Yoma 7a (ז.) — the Talmud in English

And because he holds

that all corpse impurity in communal offerings—

the Torah permits it

entirely.

Rav Sheshet said: From where do I say

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

From this:

As it was taught in a baraita: If one was standing and offering the omer meal-offering, and

the meal-offering became impure

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

another pure meal-offering

in its place,

to offer it

in its place [unclear: the wording is corrupt, but evidently means “in its place”].

And if there is no

other meal-offering ready

except this one,

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

Rather,

they say to him

the priest performing the offering:

Be discerning and remain silent [to prevent those who see this from saying that even an individual’s meal-offering may be offered in a state of impurity; Rashi, Menahot 72a, based on the Shita Mekubetzet there].

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 it in purity.

Rav Naḥman said:

This cannot be proved with regard to all communal offerings. For even if we say that impurity is an absolute permission, nevertheless,

I concede that where there are remnants for eating.

For it is explicitly stated in the Mishna in Pesaḥim that a communal offering offered in a state of impurity may not be eaten in impurity.

Therefore, with regard to offerings from which there is a portion designated for eating, it is certainly proper to make every effort to offer them in purity, so that the mitzva of eating them can be fulfilled.

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

Meytivi

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

a pure meal-offering

another in its place.

And if there is no

other meal-offering

except this one,

he offers it in impurity. And

they say to him: Be discerning and remain silent.

Is it not so

that we are dealing with the meal-offering of the libations that accompany

bulls, rams, and sheep,

which are the additional offerings

of the festival

here?

And this meal-offering is entirely burned on the altar, with no remnants designated for eating. Nevertheless, it is explicitly stated that initially they bring another pure one in its place, and this is a refutation of Rav Naḥman.

Rav Naḥman could say to you: No

it is not as the questioner said, that we are dealing with the meal-offering of the additional offerings’ libations. Rather, this meal-offering may indeed be offered initially if it becomes impure. And the meal-offering mentioned in the baraita is the meal-offering of

bulls,

namely,

the bull

of the burnt-offering

for idolatry.

If the court erred in its ruling concerning idolatry and the people acted on the basis of its ruling, they bring a bull for a burnt-offering and a goat for a sin-offering, and the bull of the burnt-offering requires libations.

And this offering,

even though

it is an offering

of the community,

is not subject to the law that it overrides [Shabbat and] impurity like other communal offerings. 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 offerings of an individual.

And the reason he offers it in impurity when he has no other one is that even an individual’s offering that became impure is not disqualified after the fact, because the tzitz effects acceptance for the sin of offering an impure offering.

And

the rams

mentioned in the baraita are referring

to the ram of

Aaron

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

It is with regard to this that we make every effort to ensure purity,

even though its time is fixed,

and it overrides Shabbat and impurity, as do other communal offerings whose time is fixed. Nevertheless,

since

the offering

is an individual offering, we make every effort

to perform it in purity.

And

the sheep

mentioned in the baraita refer

to the sheep brought with the omer,

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

there are remnants designated for eating,

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

Meytivi: The blood

of an offering

that became impure, and one sprinkled it—

if

he did so unwittingly, acceptance is effected

for the offering, and the meat may be eaten.

But if

he did so intentionally, acceptance is not effected,

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

The Gemara now raises an objection: According to the one who says that impurity is entirely permitted in a communal offering, why should he be penalized? It is permitted.

And we answer:

When that baraita was taught,

it was referring to an offering

of an individual,

which is valid only because the tzitz effects acceptance, and this applies only after the fact. Therefore, he is penalized if he acted intentionally.

Ta shma: For what does the tzitz effect acceptance?

For the blood, the meat, and the fat that became impure, whether unwittingly or intentionally, whether through circumstances beyond one’s control or willingly, whether belonging to an individual or to the community.

And if it enters your mind

that

impurity is a permission in the case of a communal offering, why do I need the tzitz to effect acceptance?

After all, it is not a sin at all.

Rav Naḥman could say to you:

Actually, we must say that the community mentioned here was mentioned only with regard to the offering’s validity. Even without the tzitz effecting acceptance, it is valid.

And

when it teaches, “the tzitz effects acceptance”—

with regard to

offerings

of an individual,

for which it effects acceptance only through the tzitz.

And if you wish, I could say

that the baraita is to be understood literally, and that the tzitz is required to effect acceptance even

for a communal offering.

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’s offering, and which are valid only through the tzitz effecting acceptance.

Meytivi:

It is stated in the verse in the passage concerning the tzitz: “It shall be upon Aaron’s forehead,”

and Aaron shall bear the sin of the sacred offerings

“so that they may find favor before the Lord.”

And what sin

of the sacred offerings

does he bear

in order to render them valid?

If

we interpret the verse as referring to the

sin of piggul,

when he formed an intention during his service to eat it outside its designated place—

it has already been stated: “It is piggul;

It is piggul;

it shall not be accepted,”

and in tractate Zevaḥim we established this verse as referring to an intention involving the wrong place.

And if

it refers to forming an intention concerning the wrong time, which is

the sin of notar, it has already been stated: “He who offers it

The one who offers it

shall not intend.”