Pesachim

— Rather, there is no difficulty: here the reference is to an individual;1 there [in the Mishnah] the reference is to a community.2 Shall we say that our Mishnah does not agree with R. Jose? For it was taught, R. Eliezer said: The headplate propitiates for [the defilement of] eatables; R. Jose said: The headplate does not propitiate for [the defilement of] eatables. Now it was assumed: since R. Jose rules, The headplate does not propitiate for [the defilement of] eatables, he agrees with R. Joshua who maintains: We require both.3 Shall we now say [that] our Mishnah does not agree with R. Jose? — No: R. Jose agrees with R. Eliezer, who maintained: The blood [is fit] even if there is no flesh. If so, in respect of what law [does he rule]: the headplate does not propitiate for [the defilement of] eatables?4 — Then on your reasoning, when R. Eliezer rules: The headplate does propitiate [for the defilement of eatables], — since he maintains [that] the blood [is fit] even if there is no flesh, in respect of what law [does the headplate propitiate]? — Rather they differ in respect of branding5 it with [the unfitness of] piggul6 and excluding it from [the law of] trespass.7 R. Eliezer holds: The headplate propitiates for it [the defilement of the flesh] and renders it as clean, and so brands it as piggul8 and excludes it from [the law of] trespass; while R. Jose holds: The headplate does not propitiate for it and does not render it as clean; hence it cannot be branded as piggul, nor does it exclude it from [the law of] trespass. To this R. Mari demurred: Even granted that R. Jose agrees with R. Eliezer: as for sacrifices,9 It is well, [since] there is blood; as for the ‘omer, there is the handful; [in the case of] the shewbread too there are the censers [of frankincense].10 But [in the case of] the two loaves, what can be said?11 And should you answer, it is in respect of what is offered together with them,12 then it is tantamount to the public peace-offerings, [and] if so there are [only] four, whereas we learned FIVE? — Rather, R. Jose holds: uncleanness was permitted in the case of a community.13 But surely it was taught: Both [in the case of] the one and the other,14 we besprinkle them the whole seven [days]15 with [the ashes of] all the purification offerings16 which were there:17 this is R. Meir's view. R. Jose said: We besprinkle them on the third day and on the seventh day alone.18 Now if you should think that R. Jose holds, Uncleanness was permitted in the case of a community, why do I need sprinkling at all?19 Hence it is clear that our Mishnah does not agree with R. Jose. R. Papa said to Abaye: And does R. Jose grant the [Court's] document to two!20 For 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 sacrifices and meal-offering. ‘The words of R. Eliezer in respect to sacrifices,’ for he used to say: The blood [is fit] even if there is no flesh; ‘the words of R. Joshua in respect to sacrifices,’ for he used to say: If there is no blood there is no flesh, 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 [fit for consumption]; ‘and the words of R. Joshua in respect to meal-offerings,’ for he used to say: if there is no remainder there is no handful, [and] if there is no handful there is no remainder! Said he to him: He states what appears logical [to him].21 [Thus:] when he was studying [the subject of] sacrifices22 he said: It is logical [that] just as they differ in respect to sacrifices, so do they differ in respect to meal-offerings too. [And] when he was studying [the subject of] meal-offerings he said: It is logical [that] just as they differ in respect to meal-offerings, so do they differ in respect to sacrifices too. Said he to him: It is correct [that] when he was studying [the subject of] sacrifices he said: It is logical [that] just as they differ in respect to sacrifices, so do they differ in respect to meal-offerings too, because the verses [on this matter] are written fundamentally in connection with sacrifices.23 But when he is studying [the subject of] meal-offerings and he says, It is logical [that] just as they differ in respect to meal-offerings, so do they differ in respect to sacrifices too, — but surely, the verses are fundamentally written in connection with sacrifices! — Rather [explain it thus], there is no difficulty: I agree with the words of R. Eliezer, where it [the flesh] was defiled, and with the words of R. Joshua, where it was lost or burnt. Where it was defiled, what is the reason [that he agrees with R. Eliezer]? Because the headplate propitiates! Surely you know R. Jose to maintain [that] the headplate does not propitiate for [the defilement of] eatables! — Rather [explain it thus], there is no difficulty: I agree with the words of R. Eliezer in the case of the community; I agree with the words of R. Joshua in the case of an individual. In the case of the community, what is the reason [that he agrees with R. Eliezer]? Because uncleanness is permitted in the case of a community? But one [objection] is that you know R. Jose to maintain [that] uncleanness is overridden in the case of a community. Again, if it refers to a community, [does only] R. Eliezer declare it fit, but not R. Joshua? the permitted precincts or within the permitted time. But a sacrifice cannot become piggul unless it is otherwise fit. Again, if one benefits from sacrifices of the higher sanctity (v. p. 108, n. 2) before their blood is sprinkled, he is liable to a trespass-offering; if after, he is exempt, for by then the flesh is permitted to priests. then can they be offered in uncleanness? permits them for eating; thus the Mishnah teaches that the headplate propitiates for the defilement of the shewbread in so far as the sacrifices can now be brought. Temple. both sides — i.e., he agrees with both R. Eliezer and R. Joshua.