Pesachim 82aפסחים פ״ב א
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Save 'Pesachim 82a'
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
82aפ״ב א

חוזר ושורפו לפני הבירה מעצי המערכה

he must return and burn it before the Temple with wood from the arrangement. The mishna’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.

אמר רב חמא בר עוקבא לא קשיא כאן באכסנאי כאן בבעל הבית

Rav Ḥama 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 one’s own wood, it is referring to a resident of Jerusalem.

רב פפא אמר הא והא באכסנאי כאן שהחזיק בדרך כאן שלא החזיק בדרך

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.

רב זביד אמר לעולם כדאמר מעיקרא כאן באכסנאי כאן בבעל הבית ואף על גב דלא החזיק בדרך אכסנאי כיון דלית ליה עשאוהו כציקנין דתנן הציקנין שורפין אותו לפני הבירה בשביל ליהנות מעצי המערכה

Rav Zevid disagreed with Rav Pappa and clarified Rav Ḥama bar Ukva’s opinion. He said: Actually, it can be explained as Rav Ḥama 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.

תנו רבנן באו לשורפו בחצרותיהן ומעצי המערכה אין שומעין להן לפני הבירה ומעצי עצמן אין שומעין להן

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.

בשלמא מעצי המערכה בחצרותיהן אין שומעין להן דילמא פיישן מינייהו ואתו בהו לידי תקלה אלא לפני הבירה מעצי עצמן מאי טעמא לא

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?

רב יוסף אמר שלא לבייש את מי שאין לו רבא אמר מפני החשד

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 one’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.

מאי בינייהו איכא בינייהו דאייתי קני וחריותא דלא חזי למערכה

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.

תנן התם ראש המעמד היה מעמיד את הטמאין על שער המזרח מאי טעמא אמר רב יוסף כדי לביישן רבא אמר מפני החשד

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.

מאי בינייהו איכא בינייהו מפנקי אי נמי דקא גדיל שישורא:

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 Rava’s opinion, but would have to according to Rav Yosef’s opinion.

מתני׳ הפסח שיצא או שנטמא ישרף מיד נטמאו הבעלים או שמתו תעובר צורתו וישרף בששה עשר רבי יוחנן בן ברוקה אומר אף זה ישרף מיד לפי שאין לו אוכלין:

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 Yoḥanan 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.

גמ׳ בשלמא טמא כתיב והבשר אשר יגע בכל טמא לא יאכל באש ישרף אלא יוצא מנלן

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

דכתיב הן לא הובא את דמה אל הקדש פנימה אמר לו משה לאהרן מדוע לא אכלתם את החטאת שמא נכנס דמה לפני ולפנים אמר לו לאו

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: “Behold, its blood was not brought into the Sanctuary within; you should have eaten it in the Sanctuary, as I commanded” (Leviticus 10:18). This should be understood as follows: Moses said to Aaron: Why didn’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.

אמר לו שמא חוץ למחיצתה יצתה אמר לו לאו בקודש היתה אמר לו אי בקודש היתה והן לא הובא את דמה אל הקדש פנימה מדוע לא אכלתם אותה מכלל דאי נפקא אי נמי עייל דמה לפנים בת שריפה היא

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 didn’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.

בשלמא נטמא גלי רחמנא בקדשים קלים כל שכן בקדשי קדשים אלא יוצא אשכחן קדשי הקדשים קדשים קלים מנלן ותו הא דתניא לן דמה

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: “The flesh that touches any impure item shall not be eaten,” 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,