Menachos Daf 25 מנחוס דַף 25

The next Mishnah states that if the kometz became tamei, and the Kohen offered it (despite its being disqualified), the ציץ is מרצה – effects acceptance and the שירים may be eaten. However, if the kometz left the עזרה, and the Kohen offered it, the ציץ is not מרצה, שהציץ מרצה על הטמא – because the ציץ effects acceptance for tumah, ואינו מרצה על היוצא – but does not effect acceptance for the disqualification for leaving the עזרה. A Baraisa analyzes the passuk describing where the ציץ is מרצה: "ונשא אהרן את עון הקדשים" – and Aharon will bear the sin of the offering. This cannot refer to avodah with intent of חוץ למקומו or חוץ לזמנו, because these are both invalid. It must refer to the sin of tumah, שהותרה מכללה בציבור – which has an exception to its general prohibition for a communal [korban], which may be brought in a state of tumah. It does not refer to יוצא, although it is permitted on a במה, because the passuk says "לפני ה'" – before Hashem, indicating the ציץ is only מרצה on an עון דלפני ה' – a sin before Hashem (i.e., tumah, which is disqualified “before Hashem,” inside the עזרה), and not יוצא. The Gemara explains why it cannot refer to the disqualification of שמאל – left-handed [avodah], or a בעל מום.

A Baraisa teaches that if blood of a korban became tamei (and was unfit for זריקה), and a Kohen performed זריקה with it, בשוגג הורצה – if it occurred mistakenly, [the korban] is accepted (through the ציץ) and its meat may be eaten; במזיד לא הורצה – if it was intentional, it is not accepted insofar as its meat is Rabbinically prohibited to eat. The Gemara asks that this contradicts another Baraisa, which teaches that the ציץ is מרצה on blood, meat, or חלב of a korban which became tamei, whether בשוגג or במזיד, or באונס – accidentally or ברצון – willingly!? Rav Chisda eventually answers that they reflect a machlokes Tannaim about whether a מזיד was penalized; the second Baraisa is Rebbe Eliezer, who taught that if one separates terumah from tamei produce on tahor produce (which is prohibited), even intentionally, the terumah is valid (although terumah is not as strict as kodashim, we presume he holds the same for kodashim). [The Baraisa cannot be Rebbe Yose, who also holds מזיד was not penalized, because the second Baraisa says the ציץ is also מרצה for tamei meat, and Rebbe Yose holds the ציץ is not מרצה for "אכילות" – [parts of the korban] which are eaten.]

Ravina answers the above contradiction differently: טומאתו בין בשוגג בין במזיד הורצה – regarding its contracting tumah, whether it occurred mistakenly or intentionally, it is accepted. זריקתו בשוגג הורצה במזיד לא הורצה – However, regarding its זריקה, if it was done mistakenly, it is accepted, but if it was done intentionally, it is not accepted. Thus, the first Baraisa, which distinguishes between מזיד and שוגג, is discussing how the זריקה was performed, whereas the second Baraisa, which says even "מזיד" is accepted, is referring to how it became tamei. Rav Shila makes the opposite distinction: regarding its זריקה, whether it was performed בשוגג or במזיד, the korban is accepted, but regarding how it became tamei, if it occurred בשוגג, it is accepted, but if it occurred במזיד, it is not accepted. He therefore explains the first Baraisa to be discussing how it became tamei, and the second Baraisa to be discussing how the זריקה was performed.