Commentary for Pesachim 154:21

חדא דפסולה דיעבד משמע ועוד חמשה דברים באין לכתחלה משמע

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] i is unfit?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' on his view this is necessary, as it informs us that he holds the handful unfit not only if the rest is now entirely non-existent, but even if the rest is in existence, but unclean.');">²⁸</span> Furthermore, it was taught, R'Joshua said: [In the case of] all the sacrifices of the Torah, whethe 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 tha the headplate does not propitiate either for [the defilement of] the objects which ascend [the altar]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the fat.');">²⁹</span> or for the eatables!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the flesh. For if the headplate does propitiate, why is it unfit?');">³⁰</span> - 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 required] only in the first place, but not if it was done.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., R. Joshua holds that in the first place both are required; nevertheless, if only the blood was clean and it was sprinkled, though it should not have been, it is fit. Our Mishnah too means where it was done.');">³¹</span> And whence do you know<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., say'.');">³²</span> 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,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By the touch of a tebul yom, q.v. Glos.; v. also supra ');">³³</span> 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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra ');">³⁴</span> But surely this explanation is not acceptable: firstly, because 'it is unfit'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the ruling of R. Joshua where the remainder was defiled, v. supra.');">³⁵</span> implies [even] where it was done. Moreover,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even granted that 'it is fit' implied only in the first instance.');">³⁶</span> FIVE THINGS MAY COME [IN UNCLEANNESS] implies [even] in the first place!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that our Mishnah could still not be in accordance with R. Joshua.');">³⁷</span>

Explore commentary for Pesachim 154:21. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.