Study Menachot folio 15A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
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.
Rav Huna, son of Rav Natan, said to Rav Pappa: Can this be the dispute between R' Yehuda and the Rabbis? But what about items that normally ascend upon the altar? Even R' Yehuda concedes that the frontplate effects acceptance for impure items that normally ascend the altar, and R' Yehuda and the Ra
The Talmud 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, R' Yehuda says that the rites of both of them may be performed in impurity, i.e., the priest may e
And furthermore, Rav Ashi said: Come and hear an additional proof that the dispute between R' Yehuda and the Rabbis does not concern the frontplate, as we learn in a Mishnah (Pesaḥim 80a) with regard to the consumption of the Paschal offering in a state of impurity, that R' Yehuda says: Even if one
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 R' Yehuda and the Rabbis, as the Mishnah teaches: If one of the two loaves brought on Shavuot or one of the two arrangements of shewbread became ritually impure,