מנחות 25 — Soncino English Talmud

¹MISHNAH. IF THE HANDFUL HAD BECOME UNCLEAN AND YET WAS OFFERED, THE PLATE RENDERS IT ACCEPTABLE, BUT IF IT HAD BEEN TAKEN OUT [OF THE TEMPLE COURT] AND WAS AFTERWARDS OFFERED, THE PLATE DOES NOT RENDER IT ACCEPTABLE; FOR THE PLATE ONLY RENDERS ACCEPTABLE THE OFFERING WHICH WAS UNCLEAN BUT NOT THAT WHICH WAS TAKEN OUT. GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: It is written, And Aaron shall bear the iniquity of the holy things. What iniquity is it that it atones for? Should you say it is the iniquity of piggul — but it has already been said, it shall not be accepted. Should you say it is the iniquity of nothar — but it has already been said, Neither shall it be imputed unto him. Hence it atones for nothing other than the iniquity of uncleanness, since an exception to the general rule has been made for the community. R. Zera demurred, Perhaps it is the iniquity of an offering having been taken outside [that the plate atones for], since an exception to the general rule had been made in the case of the high places? — Abaye answered, It is written, That they may be accepted before the Lord, that is, the iniquity committed before the Lord [is atoned for by the plate], but not the iniquity of an offering having been taken outside. R. Ela'a demurred, perhaps it is the iniquity of [a service being performed with] the left hand [that is atoned for by the plate], since an exception to the general rule has been made on the Day of Atonement? — Abaye answered him, The verse states ‘iniquity’, that is, the iniquity that was incurred is set aside; on the Day of Atonement, however, it is proper to serve with the left hand. R. Ashi answered thus, The verse says, ‘The iniquity of the holy things’, but not the iniquity of them that offer the offering. R. Sima the son of R. Idi said to R. Ashi (others report: R. Sima the son of R. Ashi said to R. Ashi): perhaps it is the iniquity of a blemish in the offering [that is atoned for by the plate], since an exception to the general rule has been made in the case of bird-offerings, for a Master has said, The unblemished state and the male sex are prerequisite in animal-offerings but not in bird-offerings? — He replied, It is for your sake that it is written, It shall not be accepted; and also, For it shall not be acceptable for you. Our Rabbis taught: If the blood of an offering became unclean and yet was sprinkled inadvertently it is acceptable, if deliberately it is not acceptable. This is the rule only with a private offering, but in the case of an offering of the community it is acceptable, whether inadvertently or deliberately. In the case of an offering by a gentile [the rule is] whether inadvertently or deliberately, whether accidentally or intentionally,^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ

^ᵃnote:The High Priest's plate of pure gold worn on the forehead (v. Ex. XXVIII 36-38). Its function was to secure the Divine acceptance of a sacrifice which was offered although it had been rendered unclean.
^ᵇnote:The meal-offering is valid and the remainder may be eaten.
^ᶜnote:Ex. XXVIII, 38. This verse intimates that the High Priest's plate atones for some fault in connection with the offering.
^ᵈnote:Heb. kudhp ‘abomination’, v. Glos. Here meaning: the intention expressed during one of the services of the sacrifice of eating the flesh thereof outside the prescribed place.
^ᵉnote:Lev. XIX, 7. The text adopted in the translation is in accordance with the Sifra which is supported by Rashi (Pes. 16b s.v. vz ht) and Sh. Mek. But v. Tosaf. s.v. tabu.
^ᶠnote:Heb. r,ub ‘left over’; v. Glos. Here meaning: the intention expressed during one of the services of the sacrifice of eating the flesh thereof outside the prescribed time.
^ᵍnote:Ibid., VII, 18.
^ʰnote:A sacrifice on behalf of the community may be offered even in a state of uncleanness.
^ⁱnote:Although the prohibition against taking out the offering was already in force at the Tabernacle in the wilderness (v. Pes. 82a) it did not apply later on when the Tabernacle was housed at Nob and at Gibeon, for then it was permitted for every individual to set up a high place or altar in any place and offer sacrifices there.
^ʲnote:Ex. XXVIII, 38.
^ᵏnote:I.e., whilst the offering is within the Temple Court.
^ˡnote:An iniquity which is not committed ‘before the Lord’,
^ᵐnote:When the High Priest performed service with his left hand too; v. Yoma 47a.
^ⁿnote:Lit., ‘I have set it aside’. Now the uncleanness of an offering is admittedly a defect, but since it is of no consequence in the case of the community, such defect in the offering of an individual will be atoned for by the plate.
^ᵒnote:The plate therefore cannot atone for the guilt of a service performed with the left hand, for that is the guilt of the officiating priest and such guilt is expressly excluded.
^ᵖnote:Supra 6a, Hul. 23a, and elsewhere.
^ᵠnote:Lev. XXII, 23.
^ʳnote:Ibid, 20. These verses indicate that under no circumstances are blemished animals acceptable for an offering.
^ˢnote:V. infra as to the meaning of ‘inadvertently’, whether it refers to the contracting of the uncleanness or the sprinkling.
^ᵗnote:Gentiles were also allowed to offer either freewill- or votive-offerings; v. infra 73b.

²it is not acceptable. A contradiction was pointed out, for it was taught: For what guilt does the plate atone? For the blood or the flesh or the fat of an offering which became unclean, whether inadvertently or deliberately, whether accidentally or intentionally, whether in a private offering or in an offering of the community! — Said R. Joseph, There is no contradiction, for one [Baraitha] states the view of R. Jose, the other the view of the Rabbis. For it has been taught: One must not set aside unclean produce as terumah for clean produce; if one did so inadvertently the terumah is valid, but if deliberately the terumah is not valid. R. Jose says, Whether one did it inadvertently or deliberately the terumah is valid. But perhaps all that R. Jose said was that we do not penalize him; have you heard him say that the plate atones for [the uncleanness of] the eatable portions of the offering? Has it not been taught: R. Eliezer says, The plate atones for [the uncleanness of] the eatable portions; but R. Jose says, The plate does not atone for [the uncleanness of] the eatable portions? You must reverse [the authorities and read thus]: R. Eliezer says, The plate does not atone for [the uncleanness of] the eatable portions; but R. Jose says, The plate does atone for [the uncleanness of] the eatable portions. But how can you reverse [the authorities]? Behold, it has been taught: I might have thought that [an unclean person who ate of] the flesh of a sacrifice which had become unclean before the sprinkling of the blood would be culpable on the ground of uncleanness, it is therefore written, Every one that is clean shall eat the flesh; but the soul that eateth of the flesh of the sacrifice of peace-offerings, that pertain unto the Lord, having his uncleanness upon him, that soul shall be cut off from his people, signifying that [the unclean person who eats of] what has been rendered permitted to those that are clean is culpable on account of uncleanness, but [the unclean person who eats of] what has not been rendered permitted to those that are clean is not culpable on account of uncleanness. But perhaps it is not so, but rather it signifies that [the unclean person who eats of] what may now be eaten by those that are clean is culpable on account of uncleanness, but [the unclean person who eats of] what may not now be eaten by those that are clean is not culpable on account of uncleanness, and so I would exclude those parts of the offering which had been left overnight and which had been taken out [of the Temple court], since they may not be eaten by those that are clean. The verse therefore states, That pertain unto the Lord, an inclusive expression. I might then include the flesh that was piggul and that which was left over — but is not that which was left over identical with that which had been left overnight? Read therefore: [I might then include] the flesh that was piggul, that it shall be like that which was left over — the verse therefore states, Of the sacrifice of peace-offerings, an exclusive expression. And why do you prefer to include the one class and exclude the other? Since the verse uses an inclusive and also an exclusive expression, I include those which were at one time permitted, but I exclude those which were at no time permitted. If you now ask, Why is [an unclean person] culpable on the ground of uncleanness for eating after the sprinkling of the blood flesh which had become unclean before the sprinkling? [I reply], It is because the plate atones for it. Now [one is culpable] only for that which became unclean but not for that which was taken out. And whom have you heard say that where the offering had been taken out [of the Temple court] the sprinkling is of no effect? It is R. Eliezer ; and yet it states [in the Baraitha] that the plate atones for [the uncleanness of] the eatable portions! — R. Hisda then said, There is no difficulty at all; for one [Baraitha] states the view of R. Eliezer, the other the view of the Rabbis. But perhaps all that R. Eliezer said was that the plate atones for [the uncleanness of] the eatable portions; have you heard him say that we do not impose any penalty? — Indeed we have, for just as we assumed that to be R. Jose's view so we may assume it to be R. Eliezer's view too; for it has been taught: R. Eliezer says, Whether one [set apart unclean produce as terumah for clean produce] inadvertently or deliberately, the terumah is valid. But perhaps R. Eliezer said so only in the case of terumah which is less grave; have you heard him say so in the case of holy things which are more grave? — Then to whom will you attribute that [Baraitha]? Rabina said, As to its uncleanness, whether [it was rendered unclean] inadvertently or deliberately, [the offering] is acceptable; but as to its sprinkling, if [it was sprinkled] inadvertently it is acceptable, but if deliberately it is not acceptable. R. Shila said, As to its sprinkling, whether [it was sprinkled] inadvertently or deliberately it is acceptable; but as to its uncleanness,if [it was rendered unclean] inadvertently it is acceptable, but if deliberately it is not acceptable. And how does R. Shila explain the Baraitha which reads, ‘Which became unclean, whether inadvertently or deliberately’? — It means, it was rendered unclean inadvertently, and it was sprinkled either inadvertently or deliberately.^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ^ᵃᵠ^ᵃʳ^ᵃˢ^ᵃᵗ^ᵃᵘ

^ᵘnote:It is manifest that the plate effects atonement for uncleanness, even though deliberately caused, in the case of a private offering; thus in conflict with the first quoted Baraitha.
^ᵛnote:The latter Baraitha.
^ʷnote:V. Glos.
^ˣnote:For the Rabbis penalized the one who acted deliberately in defiance of the law. As to the effect of this act, whether it is absolutely null and void or only that it does not render the rest of the produce permitted although what was set aside is terumah, v. Yeb. 89a.
^ʸnote:Accordingly the latter Baraitha which states that even if part of the offering was deliberately made unclean the plate atones for it represents the view of R. Jose.
^ᶻnote:As opposed to the sacrificial portions, for the uncleanness of which all agree that the plate atones. For that is what the latter Baraitha, attributed to R. Jose, teaches when it says, inter alia, that the plate atones for the flesh which became unclean. But this view is not generally held, and on what grounds therefore do we attribute such a view to R. Jose?
^ᵃᵃnote:Before the sprinkling of the blood.
^ᵃᵇnote:Incurring the penalty of kareth.
^ᵃᶜnote:MS.M., reads: ‘I might have thought that (an unclean person who partook of the clean flesh of the offering) before the sprinkling of the blood would be liable on the ground of uncleanness.’ This reading is preferred by Rashi.
^ᵃᵈnote:Lev. VII, 19, 20.
^ᵃᵉnote:I.e., flesh of an offering before the sprinkling of the blood.
^ᵃᶠnote:Even though it had once been rendered permitted to them, as in the case where the flesh, having been rendered permitted after the sprinkling of the blood, became unfit subsequently by being left overnight or by being taken out of the Temple court.
^ᵃᵍnote:And therefore whosoever eats of such flesh whilst in a state of uncleanness does not incur the penalty of kareth.
^ᵃʰnote:And whosoever eats of the offering that became piggul (v. Glos.) whilst in a state of uncleanness incurs the penalty of kareth, as is the case with the flesh that had been left overnight.
^ᵃⁱnote:Sc. the offering which had been left overnight or had been taken out of the Sanctuary after the sprinkling; for these had been rendered permitted with the sprinkling.
^ᵃʲnote:Sc. the offering which was rendered piggul through a wrongful intention expressed at the sprinkling of the blood, in which case the offering was never rendered permitted.
^ᵃᵏnote:For that flesh was at no time permitted to be eaten; nevertheless one is liable for eating it whilst in a state of uncleanness, v. Zeb. 106a and Hul. 101a, for only piggul is excluded in the above Baraitha as being the only case of an offering at no time permitted.
^ᵃˡnote:And the sprinkling of the blood is perfectly valid, so that the offering is ‘rendered permitted’, even though it may not be eaten, and therefore one is culpable.
^ᵃᵐnote:Thus if an unclean person ate, after the sprinkling, the flesh of the offering which had become unclean before the sprinkling he would be liable, but not if he ate after the sprinkling the flesh which had been taken out before the sprinkling, for in the former case the sprinkling is valid but not in the latter.
^ᵃⁿnote:V. Me'il. 6b.
^ᵃᵒnote:But according to the answer given above (‘Reverse the authorities’) R. Eliezer holds the opposite view!
^ᵃᵖnote:The Baraitha (p. 159) which teaches that the plate atones for the uncleanness deliberately caused even in a private offering represents the view of R. Eliezer, since therein is also taught that the plate atones for the uncleanness of the eatable portions, which is clearly R. Eliezer's view.
^ᵃᵠnote:I.e., that the plate secures atonement where one deliberately sprinkled the blood which had become unclean.
^ᵃʳnote:From R. Jose's ruling in the case of terumah it was inferred that in all cases an act deliberately done in defiance of the law is valid and no penalty is to be imposed.
^ᵃˢnote:That a wrongful act though deliberately done is nevertheless valid.
^ᵃᵗnote:Which teaches that even deliberately it is acceptable. It must be R. Eliezer.
^ᵃᵘnote:Rabina in this way explains away the contradiction between the two statements. The first Baraitha which states with regard to the private offering. ‘If inadvertently it is acceptable, if deliberately it is not acceptable’, deals with the sprinkling of the unclean blood. The second Baraitha which states that the plate atones for the blood which became unclean ‘whether inadvertently or deliberately’, obviously deals with the uncleanness; the sprinkling, however, would be acceptable only if done inadvertently.