Pesachim 77b — the Talmud in English

And we explain according to Rabbi Joshua’s view:

and these two verses

the two written passages: “And you shall make your burnt offerings, the flesh and the blood,” and “And the blood of your sacrifices shall be poured out, etc., and you shall eat the flesh,” from which we learned that if there is no flesh, there is no blood

why do I need

both of them?!

One

of the verses is: “And you shall make your “burnt offerings,” the flesh and the blood,”

with regard to the burnt offering,

to teach you that if the flesh of the burnt offering is not upon the altar, the blood is not sprinkled.

And one

of the verses is: “And the blood of your “sacrifices” [that is, peace offerings, Rashi] shall be poured, and you shall eat the flesh,”

with regard to peace offerings,

to teach you that if there is no flesh to eat, the blood is not sprinkled [however, even with regard to peace offerings, the portions that ascend upon the altar are sufficient in order to sprinkle the blood].

And it is necessary

to have two verses, one for the burnt offering and one for the peace offering, and one cannot be learned from the other:

For if the Merciful One had written

only

with regard to the burnt offering, I would have said: It is a burnt offering

with regard to which we say that if there is no flesh there is no blood, since

it is stringent, for

the burnt offering is

entirely

upon the altar and is important, and therefore we are stringent with it.

But with regard to peace offerings, which are not stringent,

since the flesh is eaten,

I would say: No

we should not be stringent with them to say: If there is no flesh, there is no blood. Therefore, the verse had to teach us that even with regard to peace offerings, “if there is no flesh, there is no blood.”

And if the Merciful One had written

with regard to

peace offerings

alone, that if there is no flesh there is no blood,

I would have said: On the contrary,

the peace offerings are more important, since

they contain two acts of eating:

the owners’ eating of the flesh, and the altar’s eating of the portions.

But with regard to the burnt offering, which does not contain two acts of eating

but only the altar’s eating,

I would say: No

we should not be stringent with it to say: If there is no flesh, there is no blood.

And therefore

it teaches us

the two verses that both with regard to the burnt offering and with regard to peace offerings, if there is no flesh there is no blood.

And we raise a difficulty:

But Rabbi Eliezer as well—does it not say: “And you shall eat the flesh”

and we have learned that if there is no flesh for eating, there is no blood?!

He can say to you

Rabbi Eliezer:

That

verse

is needed to him

to teach

that the flesh is not permitted for eating until the blood is sprinkled,

and this is what the verse said: First, “the blood of your sacrifices shall be poured,” and afterward, “and you shall eat the flesh” [Rabbenu Hananel]. And we raise a difficulty:

If so,

since you learned from this verse that the flesh is not permitted for eating until the blood is sprinkled,

say: The entire verse came for this

alone

is what it came [the verse came to teach only this].

to teach. [The verse came to teach only this.]

But

“blood, even though there is no flesh there”—

from where do we derive it?!

And we answer:

He can say to you

Rabbi Eliezer:

If so,

if, as you say, the entire purpose of this verse is only to teach that the blood permits the flesh for eating,

the Merciful One should have written

“you shall eat the flesh” [

Rashi’s version reads:

“You shall eat the flesh of your sacrifice”],

and afterward [

and afterward]

“and the blood of your sacrifices [

Rashi does not have:

“of your sacrifices”]

shall be poured,” as it is written at the beginning

of the verse, with the flesh preceding the blood,

“And you shall make your burnt offerings—

the flesh and the blood.”

For even according to this order, we would learn that the blood permits the flesh for eating, since the meaning of the verse is that the blood will be poured before eating, for it does not say, “and you shall pour the blood,” but rather, “it shall be poured,” which implies: it shall be poured first.

And

what is different, that it placed “the blood of your sacrifices” first

before the flesh? Necessarily, the verse came to teach us two laws:

1.

It follows:

that the blood shall be poured in any event, to teach you:

blood, even though there is no flesh.

2.

And it also follows

from this, that the verse placed the blood before the flesh [Rabbenu Hananel],

that the flesh is not permitted for eating until the blood is sprinkled.

And Rabbi Joshua

can say to you, concerning Rabbi Eliezer’s claim that the verse came to teach that the flesh is not permitted for eating until the blood is sprinkled, and did not come to teach “if there is no flesh, there is no blood”:

That

the flesh is not permitted for eating until the blood is sprinkled

does not require the verse to teach us.

For

it is a kal va-chomer

from the portions that must be burned before the flesh is eaten. And this is how he learns it:

And if the portions, when they are not present [

when they are absent, because they became impure or were lost],

do not prevent

the eating of the flesh [Rashi], nevertheless

when they are present, they prevent

the eating of the flesh until they are burned.

All the more so

the blood, when it is not present

at all, is

preventing

the eating of the flesh, as we said, that according to everyone, “if there is no blood, there is no flesh” [Rashi].

If so,

when it is present [

when the blood is present and fit for sprinkling]—

is it not all the more so that it prevents

the eating of the flesh until it is sprinkled?!

And Rabbi Eliezer,

who expounded the verse to teach that the flesh should not be eaten until the blood is sprinkled, and did not learn it from a kal va-chomer, can say to you:

Although it can be learned by means of a kal va-chomer, it is a general principle in our hands:

A matter that comes [

that can be learned]

through a kal va-chomer, Scripture took the trouble and wrote it explicitly

in the verse.

And here too, one can say that the verse came to teach us that one should sprinkle the blood first and afterward eat, even though the essential law was already known from a kal va-chomer.

And Rabbi Joshua

held:

Whenever it is possible to expound

the verse in a manner in which it comes to introduce some matter, and not to teach something that can be learned by means of a kal va-chomer,

we expound it.

Therefore, it is preferable to explain that the verse came to teach with regard to peace offerings that if there is no flesh there is no blood.

And

now,

the Gemara returns to explain the question of the members of the academy:

Let us say that our Mishna is not in accordance with Rabbi Joshua:

Since Rabbi Joshua said that we require two [

both are needed] in order to sprinkle, both blood and flesh,

and

our Mishna holds:

The tzitz does not effect acceptance for the acts of eating [

as was explained in the Gemara above]. And when the flesh became impure—since it is an “act of eating”—the tzitz does not help to consider it as though it had not become impure. If so, there is “no flesh,” and the blood is not sprinkled.

And since this is so, it follows from our Mishna that communal offerings are brought in a state of impurity—even when the offering itself became impure [Ribam in the commentary of the RiD, see the note ].

And if it is according to Rabbi Joshua,

how does it come—

a communal offering that became impure—

in impurity?!

For although the tzitz effects acceptance for blood that became impure [Rashi], the tzitz does not effect acceptance for foods, and it follows that there is no flesh here, and he cannot sprinkle the blood.

Rather, necessarily, our Mishna is not in accordance with Rabbi Joshua, and impurity of the flesh does not prevent the sprinkling, while the acceptance of the tzitz helps with regard to the blood that became impure; therefore, they bring it in impurity.

And we reject this:

Even if you say

that our Mishna

is Rabbi Joshua, it is not difficult for you to say, “If there is no flesh, there is no blood.”

For with regard to “if there is no flesh, there is no blood,” it is not necessary that there specifically be flesh for eating; it is sufficient if there are portions for burning [as was explained above].

For with regard to “if there is no flesh, there is no blood,” it is not necessary that there specifically be flesh suitable for eating; it is sufficient that there are sacrificial portions to be burned [as explained above].

Rather, let us say:

It holds

Rabbi Joshua holds: The tzitz effects acceptance for what ascends

upon the altar, and since the acceptance helps them, the offering is brought in impurity.

But the Gemara still raises the difficulty that we should say that our Mishna is not in accordance with Rabbi Joshua:

For

this works well with regard to sacrifices

that were mentioned in the Mishna, since

there are things that ascend

and as we resolved.

Rather,

but

the omer and the two loaves

that are taught in the Mishna,

for there are no

“things that ascend”—

what can be said?!

The explanation of the Gemara’s difficulty from the omer and the two loaves is not identical, because the omer is one matter and the two loaves are another. And this is the explanation of the Gemara’s words:

With regard to the omer that is brought in impurity, this is how we raise the difficulty:

If you conclude that our Mishna is according to Rabbi Joshua, it follows that even if the meal offering itself became impure, since it is a communal offering, he brings the meal offering and burns the handful.

But this is impossible, for the tzitz does not effect acceptance for foods, and the remainder is food. And according to Rabbi Joshua, since there is no remainder, there is no handful, because the handful is analogous to the blood of the sacrifice, and the remainder is analogous to the flesh of the sacrifice [as was explained above]; and if there is no flesh, there is no blood.

And you cannot say that the tzitz effects acceptance for what ascends, for in a meal offering there are no portions, but only a handful and the remainder.

And with regard to the two loaves, where there is no handful-taking at all and all of it is eaten, Rashi wrote that this is how we raise the difficulty: “And with regard to the two loaves, which are entirely acts of eating, there is not even one [thing that ascends]” [see note ].

They said

the members of the academy resolved:

When Rabbi Joshua also said that we require two [

flesh and blood],

with regard to sacrifices

he said it, but

with regard to meal offerings he did not say it,

and he burns the handful even though there is no remainder.

And since this is so, there is no difficulty from the meal offering of the omer, for even if it became impure, since the handful is accepted through the tzitz, as it is analogous to the blood of the sacrifice, for which the acceptance of the tzitz is effective, he brings it even in impurity [see note ].

And we raise a difficulty:

And

if

with regard to meal offerings he did not say,

Rabbi Joshua, that if the remainder does not exist, he does not burn the handful?!

But we learned: “If its remainder became impure”

of the meal offering [or if its remainder was burned, Mishna, Menahot 26a], or if

its remainder was lost

of the meal offering, this is its law:

According to the measure of [

according to the method of]

Rabbi Eliezer,

it is

valid.

According to the measure of Rabbi Joshua,

it is

invalid.

We have explicitly learned in it that according to Rabbi Joshua, even with regard to meal offerings, he does not burn the handful if there is no remainder.

And we answer: In fact, according to Rabbi Joshua himself, there is a distinction between sacrifices and meal offerings, and he said “if there is no flesh, there is no blood” only with regard to sacrifices.

And concerning what we learned with regard to meal offerings whose remainder became impure: “According to the measure of Rabbi Joshua, it is invalid”—although according to Rabbi Joshua we do not require the remainder to exist in meal offerings—this is what it means:

“According to the measure”

and not

“according to the measure,”

that is, it is invalid “according to” the method of Rabbi Joshua, but not according to his actual method.

According to the measure of Rabbi Joshua—

that we require two.

And not according to the measure of Rabbi Joshua

completely.

For Rabbi Joshua himself,

himself,

with regard to sacrifices

is the one who

said

it, but

with regard to meal offerings he did not say it, whereas this tanna holds, even with regard to meal offerings

we require two [the handful and the remainder].

And we raise a difficulty:

And

if

who [

who is]

this tanna who stands in agreement with him

with Rabbi Joshua,

and is more stringent than he is?

That is to say: Where have we heard that there is a tanna who holds like Rabbi Joshua and is more stringent than he, so that we should say that the tanna of this Mishna holds in this manner, whereas Rabbi Joshua himself does not hold so?!

And furthermore,

behold

it was taught

in a beraita that Rabbi Joshua stated his law even with regard to meal offerings:

For it was taught:

Rabbi Yosei said: I see the words of Rabbi Eliezer with regard to meal offerings and sacrifices, and the words of Rabbi Joshua with regard to sacrifices and meal offerings,

[in the Gemara below, on 78a, the Gemara explains at length the intention of Rabbi Yosei’s words, which appear to contradict one another].

The words of Rabbi Eliezer with regard to sacrifices,

that is:

For he would say, blood even though there is no flesh there.

And the words of Rabbi Joshua with regard to sacrifices,

that is:

For he would say, if there is no blood there is no flesh; if there is no flesh there is no blood.

The words of Rabbi Eliezer with regard to meal offerings,

that is:

For he would say, a handful even though there is no remainder.

The words of Rabbi Joshua with regard to meal offerings,

that is:

For he would say, if there is no handful there is no remainder; if there is no remainder there is no handful.

We have here explicitly that Rabbi Joshua would state his law even with regard to meal offerings.

Rather,

this is how we answer to explain our Mishna—with regard to sacrifices, the meal offering of the omer, and the two loaves—even according to Rabbi Joshua, who holds: If there is no flesh in sacrifices and no remainder in meal offerings, the blood is not sprinkled and the handful is not burned:

Rabbi Joshua holds: The tzitz

indeed

effects acceptance for what ascends

and for acts of eating,

and since the acts of eating have been accepted, it is as though there is flesh here fit for eating and a remainder fit for eating, and he can sprinkle the blood.

And therefore, the sacrifices are brought even in impurity of themselves, and the meal offering of the omer is offered even in impurity of itself, for it is as though there are flesh and remainder, since the tzitz effects acceptance for them, and therefore it is possible to sprinkle the blood. And likewise, the two loaves come in impurity of themselves, because the tzitz effects acceptance for them, so that they can permit the new produce in the Temple, for “the tzitz effects acceptance for foods.”

And we raise an objection:

If so—

according to Rabbi Yehoshua, the tzitz effects acceptance for the foods—

why did we state in the Mishna brought above: “Its remnants became impure,” its remnants were burned, its remnants were lost, and so on,

“according to the measure of Rabbi Yehoshua, it is invalid”?!

?!

But since the tzitz effects acceptance for the foods, it follows that even if its remnants became impure, they are considered as though they exist through the acceptance of the tzitz; so why is it invalid?!

And we answer: What we stated in the Mishna, “according to the measure of Rabbi Yehoshua, it is invalid,” applies only

to what was lost and burned,

that is, to what they said in the Mishna, “its remnants were burned, its remnants were lost,” for in this Rabbi Yehoshua indeed invalidates it.

But with regard to “its remnants became impure,” even Rabbi Yehoshua concedes that it is valid through the acceptance of the tzitz.

And we raise an objection:

Rather,

“became impure” [“

its remnants became impure”]

for whom is it taught [for which tanna—Rabbi Eliezer or Rabbi Yehoshua—is “its remnants became impure” stated in the Mishna]?!

That is: after all, it is necessarily so that the entire purpose for which “its remnants became impure” was mentioned in the Mishna is only to innovate that according to Rabbi Yehoshua the meal-offering is invalid.

For if

for Rabbi Eliezer

it was taught, in order to innovate according to his view that even when the remnants became impure he nevertheless burns the handful, then

it is obvious

and there is no need to state it.

For:

now one can say [that is: since you have said]

“what was lost and burned, which are not present”

at all as remnants, even so

Rabbi Eliezer validates,

then

“became impure”

the remnants,

which are present

before us, except that they are unfit for eating—and why

would it be necessary

for the tanna to say that according to his view the meal-offering is valid?!

Rather,

it is obvious that

to

innovate the view of

Rabbi Yehoshua

in “its remnants became impure” it was taught,

and

after all,

it teaches: “It is invalid.”

We have learned, then, that even when its remnants became impure Rabbi Yehoshua invalidates it, because he holds that the tzitz does not effect acceptance for the foods; and if so, our Mishna is necessarily not according to Rabbi Yehoshua?!

And furthermore it was taught,

that according to Rabbi Yehoshua the tzitz effects acceptance neither for the portions offered on the altar nor for the foods:

Rabbi Yehoshua says: With regard to all sacrifices in the Torah, whether the flesh became impure and

if only the

fat [portions offered on the altar]

remained, and whether the fat became impure and

if only the

flesh remained,

he sprinkles the blood.

This implies:

But if both of them became impure,

the flesh and the portions offered on the altar,

he does not

sprinkle the blood.

Apparently Rabbi Yehoshua holds: The tzitz does not effect acceptance [not, in the version of B]

for the portions offered on the altar and not for the foods,

for if the tzitz effected acceptance for one of them, he would sprinkle the blood even if both of them became impure, since it would suffice for us that the portions offered on the altar remain or that the foods remain, as explained in the beraita, and the acceptance of the tzitz considers them as though they remain.

And since this is so, our Mishna is difficult, both from the sacrifices and from the omer and the two loaves.

And we answer:

Rather, our Mishna is in fact Rabbi Yehoshua’s, and there is no difficulty:

Here,

the essential statement of Rabbi Yehoshua and the beraita that we brought are speaking

initially.

Whereas

here,

our Mishna is speaking

after the fact.

And

when Rabbi Yehoshua said “If there is no flesh, there is no blood,” it was only

initially;

but

after the fact he did not

say it, and our Mishna is after the fact, [see note ].

after the fact he did not

say this, and our Mishna is dealing with a case after the fact, [see the note ].

сказал, а наша Мишна говорит о случае постфактум, [см. примечание ].

And we explain:

And from where do you say that Rabbi Yehoshua distinguishes between initially and after the fact:

For it was taught: If the flesh became impure, or became invalid

through a tevul yom who touched it and invalidated it,

or went out the flesh outside the curtains

of the Temple courtyard and became invalid through “that which went out”:

Rabbi Eliezer says: He shall sprinkle

the blood even though the flesh is unfit for eating, because there is blood even when there is no flesh.

Rabbi Yehoshua says: He shall not sprinkle,

because since there is no flesh, there is no blood.

And Rabbi Yehoshua concedes that if he sprinkled

the blood,

it effects acceptance.

It follows that Rabbi Yehoshua concedes after the fact that it effects acceptance, even though there is no flesh.

It is therefore evident that Rabbi Yehoshua agrees that after the fact it effects acceptance, even though there is no flesh.

And we raise an objection to our resolution:

First,

concerning what we say, that Rabbi Yehoshua concedes after the fact—for in the Mishna brought above we stated: “Its remnants became impure, and so on, according to the measure of Rabbi Yehoshua, it is invalid,” and

“it is invalid”

implies after the fact.

And furthermore, there is a difficulty with what we say, that our Mishna is only after the fact, for we stated in the Mishna

“Five matters come

in a state of impurity,” and “come”

implies initially

and not after the fact.

and not after the fact.

а не на случай постфактум.