סקר
כמה לומדי דף יומי יש במשפחתך הקרובה?






 

Steinsaltz

But if he sprinkled the blood intentionally, the offering is not accepted. In what case is this statement said? It is with regard to the offering of an individual. But with regard to the offering of the community, whether the priest sprinkled the blood unwittingly or he did so intentionally, the offering is accepted. And in the case of the offerings of gentiles, whether he sprinkled the blood unwittingly or he did so intentionally, the offering is not accepted.

The Sages said before Rav Pappa: In accordance with whose opinion was this baraita taught? Apparently, it was taught not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, as if it reflects the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, there is a difficulty: Doesn’t Rabbi Yosei say: I see the logic of the opinion that in all of these cases it is correct to be stringent about the offerings of gentiles? This indicates that Rabbi Yosei equates the halakhot applying to the offerings of gentiles with those governing the offerings of Jews.

Rav Pappa said to them: You may even say that the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, and it is different there, as the verse states with regard to the High Priest’s frontplate, which atones for ritual impurity contracted by offerings in the Temple without the knowledge of those offering them: “And it shall be always upon his forehead that it may be accepted for them before the Lord” (Exodus 28:38), which indicates that it is accepted for them, i.e., for Jews, but not for gentiles.

Rav Huna, son of Rav Natan, said to Rav Pappa: If that is so, with regard to the verse discussing ritually impure priests and consecrated items: “That they separate themselves from the sacred items of the children of Israel, which they consecrate to Me” (Leviticus 22:2), so too, would Rabbi Yosei say that the prohibition against eating consecrated items in a state of ritual impurity applies only to offerings which they, the Jews, consecrate, and not to those of gentiles? This cannot be, as Rabbi Yosei explicitly states in the baraita that in this regard the offerings of gentiles are like those of Jews.

Rather, Rav Ashi says that it is not from the words “for them” that one derives that the offering of a gentile is not accepted when the blood that was sprinkled had become impure. Rather, it is because the atonement achieved by way of the High Priest’s frontplate does not apply to gentiles, as the verse states: “That it may be accepted for them before the Lord” (Exodus 28:38), and gentiles are not subject to the acceptance of offerings.

MISHNA: Even with regard to those items enumerated in the previous mishna (42b) for which one is not liable for eating them due to violation of the prohibition of piggul, e.g., the handful, the frankincense, and the incense, one is, nevertheless, liable for eating them due to violation of the prohibition of notar, and due to violation of the prohibition against eating consecrated food while ritually impure, except for the blood. Rabbi Shimon deems one liable for an item whose typical manner is such that one eats it. But with regard to the wood, the frankincense, and the incense, one is not liable for eating them due to violation of the prohibition against eating a consecrated item while ritually impure.

GEMARA: The Sages taught in a baraita: It might have been thought that one should be liable due to violation of the prohibition against eating consecrated food while in a state of ritual impurity only for an item that has permitting factors, either for consumption by a person or for burning on the altar.

The baraita explains: And this may be derived via a logical derivation: Just as with regard to piggul, which renders one who unwittingly eats it liable to bring a fixed sin offering, and this liability is incurred with one change in his awareness, i.e., it suffices for the sinner to become aware after the fact that he had sinned unwittingly, and it has no permitted exceptions from its general prohibition, as there are no circumstances in which one is permitted to eat piggul, and yet one is liable due to violation of the prohibition against eating piggul only for an item that has permitting factors, either for consumption by a person or for burning on the altar, so too, the same should certainly apply to the more lenient case of ritual impurity.

The Gemara elaborates: Impurity is more lenient than piggul, as it renders the unwitting sinner liable only to bring a sliding-scale offering, which varies according to his financial circumstances: A poor person brings a bird offering or even a meal offering (see Leviticus 5:6–13). And liability is incurred only with two changes in his awareness, i.e., when the sinner was aware of his impurity beforehand, then forgot about it at the time of his sin, and then once again become aware of his impurity. And it has permitted exceptions from its general prohibition with regard to the community, as it is permitted to sacrifice communal offerings in the Temple in a state of impurity. With these leniencies in mind, is it not right that one should be liable due to violation of the prohibition against eating consecrated food while ritually impure only for an item that has permitting factors, either for a person or for the altar.

Therefore, the verse states, with regard to eating consecrated foods in a state of ritual impurity: “That they separate themselves from the sacred items of the children of Israel, which they consecrate to Me, and that they do not profane My holy name” (Leviticus 22:2). This teaches that a ritually impure person is liable for eating any item that has been consecrated.

One might have thought that one is liable for eating sacred items immediately after they have been consecrated. Therefore, the verse states: “Whoever he is of all your seed among your generations that approaches the sacred items” (Leviticus 22:3), and Rabbi Elazar said, in explanation of this verse: But is there one who merely touches, i.e., approaches, consecrated items, who is liable? Only one who eats consecrated food while in a state of ritual impurity is liable.

Rather, what is the meaning when the verse states: “Approaches [yikrav]”? This term alludes to sacrificing [hakrava], as though the verse has stated: Whoever sacrifices sacred items and eats them. This teaches that the verse is speaking of flesh that has been rendered fit to be sacrificed. How so? With regard to an item that has permitting factors, one is liable from when the permitting factors are sacrificed. In the case of an item that does not have permitting factors, one is liable from when it is sanctified in a service vessel for the purpose of its sacrifice.

The Gemara asks: We have found proof that the prohibition against eating consecrated food in a state of ritual impurity applies even to an item that does not have a permitting factor. From where do we derive that notar likewise applies to an item that does not have a permitting factor? The Gemara answers: This is derived through a verbal analogy between profanation stated in the context of notar and profanation stated in the context of ritual impurity. With regard to notar the verse states: “Because he has profaned the sacred item of the Lord” (Leviticus 19:8), and with regard to impurity the verse states: “And that they do not profane My holy name” (Leviticus 22:2).

The Gemara challenges: But let the halakha of notar be derived through a verbal analogy between “iniquity” stated in the context of notar and “iniquity” stated in the context of piggul. With regard to piggul, the verse states: “It shall be piggul, and the soul that eats of it shall bear his iniquity” (Leviticus 7:18), and with regard to leftover sacrificial meat the verse states: “Therefore anyone who eats it shall bear his iniquity” (Leviticus 19:8). If so, the halakha of notar should be similar to that of piggul, for which one is liable only for an item that has a permitting factor.

The Gemara answers that it is more reasonable to derive notar from ritual impurity, for several reasons, as indicated by the mnemonic: Gimmel, zayin, lamed. Both notar and impurity are disqualifications that apply to the body [guf ] of the offering itself, whereas piggul is caused by intent; unlike piggul, these two disqualifications are not determined by the sprinkling [zerika] of the blood, and in both cases the Torah uses the term profanation [ḥillul ].

The Gemara responds: On the contrary, it is more reasonable to derive notar from piggul, as like piggul it does not have permitted exceptions from its general prohibition, it has no atonement through the High Priest’s frontplate, both notar and piggul apply to a ritually pure offering, these disqualifications are dependent on time, and both of them are disqualifications of the item being sacrificed, not the priest performing the service. None of these features are true of ritual impurity. And these reasons for comparing notar to piggul are more numerous.

Rather, the halakha of notar is derived from that which Levi taught with regard to the verse: “That they separate themselves from the sacred items of the children of Israel, which they consecrate to Me, and that they do not profane My holy name” (Leviticus 22:2), which is referring to the eating of consecrated food in a state of ritual impurity. As Levi taught: From where is it derived that the verse is speaking even of a disqualification caused by time, and not only ritual impurity? The verse states profanation elsewhere: “And they shall not profane the sacred items of the children of Israel” (Leviticus 22:15).

Talmud - Bavli - The William Davidson digital edition of the Koren No=C3=A9 Talmud
with commentary by Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz Even-Israel (CC-BY-NC 4.0)
אדם סלומון
© כל הזכויות שמורות לפורטל הדף היומי | אודות | צור קשר | הוספת תכנים | רשימת תפוצה | הקדשה | תרומות | תנאי שימוש באתר | מפת האתר