Menachot Daf 25 (מנחות דף כ״ה)
Daf: 25 | Amudim: 25a – 25b | Date: February 4, 2026
📖 Breakdown
Amud Aleph (25a)
Segment 1
TYPE: משנה
The frontplate (tzitz) effects acceptance for impure offerings but not for offerings that left the courtyard
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַתְנִי׳ נִטְמָא הַקּוֹמֶץ וְהִקְרִיבוֹ – הַצִּיץ מְרַצֶּה, יָצָא וְהִקְרִיבוֹ – אֵין הַצִּיץ מְרַצֶּה, שֶׁהַצִּיץ מְרַצֶּה עַל הַטָּמֵא וְאֵינוֹ מְרַצֶּה עַל הַיּוֹצֵא.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
This mishna establishes a fundamental distinction in the role of the tzitz (frontplate), the gold plate inscribed “Holy to the Lord” worn on the High Priest’s forehead. The tzitz has the power to effect acceptance (ritzui) for certain disqualifications of sacrificial offerings, but not all. Specifically, it atones for the sin of ritual impurity — because impurity is a disqualification that was “permitted in the community” (hutra mikhlalah betzibur), as when the majority of the community is impure, communal offerings may be brought even in a state of impurity. However, leaving the Temple courtyard (yotzei) is a disqualification of a fundamentally different nature, and the tzitz has no power to remedy it.
Key Terms:
- קומץ (kometz) = The handful of flour taken from a meal offering
- ציץ (tzitz) = The gold frontplate worn by the High Priest, inscribed with “Holy to the Lord”
- מרצה (meratzeh) = Effects acceptance / atones
- יוצא (yotzei) = An offering that left its designated area (the Temple courtyard)
Segment 2
TYPE: גמרא — ברייתא
Deriving the frontplate’s function from Scripture
Hebrew/Aramaic:
גְּמָ׳ תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״וְנָשָׂא אַהֲרֹן אֶת עֲוֹן הַקֳּדָשִׁים״ – וְכִי אֵיזֶה עָוֹן הוּא נוֹשֵׂא? אִם תֹּאמַר עֲוֹן פִּיגּוּל – הֲרֵי כְּבָר נֶאֱמַר ״לֹא יֵחָשֵׁב״! אִם תֹּאמַר עֲוֹן נוֹתָר – הֲרֵי כְּבָר נֶאֱמַר ״לֹא יֵרָצֶה״!
English Translation:
GEMARA: The Sages taught in a baraita: It is written with regard to the frontplate: “And it shall be upon Aaron’s 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” (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: “It shall not be credited to him” (Leviticus 7:18). If you say he atones for the sin of notar, it is already stated in the same verse: “It shall not be accepted.”
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara begins its analysis by seeking the Scriptural basis for the mishna’s ruling. The baraita uses a process of elimination to determine which “sin” the verse in Exodus 28:38 refers to. Piggul (an offering disqualified by improper intent regarding the time of consumption) is excluded because the Torah explicitly states it “shall not be credited.” Notar (leftover sacrificial meat) is excluded because the Torah states it “shall not be accepted.” These verses indicate that piggul and notar are absolutely rejected and cannot be remedied by the tzitz.
Key Terms:
- פיגול (piggul) = An offering rendered invalid by the intent to consume it after its designated time
- נותר (notar) = Sacrificial meat left over past its permitted time
Segment 3
TYPE: גמרא — מסקנה
The frontplate atones for impurity because impurity was permitted for the community
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הָא אֵינוֹ נוֹשֵׂא אֶלָּא עֲוֹן טוּמְאָה, שֶׁהוּתְּרָה מִכְּלָלָהּ בְּצִיבּוּר.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Having eliminated piggul and notar, the baraita concludes that the tzitz atones for the sin of sacrificing impure offerings. The underlying reasoning is significant: impurity is a prohibition that was “permitted from its generality” (hutra mikhlalah) — meaning there are circumstances where even the general prohibition against impurity in Temple service is overridden, specifically when the majority of the community is impure. Because impurity has this quality of being partially overridable, the tzitz can effect acceptance for individual impure offerings as well. This principle — that the tzitz only atones for disqualifications whose prohibition was at some point overridden — becomes the key criterion for the Gemara’s ensuing discussion.
Key Terms:
- הותרה מכללה (hutra mikhlalah) = Permitted from its generality — a prohibition that has recognized exceptions
- ציבור (tzibur) = The community / communal offerings
Segment 4
TYPE: קושיא
Rabbi Zeira challenges: What about yotzei, which was permitted on a bamah?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַבִּי זֵירָא: אֵימָא עֲוֹן יוֹצֵא, שֶׁהוּתַּר מִכְּלָלוֹ בְּבָמָה.
English Translation:
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?
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Zeira raises a sharp objection: if the criterion for the tzitz’s acceptance is that the prohibition was “permitted from its generality,” then why not say the tzitz atones for offerings that left the courtyard? After all, in the era of bamot (private altars), there was no enclosed courtyard at all, so the concept of “leaving the designated area” was essentially nonexistent. In that sense, the general prohibition against yotzei was also “permitted from its generality.”
Key Terms:
- במה (bamah) = A private altar used for sacrifices during periods when there was no permanent Temple
Segment 5
TYPE: תירוץ
Abaye answers: “Before the Lord” excludes yotzei
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי, אָמַר קְרָא: ״לְרָצוֹן לָהֶם לִפְנֵי ה׳״, עָוֹן דְּלִפְנֵי ה׳ – אִין, עָוֹן דְּיוֹצֵא – לָא.
English Translation:
Abaye said to him: The verse states with regard to the frontplate: “And it shall be always upon his forehead, that they may be accepted before the Lord” (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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Abaye resolves Rabbi Zeira’s challenge with a precise textual reading. The verse states the tzitz effects acceptance “before the Lord” — meaning the sin in question must be one whose exception occurs “before the Lord,” i.e., in the Temple context itself. Impurity of communal offerings is permitted “before the Lord” — in the Temple. But the permission of bamot was specifically outside the Temple context, not “before the Lord.” Therefore, yotzei does not qualify for the tzitz’s atonement.
Segment 6
TYPE: קושיא
Rabbi Ile’a challenges: What about left-hand service, permitted on Yom Kippur?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַבִּי אִילְעָא: אֵימָא עֲוֹן שְׂמֹאל, שֶׁהוּתַּר מִכְּלָלוֹ בְּיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים.
English Translation:
Rabbi Ile’a objects to this: Why not say that the frontplate atones for the sin of performing the service using one’s left hand instead of one’s 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?
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Ile’a raises another challenge using the same logic: using the left hand for Temple service is generally prohibited, yet on Yom Kippur, the High Priest must hold the incense spoon in his left hand (since his right hand holds the coal pan). This exception occurs “before the Lord” — in the Holy of Holies itself. So why doesn’t the tzitz atone for the sin of left-hand service?
Key Terms:
- שמאל (smol) = Left hand — generally disqualified for sacrificial service
Segment 7
TYPE: תירוץ
Abaye answers: “Sin” implies something that was disqualified, not something that is proper procedure
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: אָמַר קְרָא ״עָוֹן״ – עָוֹן שֶׁהָיָה בּוֹ וּדְחִיתִיו, לְאַפּוֹקֵי יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים דְּהֶכְשֵׁירוֹ בִּשְׂמֹאל הוּא.
English Translation:
Abaye said to him: The verse states: “And Aaron shall bear the sin committed with the sacred items” (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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Abaye draws a subtle distinction: the word “sin” (avon) in the verse implies a genuine disqualification that was “deferred” or overridden. The left-hand use on Yom Kippur is not a “sin” at all — it is the proper, intended way to perform that particular service. The High Priest is supposed to carry the incense spoon in his left hand. By contrast, when communal offerings are brought in a state of impurity, the impurity is still recognized as a flaw that is being overridden, not as the proper mode of service.
Segment 8
TYPE: גמרא — תירוץ חלופי
Rav Ashi’s alternative answer: “sin of the sacred items” — not “sin of those who sanctify”
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: ״עֲוֹן הַקֳּדָשִׁים״, וְלֹא ״עֲוֹן הַמַּקְדִּישִׁין״.
English Translation:
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: “And Aaron shall bear the sin committed with the sacred items [hakodashim],” 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].
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Ashi offers an independent explanation. He reads the verse’s language — “sin of the sacred items” (avon hakodashim) — as indicating a flaw inherent in the offering itself (such as impurity of the sacrificial material), as opposed to a flaw in the actions of those performing the service (such as using the wrong hand). This distinction between a defect in the object and a defect in the person/procedure provides a clean categorical exclusion of left-hand service from the tzitz’s scope.
Key Terms:
- עוון הקדשים (avon hakodashim) = Sin of the sacred items — a defect inherent in the offering
- עוון המקדישין (avon hamakdishin) = Sin of those who sanctify — a defect in the service performers
Segment 9
TYPE: קושיא
Challenge: What about blemished animals, permitted for birds?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב סִימָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אִידִי לְרַב אָשֵׁי, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ רַב סִימָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אָשֵׁי לְרַב אָשֵׁי: וְאֵימָא עֲוֹן בַּעַל מוּם שֶׁהוּתַּר מִכְּלָלוֹ בְּעוֹפוֹת, דְּאָמַר מָר: תַּמּוּת וְזַכְרוּת בִּבְהֵמָה, וְאֵין תַּמּוּת וְזַכְרוּת בְּעוֹפוֹת!
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
This challenge uses the “permitted from its generality” criterion with a new application: blemished animals cannot be offered, but blemished birds can (since the requirements of being unblemished and male apply only to animal offerings, not to bird offerings). If the criterion is simply that the prohibition was “permitted from its generality,” then perhaps the tzitz should also atone for blemished animal offerings.
Key Terms:
- בעל מום (ba’al mum) = A blemished animal
- תמות (tamut) = The requirement that offerings be unblemished
- זכרות (zakhrut) = The requirement that certain offerings be male
Segment 10
TYPE: תירוץ
Rav Ashi answers: “It shall not be accepted” — blemished animals are categorically excluded
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: עָלֶיךָ אָמַר קְרָא, ״לֹא יֵרָצֶה״, ״כִּי לֹא לְרָצוֹן יִהְיֶה לָכֶם״.
English Translation:
Rav Ashi said to him: With regard to your claim, the verse states about blemished animals: “It shall not be accepted” (Leviticus 22:23), and: “But whatsoever has a blemish that you shall not bring; for it shall not be acceptable for you” (Leviticus 22:20), teaching that in no case are blemished animals accepted as offerings, even due to the frontplate.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Ashi deflects this challenge by citing explicit verses that categorically exclude blemished animals from acceptance. Just as piggul and notar are excluded by specific verses (“it shall not be credited,” “it shall not be accepted”), so too blemished animals have their own explicit exclusionary verses. The Torah’s emphatic language — “it shall not be acceptable for you” — makes clear that no mechanism, including the tzitz, can render a blemished animal offering acceptable.
Segment 11
TYPE: ברייתא
Impure blood sprinkled: unwitting vs. intentional, individual vs. communal, gentile
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: דָּם שֶׁנִּטְמָא וּזְרָקוֹ בְּשׁוֹגֵג – הוּרְצָה, בְּמֵזִיד – לֹא הוּרְצָה. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים? בְּיָחִיד, אֲבָל בְּצִיבּוּר, בֵּין בְּשׁוֹגֵג בֵּין בְּמֵזִיד – הוּרְצָה, וּבְגוֹי, בֵּין בְּשׁוֹגֵג בֵּין בְּמֵזִיד, בֵּין בְּאוֹנֶס בֵּין בְּרָצוֹן –
English Translation:
§ 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,
קלאוד על הדף:
This baraita introduces important distinctions regarding the tzitz’s acceptance: (1) For an individual’s offering, the tzitz only effects acceptance if the impure blood was sprinkled unwittingly — if done intentionally, the Sages penalize the offender; (2) For communal offerings, the tzitz effects acceptance regardless, since communal offerings cannot simply be replaced and the community’s atonement must not be delayed; (3) For a gentile’s offering, the tzitz never effects acceptance, as derived from “for them” — meaning only for the Jewish people. This last point continues on the next amud.
Key Terms:
- שוגג (shogeg) = Unwittingly / unintentional
- מזיד (meizid) = Intentionally / deliberate
- אונס (ones) = Due to circumstances beyond one’s control
Amud Bet (25b)
Segment 1
TYPE: גמרא — המשך ברייתא
A gentile’s offering: the frontplate does not effect acceptance
Hebrew/Aramaic:
לֹא הוּרְצָה.
English Translation:
the offering is not accepted, as the verse states with regard to the frontplate: “That it may be accepted for them before the Lord” (Exodus 28:38), with the term “for them” teaching that this applies only for Jews, not for gentiles.
קלאוד על הדף:
This completes the baraita from the previous amud. The word “lahem” (for them) in Exodus 28:38 is read as a limitation: the tzitz’s power of acceptance applies only to Jewish offerings, not to offerings brought by gentiles. This is a distinctive halakhic feature — while gentiles can bring certain offerings in the Temple, those offerings do not benefit from the tzitz’s acceptance mechanism in cases of impurity.
Segment 2
TYPE: קושיא — סתירה
Contradiction from another baraita: the frontplate effects acceptance even intentionally
Hebrew/Aramaic:
ורְמִינְהִי: עַל מָה הַצִּיץ מְרַצֶּה? עַל הַדָּם וְעַל הַבָּשָׂר וְעַל הַחֵלֶב שֶׁנִּטְמָא, בֵּין בְּשׁוֹגֵג בֵּין בְּמֵזִיד, בֵּין בְּאוֹנֶס בֵּין בְּרָצוֹן, בֵּין בְּיָחִיד בֵּין בְּצִיבּוּר.
English Translation:
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’s 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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara identifies a direct contradiction between two baraitot. The first baraita (from Segment 11 of amud aleph) states that for an individual’s offering, intentional sprinkling of impure blood is not accepted. This second baraita states that the tzitz effects acceptance for impure offerings regardless of whether the impurity occurred unwittingly or intentionally, and regardless of whether it was an individual or communal offering. This contradiction drives the extended discussion that follows.
Segment 3
TYPE: תירוץ
Rav Yosef: One baraita follows Rabbi Yosei, the other follows the Rabbis
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: לָא קַשְׁיָא, הָא רַבִּי יוֹסֵי, הָא רַבָּנַן. דְּתַנְיָא: אֵין תּוֹרְמִין מִן הַטָּמֵא עַל הַטָּהוֹר, וְאִם תָּרַם בְּשׁוֹגֵג – תְּרוּמָתוֹ תְּרוּמָה, בְּמֵזִיד – אֵין תְּרוּמָתוֹ תְּרוּמָה. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: בֵּין בְּשׁוֹגֵג בֵּין בְּמֵזִיד – תְּרוּמָתוֹ תְּרוּמָה.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Yosef resolves the contradiction by attributing the two baraitot to different Tannaitic opinions. The dispute revolves around whether the Sages impose a penalty (kenas) on someone who deliberately performs an improper act. The Rabbis hold that deliberately sprinkling impure blood is penalized — the tzitz does not effect acceptance. Rabbi Yosei holds that no penalty is imposed, so the tzitz effects acceptance regardless. Rav Yosef draws this parallel from a dispute about teruma separation from impure produce for pure produce.
Key Terms:
- קנס (kenas) = A penalty imposed by the Sages
- תרומה (teruma) = The priestly portion separated from produce
Segment 4
TYPE: קושיא
Challenge: Rabbi Yosei says the frontplate does NOT effect acceptance for portions to be eaten
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֵימַר דְּשָׁמְעַתְּ לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי דְּלָא קָנֵיס, דִּמְרַצֵּה צִיץ עַל אֲכִילוֹת מִי שָׁמְעַתְּ לֵיהּ? וְהָתַנְיָא: רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: הַצִּיץ מְרַצֶּה עַל אֲכִילוֹת, רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: אֵין הַצִּיץ מְרַצֶּה עַל אֲכִילוֹת.
English Translation:
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’t 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?
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara challenges Rav Yosef’s resolution. Even if Rabbi Yosei does not penalize intentional acts, there is a separate issue: the second baraita states the tzitz effects acceptance for the blood, flesh, and fat — including the portions eaten by the priests (akhilot). But a separate baraita has Rabbi Yosei saying the tzitz does NOT effect acceptance for the edible portions. This creates an internal inconsistency in attributing the second baraita to Rabbi Yosei.
Key Terms:
- אכילות (akhilot) = The edible portions of offerings (eaten by priests or the owner)
Segment 5
TYPE: תירוץ
Reverse the opinions in the baraita
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֵיפוֹךְ: רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: אֵין הַצִּיץ מְרַצֶּה עַל אֲכִילוֹת, רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: הַצִּיץ מְרַצֶּה עַל אֲכִילוֹת.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara proposes a textual emendation: swap the names in the baraita, so that Rabbi Yosei holds the tzitz does effect acceptance for edible portions, and Rabbi Eliezer holds it does not. This would restore consistency with attributing the second baraita to Rabbi Yosei. Such textual reversals (eipukh) are a standard Talmudic technique when the transmitted text creates contradictions with established positions of the same Sage.
Segment 6
TYPE: קושיא
Rav Sheshet objects: Can you really reverse the opinions?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: וּמִי מָצֵית אָפְכַתְּ לַהּ? וְהָתַנְיָא: יָכוֹל בָּשָׂר שֶׁנִּטְמָא לִפְנֵי זְרִיקַת דָּמִים יְהוּ חַיָּיבִין עֲלֵיהֶן מִשּׁוּם טוּמְאָה?
English Translation:
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’t 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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Sheshet objects to the proposed reversal by citing a lengthy baraita that ultimately proves Rabbi Eliezer must hold that the tzitz does effect acceptance for edible portions. The baraita begins by exploring whether one who eats impure sacrificial meat before the blood is sprinkled is liable for the prohibition against eating sacrificial meat while impure. This sets up a chain of reasoning that will connect to Rabbi Eliezer’s position on the tzitz.
Segment 7
TYPE: גמרא — המשך ברייתא
Only meat “permitted to the pure” triggers the impurity prohibition
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״כׇּל טָהוֹר יֹאכַל בָּשָׂר״, ״וְהַנֶּפֶשׁ אֲשֶׁר תֹּאכַל בָּשָׂר מִזֶּבַח הַשְּׁלָמִים אֲשֶׁר לַה׳ וְטֻמְאָתוֹ עָלָיו וְנִכְרְתָה״, הַנִּיתָּר לִטְהוֹרִין חַיָּיבִין עָלָיו מִשּׁוּם טוּמְאָה,
English Translation:
To counter this, the verse states: “Every one that is ritually pure may eat of it” (Leviticus 7:19), and immediately afterward the verse states: “But 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” (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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita derives from the juxtaposition of verses in Leviticus 7 that the prohibition against eating sacrificial meat while impure only applies to meat that has reached the stage where it is “permitted to the pure” — meaning the blood has been sprinkled. Before blood sprinkling, the meat is not yet “permitted” to anyone, so the impurity prohibition does not apply. This distinction — “permitted to the pure” (nitar lithorin) — becomes the operative criterion.
Key Terms:
- ניתר לטהורין (nitar lithorin) = Permitted to those who are ritually pure — i.e., after the blood has been sprinkled
- כרת (karet) = Spiritual excision — the most severe divine punishment
Segment 8
TYPE: גמרא — המשך ברייתא
Meat not yet permitted to the pure does not trigger the impurity prohibition
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְשֶׁאֵינוֹ נִיתָּר לִטְהוֹרִין, אֵין חַיָּיבִין עָלָיו מִשּׁוּם טוּמְאָה.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
This is the corollary: meat that has not yet reached the stage of being “permitted to the pure” (i.e., before blood sprinkling) does not carry the karet penalty for an impure person who eats it. While eating it may violate other prohibitions, the specific impurity-related karet penalty only applies once the blood has been properly sprinkled and the meat has become formally permitted.
Segment 9
TYPE: גמרא — המשך ברייתא
Alternative interpretation: “eaten” vs. “permitted” — leading to leftover and yotzei
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא: נֶאֱכָל לִטְהוֹרִין – חַיָּיבִין עָלָיו מִשּׁוּם טוּמְאָה, וְשֶׁאֵינוֹ נֶאֱכָל לִטְהוֹרִין – אֵין חַיָּיבִין עָלָיו מִשּׁוּם טוּמְאָה, אוֹצִיא אֲנִי אֶת הַלָּן וְאֶת הַיּוֹצֵא, שֶׁאֵינָן נֶאֱכָלִין לִטְהוֹרִים.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita considers an alternative reading: perhaps the criterion is not “permitted” (nitar) but “actually eaten” (ne’ekhal) by the pure. Under this reading, meat that became leftover (lan) or left the courtyard (yotzei) — which may not be eaten even by pure people — would be excluded from the impurity prohibition. An impure person eating such meat would not be liable for karet.
Key Terms:
- לן (lan) = Sacrificial meat left overnight past its permitted time
- נאכל (ne’ekhal) = Actually eaten — a stricter criterion than merely “permitted”
Segment 10
TYPE: גמרא — דרשה
“That belong to the Lord” — includes leftover and yotzei
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אֲשֶׁר לַה׳״ – רִיבָּה.
English Translation:
Therefore, the verse states: “That belong to the Lord,” 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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita resolves this by citing the phrase “that belong to the Lord” (asher laHashem) in the verse, which serves as a ribbui (inclusion). This phrase broadens the scope of the impurity prohibition to include even meat that is leftover or that left the courtyard. Despite being disqualified for consumption, such meat still retains its sacred status (“that belong to the Lord”), and therefore the impurity prohibition still applies to it.
Key Terms:
- ריבה (ribbah) = Included / broadened — a hermeneutical principle of inclusion
Segment 11
TYPE: גמרא — הוא אמינא
Perhaps include piggul and notar as well?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
יָכוֹל שֶׁאֲנִי מְרַבֶּה אֶת הַפִּיגּוּלִין וְאֶת הַנּוֹתָרוֹת?
English Translation:
One might have thought that I include in the prohibition the meat that was rendered piggul through one’s intention of consuming it after its designated time and the meat that was rendered notar.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita now tests the limits of the inclusion: if “that belong to the Lord” broadens the scope to include leftover and yotzei meat, perhaps it also includes piggul (meat disqualified by improper intent regarding consumption time) and actual notar (meat remaining past its time). The distinction between these categories will turn on whether the meat ever had a “period of fitness.”
Segment 12
TYPE: גמרא — הבהרה ומיעוט
Notar is the same as leftover; piggul is excluded by “of the meat”
Hebrew/Aramaic:
נוֹתָרוֹת הַיְינוּ לָן, אֶלָּא אַף הַפִּיגּוּלִין כַּנּוֹתָרוֹת? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״מִזֶּבַח הַשְּׁלָמִים״ – מִיעֵט.
English Translation:
The baraita interjects: Isn’t 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: “Of the meat of the sacrifice of peace offerings,” and the term “of the meat” excluded one who is impure who partakes of piggul.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita clarifies: notar and lan (leftover) are essentially the same category and are already included. The real question is about piggul. The verse’s phrase “of the meat of the sacrifice of peace offerings” (mizevach hashlamim) serves as a mi’ut (exclusion), narrowing the scope to exclude piggul from the impurity prohibition.
Key Terms:
- מיעט (mi’et) = Excluded — a hermeneutical principle of exclusion
Segment 13
TYPE: גמרא — סברא
Why include leftover/yotzei but exclude piggul? Period of fitness
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּמָה רָאִיתָ לְרַבּוֹת אֶת אֵלּוּ וּלְהוֹצִיא אֶת אֵלּוּ? אַחַר שֶׁרִיבָּה הַכָּתוּב וּמִיעֵט, אָמַרְתָּ: מְרַבֶּה אֲנִי אֶת אֵלּוּ שֶׁהָיְתָה לָהֶן שְׁעַת הַכּוֹשֶׁר, וּמוֹצִיא אֲנִי אֶת אֵלּוּ שֶׁלֹּא הָיְתָה לָהֶן שְׁעַת הַכּוֹשֶׁר.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita applies a fundamental Talmudic principle: “period of fitness” (she’at hakosher). Leftover meat and meat that left the courtyard both had a period when they were fully valid — after the blood was sprinkled but before they became disqualified. Piggul, however, was never valid: the improper intent at the time of blood sprinkling retroactively disqualified the offering from the start. This distinction — whether the meat ever had a moment of legitimate permitted status — determines whether the impurity prohibition applies.
Key Terms:
- שעת הכושר (she’at hakosher) = A period of fitness — a time when the item was valid/permitted
Segment 14
TYPE: גמרא — מסקנה
Impure meat before blood sprinkling: liable because the tzitz effects acceptance
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאִם תֹּאמַר: בָּשָׂר שֶׁנִּטְמָא לִפְנֵי זְרִיקַת דָּמִים וַאֲכָלוֹ לְאַחַר זְרִיקַת דָּמִים, מִפְּנֵי מָה חַיָּיבִין עָלָיו מִשּׁוּם טוּמְאָה? מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהַצִּיץ מְרַצֶּה.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
This is the critical conclusion of the baraita: meat that became impure before blood sprinkling seemingly never had a “period of fitness,” since it was already impure when the blood was sprinkled. Yet the baraita rules that one is liable for eating it while impure. Why? Because the tzitz effects acceptance for the impurity — meaning the blood sprinkling is considered valid despite the impurity, and the meat is deemed to have been “permitted to the pure.” This proves that the tzitz effects acceptance even for the edible portions (akhilot).
Segment 15
TYPE: גמרא — הוכחה
Impure — yes (tzitz helps); yotzei — no (tzitz does not help)
Hebrew/Aramaic:
נִטְמָא – אִין, יוֹצֵא – לָא.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
This succinct statement draws a sharp contrast: the tzitz effects acceptance for impure offerings (creating a “period of fitness” for them), but does not effect acceptance for offerings that left the courtyard. For yotzei, since the tzitz does not help, the meat never had a period of fitness, and the impurity prohibition would not apply to it.
Segment 16
TYPE: גמרא — הוכחה על ר’ אליעזר
This baraita must follow Rabbi Eliezer, who says sprinkling is ineffective for yotzei
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַאן שָׁמְעַתְּ לֵיהּ דְּאָמַר: ״אֵין זְרִיקָה מוֹעֶלֶת לַיּוֹצֵא״? רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, וְקָתָנֵי דִּמְרַצֵּה צִיץ עַל אֲכִילוֹת.
English Translation:
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’ila (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.
קלאוד על הדף:
This is Rav Sheshet’s definitive proof: the only Sage who holds that sprinkling is ineffective for meat that left the courtyard is Rabbi Eliezer. Since the baraita (which relies on that principle in Segment 15) clearly follows Rabbi Eliezer, and that same baraita concludes that the tzitz effects acceptance for impure edible portions (Segment 14), it must be that Rabbi Eliezer himself holds the tzitz effects acceptance for akhilot. Therefore, the earlier proposed reversal of opinions is untenable.
Segment 17
TYPE: גמרא — תירוץ חדש
Rav Chisda’s resolution: one baraita follows Rabbi Eliezer, the other follows the Rabbis
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא, לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, הָא רַבָּנַן.
English Translation:
Rather, Rav Ḥisda 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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Having rejected the reversal, Rav Chisda offers an alternative resolution: the two contradictory baraitot reflect a dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis. Rabbi Eliezer holds that the tzitz effects acceptance broadly — including for edible portions, and regardless of whether the sprinkling was unwitting or intentional. The Rabbis hold a more limited view: the tzitz effects acceptance only for unwitting sprinkling of an individual’s offering, and does not extend to the edible portions.
Segment 18
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ
Does Rabbi Eliezer also hold no penalty? Yes — he rules like Rabbi Yosei on teruma
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֵימַר דְּשָׁמְעַתְּ לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר דִּמְרַצֵּה צִיץ עַל אֲכִילוֹת, דְּלָא קָנֵיס מִי שָׁמְעַתְּ לֵיהּ? אִין, כִּי הֵיכִי דְּשָׁמְעַתְּ לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי, שָׁמְעַתְּ לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: בֵּין בְּשׁוֹגֵג בֵּין בְּמֵזִיד תְּרוּמָתוֹ תְּרוּמָה.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara raises the question of whether Rabbi Eliezer’s position on the tzitz effecting acceptance for edible portions also extends to not penalizing intentional sprinkling. The answer is yes: just like Rabbi Yosei, Rabbi Eliezer also holds that teruma separated from impure produce for pure produce is valid regardless of whether it was done unwittingly or intentionally. This demonstrates that Rabbi Eliezer, like Rabbi Yosei, does not impose a penalty for deliberate improper acts.
Segment 19
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ
Perhaps Rabbi Eliezer is lenient only with teruma but strict with consecrated items?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֵימַר דְּשָׁמְעַתְּ לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בִּתְרוּמָה דְּקִילָּא, בְּקָדָשִׁים דַּחֲמִירִי מִי שָׁמְעַתְּ לֵיהּ? אִם כֵּן, הָא אַמַּאן תִּרְמְיַיהּ?
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara raises a last-ditch objection: perhaps Rabbi Eliezer’s leniency (no penalty) applies only to teruma, which is a less severe category, but not to consecrated Temple items. The Gemara responds with a practical argument: if Rabbi Eliezer does not hold this view regarding consecrated items, then there is no one to whom to attribute the baraita that the tzitz effects acceptance regardless of intent. Since the baraita exists and must reflect someone’s opinion, it must be Rabbi Eliezer’s.
Segment 20
TYPE: גמרא — תירוץ של רבינא
Ravina’s resolution: impurity circumstance vs. sprinkling act
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רָבִינָא אָמַר: טוּמְאָתוֹ, בֵּין בְּשׁוֹגֵג בֵּין בְּמֵזִיד – הוּרְצָה; זְרִיקָתוֹ, בְּשׁוֹגֵג – הוּרְצָה, בְּמֵזִיד – לֹא הוּרְצָה.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Ravina offers an elegant resolution that avoids attributing the baraitot to different Tannaim entirely. Instead, he distinguishes between two different variables: (1) how the impurity occurred, and (2) how the sprinkling was performed. Regarding the impurity itself — whether the offering became impure accidentally or deliberately — the tzitz always effects acceptance (as the second baraita states). But regarding the sprinkling — whether the priest knowingly sprinkled impure blood — the distinction matters: unwitting sprinkling is accepted, but intentional sprinkling is not (as the first baraita states).
Segment 21
TYPE: גמרא — תירוץ של רב שילא
Rav Sheila’s resolution: the opposite distinction
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְרַב שֵׁילָא אָמַר: זְרִיקָתוֹ, בֵּין בְּשׁוֹגֵג בֵּין בְּמֵזִיד – הוּרְצָה. טוּמְאָתוֹ, בְּשׁוֹגֵג – הוּרְצָה, בְּמֵזִיד – לֹא הוּרְצָה.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Sheila proposes the mirror image of Ravina’s resolution. He holds that the sprinkling is always accepted (the priest’s knowledge or intent at the time of sprinkling is irrelevant), but the circumstances of the impurity matter. If the offering became impure accidentally, the tzitz effects acceptance. But if someone deliberately rendered it impure, the tzitz does not help. Each Amora focuses the penalty on a different stage: Ravina penalizes intentional sprinkling; Rav Sheila penalizes intentional impurity.
Segment 22
TYPE: גמרא — הסבר שיטת רב שילא
Rav Sheila’s reading of the second baraita
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּלְרַב שֵׁילָא, דְּקָתָנֵי: שֶׁנִּטְמָא בֵּין בְּשׁוֹגֵג בֵּין בְּמֵזִיד – הָכִי קָאָמַר: נִטְמָא בְּשׁוֹגֵג וּזְרָקוֹ, בֵּין בְּשׁוֹגֵג בֵּין בְּמֵזִיד.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara explains how Rav Sheila reads the second baraita to be consistent with his position. The phrase “whether unwittingly or intentionally” in the baraita does not refer to how the impurity occurred (as a straightforward reading might suggest), but rather to the sprinkling: once the impurity occurred unwittingly, the sprinkling is accepted regardless. The “unwittingly or intentionally” clause modifies the act of sprinkling, not the impurity itself. This reinterpretation allows both baraitot to coexist without contradiction according to Rav Sheila’s framework.