Mesorat%20hashas for Menachot 50:22

ולרב שילא [הא] דקתני שנטמא בין בשוגג בין במזיד ה"ק נטמא בשוגג וזרקו בין בשוגג בין במזיד

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<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');">¹⁴</span> - 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,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');">¹⁵</span> but I exclude those which were at no time permitted.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');">¹⁶</span> 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?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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. ');">¹⁷</span> [I reply], It is because the plate atones for it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');">¹⁸</span> Now [one is culpable] only for that which became unclean but not for that which was taken out.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');">¹⁹</span> 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<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Me'il. 6b.');">²⁰</span> ; and yet it states [in the Baraitha] that the plate atones for [the uncleanness of] the eatable portions!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But according to the answer given above ('Reverse the authorities') R. Eliezer holds the opposite view!');">²¹</span> - R'Hisda then said, There is no difficulty at all; for one [Baraitha] states the view of R'Eliezer,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');">²²</span> 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?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., that the plate secures atonement where one deliberately sprinkled the blood which had become unclean.');">²³</span> - Indeed we have, for just as we assumed that to be R'Jose's view<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');">²⁴</span> 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<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That a wrongful act though deliberately done is nevertheless valid.');">²⁵</span> 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]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which teaches that even deliberately it is acceptable. It must be R. Eliezer.');">²⁶</span> 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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');">²⁷</span> R'Shila said, As to its sprinkling, whether [it was sprinkled] inadvertentl 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.

Explore mesorat%20hashas for Menachot 50:22. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.