Yoma 7a — the Talmud in English

And because he holds that

all impurity imparted by a corpse in the communal offering is

permitted by the Torah

completely.

Rav Sheshet said: From where do I say this, that impurity is only deferred in a communal offering?

that impurity is only permitted in a communal offering when unavoidable?

From this:

as it was taught in a beraita, a tannaitic source not included in the Mishna: If one was standing and offering the omer offering, and

the meal-offering became impure

while it was in his hand, he says, and they bring

an undefiled meal-offering

another,

to offer it

in its place [unclear: the source reads “תח תיה”].

And if there is no

other prepared meal-offering

besides this one,

he may offer it in a state of impurity, since it is a communal offering and a communal offering overrides impurity.

However,

they say to

the priest offering it:

Be discerning, and remain silent [so that those who see him will not say that even an individual’s meal-offering may be offered in a state of impurity; Rashi, Menachot 72a, based on the commentary of the Shita Mekubetzet there].

In any event, it teaches

that if it is possible,

he says, and they bring another in its place

to offer it in purity. This proves that, initially, we make every effort to perform the offering in purity.

Rav Naḥman said:

This cannot be proved from here with regard to all communal offerings. For even if we say that impurity is completely permitted, nevertheless

I concede that where there are remnants intended to be eaten,

since it is explicitly stated in the Mishna in tractate Pesaḥim that a communal offering offered in impurity may not be eaten in impurity.

Therefore, with regard to offerings of which a portion is intended to be eaten, it is certainly proper to make an effort to offer them in purity, so that the mitzva of eating them can be fulfilled.

This is not so with burnt-offerings, all of which are burned on the altar. There is no need to seek purity for them, since impurity is completely permitted with regard to them.

They raise an objection from a source to

Rav Naḥman:

If one was offering the meal-offering of bulls, rams, and sheep, and it became impure

the meal-offering

while it was in his hand, he says, and they bring

an undefiled meal-offering

another in its place.

And if there is no

other meal-offering

besides this one,

he offers it in impurity. And

they say to him: Be discerning, and remain silent.

Is it not

the libation meal-offering brought with

the bulls, rams, and sheep

which are the additional offerings

of the Festival

that we are discussing here?

This meal-offering is entirely burned on the altar, and it has no remnants intended to be eaten. Nevertheless, it is explicitly stated that initially another undefiled one is brought in its place. This is

a conclusive refutation of Rav Naḥman. Rav Naḥman could say to you: No:

not as the questioner said, that we are discussing the libation meal-offering of the additional offerings. Rather, in fact, if this meal-offering becomes impure, he offers it initially. The meal-offering that we learned about in the beraita is the meal-offering of

bulls,

that is to say,

the bull

that is a burnt-offering

for idolatry.

For if the court mistakenly issued a ruling permitting idolatry and the community acted on the basis of that ruling, they bring a bull as a burnt-offering and a goat as a sin-offering, and the burnt-offering bull requires libations.

And this offering,

even though it is

an offering

for the community,

nevertheless, it does not have the status of overriding [Shabbat and] impurity like other communal offerings, since only offerings whose time is fixed override Shabbat and impurity. Therefore,

since its time is not fixed, we make every effort

to perform it in purity, like other individual offerings.

And the reason he brings it in impurity when he has no other one is that even an individual offering that became impure is not invalid after the fact, because the frontplate effects acceptance for the sin of offering an impure sacrifice.

And

rams,

which the beraita teaches about, refers

to the ram of

Aaron

on Yom Kippur, which is also a burnt-offering and requires libations.

And it is in this case that we make every effort to maintain purity,

for even though its time is fixed,

and it overrides Shabbat and impurity, like other communal offerings whose time is fixed, nevertheless

since it is an

offering

for an individual, we make every effort

to perform it in purity.

And

sheep,

which the beraita taught about, refers

to the sheep brought with the omer offering,

and the meal-offering is the omer meal-offering, which is not entirely burned on the altar; rather, a handful is removed from it. And since

there are remnants intended to be eaten,

Rav Naḥman concedes that we make every effort to perform it in purity.

They raise an objection from a source: The blood

of an offering

that became impure, and they sprinkled it—

if

it was done unintentionally, the offering is accepted,

and its meat may be eaten.

And if

it was done intentionally, the offering is not accepted,

and the meat is not permitted to be eaten. This is because we penalize him: although the owners achieve atonement because the frontplate effects acceptance, nevertheless the meat may not be eaten.

And now we raise this objection: According to the one who says that impurity is completely permitted, why should he be penalized? It is permitted.

And we answer:

when that teaching was stated, it was referring to an offering

that is

an individual offering,

which is valid only because the frontplate effects acceptance. This applies only after the fact, and therefore we penalize him when he acts intentionally.

Come and hear a proof: For what does the frontplate effect acceptance?

For blood, meat, and sacrificial fat that became impure—whether unintentionally or intentionally, whether under duress or willingly, whether belonging to an individual offering or to a communal offering.

And if it enters your mind

that

impurity is permitted with regard to communal offerings, why do I need the frontplate to effect acceptance?

After all, it is not a sin at all.

Rav Naḥman could say to you:

In fact, we must say that the communal offering mentioned here was mentioned only with regard to the offering’s validity. Even without the frontplate’s acceptance, it is valid.

And

when it teaches that the frontplate effects acceptance, it refers to

the offerings

offerings

of an individual,

with regard to which the offering is accepted only through the frontplate’s acceptance.

And if you wish, I could say: even say

that the beraita is to be understood literally, namely, that the frontplate’s acceptance is needed even

for communal offerings;

it can be established as referring to

those

communal offerings

whose time is not fixed,

whose status with regard to impurity is like that of an individual offering, and which are valid only through the frontplate’s acceptance.

They raise an objection from a source:

It is stated in the verse in the passage concerning the frontplate: “It shall be on Aaron’s forehead

and Aaron shall bear the iniquity of the sacred offerings

for acceptance for them before the Lord.’”

And what iniquity

of the sacred offerings

does it bear,

so as to render the offering valid?

If

we interpret the verse as referring to

the iniquity of an offering rendered piggul,

where he had the intention during its sacrificial service to eat it outside its designated place—

it has already been stated: “

It is piggul;

it shall not be accepted,”

and in tractate Zevaḥim we established that this verse refers to an intention to eat it outside its designated place.

And if

when he had an intention concerning it outside its designated time, which is

the iniquity of notar, it has already been stated: “

The one who offers it

shall not regard it as valid.”