Menachot 50

לא הורצה

it is not acceptable.

ורמינהי על מה הציץ מרצה על הדם ועל הבשר ועל החלב שנטמא בין בשוגג בין במזיד בין באונס בין ברצון בין ביחיד בין בציבור

A contradiction was pointed out, for it was taught: For what guilt does the plate atone?

אמר רב יוסף לא קשיא הא ר' יוסי הא רבנן דתניא אין תורמין מן הטמא על הטהור ואם תרם בשוגג תרומתו תרומה במזיד אין תרומתו תרומה ר' יוסי אומר בין בשוגג בין במזיד תרומתו תרומה

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!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');">¹</span>

אימר דשמעת ליה לר' יוסי דלא קניס דמרצה ציץ על אכילות מי שמעת ליה והתניא ר' אליעזר אומר הציץ מרצה על אכילות רבי יוסי אומר אין הציץ מרצה על אכילות

- Said R'Joseph, There is no contradiction, for one<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The latter Baraitha.');">²</span>

איפוך רבי אליעזר אומר אין הציץ מרצה על אכילות רבי יוסי אומר הציץ מרצה על אכילות

[Baraitha] states the view of R'Jose, the other the view of the Rabbis.

מתקיף לה רב ששת ומי מצית אפכת לה והתניא יכול בשר שנטמא לפני זריקת דמים יהו חייבין עליהן משום טומאה

For it has been taught: One must not set aside unclean produce as terumah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos.');">³</span>

ת"ל (ויקרא ז, יט) כל טהור יאכל בשר והנפש אשר תאכל בשר מזבח השלמים אשר ליי' וטומאתו עליו ונכרתה הניתר לטהורין חייבין עליו משום טומאה

for clean produce; if one did so inadvertently the terumah is valid, but if deliberately the terumah is not valid.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');">⁴</span>

ושאינו ניתר לטהורין אין חייבין עליו משום טומאה

R'Jose says, Whether one did it inadvertently or deliberately the terumah is valid.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');">⁵</span>

או אינו אלא נאכל לטהורין חייבין עליו משום טומאה ושאינו נאכל לטהורין אין חייבין עליו משום טומאה אוציא אני את הלן ואת היוצא שאינן נאכלין לטהורים

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?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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?');">⁶</span>

ת"ל אשר ליי' ריבה

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?

יכול שאני מרבה את הפיגולין ואת הנותרות

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.

נותרות היינו לן אלא אף הפיגולין כנותרות ת"ל מזבח השלמים מיעט

But how can you reverse [the authorities]?

ומה ראית לרבות את אלו ולהוציא את אלו אחר שריבה הכתוב ומיעט אמרת מרבה אני את אלו שהיתה להן שעת הכושר ומוציא אני את אלו שלא היתה להן שעת הכושר

Behold, it has been taught: I might have thought that [an unclean person who ate<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Before the sprinkling of the blood.');">⁷</span>

וא"ת בשר שנטמא לפני זריקת דמים ואכלו לאחר זריקת דמים מפני מה חייבין עליו משום טומאה מפני שהציץ מרצה

of] the flesh of a sacrifice which had become unclean before the sprinkling of the blood would be culpable<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Incurring the penalty of kareth.');">⁸</span>

נטמא אין יוצא לא

on the ground of uncleanness,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');">⁹</span>

מאן שמעת ליה דאמר אין זריקה מועלת ליוצא רבי אליעזר וקתני דמרצה ציץ על אכילות

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, th pertain unto the Lord, having his uncleanness upon him, that soul shall be cut off from his people,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. VII, 19, 20.');">¹⁰</span>

אלא אמר רב חסדא לא קשיא הא רבי אליעזר הא רבנן

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<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., flesh of an offering before the sprinkling of the blood.');">¹¹</span>

אימר דשמעת ליה לר' אליעזר דמרצה ציץ על אכילות דלא קניס מי שמעת ליה אין כי היכי דשמעת ליה לר' יוסי שמעת ליה לרבי אליעזר דתניא רבי אליעזר אומר בין בשוגג בין במזיד תרומתו תרומה

is not culpable on account of uncleanness.

אימר דשמעת ליה לרבי אליעזר בתרומה דקילא בקדשים דחמירי מי שמעת ליה א"כ הא אמאן תרמייה

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<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');">¹²</span>

רבינא אמר טומאתו בין בשוגג בין במזיד הורצה זריקתו בשוגג הורצה במזיד לא הורצה

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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And therefore whosoever eats of such flesh whilst in a state of uncleanness does not incur the penalty of kareth.');">¹³</span>

ורב שילא אמר זריקתו בין בשוגג בין במזיד הורצה טומאתו בשוגג הורצה במזיד לא הורצה

The verse therefore states, That pertain unto the Lord, an inclusive expression.

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.