Pesachim 78a — the Talmud in English

Rather

the Gemara retracts its previous assumption: ritual impurity is rejected in the community and requires the appeasement of the tzitz; rather, ritual impurity is permitted in the community, and since that is so, our Mishna can even accord with Rabbi Yehoshua:

It is not difficult:

when

here

the words of Rabbi Yehoshua, who said that when the flesh and the sacrificial portions became impure, or the remnants of the meal-offering became impure, one does not sprinkle the blood, are speaking,

in the case of an individual; for since the tzitz does not appease either for the parts offered upon the altar or for the parts eaten, he therefore cannot sprinkle the blood, because: “If there is no flesh, there is no blood.”

But

But

here,

in our Mishna, it is

the community

that is under discussion: ritual impurity is “permitted,” and appeasement by the tzitz is not required, and he may sprinkle the blood even though the flesh became impure.

And thus our Mishna is also resolved, for we learned that the two loaves come in ritual impurity: although the tzitz does not appease for the parts eaten, in the community one offers in ritual impurity even without appeasement by the tzitz, since ritual impurity is “permitted” in the community.

And we explain further:

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

For it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Eliezer says: The tzitz appeases for the parts eaten.

Rabbi Yosei says: The tzitz does not appease for the parts eaten.

And

it occurred to the mind

of the members of the academy:

From the fact that Rabbi Yosei says, “The tzitz does not appease for the parts eaten,”

it is certain that

he holds in accordance with Rabbi Yehoshua, who says: We require both

flesh and blood, and if there is no flesh, there is no blood.

For if not, with regard to what did Rabbi Yosei innovate that the tzitz does not appease for the parts eaten? Surely it is obvious that the tzitz does not appease for impure flesh so that it should be permitted to eat it in ritual impurity, and Rabbi Eliezer also did not disagree about this. Rather, certainly it is with regard to a case in which the flesh became impure while the blood remains: lest you say that the flesh is considered as though it remains through the appeasement of the tzitz, and that he may sprinkle the blood, it is concerning this that Rabbi Yosei said: The tzitz does not appease for the parts eaten, and therefore he does not sprinkle the blood.

And since that is so,

let us now say that our Mishna is not in accordance with Rabbi Yosei!

For according to Rabbi Yosei: “If there is no flesh, there is no blood,” and “If there are no remnants, there is no handful,” and according to his view, “the tzitz does not appease for the parts eaten”;

; and if our Mishna is in accordance with Rabbi Yosei, how can they bring communal meal-offerings that contracted intrinsic impurity? The tzitz is needed to effect acceptance, but the tzitz does not effect acceptance for the remnants, and if there are no remnants, there is no handful

and if our Mishna is in accordance with Rabbi Yosei, how do they bring communal meal-offerings that became intrinsically impure? Does one not require the tzitz to appease, while the tzitz does not appease for the remnants, and if there are no remnants, there is no handful?

And we reject this:

No,

not as we said, that according to Rabbi Yosei, “If there is no flesh, there is no blood”; rather,

Rabbi Yosei holds in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer, who says: “There is blood even though there is no flesh,”

and our Mishna is well explained even according to Rabbi Yosei.

And we ask:

If so,

according to Rabbi Yosei, ritual impurity of the flesh does not prevent the sprinkling of the blood,

for what halakhic purpose

did Rabbi Yosei say:

“The tzitz does not appease for the parts eaten,”

as has already been explained?!

And the Gemara answers:

And according to your reasoning:

that there is no practical difference in the issue of appeasement by the tzitz for the parts eaten except with regard to sprinkling the blood when the flesh became impure, and only according to the one who holds, “If there is no flesh, there is no blood”—

But

Rabbi Eliezer, who says: The tzitz appeases

for the parts eaten, is also subject to your question, for

since Rabbi Eliezer himself said:

“

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

if so,

for what halakhic purpose does the tzitz appease for the parts eaten,

since without appeasement by the tzitz he can sprinkle the blood?!

Rather,

they disagreed over the following matters as to whether the tzitz appeases for the parts eaten; [but according to both of them, “There is blood even though there is no flesh”]:

Introduction:

A. One who entertains a pigul intention concerning a sacrifice—for example, if at the time of slaughter he intended to sprinkle the blood, or burn the sacrificial portions, or eat the flesh after its allotted time—the entire sacrifice is “pigul,” and one who eats from it becomes liable for karet.

B. A sacrifice concerning which one entertained a pigul intention does not acquire the status of “pigul” until all its permitting elements have been offered. This is what they said: “Like the acceptance of a valid offering [a sacrifice that did not become pigul is accepted through the sprinkling of the blood], so is the acceptance of an invalid offering [pigul: to teach you that it does not acquire the status of pigul until it is accepted through sprinkling, which is the completion of all its permitting elements].”

C. When does the sprinkling of the blood establish the status of pigul? When the sacrifice was valid at the time of sprinkling, had he not entertained a pigul intention. But if there was another disqualification in the sacrifice, such as that it became impure, it does not acquire the status of “pigul” to make one who eats it liable for karet. Even if only the flesh was impure at the time of sprinkling, one who eats from the flesh is not liable for karet on account of pigul, since it had another disqualification.

D. Sacrifices that are most holy have meila if one derives benefit from them, because they are “holy to the Lord.” But most holy sacrifices that have permission for the priests to eat, once their blood has been sprinkled and they have become permitted for the priests to eat, are no longer “holy to the Lord,” and there is no meila with them.

E. In the case of a sacrifice that had a disqualification—for example, all or part of it became impure—and one sprinkled its blood, the sprinkling of the blood does not cause it to lose the status of an object subject to meila. End of introduction.]

A.

To establish

the impure parts eaten

with

the status of

pigul [Rashi]. (99)

B.

In order

to remove

the impure parts eaten

from the status of meila

do

they disagree,

Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yosei: whether the tzitz was effective in treating them as though they were pure, and the sprinkling was effective in establishing in them the status of pigul and removing them from the status of meila.

Rabbi Eliezer holds: The tzitz appeases for it,

for the flesh, since it is “parts eaten,”

and it makes it

the tzitz

like something pure, and the sprinkling establishes it

the sprinkling

as pigul

to make one who eats it liable for karet;

and

so

it removes it

the sprinkling removes the impure flesh

from the status of meila,

because the tzitz was effective in treating it as though it were pure.

And Rabbi Yosei holds: The tzitz does not appease for it,

for the flesh, since it is “parts eaten,”

and it does not make it

the tzitz

like something pure, and

since that is so,

it does not establish it

the sprinkling

as pigul, and it does not remove it

the sprinkling

from the status of meila,

and the sprinkling was effective only to discharge the owners of their obligation.

Rav Mari challenges this:

How could you say that our Mishna comes even in accordance with Rabbi Yosei, who holds that the tzitz does not appease for the parts eaten?

Even if

[it were so]

that Rabbi Yosei holds in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer,

who says, “There is blood even though there is no flesh,” the following question remains:

Granted, sacrifices

that became impure are offered in the community, for

there is blood

for which the tzitz appeases with regard to its impurity. And although the tzitz does not appease for the flesh—according to Rabbi Yosei, who holds that the tzitz does not appease for the parts eaten—we have already explained that according to Rabbi Yosei there is blood even though there is no flesh.

And the meal-offering of the

And the meal-offering of the

omer also

is satisfactorily explained as coming in ritual impurity, for

there is a handful

for which the tzitz appeases; and although it does not appease for the remnants, there is a handful even though there are no remnants.

And the showbread also

is satisfactorily explained as coming in ritual impurity, for

there are bowls

of frankincense [which they placed upon the table, and the burning of the bowls permits the bread, as the handful permits the meal-offering], and the appeasement of the tzitz was effective to permit offering them upon the altar, and the mitzva of the showbread was fulfilled even though they were impure.

Rather,

concerning what we learned in our Mishna, that

the two loaves

come in ritual impurity—since they consist only of “parts eaten,” for which the tzitz does not appease according to Rabbi Yosei—

what is there to say

in order to explain it according to Rabbi Yosei?!

And if you would say:

Our Mishna is not speaking of the two loaves that come by themselves, without the two lambs, since with these it is not applicable to say that they come in ritual impurity, for since the tzitz does not appease for the parts eaten—

Rather, our Mishna is speaking of the two loaves that come with the two lambs, and the appeasement of the tzitz was effective

to offer

with them,

and

which are they [the offerings, and which are offered with them],

[literally, “who are they,” i.e., which offerings are brought with them]?

the communal peace-offerings [that is, the two lambs], which come with the bread, whose blood-sprinkling permits them to be eaten; and thus the two loaves have been permitted, and they permit the new produce in the Temple, even though they are impure?

It is impossible to explain it this way, because

:

if so,

our Mishna, which counts the things that come in ritual impurity—namely, the omer, the two loaves, the showbread, the sacrifices of the communal peace-offerings, and the goats of the New Moons—

would amount to four,

for surely the sacrifices of the communal peace-offerings and the two loaves would be counted as one;

and

if

we

“five”

things come in ritual impurity

did we not learn?!

Rather,

our Mishna is indeed in accordance with Rabbi Yosei, who holds that the tzitz does not appease for the parts eaten, and

Rabbi Yosei holds: Ritual impurity is permitted in the community,

and appeasement by the tzitz is not required at all.

And we question: How can you say that Rabbi Yosei holds that ritual impurity is permitted in the community?

But it was taught:

One, this one,

the priest who burns the red heifer, whom they would separate to the Chamber of the House of Stone in the Temple courtyard seven days before the burning of the heifer [and in Yoma 2 the reason for the separation is explained].

And one, this one,

the High Priest, whom they would separate to the Chamber of the Palhedrin seven days before the Yom Kippur service performed by him [and there the reason for the separation is explained]:

They would

sprinkle upon him

to purify him

all

those

seven

days (100)

from all sin-offerings [the ashes of the red heifer, which is called “sin-offering,” and from every heifer they would set aside a little for safekeeping from the ashes in the rampart, Rashi, Yoma]

[the ashes of the red heifer, which is called a “sin-offering”; from each and every heifer they would set aside a small amount of the ashes for safekeeping in the Temple courtyard, Rashi, Yoma]

that were there

in the Temple, in order to purify them from possible impurity from a corpse,

the words of Rabbi Meir.

третий

Rabbi Yosei says: They do not sprinkle upon him

all seven days

but

on the

third

day from their separation

and the seventh

day from their separation

only.

Но вынужденно следует заключить, что рабби Йоси считает: нечистота в общественной жертве лишь отодвигается и разрешается только в крайнем случае. Поэтому изначально службу следует совершать посредством чистого коэна.

And if it enters your mind that Rabbi Yosei holds that ritual impurity is permitted in the community,

if so,

why do I need any sprinkling at all

for the High Priest who serves on Yom Kippur, in order to purify him? Surely at the outset he can serve as an impure priest, since the Yom Kippur sacrifices are communal sacrifices fixed for them at a particular time, and their impurity is permitted in the community?!

Rather, you are forced to conclude that Rabbi Yosei holds: Ritual impurity is rejected in the community, and it is permitted only with difficulty; therefore, at the outset, one must perform it through a pure priest.

Rather, it is clear

[it is clear] that

our Mishna

of ours is

not in accordance with Rabbi Yosei.

And now the Gemara returns to explain Rabbi Yosei’s words in the beraita brought above [77b].

Rav Pappa said to Abaye: And

does

Rabbi Yosei possess a document that vindicates both litigants [that is, who has ever seen a document that vindicates both the claimant and the defendant]?!

For it was taught

[this is the beraita brought above]:

Rabbi Yosei said: I see the words of Rabbi Eliezer concerning sacrifices, and the words of Rabbi Yehoshua concerning sacrifices, and the words of Rabbi Eliezer concerning meal-offerings, and the words of Rabbi Yehoshua concerning meal-offerings.

The words of Rabbi Eliezer concerning sacrifices: For he would say: There is blood even though there is no flesh.

The words of Rabbi Yehoshua concerning sacrifices: 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 concerning meal-offerings: For he would say: There is a handful even though there are no remnants.

And the words of Rabbi Yehoshua concerning meal-offerings: For he would say: If there are no remnants there, there is no handful; if there is no handful, there are no remnants.

It follows that Rabbi Yosei agrees with two tannaim, while each one of them has an opinion opposing the opinion of the other.

He said to him,

Abaye to Rav Pappa:

“It is reasonable,”

he says,

is what

Rabbi Yosei; that is: Rabbi Yosei did not intend by his words to say whether the words of this one or the words of that one are the halakha, but only to say that it is reasonable that Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Eliezer disagreed both concerning sacrifices and concerning meal-offerings.

And

when Rabbi Yosei stands

Rabbi Yosei

concerning sacrifices [when Rabbi Yosei was teaching their dispute concerning sacrifices],

he says: It is reasonable; just as they disagree

Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua

concerning sacrifices, they also disagree concerning meal-offerings.

And when

Rabbi Yosei

stands

Rabbi Yosei

concerning meal-offerings, he says: It is reasonable; just as they disagree concerning meal-offerings, they also disagree concerning sacrifices.

He said

he wondered

at him

Rav Pappa to Abaye:

That is satisfactory

what you said:

When he was dealing with offerings, he said: It is reasonable that just as they disagree concerning offerings, they also disagree concerning meal-offerings!

And because

the principal verses—

from which Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Eliezer learned their positions—

are written concerning offerings

it is that

they are written

[as was explained above, on page 77], and therefore Rabbi Yosei had to say that even concerning meal-offerings, about which verses were not stated, they also disagree.

Rather

what you said to explain Rabbi Yosei’s words:

(and when he was dealing with meal-offerings,

he said: It is reasonable that just as they disagree concerning meal-offerings, they also disagree concerning offerings]],

it is difficult:

But the principal verses are written concerning offerings,

and why should we learn them from meal-offerings?!

Rather

we answer the difficulty in another manner: “Rabbi Yosei is granting the document to both parties”;

and in any event, “I see” that Rabbi Yosei said is to be understood according to its plain meaning, namely, that he agrees with their words.

Nevertheless,

it is not difficult:

How is Rabbi Yosei granting the document to both parties? For this is what he is saying:

I see the words of Rabbi Eliezer

concerning offerings and meal-offerings,

in

the place where

the meat became impure

or the remnants.

And

I see the

words of Rabbi Yehoshua

concerning offerings and meal-offerings,

in

the place where the meat was

lost or burned.

And the reason: For when the meat becomes impure, he can sprinkle the blood, because the tzitz effects acceptance for the meat, and it is as though it did not become impure; which is not so when the meat was lost or burned.

And we ask:

Concerning becoming impure, what is the reason

that Rabbi Yosei saw the words of Rabbi Eliezer? Certainly,

because the tzitz effects acceptance.

But it is impossible to say so, because

you have heard Rabbi Yosei

above

say: The tzitz does not effect acceptance for things that are eaten?!

Rather, it is not difficult,

and this is what Rabbi Yosei said:

I see the words of Rabbi Eliezer, in

the meat or the remnants having become impure in a

communal

offering, as he proceeds to explain the reason.

And

I see the words of Rabbi Yehoshua

when the meat or the remnants became impure

in

an

individual offering

[and the same law applies when it was lost or burned, whether in an individual offering or in a communal offering].

And we ask:

Concerning a communal offering, what is the reason

that Rabbi Yosei saw the words of Rabbi Eliezer, who declared it valid? Certainly,

because impurity is permitted for a communal offering,

and since that is so, the tzitz is not needed to effect acceptance, and he sprinkles the blood even though the tzitz does not effect acceptance for things that are eaten; but in an individual offering, even when the meat became impure and was not lost, he does not sprinkle the blood, because the tzitz does not effect acceptance for things that are eaten; but:

First, you have heard Rav Yosei say that impurity is merely deferred for a communal offering

[as the Gemara proved above], and if so, the tzitz is needed to effect acceptance even in a communal offering; yet according to Rabbi Yosei, the tzitz does not effect acceptance for things that are eaten, so how can he sprinkle the blood when the meat became impure?!

And furthermore, if

what Rabbi Yosei said, “I see the words of Rabbi Eliezer,” means

in a communal offering,

then what is this that he said: “I see the words of ‘Rabbi Eliezer’”? Is

Rabbi Eliezer

alone the one who

declares it valid

in a communal offering,

but not Rabbi Yehoshua?!