Menachot 25a — the Talmud in English

Rather,

Abaye said to Rava:

From the conclusion

one should prove that we do not say, “it has had its fill of impurity,” for it is written:

Rabbi Yosei concedes

that the sheet is impure because of contact with a midras—

with two sheets, folded and placed one upon the other, and a zav sat upon them

[and did not touch them, for example, there was something that intervened between him and the sheets],

for the upper one is impure with midras, and the lower one is impure with midras

for everything beneath the zav, even beneath ten mattresses, is impure with midras.

And

the lower one is also impure because of

contact with a midras,

because the lower one touches the upper one, which is a midras. And if he made a curtain from the lower sheet, it is pure from midras, but the impurity of contact with a midras remains upon it. [In Tosafot on page 25a, s.v. “with two,” they explained why the upper one is not impure through contact with a midras, since it too touches the lower one?].

And Abaye infers:

And why

is the lower one impure because of contact with a midras?

Let us say

that it may be said:

it has had its fill of impurity

of midras, and the lesser impurity of contact did not take effect upon it!? Rather, it is proven from here that we do not say, “it has had its fill of impurity”! And Rava answered

there

in the conclusion of the Mishna—

at one time

the two impurities come together: the contact of the lower one with the upper one occurs at the same time that the zav presses upon the lower one and renders it impure with midras, and therefore the two impurities take effect at one time 111 .

But

here,

in the case of the half-issaron—

one after the other

they come, and therefore there is uncertainty: perhaps the second impurity did not take effect because the first impurity had already filled it. [And Rava’s uncertainty was not resolved!]

Rava said: An issaron that he divided

into two parts,

and one of them was lost, and he designated another in its place, and

afterward

the

part

that was first was found, and all three of them are lying in a vessel

and each one is recognizable separately, their law is as follows:

If

the part

that had been

lost

now becomes impure, then

this lost one

and

the

part that was

first

and was initially with it

combine

in the vessel, making them one through the law of combination by a vessel, and the first part becomes impure because of the lost one, for from the outset these two parts were destined to combine and become one meal-offering. But the part

designated

in place of the lost one

does not combine

to become impure as well, since it is not connected with the lost one, for it was not designated in order to combine with it; rather, it came in its place 112 .

And if

the

part

designated

[in place of the lost one] becomes impure, then the

designated and first

[that is, the part that was not lost]

combine,

and also the first part that was not lost becomes impure through the law of combination by a vessel, because these two too were destined to become one meal-offering had the lost one not been found. But

the lost one does not combine

with the designated one, as stated, for the lost one and the designated one were never destined to be together.

And if

the

part

that was first becomes impure,

both the lost one and the replacement

combine

with the first one, since each one of them was destined to be together with the first one as one meal-offering—the lost one before it was lost, and the replacement after the loss; therefore they combine with it.

Abaye said: Even if one of them becomes impure,

that is, the designated one or the lost one,

also both of them combine. What is the reason? All of them are children of one lodging belonging to one another,

they are children of one house; that is, all of them come by virtue of and for the needs of one meal-offering. Therefore they combine with one another 113 .

And likewise

said Rava

with regard to the taking of the handful

If he took the handful from the lost one—

its remainder and

the remainder of the

first one are eaten,

for the handful is offered on behalf of these two, which are one meal-offering, and permits them to be eaten; but the

replacement is not eaten,

for it does not belong to the lost one, and the handful was not offered on its behalf.

If he took the handful from the designated one—

its remainder and

the remainder of the

first

are eaten,

for they too belong together 115 .

And

the lost one is not eaten,

for it is not connected with the designated one.

If he took the handful from

the

first—

both of them,

the designated one and the lost one,

are not eaten!

Because the handful can permit only one issaron, and since it is not known for which of the two additional halves besides the first the handful was offered, neither of them is eaten.

Abaye said: Even if he took the handful from one of them,

from the designated one or from the lost one,

neither of them is eaten. What is the reason? All of them too are children of one lodging belonging to one another,

for they are all connected with one another, and consequently the handful taken from one of them may be on behalf of either of those remaining, and it is not known on behalf of which one; therefore each of the two is subject to uncertainty, perhaps the handful was not offered on its behalf.

Rav Pappa raised an objection to him: And

if

its own remainder

of the part from which the handful was taken

is eaten,

even though the other two are not eaten [according to Rava when he took the handful from the first one, and according to Abaye in every case], why is it eaten,

for there is

indeed there is

a third

of

the handful that was not offered,

for the handful was offered on behalf of the three parts, and since it permits only two parts, one third of it remains, which is not considered a handful; if so, this is an incomplete handful, and how does it permit the remainder?

Rav Yitzhak, son of Rav Mesharsheya, raised an objection to him:

Before you raise a difficulty concerning the remainder, how it may be eaten, one may raise the difficulty—

and how is the handful itself offered

on the altar,

for there is

indeed there is

a third

of it that is

ordinary?

And we answer:

Rav Ashi said:

This is not a difficulty, because the taking of

the handful depends upon the intention of the koen

[the matter depends upon the intention of the koen],

and when the koen takes the handful

[when the koen takes the handful]

from one issaron

alone

he takes the handful!

That is, his intention is directed to one additional half besides the half from which he takes the handful, and consequently this handful lacks nothing. Rather, since it is not known toward which of them his intention was directed when taking the handful, neither of them is eaten.

Mishna:

If the handful became impure and they offered it,

the meal-offering is valid and its remainder is eaten, because

the tzitz effects acceptance

for offerings offered in a state of impurity.

If

the handful went outside the courtyard and became disqualified, and he then brought it back in

and offered it

on the altar,

the tzitz does not effect acceptance,

and the meal-offering is invalid.

For the tzitz effects acceptance for the impure, but it does not effect acceptance for that which went outside!

Gemara:

The Sages taught:

It is written concerning the tzitz: “And it shall be upon Aaron’s forehead

and Aaron shall bear the iniquity of the holy things.” And what iniquity does he bear?

That is to say, which disqualification is rendered fit by means of the tzitz?

If you say

that the tzitz atones for

the iniquity of pigul,

where he thought to eat the offering outside its place,

it has already been stated: “It shall not be reckoned”?

If you say

that the tzitz atones for

the iniquity of notar,

namely, the thought of notar, where he thought to eat the offering outside its time, after it would become notar,

it has already been stated: “It shall not be accepted”?

Then

necessarily

he does not bear

the tzitz

anything other than the iniquity of

impurity,

which is an iniquity lighter than the other disqualifications, in that

impurity was permitted

in its entirety

for the public,

for public offerings are offered even in a state of impurity. Therefore, in the case of an individual offering, even though impurity was not permitted with regard to it, the tzitz effects acceptance after the fact 117.

Rabbi Zeira raised an objection against this: Say

that the tzitz effects acceptance for

the iniquity of that which went outside,

which is an iniquity lighter than the others, and its leniency is in this,

that it was permitted in its entirety on a private altar,

for during the time when private altars were permitted, an individual offered wherever he wished, and there was no disqualification there of that which went outside?

And we answer:

Abaye said to him: The verse says

“and it shall be upon his forehead continually

for acceptance for them before the Lord,”

which indicates

an iniquity that is before the Lord,

that is, a disqualification which occurred in the Temple;

yes,

specifically this is what the tzitz effects acceptance for, but

the iniquity of that which went outside,

which occurred outside,

no,

the tzitz does not atone for it!

Rav Ilaa raised an objection against this: Say

that the tzitz effects acceptance for

the iniquity of the left hand,

for if the priest performed the service with the left hand, the offering is valid [even though initially the right hand is required], which is an iniquity lighter than the others, and its leniency is in this,

that it was permitted in its entirety on Yom Kippur,

for the High Priest takes the coal-pan of incense in the right hand and the spoon in the left?

And we answer:

Abaye said to him: The verse says

“And Aaron shall bear the

iniquity,”

and it indicates that it is speaking of

an iniquity which it had—

and I rejected it!

Such as impurity, for even in a place where it was permitted, there is an iniquity in it; it is merely rejected because of the honor of the public,

to exclude

the left hand, which in the place of its permission, namely on

Yom Kippur,

has no iniquity,

for they rendered it fit—

with the left hand!

For this is its mitzva on Yom Kippur initially 120.

Rav Ashi said:

It is therefore impossible to say that the tzitz effects acceptance for the iniquity of the left hand, for the verse says

“the iniquity of the holy things,”

that is, the disqualification is because of the offering,

and not the iniquity of those who offer,

for it was disqualified by the priests who performed the service with the left hand.

Rav Sima, son of Rav Idi, said to Rav Ashi. And some say, Rav Sima, son of Rav Ashi, said to Rav Ashi: Say

that the tzitz effects acceptance for

the iniquity of a blemished animal,

which is an iniquity lighter than the others, and its leniency is in this,

that it was permitted in its entirety in birds,

for even blemished birds were rendered fit for an offering?

For the Master said: “Wholeness and maleness”

were stated only

with regard to

an offering

of an animal,

that the offering should be whole and male [in the case of a burnt-offering],

but there is no wholeness and maleness with birds,

for blemished ones, and females [for a burnt-offering], are valid with them.

And we answer:

He said to him,

Rav Ashi:

The verse says concerning you: “It shall not be accepted,” “For it shall not be for acceptance for you”!

And these verses were stated concerning blemished animals, to say that the tzitz does not effect acceptance for them 121.

The Sages taught: The blood

of the offering

which became impure and they sprinkled it: If unwittingly, it effects acceptance

below it explains in what the unwittingness consisted—in the sprinkling or in the impurity

if intentionally, it does not effect acceptance.

When are these words said? In the case of an

individual

offering, but in the case of a

public

offering—

whether unwittingly or intentionally, it effects acceptance! And with regard to

offerings brought by

a gentile

and the blood became impure,

whether unwittingly or intentionally, whether under duress or willingly

[the difference between unwittingness and duress is that unwittingness means that he believes offerings do not contract impurity, whereas duress is that it became impure against his will; and between intentionality and willingness there is no difference]

it does not effect acceptance!

For the tzitz does not effect acceptance for the offerings of gentiles.