כִּדְרַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא. דְּאָמַר רַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא: חַיָּיב אָדָם לְמַשְׁמֵשׁ בִּתְפִילָּיו בְּכׇל שָׁעָה וְשָׁעָה, קַל וָחוֹמֶר מִצִּיץ:
The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Yehuda as well, isn’t it written: “Always”? Clearly it does not mean that the frontplate must always be on his forehead. The Gemara answers: That term: “Always,” teaches that the High Priest must always be aware that the frontplate is on his head, and that he should not be distracted from it. This is in accordance with the statement of Rabba bar Rav Huna, as Rabba bar Rav Huna said: A person must touch the phylacteries on his head and on his arm each and every hour, to maintain awareness of their presence. This is derived by means of an a fortiori inference from the frontplate:
