If the verse means that he bears the sin of piggul, it is already stated: “And if any of the flesh of his peace offerings be at all eaten on the third day, it shall not be accepted, neither shall it be credited to he who offers it” (Leviticus 7:18). If he bears the sin of notar, it is already stated in the same verse: “It shall not be accepted.”

Rather, the frontplate bears only the sin of impurity, whose general prohibition was permitted in cases involving the pub-lic. The verse indicates that the frontplate effects acceptance for individual offerings sacrificed in a state of ritual impurity.

The Gemara clarifies: What is the impurity borne by the frontplate? If we say that it effects acceptance for impurity due to a creeping animal, where does one find that the general prohibition was permitted in cases involving the public? Rather, it must be referring to impurity due to a corpse. And is it not referring to a case where the owner of the offerings became impure from a corpse? Evidently, if the owner became impure from a corpse, he may send his offerings for sacrifice, as the frontplate effects acceptance for them.

And to what offering is this statement referring? If it is referring to the offering of a nazirite, doesn’t the Merciful One state: “And if any man die very suddenly beside him, and he defile his consecrated head” (Numbers 6:9)? The passage indicates that even if a nazirite contracts impurity against his will, he still cannot bring his offerings until he is pure. Rather, it must be referring to one who performs the rite of the Paschal offering. This proves the claim of the Elders of the South that one who is impure due to a corpse may send his Paschal offering for sacrifice.

The Gemara responds: Actually, the statement is referring to impurity due to a creeping animal, not due to a corpse. And although the general prohibition with regard to impurity due to a creeping animal was not permitted in cases involving the public, nevertheless, one finds that the category of impurity in general was permitted in such cases.

The Gemara notes: And some infer the opposite and derive like this: The verse states of the frontplate: “And it shall be upon Aaron’s forehead, and Aaron shall bear the sin committed with the sacred items” (Exodus 28:38). That is, it does bear the iniquity of the sacred items, but it does not bear the iniquity of those who consecrate or sacrifice them, i.e., the owners of the offering or the priests involved in its sacrifice. And to what impurity is this verse referring? If we say that it is referring to impurity due to a creeping animal, is such impurity permitted in cases involving the public? Rather, is it not referring to impurity due to a corpse, and the verse indicates that the frontplate does bear the iniquity of the sacred items but does not bear the iniquity of those who consecrate them? This refutes the opinion of the Elders of the South that owners who are impure due to a corpse may send their offerings.

The Gemara responds: Actually, the verse is referring to impurity due to a creeping animal, and although the general prohibition with regard to impurity due to a creeping animal was not permitted in cases involving the public, the category of impurity in general was permitted in such cases.

§ The mishna teaches that a priest who is sitting disqualifies the rites that he performs. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this? Rava says that Rav Naḥman says: The verse states with regard to the priests: “For the Lord your God has chosen him out of all your tribes, to stand to minister” (Deuteronomy 18:5). The verse indicates that I have chosen him for standing and not for sitting.

The Sages taught: “To stand to minister,” indicates that there is a mitzva to perform the service while standing. When it says: “Then he shall minister in the name of the Lord his God, as all his brethren the Levites do, who stand there before the Lord” (Deuteronomy 18:7), the verse repeats the matter to invalidate rites that are performed while not standing.

Rava said to Rav Naḥman: Now, one who is sitting is considered like a non-priest and desecrates the service. Therefore, I will say: Just as a non-priest who performs a rite is liable to receive death at the hand of Heaven, so too one who is sitting should be liable to receive death at the hand of Heaven. If so, why is it taught in a baraita: But one who is uncircumcised, an acute mourner, and one who is sitting are not liable to receive death at the hand of Heaven if they performed rites; rather, they simply transgress a prohibition?

The Gemara responds: That is taught because the case of a priest lacking the requisite priestly vestments and that of one whose hands and feet are not washed are two verses that come as one, as the verse states explicitly for each case that if they perform rites they are liable to receive death at the hand of Heaven.