נשפך דמה יצא דמה חוץ לקלעים דקיימא לן בשריפה מנלן
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?
נפקא לן מדרבי שמעון דתניא רבי שמעון אומר בקדש באש תשרף לימד על חטאת ששריפתה בקודש
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: “Any 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 fire” (Leviticus 6:23), has taught that the burning of a sin-offering is in the sacred area, the Temple courtyard.
אין לי אלא זו בלבד שאר פסולי קדשי קדשים ואימורי קדשים קלים מנין תלמוד לומר (וכל) בקדש באש תשרף
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: “Any…in the sacred place…shall be burned in fire,” which teaches that any consecrated item must be burned in a sacred place.
אשכחן קדשי קדשים קדשים קלים מנלן אלא כל פסולו בקדש בשריפה לא שנא קדשים קלים ולא שנא קדשי קדשים גמרא גמירי לה וחטאת דאהרן משום מעשה שהיה כך היה
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 an 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.
ולתנא דבי רבה בר אבוה דאמר אפילו פיגול טעון עיבור צורה מנא לן
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?
יליף עון עון מנותר
The Gemara answers: It is derived from a verbal analogy from the parallel words “iniquity” and “iniquity.” With regard to piggul, the verse states: “It remains rejected [piggul]; and the soul that eats it shall bear its iniquity” (Leviticus 7:18), and with regard to leftover sacrificial meat, the verse states: “And whatever is leftover…shall be burned in fire…and each of those who eat it shall bear his iniquity” (Leviticus 19:6–8). 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.
ונילף עון עון מחטאת דאהרן אמר לך חטאת דאהרן כי האי גוונא נמי עיבור צורה לדורות בעיא והתם הוראת שעה היתה
The Gemara asks: Let us instead learn the rules of piggul through a verbal analogy based on the parallel words “iniquity” and “iniquity” from the sin-offering of Aaron, with regard to which the verse states: “Why did you not eat the sin-offering in the place of sanctity…and He gave it to you to bear the iniquity of the congregation” (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.
השתא דאמרינן כל פסולי דקדש בשריפה לא שנא דקדשי קדשים ולא שנא קדשים קלים גמרא גמירי לה בקדש באש תשרף למה לי ההוא מבעי ליה ששריפתה בקדש
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: “In the sacred place…shall be burned in fire,” 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.
והבשר אשר יגע בכל טמא לא יאכל באש ישרף למה לי
The Gemara asks further: If the source of the halakha is an oral tradition, with regard to the verse that states: “The flesh that touches any impure item shall not be eaten, it shall be burned in fire” (Leviticus 7:19), why do I need it? This halakha is included in the oral tradition and should not require its own verse.
ההוא לגופיה איצטריך סלקא דעתך אמינא כל פסולי דקדש כגון לן דמה ונשפך דמה ויצא דמה ונשחטה בלילה דבשריפה דליתנהו בחולין
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.
אבל נטמא דבחולין נמי מפסיל אימא הואיל ואיתעביד ביה עובדין דחול אימא לא תיבעי שריפה ותיסגי ליה בקבורה קא משמע לן:
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.
נטמאו הבעלים או שמתו תעובר צורתן וכו׳: אמר רב יוסף מחלוקת שנטמאו בעלים אחר זריקה דאיתחזי בשר לאכילה אבל נטמאו בעלים לפני זריקה דלא איתחזי בשר לאכילה דברי הכל ישרף מיד
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 Yoḥanan 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.
מיתיבי זה הכלל כל שפסולו בגופו ישרף מיד בדם ובבעלים תעובר צורתו ויצא לבית השריפה
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.
קתני בעלים דומיא דדם מה דם לפני זריקה אף בעלים לפני זריקה
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.
אלא אי איתמר הכי איתמר מחלוקת שנטמאו בעלים לפני זריקה ללא איתחזי בשר לאכילה דהוה ליה כפסולו בגופו אבל נטמאו בעלים לאחר זריקה דאיתחזי בשר לאכילה דברי הכל פסולו מחמת דבר אחר ובעיא עיבור צורה
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.
ורבי יוחנן אמר אף לאחר זריקה נמי מחלוקת ואזדא רבי יוחנן לטעמיה דאמר רבי יוחנן רבי יוחנן בן ברוקה ורבי נחמיה אמרו דבר אחד רבי יוחנן בן ברוקה הא דאמרן
And Rabbi Yoḥanan 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 Yoḥanan follows his line of reasoning, as Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka and Rabbi Neḥemya said the same thing. The statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka is that which we said.
רבי נחמיה מאי היא דתניא רבי נחמיה אומר מפני אנינות נשרפה זו לכך נאמר כאלה
With regard to Rabbi Neḥemya, what is the ruling in which he expressed his opinion? It is as it was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Neḥemya says: Aaron’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: “Now that events such as these befell me, were I to eat this day’s sin-offering would the Lord approve?” (Leviticus 10:19). In other words, it was due to the deaths of his sons, which Aaron referred as “events such as these,” that Aaron burned the sin-offering instead of eating it.
והא אנינות כלאחר זריקה הויא וכי אשתרוף לאלתר (נשתרוף)
Rabbi Yoḥanan analyzes Rabbi Neḥemya’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 Neḥemya agrees that an offering that becomes disqualified after its blood has been sprinkled should be burned immediately.