Parallel
פסחים 77
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
It is necessary for him [to teach about] the he-goats of New Moons. I might argue, surely ‘appointed season’ [mo'ed] is not written in connection therewith; therefore he informs us that New Moon is designated mo'ed, in accordance with Abaye's [dictum]. For Abaye said, The Tammuz of that year was indeed made full, as it is written, He hath proclaimed an appointed time [mo'ed] against me to crush my young men. Shall we say that all of them are derived from mo'ed [‘appointed time’]? How do we know it? For our Rabbis taught: And Moses declared unto the children of Israel the appointed times of the Lord. For what purpose is this stated? Because we have learnt only of the daily offering and the Passover-offering [that they override the Sabbath and uncleanness], since ‘in its appointed time’ is stated in connection with them, ‘in its appointed time’ [implying] even on the Sabbath, ‘in its appointed time’ implying even in uncleanness. Whence do we know it of other public sacrifices? Because it is said, These shall ye offer unto the Lord in your appointed time. Whence do we know to include the ‘omer — and that which is offered with it, and the two loaves and that which is offered with them? Therefore it is stated, ‘And Moses declared unto the children of Israel the appointed times of the Lord’: the Writ fixed it as one appointed season for all of them. Now, what is the purpose of all these? — They are necessary. For if the Divine Law wrote it of the daily offering [alone], I would say: The daily offering [overrides the Sabbath and uncleanness] because it is constant and entirely burnt, but the Passover is not so; hence we are informed [otherwise]. While if the Divine Law wrote it of the Passover-offering, [I would argue that] the Passover-offering [must be offered under all circumstances] because it involves the penalty of kareth, but [as for] the continual offering, for [neglect of] which there is no penalty of kareth, I would say that it is not [so]; hence we are informed [otherwise]. Again, if the Divine Law wrote it of these two, I would say: These alone [override Sabbath and uncleanness, since they] possess a stringent feature, the continual offering being constant and entirely [burnt], the Passover-offering involving the penalty of kareth; but [as for] other public sacrifices, I would say, It is not so. [Hence] the Divine Law wrote, ‘These shall ye offer unto the Lord in your appointed times.’ While if the Divine Law [merely] wrote, ‘These shall ye offer unto the Lord in your appointed times,’ I would argue: [It refers only to] other public sacrifices, which come to make atonement, but [the sacrifices accompanying] the ‘omer and the two loaves, which do not come to make atonement but are merely in order to permit [the new harvest] are not so; hence we are informed [otherwise]. Again, if the Divine Law wrote [about] the ‘omer and the two loaves alone, I would have said: On the contrary, it [applies only to] the ‘omer and the two loaves which are more important, because they come to permit; but these others are not so. Hence we are informed [otherwise]. Now it was assumed that all hold that uncleanness is overridden in the case of a community, hence the headplate is required for propitiation. For there is no [other] Tanna whom you know to maintain [that] uncleanness is permitted in the case of a community but R. Judah. For it was taught: The headplate, whether it is on his [the High Priest's] forehead or it is not on his forehead, propitiates; this is the view of R. Simeon. R. Judah maintained: If it is still on his forehead, it propitiates; if it is not still on his forehead, it does not propitiate. Said R. Simeon to him: Let the High Priest on the Day of Atonement prove it, for it is not on his forehead, and [yet] it propitiates! — Leave the Day of Atonement, replied he, because uncleanness is permitted in the case of a community. Whence it follows that R. Simeon holds: Uncleanness is overridden in the case of a community. Again, [it was assumed that all hold,] the headplate does not propitiate for [the defilement of] eatables, for there is no Tanna whom you know to maintain [that] the headplate propitiates for [the defilement of] eatables save R. Eleazar. For it was taught, R. Eleazar said: The headplate propitiates for [the defilement of] eatables; R. Jose said: The headplate does not propitiate for the defilement of eatables. [Accordingly,] shall we say that our Mishnah does not agree with R. Joshua? For it was taught, And thou shalt offer thy burnt-offerings, the flesh, and the blood.’ R. Joshua said: If there is no blood there is no flesh, and if there is no flesh there is no blood. R. Eliezer said: The blood [is fit] even if there is no flesh, because it is said, And the blood of thy sacrifices shall be poured out [against the altar of the Lord thy God]. Then how do I interpret, ‘and thou shalt offer thy burnt-offering, the flesh and the blood?’ [It is] to teach you: just as the blood requires throwing, so does the flesh require throwing: hence say, there was a small passage-way between the stairway and the altar. Now [according to] R. Joshua too, surely it is written, ‘and the blood of thy sacrifices shall be poured out?’ — He can answer you: surely in connection therewith is written, and thou shalt eat the flesh. 30
—
Then what is the purpose of these two verses? — One refers to the burnt-offering and one refers to a peace-offering, and both are necessary. For if the Divine Law wrote it in connection with a burnt-offering, I would say: It is [only with] the burnt-offering which is stringent — because it is entirely [burnt]; but as for the peace-offering which is not stringent — I would say that it is not so. Again, if the Divine Law wrote [it of] a peace-offering I would say: on the contrary [the reason is] because it has two forms of consumption; but [as for] the burnt-offering, where there are not two forms of consumption. I would say that it is not so.Hence we are informed [otherwise]. Now [according to] R. Eliezer too, surely it is written, ‘and thou shalt eat the flesh?’ — He can answer you: He utilizes that [to teach] that the flesh is not permitted for eating until the blood is sprinkled. If so, say that the whole verse comes for this [purpose],then how do we know [that] the blood [is fit] even if there is no flesh? — He can answer you: If so, let the Divine Law [first] write ‘thou shalt eat the flesh,’ and then, ‘and the blood of thy sacrifices shall be poured out,’ as is written in the beginning [of the verse], ‘and thou shalt offer thy burnt-offerings, the flesh and the blood?’ Why then does [Scripture] place ‘the blood of thy sacrifices’ first? Hence infer from it [that] the blood [is fit] even if there is no flesh, and infer from it also that the flesh is not permitted for eating until the blood is sprinkled. And R. Joshua? — [That] the flesh is not permitted for eating until the blood is sprinkled follows a minori: if the emurim, which when not available are not indispensable [to the eating of the flesh] , yet when available are indispensable; then the blood, which if not available is indispensable, if available how much the more is it indispensable! And R. Eliezer? [Even] a law which can be inferred a minori, the Writ takes the trouble of writing it. And R. Joshua? — Wherever we can interpret, we do interpret. Shall we now say that our Mishnah is not in accordance with R. Joshua, for since he says that we require both, while the headplate does not propitiate for [the defilement of] eatables, how can it come in uncleanness? — You may even say [that it agrees with] R. Joshua, but R. Joshua holds: The headplate propitiates for those that ascend. That is well of sacrifices, where there are objects which ascend [sc. emurim]; but what can be said of the ‘omer and the two loaves, where there are no objects to ascend [the altar]? — I will tell you: R. Joshua too said that we require both only in the case of sacrifices; [but] he did not say [it] in the case of meal-offerings. Yet did he not say [it] in the case of meal-offerings? Surely we learnt: If the remainder thereof was defiled, [or] if the remainder thereof was lost: according to the view of R. Eliezer it [the handful] is fit; according to the view of R. Joshua, it is unfit! It is according to his view, yet not entirely so. [Thus]: according to the view of R. Joshua, that we require both, yet not entirely so, for whereas R. Joshua ruled [thus] in the case of sacrifices, but he did not rule [thus] in the case of meal-offerings, this Tanna holds [that it is so] even in the case of meal-offerings. Now who is this Tanna that agrees with him but is more stringent than he? Moreover, it was taught, R. Jose said: I agree with the words of R. Eliezer in respect to meal-offerings and [animal] sacrifices, and with the words of R. Joshua in respect to [animal] sacrifices and meal-offerings. ‘The words of R. Eliezer in respect to [animal] sacrifices,’ for he used to say: The blood [is fit] even if there is no flesh; ‘and the words of R. Joshua in respect to sacrifices,’ for he used to say: If there is no blood there is no flesh, and if there is no flesh there is no blood. ‘The words of R. Eliezer in respect to meal-offerings’: for he used to say: the handful [is fit] even if there is no remainder [for consumption]; ‘and the words of R. Joshua In respect to meal-offerings,’ for he used to say: if there is no handful there is no remainder, [and] if there is no remainder there is no handful? — Rather R. Joshua holds: The headplate propitiates for [the defilement of] the objects which ascend [the altar] and for eatables. If so, why [do you say,] ‘according to the view of R. Joshua it is unfit?’ [That refers] to what is lost or burnt. Then according to whom does he teach, ‘[if the remainder] was defiled’? according to R. Eliezer? [But] that is obvious; seeing that you say that [even when it is] lost or burnt, where they are [now] non-existent, R. Eliezer declares [the handful] fit, need it [be stated] where it is defiled, when it is in existence! Hence it is obviously [taught] according to R. Joshua, yet he teaches [that] it is unfit? Furthermore, it was taught, R. Joshua said: [In the case of] all the sacrifices of the Torah, whether the flesh was defiled while the fat has remained [clean], or the fat was defiled while the flesh has remained [clean], he [the priest] sprinkles the blood. But not if both were defiled. This proves that R. Joshua holds that the headplate does not propitiate either for [the defilement of] the objects which ascend [the altar] or for the eatables! — Rather [explain it thus:] after all our Mishnah is [the view of] R. Joshua, yet there is no difficulty: here it means in the first place; there it means if it was done [offered]. R. Joshua said [that both are required] only in the first place, but not if it was done. And whence do you know that R. Joshua draws a distinction between [what is required] in the first place and what was done? — Because it was taught: If the flesh was defiled, or disqualified, or it passed without the curtains, — R. Eliezer said: He must sprinkle [the blood]; R. Joshua maintained: He must not sprinkle [the blood]. Yet R. Joshua admits that if he does sprinkle [it], it is accepted. But surely this explanation is not acceptable: firstly, because ‘it is unfit’ implies [even] where it was done. Moreover, FIVE THINGS MAY COME [IN UNCLEANNESS] implies [even] in the first place!37
—