QUESTION: The Gemara says that when the Kohen Gadol wears the Tzitz upon his
forehead, it is Meratzeh (appeases) for a certain Pesul that would normally
invalidate a Korban from being offered; as long as the Kohen Gadol is
wearing the Tzitz, that Pesul does not invalidate the Korban.
The Beraisa asks what is that Pesul for which the Tzitz serves to
compensate. It cannot be the Pesul of thinking about eating or offering the
Korban in an improper time or improper place ("Chutz li'Zemano" or "Chutz
li'Mekomo"), because the Torah says that a Korban is *never* accepted with
such a Pesul and even the Tzitz cannot permit it. The Beraisa explains that
it must be that that Tzitz is Meratzeh for a Korban that becomes Pasul by
becoming Tamei. The Beraisa adds that the Tzitz should be able to be
Meratzeh for a Korban which is Tamei because there are other cases in which
a Korban Tamei is acceptable; that is, "Tum'ah Hutrah b'Tzibur" -- in a
public Korban, the Pesul of Tum'ah does not invalidate the Korban.
Why does the Beraisa find it necessary to give an additional *reason*, or
proof, for why the Tzitz compensates for the Pesul of Tum'ah? The Beraisa
here (and in more detail, the Gemara in Menachos 25b) already has proven by
the process of elimination that it can be learned from the *verse* that the
Tzitz compensates for the Pesul of Tum'ah. Why, then, is it necessary to
further prove that Tum'ah can be compensated for by citing the law of
"Tum'ah Hutrah b'Tzibur?"
ANSWER: RABEINU TAM (cited by Tosfos here and in Yoma 7a) says that the
verse itself that teaches that the Tzitz is Meratzeh says that through the
Tzitz, the Pesul will come "le'Ratzon Lifnei Hashem," acceptable unto
Hashem. Apparently, those words imply that the Korban will become acceptable
to Hashem *just like elsewhere* the same Pesul can become acceptable.
Therefore, the Pesul for which the Tzitz is Meratzeh must be one which is
"Hutrah mi'Klalo," that is, it does not disqualify the Korban under certain
circumstances even *without* the Tzitz. For that reason, the Beraisa adds
that the Pesul of Tum'ah is indeed permitted elsewhere ("Hutrah b'Tzibur"),
in order to show that it fits the description of the verse.
QUESTION: However, if that is true, then why did the Gemara even consider
that the Pesul was "Chutz li'Zemano" or "Chutz li'Mekomo?" Those Pesulim are
*never* permitted under any cicumstances!
(a) TOSFOS (DH Ha) says that it may be said that there *is* a situation in
which the Pesul of "Chutz li'Mekomo" does not apply -- in the case of a
"Bamah." At a time when it is permitted to build a private Mizbe'ach and
offer Korbanos upon it, there is no limit to where the Korban must be eaten.
That allowance, then, is an exception to the Pesul of "Chutz li'Mekomo" and
it is indeed "Hutrah mi'Kelalo." Even though there is no exception to the
Pesul of "Chutz li'Zemano," the Beraisa mentioned it merely because it is
always mentioned as partner with "Chutz li'Mekomo."
(b) TOSFOS suugests another answer. Perhaps it may be said that "Chutz
li'Zemano" and "Chutz li'Mekomo" also have exceptions, since they do not
apply to the Minchas Kohanim, (the Minchah brought by a Kohen) and Minchas
Nesachim (the Minchah offered with the Korban Tamid) offerings. Those
offerings are entirely burned upon the Mizbe'ach, and they have no Pesul of
"Chutz li'Zemano" or "Chutz li'Mekomo."
(c) The SEFAS EMES (Yoma 7a) answers that there is no Pesul of "Chutz
li'Zemano" or "Chutz li'Mekomo" for Korbanos offered by gentiles, and that
is why they are considered to be "Hutrah mi'Klalo." (Note, however, that
this point is argued by Rebbi Shimon and Rebbi Yosi in Temurah 2b.)
(d) RABEINU PERETZ here answers as follows. We know that a Korban Chatas may
be eaten only within the confines of the Azarah, and only for one day. A
Korban Shelamim, though, may be eaten throughout all of Yerushalayim, and
may be eaten for two days. Therefore, although a Korban Chatas is
invalidated if one thinks to it outside of its proper time (after the first
day) and proper place (the Azarah), such thoughts are "Hutrah mi'Kelalo" and
permitted for a Shelamim!
(e) TOSFOS in Yoma (7a) says that indeed, Chutz li'Zemano and Chutz
li'Mekomo are not "Hutrah mi'Klalo;" there are no exceptions where they are
permitted. Nevertheless, the Gemara thought that the Tzitz is Meratzeh for
them even though they are not "Hutrah mi'Kelalo" because of a Gezeirah
Shaveh. The word "Avon" is used with regard to the Tzitz, and also with
regard to Chutz li'Zemano and Chutz li'Mekomo.