Pesachim 155

אלא לא קשיא כאן ביחיד כאן בציבור

- Rather, there is no difficulty: here the reference is to an individual;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Then it is unfit in the first place, but valid if done.');">¹</span>

נימא מתני' דלא כר' יוסי דתניא ר"א אומר הציץ מרצה על אכילות רבי יוסי אומר אין הציץ מרצה על אכילות

there [in the Mishnah] the reference is to a community.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is unclean; then it is permitted at the very outset.');">²</span>

קס"ד מדקאמר ר' יוסי אין הציץ מרצה על אכילות כר' יהושע ס"ל דאמר בעינן תרתי נימא השתא מתני' דלא כר' יוסי

Shall we say that our Mishnah does not agree with R'Jose?

לא רבי יוסי כר"א ס"ל דאמר דם אע"פ שאין בשר

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.

אי הכי למאי הלכתא אין הציץ מרצה על אכילות וליטעמיך ר"א דאמר הציץ מרצה כיון דאמר דם אע"פ שאין בשר הציץ מרצה על אכילות למאי הלכתא

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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The blood and the flesh.');">³</span>

אלא למיקבעיה בפיגול ולאפוקי מידי מעילה קמיפלגי רבי אליעזר סבר מרצה ציץ עילויה ומשוי ליה כטהור וקבע ליה בפיגול ומפיק ליה מידי מעילה

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.

ור' יוסי סבר לא מרצה ציץ עילויה ולא משוי ליה כטהור ולא קבע ליה בפיגול ולא מפיק ליה מידי מעילה

If so, in respect of what law [does he rule]: the headplate does not propiti for [the defilement of] eatables?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since you now say that the blood can be sprinkled in any case.');">⁴</span>

מתקיף לה רב מרי נהי נמי דרבי יוסי סבר כר"א בשלמא זבחים איכא דם עומר נמי איכא קומץ לחם הפנים נמי איכא בזיכין

- 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 branding<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'appointing.'');">⁵</span>

אלא שתי הלחם מאי איכא למימר

it with [the unfitness of] piggul<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos.');">⁶</span>

וכ"ת לקרב עמהן היינו שלמי ציבור א"כ הוו להו ארבעה ואנן חמשה תנן

and excluding it from [the law of] trespass.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For piggul v. Lev. XIX, 7 (E.V. vile thing) ; mere intention renders it piggul, and it may then not be eaten even within 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 priests.');">⁷</span>

אלא קסבר רבי יוסי טומאה הותרה בציבור

R'Eliezer holds: The headplate propitiates for it [the defilement of the flesh] and renders it as clean, and so brands it as piggul<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For now there is no other disqualification.');">⁸</span>

והא תניא אחד זה ואחד זה מזין עליו כל שבעה מכל חטאות שהיו שם דברי רבי מאיר רבי יוסי אומר אין מזין עליו אלא שלישי ושביעי בלבד

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.

ואי סלקא דעתך קסבר רבי יוסי טומאה הותרה בציבור למה לי הזאה כלל אלא מחוורתא מתני' דלא כרבי יוסי

To this R'Mari demurred: Even granted that R'Jose agrees with R'Eliezer: as for sacrifices,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Mentioned in our Mishnah that they may be offered in uncleanness.');">⁹</span>

א"ל רב פפא לאביי ורבי יוסי שטרא מזכי לבי תרי הוא דתניא א"ר יוסי רואה אני את דברי רבי אליעזר בזבחים ודברי רבי יהושע בזבחים ודברי רבי אליעזר במנחות ודברי רבי יהושע במנחות

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].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' All these ascend the altar, and therefore the headplate makes them acceptable.');">¹⁰</span>

דברי רבי אליעזר בזבחים שהיה אומר דם אע"פ שאין בשר דברי רבי יהושע בזבחים שהיה אומר אם אין דם אין בשר אם אין בשר אין דם דברי רבי אליעזר במנחות שהיה אומר קומץ אע"פ שאין שם שירים ודברי רבי יהושע במנחות שהיה אומר אם אין שם שירים אין קומץ אם אין קומץ אין שירים

But [in the case of] the two loaves, what can be said?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For these consist entirely of eatables, for whose defilement R. Jose holds that the headplate does not propitiate. How then can they be offered in uncleanness?');">¹¹</span>

א"ל מסתברא קאמר כי קאי בזבחים אמר מסתברא כי היכי דפליגי בזבחים פליגי נמי במנחות קאי במנחות אמר מסתברא כי היכי דפליגי במנחות פליגי נמי בזבחים

And should you answer, it is in respect of what is offered together with them,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Lev. XXIII, 18f. The slaughtering of these sacrifices sanctifies the loaves, and the sprinkling of their blood 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.');">¹²</span>

א"ל התינח כי קאי בזבחים אמר מסתברא כי היכי דפליגי בזבחים פליגי נמי במנחות דעיקר קראי כי כתיבי בזבחים כתיבי אלא כי קאי במנחות ואמר מסתברא כי היכי דפליגי במנחות פליגי נמי בזבחים והא עיקר קראי בזבחים הוא דכתיבי

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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that propitiation is not required at all; v. supra ');">¹³</span>

אלא לא קשיא רואה אני את דברי ר' אליעזר בנטמא ודברי רבי יהושע באבוד ושרוף

But surely it was taught: Both [in the case of] the one and the other,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the priest who burnt the red heifer (Num. XIX 4ff) and the High Priest.');">¹⁴</span>

בנטמא מ"ט משום דמרצי ציץ הא שמעת ליה לרבי יוסי דאמר אין הציץ מרצה על אכילות

we besprinkle them the whole seven [days]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The former prior to his burning the red heifer; the latter, before the Day of Atonement, when he officiated in the Temple. ,tyj');">¹⁵</span>

אלא לא קשיא רואה אני את דברי רבי אליעזר בציבור רואה אני את דברי רבי יהושע ביחיד

with [the ashes of] all the purification offerings<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The red heifer was designated , i.e., a sin-offering, here translated purification offering, v. ibid. 9.');">¹⁶</span>

בציבור מ"ט משום דטומאה הותרה בציבור חדא דשמעת ליה לר' יוסי דאמר טומאה דחויה היא בציבור ועוד אי בציבור רבי אליעזר מכשיר ולא רבי יהושע

which were there:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Some ashes were kept of every red heifer killed since Moses.');">¹⁷</span> this is R'Meir's view. R'Jose said: We besprinkle them on the third day and on the seventh day alone.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Yoma 4a.');">¹⁸</span> 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?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Seeing that the sacrifices of the Day of Atonement were public offerings.');">¹⁹</span> 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!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In a lawsuit the court granted a document containing the verdict to the winner. Here R. Jose grants this document to both sides - i.e., he agrees with both R. Eliezer and R. Joshua.');">²⁰</span> 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 sacrific 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 o Eliezer in respect to meal-offerings, for he used to say: the handful [is fit] even if there is no remainder [fi 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].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Without expressing agreement either with the one or the other.');">²¹</span> [Thus:] when he was studying [the subject of] sacrifices<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'when he stands at sacrifices.'');">²²</span> he said: It is logical [that] just as they differ in respect to sacrifices, so do they differ in re meal-offerings too. [And] when he was studying [the subject of] meal-offerings he said: It is logical [that] jus as they differ in respect to meal-offerings, so do they differ in respect to sacrifices too. Said he to him: It correct [that] when he was studying [the subject of] sacrifices he said: It is logical [that] just as they diffe respect to sacrifices, so do they differ in respect to meal-offerings too, because the verses [on this matter] a written fundamentally in connection with sacrifices.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. verses quoted supra 77a.');">²³</span> 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 di 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] w 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 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?