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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.