## Menachot Daf 25b

###### Menachot 25b:1
[Menachot 25b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/25b:1)

לֹא הוּרְצָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Menachot 25b:2
[Menachot 25b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/25b:2)

ורְמִינְהִי: עַל מָה הַצִּיץ מְרַצֶּה? עַל הַדָּם וְעַל הַבָּשָׂר וְעַל הַחֵלֶב שֶׁנִּטְמָא, בֵּין בְּשׁוֹגֵג בֵּין בְּמֵזִיד, בֵּין בְּאוֹנֶס בֵּין בְּרָצוֹן, בֵּין בְּיָחִיד בֵּין בְּצִיבּוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Menachot 25b:3
[Menachot 25b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/25b:3)

אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: לָא קַשְׁיָא, הָא רַבִּי יוֹסֵי, הָא רַבָּנַן. דְּתַנְיָא: אֵין תּוֹרְמִין מִן הַטָּמֵא עַל הַטָּהוֹר, וְאִם תָּרַם בְּשׁוֹגֵג – תְּרוּמָתוֹ תְּרוּמָה, בְּמֵזִיד – אֵין תְּרוּמָתוֹ תְּרוּמָה. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: בֵּין בְּשׁוֹגֵג בֵּין בְּמֵזִיד – תְּרוּמָתוֹ תְּרוּמָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Menachot 25b:4
[Menachot 25b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/25b:4)

אֵימַר דְּשָׁמְעַתְּ לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי דְּלָא קָנֵיס, דִּמְרַצֵּה צִיץ עַל אֲכִילוֹת מִי שָׁמְעַתְּ לֵיהּ? וְהָתַנְיָא: רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: הַצִּיץ מְרַצֶּה עַל אֲכִילוֹת, רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: אֵין הַצִּיץ מְרַצֶּה עַל אֲכִילוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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?**


###### Menachot 25b:5
[Menachot 25b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/25b:5)

אֵיפוֹךְ: רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: אֵין הַצִּיץ מְרַצֶּה עַל אֲכִילוֹת, רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: הַצִּיץ מְרַצֶּה עַל אֲכִילוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Menachot 25b:6
[Menachot 25b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/25b:6)

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: וּמִי מָצֵית אָפְכַתְּ לַהּ? וְהָתַנְיָא: יָכוֹל בָּשָׂר שֶׁנִּטְמָא לִפְנֵי זְרִיקַת דָּמִים יְהוּ חַיָּיבִין עֲלֵיהֶן מִשּׁוּם טוּמְאָה?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.**


###### Menachot 25b:7
[Menachot 25b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/25b:7)

תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״כׇּל טָהוֹר יֹאכַל בָּשָׂר״, ״וְהַנֶּפֶשׁ אֲשֶׁר תֹּאכַל בָּשָׂר מִזֶּבַח הַשְּׁלָמִים אֲשֶׁר לַה׳ וְטֻמְאָתוֹ עָלָיו וְנִכְרְתָה״, הַנִּיתָּר לִטְהוֹרִין חַיָּיבִין עָלָיו מִשּׁוּם טוּמְאָה,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Menachot 25b:8
[Menachot 25b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/25b:8)

וְשֶׁאֵינוֹ נִיתָּר לִטְהוֹרִין, אֵין חַיָּיבִין עָלָיו מִשּׁוּם טוּמְאָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Menachot 25b:9
[Menachot 25b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/25b:9)

אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא: נֶאֱכָל לִטְהוֹרִין – חַיָּיבִין עָלָיו מִשּׁוּם טוּמְאָה, וְשֶׁאֵינוֹ נֶאֱכָל לִטְהוֹרִין – אֵין חַיָּיבִין עָלָיו מִשּׁוּם טוּמְאָה, אוֹצִיא אֲנִי אֶת הַלָּן וְאֶת הַיּוֹצֵא, שֶׁאֵינָן נֶאֱכָלִין לִטְהוֹרִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Menachot 25b:10
[Menachot 25b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/25b:10)

תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אֲשֶׁר לַה׳״ – רִיבָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Menachot 25b:11
[Menachot 25b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/25b:11)

יָכוֹל שֶׁאֲנִי מְרַבֶּה אֶת הַפִּיגּוּלִין וְאֶת הַנּוֹתָרוֹת?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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*.**


###### Menachot 25b:12
[Menachot 25b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/25b:12)

נוֹתָרוֹת הַיְינוּ לָן, אֶלָּא אַף הַפִּיגּוּלִין כַּנּוֹתָרוֹת? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״מִזֶּבַח הַשְּׁלָמִים״ – מִיעֵט.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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*.


###### Menachot 25b:13
[Menachot 25b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/25b:13)

וּמָה רָאִיתָ לְרַבּוֹת אֶת אֵלּוּ וּלְהוֹצִיא אֶת אֵלּוּ? אַחַר שֶׁרִיבָּה הַכָּתוּב וּמִיעֵט, אָמַרְתָּ: מְרַבֶּה אֲנִי אֶת אֵלּוּ שֶׁהָיְתָה לָהֶן שְׁעַת הַכּוֹשֶׁר, וּמוֹצִיא אֲנִי אֶת אֵלּוּ שֶׁלֹּא הָיְתָה לָהֶן שְׁעַת הַכּוֹשֶׁר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Menachot 25b:14
[Menachot 25b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/25b:14)

וְאִם תֹּאמַר: בָּשָׂר שֶׁנִּטְמָא לִפְנֵי זְרִיקַת דָּמִים וַאֲכָלוֹ לְאַחַר זְרִיקַת דָּמִים, מִפְּנֵי מָה חַיָּיבִין עָלָיו מִשּׁוּם טוּמְאָה? מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהַצִּיץ מְרַצֶּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Menachot 25b:15
[Menachot 25b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/25b:15)

נִטְמָא – אִין, יוֹצֵא – לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Menachot 25b:16
[Menachot 25b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/25b:16)

מַאן שָׁמְעַתְּ לֵיהּ דְּאָמַר: ״אֵין זְרִיקָה מוֹעֶלֶת לַיּוֹצֵא״? רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, וְקָתָנֵי דִּמְרַצֵּה צִיץ עַל אֲכִילוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Menachot 25b:17
[Menachot 25b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/25b:17)

אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא, לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, הָא רַבָּנַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.**


###### Menachot 25b:18
[Menachot 25b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/25b:18)

אֵימַר דְּשָׁמְעַתְּ לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר דִּמְרַצֵּה צִיץ עַל אֲכִילוֹת, דְּלָא קָנֵיס מִי שָׁמְעַתְּ לֵיהּ? אִין, כִּי הֵיכִי דְּשָׁמְעַתְּ לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי, שָׁמְעַתְּ לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: בֵּין בְּשׁוֹגֵג בֵּין בְּמֵזִיד תְּרוּמָתוֹ תְּרוּמָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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*.**


###### Menachot 25b:19
[Menachot 25b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/25b:19)

אֵימַר דְּשָׁמְעַתְּ לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בִּתְרוּמָה דְּקִילָּא, בְּקָדָשִׁים דַּחֲמִירִי מִי שָׁמְעַתְּ לֵיהּ? אִם כֵּן, הָא אַמַּאן תִּרְמְיַיהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Menachot 25b:20
[Menachot 25b:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/25b:20)

רָבִינָא אָמַר: טוּמְאָתוֹ, בֵּין בְּשׁוֹגֵג בֵּין בְּמֵזִיד – הוּרְצָה; זְרִיקָתוֹ, בְּשׁוֹגֵג – הוּרְצָה, בְּמֵזִיד – לֹא הוּרְצָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Menachot 25b:21
[Menachot 25b:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/25b:21)

וְרַב שֵׁילָא אָמַר: זְרִיקָתוֹ, בֵּין בְּשׁוֹגֵג בֵּין בְּמֵזִיד – הוּרְצָה. טוּמְאָתוֹ, בְּשׁוֹגֵג – הוּרְצָה, בְּמֵזִיד – לֹא הוּרְצָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.**


###### Menachot 25b:22
[Menachot 25b:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/25b:22)

וּלְרַב שֵׁילָא, דְּקָתָנֵי: שֶׁנִּטְמָא בֵּין בְּשׁוֹגֵג בֵּין בְּמֵזִיד – הָכִי קָאָמַר: נִטְמָא בְּשׁוֹגֵג וּזְרָקוֹ, בֵּין בְּשׁוֹגֵג בֵּין בְּמֵזִיד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.