יומא 7 — Soncino English Talmud

¹because the Torah has rendered all levitical impurity caused through a corpse inoperative in case of a community. R. Shesheth said: Whence do I know that? Because it has been taught: If the priest was standing and offering up the sheaf of the ‘Omer and it became unclean in his hands let him tell and another one is brought in its place. And if there be none but this, one would say to him: ‘Be clever and keep quiet’. At all events he teaches, He should tell about it and another one is brought in its place! — R. Nahman said: I admit that where there is a remnant to be eaten [one would have to make an effort to procure a substitute sacrifice]. Another objection was raised: If he was offering up the meal-offering of the bullocks or rams or sheep, and it became unclean in his hand, he should say so and one brings another one in its place; but if there be none [available] but the first, one tells him, ‘Be wise and keep quiet’ . Does this not refer to the bullocks, rams and sheep offered up on the feast [of Sukkoth]? — R. Nahman win answer you: No, the word ‘bullock’ refers to the bullock offered up in expiation of idolatry, and although it is a community sacrifice, since there is no definite time fixed for it, one endeavours [to find a substitute offering]; the word ‘rams’ refers to the ram of Aaron and although it is appointed to be sacrificed at a definite time, yet, since it is the offering of an individual, one endeavours [to procure a substitute]; the word ‘lambs’ refers to the lamb offered up together with the ‘Omer-sheaf, of which there are remnants to be eaten. — Another objection was raised: If [sacrificial] blood became unclean and one sprinkled it, if by mistake, it is accepted; if wilfully, it is not accepted! — This teaching refers to the sacrifice of an individual. Come and hear: For what [mistake at sacrifice] does the priest's plate effect pardon? Concerning blood, flesh, fat, which become unclean, whether by mistake or wilfully, whether by accident or voluntarily, whether [the sacrifice] was offered up by an individual or by the entire community. Now if it enter your mind that the law of uncleanness is inoperative in case of a community, what need is there for [the priest's plate] to effect pardon?- R. Nahman will answer you: What has been taught about the plate's effecting pardon, refers only to the sacrifice of an individual. Or, if you like, one might say, it refers also to such community sacrifices for which no definite time has been set. — Another objection was raised: [Touching on] And Aaron shall bear the iniquity committed in the holy things. Does he bear any kind of iniquity? If you mean the iniquity of piggul [ — a sacrifice rejectable because of the intended disposal beyond the legal limits of space], concerning this Scripture has said already, It will not be accepted. If you mean the iniquity of nothar, concerning that Scripture has said already, It shall not be imputed! 24^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ

^ᵃnote:The source is Num. IX, 10: If any person . . . shall be unclean by reason of a dead body or be in a journey afar off, he could postpone the offering up of his paschal lamb until the fourteenth of the month of Iyar. From this R. Shesheth infers that a person (an individual) is suspended (postpones the celebration of Passover), but not a community. Pes. 66b.
^ᵇnote:That the law is only suspended, not inoperative.
^ᶜnote:V. GIos.
^ᵈnote:The rendering in our text seems defective. In Men. 72a it reads: If he was standing and offering up the flour-offering of the ‘Omer and it became unclean, if there is another (available), he may say to him, — bring the other’ in its place. And if not he says to him — ‘Be clever and keep quiet’. The Tosef. reads: If he offered up the ‘Omer and it became unclean he tells it and one brings another one in its place. If there be none besides the first, one says to him, ‘Be clever and keep quiet about it’.
^ᵉnote:Since no substitute is available, silence is wisdom, for the priest's frontplate procures forgiveness for such mishap. V. infra.
^ᶠnote:Hence it is clear that even in the case of a community the law concerning corpse-uncleanness is but suspended, not rendered inoperative, which contradicts R. Nahman.
^ᵍnote:Although a communal sacrifice may indeed be offered up also in a state of congregational impurity, it may not be eaten in a state of impurity. V. Pes. 77b.
^ʰnote:In the case of an ‘Omer offering, where the priest takes a fistful, I admit that remnants to be consumed must be consumed in cleanliness.
^ⁱnote:This text is apparently taken from the Tosef. Men. II, yet in that text the word for ‘rams’ is omitted.
^ʲnote:V. Num. XXIX, 12ff. These are community sacrifices, with a definite time appointed for them, yet the law of impurity is only suspended, for ‘one brings another one in its place’.
^ᵏnote:The passage in Num. XV, 22f: And when ye shall err and not observe all these commandments, then it shall be, if done in error by the congregation . . . that all the congregation shall offer up one bullock for a burnt-offering, is assumed to refer to the main and most potent error: idolatry.
^ˡnote:Offered up on the Day of Atonement.
^ᵐnote:The meal-offering brought with the ‘Omer lamb, of which a fistful was taken by the priest and the remnants eaten.
^ⁿnote:V. Pes. 16b.
^ᵒnote:And the flesh thereof may be eaten.
^ᵖnote:[In so far that the flesh may not be eaten, though pardon is effected by means of the priest's plate (v. infra). This proves that the law of uncleanness does operate in the case of a community (which is apparently included in the general terms of this teaching).]
^ᵠnote:The source is Ex. XXVIII, 36-38: And thou shalt make a plate of pure gold and engrave upon it, like the engravings of a signet: HOLY OF THE LORD. And thou shalt put it on a thread of blue, and it shall be upon the mitre: upon the forefront of the mitre it shall be. And it shall be upon Aaron's forehead and Aaron shall bear the iniquity committed in the holy things which the children of Israel hallow.
^ʳnote:Lit., ‘Make (the sacrifice) acceptable.’
^ˢnote:The word iumr (free-will) after shzn (wilfully) is tautologous, but it is a matter of Talmudic style, since xbt (accident) is mentioned, its opposite is also included, illustratively rather than logically.
^ᵗnote:Men. 25b.
^ᵘnote:Lev. VII, 18: And if any of the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace-offerings (which according to the preceding verse may be eaten only in the day that it is offered on and on the morrow) be at all eaten on the third day, it shall not be accepted, neither shall it be imputed unto him that offereth it: it shall be an abhorred thing (piggul) and the soul that eateth of it shall bear his iniquity. The term piggul although generally denoting the intention in the mind of the officiating priest to dispose of the sacrifice beyond the proper time (vbnzk .uj) signifies here according to Rashi the intended disposal thereof beyond the legal limits of space, (unuenk .uj). V. Zeb. 28a. Tosaf. explains differently.
^ᵛnote:V. note 5.
^ʷnote:[Lit., ‘left over’,generally portions of sacrifice left over beyond the legal time and here with the special meaning of the intended disposal of the sacrifice beyond the legal time, so Rashi.]
^ˣnote:Lev. VII, 18.

²Is it not hence that there is no iniquity which he bears except that concerning levitical uncleanness which has been declared inoperative in its general rule whenever a community sacrifice is involved, and the difficulty remains for R. Shesheth? Concerning this matter the Tannaim differ, for it has been taught: The front plate effects pardon whether it be on the high priest's forehead or not; these are the words of R. Simeon. R. Judah said: As long as it is on his forehead it effects pardon, if it is not on his forehead, it does not effect pardon. R. Simeon said to him: The case of the high priest on the Day of Atonement proves [your contention wrong], for the plate is then not on his forehead and yet it effects pardon — R. Judah answered him: Leave the case of the high priest on the Day of Atonement alone, for to him, because the community is concerned , the law of uncleanness has been rendered inoperative. Hence it is to be inferred that according to R. Simeon the law of uncleanness is only suspended in case of a community. Abaye said: If the front plate was broken there is no conflicting opinion, all agreeing that it effects no pardon . The dispute concerns only the case when it is hung up on a peg, R. Judah holding, And it shall be upon the forehead [of Aaron] and he shall bear, whilst R. Simeon bases his opinion on, And it shall be continually upon his forehead, that they may be accepted before the Lord. Now what does ‘continually’ mean? Shall I say that it shall indeed be continually on his forehead? How is that possible? Must he not enter the privy occasionally, must he not sleep at times? Rather must it all imply that [the front plate] ‘continually’ effects pardon. According to R. Judah, does not Scripture say ‘continually’? — That word implies that he should never dismiss it from his mind; this is in agreement with Rabbah son of Huna, for Rabbah son of Huna said: A man is obliged to touch his tefillin every hour. This may be learned by inference ad majus from the front plate.^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ

^ʸnote:Who holds that that law is only suspended, not abrogated, where a community sacrifice is involved.
^ᶻnote:So that R. Shesheth may have the benefit of the support of the Tanna whose opinion he held.
^ᵃᵃnote:Pes. 77a.
^ᵃᵇnote:For uncleanness of a sacrifice.
^ᵃᶜnote:On that day, when the high priest enters the Holy of Holies, he doffs his golden garments, including the front plate, and wears simple linen.
^ᵃᵈnote:He offers up the sacrifice to make atonement for the whole congregation.
^ᵃᵉnote:Who opposes the view of R. Judah.
^ᵃᶠnote:And it is the front plate that effects the pardon. This is the dispute of the Tannaim.
^ᵃᵍnote:Ex. XXVII, 38.
^ᵃʰnote:Ibid., the pardon dependent upon the high priest's bearing the plate.
^ᵃⁱnote:Respect for the holy garment would necessitate its removal at that time.
^ᵃʲnote:The evidence of the text seems to favour R. Simeon's interpretation.
^ᵃᵏnote:Not only does his own interpretation appear wrong when confronted with R. Simeon's argument.
^ᵃˡnote:The word ‘continually’, which cannot be referred to the wearing of the plate, needs must be applied to its efficacy.
^ᵃᵐnote:Not the outward efficacy of the plate; the attitude of the high priest towards its function is what the Torah prescribes here.
^ᵃⁿnote:Originally the tefillin were worn all day. V. Shab. 130a.