פסחים עז

פסחים עז

שְׂעִירֵי רָאשֵׁי חֳדָשִׁים אִיצְטְרִיכָא לֵיהּ, סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא הָא לָא כְּתִיב בְּהוּ ״מוֹעֵד״, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דְּרֹאשׁ חֹדֶשׁ אִיקְּרִי מוֹעֵד,

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.

כִּדְאַבָּיֵי, דְּאָמַר אַבָּיֵי: תַּמּוּז דְּהַאי שַׁתָּא מַלּוֹיֵי מַלְּיוּהּ, דִּכְתִיב: ״קָרָא עָלַי מוֹעֵד לִשְׁבֹּר בַּחוּרָי״.

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: “He proclaimed an appointed time against me to crush my young men” (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.

לְמֵימְרָא דְּכוּלְּהוּ מִ״מּוֹעֵד״ אָתוּ, מְנָהָנֵי מִילֵּי? דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״וַיְדַבֵּר מֹשֶׁה אֶת מֹעֲדֵי ה׳״ — מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר? לְפִי שֶׁלֹּא לָמַדְנוּ אֶלָּא לְתָמִיד וּפֶסַח שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בְּהוּ ״בְּמוֹעֲדוֹ״, ״בְּמוֹעֲדוֹ״ וַאֲפִילּוּ בְּשַׁבָּת, ״בְּמוֹעֲדוֹ״ וַאֲפִילּוּ בְּטוּמְאָה.

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: “And Moses declared the appointed times of the Lord to the children of Israel” (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.

שְׁאָר קׇרְבְּנוֹת צִיבּוּר מִנַּיִין — שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״אֵלֶּה תַּעֲשׂוּ לַה׳ בְּמוֹעֲדֵיכֶם״.

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: “These you shall sacrifice to the Lord in your appointed times” (Numbers 29:39).

מִנַּיִן לְרַבּוֹת עוֹמֶר וְהַקָּרֵב עִמּוֹ, שְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם וְהַקָּרֵב עִמָּם — תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וַיְדַבֵּר מֹשֶׁה אֶת מֹעֲדֵי ה׳ אֶל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל״, הַכָּתוּב קְבָעוֹ מוֹעֵד אֶחָד לְכוּלָּן.

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: “And Moses declared the appointed times of the Lord to the children of Israel” 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.

וְכׇל הָנֵי לְמָה לִי? צְרִיכִי, דְּאִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא תָּמִיד, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא תָּמִיד — שֶׁכֵּן תָּדִיר וְכָלִיל, אֲבָל פֶּסַח — לָא, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

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.

וְאִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא פֶּסַח, פֶּסַח שֶׁהוּא עָנוּשׁ כָּרֵת, אֲבָל תָּמִיד דְּאֵין עָנוּשׁ כָּרֵת — אֵימָא לָא, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

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.

וְאִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא הָנֵי תַּרְתֵּי, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא הָנֵי הוּא יֵשׁ בָּהֶן צַד חָמוּר, תָּמִיד — תָּדִיר וְכָלִיל, פֶּסַח — שֶׁהוּא עָנוּשׁ כָּרֵת. אֲבָל שְׁאָר קׇרְבְּנוֹת צִיבּוּר — אֵימָא לָא, כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא: ״אֵלֶּה תַּעֲשׂוּ לַה׳ בְּמוֹעֲדֵיכֶם״.

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: “These you shall sacrifice to the Lord in your appointed times,” to teach that even these override Shabbat and ritual impurity.

וְאִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא: ״אֵלֶּה תַּעֲשׂוּ לַה׳ בְּמוֹעֲדֵיכֶם״, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא שְׁאָר קׇרְבְּנוֹת צִיבּוּר הַבָּאִין לְכַפֵּר. אֲבָל עוֹמֶר וּשְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם דְּאֵין בָּאִין לְכַפֵּר, אֶלָּא לְהַתִּיר בְּעָלְמָא נִינְהוּ — לָא, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

And if the Merciful One had written “These you shall sacrifice to the Lord in your appointed times” 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.

וְאִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא עוֹמֶר וּשְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם לְחוֹדַיְיהוּ, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא אַדְּרַבָּה: עוֹמֶר וּשְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם דְּאַלִּימִי דְּבָאִין לְהַתִּיר, אֲבָל הָנָךְ — לָא, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

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.

סַבְרוּהָ דִּלְכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא טוּמְאָה דְּחוּיָה הִיא בְּצִיבּוּר, וּבָעֲיָא צִיץ לְרַצּוֹת.

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.

דְּלֵיכָּא תַּנָּא דְּשָׁמְעַתְּ לֵיהּ דְּאָמַר טוּמְאָה הוּתְּרָה בְּצִיבּוּר אֶלָּא רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, דְּתַנְיָא: צִיץ, בֵּין שֶׁיֶּשְׁנוֹ עַל מִצְחוֹ וּבֵין שֶׁאֵינוֹ עַל מִצְחוֹ — מְרַצֶּה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: עוֹדֵיהוּ עַל מִצְחוֹ — מְרַצֶּה, אֵין עוֹדֵיהוּ עַל מִצְחוֹ — אֵינוֹ מְרַצֶּה.

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: “And it shall be on Aaron’s forehead, that Aaron may bear the iniquity of the sacred things which the children of Israel shall hallow” (Exodus 28:38).

אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל בְּיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים יוֹכִיחַ, שֶׁאֵינוֹ עַל מִצְחוֹ וּמְרַצֶּה.

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.

אָמַר לוֹ: הַנַּח לְיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים שֶׁטּוּמְאָה הוּתְּרָה בְּצִיבּוּר. מִכְּלָל דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן סָבַר: טוּמְאָה דְּחוּיָה הִיא בְּצִיבּוּר.

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.

וּדְכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא אֵין הַצִּיץ מְרַצֶּה עַל אֲכִילוֹת, דְּלֵיכָּא תַּנָּא דְּשָׁמְעַתְּ לֵיהּ דְּאָמַר הַצִּיץ מְרַצֶּה עַל אֲכִילוֹת אֶלָּא רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: הַצִּיץ מְרַצֶּה עַל אֲכִילוֹת, רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: אֵין הַצִּיץ מְרַצֶּה עַל אֲכִילוֹת.

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.

נֵימָא מַתְנִיתִין דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, דְּתַנְיָא: ״וְעָשִׂיתָ עֹלֹתֶיךָ הַבָּשָׂר וְהַדָּם״, רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר: אִם אֵין דָּם — אֵין בָּשָׂר, אִם אֵין בָּשָׂר — אֵין דָּם.

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: “And 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 flesh” (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.

רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: דָּם — אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין בָּשָׂר, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְדַם זְבָחֶיךָ יִשָּׁפֵךְ״, וּמָה אֲנִי מְקַיֵּים ״וְעָשִׂיתָ עֹלֹתֶיךָ הַבָּשָׂר וְהַדָּם״ — לוֹמַר לְךָ: מָה דָּם בִּזְרִיקָה, אַף בָּשָׂר בִּזְרִיקָה.

Rabbi Eliezer says: Blood brings atonement although there is no suitable meat, as it is stated: “And the blood of your offerings shall be poured out.” 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: “And you shall sacrifice your burnt-offerings, the flesh and the blood”? 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.

הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר: לוּל קָטָן יֵשׁ בֵּין כֶּבֶשׁ לַמִּזְבֵּחַ.

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.

וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ נָמֵי, הָכְתִיב ״וְדַם זְבָחֶיךָ יִשָּׁפֵךְ״! אָמַר לָךְ: הָא כְּתִיב גַּבֵּיהּ ״וְהַבָּשָׂר תֹּאכֵל״.

The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua as well, isn’t it written: “And the blood of your offerings shall be poured out,” 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: “And you shall eat the flesh,” which indicates that the meat is also essential and must still be suitable for eating.

וְהָנֵי תְּרֵי קְרָאֵי לְמָה לִי? חַד בְּעוֹלָה, וְחַד בִּשְׁלָמִים. וּצְרִיכָא, דְּאִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא בְּעוֹלָה, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: עוֹלָה הִיא דַּחֲמִירָא, שֶׁכֵּן כָּלִיל, אֲבָל שְׁלָמִים דְּלָא חֲמִירִי, אֵימָא לָא.

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.

וְאִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא שְׁלָמִים, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: אַדְּרַבָּה, דְּאִית בְּהוּ שְׁתֵּי אֲכִילוֹת. אֲבָל עוֹלָה דְּלֵית בָּהּ שְׁתֵּי אֲכִילוֹת, אֵימָא לָא, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

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.

וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר נָמֵי, הָכְתִיב ״וְהַבָּשָׂר תֹּאכֵל״! אָמַר לָךְ: הַהוּא מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ אַשֶּׁאֵין הַבָּשָׂר מוּתָּר בַּאֲכִילָה עַד שֶׁיִּזָּרֵק הַדָּם.

The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer as well, isn’t it written: “And you shall eat the flesh”? 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.

אִי הָכִי, אֵימָא כּוּלֵּיהּ לְהָכִי הוּא דַּאֲתָא! דָּם אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין שָׁם בָּשָׂר מְנָלַן?

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?

אָמַר לָךְ: אִם כֵּן, נִכְתּוֹב רַחֲמָנָא ״הַבָּשָׂר תֹּאכֵל״ וַהֲדַר ״וְדַם זְבָחֶיךָ יִשָּׁפֵךְ״, כְּדִכְתִיב בְּרֵישָׁא ״וְעָשִׂיתָ עֹלֹתֶיךָ הַבָּשָׂר וְהַדָּם״, מַאי שְׁנָא דְּאַקְדְּמֵיהּ לְ״דַם זְבָחֶיךָ״? שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: דָּם אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין בָּשָׂר, וּשְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: שֶׁאֵין הַבָּשָׂר מוּתָּר בַּאֲכִילָה עַד שֶׁיִּזָּרֵק הַדָּם.

The Gemara answers that Rabbi Eliezer could have said to you: If so, the Merciful One should have written “and you shall eat the flesh” and then “and the blood of your offerings shall be poured out,” as it is written in the first clause of that verse: “And you shall sacrifice your burnt-offerings, the flesh, and the blood,” listing the meat before the blood. What is different that caused the verse to precede “and you shall eat the flesh” with the phrase “the blood of your offerings”? 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.

וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, אֵין הַבָּשָׂר מוּתָּר בַּאֲכִילָה עַד שֶׁיִּזָּרֵק הַדָּם — קַל וָחוֹמֶר הוּא, וּמָה אֵימוּרִין דְּכִי לֵיתַנְהוּ — לָא מְעַכְּבִי, כִּי אִיתַנְהוּ — מְעַכְּבִי, דָּם, דְּכִי לֵיתֵיהּ — מְעַכֵּב, כִּי אִיתֵיהּ — לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן דִּמְעַכֵּב!

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?

וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר? מִילְּתָא דְּאָתְיָא בְּקַל וָחוֹמֶר טָרַח וְכָתֵב לַהּ קְרָא. וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ? כׇּל הֵיכָא דְּאִיכָּא לְמִדְרַשׁ — דָּרְשִׁינַן.

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.

הַשְׁתָּא לֵימָא מַתְנִיתִין דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, דְּכֵיוָן דְּאָמַר בָּעֵינַן תַּרְתֵּי, וְצִיץ אַאֲכִילוֹת לֹא מְרַצֶּה, הֵיכִי אָתֵי בְּטוּמְאָה?

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?

אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, אֶלָּא קָסָבַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: הַצִּיץ מְרַצֶּה עַל הָעוֹלִין.

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.

הָא תִּינַח זְבָחִים דְּאִיכָּא עוֹלִין, אֶלָּא עוֹמֶר וּשְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם דְּלֵיכָּא עוֹלִין, מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר? אָמְרִי: כִּי אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ נָמֵי דְּבָעֵינַן תַּרְתֵּי — בִּזְבָחִים, בִּמְנָחוֹת לָא אָמַר.

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.

וּבִמְנָחוֹת לָא אָמַר? וְהָתְנַן: נִטְמְאוּ שְׁיָרֶיהָ, אָבְדוּ שְׁיָרֶיהָ, כְּמִדַּת רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר — כְּשֵׁירָה, כְּמִדַּת רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ — פְּסוּלָה.

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? Didn’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?

כְּמִדַּת וְלֹא כְּמִדַּת: כְּמִדַּת רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, דְּבָעֵינַן תַּרְתֵּי. וְלֹא כְּמִדַּת רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, דְּאִילּוּ רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בִּזְבָחִים אָמַר, בִּמְנָחוֹת — לָא אָמַר, וְאִילּוּ הַאי תַּנָּא סָבַר: אֲפִילּוּ בִּמְנָחוֹת.

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 Yehoshua’s opinion and holds that it applies even to meal-offerings.

וּמַנּוּ הַאי תַּנָּא דְּקָאֵי כְּווֹתֵיהּ וּמַחְמֵיר טְפֵי מִינֵּיהּ? וְעוֹד, תַּנְיָא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: רוֹאֶה אֲנִי אֶת דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בִּמְנָחוֹת וּבִזְבָחִים, וְדִבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בִּזְבָחִים וּבִמְנָחוֹת.

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.

דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בִּזְבָחִים, שֶׁהָיָה אוֹמֵר: דָּם — אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין שָׁם בָּשָׂר. וְדִבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בִּזְבָחִים, שֶׁהָיָה אוֹמֵר: אִם אֵין דָּם — אֵין בָּשָׂר, אִם אֵין בָּשָׂר — אֵין דָּם. דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בִּמְנָחוֹת, שֶׁהָיָה אוֹמֵר: קוֹמֶץ — אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין שִׁירַיִם, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בִּמְנָחוֹת, שֶׁהָיָה אוֹמֵר: אִם אֵין קוֹמֶץ — אֵין שִׁירַיִם, אִם אֵין שִׁירַיִם — אֵין קוֹמֶץ.

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.

אֶלָּא, קָסָבַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: הַצִּיץ מְרַצֶּה עַל [הָעוֹלִין וְעַל] הָאֲכִילוֹת.

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.

אִי הָכִי, אַמַּאי כְּמִדַּת רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ פְּסוּלָה? אַאָבוּד וְשָׂרוּף.

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.

אֶלָּא נִטְמָא, לְמַאן קָתָנֵי? לְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר — פְּשִׁיטָא, הַשְׁתָּא יֵשׁ לוֹמַר אָבוּד וְשָׂרוּף דְּלֵיתַנְהוּ, מַכְשִׁיר רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, נִטְמָא דְּאִיתֵיהּ — מִיבַּעְיָא? אֶלָּא פְּשִׁיטָא לְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, וְקָתָנֵי פְּסוּלָה.

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.

וְעוֹד, תַּנְיָא רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר: כׇּל זְבָחִים שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה, בֵּין שֶׁנִּטְמָא בָּשָׂר וְחֵלֶב קַיָּים, וּבֵין שֶׁנִּטְמָא חֵלֶב וּבָשָׂר קַיָּים — זוֹרֵק אֶת הַדָּם. אֲבָל נִטְמְאוּ תַּרְוַויְיהוּ — לָא. אַלְמָא קָסָבַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אֵין הַצִּיץ מְרַצֶּה עַל הָעוֹלִין וְלֹא עַל הָאֲכִילוֹת!

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.

אֶלָּא: לְעוֹלָם רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ הִיא מַתְנִיתִין, וְלָא קַשְׁיָא: כָּאן — לְכַתְּחִלָּה, כָּאן — דִּיעֲבַד. כִּי אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ — לְכַתְּחִלָּה, דִּיעֲבַד לָא.

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.

וּמְנָא תֵּימְרָא דְּשָׁנֵי לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֵּין לְכַתְּחִלָּה לְדִיעֲבַד — דְּתַנְיָא: נִטְמָא בָּשָׂר אוֹ שֶׁנִּפְסַל אוֹ שֶׁיָּצָא חוּץ לַקְּלָעִים, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: יִזָּרֵק, רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר: לֹא יִזָּרֵק. וּמוֹדֶה רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ שֶׁאִם זָרַק — הוּרְצָה.

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.

חֲדָא, דִּ״פְסוּלָה״ — דִּיעֲבַד מַשְׁמַע. וְעוֹד, ״חֲמִשָּׁה דְּבָרִים בָּאִין״ — לְכַתְּחִלָּה מַשְׁמַע.

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 mishna’s statement that five items may be brought in a state of ritual impurity indicates that they may be brought even ab initio.