Pesachim 77a (עז.) — the Talmud in English

The goats of the New Moons were necessary for him to state

in our Mishna that they are brought in a state of ritual impurity.

For

it might have entered your mind:

They should not be brought in a state of impurity, since

it is not written concerning them

“at its appointed time.”

For the other communal offerings that override ritual impurity are derived from the expression “at its appointed time,” as will be explained below in the Gemara. If so, regarding these offerings, concerning which “at its appointed time” was not stated, it might have entered your mind to say that they do not override ritual impurity.

Therefore

it teaches us

our Mishna that they are brought in a state of ritual impurity.

And because

also

the New Moon

is called an appointed time, as Abaye said.

For Abaye said:

We learned in a 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 would not enter Eretz Yisrael. The proof of this [as explained in the Gemara there, 29a] is that Moses sent the spies on the twenty-ninth of Sivan, and they explored the land for forty days; consequently, they returned on the Ninth of Av.

However, if we calculate the number of 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 Tammuz of that year

[in which the spies were sent]

was made full

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

As it is written: “He proclaimed over me

an appointed time”

“to crush my young men,”

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

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

Does this imply

[from the Gemara’s answer we learn]

that all

communal offerings

are derived from “an appointed time”

to teach

[that they are brought in a state of ritual impurity]?

And

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

For they are indeed learned from “an appointed time”?

As the Sages taught

in the Torat Kohanim concerning the omer offering and the two loaves:

It is written in the portion of Emor, at the end of the section concerning the appointed festivals:

“And Moses declared the appointed times of the Lord

to the children of Israel.”

What does the verse come to teach,

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

Since

we still

have not learned

that communal offerings override Shabbat and ritual impurity,

except

only

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

“at its appointed time,”

which indicates that their time must not pass, even if they are impure and even if the day is Shabbat—the verse comes to teach you:

“At its appointed time”—

even on Shabbat.

“At its appointed time”—

even in a state of ritual impurity.

The other communal offerings

[the additional offerings]

from where

do we know that they override Shabbat and ritual impurity?

From

what is stated

in the portion of the additional offerings in the portion of Pinchas:

“These you shall offer to the Lord

“on your appointed times.”

This teaches you: “on your appointed times”—even on Shabbat, and even in a state of ritual impurity.

We have thus learned also with regard to the additional offerings that they override Shabbat and ritual impurity.

From where do we 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],

with them,

which likewise override Shabbat and ritual impurity?

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

the ones mentioned there in the 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 are mentioned.

It follows that

the verse established one appointed time for all of them,

the offerings mentioned in the portion, as though “appointed time” had been stated with regard to each one of them, teaching that its appointed time must not pass, even on Shabbat and even in a state of ritual impurity.

And we raised the following 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 let us derive the others from it!?

And we answer:

They are all necessary,

all these verses:

a.

For had the Torah written

only concerning

the daily offering, it might have entered your mind to say: The daily offering

is the one that overrides Shabbat and ritual impurity,

since

it

is regular,

as it is an established obligation every day,

and

it is a burnt offering that is offered

entirely

to the Lord.

But the Paschal offering,

which is offered once a year, is eaten, and of which only the fats are offered on the altar [Rosh Chodesh],

I would not

have said that it overrides Shabbat and ritual impurity.

Therefore

the verse teaches us

that even the Paschal offering overrides Shabbat and ritual impurity.

b.

And had the Torah written

only concerning

the Paschal offering,

it might have entered your mind to say:

The Paschal offering

is the one that overrides them, since it is stringent,

as

it

is subject to karet

if one does not bring a Paschal offering.

But the daily offering, for which one is not subject to karet

if the community refrains from bringing it,

say that it should not

override them.

Therefore

the verse teaches us

that even the daily offering overrides Shabbat and ritual impurity.

c.

And had the Torah written

only

these two

[the two of them, the Paschal offering and the daily offering],

it might have entered your mind to say: These are the ones

that override them, since

they possess an aspect of stringency,

for the

daily offering is regular and offered entirely,

while the

Paschal offering is subject to karet.

But the other communal offerings

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

say that they should not

override them.

Therefore

the Torah wrote: “These you shall offer to the Lord

on your appointed times.”

4.

d.

And had the Torah written

only

“These you shall offer to the Lord on your appointed times,”

which is stated concerning the additional offerings of the festivals,

it might have entered your mind

only

the other communal offerings

[the additional offerings]

that come to effect atonement.

Not only the additional offerings that are sin offerings and come to effect atonement, but even the additional offerings that are burnt offerings come to effect atonement for violations of positive commandments and of negative commandments whose correction is through a positive commandment.

But the omer and the two loaves, which do not come to effect atonement, but merely serve to permit

[the omer permits the new produce outside the Temple, and the two loaves permit it in the Temple], say

no.

Therefore

the verse teaches us

that these too override Shabbat and ritual impurity.

e.

And had the Torah written only the omer and the two loaves alone, it might have entered your mind to say: On the contrary,

there is reason to say the opposite:

The omer and the two loaves are powerful

[strong],

as

they

come to permit; these alone override ritual impurity.

But these others,

all the others that do not come to permit, say

no,

that they should override it.

Therefore

the verse teaches us

that these too override it.

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 sacred offerings that the children of Israel shall consecrate, for all their sacred gifts. And it shall be on his forehead always, for acceptance for them before the Lord.”

From here they learned that sacred offerings in which there was an iniquity are accepted and rendered fit through the tzitz, and this is called the acceptance effected by the tzitz.

The Sages learned from the verses that it effects acceptance only with regard to the iniquity of ritual impurity, rendering an offering fit to be brought in a state of ritual impurity.

However, the tzitz does not effect acceptance with regard to eating the flesh of sacred offerings while the person’s body is impure, whether the person is the owner or a priest.

Everyone agrees that with regard to impurity of the blood, the tzitz effects acceptance.

Rather, the tannaim disagree as to whether the tzitz also effects acceptance with regard to “the portions that are eaten,” meaning the flesh that became impure; this matter will be explained in the sugya before us.

The tannaim likewise disagree as to whether the tzitz effects acceptance with regard to “the portions that ascend,” meaning the fats that became impure; this will be explained below.

This introduction follows Rashi’s approach.

They understood

[the amoraim of the academy understood] the two possible interpretations of our Mishna, which explains that communal offerings are brought in a state of ritual impurity. Based on these understandings, they raised the question presented below in the sugya:

a.

According to everyone,

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

ritual impurity

“is overridden”

in the case of the community.

That is, permission to offer in a state of impurity is granted only with difficulty [Rashi below, 80a; Yoma 7a], and is not a complete permission.

And

since it is not a complete permission,

we require the tzitz to effect acceptance,

and if the tzitz is broken, communal offerings may not be brought in a state of ritual impurity.

And why did they understand this to be the opinion of the anonymous Mishna? Because

there is no tanna whom we have heard say

[we have not heard any tanna state]:

“Ritual impurity is permitted for the community,” except Rabbi Yehuda

alone.

For it was taught:

The tzitz, whether it is on his forehead

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

or whether it is not on his forehead,

it

effects acceptance; this is the statement of Rabbi Shimon.

Rabbi Yehuda says: As long as it is

still present

on his forehead

of the High Priest, the tzitz

effects acceptance.

But when

it is no longer on his forehead—it

does not effect acceptance.

Rabbi Shimon said

to Rabbi Yehuda:

But

the High Priest on Yom Kippur,

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

will prove

that it is not necessary for the tzitz to be on his forehead.

For

it

is not on his forehead,

because the High Priest performs the service inside wearing only the four white garments,

and

nevertheless, he

effects acceptance

at that time.

For certainly all communal offerings whose time is fixed are brought in a state of ritual impurity, including those offerings that the priest offers in white garments; and without the acceptance of the tzitz, it would be impossible to offer them in a state of ritual impurity, since ritual impurity is overridden for the community.

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

He said to him,

Rabbi Yehuda said to Rabbi Shimon:

Leave aside the

offerings of

Yom Kippur,

which do not require the acceptance of the tzitz at all, because

ritual impurity

“is permitted”

as a complete permission

for the community.

Even without the acceptance of the tzitz, the offering is valid.

By inference,

this proves

that Rabbi Shimon holds that ritual impurity is overridden for the community,

and therefore Rabbi Shimon would hold that even the offerings of Yom Kippur require the tzitz in order to render them fit to be brought in a state of ritual impurity.

b.

And

the amoraim of the academy had another understanding:

According to everyone,

according to the anonymous opinion of our Mishna,

the tzitz does not effect acceptance with regard to the portions that are eaten

[the flesh that is eaten], and if the flesh became impure, the acceptance of the tzitz is of no avail [see the note ].

And why did they think so regarding the anonymous Mishna? Because

there is no tanna known to have said that the tzitz effects acceptance for

the

consumable portions, except Rabbi Eliezer.

As it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Eliezer [Tosafot]

says:

the tzitz effects acceptance for consumable portions.

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

On the basis of these two understandings, the members of the academy asked:

And

shall 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 respective rationales; later, on the second side of the folio, the Gemara explains how our Mishna is not in accordance with Rabbi Yehoshua.

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

With regard to animal offerings: The koen sprinkles the blood on the altar, and afterward burns the sacrificial fats [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 kohanim eat the rest of the meat.

With regard to burnt offerings, there is no eating at all; rather, the blood is sprinkled on the altar, and the meat is burned entirely on the altar.

With regard to meal offerings: The koen takes a fistful from the meal offering, filling his fist, and burns it on the altar; and the remainder of the meal offering is eaten by the kohanim.

There are also meal offerings from which no fistful is taken; rather, the entire meal offering is burned completely for God on the altar.

In animal offerings, it is the sprinkling of the blood upon the altar on which atonement depends, and in meal offerings, it is the burning of the fistful on which atonement depends.

In animal offerings, the sprinkling of the blood upon the altar is what permits the sacrificial fats, or all the meat [in the case of a burnt offering], to be burned, and permits the meat designated for eating to be eaten; and in meal offerings, the burning of the fistful upon the altar is what permits the remainder of the meal offering to be eaten.

It follows that the fistful burned from a meal offering is analogous to the blood sprinkled upon the altar from an animal offering, and the remainder of the meal offering that is eaten by the kohanim is analogous to the meat eaten from an animal offering.

The omer offering, the two loaves, and the showbread are meal offerings, and their laws are as follows: The omer offering has a fistful taken from it, like other meal offerings, and burning its fistful upon the altar permits its remainder to be eaten.

No fistful is taken from the two loaves; rather, the sprinkling of the blood of the two sheep brought with them on Shavuot is what permits the meal offering of the two loaves to be eaten.

No fistful is taken from the showbread; rather, the burning of the two bowls of frankincense is what permits the bread to be eaten.

As it was taught in a beraita:

It is written:

“And you shall perform your burnt offerings”

“the flesh and the blood.”

Rabbi Yehoshua says:

The verse juxtaposed flesh and blood in order to teach you:

1.

If there is no blood

to sprinkle upon the altar, since the blood was lost or became impure , then

there is no meat

of the burnt offering to be burned upon the altar.

The same law applies to edible animal offerings: If there is no blood, neither the meat burned [i.e., the sacrificial fats] nor the meat eaten is permitted to be burned or eaten.

Likewise, with regard to meal offerings, if there is no fistful to be burned upon the altar, the remainder is not permitted to be eaten by the kohanim.

2.

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

the

the

blood

is not sprinkled upon the altar.

The same law applies, according to Rabbi Yehoshua, to edible animal offerings: If there are no sacrificial fats to be burned and there is also no meat to be eaten, because both they and their sacrificial fats became impure or were lost, the blood is not sprinkled either; and likewise with regard to meal offerings, if there is no remainder fit to be eaten, the fistful is not burned.

Rabbi Eliezer says:

I concede that if there is no blood, there is no meat [Rashi on the second side of the folio].

But if there is

blood

to be sprinkled,

it is sprinkled even though there is no meat, as it is stated: “And the blood of your offerings shall be poured out” [the Gemara will explain this exposition below].

[And if so,

what

then

do I establish

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

in order to juxtapose flesh with blood, and

to say to you: Just as

the

blood is given by sprinkling

upon the altar,

so too the meat

burned upon the altar

was given by throwing

when the koen arranging the limbs on the woodpile of the altar would throw it there.

This means: There is a small opening [a small amount of empty space]

a small amount of open space ]

between

the

ramp

by which he brings the limbs upward

and the altar

upon which he burns them; the top of the ramp was not attached to the altar, so that the koen would be reminded by the empty space to fulfill the mitzva of throwing [Tosafot].

And we explain:

Rabbi Yehoshua as well

who holds that 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 can derive from the verse that even if there is no meat, there is blood?!

He can 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 adjacent 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 learn from this that if there is no meat fit to be eaten, the blood of the offering is not poured out upon the altar.