Pesachim 77a — the Talmud in English

The goats of the New Moons were needed

to state them in our Mishna, that they are brought in impurity.

For

it might enter your mind:

They should not be brought in impurity, since

it is not written concerning them

“appointed time.”

For the other communal offerings that override impurity are learned from the expression “appointed time,” as will be explained below in the Gemara; and if so, concerning these, about which “appointed time” was not stated, it might have entered your mind that they do not override impurity.

Therefore

it teaches us

our Mishna, that they are brought in impurity.

And because

even

the New Moon

is called an appointed time, as Abaye says.

For Abaye said:

We learned in the Mishna in tractate Ta’anit [26b]:

On the Ninth of Av it was decreed upon our forefathers [because of the sin of the spies] that they should not enter the Land; and the proof of this [as explained in the Gemara there, 29a] is that on the twenty-ninth of Sivan Moses sent spies, and they explored the Land for forty days, and it follows that they returned on the Ninth of Av.

However, if we count the days according to the order of the months, one deficient and one full, it follows that on the Ninth of Av only thirty-nine days had elapsed from the day the spies were sent.

Therefore Abaye explained:

The month

of that year [

in which the spies were sent] of Tammuz—

they made it full [

they made it a full month of thirty days, whereas according to the ordinary order it is a deficient month of twenty-nine days]; and it followed that the forty days ended on the Ninth of Av.

As it is written: “He proclaimed against me

an appointed time”

“to break my young men,”

and “appointed time” is the intercalated day added to the month of Tammuz, for even the additional day of the month of Tammuz, which is the thirtieth day, is New Moon.

We have therefore learned that the New Moon is called “an appointed time,” and consequently it overrides impurity.

Does this mean [

From the Gemara’s answer we learn]

that all

communal offerings

come from “appointed time”

[and] are learned [

that they are brought in impurity]?

And

from where are these matters derived, that indeed they are learned from “appointed time”?

For

the Sages taught

in the Sifra concerning the omer and the two loaves:

It is written in the portion of Emor, at the end of the portion of the appointed times:

“And Moses declared the appointed times of the Lord”

to the Children of Israel.

What does it teach,

for all the appointed times have already been mentioned in the portion, and what does this verse come to teach us?

Since

it had still

not been learned

that communal offerings override Shabbat and impurity,

except

only

for the daily offering and the Paschal offering, concerning which it is stated

“at its appointed time,”

which implies that their time shall not pass, even if they are impure and even if the day is Shabbat, it teaches you:

“At its appointed time”—

even on Shabbat.

“At its appointed time”—

even in impurity.

The other communal offerings [

the additional offerings]

from where

do we know that they override Shabbat and impurity?

From

what is stated

in the portion of the additional offerings in the portion of Pinhas:

“These you shall offer to the Lord

at your appointed times.”

It teaches you: “at your appointed times”—even on Shabbat, and even in impurity.

We have therefore learned also concerning the additional offerings that they override Shabbat and impurity.

From where to include

also the meal-offering of the

omer and

the lamb

offered with it,

and the

two loaves and

the two lambs [Rashi]

offered [

with]

them,

for they too override Shabbat and impurity?

The verse states: “And Moses declared the appointed times of the Lord”—

those mentioned in that portion—

“to the Children of Israel,”

and in that portion the omer, the offering brought with it, the two loaves, and the offerings brought with them were mentioned.

It follows that

the verse established one appointed time for all of them,

which are mentioned in the portion, as though “appointed time” had been stated concerning each one of them, to teach that its appointed time shall not pass, even on Shabbat and even in impurity.

And we raised an objection:

And all these

verses written concerning the daily offering, the Paschal offering, the other communal offerings, the omer, and the two loaves—

why do I need them?

Let only one verse be written, and we would learn the others from it!?

And we answer:

They are necessary,

all these verses:

a.

For if the Merciful One had written

only concerning the

daily offering, one might have said: It is the daily offering

that overrides Shabbat and impurity,

since

it

is regular,

being a fixed obligation every day,

and

it is a burnt offering

entirely

to the Lord.

But the Paschal offering,

which is once a year, is eaten, and of it only the portions offered on the altar belong to the altar [Rabbi Hananel],

not

would I say that it overrides Shabbat and impurity.

Therefore

it teaches us

the verse that the Paschal offering too overrides Shabbat and impurity.

b.

And if the Merciful One had written

only concerning the

Paschal offering,

one might have said:

The Paschal offering

is what overrides, since it is stringent,

for

it

is punishable by karet

if one does not bring a Paschal offering.

But the daily offering, for which there is no punishment of karet

if the public refrained from bringing it,

say that it does not

override.

Therefore

it teaches us

the verse that the daily offering too overrides Shabbat and impurity.

c.

And if the Merciful One had written

only

these two [

these two, the Paschal offering and the daily offering],

one might have said: It is these that

override, since

there is in them an aspect of stringency,

for the

daily offering is regular and entirely

and the

Paschal offering is punishable by karet.

But the other communal offerings [

the additional offerings], which do not have an aspect of stringency,

say that they do not

override.

Therefore

the Merciful One wrote: “These you shall offer to the Lord”

“at your appointed times.”

d.

And if the Merciful One had written

only

“These you shall offer to the Lord”

“at your appointed times,”

which is stated concerning the additional offerings of the festivals,

one might have said

only

the other communal offerings [

the additional offerings]

that come to atone.

It is unnecessary to say that the additional offerings that are sin offerings and come to atone, but even the additional offerings that are burnt offerings come to atone for positive transgressions and negative transgressions whose correction is through a positive commandment.

But the omer and the two loaves, which do not come to atone, but are merely for permitting, [

the omer comes to permit the new produce in the provinces, and the two loaves to permit it in the Temple], say

no.

Therefore

it teaches us

the verse that these too override Shabbat and impurity.

e.

And if the Merciful One had written the omer and the two loaves alone, one might have said: On the contrary,

there is reason to say the opposite:

the omer and the two loaves, which are powerful [

strong],

for

they

come to permit, are these alone that override impurity.

определённое действие; только они отодвигают нечистоту.

But these others,

all the others that do not come to permit, say

no,

that they should override.

Therefore

it teaches us

the verse that these too override.

It is written in the portion of Tetzaveh: “And you shall make a plate of pure gold. And it shall be on Aaron’s forehead, and Aaron shall bear the iniquity of the holy things that the Children of Israel shall sanctify, for all the gifts of their holy things. And it shall be on his forehead always, for acceptance for them before the Lord.”

From here they learned that holy things in which there was an iniquity are accepted and made fit through the plate, and this is called “acceptance through the plate.”

And the Sages learned from the verses that it effects acceptance only concerning the iniquity of impurity, to make the offering fit when brought in impurity.

But the plate does not effect acceptance for eating the flesh of holy offerings in bodily impurity, whether that of the owners or that of the priests.

Everyone agrees that concerning impurity of the blood, the plate effects acceptance.

However, the tannaim dispute whether the plate also effects acceptance concerning “the things eaten,” namely, concerning the impurity of flesh that became impure; this matter will be explained in the sugya before us.

Likewise, the tannaim dispute whether the plate effects acceptance concerning “the things that ascend,” namely, concerning the portions offered on the altar that became impure; this will be explained later.

This introduction follows Rashi’s method.

They understood [

the amoraim of the academy understood] our Mishna, in which it was explained that communal offerings are brought in impurity, in two ways. And because they understood it in this manner, they asked the question brought later in the sugya:

a.

According to everyone,

according to the anonymous position of our Mishna, the fact that communal offerings are brought in impurity is because the Torah revealed that

impurity

“is deferred”

in the community.

That is, it was permitted to offer in impurity only with difficulty [Rashi below, 80a; and Yoma 7a], and this is not a complete permission.

And

since it is not a complete permission—

we require the plate to effect acceptance,

and if the plate was broken, communal offerings are not brought in impurity.

And why did they reason this concerning the anonymous position of our Mishna? Because

there is no tannai of whom you have heard that he said [

we have not heard from any tannai who said]:

“Impurity is permitted in the community,” except Rabbi Judah

alone.

For it was taught:

The plate, whether it is on his forehead

of the High Priest when impurity occurred in the offerings [Rashi; and see note ],

or whether it is not on his forehead,

it nevertheless

effects acceptance; these are the words of Rabbi Shimon.

Rabbi Judah says: As long as it is

as long as the plate is present

on his forehead

of the High Priest, the plate

effects acceptance.

But when

it is no longer on his forehead—it

does not effect acceptance.

Rabbi Shimon said to

Rabbi Judah:

But

the High Priest on Yom Kippur,

when he performs the service within and within the Holy of Holies [Rashi, Sanhedrin 12b]—

will prove

that it is unnecessary for the plate to be on his forehead.

For

it

is not on his forehead,

since the High Priest performs the service inside only in the four white garments ,

and

nevertheless at that time he

effects acceptance

for them.

For certainly all communal offerings whose time is fixed are brought in impurity, including those offerings that the priest offers in white garments; and without acceptance through the plate it would be impossible to offer them in impurity, because impurity is deferred in the community.

If so, we have learned that even when the plate is not on the priest’s forehead, it effects acceptance.

He said to him,

Rabbi Judah to Rabbi Shimon:

Leave aside the

offerings of

Yom Kippur, which do not require acceptance through the plate at all, because

impurity

“is permitted”

in the community—

a complete permission.

In the community.

And even without acceptance through the plate, the offering is fit.

By implication,

from here there is proof

that Rabbi Shimon held: impurity is deferred in the community, and therefore Rabbi Shimon reasoned that even the offerings of Yom Kippur require the plate to make them fit to be brought in impurity.

Rabbi Shimon therefore held that even the offerings of Yom Kippur require the plate to make them fit to be brought in impurity.

b.

And

the amoraim of the academy had another understanding:

according to everyone,

according to the anonymous position of our Mishna,

the plate does not effect acceptance concerning the things eaten [

concerning the flesh that is eaten], and if the flesh became impure, acceptance through the plate is of no avail. [See note ]

And for what reason were they of this opinion regarding the anonymous Mishna? Because

there is no tannaitic authority from whom you have heard that he says: The tzitz effects acceptance for

the

eating.

As it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Eliezer [

Tosafot]

says: The tzitz effects acceptance for eating.

Rabbi Yosei says: The tzitz does not effect acceptance for eating.

And on the basis of these two understandings the members of the academy were asking:

And should we

say

that our

Mishna

is

not in accordance with Rabbi Yehoshua?!

At first the Gemara explains the dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua, and their reasons; and below, on folio 77b, the Gemara explains how our Mishna is not in accordance with Rabbi Yehoshua.

There are two types of offerings: the animal offerings and the meal offerings.

With animal offerings: The priest throws the blood on the altar, and afterward burns the sacrificial portions [if they exist; but if they do not exist, their burning does not prevent the eating of the meat], and afterward the owners or the priests eat the rest of the meat.

And with burnt offerings, there is no eating at all; rather, he throws the blood upon the altar, and the meat is burned entirely upon the altar.

With meal offerings: The priest takes a handful from the meal offering, the fullness of his handful, and burns it upon the altar; and what remains of the meal offering is eaten by the priests.

And there are meal offerings from which no handful is taken; rather, the entire meal offering goes up entirely to the Lord upon the altar.

The throwing of the blood in animal offerings is that upon which atonement depends, and the burning of the handful in meal offerings is that upon which atonement depends.

The throwing of the blood upon the altar in animal offerings is what permits the sacrificial portions, or all the meat [in a burnt offering], for burning, and the meat that is eaten, for eating; and with meal offerings, the burning of the handful upon the altar is what permits the remainder of the meal offering for eating.

It follows that you learn: The handful burned in a meal offering is like the blood thrown upon the altar in an animal offering, and what remains of the meal offering that is eaten by the priests is like the meat eaten in an animal offering.

The omer offering, the two loaves, and the showbread are meal offerings, and this is their law: The omer offering is taken by the handful like other meal offerings, and the burning of its handful upon the altar permits its remainder for eating.

With the two loaves there is no taking of a handful, and the throwing of the blood of the two lambs of Shavuot that come with it is what permits the meal offering of the two loaves for eating.

With the showbread there is no taking of a handful, and the burning of the two bowls of frankincense is what permits the bread for eating.

As it was taught:

It is written:

“And you shall perform your burnt offerings”

“the meat and the blood.”

Rabbi Yehoshua says:

For this reason Scripture joined meat and blood together, in order to teach you:

a.

If there is no blood

to throw upon the altar, since the blood was lost or became impure , also

there is no meat

of the burnt offering burned upon the altar.

And the same law applies to edible animal offerings: If there is no blood, the meat burned [that is, the sacrificial portions], or the meat eaten, is not permitted for burning or eating.

And likewise with meal offerings: If there is no handful burned upon the altar, their remainder is not permitted for eating by the priests.

b.

If there is no

present

meat

from the offering that is fit to be burned upon the altar, since it became impure or was lost, then

there is no

the

blood

thrown upon the altar.

And likewise is the law—in the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua—also with edible animal offerings: If there are no sacrificial portions for burning and there is also no meat for eating, because they and their sacrificial portions became impure or were lost, then the blood too is not thrown; and likewise with meal offerings, if there is no remainder fit for eating, the handful is not burned.

Rabbi Eliezer says:

I concede that if there is no blood there is no meat [Rashi on folio 77b,

but there is

blood

thrown

even though there is no meat, as it is stated: “And the blood of your offerings shall be poured out” [

and the Gemara will explain this exposition below].

And

if so,

what do I establish

“And you shall perform your burnt offerings, the meat and the blood”?

To compare meat to blood, and

to say to you: Just as

the

blood is given by throwing

it upon the altar,

so too the meat

burned upon the altar

was given by throwing

it: The priest arranging the limbs on the wood-pile of the altar would throw it.

That is to say: There is a small opening [

a little open space]

between

the

ramp

by which he brings up the limbs

and the altar

upon which he burns them, and the head of the ramp was not attached to the altar, so that the priest would remember, through the open space, to fulfill the mitzva of throwing [Tosafot].

And we explain:

And Rabbi Yehoshua as well,

who holds: If there is no meat, there is no blood—yet

it is written: “And the blood of your offerings shall be poured out,”

and one should learn from the verse that even if there is no meat, there is blood?!

He could say to you,

Rabbi Yehoshua: On the contrary, from there you learn that if there is no meat, there is no blood, for

it is written next to it:

“And the blood of your offerings shall be poured out upon the altar of the Lord your God,”

“and you shall eat the meat.”

You have learned from this that if there is no meat fit for eating, the blood of the offering is not poured out upon the altar.