Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Daf Yomi

February 6, 2021 | ื›ืดื“ ื‘ืฉื‘ื˜ ืชืฉืคืดื

Masechet Pesachim is sponsored by Sivya Twersky in honor of her daughter, Shoshana Baker, her grandson's upcoming Bar Mitzvah ,and in memory of her father, Harav Pesach Zachariah Halevi ben Reuven and Leah Z'late Z'L. He lived Torah and emunah by example to congregational and biological families. His yahrzeit falls within this masechet.

Pesachim 77

Today’s Daf is sponsored by Elisheva Gray. “With much gratitude and appreciation everyone at Hadran. I feel truly blessed to have discovered Hadran at the time I decided to take on Daf Yomi, and to have such a skilled and dedicated morah leading us all on this wonderful journey through Talmud. I’m also thankful for all of the supporting teachers and resources available on the Hadran website. A heartfelt Todah Rabah to all.” And by Shelly and Jerry Gornish in memory of our ืขื– – our beloved and missed grandson, Oz Wilchek, z”l.ย 

What public sacrifices are offered in impurity but are not permitted to be eaten? What case does this list come to exclude? From where do we derive that these all are offered even in impurity? When they say that impurity if overridden for communal offerings, do we mean the impurity is overridden entirely or is it just pushed aside, but one still needs the tzitz, head plate of the Kohen to atone? When the tzitz atones, does it permit just the blood to be brought on the altar or does it also permit the meat (to be eaten and also to sacrifice the parts on the altar that are to be burned)? Based on the answer to these two questions, the gemara brings the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua that if there is no meat it is impossible to bring the blood on the altar. This raises a question โ€“ could it be that our mishna doesnโ€™t fit with Rabbi Yehoshuaโ€™s opinion? The gemara gives four ways to explain how the mishna can work with Rabbi Yehoshuaโ€™s opinion. All but one are rejected.

ืฉืขื™ืจื™ ืจืืฉื™ ื—ื“ืฉื™ื ืื™ืฆื˜ืจื™ื›ื ืœื™ื” ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชืš ืืžื™ื ื ื”ื ืœื ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื‘ื”ื• ืžื•ืขื“ ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ ื“ืจืืฉ ื—ื“ืฉ ืื™ืงืจื™ ืžื•ืขื“


It was necessary for the mishna to mention the goats sacrificed on the New Moons. It could enter your mind to say that since the term appointed time is not written with regard to them, these offerings do not override Shabbat or ritual impurity as do other communal offerings during their appointed times. Therefore, it teaches us that even the New Moon is called an appointed time.


ื›ื“ืื‘ื™ื™ ื“ืืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ืชืžื•ื– ื“ื”ืื™ ืฉืชื ืžืœื•ื™ื™ ืžืœื™ื•ื” ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืงืจื ืขืœื™ ืžื•ืขื“ ืœืฉื‘ืจ ื‘ื—ื•ืจื™


This is in accordance with what Abaye said in order to defend the tradition that the spies returned from Eretz Yisrael and the entire Jewish people cried unnecessarily on the Ninth of Av, which resulted in the Ninth of Av becoming a day of crying for future generations. The calculation of the days does not work out precisely, and therefore Abaye said: They filled out Tammuz of that year, meaning that it was a thirty-day month, rather than a twenty-nine-day month as it is nowadays. There is an allusion to this in a verse, as it is written: โ€œHe proclaimed an appointed time against me to crush my young menโ€ (Lamentations 1:15), meaning that the New Moon was proclaimed in order to harm the Jewish people in the future. This proves that even the New Moon is called an appointed time.


ืœืžื™ืžืจื ื“ื›ื•ืœื”ื• ืžืžื•ืขื“ ืืชื• ืžื ื”ื ื™ ืžื™ืœื™ ื“ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื•ื™ื“ื‘ืจ ืžืฉื” ืืช ืžืขื“ื™ ื”ืณ ืžื” ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืœืคื™ ืฉืœื ืœืžื“ื ื• ืืœื ืœืชืžื™ื“ ื•ืคืกื— ืฉื ืืžืจ ื‘ื”ื• ื‘ืžื•ืขื“ื• ื‘ืžื•ืขื“ื• ื•ืืคื™ืœื• ื‘ืฉื‘ืช ื‘ืžื•ืขื“ื• ื•ืืคื™ืœื• ื‘ื˜ื•ืžืื”


The Gemara asks: Is that to say that all of them come from, i.e., are derived from, the term appointed time? From where are these matters derived? The Gemara answers: It is as the Sages taught based upon the verse: โ€œAnd Moses declared the appointed times of the Lord to the children of Israelโ€ (Leviticus 23:44). What is the meaning when the verse states this phrase? This phrase is necessary because we had learned only that the daily offering and the Paschal lamb override Shabbat and ritual impurity, as it is stated with regard to them: In its appointed time, from which it is derived that each of them must be sacrificed in its appointed time and even on Shabbat, in its appointed time and even in ritual impurity.


ืฉืืจ ืงืจื‘ื ื•ืช ืฆื™ื‘ื•ืจ ืžื ื™ื™ืŸ ืฉื ืืžืจ ืืœื” ืชืขืฉื• ืœื”ืณ ื‘ืžื•ืขื“ื™ื›ื


With regard to the rest of the communal offerings, from where is it derived that they also override Shabbat and ritual impurity? As it is stated with regard to additional offerings that are brought on the Festivals: โ€œThese you shall sacrifice to the Lord in your appointed timesโ€ (Numbers 29:39).


ืžื ื™ืŸ ืœืจื‘ื•ืช ืขื•ืžืจ ื•ื”ืงืจื‘ ืขืžื• ืฉืชื™ ื”ืœื—ื ื•ื”ืงืจื‘ ืขืžื ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ื•ื™ื“ื‘ืจ ืžืฉื” ืืช ืžืขื“ื™ ื”ืณ ืืœ ื‘ื ื™ ื™ืฉืจืืœ ื”ื›ืชื•ื‘ ืงื‘ืขื• ืžื•ืขื“ ืื—ื“ ืœื›ื•ืœืŸ


The baraita continues: From where is it derived to include the omer and the lambs that are sacrificed with it, the two loaves sacrificed on Shavuot, and the communal peace-offerings that are sacrificed with them? The verse states: โ€œAnd Moses declared the appointed times of the Lord to the children of Israelโ€ after it lists Shabbat and the Festivals. This indicates that the verse established one time for all of them. All of these days are considered appointed times, and their offerings are not deferred.


ื•ื›ืœ ื”ื ื™ ืœืžื” ืœื™ ืฆืจื™ื›ื™ ื“ืื™ ื›ืชื‘ ืจื—ืžื ื ืชืžื™ื“ ื”ื•ื” ืืžื™ื ื ืชืžื™ื“ ืฉื›ืŸ ืชื“ื™ืจ ื•ื›ืœื™ืœ ืื‘ืœ ืคืกื— ืœื ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ


The Gemara asks: Why do I need all these derivations? It should have been sufficient to provide one derivation and use that as a model for all communal offerings. The Gemara answers: They are all necessary. As, if the Merciful One had written this halakha only with regard to the daily offering in the Torah, I would have said: The daily offering is unique in that it is frequent and it is consumed, as it is entirely consumed as a burnt-offering, and that is why it overrides Shabbat and ritual impurity; but the Paschal lamb, which does not have either of these characteristics, does not override Shabbat and ritual impurity. Therefore, it teaches us that the Paschal lamb also overrides Shabbat and ritual impurity.


ื•ืื™ ื›ืชื‘ ืจื—ืžื ื ืคืกื— ืคืกื— ืฉื”ื•ื ืขื ื•ืฉ ื›ืจืช ืื‘ืœ ืชืžื™ื“ ื“ืื™ืŸ ืขื ื•ืฉ ื›ืจืช ืื™ืžื ืœื ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ


And if the Merciful One had written that this halakha applies to the Paschal lamb, I would have said that the Paschal lamb, for which one is punished with karet if one neglects to sacrifice it, overrides Shabbat and ritual impurity; but with regard to the daily offering, for which one is not punished with karet for neglecting to sacrifice it, say that it does not override Shabbat and ritual impurity. Therefore, it comes to teach us that the daily offering also overrides Shabbat and ritual impurity.


ื•ืื™ ื›ืชื‘ ืจื—ืžื ื ื”ื ื™ ืชืจืชื™ ื”ื•ื” ืืžื™ื ื ื”ื ื™ ื”ื•ื ื™ืฉ ื‘ื”ืŸ ืฆื“ ื—ืžื•ืจ ืชืžื™ื“ ืชื“ื™ืจ ื•ื›ืœื™ืœ ืคืกื— ืฉื”ื•ื ืขื ื•ืฉ ื›ืจืช ืื‘ืœ ืฉืืจ ืงืจื‘ื ื•ืช ืฆื™ื‘ื•ืจ ืื™ืžื ืœื ื›ืชื‘ ืจื—ืžื ื ืืœื” ืชืขืฉื• ืœื”ืณ ื‘ืžื•ืขื“ื™ื›ื


And if the Merciful One had written this halakha only with regard to these two offerings, I would have said that it is only with regard to these offerings that the halakha applies, because they have a stringent aspect. The daily offering is frequent and entirely consumed on the altar, and one who neglects to bring the Paschal lamb is punished with karet. But with regard to the rest of the communal offerings, which do not have these stringencies, say that they do not override Shabbat and ritual impurity. Therefore, the Merciful One writes: โ€œThese you shall sacrifice to the Lord in your appointed times,โ€ to teach that even these override Shabbat and ritual impurity.


ื•ืื™ ื›ืชื‘ ืจื—ืžื ื ืืœื” ืชืขืฉื• ืœื”ืณ ื‘ืžื•ืขื“ื™ื›ื ื”ื•ื” ืืžื™ื ื ืฉืืจ ืงืจื‘ื ื•ืช ืฆื™ื‘ื•ืจ ื”ื‘ืื™ืŸ ืœื›ืคืจ ืื‘ืœ ืขื•ืžืจ ื•ืฉืชื™ ื”ืœื—ื ื“ืื™ืŸ ื‘ืื™ืŸ ืœื›ืคืจ ืืœื ืœื”ืชื™ืจ ื‘ืขืœืžื ื ื™ื ื”ื• ืœื ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ


And if the Merciful One had written โ€œThese you shall sacrifice to the Lord in your appointed timesโ€ and nothing else, I would have said that only the other communal offerings that come to atone for sins are included, such as sin-offerings and burnt-offerings. Burnt-offerings atone for the neglect of positive commandments and for the violation of negative commandments that can be rectified through positive commandments. But the omer and the two loaves, which do not come to atone for sin but merely come to permit, as the omer permits the consumption of the new crop of grain and the two loaves permit using the new crop of grain as offerings in the Temple, do not override Shabbat and ritual impurity. Therefore, it teaches us that even these override Shabbat and ritual impurity.


ื•ืื™ ื›ืชื‘ ืจื—ืžื ื ืขื•ืžืจ ื•ืฉืชื™ ื”ืœื—ื ืœื—ื•ื“ื™ื™ื”ื• ื”ื•ื” ืืžื™ื ื ืื“ืจื‘ื” ืขื•ืžืจ ื•ืฉืชื™ ื”ืœื—ื ื“ืืœื™ืžื™ ื“ื‘ืื™ืŸ ืœื”ืชื™ืจ ืื‘ืœ ื”ื ืš ืœื ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ


And if the Merciful One had written: The omer and the two loaves, by themselves, I would have said: On the contrary, the omer and the two loaves, which are important because they come to permit, override Shabbat and ritual impurity, but these other communal offerings do not. Therefore, it teaches us each of the derivations separately.


ืกื‘ืจื•ื” ื“ืœื›ื•ืœื™ ืขืœืžื ื˜ื•ืžืื” ื“ื—ื•ื™ื” ื”ื™ื ื‘ืฆื™ื‘ื•ืจ ื•ื‘ืขื™ื ืฆื™ืฅ ืœืจืฆื•ืช


Since the Gemara has discussed communal offerings that are brought even in a state of ritual impurity, it addresses the basic halakhot relating to this area. The Gemara posits two assumptions and then compares the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua to the mishna. It states as a preface that the Sages originally assumed that everyone agrees that ritual impurity is overridden in cases involving the public. In other words, the prohibition against sacrificing offerings in a state of ritual impurity applies to communal offerings, but it is superseded by the obligation to sacrifice the offering. Therefore, the frontplate of the High Priest is required to appease God for the sacrifice of the offering in a state of ritual impurity.


ื“ืœื™ื›ื ืชื ื ื“ืฉืžืขืช ืœื™ื” ื“ืืžืจ ื˜ื•ืžืื” ื”ื•ืชืจื” ื‘ืฆื™ื‘ื•ืจ ืืœื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื“ืชื ื™ื ืฆื™ืฅ ื‘ื™ืŸ ืฉื™ืฉื ื• ืขืœ ืžืฆื—ื• ื•ื‘ื™ืŸ ืฉืื™ื ื• ืขืœ ืžืฆื—ื• ืžืจืฆื” ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื•ืžืจ ืขื•ื“ื™ื”ื• ืขืœ ืžืฆื—ื• ืžืจืฆื” ืื™ืŸ ืขื•ื“ื™ื”ื• ืขืœ ืžืฆื—ื• ืื™ื ื• ืžืจืฆื”


There is no tanna that you have heard of who said that ritual impurity is entirely permitted in cases involving the public, i.e., that with regard to the public there is no significance to ritual impurity in the Temple, except for Rabbi Yehuda. As it was taught in a baraita: The frontplate of the High Priest, whether it is on his forehead or whether it is not on his forehead, appeases God and thereby facilitates the acceptance of offerings sacrificed in a state of impurity; this is the statement of Rabbi Shimon. Rabbi Yehuda says: When it is still on his forehead it appeases God, but when it is no longer on his forehead it does not appease Him, as indicated in the verse: โ€œAnd it shall be on Aaronโ€™s forehead, that Aaron may bear the iniquity of the sacred things which the children of Israel shall hallowโ€ (Exodus 28:38).


ืืžืจ ืœื• ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื›ื”ืŸ ื’ื“ื•ืœ ื‘ื™ื•ื ื”ื›ืคื•ืจื™ื ื™ื•ื›ื™ื— ืฉืื™ื ื• ืขืœ ืžืฆื—ื• ื•ืžืจืฆื”


Rabbi Shimon said to Rabbi Yehuda: The halakha with regard to the High Priest on Yom Kippur shall prove it, as the frontplate is not on his forehead, and it nonetheless appeases God if communal offerings are brought in a state of ritual impurity. The High Priest spends part of Yom Kippur wearing only the four white garments instead of his usual golden vestments, which include the frontplate.


ืืžืจ ืœื• ื”ื ื— ืœื™ื•ื ื”ื›ืคื•ืจื™ื ืฉื˜ื•ืžืื” ื”ื•ืชืจื” ื‘ืฆื™ื‘ื•ืจ ืžื›ืœืœ ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืกื‘ืจ ื˜ื•ืžืื” ื“ื—ื•ื™ื” ื”ื™ื ื‘ืฆื™ื‘ื•ืจ


Rabbi Yehuda said to him: Set aside Yom Kippur, as ritual impurity is wholly permitted in cases involving the public. The frontplate is needed only to atone for individual offerings that are brought in a state of ritual impurity. This proves by inference that Rabbi Shimon holds that ritual impurity is overridden in cases involving the public, but it is not wholly permitted. Therefore, the frontplate is needed to appease God for the sacrifice of the offering in a state of ritual impurity.


ื•ื“ื›ื•ืœื™ ืขืœืžื ืื™ืŸ ื”ืฆื™ืฅ ืžืจืฆื” ืขืœ ืื›ื™ืœื•ืช ื“ืœื™ื›ื ืชื ื ื“ืฉืžืขืช ืœื™ื” ื“ืืžืจ ื”ืฆื™ืฅ ืžืจืฆื” ืขืœ ืื›ื™ืœื•ืช ืืœื ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื“ืชื ื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ืื•ืžืจ ื”ืฆื™ืฅ ืžืจืฆื” ืขืœ ืื›ื™ืœื•ืช ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ืื•ืžืจ ืื™ืŸ ื”ืฆื™ืฅ ืžืจืฆื” ืขืœ ืื›ื™ืœื•ืช


The Sages also presumed that everyone agrees that the frontplate appeases God only for the sacrifice of the offering and the burning of the requisite parts on the altar in a state of ritual impurity, but it does not appease God for the impurity of the portions of offerings that are supposed to be eaten. Therefore, although the offering is valid, it may not be eaten. As, the only tanna you have heard say the frontplate appeases God for the impurity of the portions of offerings that are supposed to be eaten is Rabbi Eliezer, as it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer says: The frontplate appeases God for the impurity of the portions of offerings that supposed to be eaten. And Rabbi Yosei says: The frontplate does not appease God for the impurity of portions of offerings that are supposed to be eaten.


ื ื™ืžื ืžืชื ื™ืชื™ืŸ ื“ืœื ื›ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื“ืชื ื™ื ื•ืขืฉื™ืช ืขืœืชื™ืš ื”ื‘ืฉืจ ื•ื”ื“ื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ืื•ืžืจ ืื ืื™ืŸ ื“ื ืื™ืŸ ื‘ืฉืจ ืื ืื™ืŸ ื‘ืฉืจ ืื™ืŸ ื“ื


On the basis of these two assumptions, let us say that the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, as it was taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: โ€œAnd you shall sacrifice your burnt-offerings, the flesh and the blood, upon the altar of the Lord your God, and the blood of your offerings shall be poured out against the altar of the Lord your God, and you shall eat the fleshโ€ (Deuteronomy 12:27), that Rabbi Yehoshua says: If there is no blood that is fit to be sprinkled on the altar, due to the fact that it became ritually impure or was lost, there is no meat, as the meat is also disqualified. Similarly, if there is no meat that is fit for use, due to the fact that it became ritually impure or was lost, there is no blood sprinkled on the altar, and the offering does not bring atonement.


ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ืื•ืžืจ ื“ื ืืฃ ืขืœ ืคื™ ืฉืื™ืŸ ื‘ืฉืจ ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ื“ื ื–ื‘ื—ื™ืš ื™ืฉืคืš ื•ืžื” ืื ื™ ืžืงื™ื™ื ื•ืขืฉื™ืช ืขืœืชื™ืš ื”ื‘ืฉืจ ื•ื”ื“ื ืœื•ืžืจ ืœืš ืžื” ื“ื ื‘ื–ืจื™ืงื” ืืฃ ื‘ืฉืจ ื‘ื–ืจื™ืงื”


Rabbi Eliezer says: Blood brings atonement although there is no suitable meat, as it is stated: โ€œAnd the blood of your offerings shall be poured out.โ€ Blood is the aspect of the offering most essential for atonement. And how do I uphold the significance of the juxtaposition of flesh and blood in the verse: โ€œAnd you shall sacrifice your burnt-offerings, the flesh and the bloodโ€? I hold that it is there to tell you that just as the blood is presented upon the altar via sprinkling, so too, the meat is presented via throwing.


ื”ื•ื™ ืื•ืžืจ ืœื•ืœ ืงื˜ืŸ ื™ืฉ ื‘ื™ืŸ ื›ื‘ืฉ ืœืžื–ื‘ื—


You must say, based upon this, that there is a small gap between the ramp and the altar. In order to fulfill the requirement to throw, the priest would proceed as follows: Rather than walking to the arrangement of wood and putting down the meat, he would stand on the ramp and throw the meat of the offering over the gap between the ramp and the altar, onto the arrangement of wood on the altar.


ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื ืžื™ ื”ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ื“ื ื–ื‘ื—ื™ืš ื™ืฉืคืš ืืžืจ ืœืš ื”ื ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื’ื‘ื™ื” ื•ื”ื‘ืฉืจ ืชืื›ืœ


The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua as well, isnโ€™t it written: โ€œAnd the blood of your offerings shall be poured out,โ€ which indicates that the blood is the essential part of the offering? He could have said to you that it is written right next to it: โ€œAnd you shall eat the flesh,โ€ which indicates that the meat is also essential and must still be suitable for eating.


ื•ื”ื ื™ ืชืจื™ ืงืจืื™ ืœืžื” ืœื™ ื—ื“ ื‘ืขื•ืœื” ื•ื—ื“ ื‘ืฉืœืžื™ื ื•ืฆืจื™ื›ื ื“ืื™ ื›ืชื‘ ืจื—ืžื ื ื‘ืขื•ืœื” ื”ื•ื” ืืžื™ื ื ืขื•ืœื” ื”ื™ื ื“ื—ืžื™ืจื ืฉื›ืŸ ื›ืœื™ืœ ืื‘ืœ ืฉืœืžื™ื ื“ืœื ื—ืžื™ืจื™ ืื™ืžื ืœื


The Gemara asks: Why do I need these two parts of the verse? According to the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, the halakha that both the blood and meat are essential is derived twice from the verse. The Gemara answers: One part of the verse is referring to a burnt-offering and one part is referring to a peace-offering. The Gemara notes that both derivations are necessary, as if the Merciful One had written the halakha that the meat must be suitable for eating only with regard to a burnt-offering, I would have said that it applies only to a burnt-offering, which is stringent, as it is totally consumed on the altar. However, with regard to a peace-offering, which is not stringent, as most of its meat is eaten by the priests and by the one who brought the offering, say that its meat is not essential.


ื•ืื™ ื›ืชื‘ ืจื—ืžื ื ืฉืœืžื™ื ื”ื•ื” ืืžื™ื ื ืื“ืจื‘ื” ื“ืื™ืช ื‘ื”ื• ืฉืชื™ ืื›ื™ืœื•ืช ืื‘ืœ ืขื•ืœื” ื“ืœื™ืช ื‘ื” ืฉืชื™ ืื›ื™ืœื•ืช ืื™ืžื ืœื ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ


And if the Merciful One had written this halakha with regard to a peace-offering, I would have said: On the contrary, the meat of a peace-offering is more important because it has two forms of consumption. The sacrificial parts are burned on the altar, and the owners and priests eat the rest of the meat. But with regard to a burnt-offering, which is completely burned on the altar and therefore does not have two forms of consumption, say that its meat is not essential. For this reason, it teaches us the halakha in both cases.


ื•ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื ืžื™ ื”ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ื”ื‘ืฉืจ ืชืื›ืœ ืืžืจ ืœืš ื”ื”ื•ื ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื” ืืฉืื™ืŸ ื”ื‘ืฉืจ ืžื•ืชืจ ื‘ืื›ื™ืœื” ืขื“ ืฉื™ื–ืจืง ื”ื“ื


The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer as well, isnโ€™t it written: โ€œAnd you shall eat the fleshโ€? The Gemara answers that Rabbi Eliezer could have said to you: That part of the verse is necessary to teach that the meat of an offering is not permitted to be eaten until the blood is sprinkled.


ืื™ ื”ื›ื™ ืื™ืžื ื›ื•ืœื™ื” ืœื”ื›ื™ ื”ื•ื ื“ืืชื ื“ื ืืฃ ืขืœ ืคื™ ืฉืื™ืŸ ืฉื ื‘ืฉืจ ืžื ืœืŸ


The Gemara asks: If so, say that the entire verse comes for this purpose, and in that case, from where do we derive the halakha that one sprinkles the blood even though there is no suitable meat because it became ritually impure or was lost?


ืืžืจ ืœืš ืื ื›ืŸ ื ื›ืชื•ื‘ ืจื—ืžื ื ื”ื‘ืฉืจ ืชืื›ืœ ื•ื”ื“ืจ ื•ื“ื ื–ื‘ื—ื™ืš ื™ืฉืคืš ื›ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื‘ืจื™ืฉื ื•ืขืฉื™ืช ืขืœืชื™ืš ื”ื‘ืฉืจ ื•ื”ื“ื ืžืื™ ืฉื ื ื“ืืงื“ืžื™ื” ืœื“ื ื–ื‘ื—ื™ืš ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ื“ื ืืฃ ืขืœ ืคื™ ืฉืื™ืŸ ื‘ืฉืจ ื•ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ืฉืื™ืŸ ื”ื‘ืฉืจ ืžื•ืชืจ ื‘ืื›ื™ืœื” ืขื“ ืฉื™ื–ืจืง ื”ื“ื


The Gemara answers that Rabbi Eliezer could have said to you: If so, the Merciful One should have written โ€œand you shall eat the fleshโ€ and then โ€œand the blood of your offerings shall be poured out,โ€ as it is written in the first clause of that verse: โ€œAnd you shall sacrifice your burnt-offerings, the flesh, and the blood,โ€ listing the meat before the blood. What is different that caused the verse to precede โ€œand you shall eat the fleshโ€ with the phrase โ€œthe blood of your offeringsโ€? Learn from it that blood brings atonement although there is no meat, and learn from it also that the meat is not permitted to be eaten until the blood is sprinkled.


ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ืื™ืŸ ื”ื‘ืฉืจ ืžื•ืชืจ ื‘ืื›ื™ืœื” ืขื“ ืฉื™ื–ืจืง ื”ื“ื ืงืœ ื•ื—ื•ืžืจ ื”ื•ื ื•ืžื” ืื™ืžื•ืจื™ืŸ ื“ื›ื™ ืœื™ืชื ื”ื• ืœื ืžืขื›ื‘ื™ ื›ื™ ืื™ืชื ื”ื• ืžืขื›ื‘ื™ ื“ื ื“ื›ื™ ืœื™ืชื™ื” ืžืขื›ื‘ ื›ื™ ืื™ืชื™ื” ืœื ื›ืœ ืฉื›ืŸ ื“ืžืขื›ื‘


The Gemara asks: And from where does Rabbi Yehoshua derive the halakha that the meat is not permitted to be eaten until the blood is sprinkled? The Gemara answers that according to his opinion, it is an a fortiori inference: Just as with regard to sacrificial portions brought on the altar, which do not preclude acceptance of the offering when they are not present, when they are present they do preclude the eating of the meat; with regard to blood, which precludes acceptance of the offering when it is not present, e.g., when it became ritually impure or lost, then when it is present, all the more so is it not clear that it precludes the continuation of the service and the eating the meat until it is sprinkled?


ื•ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ืžื™ืœืชื ื“ืืชื™ื ื‘ืงืœ ื•ื—ื•ืžืจ ื˜ืจื— ื•ื›ืชื‘ ืœื” ืงืจื ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื›ืœ ื”ื™ื›ื ื“ืื™ื›ื ืœืžื“ืจืฉ ื“ืจืฉื™ื ืŸ


The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, if there is an a fortiori inference, why did the Torah have to write this halakha explicitly in a verse? The Gemara answers: A matter that could be derived by means of an a fortiori inference, the verse nonetheless exerted itself and wrote it explicitly. Even when a halakha can be derived through an a fortiori inference, the Torah sometimes writes it explicitly in order to emphasize the halakha. The Gemara asks: How does Rabbi Yehoshua respond to this claim? The Gemara answers: Anywhere that there is a possibility to expound the verse and thereby derive a new halakha, we expound it rather than explain that the verse taught only a halakha that could also have been derived in a different manner.


ื”ืฉืชื ืœื™ืžื ืžืชื ื™ืชื™ืŸ ื“ืœื ื›ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื“ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ื‘ืขื™ื ืŸ ืชืจืชื™ ื•ืฆื™ืฅ ืืื›ื™ืœื•ืช ืœื ืžืจืฆื” ื”ื™ื›ื™ ืืชื™ ื‘ื˜ื•ืžืื”


Now, after these introductions, let us say that the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua: Since he said that we require the two parts of the offering to be valid, i.e., the meat and the blood, and since he presumably holds that the frontplate does not appease God for the impurity of the portions of offerings that are supposed to be eaten, and consequently only the blood of these offerings is valid, how can they be brought in ritual impurity?


ืืคื™ืœื• ืชื™ืžื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ืืœื ืงืกื‘ืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื”ืฆื™ืฅ ืžืจืฆื” ืขืœ ื”ืขื•ืœื™ืŸ


The Gemara refutes this statement: Even if you say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, it is not difficult. Rather, Rabbi Yehoshua holds that the frontplate appeases God for the impurity of that which goes up, i.e., the sacrificial parts that are brought onto the altar and burned. These portions may be burned on the altar even when they are impure. This is considered a form of consumption. Since part of meat is therefore suitable for consumption, the blood may be sprinkled.


ื”ื ืชื™ื ื— ื–ื‘ื—ื™ื ื“ืื™ื›ื ืขื•ืœื™ืŸ ืืœื ืขื•ืžืจ ื•ืฉืชื™ ื”ืœื—ื ื“ืœื™ื›ื ืขื•ืœื™ืŸ ืžืื™ ืื™ื›ื ืœืžื™ืžืจ ืืžืจื™ ื›ื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื ืžื™ ื“ื‘ืขื™ื ืŸ ืชืจืชื™ ื‘ื–ื‘ื—ื™ื ื‘ืžื ื—ื•ืช ืœื ืืžืจ


The Gemara asks: This works out well with regard to communal animal offerings, from which there are portions that go up onto the altar. But what of the omer and the two loaves, of which there are no parts that go up onto the altar? These offerings are entirely eaten by the priests except for the handful of flour which is scooped out and burned on the altar, and which serves the same function for a meal-offering as the sprinkling of the blood for an animal offering. What is there to say concerning those offerings? Say in answer to this question: When Rabbi Yehoshua said that we require the two parts of the offering to be valid, he said it with regard to animal offerings; but with regard to meal-offerings he did not say it.


ื•ื‘ืžื ื—ื•ืช ืœื ืืžืจ ื•ื”ืชื ืŸ ื ื˜ืžืื• ืฉื™ืจื™ื” ืื‘ื“ื• ืฉื™ืจื™ื” ื›ืžื“ืช ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื›ืฉื™ืจื” ื›ืžื“ืช ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ืคืกื•ืœื”


The Gemara expresses surprise: Is it true that with regard to meal-offerings he did not say that there is a requirement that both the handful and the remainder of the meal-offering remain valid? Didnโ€™t we learn in a mishna: If the remainder of the meal-offering, i.e., everything left after the handful has been separated, became ritually impure, or if the remainder was lost, according to the principle of Rabbi Eliezer, who says that the blood is fit even if there is no meat, it is valid, but according to the principle of Rabbi Yehoshua it is disqualified?


ื›ืžื“ืช ื•ืœื ื›ืžื“ืช ื›ืžื“ืช ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื“ื‘ืขื™ื ืŸ ืชืจืชื™ ื•ืœื ื›ืžื“ืช ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื“ืื™ืœื• ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ื–ื‘ื—ื™ื ืืžืจ ื‘ืžื ื—ื•ืช ืœื ืืžืจ ื•ืื™ืœื• ื”ืื™ ืชื ื ืกื‘ืจ ืืคื™ืœื• ื‘ืžื ื—ื•ืช


The Gemara responds: It is in accordance with the principle of Rabbi Yehoshua but not entirely in accordance with the principle of Rabbi Yehoshua, meaning that the statement in the mishna is similar but not entirely consistent with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua. It is in accordance with the principle of Rabbi Yehoshua in that we need the two parts of the offering to be valid. And it is not in accordance with the principle of Rabbi Yehoshua, because whereas Rabbi Yehoshua himself said so with regard to animal offerings but with regard to meal-offerings he did not say so, this tanna quoted in the mishna extended Rabbi Yehoshuaโ€™s opinion and holds that it applies even to meal-offerings.


ื•ืžื ื• ื”ืื™ ืชื ื ื“ืงืื™ ื›ื•ื•ืชื™ื” ื•ืžื—ืžื™ืจ ื˜ืคื™ ืžื™ื ื™ื” ื•ืขื•ื“ ืชื ื™ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ืจื•ืื” ืื ื™ ืืช ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื‘ืžื ื—ื•ืช ื•ื‘ื–ื‘ื—ื™ื ื•ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ื–ื‘ื—ื™ื ื•ื‘ืžื ื—ื•ืช


The Gemara asks: And who is this tanna who holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua and is more stringent than him? And furthermore, it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei said: I see as correct the statement of Rabbi Eliezer both with regard to meal-offerings and with regard to animal offerings; and I see as correct the statement of Rabbi Yehoshua both with regard to animal offerings and with regard to meal-offerings.


ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื‘ื–ื‘ื—ื™ื ืฉื”ื™ื” ืื•ืžืจ ื“ื ืืฃ ืขืœ ืคื™ ืฉืื™ืŸ ืฉื ื‘ืฉืจ ื•ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ื–ื‘ื—ื™ื ืฉื”ื™ื” ืื•ืžืจ ืื ืื™ืŸ ื“ื ืื™ืŸ ื‘ืฉืจ ืื ืื™ืŸ ื‘ืฉืจ ืื™ืŸ ื“ื ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื‘ืžื ื—ื•ืช ืฉื”ื™ื” ืื•ืžืจ ืงื•ืžืฅ ืืฃ ืขืœ ืคื™ ืฉืื™ืŸ ืฉื™ืจื™ื ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ืžื ื—ื•ืช ืฉื”ื™ื” ืื•ืžืจ ืื ืื™ืŸ ืงื•ืžืฅ ืื™ืŸ ืฉื™ืจื™ื ืื ืื™ืŸ ืฉื™ืจื™ื ืื™ืŸ ืงื•ืžืฅ


Rabbi Yosei explains: The statement of Rabbi Eliezer is correct with regard to animal offerings, as he would say that the blood brings atonement although there is no meat. The statement of Rabbi Yehoshua is correct with regard to animal offerings, as he would say that if there is no blood, there is no meat, and if there is no meat, there is no blood. The statement of Rabbi Eliezer is correct with regard to meal-offerings, as he would say that the handful is fit although there is no remainder. The statement of Rabbi Yehoshua is correct with regard to meal-offerings, as he would say that if there is no valid handful, there is no remainder, and if there is no remainder, there is no handful. This indicates that Rabbi Yehoshua disputes the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer concerning meal-offerings, just as he disputes his opinion concerning animal offerings.


ืืœื ืงืกื‘ืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื”ืฆื™ืฅ ืžืจืฆื” ืขืœ [ื”ืขื•ืœื™ืŸ ื•ืขืœ] ื”ืื›ื™ืœื•ืช


Rather, the previous answer should be rejected and the answer is as follows: Rabbi Yehoshua holds that the frontplate appeases God both for the impurity of sacrificial limbs that go up onto the altar and for the impurity of portions of offerings that are supposed to be eaten. The Gemara has now rejected its previous assumption that, according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, the frontplate does not appease God for the impurity of the portions of offerings that are eaten. Consequently, the mishna, which rules that impure communal offerings are valid, is consistent with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua.


ืื™ ื”ื›ื™ ืืžืื™ ื›ืžื“ืช ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ืคืกื•ืœื” ืืื‘ื•ื“ ื•ืฉืจื•ืฃ


The Gemara expresses surprise: If so, why does the mishna cited above say that, in accordance with the principle of Rabbi Yehoshua, an impure offering is disqualified? The Gemara responds: This opinion was stated only with regard to meat that was lost or burned; however, if it became ritually impure, the frontplate appeases God, and the offerings remain valid.


ืืœื ื ื˜ืžื ืœืžืืŸ ืงืชื ื™ ืœืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ืคืฉื™ื˜ื ื”ืฉืชื ื™ืฉ ืœื•ืžืจ ืื‘ื•ื“ ื•ืฉืจื•ืฃ ื“ืœื™ืชื ื”ื• ืžื›ืฉื™ืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื ื˜ืžื ื“ืื™ืชื™ื” ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ื ืืœื ืคืฉื™ื˜ื ืœืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื•ืงืชื ื™ ืคืกื•ืœื”


The Gemara asks: But if so, according to whom is the mishna teaching the case of a meal-offering that became impure? According to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, it is obvious that the meal-offering remains valid: Now that it has been mentioned that in a case where it was lost or burned, when they are not present at all, Rabbi Eliezer validates the offering, is it necessary to mention that when it became impure, when it is still in existence, the offering is valid? Rather, it is obvious that this case is mentioned in order to teach the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, and it is teaching that according to him it is disqualified.


ื•ืขื•ื“ ืชื ื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ืื•ืžืจ ื›ืœ ื–ื‘ื—ื™ื ืฉื‘ืชื•ืจื” ื‘ื™ืŸ ืฉื ื˜ืžื ื‘ืฉืจ ื•ื—ืœื‘ ืงื™ื™ื ื•ื‘ื™ืŸ ืฉื ื˜ืžื ื—ืœื‘ ื•ื‘ืฉืจ ืงื™ื™ื ื–ื•ืจืง ืืช ื”ื“ื ืื‘ืœ ื ื˜ืžืื• ืชืจื•ื•ื™ื™ื”ื• ืœื ืืœืžื ืงืกื‘ืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ืื™ืŸ ื”ืฆื™ืฅ ืžืจืฆื” ืขืœ ื”ืขื•ืœื™ืŸ ื•ืœื ืขืœ ื”ืื›ื™ืœื•ืช


And furthermore, it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehoshua says: With regard to all animal offerings in the Torah, whether the meat became ritually impure and the fat of the offering, which is the part that is burned on the altar, remains valid, or the fat became impure and the meat remains valid, one may sprinkle the blood. The following inference can be made from this baraita: But if both of them became ritually impure, he may not sprinkle the blood. Apparently, Rabbi Yehoshua holds that the frontplate does not appease God for the impurity of the parts of the offering that go up onto the altar or for the impurity of portions of offerings that are supposed to be eaten.


ืืœื ืœืขื•ืœื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื”ื™ื ืžืชื ื™ืชื™ืŸ ื•ืœื ืงืฉื™ื ื›ืืŸ ืœื›ืชื—ืœื” ื›ืืŸ ื“ื™ืขื‘ื“ ื›ื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ืœื›ืชื—ืœื” ื“ื™ืขื‘ื“ ืœื


Rather, the previous answers have been rejected and the answer is as follows: Actually, the mishna is even in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, and it is not difficult: There, Rabbi Yehoshua was referring to the halakha ab initio; here, in the mishna, it is referring to the halakha after the fact. When Rabbi Yehoshua said that if the meat is disqualified the blood may not be brought to the altar, that was only ab initio; after the fact he did not disqualify it.


ื•ืžื ื ืชื™ืžืจื ื“ืฉื ื™ ืœื™ื” ืœืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ื™ืŸ ืœื›ืชื—ืœื” ืœื“ื™ืขื‘ื“ ื“ืชื ื™ื ื ื˜ืžื ื‘ืฉืจ ืื• ืฉื ืคืกืœ ืื• ืฉื™ืฆื ื—ื•ืฅ ืœืงืœืขื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ืื•ืžืจ ื™ื–ืจืง ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ืื•ืžืจ ืœื ื™ื–ืจืง ื•ืžื•ื“ื” ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ืฉืื ื–ืจืง ื”ื•ืจืฆื”


And from where do you say that Rabbi Yehoshua differentiates between ab initio and after the fact? As it was taught in a baraita: If the meat became impure or it was disqualified through contact with one who has immersed during the day but does not become fully pure until nightfall, or if the meat went outside the hangings and was thereby disqualified, Rabbi Eliezer says the blood may be sprinkled and it is valid; Rabbi Yehoshua says it may not be sprinkled. And Rabbi Yehoshua concedes that if one sprinkled the blood, the offering is accepted.


ื—ื“ื ื“ืคืกื•ืœื” ื“ื™ืขื‘ื“ ืžืฉืžืข ื•ืขื•ื“ ื—ืžืฉื” ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ื‘ืื™ืŸ ืœื›ืชื—ืœื” ืžืฉืžืข


The Gemara rejects this answer for two reasons. One reason to reject it is that the term disqualified indicates that the offering is invalid even after the fact and not only ab initio. And furthermore, the mishnaโ€™s statement that five items may be brought in a state of ritual impurity indicates that they may be brought even ab initio.


Masechet Pesachim is sponsored by Sivya Twersky in honor of her daughter, Shoshana Baker, her grandson's upcoming Bar Mitzvah ,and in memory of her father, Harav Pesach Zachariah Halevi ben Reuven and Leah Z'late Z'L. He lived Torah and emunah by example to congregational and biological families. His yahrzeit falls within this masechet.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Dr. Tamara Spitz

Pesachim 74-80 – Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time

This week we start the 7th chapter of Pesachim and learn how the Pesach sacrifice was roasted. We will learn...
daf_icon

Pesachim 67-73 – Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time

This week we will learn about the 3 camps that existed in the desert and who needed to leave which...

Pesachim 77

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Pesachim 77

ืฉืขื™ืจื™ ืจืืฉื™ ื—ื“ืฉื™ื ืื™ืฆื˜ืจื™ื›ื ืœื™ื” ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชืš ืืžื™ื ื ื”ื ืœื ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื‘ื”ื• ืžื•ืขื“ ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ ื“ืจืืฉ ื—ื“ืฉ ืื™ืงืจื™ ืžื•ืขื“


It was necessary for the mishna to mention the goats sacrificed on the New Moons. It could enter your mind to say that since the term appointed time is not written with regard to them, these offerings do not override Shabbat or ritual impurity as do other communal offerings during their appointed times. Therefore, it teaches us that even the New Moon is called an appointed time.


ื›ื“ืื‘ื™ื™ ื“ืืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ืชืžื•ื– ื“ื”ืื™ ืฉืชื ืžืœื•ื™ื™ ืžืœื™ื•ื” ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืงืจื ืขืœื™ ืžื•ืขื“ ืœืฉื‘ืจ ื‘ื—ื•ืจื™


This is in accordance with what Abaye said in order to defend the tradition that the spies returned from Eretz Yisrael and the entire Jewish people cried unnecessarily on the Ninth of Av, which resulted in the Ninth of Av becoming a day of crying for future generations. The calculation of the days does not work out precisely, and therefore Abaye said: They filled out Tammuz of that year, meaning that it was a thirty-day month, rather than a twenty-nine-day month as it is nowadays. There is an allusion to this in a verse, as it is written: โ€œHe proclaimed an appointed time against me to crush my young menโ€ (Lamentations 1:15), meaning that the New Moon was proclaimed in order to harm the Jewish people in the future. This proves that even the New Moon is called an appointed time.


ืœืžื™ืžืจื ื“ื›ื•ืœื”ื• ืžืžื•ืขื“ ืืชื• ืžื ื”ื ื™ ืžื™ืœื™ ื“ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื•ื™ื“ื‘ืจ ืžืฉื” ืืช ืžืขื“ื™ ื”ืณ ืžื” ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืœืคื™ ืฉืœื ืœืžื“ื ื• ืืœื ืœืชืžื™ื“ ื•ืคืกื— ืฉื ืืžืจ ื‘ื”ื• ื‘ืžื•ืขื“ื• ื‘ืžื•ืขื“ื• ื•ืืคื™ืœื• ื‘ืฉื‘ืช ื‘ืžื•ืขื“ื• ื•ืืคื™ืœื• ื‘ื˜ื•ืžืื”


The Gemara asks: Is that to say that all of them come from, i.e., are derived from, the term appointed time? From where are these matters derived? The Gemara answers: It is as the Sages taught based upon the verse: โ€œAnd Moses declared the appointed times of the Lord to the children of Israelโ€ (Leviticus 23:44). What is the meaning when the verse states this phrase? This phrase is necessary because we had learned only that the daily offering and the Paschal lamb override Shabbat and ritual impurity, as it is stated with regard to them: In its appointed time, from which it is derived that each of them must be sacrificed in its appointed time and even on Shabbat, in its appointed time and even in ritual impurity.


ืฉืืจ ืงืจื‘ื ื•ืช ืฆื™ื‘ื•ืจ ืžื ื™ื™ืŸ ืฉื ืืžืจ ืืœื” ืชืขืฉื• ืœื”ืณ ื‘ืžื•ืขื“ื™ื›ื


With regard to the rest of the communal offerings, from where is it derived that they also override Shabbat and ritual impurity? As it is stated with regard to additional offerings that are brought on the Festivals: โ€œThese you shall sacrifice to the Lord in your appointed timesโ€ (Numbers 29:39).


ืžื ื™ืŸ ืœืจื‘ื•ืช ืขื•ืžืจ ื•ื”ืงืจื‘ ืขืžื• ืฉืชื™ ื”ืœื—ื ื•ื”ืงืจื‘ ืขืžื ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ื•ื™ื“ื‘ืจ ืžืฉื” ืืช ืžืขื“ื™ ื”ืณ ืืœ ื‘ื ื™ ื™ืฉืจืืœ ื”ื›ืชื•ื‘ ืงื‘ืขื• ืžื•ืขื“ ืื—ื“ ืœื›ื•ืœืŸ


The baraita continues: From where is it derived to include the omer and the lambs that are sacrificed with it, the two loaves sacrificed on Shavuot, and the communal peace-offerings that are sacrificed with them? The verse states: โ€œAnd Moses declared the appointed times of the Lord to the children of Israelโ€ after it lists Shabbat and the Festivals. This indicates that the verse established one time for all of them. All of these days are considered appointed times, and their offerings are not deferred.


ื•ื›ืœ ื”ื ื™ ืœืžื” ืœื™ ืฆืจื™ื›ื™ ื“ืื™ ื›ืชื‘ ืจื—ืžื ื ืชืžื™ื“ ื”ื•ื” ืืžื™ื ื ืชืžื™ื“ ืฉื›ืŸ ืชื“ื™ืจ ื•ื›ืœื™ืœ ืื‘ืœ ืคืกื— ืœื ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ


The Gemara asks: Why do I need all these derivations? It should have been sufficient to provide one derivation and use that as a model for all communal offerings. The Gemara answers: They are all necessary. As, if the Merciful One had written this halakha only with regard to the daily offering in the Torah, I would have said: The daily offering is unique in that it is frequent and it is consumed, as it is entirely consumed as a burnt-offering, and that is why it overrides Shabbat and ritual impurity; but the Paschal lamb, which does not have either of these characteristics, does not override Shabbat and ritual impurity. Therefore, it teaches us that the Paschal lamb also overrides Shabbat and ritual impurity.


ื•ืื™ ื›ืชื‘ ืจื—ืžื ื ืคืกื— ืคืกื— ืฉื”ื•ื ืขื ื•ืฉ ื›ืจืช ืื‘ืœ ืชืžื™ื“ ื“ืื™ืŸ ืขื ื•ืฉ ื›ืจืช ืื™ืžื ืœื ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ


And if the Merciful One had written that this halakha applies to the Paschal lamb, I would have said that the Paschal lamb, for which one is punished with karet if one neglects to sacrifice it, overrides Shabbat and ritual impurity; but with regard to the daily offering, for which one is not punished with karet for neglecting to sacrifice it, say that it does not override Shabbat and ritual impurity. Therefore, it comes to teach us that the daily offering also overrides Shabbat and ritual impurity.


ื•ืื™ ื›ืชื‘ ืจื—ืžื ื ื”ื ื™ ืชืจืชื™ ื”ื•ื” ืืžื™ื ื ื”ื ื™ ื”ื•ื ื™ืฉ ื‘ื”ืŸ ืฆื“ ื—ืžื•ืจ ืชืžื™ื“ ืชื“ื™ืจ ื•ื›ืœื™ืœ ืคืกื— ืฉื”ื•ื ืขื ื•ืฉ ื›ืจืช ืื‘ืœ ืฉืืจ ืงืจื‘ื ื•ืช ืฆื™ื‘ื•ืจ ืื™ืžื ืœื ื›ืชื‘ ืจื—ืžื ื ืืœื” ืชืขืฉื• ืœื”ืณ ื‘ืžื•ืขื“ื™ื›ื


And if the Merciful One had written this halakha only with regard to these two offerings, I would have said that it is only with regard to these offerings that the halakha applies, because they have a stringent aspect. The daily offering is frequent and entirely consumed on the altar, and one who neglects to bring the Paschal lamb is punished with karet. But with regard to the rest of the communal offerings, which do not have these stringencies, say that they do not override Shabbat and ritual impurity. Therefore, the Merciful One writes: โ€œThese you shall sacrifice to the Lord in your appointed times,โ€ to teach that even these override Shabbat and ritual impurity.


ื•ืื™ ื›ืชื‘ ืจื—ืžื ื ืืœื” ืชืขืฉื• ืœื”ืณ ื‘ืžื•ืขื“ื™ื›ื ื”ื•ื” ืืžื™ื ื ืฉืืจ ืงืจื‘ื ื•ืช ืฆื™ื‘ื•ืจ ื”ื‘ืื™ืŸ ืœื›ืคืจ ืื‘ืœ ืขื•ืžืจ ื•ืฉืชื™ ื”ืœื—ื ื“ืื™ืŸ ื‘ืื™ืŸ ืœื›ืคืจ ืืœื ืœื”ืชื™ืจ ื‘ืขืœืžื ื ื™ื ื”ื• ืœื ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ


And if the Merciful One had written โ€œThese you shall sacrifice to the Lord in your appointed timesโ€ and nothing else, I would have said that only the other communal offerings that come to atone for sins are included, such as sin-offerings and burnt-offerings. Burnt-offerings atone for the neglect of positive commandments and for the violation of negative commandments that can be rectified through positive commandments. But the omer and the two loaves, which do not come to atone for sin but merely come to permit, as the omer permits the consumption of the new crop of grain and the two loaves permit using the new crop of grain as offerings in the Temple, do not override Shabbat and ritual impurity. Therefore, it teaches us that even these override Shabbat and ritual impurity.


ื•ืื™ ื›ืชื‘ ืจื—ืžื ื ืขื•ืžืจ ื•ืฉืชื™ ื”ืœื—ื ืœื—ื•ื“ื™ื™ื”ื• ื”ื•ื” ืืžื™ื ื ืื“ืจื‘ื” ืขื•ืžืจ ื•ืฉืชื™ ื”ืœื—ื ื“ืืœื™ืžื™ ื“ื‘ืื™ืŸ ืœื”ืชื™ืจ ืื‘ืœ ื”ื ืš ืœื ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ


And if the Merciful One had written: The omer and the two loaves, by themselves, I would have said: On the contrary, the omer and the two loaves, which are important because they come to permit, override Shabbat and ritual impurity, but these other communal offerings do not. Therefore, it teaches us each of the derivations separately.


ืกื‘ืจื•ื” ื“ืœื›ื•ืœื™ ืขืœืžื ื˜ื•ืžืื” ื“ื—ื•ื™ื” ื”ื™ื ื‘ืฆื™ื‘ื•ืจ ื•ื‘ืขื™ื ืฆื™ืฅ ืœืจืฆื•ืช


Since the Gemara has discussed communal offerings that are brought even in a state of ritual impurity, it addresses the basic halakhot relating to this area. The Gemara posits two assumptions and then compares the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua to the mishna. It states as a preface that the Sages originally assumed that everyone agrees that ritual impurity is overridden in cases involving the public. In other words, the prohibition against sacrificing offerings in a state of ritual impurity applies to communal offerings, but it is superseded by the obligation to sacrifice the offering. Therefore, the frontplate of the High Priest is required to appease God for the sacrifice of the offering in a state of ritual impurity.


ื“ืœื™ื›ื ืชื ื ื“ืฉืžืขืช ืœื™ื” ื“ืืžืจ ื˜ื•ืžืื” ื”ื•ืชืจื” ื‘ืฆื™ื‘ื•ืจ ืืœื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื“ืชื ื™ื ืฆื™ืฅ ื‘ื™ืŸ ืฉื™ืฉื ื• ืขืœ ืžืฆื—ื• ื•ื‘ื™ืŸ ืฉืื™ื ื• ืขืœ ืžืฆื—ื• ืžืจืฆื” ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื•ืžืจ ืขื•ื“ื™ื”ื• ืขืœ ืžืฆื—ื• ืžืจืฆื” ืื™ืŸ ืขื•ื“ื™ื”ื• ืขืœ ืžืฆื—ื• ืื™ื ื• ืžืจืฆื”


There is no tanna that you have heard of who said that ritual impurity is entirely permitted in cases involving the public, i.e., that with regard to the public there is no significance to ritual impurity in the Temple, except for Rabbi Yehuda. As it was taught in a baraita: The frontplate of the High Priest, whether it is on his forehead or whether it is not on his forehead, appeases God and thereby facilitates the acceptance of offerings sacrificed in a state of impurity; this is the statement of Rabbi Shimon. Rabbi Yehuda says: When it is still on his forehead it appeases God, but when it is no longer on his forehead it does not appease Him, as indicated in the verse: โ€œAnd it shall be on Aaronโ€™s forehead, that Aaron may bear the iniquity of the sacred things which the children of Israel shall hallowโ€ (Exodus 28:38).


ืืžืจ ืœื• ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื›ื”ืŸ ื’ื“ื•ืœ ื‘ื™ื•ื ื”ื›ืคื•ืจื™ื ื™ื•ื›ื™ื— ืฉืื™ื ื• ืขืœ ืžืฆื—ื• ื•ืžืจืฆื”


Rabbi Shimon said to Rabbi Yehuda: The halakha with regard to the High Priest on Yom Kippur shall prove it, as the frontplate is not on his forehead, and it nonetheless appeases God if communal offerings are brought in a state of ritual impurity. The High Priest spends part of Yom Kippur wearing only the four white garments instead of his usual golden vestments, which include the frontplate.


ืืžืจ ืœื• ื”ื ื— ืœื™ื•ื ื”ื›ืคื•ืจื™ื ืฉื˜ื•ืžืื” ื”ื•ืชืจื” ื‘ืฆื™ื‘ื•ืจ ืžื›ืœืœ ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืกื‘ืจ ื˜ื•ืžืื” ื“ื—ื•ื™ื” ื”ื™ื ื‘ืฆื™ื‘ื•ืจ


Rabbi Yehuda said to him: Set aside Yom Kippur, as ritual impurity is wholly permitted in cases involving the public. The frontplate is needed only to atone for individual offerings that are brought in a state of ritual impurity. This proves by inference that Rabbi Shimon holds that ritual impurity is overridden in cases involving the public, but it is not wholly permitted. Therefore, the frontplate is needed to appease God for the sacrifice of the offering in a state of ritual impurity.


ื•ื“ื›ื•ืœื™ ืขืœืžื ืื™ืŸ ื”ืฆื™ืฅ ืžืจืฆื” ืขืœ ืื›ื™ืœื•ืช ื“ืœื™ื›ื ืชื ื ื“ืฉืžืขืช ืœื™ื” ื“ืืžืจ ื”ืฆื™ืฅ ืžืจืฆื” ืขืœ ืื›ื™ืœื•ืช ืืœื ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื“ืชื ื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ืื•ืžืจ ื”ืฆื™ืฅ ืžืจืฆื” ืขืœ ืื›ื™ืœื•ืช ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ืื•ืžืจ ืื™ืŸ ื”ืฆื™ืฅ ืžืจืฆื” ืขืœ ืื›ื™ืœื•ืช


The Sages also presumed that everyone agrees that the frontplate appeases God only for the sacrifice of the offering and the burning of the requisite parts on the altar in a state of ritual impurity, but it does not appease God for the impurity of the portions of offerings that are supposed to be eaten. Therefore, although the offering is valid, it may not be eaten. As, the only tanna you have heard say the frontplate appeases God for the impurity of the portions of offerings that are supposed to be eaten is Rabbi Eliezer, as it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer says: The frontplate appeases God for the impurity of the portions of offerings that supposed to be eaten. And Rabbi Yosei says: The frontplate does not appease God for the impurity of portions of offerings that are supposed to be eaten.


ื ื™ืžื ืžืชื ื™ืชื™ืŸ ื“ืœื ื›ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื“ืชื ื™ื ื•ืขืฉื™ืช ืขืœืชื™ืš ื”ื‘ืฉืจ ื•ื”ื“ื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ืื•ืžืจ ืื ืื™ืŸ ื“ื ืื™ืŸ ื‘ืฉืจ ืื ืื™ืŸ ื‘ืฉืจ ืื™ืŸ ื“ื


On the basis of these two assumptions, let us say that the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, as it was taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: โ€œAnd you shall sacrifice your burnt-offerings, the flesh and the blood, upon the altar of the Lord your God, and the blood of your offerings shall be poured out against the altar of the Lord your God, and you shall eat the fleshโ€ (Deuteronomy 12:27), that Rabbi Yehoshua says: If there is no blood that is fit to be sprinkled on the altar, due to the fact that it became ritually impure or was lost, there is no meat, as the meat is also disqualified. Similarly, if there is no meat that is fit for use, due to the fact that it became ritually impure or was lost, there is no blood sprinkled on the altar, and the offering does not bring atonement.


ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ืื•ืžืจ ื“ื ืืฃ ืขืœ ืคื™ ืฉืื™ืŸ ื‘ืฉืจ ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ื“ื ื–ื‘ื—ื™ืš ื™ืฉืคืš ื•ืžื” ืื ื™ ืžืงื™ื™ื ื•ืขืฉื™ืช ืขืœืชื™ืš ื”ื‘ืฉืจ ื•ื”ื“ื ืœื•ืžืจ ืœืš ืžื” ื“ื ื‘ื–ืจื™ืงื” ืืฃ ื‘ืฉืจ ื‘ื–ืจื™ืงื”


Rabbi Eliezer says: Blood brings atonement although there is no suitable meat, as it is stated: โ€œAnd the blood of your offerings shall be poured out.โ€ Blood is the aspect of the offering most essential for atonement. And how do I uphold the significance of the juxtaposition of flesh and blood in the verse: โ€œAnd you shall sacrifice your burnt-offerings, the flesh and the bloodโ€? I hold that it is there to tell you that just as the blood is presented upon the altar via sprinkling, so too, the meat is presented via throwing.


ื”ื•ื™ ืื•ืžืจ ืœื•ืœ ืงื˜ืŸ ื™ืฉ ื‘ื™ืŸ ื›ื‘ืฉ ืœืžื–ื‘ื—


You must say, based upon this, that there is a small gap between the ramp and the altar. In order to fulfill the requirement to throw, the priest would proceed as follows: Rather than walking to the arrangement of wood and putting down the meat, he would stand on the ramp and throw the meat of the offering over the gap between the ramp and the altar, onto the arrangement of wood on the altar.


ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื ืžื™ ื”ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ื“ื ื–ื‘ื—ื™ืš ื™ืฉืคืš ืืžืจ ืœืš ื”ื ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื’ื‘ื™ื” ื•ื”ื‘ืฉืจ ืชืื›ืœ


The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua as well, isnโ€™t it written: โ€œAnd the blood of your offerings shall be poured out,โ€ which indicates that the blood is the essential part of the offering? He could have said to you that it is written right next to it: โ€œAnd you shall eat the flesh,โ€ which indicates that the meat is also essential and must still be suitable for eating.


ื•ื”ื ื™ ืชืจื™ ืงืจืื™ ืœืžื” ืœื™ ื—ื“ ื‘ืขื•ืœื” ื•ื—ื“ ื‘ืฉืœืžื™ื ื•ืฆืจื™ื›ื ื“ืื™ ื›ืชื‘ ืจื—ืžื ื ื‘ืขื•ืœื” ื”ื•ื” ืืžื™ื ื ืขื•ืœื” ื”ื™ื ื“ื—ืžื™ืจื ืฉื›ืŸ ื›ืœื™ืœ ืื‘ืœ ืฉืœืžื™ื ื“ืœื ื—ืžื™ืจื™ ืื™ืžื ืœื


The Gemara asks: Why do I need these two parts of the verse? According to the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, the halakha that both the blood and meat are essential is derived twice from the verse. The Gemara answers: One part of the verse is referring to a burnt-offering and one part is referring to a peace-offering. The Gemara notes that both derivations are necessary, as if the Merciful One had written the halakha that the meat must be suitable for eating only with regard to a burnt-offering, I would have said that it applies only to a burnt-offering, which is stringent, as it is totally consumed on the altar. However, with regard to a peace-offering, which is not stringent, as most of its meat is eaten by the priests and by the one who brought the offering, say that its meat is not essential.


ื•ืื™ ื›ืชื‘ ืจื—ืžื ื ืฉืœืžื™ื ื”ื•ื” ืืžื™ื ื ืื“ืจื‘ื” ื“ืื™ืช ื‘ื”ื• ืฉืชื™ ืื›ื™ืœื•ืช ืื‘ืœ ืขื•ืœื” ื“ืœื™ืช ื‘ื” ืฉืชื™ ืื›ื™ืœื•ืช ืื™ืžื ืœื ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ


And if the Merciful One had written this halakha with regard to a peace-offering, I would have said: On the contrary, the meat of a peace-offering is more important because it has two forms of consumption. The sacrificial parts are burned on the altar, and the owners and priests eat the rest of the meat. But with regard to a burnt-offering, which is completely burned on the altar and therefore does not have two forms of consumption, say that its meat is not essential. For this reason, it teaches us the halakha in both cases.


ื•ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื ืžื™ ื”ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ื”ื‘ืฉืจ ืชืื›ืœ ืืžืจ ืœืš ื”ื”ื•ื ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื” ืืฉืื™ืŸ ื”ื‘ืฉืจ ืžื•ืชืจ ื‘ืื›ื™ืœื” ืขื“ ืฉื™ื–ืจืง ื”ื“ื


The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer as well, isnโ€™t it written: โ€œAnd you shall eat the fleshโ€? The Gemara answers that Rabbi Eliezer could have said to you: That part of the verse is necessary to teach that the meat of an offering is not permitted to be eaten until the blood is sprinkled.


ืื™ ื”ื›ื™ ืื™ืžื ื›ื•ืœื™ื” ืœื”ื›ื™ ื”ื•ื ื“ืืชื ื“ื ืืฃ ืขืœ ืคื™ ืฉืื™ืŸ ืฉื ื‘ืฉืจ ืžื ืœืŸ


The Gemara asks: If so, say that the entire verse comes for this purpose, and in that case, from where do we derive the halakha that one sprinkles the blood even though there is no suitable meat because it became ritually impure or was lost?


ืืžืจ ืœืš ืื ื›ืŸ ื ื›ืชื•ื‘ ืจื—ืžื ื ื”ื‘ืฉืจ ืชืื›ืœ ื•ื”ื“ืจ ื•ื“ื ื–ื‘ื—ื™ืš ื™ืฉืคืš ื›ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื‘ืจื™ืฉื ื•ืขืฉื™ืช ืขืœืชื™ืš ื”ื‘ืฉืจ ื•ื”ื“ื ืžืื™ ืฉื ื ื“ืืงื“ืžื™ื” ืœื“ื ื–ื‘ื—ื™ืš ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ื“ื ืืฃ ืขืœ ืคื™ ืฉืื™ืŸ ื‘ืฉืจ ื•ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ืฉืื™ืŸ ื”ื‘ืฉืจ ืžื•ืชืจ ื‘ืื›ื™ืœื” ืขื“ ืฉื™ื–ืจืง ื”ื“ื


The Gemara answers that Rabbi Eliezer could have said to you: If so, the Merciful One should have written โ€œand you shall eat the fleshโ€ and then โ€œand the blood of your offerings shall be poured out,โ€ as it is written in the first clause of that verse: โ€œAnd you shall sacrifice your burnt-offerings, the flesh, and the blood,โ€ listing the meat before the blood. What is different that caused the verse to precede โ€œand you shall eat the fleshโ€ with the phrase โ€œthe blood of your offeringsโ€? Learn from it that blood brings atonement although there is no meat, and learn from it also that the meat is not permitted to be eaten until the blood is sprinkled.


ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ืื™ืŸ ื”ื‘ืฉืจ ืžื•ืชืจ ื‘ืื›ื™ืœื” ืขื“ ืฉื™ื–ืจืง ื”ื“ื ืงืœ ื•ื—ื•ืžืจ ื”ื•ื ื•ืžื” ืื™ืžื•ืจื™ืŸ ื“ื›ื™ ืœื™ืชื ื”ื• ืœื ืžืขื›ื‘ื™ ื›ื™ ืื™ืชื ื”ื• ืžืขื›ื‘ื™ ื“ื ื“ื›ื™ ืœื™ืชื™ื” ืžืขื›ื‘ ื›ื™ ืื™ืชื™ื” ืœื ื›ืœ ืฉื›ืŸ ื“ืžืขื›ื‘


The Gemara asks: And from where does Rabbi Yehoshua derive the halakha that the meat is not permitted to be eaten until the blood is sprinkled? The Gemara answers that according to his opinion, it is an a fortiori inference: Just as with regard to sacrificial portions brought on the altar, which do not preclude acceptance of the offering when they are not present, when they are present they do preclude the eating of the meat; with regard to blood, which precludes acceptance of the offering when it is not present, e.g., when it became ritually impure or lost, then when it is present, all the more so is it not clear that it precludes the continuation of the service and the eating the meat until it is sprinkled?


ื•ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ืžื™ืœืชื ื“ืืชื™ื ื‘ืงืœ ื•ื—ื•ืžืจ ื˜ืจื— ื•ื›ืชื‘ ืœื” ืงืจื ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื›ืœ ื”ื™ื›ื ื“ืื™ื›ื ืœืžื“ืจืฉ ื“ืจืฉื™ื ืŸ


The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, if there is an a fortiori inference, why did the Torah have to write this halakha explicitly in a verse? The Gemara answers: A matter that could be derived by means of an a fortiori inference, the verse nonetheless exerted itself and wrote it explicitly. Even when a halakha can be derived through an a fortiori inference, the Torah sometimes writes it explicitly in order to emphasize the halakha. The Gemara asks: How does Rabbi Yehoshua respond to this claim? The Gemara answers: Anywhere that there is a possibility to expound the verse and thereby derive a new halakha, we expound it rather than explain that the verse taught only a halakha that could also have been derived in a different manner.


ื”ืฉืชื ืœื™ืžื ืžืชื ื™ืชื™ืŸ ื“ืœื ื›ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื“ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ื‘ืขื™ื ืŸ ืชืจืชื™ ื•ืฆื™ืฅ ืืื›ื™ืœื•ืช ืœื ืžืจืฆื” ื”ื™ื›ื™ ืืชื™ ื‘ื˜ื•ืžืื”


Now, after these introductions, let us say that the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua: Since he said that we require the two parts of the offering to be valid, i.e., the meat and the blood, and since he presumably holds that the frontplate does not appease God for the impurity of the portions of offerings that are supposed to be eaten, and consequently only the blood of these offerings is valid, how can they be brought in ritual impurity?


ืืคื™ืœื• ืชื™ืžื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ืืœื ืงืกื‘ืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื”ืฆื™ืฅ ืžืจืฆื” ืขืœ ื”ืขื•ืœื™ืŸ


The Gemara refutes this statement: Even if you say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, it is not difficult. Rather, Rabbi Yehoshua holds that the frontplate appeases God for the impurity of that which goes up, i.e., the sacrificial parts that are brought onto the altar and burned. These portions may be burned on the altar even when they are impure. This is considered a form of consumption. Since part of meat is therefore suitable for consumption, the blood may be sprinkled.


ื”ื ืชื™ื ื— ื–ื‘ื—ื™ื ื“ืื™ื›ื ืขื•ืœื™ืŸ ืืœื ืขื•ืžืจ ื•ืฉืชื™ ื”ืœื—ื ื“ืœื™ื›ื ืขื•ืœื™ืŸ ืžืื™ ืื™ื›ื ืœืžื™ืžืจ ืืžืจื™ ื›ื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื ืžื™ ื“ื‘ืขื™ื ืŸ ืชืจืชื™ ื‘ื–ื‘ื—ื™ื ื‘ืžื ื—ื•ืช ืœื ืืžืจ


The Gemara asks: This works out well with regard to communal animal offerings, from which there are portions that go up onto the altar. But what of the omer and the two loaves, of which there are no parts that go up onto the altar? These offerings are entirely eaten by the priests except for the handful of flour which is scooped out and burned on the altar, and which serves the same function for a meal-offering as the sprinkling of the blood for an animal offering. What is there to say concerning those offerings? Say in answer to this question: When Rabbi Yehoshua said that we require the two parts of the offering to be valid, he said it with regard to animal offerings; but with regard to meal-offerings he did not say it.


ื•ื‘ืžื ื—ื•ืช ืœื ืืžืจ ื•ื”ืชื ืŸ ื ื˜ืžืื• ืฉื™ืจื™ื” ืื‘ื“ื• ืฉื™ืจื™ื” ื›ืžื“ืช ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื›ืฉื™ืจื” ื›ืžื“ืช ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ืคืกื•ืœื”


The Gemara expresses surprise: Is it true that with regard to meal-offerings he did not say that there is a requirement that both the handful and the remainder of the meal-offering remain valid? Didnโ€™t we learn in a mishna: If the remainder of the meal-offering, i.e., everything left after the handful has been separated, became ritually impure, or if the remainder was lost, according to the principle of Rabbi Eliezer, who says that the blood is fit even if there is no meat, it is valid, but according to the principle of Rabbi Yehoshua it is disqualified?


ื›ืžื“ืช ื•ืœื ื›ืžื“ืช ื›ืžื“ืช ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื“ื‘ืขื™ื ืŸ ืชืจืชื™ ื•ืœื ื›ืžื“ืช ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื“ืื™ืœื• ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ื–ื‘ื—ื™ื ืืžืจ ื‘ืžื ื—ื•ืช ืœื ืืžืจ ื•ืื™ืœื• ื”ืื™ ืชื ื ืกื‘ืจ ืืคื™ืœื• ื‘ืžื ื—ื•ืช


The Gemara responds: It is in accordance with the principle of Rabbi Yehoshua but not entirely in accordance with the principle of Rabbi Yehoshua, meaning that the statement in the mishna is similar but not entirely consistent with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua. It is in accordance with the principle of Rabbi Yehoshua in that we need the two parts of the offering to be valid. And it is not in accordance with the principle of Rabbi Yehoshua, because whereas Rabbi Yehoshua himself said so with regard to animal offerings but with regard to meal-offerings he did not say so, this tanna quoted in the mishna extended Rabbi Yehoshuaโ€™s opinion and holds that it applies even to meal-offerings.


ื•ืžื ื• ื”ืื™ ืชื ื ื“ืงืื™ ื›ื•ื•ืชื™ื” ื•ืžื—ืžื™ืจ ื˜ืคื™ ืžื™ื ื™ื” ื•ืขื•ื“ ืชื ื™ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ืจื•ืื” ืื ื™ ืืช ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื‘ืžื ื—ื•ืช ื•ื‘ื–ื‘ื—ื™ื ื•ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ื–ื‘ื—ื™ื ื•ื‘ืžื ื—ื•ืช


The Gemara asks: And who is this tanna who holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua and is more stringent than him? And furthermore, it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei said: I see as correct the statement of Rabbi Eliezer both with regard to meal-offerings and with regard to animal offerings; and I see as correct the statement of Rabbi Yehoshua both with regard to animal offerings and with regard to meal-offerings.


ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื‘ื–ื‘ื—ื™ื ืฉื”ื™ื” ืื•ืžืจ ื“ื ืืฃ ืขืœ ืคื™ ืฉืื™ืŸ ืฉื ื‘ืฉืจ ื•ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ื–ื‘ื—ื™ื ืฉื”ื™ื” ืื•ืžืจ ืื ืื™ืŸ ื“ื ืื™ืŸ ื‘ืฉืจ ืื ืื™ืŸ ื‘ืฉืจ ืื™ืŸ ื“ื ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื‘ืžื ื—ื•ืช ืฉื”ื™ื” ืื•ืžืจ ืงื•ืžืฅ ืืฃ ืขืœ ืคื™ ืฉืื™ืŸ ืฉื™ืจื™ื ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ืžื ื—ื•ืช ืฉื”ื™ื” ืื•ืžืจ ืื ืื™ืŸ ืงื•ืžืฅ ืื™ืŸ ืฉื™ืจื™ื ืื ืื™ืŸ ืฉื™ืจื™ื ืื™ืŸ ืงื•ืžืฅ


Rabbi Yosei explains: The statement of Rabbi Eliezer is correct with regard to animal offerings, as he would say that the blood brings atonement although there is no meat. The statement of Rabbi Yehoshua is correct with regard to animal offerings, as he would say that if there is no blood, there is no meat, and if there is no meat, there is no blood. The statement of Rabbi Eliezer is correct with regard to meal-offerings, as he would say that the handful is fit although there is no remainder. The statement of Rabbi Yehoshua is correct with regard to meal-offerings, as he would say that if there is no valid handful, there is no remainder, and if there is no remainder, there is no handful. This indicates that Rabbi Yehoshua disputes the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer concerning meal-offerings, just as he disputes his opinion concerning animal offerings.


ืืœื ืงืกื‘ืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื”ืฆื™ืฅ ืžืจืฆื” ืขืœ [ื”ืขื•ืœื™ืŸ ื•ืขืœ] ื”ืื›ื™ืœื•ืช


Rather, the previous answer should be rejected and the answer is as follows: Rabbi Yehoshua holds that the frontplate appeases God both for the impurity of sacrificial limbs that go up onto the altar and for the impurity of portions of offerings that are supposed to be eaten. The Gemara has now rejected its previous assumption that, according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, the frontplate does not appease God for the impurity of the portions of offerings that are eaten. Consequently, the mishna, which rules that impure communal offerings are valid, is consistent with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua.


ืื™ ื”ื›ื™ ืืžืื™ ื›ืžื“ืช ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ืคืกื•ืœื” ืืื‘ื•ื“ ื•ืฉืจื•ืฃ


The Gemara expresses surprise: If so, why does the mishna cited above say that, in accordance with the principle of Rabbi Yehoshua, an impure offering is disqualified? The Gemara responds: This opinion was stated only with regard to meat that was lost or burned; however, if it became ritually impure, the frontplate appeases God, and the offerings remain valid.


ืืœื ื ื˜ืžื ืœืžืืŸ ืงืชื ื™ ืœืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ืคืฉื™ื˜ื ื”ืฉืชื ื™ืฉ ืœื•ืžืจ ืื‘ื•ื“ ื•ืฉืจื•ืฃ ื“ืœื™ืชื ื”ื• ืžื›ืฉื™ืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื ื˜ืžื ื“ืื™ืชื™ื” ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ื ืืœื ืคืฉื™ื˜ื ืœืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื•ืงืชื ื™ ืคืกื•ืœื”


The Gemara asks: But if so, according to whom is the mishna teaching the case of a meal-offering that became impure? According to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, it is obvious that the meal-offering remains valid: Now that it has been mentioned that in a case where it was lost or burned, when they are not present at all, Rabbi Eliezer validates the offering, is it necessary to mention that when it became impure, when it is still in existence, the offering is valid? Rather, it is obvious that this case is mentioned in order to teach the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, and it is teaching that according to him it is disqualified.


ื•ืขื•ื“ ืชื ื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ืื•ืžืจ ื›ืœ ื–ื‘ื—ื™ื ืฉื‘ืชื•ืจื” ื‘ื™ืŸ ืฉื ื˜ืžื ื‘ืฉืจ ื•ื—ืœื‘ ืงื™ื™ื ื•ื‘ื™ืŸ ืฉื ื˜ืžื ื—ืœื‘ ื•ื‘ืฉืจ ืงื™ื™ื ื–ื•ืจืง ืืช ื”ื“ื ืื‘ืœ ื ื˜ืžืื• ืชืจื•ื•ื™ื™ื”ื• ืœื ืืœืžื ืงืกื‘ืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ืื™ืŸ ื”ืฆื™ืฅ ืžืจืฆื” ืขืœ ื”ืขื•ืœื™ืŸ ื•ืœื ืขืœ ื”ืื›ื™ืœื•ืช


And furthermore, it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehoshua says: With regard to all animal offerings in the Torah, whether the meat became ritually impure and the fat of the offering, which is the part that is burned on the altar, remains valid, or the fat became impure and the meat remains valid, one may sprinkle the blood. The following inference can be made from this baraita: But if both of them became ritually impure, he may not sprinkle the blood. Apparently, Rabbi Yehoshua holds that the frontplate does not appease God for the impurity of the parts of the offering that go up onto the altar or for the impurity of portions of offerings that are supposed to be eaten.


ืืœื ืœืขื•ืœื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื”ื™ื ืžืชื ื™ืชื™ืŸ ื•ืœื ืงืฉื™ื ื›ืืŸ ืœื›ืชื—ืœื” ื›ืืŸ ื“ื™ืขื‘ื“ ื›ื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ืœื›ืชื—ืœื” ื“ื™ืขื‘ื“ ืœื


Rather, the previous answers have been rejected and the answer is as follows: Actually, the mishna is even in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, and it is not difficult: There, Rabbi Yehoshua was referring to the halakha ab initio; here, in the mishna, it is referring to the halakha after the fact. When Rabbi Yehoshua said that if the meat is disqualified the blood may not be brought to the altar, that was only ab initio; after the fact he did not disqualify it.


ื•ืžื ื ืชื™ืžืจื ื“ืฉื ื™ ืœื™ื” ืœืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ื™ืŸ ืœื›ืชื—ืœื” ืœื“ื™ืขื‘ื“ ื“ืชื ื™ื ื ื˜ืžื ื‘ืฉืจ ืื• ืฉื ืคืกืœ ืื• ืฉื™ืฆื ื—ื•ืฅ ืœืงืœืขื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ืื•ืžืจ ื™ื–ืจืง ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ืื•ืžืจ ืœื ื™ื–ืจืง ื•ืžื•ื“ื” ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ืฉืื ื–ืจืง ื”ื•ืจืฆื”


And from where do you say that Rabbi Yehoshua differentiates between ab initio and after the fact? As it was taught in a baraita: If the meat became impure or it was disqualified through contact with one who has immersed during the day but does not become fully pure until nightfall, or if the meat went outside the hangings and was thereby disqualified, Rabbi Eliezer says the blood may be sprinkled and it is valid; Rabbi Yehoshua says it may not be sprinkled. And Rabbi Yehoshua concedes that if one sprinkled the blood, the offering is accepted.


ื—ื“ื ื“ืคืกื•ืœื” ื“ื™ืขื‘ื“ ืžืฉืžืข ื•ืขื•ื“ ื—ืžืฉื” ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ื‘ืื™ืŸ ืœื›ืชื—ืœื” ืžืฉืžืข


The Gemara rejects this answer for two reasons. One reason to reject it is that the term disqualified indicates that the offering is invalid even after the fact and not only ab initio. And furthermore, the mishnaโ€™s statement that five items may be brought in a state of ritual impurity indicates that they may be brought even ab initio.


Scroll To Top