## Pesachim Daf 77b

###### Pesachim 77b:1
[Pesachim 77b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/77b:1)

וְהָנֵי תְּרֵי קְרָאֵי לְמָה לִי? חַד בְּעוֹלָה, וְחַד בִּשְׁלָמִים. וּצְרִיכָא, דְּאִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא בְּעוֹלָה, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: עוֹלָה הִיא דַּחֲמִירָא, שֶׁכֵּן כָּלִיל, אֲבָל שְׁלָמִים דְּלָא חֲמִירִי, אֵימָא לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Why do I** need **these two** parts of the **verse?** According to the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, the *halakha* that both the blood and meat are essential is derived twice from the verse. The Gemara answers: **One** part of the verse is referring **to a burnt-offering and one** part is referring **to a peace-offering.** The Gemara notes that both derivations are **necessary, as if the Merciful One had written** the *halakha* that the meat must be suitable for eating only **with regard to a burnt-offering, I would have said** that it applies only to **a burnt-offering, which is stringent, as it is** totally **consumed** on the altar. **However,** with regard to **a peace-offering, which is not stringent,** as most of its meat is eaten by the priests and by the one who brought the offering, **say** that its meat is **not** essential.


###### Pesachim 77b:2
[Pesachim 77b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/77b:2)

וְאִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא שְׁלָמִים, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: אַדְּרַבָּה, דְּאִית בְּהוּ שְׁתֵּי אֲכִילוֹת. אֲבָל עוֹלָה דְּלֵית בָּהּ שְׁתֵּי אֲכִילוֹת, אֵימָא לָא, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if the Merciful One had written** this *halakha* with regard to **a peace-offering, I would have said: On the contrary,** the meat of a peace-offering is more important **because it has two** forms of **consumption.** The sacrificial parts are burned on the altar, and the owners and priests eat the rest of the meat. **But** with regard to **a burnt-offering, which** is completely burned on the altar and therefore **does not have two** forms of **consumption, say** that its meat is **not** essential. For this reason, **it teaches us** the *halakha* in both cases.


###### Pesachim 77b:3
[Pesachim 77b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/77b:3)

וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר נָמֵי, הָכְתִיב ״וְהַבָּשָׂר תֹּאכֵל״! אָמַר לָךְ: הַהוּא מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ אַשֶּׁאֵין הַבָּשָׂר מוּתָּר בַּאֲכִילָה עַד שֶׁיִּזָּרֵק הַדָּם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** according to the opinion of **Rabbi Eliezer as well, isn’t it written: “And you shall eat the flesh”?** The Gemara answers that Rabbi Eliezer could have **said to you: That** part of the verse **is necessary** to teach **that the meat** of an offering **is not permitted to be eaten until the blood is sprinkled.**


###### Pesachim 77b:4
[Pesachim 77b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/77b:4)

אִי הָכִי, אֵימָא כּוּלֵּיהּ לְהָכִי הוּא דַּאֲתָא! דָּם אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין שָׁם בָּשָׂר מְנָלַן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **If so, say** that **the entire** verse **comes for this** purpose, and in that case, **from where do we** derive the *halakha* that one sprinkles the **blood even though there is no** suitable **meat** because it became ritually impure or was lost?


###### Pesachim 77b:5
[Pesachim 77b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/77b:5)

אָמַר לָךְ: אִם כֵּן, נִכְתּוֹב רַחֲמָנָא ״הַבָּשָׂר תֹּאכֵל״ וַהֲדַר ״וְדַם זְבָחֶיךָ יִשָּׁפֵךְ״, כְּדִכְתִיב בְּרֵישָׁא ״וְעָשִׂיתָ עֹלֹתֶיךָ הַבָּשָׂר וְהַדָּם״, מַאי שְׁנָא דְּאַקְדְּמֵיהּ לְ״דַם זְבָחֶיךָ״? שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: דָּם אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין בָּשָׂר, וּשְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: שֶׁאֵין הַבָּשָׂר מוּתָּר בַּאֲכִילָה עַד שֶׁיִּזָּרֵק הַדָּם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers that Rabbi Eliezer could have **said to you: If so, the Merciful One should have written “and you shall eat the flesh” and then “and the blood of your offerings shall be poured out,” as it is written in the first clause** of that verse: **“And you shall sacrifice your burnt-offerings, the flesh, and the blood,”** listing the meat before the blood. **What is different that** caused the verse **to precede** “and you shall eat the flesh” with the phrase **“the blood of your offerings”? Learn from it** that **blood** brings atonement **although there is no meat, and learn from it** also **that the meat is not permitted to be eaten until the blood is sprinkled.**


###### Pesachim 77b:6
[Pesachim 77b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/77b:6)

וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, אֵין הַבָּשָׂר מוּתָּר בַּאֲכִילָה עַד שֶׁיִּזָּרֵק הַדָּם — קַל וָחוֹמֶר הוּא, וּמָה אֵימוּרִין דְּכִי לֵיתַנְהוּ — לָא מְעַכְּבִי, כִּי אִיתַנְהוּ — מְעַכְּבִי, דָּם, דְּכִי לֵיתֵיהּ — מְעַכֵּב, כִּי אִיתֵיהּ — לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן דִּמְעַכֵּב!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** from where does **Rabbi Yehoshua** derive the *halakha* that **the meat is not permitted to be eaten until the blood is sprinkled?** The Gemara answers that according to his opinion, **it is an *a fortiori*** inference: **Just as** with regard to **sacrificial portions** brought on the altar, **which do not preclude** acceptance of the offering **when they are not present, when they are present they do preclude** the eating of the meat; with regard to **blood, which precludes** acceptance of the offering **when it is not present,** e.g., when it became ritually impure or lost, then **when it is present, all the more so** is it **not** clear **that it precludes** the continuation of the service and the eating the meat until it is sprinkled?


###### Pesachim 77b:7
[Pesachim 77b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/77b:7)

וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר? מִילְּתָא דְּאָתְיָא בְּקַל וָחוֹמֶר טָרַח וְכָתֵב לַהּ קְרָא. וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ? כׇּל הֵיכָא דְּאִיכָּא לְמִדְרַשׁ — דָּרְשִׁינַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** according to the opinion of **Rabbi Eliezer,** if there is an *a fortiori* inference, why did the Torah have to write this *halakha* explicitly in a verse? The Gemara answers: **A matter that** could be **derived by** means of **an *a fortiori* inference, the verse** nonetheless **exerted** itself and **wrote it** explicitly. Even when a *halakha* can be derived through an *a fortiori* inference, the Torah sometimes writes it explicitly in order to emphasize the *halakha*. The Gemara asks: How does **Rabbi Yehoshua** respond to this claim? The Gemara answers: **Anywhere that there is** a possibility **to expound** the verse and thereby derive a new *halakha*, **we expound** it rather than explain that the verse taught only a *halakha* that could also have been derived in a different manner.


###### Pesachim 77b:8
[Pesachim 77b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/77b:8)

הַשְׁתָּא לֵימָא מַתְנִיתִין דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, דְּכֵיוָן דְּאָמַר בָּעֵינַן תַּרְתֵּי, וְצִיץ אַאֲכִילוֹת לֹא מְרַצֶּה, הֵיכִי אָתֵי בְּטוּמְאָה?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Now,** after these introductions, **let us say that the mishna is not in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yehoshua: Since he said** that **we require** the **two** parts of the offering to be valid, i.e., the meat and the blood, and since he presumably holds that the **frontplate does not appease** God **for** the impurity of the portions of offerings that are supposed to be **eaten,** and consequently only the blood of these offerings is valid, **how can they be brought in ritual impurity?**


###### Pesachim 77b:9
[Pesachim 77b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/77b:9)

אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, אֶלָּא קָסָבַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: הַצִּיץ מְרַצֶּה עַל הָעוֹלִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara refutes this statement: **Even** if **you say** that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Yehoshua,** it is not difficult. **Rather, Rabbi Yehoshua holds that the frontplate appeases** God **for** the impurity of **that which goes up,** i.e., the sacrificial parts that are brought onto the altar and burned. These portions may be burned on the altar even when they are impure. This is considered a form of consumption. Since part of meat is therefore suitable for consumption, the blood may be sprinkled.


###### Pesachim 77b:10
[Pesachim 77b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/77b:10)

הָא תִּינַח זְבָחִים דְּאִיכָּא עוֹלִין, אֶלָּא עוֹמֶר וּשְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם דְּלֵיכָּא עוֹלִין, מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר? אָמְרִי: כִּי אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ נָמֵי דְּבָעֵינַן תַּרְתֵּי — בִּזְבָחִים, בִּמְנָחוֹת לָא אָמַר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **This** works out **well** with regard to communal animal **offerings,** from which **there are** portions that **go up** onto the altar. **But** what of **the *omer* and the two loaves,** of which **there are no** parts that **go up** onto the altar? These offerings are entirely eaten by the priests except for the handful of flour which is scooped out and burned on the altar, and which serves the same function for a meal-offering as the sprinkling of the blood for an animal offering. **What is there to say** concerning those offerings? **Say** in answer to this question: **When Rabbi Yehoshua said that we require** the **two** parts of the offering to be valid, he said it **with regard to** animal **offerings;** but **with regard to meal-offerings he did not say** it.


###### Pesachim 77b:11
[Pesachim 77b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/77b:11)

וּבִמְנָחוֹת לָא אָמַר? וְהָתְנַן: נִטְמְאוּ שְׁיָרֶיהָ, אָבְדוּ שְׁיָרֶיהָ, כְּמִדַּת רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר — כְּשֵׁירָה, כְּמִדַּת רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ — פְּסוּלָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara expresses surprise: Is it true that **with regard to meal-offerings he did not say** that there is a requirement that both the handful and the remainder of the meal-offering remain valid? **Didn’t we learn** in a mishna: If **the remainder** of the meal-offering, i.e., everything left after the handful has been separated, **became ritually impure,** or if **the remainder was lost, according to the principle of Rabbi Eliezer,** who says that the blood is fit even if there is no meat, **it is valid,** but **according to the principle of Rabbi Yehoshua it is disqualified?**


###### Pesachim 77b:12
[Pesachim 77b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/77b:12)

כְּמִדַּת וְלֹא כְּמִדַּת: כְּמִדַּת רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, דְּבָעֵינַן תַּרְתֵּי. וְלֹא כְּמִדַּת רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, דְּאִילּוּ רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בִּזְבָחִים אָמַר, בִּמְנָחוֹת — לָא אָמַר, וְאִילּוּ הַאי תַּנָּא סָבַר: אֲפִילּוּ בִּמְנָחוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: It is **in accordance with the principle** of Rabbi Yehoshua **but not** entirely **in accordance with the principle** of Rabbi Yehoshua, meaning that the statement in the mishna is similar but not entirely consistent with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua. It is **in accordance with the principle of Rabbi Yehoshua in that we need** the **two** parts of the offering to be valid. **And** it is **not in accordance with the principle of Rabbi Yehoshua,** because **whereas Rabbi Yehoshua** himself **said** so **with regard to** animal **offerings** but **with regard to meal-offerings he did not say** so, **this *tanna*** quoted in the mishna extended Rabbi Yehoshua’s opinion and **holds** that it applies **even to meal-offerings.**


###### Pesachim 77b:13
[Pesachim 77b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/77b:13)

וּמַנּוּ הַאי תַּנָּא דְּקָאֵי כְּווֹתֵיהּ וּמַחְמֵיר טְפֵי מִינֵּיהּ? וְעוֹד, תַּנְיָא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: רוֹאֶה אֲנִי אֶת דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בִּמְנָחוֹת וּבִזְבָחִים, וְדִבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בִּזְבָחִים וּבִמְנָחוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And who is this *tanna* who holds in accordance with** the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua **and is more stringent than him? And furthermore, it was taught** in a *baraita* that **Rabbi Yosei said: I see** as correct **the statement of Rabbi Eliezer** both **with regard to meal-offerings and with regard to** animal **offerings; and** I see as correct **the statement of Rabbi Yehoshua** both **with regard to** animal **offerings and with regard to meal-offerings.**


###### Pesachim 77b:14
[Pesachim 77b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/77b:14)

דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בִּזְבָחִים, שֶׁהָיָה אוֹמֵר: דָּם — אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין שָׁם בָּשָׂר. וְדִבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בִּזְבָחִים, שֶׁהָיָה אוֹמֵר: אִם אֵין דָּם — אֵין בָּשָׂר, אִם אֵין בָּשָׂר — אֵין דָּם. דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בִּמְנָחוֹת, שֶׁהָיָה אוֹמֵר: קוֹמֶץ — אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין שִׁירַיִם, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בִּמְנָחוֹת, שֶׁהָיָה אוֹמֵר: אִם אֵין קוֹמֶץ — אֵין שִׁירַיִם, אִם אֵין שִׁירַיִם — אֵין קוֹמֶץ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Yosei explains: **The statement of Rabbi Eliezer** is correct **with regard to** animal **offerings, as he would say** that the **blood** brings atonement **although there is no meat. The statement of Rabbi Yehoshua** is correct **with regard to** animal **offerings, as he would say** that **if there is no blood, there is no meat,** and **if there is no meat, there is no blood. The statement of Rabbi Eliezer** is correct **with regard to meal-offerings, as he would say** that **the handful** is fit **although there is no remainder. The statement of Rabbi Yehoshua** is correct **with regard to meal-offerings, as he would say** that **if there is no** valid **handful, there is no remainder,** and **if there is no remainder, there is no handful.** This indicates that Rabbi Yehoshua disputes the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer concerning meal-offerings, just as he disputes his opinion concerning animal offerings.


###### Pesachim 77b:15
[Pesachim 77b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/77b:15)

אֶלָּא, קָסָבַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: הַצִּיץ מְרַצֶּה עַל [הָעוֹלִין וְעַל] הָאֲכִילוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** the previous answer should be rejected and the answer is as follows: **Rabbi Yehoshua holds** that **the frontplate appeases** God both **for** the impurity of sacrificial limbs that **go up** onto the altar and **for** the impurity of portions of offerings that are supposed to be **eaten.** The Gemara has now rejected its previous assumption that, according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, the frontplate does not appease God for the impurity of the portions of offerings that are eaten. Consequently, the mishna, which rules that impure communal offerings are valid, is consistent with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua.


###### Pesachim 77b:16
[Pesachim 77b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/77b:16)

אִי הָכִי, אַמַּאי כְּמִדַּת רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ פְּסוּלָה? אַאָבוּד וְשָׂרוּף.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara expresses surprise: **If so, why** does the mishna cited above say that, **in accordance with the principle of Rabbi Yehoshua,** an impure offering **is disqualified?** The Gemara responds: This opinion was stated only with regard to meat that was **lost or burned;** however, if it became ritually impure, the frontplate appeases God, and the offerings remain valid.


###### Pesachim 77b:17
[Pesachim 77b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/77b:17)

אֶלָּא נִטְמָא, לְמַאן קָתָנֵי? לְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר — פְּשִׁיטָא, הַשְׁתָּא יֵשׁ לוֹמַר אָבוּד וְשָׂרוּף דְּלֵיתַנְהוּ, מַכְשִׁיר רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, נִטְמָא דְּאִיתֵיהּ — מִיבַּעְיָא? אֶלָּא פְּשִׁיטָא לְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, וְקָתָנֵי פְּסוּלָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: But if so, **according to whom** is the mishna **teaching** the case of a meal-offering that **became impure? According to** the opinion of **Rabbi Eliezer,** it is **obvious** that the meal-offering remains valid: **Now** that it has been mentioned that in a case where it was **lost or burned, when they are not** present at all, **Rabbi Eliezer validates** the offering, **is** it **necessary** to mention that when it **became impure, when it is** still in existence, the offering is valid? **Rather,** it is **obvious** that this case is mentioned in order to teach the opinion of **Rabbi Yehoshua, and it is teaching** that according to him it is **disqualified.**


###### Pesachim 77b:18
[Pesachim 77b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/77b:18)

וְעוֹד, תַּנְיָא רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר: כׇּל זְבָחִים שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה, בֵּין שֶׁנִּטְמָא בָּשָׂר וְחֵלֶב קַיָּים, וּבֵין שֶׁנִּטְמָא חֵלֶב וּבָשָׂר קַיָּים — זוֹרֵק אֶת הַדָּם. אֲבָל נִטְמְאוּ תַּרְוַויְיהוּ — לָא. אַלְמָא קָסָבַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אֵין הַצִּיץ מְרַצֶּה עַל הָעוֹלִין וְלֹא עַל הָאֲכִילוֹת!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And furthermore, it was taught** in a *baraita* that **Rabbi Yehoshua says:** With regard to **all** animal **offerings in the Torah, whether the meat became ritually impure and the fat** of the offering, which is the part that is burned on the altar, **remains** valid, **or the fat became impure and the meat remains** valid, **one may sprinkle the blood.** The following inference can be made from this *baraita*: **But if both of them became ritually impure,** he may **not** sprinkle the blood. **Apparently, Rabbi Yehoshua holds** that **the frontplate does not appease** God **for** the impurity of the parts of the offering that **go up** onto the altar **or for** the impurity of portions of offerings that are supposed to be **eaten.**


###### Pesachim 77b:19
[Pesachim 77b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/77b:19)

אֶלָּא: לְעוֹלָם רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ הִיא מַתְנִיתִין, וְלָא קַשְׁיָא: כָּאן — לְכַתְּחִלָּה, כָּאן — דִּיעֲבַד. כִּי אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ — לְכַתְּחִלָּה, דִּיעֲבַד לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** the previous answers have been rejected and the answer is as follows: **Actually, the mishna is** even in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Yehoshua, and it** is **not difficult: There,** Rabbi Yehoshua was referring to the *halakha **ab initio*****; here,** in the mishna, it is referring to the *halakha* **after the fact. When Rabbi Yehoshua said** that if the meat is disqualified the blood may not be brought to the altar, that was only ***ab initio*; after the fact** he did **not** disqualify it.


###### Pesachim 77b:20
[Pesachim 77b:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/77b:20)

וּמְנָא תֵּימְרָא דְּשָׁנֵי לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֵּין לְכַתְּחִלָּה לְדִיעֲבַד — דְּתַנְיָא: נִטְמָא בָּשָׂר אוֹ שֶׁנִּפְסַל אוֹ שֶׁיָּצָא חוּץ לַקְּלָעִים, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: יִזָּרֵק, רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר: לֹא יִזָּרֵק. וּמוֹדֶה רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ שֶׁאִם זָרַק — הוּרְצָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And from where do you say that Rabbi Yehoshua differentiates between *ab initio* and after the fact? As it was taught** in a *baraita*: If the **meat became impure or it was disqualified** through contact with one who has immersed during the day but does not become fully pure until nightfall, **or** if the meat **went outside the hangings** and was thereby disqualified, **Rabbi Eliezer says** the blood **may be sprinkled** and it is valid; **Rabbi Yehoshua says it may not be sprinkled. And Rabbi Yehoshua concedes that if one sprinkled** the blood, the offering **is accepted.**


###### Pesachim 77b:21
[Pesachim 77b:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/77b:21)

חֲדָא, דִּ״פְסוּלָה״ — דִּיעֲבַד מַשְׁמַע. וְעוֹד, ״חֲמִשָּׁה דְּבָרִים בָּאִין״ — לְכַתְּחִלָּה מַשְׁמַע.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this answer for two reasons. **One** reason to reject it is that the term **disqualified indicates** that the offering is invalid even **after the fact** and not only *ab initio*. **And furthermore,** the mishna’s statement that **five items may be brought in** a state of ritual impurity **indicates** that they may be brought even ***ab initio*.**