## Yoma Daf 7a

###### Yoma 7a:1
[Yoma 7a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/7a:1)

דְּכֹל טוּמְאַת מֵת בְּצִיבּוּר רַחֲמָנָא שַׁרְיַיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**as** in **all** situations **of impurity** imparted **by corpses** in cases involving **the public, the Merciful One permits** those who are impure to perform the Temple service.


###### Yoma 7a:2
[Yoma 7a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/7a:2)

אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: מְנָא אָמֵינָא לַהּ, דְּתַנְיָא: הָיָה עוֹמֵד וּמַקְרִיב מִנְחַת הָעוֹמֶר וְנִטְמֵאת בְּיָדוֹ, אוֹמֵר וּמְבִיאִין אַחֶרֶת תַּחְתֶּיהָ. וְאִם אֵין שָׁם אֶלָּא הִיא, אוֹמְרִין לוֹ: הֱוֵי פִּקֵּחַ וּשְׁתוֹק.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara analyzes the rationale behind the two opinions. **Rav Sheshet said: From where do I** derive to **say** that impurity is overridden in cases involving the public? It is **as it was taught** in a *baraita*: If a priest **was standing and sacrificing the *omer* meal-offering and it became impure in his hand,** the priest, who was aware of what transpired, **says** that it is impure and the priests **bring another** meal-offering **in its stead. And if** the meal-offering in his hand is **the only** meal-offering available **there, the** other priests **say to him: Be shrewd and keep silent;** do not tell anyone that it is impure.


###### Yoma 7a:3
[Yoma 7a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/7a:3)

קָתָנֵי מִיהַת אוֹמֵר וּמְבִיאִין אַחֶרֶת תַּחְתֶּיהָ! אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: מוֹדֵינָא הֵיכָא דְּאִיכָּא שִׁירַיִים לַאֲכִילָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**In any case, it is teaching that he says** that it is impure and the priests **bring another** meal-offering **in its place.** Apparently, when it is possible to perform the service in a state of purity, even in cases involving the public, it is preferable to do so, and the prohibition of ritual impurity is not permitted. **Rav Naḥman** rejected the proof and **said: I concede** that in a case **where there are remnants** of the offering designated **for eating** it must be performed in purity wherever possible. Although it is permitted to sacrifice an offering when impure, the mitzva to eat portions of the offering must be performed in a state of purity. Therefore, in cases where portions of the offering are eaten, the preference is to sacrifice the offering in a state of purity.


###### Yoma 7a:4
[Yoma 7a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/7a:4)

מֵיתִיבִי: הָיָה מַקְרִיב מִנְחַת פָּרִים וְאֵילִים וּכְבָשִׂים, וְנִטְמֵאת בְּיָדוֹ, אוֹמֵר וּמְבִיאִין אַחֶרֶת תַּחְתֶּיהָ. וְאִם אֵין שָׁם אֶלָּא הִיא, אוֹמְרִין לוֹ: הֱוֵי פִּקֵּחַ וּשְׁתוֹק.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara **raises an objection** to the opinion of Rav Naḥman from the *Tosefta*: If a priest **was sacrificing the meal-offering** accompanying the sacrifice of **bulls, rams, or sheep, and** the meal-offering **became impure in his hand,** the priest **says** that it is impure **and** the priests **bring another** meal**-**offering **in its stead. And if** the meal-offering in his hand is **the only** meal-offering available **there, the** other priests **say to him: Be shrewd and keep silent;** do not tell anyone that it is impure.


###### Yoma 7a:5
[Yoma 7a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/7a:5)

מַאי לָאו, פָּרִים אֵילִים וּכְבָשִׂים דְּחַג!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**What, is it not** referring to the **bulls, rams, and sheep** of **the festival** of *Sukkot*, which are communal offerings that are not eaten? Apparently, even in cases of communal offerings, the priests seek to perform the service in a state of purity and the prohibition of impurity is not permitted but merely overridden.


###### Yoma 7a:6
[Yoma 7a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/7a:6)

אָמַר לְךָ רַב נַחְמָן: לָא: פָּרִים — פַּר עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, אַף עַל גַּב דְּצִיבּוּר הוּא, כֵּיוָן דְּלָא קְבִיעַ לֵיהּ זְמַן — מַהְדְּרִינַן. אֵילִים — בְּאֵילוֹ שֶׁל אַהֲרֹן, דְּאַף עַל גַּב דִּקְבִיעַ לֵיהּ זְמַן, כֵּיוָן דְּיָחִיד הוּא — מְהַדְּרִינַן. כְּבָשִׂים — בְּכֶבֶשׂ הַבָּא עִם הָעוֹמֶר, דְּאִיכָּא שִׁירַיִים לַאֲכִילָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Naḥman** could have **said to you: No,** the **bulls** mentioned in the *Tosefta* are not standard communal offerings. Rather, the reference is to the **bull** sacrificed when the entire community engages in **idolatry** unwittingly. **Although** this offering is a **communal** offering, **since it has no** specific **time fixed** for its sacrifice, **we seek out** a pure meal-offering in its stead.
Similarly, **the rams** mentioned in the *Tosefta* are not additional offerings of the Festival. Rather, the reference is to the **ram of Aaron** sacrificed on Yom Kippur. **Although it has a** specific **time fixed** for its sacrifice, **since** it is an offering brought **by an individual,** the High Priest, **we seek out** a pure meal-offering in its stead, as service in a state of impurity is permitted only for communal offerings.
**The sheep** mentioned are not those for the daily offerings or the additional offerings of the Festival. Rather, the reference is to **the sheep that accompanies the *omer*** meal-offering, as in that case, **there are remnants** designated **for eating.** Therefore, the meal-offering must be offered in purity.


###### Yoma 7a:7
[Yoma 7a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/7a:7)

מֵיתִיבִי: דָּם שֶׁנִּטְמָא וּזְרָקוֹ, בְּשׁוֹגֵג — הוּרְצָה, בְּמֵזִיד — לֹא הוּרְצָה. כִּי תַּנְיָא הָהִיא דְּיָחִיד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara **raises an** additional **objection** to the opinion of Rav Naḥman: With regard to **blood that became impure and** a priest **sprinkled it** on the altar, if he did so **unwittingly,** the offering is **accepted.** If he sprinkled the blood **intentionally,** the offering is **not accepted.** Apparently, even in cases involving the public, performing service in the Temple in a state of impurity is not permitted. This objection is rejected: **When that** *baraita* **was taught,** it was with regard to the offering of an **individual,** where the prohibition of impurity is certainly in effect.


###### Yoma 7a:8
[Yoma 7a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/7a:8)

תָּא שְׁמַע: עַל מָה הַצִּיץ מְרַצֶּה, עַל הַדָּם וְעַל הַבָּשָׂר וְעַל הַחֵלֶב שֶׁנִּטְמָא, בֵּין בְּשׁוֹגֵג בֵּין בְּמֵזִיד, בֵּין בְּאוֹנֶס בֵּין בְּרָצוֹן, בֵּין בְּיָחִיד בֵּין בְּצִיבּוּר. וְאִי סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ טוּמְאָה הֶיתֵּר הִיא בְּצִיבּוּר — לְמָה לִי לְרַצּוֹיֵי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara continues: **Come** and **hear** a different argument based on that which was taught in a *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** it became impure **unwittingly or whether** it became impure **intentionally, whether** it was **due to** circumstances **beyond his control or whether** it was done **willfully, whether** it was **in** the framework of **an individual** offering **or whether it was in** the framework of **a communal** offering. **And if it enters your mind** that **impurity is permitted in** cases involving **the public, why do I** need the frontplate to **effect acceptance?** If the prohibition of impurity is permitted, no pardon is necessary.


###### Yoma 7a:9
[Yoma 7a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/7a:9)

אָמַר לְךָ רַב נַחְמָן: כִּי קָתָנֵי ״הַצִּיץ מְרַצֶּה״ אַדְּיָחִיד. וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא בְּצִיבּוּר, בְּהָנָךְ דְּלָא קְבִיעַ לָהּ זְמַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds that **Rav Naḥman** could have **said to you: When** the *baraita* **teaches** that **the frontplate effects acceptance** it is not referring to the entire list of items cited in the *baraita*; it is referring to **an individual** offering brought in impurity, not to a communal offering. The communal offering is mentioned only in the sense that in that case too, impurity is permitted, albeit for a different reason. Or **if you wish, say** instead: **Even** if **you say** that the frontplate effects acceptance for a **communal** offering, it is only for **those** offerings that **lack a fixed time.** Rav Naḥman concedes that with regard to those communal offerings that have no specific time fixed for their sacrifice, the prohibition of performing the service in impurity remains in effect and requires the acceptance effected by the frontplate.


###### Yoma 7a:10
[Yoma 7a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/7a:10)

מֵיתִיבִי: ״וְנָשָׂא אַהֲרֹן אֶת עֲוֹן הַקֳּדָשִׁים״, וְכִי אֵיזֶה עָוֹן הוּא נוֹשֵׂא? אִם עֲוֹן פִּיגּוּל — הֲרֵי כְּבָר נֶאֱמַר: ״לֹא יֵרָצֶה״, וְאִם עֲוֹן נוֹתָר — הֲרֵי כְּבָר נֶאֱמַר: ״לֹא יֵחָשֵׁב״,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara **raises an objection.** It is stated: **“And Aaron will gain forgiveness for the sin committed in the sacred things** that the children of Israel shall hallow in all their sacred gifts, and it shall be always upon his forehead that they may be accepted favorably before the Lord” (Exodus 28:38). **And for which sin does** the frontplate **gain forgiveness? If** it is for **the sin of *piggul*,** an offering disqualified by the intention to sacrifice or eat it after the permitted time, **it has already been stated:** “And if it is eaten at all on the third day, it is *piggul*; **it shall not be accepted”** (Leviticus 19:7). There is no acceptance of an offering that became *piggul*. **And if it is** for **the sin of *notar*,** meat of an offering left after the permitted time for eating it passed, **it has already been stated:** “And if any of the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace-offerings is eaten on the third day, it shall not be accepted, **neither shall it be credited** to he who offered it” (Leviticus 7:18).