רבנן סברי הציץ מרצה על אכילות ורבי יהודה סבר אין הציץ מרצה על אכילות

The Rabbis hold that the frontplate effects acceptance for items that are normally consumed by the priests but have become ritually impure. Consequently, the sprinkling of the blood in this case is an entirely valid act that is capable of rendering the remaining pure loaf permitted for consumption. And Rabbi Yehuda holds that the frontplate does not effect acceptance for items that are consumed by the priests and have become impure. Accordingly, the sprinkling of the blood is ineffective in rendering the remaining pure loaf permitted for consumption.

אמר ליה רב הונא בריה דרב נתן לרב פפא והא עולין דהציץ מרצה על העולין ופליגי

Rav Huna, son of Rav Natan, said to Rav Pappa: Can this be the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis? But what about items that normally ascend upon the altar? Even Rabbi Yehuda concedes that the frontplate effects acceptance for impure items that normally ascend the altar, and Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis nevertheless disagree with regard to the remaining item in a case of this kind.

דתניא נטמא אחד מן הבזיכין רבי יהודה אומר שניהם יעשו בטומאה לפי שאין קרבן ציבור חלוק וחכמים אומרים הטמא בטומאתו והטהור בטהרתו

The Gemara provides the source for this claim. As it is taught in a baraita:

If one of the bowls of frankincense accompanying the shewbread, which are meant to be burned upon the altar, became impure, Rabbi Yehuda says that the rites of both of them may be performed in impurity, i. e., the priest may even render the second bowl impure and burn both of them together, as no communal offering is divided, and the mitzva to sacrifice communal offerings overrides the prohibition against rendering them impure. And the Rabbis say: The impure one remains in its state of impurity and the pure one remains in its state of purity. Evidently, their dispute does not depend on whether the frontplate effects acceptance.

ועוד אמר רב אשי תא שמע רבי יהודה אומר אפילו שבט אחד טמא וכל השבטים טהורין יעשו בטומאה לפי שאין קרבנות ציבור חלוק והכא מאי הציץ מרצה איכא

And furthermore, Rav Ashi said: Come and hear an additional proof that the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis does not concern the frontplate, as we learn in a mishna ( Pesaḥim 80a) with regard to the consumption of the Paschal offering in a state of impurity, that Rabbi Yehuda says: Even if one tribe is ritually impure and all the rest of the tribes are pure, all the tribes may perform the rite of the Paschal offering in a state of impurity, as no communal offerings are divided. Rav Ashi explains: But here, what relevance is there to the question of whether the frontplate effects acceptance? The frontplate effects acceptance for offerings that have become impure; but it does not render it permitted for one who is ritually impure to sacrifice an offering.

ועוד האמר רבינא תא שמע נטמאת אחת מן החלות או אחת מן הסדרין רבי יהודה אומר שניהם יצאו לבית השריפה לפי שאין קרבן ציבור חלוק וחכמים אומרים הטמא בטומאתו והטהור יאכל

And furthermore, doesn’t Ravina say: Come and hear a proof that the matter of the frontplate cannot be the subject of the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis, as the mishna teaches: If one of the two loaves brought on Shavuot or one of the two arrangements of shewbread became ritually impure, Rabbi Yehuda says: Both must be taken to the place of burning, as no communal offering is divided. And the Rabbis say: The impure one remains in its impurity and the pure one may be eaten.

ואם איתא לפי שאין הציץ מרצה על אכילות מיבעי ליה אלא אמר רבי יוחנן תלמוד ערוך הוא בפיו של רבי יהודה שאין קרבן ציבור חלוק

The Gemara explains the difficulty: And if it is so, i. e., that the dispute between them concerns the frontplate, then Rabbi Yehuda should have said: They are both burned, because the frontplate does not effect acceptance for impure items that are consumed by the priests. Rather, Rabbi Yoḥanan says: It is a settled tradition in the mouth of Rabbi Yehuda that no communal offering is divided, and if one part of an offering becomes impure, the entire offering is disqualified.

מתני׳ התודה מפגלת את הלחם והלחם אינו מפגל את התודה כיצד שחט את התודה לאכול ממנה למחר היא והלחם מפוגלין לאכול מן הלחם למחר הלחם מפוגל והתודה אינה מפוגלת

MISHNA: The thanks offering renders the accompanying loaves piggul but the loaves do not render the thanks offering piggul. How so? If one slaughtered the thanks offering, which may be consumed only during the day it is slaughtered and the night thereafter, with the intent to partake of it the next day, the offering and the accompanying loaves are rendered piggul. If he slaughtered it with the intent to partake of the loaves the next day, the loaves are rendered piggul and the thanks offering is not piggul.

הכבשים מפגלין את הלחם והלחם אינו מפגל את הכבשים כיצד השוחט את הכבשים לאכול מהן למחר הם והלחם מפוגלין לאכול את הלחם למחר הלחם מפוגל והכבשים אינן מפוגלין

Likewise, the lambs sacrificed with the two loaves meal offering on Shavuot render the accompanying loaves piggul, but the loaves do not render the lambs piggul. How so? If one slaughtered the lambs, which may be consumed only during the day they are slaughtered and the night thereafter, with the intent to partake of them the next day, the lambs and the accompanying loaves are rendered piggul. If he did so with the intent to partake of the loaves the next day, the loaves are rendered piggul and the lambs are not piggul.

גמ׳ מאי טעמא אילימא משום דרב כהנא דאמר רב כהנא מנין ללחמי תודה שנקראו תודה שנאמר והקריב על זבח התודה חלות

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What is the reason that a thanks offering renders its accompanying loaves piggul? If we say that it is due to that which Rav Kahana says, this is problematic. As Rav Kahana says: From where is it derived that the loaves of a thanks offering are themselves called a thanks offering? It is derived from that which is stated in the verse:“ Then he shall offer with the sacrifice of thanks offering loaves” (Leviticus 7:12). The juxtaposition of the words“ thanks offering” and“ loaves” indicates that the loaves are themselves called a thanks offering.

אי הכי איפכא נמי הא לא קשיא לחם איקרי תודה תודה לא איקרי לחם

The Gemara explains why the halakha of the mishna cannot be derived from Rav Kahana’s exposition. If so, then the opposite should be the halakha as well, that intent of piggul with regard to the loaves should likewise render the thanks offering piggul. The Gemara rejects this suggestion: This is not difficult, as the loaves are called a thanks offering, but a thanks offering is not called loaves.

אלא הא דקתני הכבשים מפגלין את הלחם והלחם אינו מפגל את הכבשים לחם היכא אשכחן דאיקרי כבשים אלא לאו היינו טעמא לחם גלל תודה ואין תודה גלל דלחם לחם גלל דכבשים ואין כבשים גלל דלחם

The Gemara asks: But with regard to that which the mishna teaches: The lambs sacrificed with the two loaves meal offering on Shavuot render the accompanying loaves piggul but the loaves do not render the lambs piggul, where do we find that the two loaves are called lambs? Rather, is it not correct that this is the reason why the thanks offering renders the loaves piggul but not vice versa: The bread is brought on account of [gelal] the thanks offering, but the thanks offering is not brought on account of the bread, i. e., the thanks offering is the primary element of the sacrifice. Similarly, the two loaves of bread are brought on account of the lambs, and the lambs are not brought on account of the bread.

וצריכי דאי אשמעינן תודה התם הוא דכי מפגל בלחם לא מפגלא תודה משום דלא הוזקקו זה לזה בתנופה אבל כבשים דהוזקקו זה לזה בתנופה אימא כי מפגל בלחם ליפגלי נמי כבשים צריכא

The Gemara notes: And both of these halakhot are necessary, as, had the mishna taught us the halakha only in the case of a thanks offering, then one might say: It is only there, with regard to a thanks offering, that when one renders the loaves piggul the thanks offering is not rendered piggul, because they were not bound to one another by waving, i. e., the mitzva of waving the thanks offering may be fulfilled without the bread. But with regard to the lambs, in which the two items were bound to one another by waving, as the two loaves are waved together with the lambs, one might say that when he renders the bread piggul, the lambs should be rendered piggul as well. Therefore, it was necessary for the mishna to teach this halakha also with regard to the case of the lambs.

בעא מיניה רבי אלעזר מרב השוחט את התודה לאכול כזית ממנה ומלחמה למחר מהו לאיפגולי תודה לא מיבעיא לי השתא כולו מלחמה לא מיפגלא ממנה ומלחמה מיבעיא

§ Rabbi Elazar raised a dilemma before Rav: If one slaughters the thanks offering with the intent to consume an olive-bulk from it and from its loaves the next day, what is the halakha? Rabbi Elazar elaborates: I do not raise the dilemma with regard to rendering the thanks offering piggul, for the following reason: Now that in a case where his intent was to consume the entire olive-bulk from its loaves alone, the thanks offering is not rendered piggul, in accordance with the mishna’s ruling that piggul intent with regard to the loaves does not render the thanks offering piggul, then in a case where his intent is to consume half an olive-bulk from the thanks offering and half an olive-bulk from its loaves, in which case the offering is rendered piggul only if the two intentions of less than a full measure are combined, is it necessary to teach that the thanks offering is not piggul?

כי קא מיבעיא לי לאיפגולי לחם מי מצטרפה תודה לאיפגולי ללחם או לא

Rather, when I raise the dilemma, it is with regard to rendering the loaves piggul, which can be rendered piggul via intent concerning the loaves alone. In this case, does the intention of the priest with regard to the thanks offering combine with his intention concerning the loaves to render the loaves piggul, or not?

אמר ליה אף בזו הלחם מפוגל והתודה אינה מפוגלת ואמאי לימא קל וחומר ומה תודה המפגל אין מתפגל הבא לפגל ולא פיגל אינו דין שלא יתפגל

Rav said to Rabbi Elazar: Even in this case, the loaves are rendered piggul and the thanks offering is not rendered piggul. The Gemara asks: But why should the loaves be rendered piggul? Let us say the following a fortiori inference: And if the thanks offering, which in this case serves to render the loaves piggul, is itself not rendered piggul, then the loaves, which come to render the thanks offering piggul, but do not render it piggul, as the intent to consume half an olive-bulk from the loaves does not combine with the intent to consume half an olive-bulk from the thanks offering to render the thanks offering piggul, is it not logical that the loaves themselves should not be rendered piggul?

ומי אמרינן קל וחומר כי האי גוונא והתניא מעשה באחד

The Gemara asks: And do we say an a fortiori inference in this way? But isn’t it taught in a baraita:

There was an incident involving one