Menachot

it 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!1 — Said R. Joseph, There is no contradiction, for one2 [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 terumah3 for clean produce; if one did so inadvertently the terumah is valid, but if deliberately the terumah is not valid.4 R. Jose says, Whether one did it inadvertently or deliberately the terumah is valid.5 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?6 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 ate7 of] the flesh of a sacrifice which had become unclean before the sprinkling of the blood would be culpable8 on the ground of uncleanness,9 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,10 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 clean11 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 clean12 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.13 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 over14 — 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,15 but I exclude those which were at no time permitted.16 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?17 [I reply], It is because the plate atones for it.18 Now [one is culpable] only for that which became unclean but not for that which was taken out.19 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. Eliezer20 ; and yet it states [in the Baraitha] that the plate atones for [the uncleanness of] the eatable portions!21 — R. Hisda then said, There is no difficulty at all; for one [Baraitha] states the view of R. Eliezer,22 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?23 — Indeed we have, for just as we assumed that to be R. Jose's view24 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 so25 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]?26 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.27 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. private offering; thus in conflict with the first quoted Baraitha. 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. atones for it represents the view of R. Jose. 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? the sprinkling of the blood would be liable on the ground of uncleanness.’ This reading is preferred by Rashi. permitted after the sprinkling of the blood, became unfit subsequently by being left overnight or by being taken out of the Temple court. of kareth, as is the case with the flesh that had been left overnight. had been rendered permitted with the sprinkling. which case the offering was never rendered permitted. 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. not be eaten, and therefore one is culpable. 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. 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. the law is valid and no penalty is to be imposed. 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.