Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Daf Yomi

February 11, 2021 | ื›ืดื˜ ื‘ืฉื‘ื˜ ืชืฉืคืดื

Masechet Pesachim is sponsored by Sivya Twersky in honor of her daughter, Shoshana Baker, her grandson's upcoming Bar Mitzvah ,and in memory of her father, Harav Pesach Zachariah Halevi ben Reuven and Leah Z'late Z'L. He lived Torah and emunah by example to congregational and biological families. His yahrzeit falls within this masechet.

Pesachim 82

Today’s daf is sponsored by Julia Lager-Mesulam in honor of her father, Robert Byron Lager’s 7th Yahrzeit. “He would be amazed that I am participating in Daf Yomi. He always taught us the importance of learning about our heritage. He is in my thoughts.”

And by Carol Robinson and Arthur Gould in memory of Carolโ€™s mother, Irma Robinson, Hudda Bat Moshe, zโ€l. Today is her 6th yahrtzeit. “Irma met Carol’s dad Lou in her hometown of New Haven during WWII. They fell in love. Irma moved to Chicago to marry him, leaving family and friends behind. She built a rich life in the Chicago area including work she loved at a nearby high school library and active participation in her synagogue. She made wonderful friends that lasted her lifetime. She loved playing bridge and traveling with Lou. Sadly, four years after she was widowed, Irma developed Alzheimerโ€™s. Carol traveled monthly to Chicago to help make the hard decisions and watch over her care. My sister and I were blessed that though her illness progressed, she never forgot who we were. She would be proud of Carol studying daf yomi.”

And by Phyllis and Yossie Hecht in memory of Phyllisโ€™s father, Rabbi Yerachmiel Binyamin ben Harav Zalman Tzvi Witkin (Jerry Witkin) on his 12th yahrtzeit. “We remember my father who is so missed in our lives as he was a Yosher Lev, ื—ื‘ืจ ืœื›ืœ ืจืื™ืš, ืฉืžื— ื‘ื—ืœืงื•, and a man who personified ื‘ืžืงื•ื ืฉืื™ืŸ ืื™ืฉ ื”ืฉืชื“ืœ ืœื”ื™ื•ืช ืื™ืฉ. My father was a true source of Nachat to his friends, family and klal Yisrael. He was a loyal friend who made all feel comfortable and relaxed. He was a super dad Who knew how to learn so well and pre Rabbi google days could find answers and sources to all torah questions asked. He was the dad who came and strategized with us about all our team sport games and taught us how to be great learners and Torah Jews. He certainly would have been proud at the accomplishments of Hadran and my being part of such a talented learned group of women. I know he enjoys hearing the shiurim from his spot above in the Beit Midrash shel Maalah. He was zocheh to make Aliyah with my Mom, albeit it with terminal cancer and live for only another 8 months after. But this was 8 months more than even Moshe Rabbeinu was zoche to “ื™ื”ื™ ื–ื›ืจื• ืžื‘ื•ืจืš ืžืขืชื” ื•ืขื“ ืขื•ืœื.”

There is a contradiction between our mishna and a different mishna regarding where one burns meat of a sacrifice when a part of it became impure. How is the contradiction reconciled? If one burns it in the Temple, one uses the wood from the Temple but one can’t bring one’s own wood. And if one burns it in one’s house, one must use one’s own wood and not wood from the Temple. Why? If the Pesach went out of the walls of Jerusalem, one burns it immediately. If the owners died or became impure, one waits overnight and burns it on the 16th of Nissan (ibur tzura). From where are these derived? They try to learn it from the story of Moshe and Aharon during the days of the sanctification of the Mishkan when Moshe reprimands Aharon for burning the sin offering, but that would only teach high level santities and not lower level like the Pesach offering. In the end they conclude it is a halakha l’Moshe from Sinai. The gemara brings the opinion Raba bar Avuha that meat that is disqualified isn’t burned immediately and explains how he derives it and why he doesn’t derive that it is burned from the Aharon story. In the mishna there is a debate regarding what is done with the meat if the owners died or became impure. There is a debate about this debate – do they argue in a case where the owners died or became impure after/before the blood was sprinkled or in both cases?

ื—ื•ื–ืจ ื•ืฉื•ืจืคื• ืœืคื ื™ ื”ื‘ื™ืจื” ืžืขืฆื™ ื”ืžืขืจื›ื”


he must return and burn it before the Temple with wood from the arrangement. The mishnaโ€™s formulation uses the word remembered, implying that not only a large piece of meat that became ritually impure or somehow disqualified, but even a piece that is so small that it could become forgotten, must be burnt with wood from the arrangement.


ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื—ืžื ื‘ืจ ืขื•ืงื‘ื ืœื ืงืฉื™ื ื›ืืŸ ื‘ืื›ืกื ืื™ ื›ืืŸ ื‘ื‘ืขืœ ื”ื‘ื™ืช


Rav แธคama bar Ukva said: It is not difficult. Here, where it is stated that one burns it in the Temple with wood from the arrangement, it is referring to a visitor who does not live in Jerusalem or have wood there, and he may therefore use wood from the arrangement. While there, where it is stated that one burns it at home with oneโ€™s own wood, it is referring to a resident of Jerusalem.


ืจื‘ ืคืคื ืืžืจ ื”ื ื•ื”ื ื‘ืื›ืกื ืื™ ื›ืืŸ ืฉื”ื—ื–ื™ืง ื‘ื“ืจืš ื›ืืŸ ืฉืœื ื”ื—ื–ื™ืง ื‘ื“ืจืš


Rav Pappa said: This case and that case both refer to a visitor. Here, where it is stated that one may use wood from the arrangement, it is referring to one who already set out on the road, and it is difficult for him to collect wood. There, where it is stated that one must use his own wood, it is referring to a case in which the visitor has not yet set out on the road, and he can gather his own wood.


ืจื‘ ื–ื‘ื™ื“ ืืžืจ ืœืขื•ืœื ื›ื“ืืžืจ ืžืขื™ืงืจื ื›ืืŸ ื‘ืื›ืกื ืื™ ื›ืืŸ ื‘ื‘ืขืœ ื”ื‘ื™ืช ื•ืืฃ ืขืœ ื’ื‘ ื“ืœื ื”ื—ื–ื™ืง ื‘ื“ืจืš ืื›ืกื ืื™ ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืœื™ืช ืœื™ื” ืขืฉืื•ื”ื• ื›ืฆื™ืงื ื™ืŸ ื“ืชื ืŸ ื”ืฆื™ืงื ื™ืŸ ืฉื•ืจืคื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื• ืœืคื ื™ ื”ื‘ื™ืจื” ื‘ืฉื‘ื™ืœ ืœื™ื”ื ื•ืช ืžืขืฆื™ ื”ืžืขืจื›ื”


Rav Zevid disagreed with Rav Pappa and clarified Rav แธคama bar Ukvaโ€™s opinion. He said: Actually, it can be explained as Rav แธคama initially said: Here, it is referring to a visitor; there, it is referring to a resident. And even though he did not yet set out on the road, a visitor may use wood from the arrangement for the following reason: Since he does not have his own wood, the Sages treated him like the misers, as we learned in a mishna: The misers burn it before the Temple in order to benefit from the wood of the arrangement. This indicates that anyone who is unconcerned about his reputation, like a miser, may use wood from the arrangement, and this is not considered to be a misuse of consecrated property. Similarly, the Sages also permitted a visitor to use wood from the arrangement.


ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื‘ืื• ืœืฉื•ืจืคื• ื‘ื—ืฆืจื•ืชื™ื”ืŸ ื•ืžืขืฆื™ ื”ืžืขืจื›ื” ืื™ืŸ ืฉื•ืžืขื™ืŸ ืœื”ืŸ ืœืคื ื™ ื”ื‘ื™ืจื” ื•ืžืขืฆื™ ืขืฆืžืŸ ืื™ืŸ ืฉื•ืžืขื™ืŸ ืœื”ืŸ


The Sages taught in the Tosefta: If individuals came and wanted to burn the Paschal lamb that had become ritually impure in their courtyards and wanted to take wood from the arrangement to use for this purpose, one does not listen to them. Similarly, if they wanted to burn it before the Temple with their own wood, one does not listen to them.


ื‘ืฉืœืžื ืžืขืฆื™ ื”ืžืขืจื›ื” ื‘ื—ืฆืจื•ืชื™ื”ืŸ ืื™ืŸ ืฉื•ืžืขื™ืŸ ืœื”ืŸ ื“ื™ืœืžื ืคื™ื™ืฉืŸ ืžื™ื ื™ื™ื”ื• ื•ืืชื• ื‘ื”ื• ืœื™ื“ื™ ืชืงืœื” ืืœื ืœืคื ื™ ื”ื‘ื™ืจื” ืžืขืฆื™ ืขืฆืžืŸ ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ืœื


The Gemara asks: Granted, if people want to burn it with wood from the arrangement in their own courtyards one does not listen to them. This is because the Sages were concerned lest they leave over some of the wood they took to burn the Paschal lamb and come to experience a mishap with it by using the wood for another purpose. But in the case in which they wanted to burn the offering before the Temple with their own wood, what is the reason one does not listen to them?


ืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ืืžืจ ืฉืœื ืœื‘ื™ื™ืฉ ืืช ืžื™ ืฉืื™ืŸ ืœื• ืจื‘ื ืืžืจ ืžืคื ื™ ื”ื—ืฉื“


Rav Yosef said: It is in order not to embarrass one who does not have the means to bring his own wood. If it were permitted to bring oneโ€™s own wood to burn in the Temple, people would realize that only the poor people take wood from the Temple. This would be embarrassing to the poor. Rava said: It is due to suspicion. People would take back their own unused wood that they had brought, and others might suspect that they were stealing consecrated wood from the Temple.


ืžืื™ ื‘ื™ื ื™ื™ื”ื• ืื™ื›ื ื‘ื™ื ื™ื™ื”ื• ื“ืื™ื™ืชื™ ืงื ื™ ื•ื—ืจื™ื•ืชื ื“ืœื ื—ื–ื™ ืœืžืขืจื›ื”


The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between these two answers? The Gemara answers: The practical difference between them is the case of one who brings reeds or palm branches that are not fit for the arrangement. Since these types of branches are not used for the arrangement of wood on the altar, there is no concern that people would be wrongly suspected of stealing them from the Temple; therefore, Rava would permit it. However, the concern that the poor will be embarrassed is still relevant, and so Rav Yosef would prohibit it.


ืชื ืŸ ื”ืชื ืจืืฉ ื”ืžืขืžื“ ื”ื™ื” ืžืขืžื™ื“ ืืช ื”ื˜ืžืื™ืŸ ืขืœ ืฉืขืจ ื”ืžื–ืจื— ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ื›ื“ื™ ืœื‘ื™ื™ืฉืŸ ืจื‘ื ืืžืจ ืžืคื ื™ ื”ื—ืฉื“


Another mishna teaches a similar dispute between Rav Yosef and Rava on a different subject: We learned in a mishna there, in tractate Tamid: The head of the watch would stand the ritually impure priests at the entrance to the eastern gate each morning. The Gemara asks: What is the reason that they did not simply send them home without making them stand at the entrance to the eastern gate? Rav Yosef said: It was in order to embarrass them for not having been careful to avoid becoming impure. Rava said: They would stand them there to avoid suspicion, so that people would realize that they were not performing the Temple service because they were impure, rather than in order to work in their regular professions.


ืžืื™ ื‘ื™ื ื™ื™ื”ื• ืื™ื›ื ื‘ื™ื ื™ื™ื”ื• ืžืคื ืงื™ ืื™ ื ืžื™ ื“ืงื ื’ื“ื™ืœ ืฉื™ืฉื•ืจื:


The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between these two opinions? The Gemara answers: The practical difference between them is the case of pampered people who never work, whom others would not suspect of avoiding Temple service in order to work in their regular professions. Alternatively, it is the case of one who twists ropes for a living. No one would suspect someone of missing the Temple service in order to work in such a lowly and non-profitable occupation. These two categories of people would not have to stand at the gate according to Ravaโ€™s opinion, but would have to according to Rav Yosefโ€™s opinion.


ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื”ืคืกื— ืฉื™ืฆื ืื• ืฉื ื˜ืžื ื™ืฉืจืฃ ืžื™ื“ ื ื˜ืžืื• ื”ื‘ืขืœื™ื ืื• ืฉืžืชื• ืชืขื•ื‘ืจ ืฆื•ืจืชื• ื•ื™ืฉืจืฃ ื‘ืฉืฉื” ืขืฉืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ื‘ืจื•ืงื” ืื•ืžืจ ืืฃ ื–ื” ื™ืฉืจืฃ ืžื™ื“ ืœืคื™ ืฉืื™ืŸ ืœื• ืื•ื›ืœื™ืŸ:


MISHNA: A Paschal lamb that was taken out of its permissible area or that became ritually impure should be burned immediately on the eve of Passover. If the owners became ritually impure or died, its form must be allowed to decay by leaving it for a period of time instead of burning it immediately, and it should be burned on the sixteenth of Nisan, immediately after the first day of the Festival. Rabbi Yoแธฅanan ben Beroka says: This, too, should be burned immediately, because it has no one to eat it, which is also so severe a disqualification that decay of form is not required.


ื’ืžืณ ื‘ืฉืœืžื ื˜ืžื ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ื”ื‘ืฉืจ ืืฉืจ ื™ื’ืข ื‘ื›ืœ ื˜ืžื ืœื ื™ืื›ืœ ื‘ืืฉ ื™ืฉืจืฃ ืืœื ื™ื•ืฆื ืžื ืœืŸ


GEMARA: The Gemara asks: Granted, the fact that ritually impure sacrificial meat must be burned is written in the Torah, as it says: โ€œThe flesh that touches any impure item shall not be eaten, it shall be burned in fireโ€ (Leviticus 7:19). But sacrificial meat that is taken out of its permissible area, from where do we derive that it must be burned?


ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื”ืŸ ืœื ื”ื•ื‘ื ืืช ื“ืžื” ืืœ ื”ืงื“ืฉ ืคื ื™ืžื” ืืžืจ ืœื• ืžืฉื” ืœืื”ืจืŸ ืžื“ื•ืข ืœื ืื›ืœืชื ืืช ื”ื—ื˜ืืช ืฉืžื ื ื›ื ืก ื“ืžื” ืœืคื ื™ ื•ืœืคื ื™ื ืืžืจ ืœื• ืœืื•


The Gemara responds: It is derived from the verses describing Moses admonishing Aaron and his sons about the fact that they did not eat the sin-offering on the eighth day of inauguration, as it is written: โ€œBehold, its blood was not brought into the Sanctuary within; you should have eaten it in the Sanctuary, as I commandedโ€ (Leviticus 10:18). This should be understood as follows: Moses said to Aaron: Why didnโ€™t you eat the sin-offering? Perhaps its blood entered the innermost chamber, the Sanctuary, in which case it must be burned? Aaron said to him: No.


ืืžืจ ืœื• ืฉืžื ื—ื•ืฅ ืœืžื—ื™ืฆืชื” ื™ืฆืชื” ืืžืจ ืœื• ืœืื• ื‘ืงื•ื“ืฉ ื”ื™ืชื” ืืžืจ ืœื• ืื™ ื‘ืงื•ื“ืฉ ื”ื™ืชื” ื•ื”ืŸ ืœื ื”ื•ื‘ื ืืช ื“ืžื” ืืœ ื”ืงื“ืฉ ืคื ื™ืžื” ืžื“ื•ืข ืœื ืื›ืœืชื ืื•ืชื” ืžื›ืœืœ ื“ืื™ ื ืคืงื ืื™ ื ืžื™ ืขื™ื™ืœ ื“ืžื” ืœืคื ื™ื ื‘ืช ืฉืจื™ืคื” ื”ื™ื


Moses said to him: Perhaps it was taken outside of its boundary, and that is the reason you did not eat it? He said to him: No, it was in the sacred area, i.e., the courtyard. Moses said to him: If it was in the sacred area the entire time, behold, its blood was not brought into the Sanctuary within, why didnโ€™t you eat it? This proves by inference that if it leaves its boundary, or alternatively, if its blood enters within the Sanctuary of the Temple, it must be burned. This can serve as a model for all offerings.


ื‘ืฉืœืžื ื ื˜ืžื ื’ืœื™ ืจื—ืžื ื ื‘ืงื“ืฉื™ื ืงืœื™ื ื›ืœ ืฉื›ืŸ ื‘ืงื“ืฉื™ ืงื“ืฉื™ื ืืœื ื™ื•ืฆื ืืฉื›ื—ืŸ ืงื“ืฉื™ ื”ืงื“ืฉื™ื ืงื“ืฉื™ื ืงืœื™ื ืžื ืœืŸ ื•ืชื• ื”ื ื“ืชื ื™ื ืœืŸ ื“ืžื”


The Gemara asks: Granted, with regard to sacrificial meat that became ritually impure, the Merciful One reveals that halakha in the Torah with regard to offerings of lesser sanctity, as the verse: โ€œThe flesh that touches any impure item shall not be eaten,โ€ is referring to a peace-offering, and it applies all the more so with regard to offerings of the most sacred order. However, with regard to sacrificial meat that is taken out of its boundary, we have found a source that this applies to offerings of only the most sacred order. With regard to offerings of lesser sanctity, such as the Paschal lamb, from where do we derive that they too must be burned? And furthermore, with regard to that which is taught in a baraita: If the blood of an offering was left overnight instead of being sprinkled on the altar on the day it was slaughtered,


ื ืฉืคืš ื“ืžื” ื™ืฆื ื“ืžื” ื—ื•ืฅ ืœืงืœืขื™ื ื“ืงื™ื™ืžื ืœืŸ ื‘ืฉืจื™ืคื” ืžื ืœืŸ


or its blood was spilled, or its blood was taken outside the hangings that denoted the courtyard of the Tabernacle, we maintain that it must be burned; from where do we derive this halakha?


ื ืคืงื ืœืŸ ืžื“ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื“ืชื ื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืื•ืžืจ ื‘ืงื“ืฉ ื‘ืืฉ ืชืฉืจืฃ ืœื™ืžื“ ืขืœ ื—ื˜ืืช ืฉืฉืจื™ืคืชื” ื‘ืงื•ื“ืฉ


The Gemara answers: We derive it from the exposition of Rabbi Shimon, as it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon says: The verse that states: โ€œAny sin-offering from which some blood has been brought to the Tent of Meeting, to make atonement in the sacred place, shall not be eaten; it shall be burned in fireโ€ (Leviticus 6:23), has taught that the burning of a sin-offering is in the sacred area, the Temple courtyard.


ืื™ืŸ ืœื™ ืืœื ื–ื• ื‘ืœื‘ื“ ืฉืืจ ืคืกื•ืœื™ ืงื“ืฉื™ ืงื“ืฉื™ื ื•ืื™ืžื•ืจื™ ืงื“ืฉื™ื ืงืœื™ื ืžื ื™ืŸ ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ (ื•ื›ืœ) ื‘ืงื“ืฉ ื‘ืืฉ ืชืฉืจืฃ


I have derived only that the halakha applies to this alone, a sin-offering; with regard to the rest of the disqualified offerings of the most sacred order and the portions of offerings of lesser sanctity that are consumed on the altar, from where do we derive that they must be burned in the Temple courtyard, which is their boundary when they are valid? The verse states: โ€œAnyโ€ฆin the sacred placeโ€ฆshall be burned in fire,โ€ which teaches that any consecrated item must be burned in a sacred place.


ืืฉื›ื—ืŸ ืงื“ืฉื™ ืงื“ืฉื™ื ืงื“ืฉื™ื ืงืœื™ื ืžื ืœืŸ ืืœื ื›ืœ ืคืกื•ืœื• ื‘ืงื“ืฉ ื‘ืฉืจื™ืคื” ืœื ืฉื ื ืงื“ืฉื™ื ืงืœื™ื ื•ืœื ืฉื ื ืงื“ืฉื™ ืงื“ืฉื™ื ื’ืžืจื ื’ืžื™ืจื™ ืœื” ื•ื—ื˜ืืช ื“ืื”ืจืŸ ืžืฉื•ื ืžืขืฉื” ืฉื”ื™ื” ื›ืš ื”ื™ื”


The Gemara asks further: We found a source for offerings of the most sacred order; from where do we derive that it also applies to offerings of lesser sanctity? Rather, we must say as follows: Anything disqualified in the sacred area, the Temple courtyard, must be burned. It is no different whether it is offerings of lesser sanctity, and it is no different whether it is offerings of the most sacred order; they learned it as a tradition. And the sin-offering of Aaron that was burned on the eighth day of inauguration was mentioned only because the incident that took place, took place in this way. It was not mentioned in order to teach the halakhot of offerings.


ื•ืœืชื ื ื“ื‘ื™ ืจื‘ื” ื‘ืจ ืื‘ื•ื” ื“ืืžืจ ืืคื™ืœื• ืคื™ื’ื•ืœ ื˜ืขื•ืŸ ืขื™ื‘ื•ืจ ืฆื•ืจื” ืžื ื ืœืŸ


The Gemara proceeds to ask an unrelated question with regard to piggul: And according to the opinion of the tanna from the school of Rabba bar Avuh, who said that even piggul, which is a disqualification of the animal itself, requires decay of form, meaning that it must be left over until the next day so that it will begin to decay and is only then burned, from where do we derive that it requires decay of form?


ื™ืœื™ืฃ ืขื•ืŸ ืขื•ืŸ ืžื ื•ืชืจ


The Gemara answers: It is derived from a verbal analogy from the parallel words โ€œiniquityโ€ and โ€œiniquity.โ€ With regard to piggul, the verse states: โ€œIt remains rejected [piggul]; and the soul that eats it shall bear its iniquityโ€ (Leviticus 7:18), and with regard to leftover sacrificial meat, the verse states: โ€œAnd whatever is leftoverโ€ฆshall be burned in fireโ€ฆand each of those who eat it shall bear his iniquityโ€ (Leviticus 19:6โ€“8). Just as leftover sacrificial meat is burned after it has been left over to the next day, so too, piggul is burned only after it has been left over to the next day and its form has decayed.


ื•ื ื™ืœืฃ ืขื•ืŸ ืขื•ืŸ ืžื—ื˜ืืช ื“ืื”ืจืŸ ืืžืจ ืœืš ื—ื˜ืืช ื“ืื”ืจืŸ ื›ื™ ื”ืื™ ื’ื•ื•ื ื ื ืžื™ ืขื™ื‘ื•ืจ ืฆื•ืจื” ืœื“ื•ืจื•ืช ื‘ืขื™ื ื•ื”ืชื ื”ื•ืจืืช ืฉืขื” ื”ื™ืชื”


The Gemara asks: Let us instead learn the rules of piggul through a verbal analogy based on the parallel words โ€œiniquityโ€ and โ€œiniquityโ€ from the sin-offering of Aaron, with regard to which the verse states: โ€œWhy did you not eat the sin-offering in the place of sanctityโ€ฆand He gave it to you to bear the iniquity of the congregationโ€ (Leviticus 10:17). The sin-offering of Aaron was burned immediately, without decay of form, so why can it not be learned from there that piggul does not require decay of form either? That tanna could have said to you: The sin-offering of Aaron in a case like this would also require decay of form were it to occur in future generations; but there, when it was burned immediately, it was a provisional edict issued in exigent circumstances.


ื”ืฉืชื ื“ืืžืจื™ื ืŸ ื›ืœ ืคืกื•ืœื™ ื“ืงื“ืฉ ื‘ืฉืจื™ืคื” ืœื ืฉื ื ื“ืงื“ืฉื™ ืงื“ืฉื™ื ื•ืœื ืฉื ื ืงื“ืฉื™ื ืงืœื™ื ื’ืžืจื ื’ืžื™ืจื™ ืœื” ื‘ืงื“ืฉ ื‘ืืฉ ืชืฉืจืฃ ืœืžื” ืœื™ ื”ื”ื•ื ืžื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื” ืฉืฉืจื™ืคืชื” ื‘ืงื“ืฉ


The Gemara asks: Now that we say that we have accepted the conclusion that all disqualified sacred offerings must be burned, and it is no different whether they are disqualified offerings of the most sacred order or offerings of lesser sanctity, because in both cases they learned it as a tradition, with regard to the verse that says: โ€œIn the sacred placeโ€ฆshall be burned in fire,โ€ why do I need it? What does this verse teach that is not known from oral tradition? The Gemara answers: That verse is required to teach that the requirement of burning that is learned from the oral tradition cannot take place anywhere; its burning must take place only in the sacred place, the Temple courtyard.


ื•ื”ื‘ืฉืจ ืืฉืจ ื™ื’ืข ื‘ื›ืœ ื˜ืžื ืœื ื™ืื›ืœ ื‘ืืฉ ื™ืฉืจืฃ ืœืžื” ืœื™


The Gemara asks further: If the source of the halakha is an oral tradition, with regard to the verse that states: โ€œThe flesh that touches any impure item shall not be eaten, it shall be burned in fireโ€ (Leviticus 7:19), why do I need it? This halakha is included in the oral tradition and should not require its own verse.


ื”ื”ื•ื ืœื’ื•ืคื™ื” ืื™ืฆื˜ืจื™ืš ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชืš ืืžื™ื ื ื›ืœ ืคืกื•ืœื™ ื“ืงื“ืฉ ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ืœืŸ ื“ืžื” ื•ื ืฉืคืš ื“ืžื” ื•ื™ืฆื ื“ืžื” ื•ื ืฉื—ื˜ื” ื‘ืœื™ืœื” ื“ื‘ืฉืจื™ืคื” ื“ืœื™ืชื ื”ื• ื‘ื—ื•ืœื™ืŸ


The Gemara answers: That verse is necessary for itself. It could enter your mind to say that disqualified sacred offerings include only a case where its blood was left overnight instead of being sprinkled on the altar on the day the offering was slaughtered; or its blood was spilled; or its blood was taken outside the hangings; and similarly, the case of an offering that was slaughtered at night. In all these cases, the offering must be burned because these are disqualifications unique to sanctified offerings that do not exist with regard to unconsecrated items.


ืื‘ืœ ื ื˜ืžื ื“ื‘ื—ื•ืœื™ืŸ ื ืžื™ ืžืคืกื™ืœ ืื™ืžื ื”ื•ืื™ืœ ื•ืื™ืชืขื‘ื™ื“ ื‘ื™ื” ืขื•ื‘ื“ื™ืŸ ื“ื—ื•ืœ ืื™ืžื ืœื ืชื™ื‘ืขื™ ืฉืจื™ืคื” ื•ืชื™ืกื’ื™ ืœื™ื” ื‘ืงื‘ื•ืจื” ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ:


But if the meat became ritually impure, which disqualifies unconsecrated meat also, say that since it was treated in the manner of unconsecrated items, as the disqualification is not unique to consecrated items, it should not require burning, and burial should be sufficient for it. Therefore, the verse teaches us that an offering that is disqualified through ritual impurity must also be burned.


ื ื˜ืžืื• ื”ื‘ืขืœื™ื ืื• ืฉืžืชื• ืชืขื•ื‘ืจ ืฆื•ืจืชืŸ ื•ื›ื•ืณ: ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ืžื—ืœื•ืงืช ืฉื ื˜ืžืื• ื‘ืขืœื™ื ืื—ืจ ื–ืจื™ืงื” ื“ืื™ืชื—ื–ื™ ื‘ืฉืจ ืœืื›ื™ืœื” ืื‘ืœ ื ื˜ืžืื• ื‘ืขืœื™ื ืœืคื ื™ ื–ืจื™ืงื” ื“ืœื ืื™ืชื—ื–ื™ ื‘ืฉืจ ืœืื›ื™ืœื” ื“ื‘ืจื™ ื”ื›ืœ ื™ืฉืจืฃ ืžื™ื“


It was taught in the mishna that if the owners of the offering became ritually impure or died before the offering was completed, its form must be left to decay, and it is burned after the first day of the Festival. Rabbi Yoแธฅanan ben Beroka disagrees and says that it is burned immediately. Rav Yosef said: This dispute is about a case in which the owners became ritually impure after the sprinkling of the blood, because the meat was fit for eating since all its services were completed in a valid way. But if the owners became ritually impure before the sprinkling of the blood, such that the meat was not fit for eating even for a moment, all agree that it should be burned immediately.


ืžื™ืชื™ื‘ื™ ื–ื” ื”ื›ืœืœ ื›ืœ ืฉืคืกื•ืœื• ื‘ื’ื•ืคื• ื™ืฉืจืฃ ืžื™ื“ ื‘ื“ื ื•ื‘ื‘ืขืœื™ื ืชืขื•ื‘ืจ ืฆื•ืจืชื• ื•ื™ืฆื ืœื‘ื™ืช ื”ืฉืจื™ืคื”


The Gemara raises an objection to this statement based on the Tosefta: This is the principle: In all cases in which its disqualification is in itself, it should be burned immediately. If the disqualification is in the blood of the offering or in the owners, its form should be left to decay, and then it should be taken out to the place designated for burning.


ืงืชื ื™ ื‘ืขืœื™ื ื“ื•ืžื™ื ื“ื“ื ืžื” ื“ื ืœืคื ื™ ื–ืจื™ืงื” ืืฃ ื‘ืขืœื™ื ืœืคื ื™ ื–ืจื™ืงื”


The following inference can be made based on the formulation of the Tosefta: It is teaching that the case of disqualified owners is similar to the case of disqualified blood: Just as in the case of blood the disqualification necessarily occurred before the sprinkling of the blood, as the offering is not disqualified if anything happens to the blood after sprinkling, so too, the case of owners is referring to one in which they became disqualified even before the sprinkling of the blood, which contradicts the statement of Rav Yosef.


ืืœื ืื™ ืื™ืชืžืจ ื”ื›ื™ ืื™ืชืžืจ ืžื—ืœื•ืงืช ืฉื ื˜ืžืื• ื‘ืขืœื™ื ืœืคื ื™ ื–ืจื™ืงื” ืœืœื ืื™ืชื—ื–ื™ ื‘ืฉืจ ืœืื›ื™ืœื” ื“ื”ื•ื” ืœื™ื” ื›ืคืกื•ืœื• ื‘ื’ื•ืคื• ืื‘ืœ ื ื˜ืžืื• ื‘ืขืœื™ื ืœืื—ืจ ื–ืจื™ืงื” ื“ืื™ืชื—ื–ื™ ื‘ืฉืจ ืœืื›ื™ืœื” ื“ื‘ืจื™ ื”ื›ืœ ืคืกื•ืœื• ืžื—ืžืช ื“ื‘ืจ ืื—ืจ ื•ื‘ืขื™ื ืขื™ื‘ื•ืจ ืฆื•ืจื”


Rather, if this was stated in the name of Rav Yosef, it was stated as follows: This dispute is specifically about a case in which the owners became ritually impure before the sprinkling of the blood, such that the meat was never fit for eating, which makes it as though its disqualification is in itself. But if the owners became ritually impure after sprinkling of the blood, such that the meat was fit for eating, all agree that its disqualification is due to a different matter, i.e., an external factor, and it requires decay of form.


ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืืžืจ ืืฃ ืœืื—ืจ ื–ืจื™ืงื” ื ืžื™ ืžื—ืœื•ืงืช ื•ืื–ื“ื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืœื˜ืขืžื™ื” ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ื‘ืจื•ืงื” ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื ื—ืžื™ื” ืืžืจื• ื“ื‘ืจ ืื—ื“ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ื‘ืจื•ืงื” ื”ื ื“ืืžืจืŸ


And Rabbi Yoแธฅanan said: Even a case in which the owners became ritually impure after sprinkling the blood is included in the dispute about whether decay of form is necessary. And Rabbi Yoแธฅanan follows his line of reasoning, as Rabbi Yoแธฅanan said: Rabbi Yoแธฅanan ben Beroka and Rabbi Neแธฅemya said the same thing. The statement of Rabbi Yoแธฅanan ben Beroka is that which we said.


ืจื‘ื™ ื ื—ืžื™ื” ืžืื™ ื”ื™ื ื“ืชื ื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ื ื—ืžื™ื” ืื•ืžืจ ืžืคื ื™ ืื ื™ื ื•ืช ื ืฉืจืคื” ื–ื• ืœื›ืš ื ืืžืจ ื›ืืœื”


With regard to Rabbi Neแธฅemya, what is the ruling in which he expressed his opinion? It is as it was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Neแธฅemya says: Aaronโ€™s sin-offering that was burned on the eighth day of inauguration was burned due to acute mourning, as that was the day his sons Nadav and Avihu died. For this reason, it is stated that Aaron explained to Moses: โ€œNow that events such as these befell me, were I to eat this dayโ€™s sin-offering would the Lord approve?โ€ (Leviticus 10:19). In other words, it was due to the deaths of his sons, which Aaron referred as โ€œevents such as these,โ€ that Aaron burned the sin-offering instead of eating it.


ื•ื”ื ืื ื™ื ื•ืช ื›ืœืื—ืจ ื–ืจื™ืงื” ื”ื•ื™ื ื•ื›ื™ ืืฉืชืจื•ืฃ ืœืืœืชืจ (ื ืฉืชืจื•ืฃ)


Rabbi Yoแธฅanan analyzes Rabbi Neแธฅemyaโ€™s statement: Now, acute mourning is similar to a case of disqualification after sprinkling of the blood, because acute mourning merely disqualifies the owners from eating the offering. It does not disqualify the actual performance of the sacrificial service by a High Priest, such as Aaron. Therefore, it is like other disqualifications that take effect after the sprinkling, which simply prohibit the eating of the meat. And when it was burned, it was burned immediately, without waiting until the following day. This shows that Rabbi Neแธฅemya agrees that an offering that becomes disqualified after its blood has been sprinkled should be burned immediately.


Masechet Pesachim is sponsored by Sivya Twersky in honor of her daughter, Shoshana Baker, her grandson's upcoming Bar Mitzvah ,and in memory of her father, Harav Pesach Zachariah Halevi ben Reuven and Leah Z'late Z'L. He lived Torah and emunah by example to congregational and biological families. His yahrzeit falls within this masechet.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Pesachim 81-87 – Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time

This week we will learn what happens to the leftover meat of the Korban Pesach and about the prohibition of...
daf_icon

Pesachim 67-73 – Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time

This week we will learn about the 3 camps that existed in the desert and who needed to leave which...

Pesachim 82

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Pesachim 82

ื—ื•ื–ืจ ื•ืฉื•ืจืคื• ืœืคื ื™ ื”ื‘ื™ืจื” ืžืขืฆื™ ื”ืžืขืจื›ื”


he must return and burn it before the Temple with wood from the arrangement. The mishnaโ€™s formulation uses the word remembered, implying that not only a large piece of meat that became ritually impure or somehow disqualified, but even a piece that is so small that it could become forgotten, must be burnt with wood from the arrangement.


ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื—ืžื ื‘ืจ ืขื•ืงื‘ื ืœื ืงืฉื™ื ื›ืืŸ ื‘ืื›ืกื ืื™ ื›ืืŸ ื‘ื‘ืขืœ ื”ื‘ื™ืช


Rav แธคama bar Ukva said: It is not difficult. Here, where it is stated that one burns it in the Temple with wood from the arrangement, it is referring to a visitor who does not live in Jerusalem or have wood there, and he may therefore use wood from the arrangement. While there, where it is stated that one burns it at home with oneโ€™s own wood, it is referring to a resident of Jerusalem.


ืจื‘ ืคืคื ืืžืจ ื”ื ื•ื”ื ื‘ืื›ืกื ืื™ ื›ืืŸ ืฉื”ื—ื–ื™ืง ื‘ื“ืจืš ื›ืืŸ ืฉืœื ื”ื—ื–ื™ืง ื‘ื“ืจืš


Rav Pappa said: This case and that case both refer to a visitor. Here, where it is stated that one may use wood from the arrangement, it is referring to one who already set out on the road, and it is difficult for him to collect wood. There, where it is stated that one must use his own wood, it is referring to a case in which the visitor has not yet set out on the road, and he can gather his own wood.


ืจื‘ ื–ื‘ื™ื“ ืืžืจ ืœืขื•ืœื ื›ื“ืืžืจ ืžืขื™ืงืจื ื›ืืŸ ื‘ืื›ืกื ืื™ ื›ืืŸ ื‘ื‘ืขืœ ื”ื‘ื™ืช ื•ืืฃ ืขืœ ื’ื‘ ื“ืœื ื”ื—ื–ื™ืง ื‘ื“ืจืš ืื›ืกื ืื™ ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืœื™ืช ืœื™ื” ืขืฉืื•ื”ื• ื›ืฆื™ืงื ื™ืŸ ื“ืชื ืŸ ื”ืฆื™ืงื ื™ืŸ ืฉื•ืจืคื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื• ืœืคื ื™ ื”ื‘ื™ืจื” ื‘ืฉื‘ื™ืœ ืœื™ื”ื ื•ืช ืžืขืฆื™ ื”ืžืขืจื›ื”


Rav Zevid disagreed with Rav Pappa and clarified Rav แธคama bar Ukvaโ€™s opinion. He said: Actually, it can be explained as Rav แธคama initially said: Here, it is referring to a visitor; there, it is referring to a resident. And even though he did not yet set out on the road, a visitor may use wood from the arrangement for the following reason: Since he does not have his own wood, the Sages treated him like the misers, as we learned in a mishna: The misers burn it before the Temple in order to benefit from the wood of the arrangement. This indicates that anyone who is unconcerned about his reputation, like a miser, may use wood from the arrangement, and this is not considered to be a misuse of consecrated property. Similarly, the Sages also permitted a visitor to use wood from the arrangement.


ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื‘ืื• ืœืฉื•ืจืคื• ื‘ื—ืฆืจื•ืชื™ื”ืŸ ื•ืžืขืฆื™ ื”ืžืขืจื›ื” ืื™ืŸ ืฉื•ืžืขื™ืŸ ืœื”ืŸ ืœืคื ื™ ื”ื‘ื™ืจื” ื•ืžืขืฆื™ ืขืฆืžืŸ ืื™ืŸ ืฉื•ืžืขื™ืŸ ืœื”ืŸ


The Sages taught in the Tosefta: If individuals came and wanted to burn the Paschal lamb that had become ritually impure in their courtyards and wanted to take wood from the arrangement to use for this purpose, one does not listen to them. Similarly, if they wanted to burn it before the Temple with their own wood, one does not listen to them.


ื‘ืฉืœืžื ืžืขืฆื™ ื”ืžืขืจื›ื” ื‘ื—ืฆืจื•ืชื™ื”ืŸ ืื™ืŸ ืฉื•ืžืขื™ืŸ ืœื”ืŸ ื“ื™ืœืžื ืคื™ื™ืฉืŸ ืžื™ื ื™ื™ื”ื• ื•ืืชื• ื‘ื”ื• ืœื™ื“ื™ ืชืงืœื” ืืœื ืœืคื ื™ ื”ื‘ื™ืจื” ืžืขืฆื™ ืขืฆืžืŸ ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ืœื


The Gemara asks: Granted, if people want to burn it with wood from the arrangement in their own courtyards one does not listen to them. This is because the Sages were concerned lest they leave over some of the wood they took to burn the Paschal lamb and come to experience a mishap with it by using the wood for another purpose. But in the case in which they wanted to burn the offering before the Temple with their own wood, what is the reason one does not listen to them?


ืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ืืžืจ ืฉืœื ืœื‘ื™ื™ืฉ ืืช ืžื™ ืฉืื™ืŸ ืœื• ืจื‘ื ืืžืจ ืžืคื ื™ ื”ื—ืฉื“


Rav Yosef said: It is in order not to embarrass one who does not have the means to bring his own wood. If it were permitted to bring oneโ€™s own wood to burn in the Temple, people would realize that only the poor people take wood from the Temple. This would be embarrassing to the poor. Rava said: It is due to suspicion. People would take back their own unused wood that they had brought, and others might suspect that they were stealing consecrated wood from the Temple.


ืžืื™ ื‘ื™ื ื™ื™ื”ื• ืื™ื›ื ื‘ื™ื ื™ื™ื”ื• ื“ืื™ื™ืชื™ ืงื ื™ ื•ื—ืจื™ื•ืชื ื“ืœื ื—ื–ื™ ืœืžืขืจื›ื”


The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between these two answers? The Gemara answers: The practical difference between them is the case of one who brings reeds or palm branches that are not fit for the arrangement. Since these types of branches are not used for the arrangement of wood on the altar, there is no concern that people would be wrongly suspected of stealing them from the Temple; therefore, Rava would permit it. However, the concern that the poor will be embarrassed is still relevant, and so Rav Yosef would prohibit it.


ืชื ืŸ ื”ืชื ืจืืฉ ื”ืžืขืžื“ ื”ื™ื” ืžืขืžื™ื“ ืืช ื”ื˜ืžืื™ืŸ ืขืœ ืฉืขืจ ื”ืžื–ืจื— ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ื›ื“ื™ ืœื‘ื™ื™ืฉืŸ ืจื‘ื ืืžืจ ืžืคื ื™ ื”ื—ืฉื“


Another mishna teaches a similar dispute between Rav Yosef and Rava on a different subject: We learned in a mishna there, in tractate Tamid: The head of the watch would stand the ritually impure priests at the entrance to the eastern gate each morning. The Gemara asks: What is the reason that they did not simply send them home without making them stand at the entrance to the eastern gate? Rav Yosef said: It was in order to embarrass them for not having been careful to avoid becoming impure. Rava said: They would stand them there to avoid suspicion, so that people would realize that they were not performing the Temple service because they were impure, rather than in order to work in their regular professions.


ืžืื™ ื‘ื™ื ื™ื™ื”ื• ืื™ื›ื ื‘ื™ื ื™ื™ื”ื• ืžืคื ืงื™ ืื™ ื ืžื™ ื“ืงื ื’ื“ื™ืœ ืฉื™ืฉื•ืจื:


The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between these two opinions? The Gemara answers: The practical difference between them is the case of pampered people who never work, whom others would not suspect of avoiding Temple service in order to work in their regular professions. Alternatively, it is the case of one who twists ropes for a living. No one would suspect someone of missing the Temple service in order to work in such a lowly and non-profitable occupation. These two categories of people would not have to stand at the gate according to Ravaโ€™s opinion, but would have to according to Rav Yosefโ€™s opinion.


ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื”ืคืกื— ืฉื™ืฆื ืื• ืฉื ื˜ืžื ื™ืฉืจืฃ ืžื™ื“ ื ื˜ืžืื• ื”ื‘ืขืœื™ื ืื• ืฉืžืชื• ืชืขื•ื‘ืจ ืฆื•ืจืชื• ื•ื™ืฉืจืฃ ื‘ืฉืฉื” ืขืฉืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ื‘ืจื•ืงื” ืื•ืžืจ ืืฃ ื–ื” ื™ืฉืจืฃ ืžื™ื“ ืœืคื™ ืฉืื™ืŸ ืœื• ืื•ื›ืœื™ืŸ:


MISHNA: A Paschal lamb that was taken out of its permissible area or that became ritually impure should be burned immediately on the eve of Passover. If the owners became ritually impure or died, its form must be allowed to decay by leaving it for a period of time instead of burning it immediately, and it should be burned on the sixteenth of Nisan, immediately after the first day of the Festival. Rabbi Yoแธฅanan ben Beroka says: This, too, should be burned immediately, because it has no one to eat it, which is also so severe a disqualification that decay of form is not required.


ื’ืžืณ ื‘ืฉืœืžื ื˜ืžื ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ื”ื‘ืฉืจ ืืฉืจ ื™ื’ืข ื‘ื›ืœ ื˜ืžื ืœื ื™ืื›ืœ ื‘ืืฉ ื™ืฉืจืฃ ืืœื ื™ื•ืฆื ืžื ืœืŸ


GEMARA: The Gemara asks: Granted, the fact that ritually impure sacrificial meat must be burned is written in the Torah, as it says: โ€œThe flesh that touches any impure item shall not be eaten, it shall be burned in fireโ€ (Leviticus 7:19). But sacrificial meat that is taken out of its permissible area, from where do we derive that it must be burned?


ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื”ืŸ ืœื ื”ื•ื‘ื ืืช ื“ืžื” ืืœ ื”ืงื“ืฉ ืคื ื™ืžื” ืืžืจ ืœื• ืžืฉื” ืœืื”ืจืŸ ืžื“ื•ืข ืœื ืื›ืœืชื ืืช ื”ื—ื˜ืืช ืฉืžื ื ื›ื ืก ื“ืžื” ืœืคื ื™ ื•ืœืคื ื™ื ืืžืจ ืœื• ืœืื•


The Gemara responds: It is derived from the verses describing Moses admonishing Aaron and his sons about the fact that they did not eat the sin-offering on the eighth day of inauguration, as it is written: โ€œBehold, its blood was not brought into the Sanctuary within; you should have eaten it in the Sanctuary, as I commandedโ€ (Leviticus 10:18). This should be understood as follows: Moses said to Aaron: Why didnโ€™t you eat the sin-offering? Perhaps its blood entered the innermost chamber, the Sanctuary, in which case it must be burned? Aaron said to him: No.


ืืžืจ ืœื• ืฉืžื ื—ื•ืฅ ืœืžื—ื™ืฆืชื” ื™ืฆืชื” ืืžืจ ืœื• ืœืื• ื‘ืงื•ื“ืฉ ื”ื™ืชื” ืืžืจ ืœื• ืื™ ื‘ืงื•ื“ืฉ ื”ื™ืชื” ื•ื”ืŸ ืœื ื”ื•ื‘ื ืืช ื“ืžื” ืืœ ื”ืงื“ืฉ ืคื ื™ืžื” ืžื“ื•ืข ืœื ืื›ืœืชื ืื•ืชื” ืžื›ืœืœ ื“ืื™ ื ืคืงื ืื™ ื ืžื™ ืขื™ื™ืœ ื“ืžื” ืœืคื ื™ื ื‘ืช ืฉืจื™ืคื” ื”ื™ื


Moses said to him: Perhaps it was taken outside of its boundary, and that is the reason you did not eat it? He said to him: No, it was in the sacred area, i.e., the courtyard. Moses said to him: If it was in the sacred area the entire time, behold, its blood was not brought into the Sanctuary within, why didnโ€™t you eat it? This proves by inference that if it leaves its boundary, or alternatively, if its blood enters within the Sanctuary of the Temple, it must be burned. This can serve as a model for all offerings.


ื‘ืฉืœืžื ื ื˜ืžื ื’ืœื™ ืจื—ืžื ื ื‘ืงื“ืฉื™ื ืงืœื™ื ื›ืœ ืฉื›ืŸ ื‘ืงื“ืฉื™ ืงื“ืฉื™ื ืืœื ื™ื•ืฆื ืืฉื›ื—ืŸ ืงื“ืฉื™ ื”ืงื“ืฉื™ื ืงื“ืฉื™ื ืงืœื™ื ืžื ืœืŸ ื•ืชื• ื”ื ื“ืชื ื™ื ืœืŸ ื“ืžื”


The Gemara asks: Granted, with regard to sacrificial meat that became ritually impure, the Merciful One reveals that halakha in the Torah with regard to offerings of lesser sanctity, as the verse: โ€œThe flesh that touches any impure item shall not be eaten,โ€ is referring to a peace-offering, and it applies all the more so with regard to offerings of the most sacred order. However, with regard to sacrificial meat that is taken out of its boundary, we have found a source that this applies to offerings of only the most sacred order. With regard to offerings of lesser sanctity, such as the Paschal lamb, from where do we derive that they too must be burned? And furthermore, with regard to that which is taught in a baraita: If the blood of an offering was left overnight instead of being sprinkled on the altar on the day it was slaughtered,


ื ืฉืคืš ื“ืžื” ื™ืฆื ื“ืžื” ื—ื•ืฅ ืœืงืœืขื™ื ื“ืงื™ื™ืžื ืœืŸ ื‘ืฉืจื™ืคื” ืžื ืœืŸ


or its blood was spilled, or its blood was taken outside the hangings that denoted the courtyard of the Tabernacle, we maintain that it must be burned; from where do we derive this halakha?


ื ืคืงื ืœืŸ ืžื“ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื“ืชื ื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืื•ืžืจ ื‘ืงื“ืฉ ื‘ืืฉ ืชืฉืจืฃ ืœื™ืžื“ ืขืœ ื—ื˜ืืช ืฉืฉืจื™ืคืชื” ื‘ืงื•ื“ืฉ


The Gemara answers: We derive it from the exposition of Rabbi Shimon, as it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon says: The verse that states: โ€œAny sin-offering from which some blood has been brought to the Tent of Meeting, to make atonement in the sacred place, shall not be eaten; it shall be burned in fireโ€ (Leviticus 6:23), has taught that the burning of a sin-offering is in the sacred area, the Temple courtyard.


ืื™ืŸ ืœื™ ืืœื ื–ื• ื‘ืœื‘ื“ ืฉืืจ ืคืกื•ืœื™ ืงื“ืฉื™ ืงื“ืฉื™ื ื•ืื™ืžื•ืจื™ ืงื“ืฉื™ื ืงืœื™ื ืžื ื™ืŸ ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ (ื•ื›ืœ) ื‘ืงื“ืฉ ื‘ืืฉ ืชืฉืจืฃ


I have derived only that the halakha applies to this alone, a sin-offering; with regard to the rest of the disqualified offerings of the most sacred order and the portions of offerings of lesser sanctity that are consumed on the altar, from where do we derive that they must be burned in the Temple courtyard, which is their boundary when they are valid? The verse states: โ€œAnyโ€ฆin the sacred placeโ€ฆshall be burned in fire,โ€ which teaches that any consecrated item must be burned in a sacred place.


ืืฉื›ื—ืŸ ืงื“ืฉื™ ืงื“ืฉื™ื ืงื“ืฉื™ื ืงืœื™ื ืžื ืœืŸ ืืœื ื›ืœ ืคืกื•ืœื• ื‘ืงื“ืฉ ื‘ืฉืจื™ืคื” ืœื ืฉื ื ืงื“ืฉื™ื ืงืœื™ื ื•ืœื ืฉื ื ืงื“ืฉื™ ืงื“ืฉื™ื ื’ืžืจื ื’ืžื™ืจื™ ืœื” ื•ื—ื˜ืืช ื“ืื”ืจืŸ ืžืฉื•ื ืžืขืฉื” ืฉื”ื™ื” ื›ืš ื”ื™ื”


The Gemara asks further: We found a source for offerings of the most sacred order; from where do we derive that it also applies to offerings of lesser sanctity? Rather, we must say as follows: Anything disqualified in the sacred area, the Temple courtyard, must be burned. It is no different whether it is offerings of lesser sanctity, and it is no different whether it is offerings of the most sacred order; they learned it as a tradition. And the sin-offering of Aaron that was burned on the eighth day of inauguration was mentioned only because the incident that took place, took place in this way. It was not mentioned in order to teach the halakhot of offerings.


ื•ืœืชื ื ื“ื‘ื™ ืจื‘ื” ื‘ืจ ืื‘ื•ื” ื“ืืžืจ ืืคื™ืœื• ืคื™ื’ื•ืœ ื˜ืขื•ืŸ ืขื™ื‘ื•ืจ ืฆื•ืจื” ืžื ื ืœืŸ


The Gemara proceeds to ask an unrelated question with regard to piggul: And according to the opinion of the tanna from the school of Rabba bar Avuh, who said that even piggul, which is a disqualification of the animal itself, requires decay of form, meaning that it must be left over until the next day so that it will begin to decay and is only then burned, from where do we derive that it requires decay of form?


ื™ืœื™ืฃ ืขื•ืŸ ืขื•ืŸ ืžื ื•ืชืจ


The Gemara answers: It is derived from a verbal analogy from the parallel words โ€œiniquityโ€ and โ€œiniquity.โ€ With regard to piggul, the verse states: โ€œIt remains rejected [piggul]; and the soul that eats it shall bear its iniquityโ€ (Leviticus 7:18), and with regard to leftover sacrificial meat, the verse states: โ€œAnd whatever is leftoverโ€ฆshall be burned in fireโ€ฆand each of those who eat it shall bear his iniquityโ€ (Leviticus 19:6โ€“8). Just as leftover sacrificial meat is burned after it has been left over to the next day, so too, piggul is burned only after it has been left over to the next day and its form has decayed.


ื•ื ื™ืœืฃ ืขื•ืŸ ืขื•ืŸ ืžื—ื˜ืืช ื“ืื”ืจืŸ ืืžืจ ืœืš ื—ื˜ืืช ื“ืื”ืจืŸ ื›ื™ ื”ืื™ ื’ื•ื•ื ื ื ืžื™ ืขื™ื‘ื•ืจ ืฆื•ืจื” ืœื“ื•ืจื•ืช ื‘ืขื™ื ื•ื”ืชื ื”ื•ืจืืช ืฉืขื” ื”ื™ืชื”


The Gemara asks: Let us instead learn the rules of piggul through a verbal analogy based on the parallel words โ€œiniquityโ€ and โ€œiniquityโ€ from the sin-offering of Aaron, with regard to which the verse states: โ€œWhy did you not eat the sin-offering in the place of sanctityโ€ฆand He gave it to you to bear the iniquity of the congregationโ€ (Leviticus 10:17). The sin-offering of Aaron was burned immediately, without decay of form, so why can it not be learned from there that piggul does not require decay of form either? That tanna could have said to you: The sin-offering of Aaron in a case like this would also require decay of form were it to occur in future generations; but there, when it was burned immediately, it was a provisional edict issued in exigent circumstances.


ื”ืฉืชื ื“ืืžืจื™ื ืŸ ื›ืœ ืคืกื•ืœื™ ื“ืงื“ืฉ ื‘ืฉืจื™ืคื” ืœื ืฉื ื ื“ืงื“ืฉื™ ืงื“ืฉื™ื ื•ืœื ืฉื ื ืงื“ืฉื™ื ืงืœื™ื ื’ืžืจื ื’ืžื™ืจื™ ืœื” ื‘ืงื“ืฉ ื‘ืืฉ ืชืฉืจืฃ ืœืžื” ืœื™ ื”ื”ื•ื ืžื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื” ืฉืฉืจื™ืคืชื” ื‘ืงื“ืฉ


The Gemara asks: Now that we say that we have accepted the conclusion that all disqualified sacred offerings must be burned, and it is no different whether they are disqualified offerings of the most sacred order or offerings of lesser sanctity, because in both cases they learned it as a tradition, with regard to the verse that says: โ€œIn the sacred placeโ€ฆshall be burned in fire,โ€ why do I need it? What does this verse teach that is not known from oral tradition? The Gemara answers: That verse is required to teach that the requirement of burning that is learned from the oral tradition cannot take place anywhere; its burning must take place only in the sacred place, the Temple courtyard.


ื•ื”ื‘ืฉืจ ืืฉืจ ื™ื’ืข ื‘ื›ืœ ื˜ืžื ืœื ื™ืื›ืœ ื‘ืืฉ ื™ืฉืจืฃ ืœืžื” ืœื™


The Gemara asks further: If the source of the halakha is an oral tradition, with regard to the verse that states: โ€œThe flesh that touches any impure item shall not be eaten, it shall be burned in fireโ€ (Leviticus 7:19), why do I need it? This halakha is included in the oral tradition and should not require its own verse.


ื”ื”ื•ื ืœื’ื•ืคื™ื” ืื™ืฆื˜ืจื™ืš ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชืš ืืžื™ื ื ื›ืœ ืคืกื•ืœื™ ื“ืงื“ืฉ ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ืœืŸ ื“ืžื” ื•ื ืฉืคืš ื“ืžื” ื•ื™ืฆื ื“ืžื” ื•ื ืฉื—ื˜ื” ื‘ืœื™ืœื” ื“ื‘ืฉืจื™ืคื” ื“ืœื™ืชื ื”ื• ื‘ื—ื•ืœื™ืŸ


The Gemara answers: That verse is necessary for itself. It could enter your mind to say that disqualified sacred offerings include only a case where its blood was left overnight instead of being sprinkled on the altar on the day the offering was slaughtered; or its blood was spilled; or its blood was taken outside the hangings; and similarly, the case of an offering that was slaughtered at night. In all these cases, the offering must be burned because these are disqualifications unique to sanctified offerings that do not exist with regard to unconsecrated items.


ืื‘ืœ ื ื˜ืžื ื“ื‘ื—ื•ืœื™ืŸ ื ืžื™ ืžืคืกื™ืœ ืื™ืžื ื”ื•ืื™ืœ ื•ืื™ืชืขื‘ื™ื“ ื‘ื™ื” ืขื•ื‘ื“ื™ืŸ ื“ื—ื•ืœ ืื™ืžื ืœื ืชื™ื‘ืขื™ ืฉืจื™ืคื” ื•ืชื™ืกื’ื™ ืœื™ื” ื‘ืงื‘ื•ืจื” ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ:


But if the meat became ritually impure, which disqualifies unconsecrated meat also, say that since it was treated in the manner of unconsecrated items, as the disqualification is not unique to consecrated items, it should not require burning, and burial should be sufficient for it. Therefore, the verse teaches us that an offering that is disqualified through ritual impurity must also be burned.


ื ื˜ืžืื• ื”ื‘ืขืœื™ื ืื• ืฉืžืชื• ืชืขื•ื‘ืจ ืฆื•ืจืชืŸ ื•ื›ื•ืณ: ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ืžื—ืœื•ืงืช ืฉื ื˜ืžืื• ื‘ืขืœื™ื ืื—ืจ ื–ืจื™ืงื” ื“ืื™ืชื—ื–ื™ ื‘ืฉืจ ืœืื›ื™ืœื” ืื‘ืœ ื ื˜ืžืื• ื‘ืขืœื™ื ืœืคื ื™ ื–ืจื™ืงื” ื“ืœื ืื™ืชื—ื–ื™ ื‘ืฉืจ ืœืื›ื™ืœื” ื“ื‘ืจื™ ื”ื›ืœ ื™ืฉืจืฃ ืžื™ื“


It was taught in the mishna that if the owners of the offering became ritually impure or died before the offering was completed, its form must be left to decay, and it is burned after the first day of the Festival. Rabbi Yoแธฅanan ben Beroka disagrees and says that it is burned immediately. Rav Yosef said: This dispute is about a case in which the owners became ritually impure after the sprinkling of the blood, because the meat was fit for eating since all its services were completed in a valid way. But if the owners became ritually impure before the sprinkling of the blood, such that the meat was not fit for eating even for a moment, all agree that it should be burned immediately.


ืžื™ืชื™ื‘ื™ ื–ื” ื”ื›ืœืœ ื›ืœ ืฉืคืกื•ืœื• ื‘ื’ื•ืคื• ื™ืฉืจืฃ ืžื™ื“ ื‘ื“ื ื•ื‘ื‘ืขืœื™ื ืชืขื•ื‘ืจ ืฆื•ืจืชื• ื•ื™ืฆื ืœื‘ื™ืช ื”ืฉืจื™ืคื”


The Gemara raises an objection to this statement based on the Tosefta: This is the principle: In all cases in which its disqualification is in itself, it should be burned immediately. If the disqualification is in the blood of the offering or in the owners, its form should be left to decay, and then it should be taken out to the place designated for burning.


ืงืชื ื™ ื‘ืขืœื™ื ื“ื•ืžื™ื ื“ื“ื ืžื” ื“ื ืœืคื ื™ ื–ืจื™ืงื” ืืฃ ื‘ืขืœื™ื ืœืคื ื™ ื–ืจื™ืงื”


The following inference can be made based on the formulation of the Tosefta: It is teaching that the case of disqualified owners is similar to the case of disqualified blood: Just as in the case of blood the disqualification necessarily occurred before the sprinkling of the blood, as the offering is not disqualified if anything happens to the blood after sprinkling, so too, the case of owners is referring to one in which they became disqualified even before the sprinkling of the blood, which contradicts the statement of Rav Yosef.


ืืœื ืื™ ืื™ืชืžืจ ื”ื›ื™ ืื™ืชืžืจ ืžื—ืœื•ืงืช ืฉื ื˜ืžืื• ื‘ืขืœื™ื ืœืคื ื™ ื–ืจื™ืงื” ืœืœื ืื™ืชื—ื–ื™ ื‘ืฉืจ ืœืื›ื™ืœื” ื“ื”ื•ื” ืœื™ื” ื›ืคืกื•ืœื• ื‘ื’ื•ืคื• ืื‘ืœ ื ื˜ืžืื• ื‘ืขืœื™ื ืœืื—ืจ ื–ืจื™ืงื” ื“ืื™ืชื—ื–ื™ ื‘ืฉืจ ืœืื›ื™ืœื” ื“ื‘ืจื™ ื”ื›ืœ ืคืกื•ืœื• ืžื—ืžืช ื“ื‘ืจ ืื—ืจ ื•ื‘ืขื™ื ืขื™ื‘ื•ืจ ืฆื•ืจื”


Rather, if this was stated in the name of Rav Yosef, it was stated as follows: This dispute is specifically about a case in which the owners became ritually impure before the sprinkling of the blood, such that the meat was never fit for eating, which makes it as though its disqualification is in itself. But if the owners became ritually impure after sprinkling of the blood, such that the meat was fit for eating, all agree that its disqualification is due to a different matter, i.e., an external factor, and it requires decay of form.


ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืืžืจ ืืฃ ืœืื—ืจ ื–ืจื™ืงื” ื ืžื™ ืžื—ืœื•ืงืช ื•ืื–ื“ื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืœื˜ืขืžื™ื” ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ื‘ืจื•ืงื” ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื ื—ืžื™ื” ืืžืจื• ื“ื‘ืจ ืื—ื“ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ื‘ืจื•ืงื” ื”ื ื“ืืžืจืŸ


And Rabbi Yoแธฅanan said: Even a case in which the owners became ritually impure after sprinkling the blood is included in the dispute about whether decay of form is necessary. And Rabbi Yoแธฅanan follows his line of reasoning, as Rabbi Yoแธฅanan said: Rabbi Yoแธฅanan ben Beroka and Rabbi Neแธฅemya said the same thing. The statement of Rabbi Yoแธฅanan ben Beroka is that which we said.


ืจื‘ื™ ื ื—ืžื™ื” ืžืื™ ื”ื™ื ื“ืชื ื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ื ื—ืžื™ื” ืื•ืžืจ ืžืคื ื™ ืื ื™ื ื•ืช ื ืฉืจืคื” ื–ื• ืœื›ืš ื ืืžืจ ื›ืืœื”


With regard to Rabbi Neแธฅemya, what is the ruling in which he expressed his opinion? It is as it was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Neแธฅemya says: Aaronโ€™s sin-offering that was burned on the eighth day of inauguration was burned due to acute mourning, as that was the day his sons Nadav and Avihu died. For this reason, it is stated that Aaron explained to Moses: โ€œNow that events such as these befell me, were I to eat this dayโ€™s sin-offering would the Lord approve?โ€ (Leviticus 10:19). In other words, it was due to the deaths of his sons, which Aaron referred as โ€œevents such as these,โ€ that Aaron burned the sin-offering instead of eating it.


ื•ื”ื ืื ื™ื ื•ืช ื›ืœืื—ืจ ื–ืจื™ืงื” ื”ื•ื™ื ื•ื›ื™ ืืฉืชืจื•ืฃ ืœืืœืชืจ (ื ืฉืชืจื•ืฃ)


Rabbi Yoแธฅanan analyzes Rabbi Neแธฅemyaโ€™s statement: Now, acute mourning is similar to a case of disqualification after sprinkling of the blood, because acute mourning merely disqualifies the owners from eating the offering. It does not disqualify the actual performance of the sacrificial service by a High Priest, such as Aaron. Therefore, it is like other disqualifications that take effect after the sprinkling, which simply prohibit the eating of the meat. And when it was burned, it was burned immediately, without waiting until the following day. This shows that Rabbi Neแธฅemya agrees that an offering that becomes disqualified after its blood has been sprinkled should be burned immediately.


Scroll To Top