Pesachim

Then what is the purpose of these two verses?1 — 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-offering2 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;3 but [as for] the burnt-offering, where there are not two forms of consumption.4 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.5 And R. Joshua?6 — [That] the flesh is not permitted for eating until the blood is sprinkled follows a minori: if the emurim,7 which when not available8 are not indispensable [to the eating of the flesh] , yet when available are indispensable;9 then the blood, which if not available is indispensable, if available how much the more is it indispensable! And R. Eliezer?10 [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.11 Shall we now say that our Mishnah is not in accordance with R. Joshua, for since he says that we require both,12 while the headplate does not propitiate for [the defilement of] eatables, how can it come in uncleanness?13 — You may even say [that it agrees with] R. Joshua, but R. Joshua holds: The headplate propitiates for those that ascend.14 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 thereof15 was defiled, [or] if the remainder thereof was lost:16 according to the view of R. Eliezer17 it [the handful] is fit;18 according to the view of R. Joshua,19 it is unfit!20 It is according to his view, yet not entirely so.21 [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?22 Moreover, it was taught, R. Jose said: I agree with the words of R. Eliezer23 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?24 — Rather R. Joshua holds: The headplate propitiates for [the defilement of] the objects which ascend [the altar] and for eatables.25 If so, why [do you say,] ‘according to the view of R. Joshua it is unfit?’26 [That refers] to what is lost or burnt.27 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?28 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]29 or for the eatables!30 — 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.31 And whence do you know32 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,33 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.34 But surely this explanation is not acceptable: firstly, because ‘it is unfit’35 implies [even] where it was done. Moreover,36 FIVE THINGS MAY COME [IN UNCLEANNESS] implies [even] in the first place!37 owners. be employed for any other purpose. the other there cannot be propitiation for eatables, and according to R. Joshua the eatables and the blood, or in the case of the meal-offering, the handful, are interdependent. propitiates for its defilement, and the blood too can be sprinkled. remainder would normally be eaten by the priests (ibid. 10). of the blood of an animal sacrifice, while the remainder is the equivalent of the flesh. meal-offerings. non-existent, but even if the rest is in existence, but unclean. sprinkled, though it should not have been, it is fit. Our Mishnah too means where it was done.