Pesachim 77b (עז:) — the Talmud in English

And we explain this according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua:

And these two verses

—the two passages: “And you shall offer 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 offer your

burnt offering

—the flesh and the blood,” teaching you that if there is no flesh of the burnt offering on the altar, the blood may not be sprinkled.

And one

of the verses is: “And the blood of your

peace offerings

shall be poured out and you shall eat the flesh,” teaching you that if there is no flesh to eat, the blood may not be sprinkled. [However, even in the case of peace offerings, it is sufficient that there are sacrificial portions placed upon the altar in order to sprinkle the blood.]

And it is necessary

to have two verses, one concerning a burnt offering and one concerning peace offerings, and one cannot be derived from the other:

For had the Merciful One written

only

concerning a burnt offering, I would have said: A burnt offering is

the offering concerning which we say that if there is no flesh, there is no blood, since

it is more stringent, as

a burnt offering is

entirely

burned upon the altar and is especially important; therefore, we are stringent with regard to it.

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

since their flesh is eaten,

say that one should not

be stringent with regard to them and say that 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 had the Merciful One written

only concerning

peace offerings

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

I would have said: On the contrary,

peace offerings are more important, since

they involve two acts of eating:

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

But with regard to a burnt offering, which does not involve two acts of eating,

but only the altar’s eating,

say that one should not

be stringent with regard to it and say that if there is no flesh, there is no blood.

And therefore,

it teaches us

through the two verses that both with regard to a 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 also—doesn’t the verse state: “And you shall eat the flesh”

? We have thereby learned that if there is no flesh to eat, there is no blood?!

He can say to you,

Rabbi Eliezer:

That

verse

is needed by him

to teach

that the flesh is not permitted for consumption until the blood has been sprinkled

, and this is what the verse says: first, “The blood of your sacrifices shall be poured out,” and afterward, “and you shall eat the flesh.” [Rabbi Ḥananel] And we raise a difficulty:

If so,

since you derive from this verse that the flesh is not permitted for consumption until the blood has been sprinkled,

say: The entire verse came only for this purpose

alone;

that is what it came

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

But

“the blood, even when there is no flesh there”—

from where do we derive this?!

And we answer:

Rabbi Eliezer can say to you:

Rabbi Eliezer:

If so,

if, as you say, this verse comes entirely only to teach that the blood renders the flesh permitted for consumption,

the Merciful One should have written

“you shall eat the flesh” [Rashi’s version is:

Rashi reads

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

and afterward

afterward]

“and the blood of your

Rashi does not read

your sacrifices

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

of the verse, with the flesh preceding the blood:

“And you shall offer your burnt offerings—

the flesh and the blood.”

For even according to this order, we would learn that the blood renders the flesh permitted for consumption, since the meaning of the verse would be that the blood is poured out before the flesh is eaten. After all, it does not say, “and you shall pour out the blood,” but “it shall be poured out,” which indicates that it is to be poured out first.

And

why did it place “the blood of your sacrifices” first

before the flesh? Inevitably, the verse comes to teach two laws:

a.

This proves

that the blood is to be poured out in any event, teaching you:

the blood, even when there is no flesh.

b.

And this also proves

from the fact that the verse placed the blood before the flesh [Rabbi Ḥananel] that

the flesh is not permitted for consumption until the blood has been sprinkled.

And Rabbi Yehoshua

can say to you, in response to Rabbi Eliezer’s claim that the verse comes to teach that the flesh is not permitted for consumption until the blood has been sprinkled, and does not come to teach “if there is no flesh, there is no blood”:

This that

the flesh is not permitted for consumption until the blood has been sprinkled

does not require the verse to teach us.

For

it is a kal va-homer

from the sacrificial portions, which must be burned before the flesh is eaten. And this is how he derives it:

And if sacrificial portions, when they are absent

[when they are not present, because they became impure or were lost]

do not prevent

the eating of the flesh [Rashi], nevertheless,

when they are present, they do prevent

the eating of the flesh until they have been burned.

All the more so

with regard to blood, when it is absent

entirely: it

prevents

the eating of the flesh, as we said, 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 to be sprinkled]—

is it not all the more so that it prevents

the eating of the flesh until it has been sprinkled?!

And Rabbi Eliezer,

who expounded the verse to teach that the flesh may not be eaten until the blood has been sprinkled, rather than deriving it through a kal va-chomer, can say to you:

Although it could be derived through a kal va-chomer, it is an established principle:

A matter that can be derived

[that can be learned]

through a kal va-chomer—the verse takes the trouble to write it explicitly

in the Torah.

Here too, one may say that the verse came to teach us that the blood must be sprinkled first and only afterward may the flesh be eaten, even though the basic law was already known through a kal va-chomer.

And Rabbi Yehoshua

held:

Wherever it is possible to expound

the verse in a manner that introduces a new matter, rather than teaching something that can be derived through 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 students of the academy:

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

Since Rabbi Yehoshua said that we require two

[both are needed] in order to sprinkle—the blood and the flesh—

and

our Mishna holds:

The tzitz does not effect acceptance for the acts of eating

[as was explained earlier in the Gemara]. When the flesh becomes impure, since it is an aspect of “acts of eating,” the tzitz cannot cause it to be regarded as though it had not become impure. Thus, there is “no flesh,” and the blood may not be sprinkled.

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

But if it is in accordance with Rabbi Yehoshua,

how can it come

—a communal offering that became impure—

in impurity?!

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

Rather, inevitably, our Mishna is not in accordance with Rabbi Yehoshua. The impurity of the flesh does not prevent the sprinkling, and the tzitz effects acceptance for the blood that became impure; therefore, the offering is brought in impurity.

And we reject this:

Even if you say

that our Mishna

is Rabbi Yehoshua’s,

there is no difficulty for you that we should 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 suitable for eating; it is sufficient that there are sacrificial portions to be burned [as explained above].

Rather, let us say:

It holds

that Rabbi Yehoshua maintains: The tzitz effects acceptance for the portions placed

upon the altar. Since the acceptance is effective for them, the offering is brought in impurity.

Nevertheless, the Gemara continues to challenge the claim that our Mishna is not in accordance with Rabbi Yehoshua:

For

this works well with regard to offerings

mentioned in the Mishna, since

there are portions placed upon the altar,

as we have resolved.

But,

with regard to

the omer and the two loaves

mentioned in the Mishna,

where there are no

“portions placed upon the altar,”—

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 another. This is the explanation of the Gemara’s words:

With regard to an omer brought in impurity, this is the difficulty:

If you should conclude that our Mishna is in accordance with Rabbi Yehoshua, it follows that even if the meal offering itself became impure, since it is a communal offering, one brings the meal offering and burns the handful.

But this is impossible, since the tzitz does not effect acceptance for foodstuffs, and the remainder of the meal offering is food. According to Rabbi Yehoshua, since there is no remainder, there is no handful, for the handful is analogous to the blood of an offering, and the remainder is analogous to the flesh of an offering [as explained above]; and if there is no flesh, there is no blood.

Nor can you say that the tzitz effects acceptance for the portions placed upon the altar, since a meal offering has no sacrificial portions, but only a handful and a remainder.

And with regard to the two loaves, where there is no taking of a handful at all and all of it is eaten, Rashi wrote that this is the difficulty: “And as for the two loaves, which are entirely acts of eating, there is not even one [aspect that can be accepted by the tzitz].” [See note ]

They said

the students of the academy in answer:

When Rabbi Yehoshua likewise said that we require two

[flesh and blood],

it was with regard to offerings

that he said this, but

with regard to meal offerings he did not say it,

and one burns the handful even when there is no remainder.

And since this is so, there is no difficulty from the omer meal offering. Even if it became impure, since the handful is accepted through the tzitz—for it is analogous to the blood of an offering, for which the acceptance of the tzitz is effective—it is brought even in impurity. [See note ]

And we raise a difficulty:

And

if

with regard to meal offerings he did not say

Rabbi Yehoshua that if the remainder does not exist, the handful may not be burned—

but didn’t we learn: “If the remainder became impure”

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

its remainder was lost,

this is its law:

According to the measure of

[according to the method of]

Rabbi Eliezer,

it is

fit.

According to the measure of Rabbi Yehoshua,

it is

unfit.

We have explicitly learned here that according to Rabbi Yehoshua, even with regard to meal offerings, the handful may not be burned if there is no remainder.

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

And what we learned with regard to meal offerings whose remainder became impure—“according to the measure of Rabbi Yehoshua, it is unfit”—although according to Rabbi Yehoshua the remainder need not exist in the case of meal offerings, this is what it means:

“According to the measure”

and not

“according to the measure,”

that is, it is unfit “according to” the method of Rabbi Yehoshua, but not according to his actual view.

According to the measure of Rabbi Yehoshua—

who requires two.

But not entirely according to the measure of Rabbi Yehoshua,

in every respect.

For whereas Rabbi Yehoshua

himself,

with regard to offerings,

is the one who

said this,

but

with regard to meal offerings he did not say it, whereas this tanna maintains that 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

Rabbi Yehoshua

and is more stringent than he is?

That is to say: Where have we heard of a tanna who agrees with Rabbi Yehoshua but is more stringent than he is, such that we can say that the tanna of this Mishna holds this way, whereas Rabbi Yehoshua himself does not?!

Furthermore,

we have

a beraita

which teaches that Rabbi Yehoshua stated his ruling even with regard to meal offerings:

For it was taught:

Rabbi Yosei said: I see the words of Rabbi Eliezer as correct with regard to meal offerings and offerings, and the words of Rabbi Yehoshua as correct with regard to offerings and meal offerings

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

The words of Rabbi Eliezer with regard to offerings,

that is:

He would say: The blood, even when there is no flesh there.

And the words of Rabbi Yehoshua with regard to offerings,

that is:

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:

He would say: The handful, even when there is no remainder.

The words of Rabbi Yehoshua with regard to meal offerings,

that is:

He would say: If there is no handful, there is no remainder; if there is no remainder, there is no handful.

We have here explicit evidence that Rabbi Yehoshua stated his ruling even with regard to meal offerings.

Rather,

this is how we answer in explaining our Mishna: With regard to offerings, the omer meal offering, and the two loaves—even according to Rabbi Yehoshua, who maintains that if there is no flesh in the case of offerings, or no remainder in the case of meal offerings, the blood may not be sprinkled and the handful may not be burned—

Rabbi Yehoshua maintains: The tzitz

indeed

effects acceptance for the portions placed upon the altar

and for the acts of eating, and since acceptance has been effected for the acts of eating, it is as though flesh suitable for eating and a remainder fit for eating are present here, and the blood may be sprinkled.

Therefore, the offerings are brought even when they themselves are impure, and the omer meal offering is offered even when it itself is impure, since, because the tzitz effects acceptance for them, it is as though flesh and a remainder are present, and the blood can therefore be sprinkled. Likewise, the two loaves are brought when they themselves are impure, because the tzitz effects acceptance for them, enabling them to permit the new grain in the Temple, for “the tzitz effects acceptance for foodstuffs.”

рабби Yehoshua

And we explain:

And they explain:

And they raise a difficulty against our resolution: