מנחות כ״ה ב:כ״ב-כ״ו א:א׳

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.,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.,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.,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?,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.,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.,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.,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.,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.,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.,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.,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.,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.,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.,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.,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.,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.,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.,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.,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.,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.,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. The Gemara suggests a refutation of Rav Sheila’s opinion based on the first baraita: Come and hear: 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 achieves atonement for the owner of the offering. If he sprinkled the blood intentionally, the offering is not accepted. This contradicts Rav Sheila’s statement that even if the priest sprinkled the blood intentionally, it is accepted. The Gemara rejects this proof: According to Rav Sheila, this is what the baraita is saying: In the case of blood that became impure and a priest sprinkled it, whether it was sprinkled unwittingly or intentionally, if it was rendered impure unwittingly it is accepted, but if it was rendered impure intentionally then it is not accepted.,MISHNA: If after the handful was removed the remainder of the meal offering became ritually impure, or if the remainder of the meal offering was burned, or if the remainder of the meal offering was lost, according to the principle of Rabbi Eliezer, who says that with regard to an animal offering the blood is fit for sprinkling even if there is no meat that can be eaten, the meal offering is fit, and the priest burns the handful. But according to the principle of Rabbi Yehoshua, who says that with regard to an animal offering the blood is fit for sprinkling only if there is meat that can be eaten, it is unfit and the priest does not burn the handful, as the handful serves to render permitted the remainder.,GEMARA: With regard to the mishna’s statement that according to Rabbi Yehoshua the meal offering is unfit if its remainder is rendered impure, Rav says: And this is the halakha only when all of its remainder became impure. But if only a part of its remainder became impure, the meal offering is not unfit.,The Gemara comments: It enters your mind that Rav holds that only if a part of the remainder became impure, then yes, the meal offering is fit; but if part of the remainder was lost or burned, then the meal offering is not fit. The Gemara asks: What does Rav hold? If he holds that what remains is significant, so that even if a portion of the remainder cannot be eaten the handful is still sacrificed to render the rest permitted, then why would this not also be the halakha even if part of the remainder was lost or burned? Alternatively, if he holds that what remains is not significant, and the Gemara interjects: And accordingly, what is the reason that the handful is sacrificed if a part of the remainder became impure? It is because the frontplate effects acceptance for the impurity; if that is so, then even if all of the remainder became impure, the handful should still be sacrificed.,The Gemara explains: Actually, he holds that what remains is significant, and just as when a part of the remainder became impure but the offering is still fit, the rest of the remainder is sacrificed, the same is true with regard to a case where a part of the remainder was lost or burned. And the reason that he stated this halakha specifically in a case where it became impure is that he employed the terminology of the beginning of the mishna, which discusses a case where the remainder became impure.,Rava’s statement accords with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehoshua says: With regard to all the offerings in the Torah from which there remains an olive-bulk of meat that is fit to be eaten or an olive-bulk of fat that is fit to be sacrificed on the altar, the priest sprinkles the blood. Similarly, if a part of the remainder can be eaten the handful is still sacrificed, as the status of the remainder relative to the handful corresponds to the status of the meat relative to the blood.,The Gemara cites the continuation of the baraita: If all that remains is half an olive-bulk of meat and half an olive-bulk of fat, the priest does not sprinkle the blood. This is because the half olive-bulk of meat and the half olive-bulk of fat do not combine to form one olive-bulk, since the former is eaten and the latter is sacrificed on the altar. And with regard to a burnt offering, even if all that was left was half an olive-bulk of meat and half an olive-bulk of fat, the priest sprinkles the blood, because it is consumed on the altar in its entirety. Since both the meat and the fat are sacrificed on the altar, they combine to form one olive-bulk. And with regard to a meal offering, although all of it remains pure, the priest shall not sprinkle the blood.,The Gemara questions the last ruling of the baraita: What is the mention of a meal offering doing here? The discussion is about sprinkling blood, which is not relevant in the case of a meal offering. Rav Pappa said: The meal offering mentioned is the meal offering that accompanies the libations that accompany animal offerings. It could enter your mind to say: Since this meal offering accompanies the animal offering, it is comparable to the offering itself, and therefore if the offering became impure but the meal offering remained pure, the blood of the offering is sprinkled due to the remaining meal offering. To counter this, the baraita teaches us that this is not the halakha.,The Gemara returns to its discussion of the halakha that if only an olive-bulk of the fat remains, the priest sprinkles the blood of the offering. From where is this matter derived? Rabbi Yoḥanan says in the name of Rabbi Yishmael, and there are those who determined that it was stated in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Ḥananya: The verse states: “And the priest shall sprinkle the blood against the altar of the Lord at the door of the Tent of Meeting, and he shall make the fat smoke for a pleasing aroma to the Lord” (Leviticus 17:6). This verse never mentions the meat, but only the fat, indicating that the blood is sprinkled even if there is no ritually pure meat, but only fat.,The Gemara asks: And we found a source for the halakha that the priest sprinkles the blood if only fat remains. From where do we derive that the priest sprinkles the blood if all that is left is the lobe of the liver or the two kidneys, which are also sacrificed on the altar? The Gemara answers: The halakha that the priest sprinkles the blood in that case is derived from that which is taught at the end of the baraita: And with regard to a meal offering, although all of it remains pure, the priest shall not sprinkle the blood. This teaches that it is in the case of a meal offering that the priest shall not sprinkle the blood, as the meal offering is not part of the animal; but if the lobe of the liver or the two kidneys remain, the priest sprinkles the blood.,The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this halakha? The Gemara answers that Rabbi Yoḥanan himself says: The verse states: “For a pleasing aroma to the Lord” (Leviticus 17:6). This teaches that the blood is sprinkled whenever anything that you offer up on the altar for a pleasing aroma remains. This includes anything burned on the altar.,The Gemara notes: And it was necessary to write “fat” in that verse, and it was necessary to write “for a pleasing aroma.” As, if the Merciful One had written only “fat,” I would say that if fat remains, yes, the priest sprinkles the blood, but if only the lobe of the liver or the two kidneys remain, since they are not as significant as the fat, the blood is not sprinkled. Therefore, the Merciful One wrote “for a pleasing aroma.” And if the Merciful One had written only “for a pleasing aroma,” I would say that it includes even a meal offering brought with the libations that accompany animal offerings. Therefore, the Merciful One wrote “fat,” to teach that this halakha applies only to sacrificial parts of the animal, but not to accompanying libations and meal offerings.,MISHNA: A handful of a meal offering that was not sanctified in a service vessel is unfit, and Rabbi Shimon deems it fit. If the priest burned the handful of a meal offering twice, i.e., in two increments, it is fit.,GEMARA: Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi Ḥiyya, says: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Shimon? The verse states with regard to a meal offering: “It is most holy, as the sin offering, and as the guilt offering” (Leviticus 6:10). Rabbi Shimon derives from here that the handful of the meal offering may be placed on the altar in the manner of the blood of either a sin offering or a guilt offering. If a priest comes to perform the sacrificial rites of a meal offering with his hand, as one performs the sprinkling of the blood of a sin offering, which is performed with the priest’s right index finger, he must perform its rites with his right hand, like the sin offering. If he performs the sacrificial rites with a vessel, as one performs the sprinkling of the blood of a guilt offering, whose blood is sprinkled from a vessel on the altar and whose sprinkling may be performed with the priest’s left hand, he may perform its rites with his left hand, like the guilt offering.,And Rabbi Yannai says: According to Rabbi Shimon there are no restrictions on the manner in which the handful is sacrificed, as once the priest has removed the handful from a service vessel, he may bring it up and burn it even if he placed it in his belt, or even in an earthenware vessel. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says: All concede that the handful requires sanctification in a service vessel before it is sacrificed.,The Gemara raises an objection to the statement of Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi Ḥiyya, from a baraita (Tosefta, Zevaḥim 1:11): With regard to the burning of the fats, and the limbs, and the wood that were brought up to the altar, that the priest brought them up to the altar, whether by hand or with a vessel, whether with the right hand or with the left hand, they are fit. With regard to the handful, and the incense, and the frankincense, that the priest brought them up to the altar, whether by hand or with a vessel, whether with the right hand or with the left hand, they are fit. The Gemara suggests: This is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi Ḥiyya, who stated that if the handful is sacrificed by hand, it must be sacrificed only with the right hand.,The Gemara responds: Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi Ḥiyya, could say to you that the tanna of the baraita teaches it disjunctively, and the statement should be understood as follows: If these items are brought up by hand, with the right hand, or with a vessel, whether with the right hand or with the left, they are fit.,The Gemara attempts to refute the opinion of Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak that all concede that the handful requires sanctification in a service vessel before it is sacrificed. Come and hear that which is taught in a baraita: If the priest removed the handful, but not from a service vessel, and sanctified it, but not in a service vessel, and brought it up and burned it, but not in a service vessel, then it is unfit. Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon deem it fit in a case where the handful had been placed in any type of vessel. This contradicts Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak’s claim that all concede that the handful must be sanctified in a service vessel.,The Gemara responds: Say that according to Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon, from the point when the handful has been placed in a service vessel and sanctified and onward, it is no longer necessary to take it in a service vessel to the altar to sacrifice it. Therefore, the baraita does not contradict Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak’s statement.,The Gemara suggests another refutation of Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak’s opinion from a baraita (Tosefta 4:15). Come and hear: And the Rabbis say: The handful requires sanctification in a service vessel. How is this sanctification performed? The priest removes the handful from a service vessel, and sanctifies it in a service vessel, and brings it up and burns it in a service vessel. Rabbi Shimon says: Once the handful is removed from a service vessel, the priest may bring it up and burn it even if it is not in a service vessel, and this is sufficient for it. This baraita demonstrates that, in contrast to Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak’s statement, Rabbi Shimon does not hold that the handful must be sanctified in a service vessel.,The Gemara answers: Say that according to Rabbi Shimon, once the priest removes the handful and sanctifies it in a service vessel, he may bring it up and burn it, and this is sufficient for it.,The Gemara suggests another proof. Come and hear: If the priest removed the handful with his right hand and put it in his left hand, he shall return it to his right hand. If the handful was in his left hand