Pesachim 154

והני תרי קראי למה לי חד בעולה וחד בשלמים וצריכא דאי כתב רחמנא בעולה הוה אמינא עולה היא דחמירא שכן כליל אבל שלמים דלא חמירי אימא לא

Then what is the purpose of these two verses?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to R. Joshua, since both teach that the blood and the flesh are interdependent.');">¹</span> - One refers to the burnt-offering and one refers to a peace-offering, and both are necessary.

ואי כתב רחמנא שלמים הוה אמינא אדרבה דאית בהו שתי אכילות אבל עולה דלית בה שתי אכילות אימא לא קמ"ל

For if the Divine Law wrote it in connection with a burnt-offering, I would say: It is [only with] the burnt-offering<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That both are interdependent.');">²</span> 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.

ור' אליעזר נמי הכתיב והבשר תאכל אמר לך ההוא מיבעי ליה שאין הבשר מותר באכילה עד שיזרק הדם

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;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The fat portions are consumed ('eaten') on the altar while the flesh is consumed partly by priests and partly by its owners.');">³</span> but [as for] the burnt-offering, where there are not two forms of consumption.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The whole being consumed on the altar.');">⁴</span>

אי הכי אימא כוליה להכי הוא דאתא דם אע"פ שאין שם בשר מנלן

I would say that it is not so. Hence we are informed [otherwise].

אמר לך אם כן נכתוב רחמנא הבשר תאכל והדר ודם זבחיך ישפך כדכתיב ברישא (דברים יב, כז) ועשית עולותיך הבשר והדם מאי שנא דאקדמיה לדם זבחיך שמע מינה דם אע"פ שאין בשר ושמע מינה שאין הבשר מותר באכילה עד שיזרק הדם

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 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 t blood of thy sacrifices shall be poured out,' as is written in the beginning [of the verse], 'and thou shalt off thy burnt-offerings, the flesh and the blood? ' Why then does [Scripture] place 'the blood of thy sacrifices' first?

ור' יהושע אין הבשר מותר באכילה עד שיזרק הדם קל וחומר הוא ומה אימורין דכי ליתנהו לא מעכבי כי איתנהו מעכבי דם דכי ליתיה מעכב כי איתיה לא כל שכן דמעכב

Hence infer from it [that] the blood [is fit] even if there is no flesh, and infer from it also that the not permitted for eating until the blood is sprinkled.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The reversed order intimating this additional teaching.');">⁵</span> And R'Joshua?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How does he know this?');">⁶</span>

ורבי אליעזר מילתא דאתיא בקל וחומר טרח וכתב לה קרא ור' יהושע כל היכא דאיכא למדרש דרשינן

- [That] the flesh is not permitted for eating until the blood is sprinkled follows a minori: if the emurim,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos.');">⁷</span> which when not available<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., if lost or defiled.');">⁸</span>

השתא לימא מתני' דלא כרבי יהושע דכיון דאמר בעינן תרתי וציץ אאכילות לא מרצה היכי אתי בטומאה

are not indispensable [to the eating of the flesh] , yet when available are indispensable;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The flesh may not be eaten until the emurim are burnt on the altar, v. supra 59b.');">⁹</span> then the blood, which if not available is indispensable, if available how much the more is it indispensable! And R'Eliezer?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Does he not accept this argument?');">¹⁰</span>

אפילו תימא רבי יהושע אלא קסבר רבי יהושע הציץ מרצה על העולין

[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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The principle that Scripture writes explicitly what can be inferred a minori holds good only when the verse cannot be employed for any other purpose.');">¹¹</span>

הא תינח זבחים דאיכא עולין אלא עומר ושתי הלחם דליכא עולין מאי איכא למימר אמרי כי אמר רבי יהושע נמי דבעינן תרתי בזבחים במנחות לא אמר

Shall we now say that our Mishnah is not in accordance with R'Joshua, for since he says that we require both,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The blood and the flesh.');">¹²</span> while the headplate does not propitiate for [the defilement of] eatables, how can it come in uncleanness?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the objects enumerated in the MISHNAH: For on the one hand, propitiation is required (v. p. 398, n. 2) , while on 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.');">¹³</span>

ובמנחות לא אמר והתנן נטמאו שיריה אבדו שיריה כמדת רבי אליעזר כשירה כמדת רבי יהושע פסולה

- You may even say [that it agrees with] R'Joshua, but R'Joshua holds: The headplate propitiates for those that ascend.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The altar, sc. the emurim; i.e., providing that as much as an olive of the emurim ascends the altar, the headplate propitiates for its defilement, and the blood too can be sprinkled.');">¹⁴</span> 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.

כמדת ולא כמדת כמדת רבי יהושע דבעינן תרתי ולא כמדת רבי יהושע דאילו רבי יהושע בזבחים אמר במנחות לא אמר ואילו האי תנא סבר אפילו במנחות

Yet did he not say [it] in the case of meal-offerings? Surely we learnt: If the remainder thereof<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the meal-offering, after the handful was removed (v. Lev. II, 9) . In the Hebrew the word is in the plural. This remainder would normally be eaten by the priests (ibid. 10) .');">¹⁵</span>

ומנו האי תנא דקאי כוותיה ומחמיר טפי מיניה ועוד תניא א"ר יוסי רואה אני את דברי רבי אליעזר במנחות ובזבחים ודברי רבי יהושע בזבחים ובמנחות

was defiled, [or] if the remainder thereof was lost:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In both cases before the handful was burnt on the altar.');">¹⁶</span> according to the view of R'Eliezer<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the blood is fit for sprinkling even if the flesh is not available; the handful of a meal-offering is the equivalent of the blood of an animal sacrifice, while the remainder is the equivalent of the flesh.');">¹⁷</span>

דברי רבי אליעזר בזבחים שהיה אומר דם אף על פי שאין שם בשר ודברי רבי יהושע בזבחים שהיה אומר אם אין דם אין בשר אם אין בשר אין דם דברי רבי אליעזר במנחות שהיה אומר קומץ אף על פי שאין שירים דברי רבי יהושע במנחות שהיה אומר אם אין קומץ אין שירים אם אין שירים אין קומץ

it [the handful] is fit;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For burning on the altar, and the owner thus discharges his obligation and need not bring another meal-offering.');">¹⁸</span> according to the view of R'Joshua,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the blood and the flesh are interdependent.');">¹⁹</span>

אלא קסבר רבי יהושע הציץ מרצה על [העולין ועל] האכילות

it is unfit!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Men. ');">²⁰</span> It is according to his view, yet not entirely so.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'and not according to his view.'');">²¹</span>

אי הכי אמאי כמדת רבי יהושע פסולה אאבוד ושרוף

[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 [th is so] even in the case of meal-offerings. Now who is this Tanna that agrees with him but is more stringent than he?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., do we in fact find any such Tanna?');">²²</span>

אלא נטמא למאן קתני לרבי אליעזר פשיטא השתא יש לומר אבוד ושרוף דליתנהו מכשיר רבי אליעזר נטמא דאיתיה מיבעיא אלא פשיטא לרבי יהושע וקתני פסולה

Moreover, it was taught, R'Jose said: I agree with the words of R'Eliezer<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'I see (as right) the words of R. Eliezer.'');">²³</span> in respect to meal-offerings and [animal] sacrifices, and with the words of R'Joshua in respect to [animal] sacrifices and meal-offerings.'

ועוד תניא רבי יהושע אומר כל זבחים שבתורה בין שנטמא בשר וחלב קיים ובין שנטמא חלב ובשר קיים זורק את הדם אבל נטמאו תרווייהו לא אלמא קסבר רבי יהושע אין הציץ מרצה על העולין ולא על האכילות

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 word R'Joshua in respect to sacrifices,' for he used to say: If there is no blood there is no flesh, and if there is 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 remainde there is no handful?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This Baraitha is explained anon. From it we see that R. Joshua maintained his view even in respect to meal-offerings.');">²⁴</span>

אלא לעולם רבי יהושע היא מתני' ולא קשיא כאן לכתחלה כאן דיעבד כי אמר רבי יהושע לכתחלה דיעבד לא

- Rather R'Joshua holds: The headplate propitiates for [the defilement of] the objects which ascend [the altar] and for eatables.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence our Mishnah can agree with him.');">²⁵</span> If so, why [do you say,] 'according to the view of R'Joshua it is unfit? '<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Surely the headplate propitiates, i.e., makes the handful fit for burning on the altar, even if the remainder is unclean?');">²⁶</span>

ומנא תימרא דשני ליה לרבי יהושע בין לכתחלה לדיעבד דתניא נטמא בשר או שנפסל או שיצא חוץ לקלעים ר"א אומר יזרק ר' יהושע אומר לא יזרק ומודה ר' יהושע שאם זרק הורצה

[That refers] to what is lost or burnt.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the remainder is lost or burnt the handful is unfit for the head plate propitiates only for defilement.');">²⁷</span> Then according to whom does he teach, '[if the remainder] was defiled'?

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>