רבה מוסיף אף רבי יוסי הגלילי דתניא רבי יוסי הגלילי אומר כל הענין כולו אינו מדבר אלא בפרים הנשרפים ובשעירין הנשרפין לשרוף פסוליהן אבית הבירה וליתן לא תעשה על אכילתן
Rabba adds that these tanna’im were not the only ones who maintain this opinion; even Rabbi Yosei HaGelili agreed with them, as it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says: The entire matter that is stated in the verse: “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) is not stated with regard to a regular sin-offering improperly brought inside the Sanctuary; rather, it speaks only about bulls that are burned and goats that are burned. These are unique sin-offerings, and the Torah states that their blood should be brought inside the Sanctuary. The verse is stated with regard to these sin-offerings both in order to command the Jewish people to burn the disqualified ones in the place of the bira on the Temple Mount and in order to establish a prohibition with regard to their consumption.
אמרו לו חטאת שנכנס דמה לפני ולפנים מנין אמר להן הן לא הובא את דמה אל הקדש פנימה מכלל דאי נפיק איהי אי נמי עייל דמה בשריפה
The Rabbis said to Rabbi Yosei HaGelili: If you expound the verse in this fashion, then with regard to a regular sin-offering whose blood entered inside the Sanctuary, from where is it derived that it must be burned? He said to them: It is derived from the verse: “Behold, its blood was not brought into the Sanctuary within” (Leviticus 10:18). This proves by inference that if the sin-offering is taken out of its permitted area, or alternatively, if its blood enters the Sanctuary, it must be burned immediately without waiting for decay of form.
ורבי יוחנן סבר דם ובשר חדא מילתא היא בעלים מלתא אחריתי היא:
The Gemara explains: And Rabbi Yoḥanan did not include Rabbi Yosei HaGelili because Rabbi Yoḥanan holds that there is a difference between the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili and those of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka and Rabbi Neḥemya. The reason for this difference is that impurity of blood and meat, about which Rabbi Yosei HaGelili was speaking, is one matter, and impurity of the blood can therefore be considered a disqualification in the animal itself, but disqualification of the owners is a different matter. Therefore, Rabbi Yosei HaGelili does not necessarily agree with the tanna’im who allow the offering to be burned immediately in the case of disqualification of the owners.
מתני׳ העצמות והגידין והנותר ישרפו בששה עשר חל ששה עשר להיות בשבת ישרפו בשבעה עשר לפי שאינן דוחין לא את השבת ולא את יום טוב:
MISHNA: The bones of the Paschal lamb that contain edible marrow but cannot be eaten because it is prohibited to break the bones of the Paschal lamb; and the sinews; and the leftover meat should all be burned on the sixteenth of Nisan, immediately after the first day of the Festival. If the sixteenth occurs on Shabbat, they should be burned on the seventeenth, because the mitzva to burn them does not override Shabbat or the Festival. Therefore, they are burned on the first weekday.
גמ׳ אמר רב מרי בר אבוה אמר רבי יצחק עצמות קדשים ששימשו נותר מטמאין את הידים הואיל ונעשה בסיס לדבר האסור נימא מסייע ליה העצמות והגידים והנותר ישרפו לששה עשר
GEMARA: Rav Mari bar Avuh said that Rabbi Yitzḥak said: Bones of offerings that served as a base for leftover, meaning that they have leftover meat on them or inside them after the time of eating, render hands impure, just as the leftover sacrificial parts themselves render hands impure. Since the bones have become a base for an intrinsically prohibited object, they are treated in the same manner as the prohibited object itself. The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the following expression in the mishna supports him: The bones, and the sinews, and the leftover should be burned on the sixteenth of Nisan.
הני עצמות היכי דמי אילימא דלית בהו מוח למה בשריפה נשדינהו אלא פשיטא דאית בהו מוח
The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances in which these bones must be burned? If we say that there is no marrow in them, why must they be burned? We should discard them, as the Torah requires that leftover parts of offerings be burned only when they are edible. Rather, it is obvious that we are dealing with bones that have marrow in them. The marrow is part of the meat of the offering, and in other offerings one would have broken the bones in order to eat the marrow.
אי אמרת בשלמא שימוש נותר מילתא היא אמטו להכי בעי שריפה אלא אי אמרת שימוש נותר לאו מילתא היא למה להו שריפה נתברינהו ונחלצה למוח דידהו ונשרפיה ונשדינהו לדידהו אלא לאו שמע מינה שימוש נותר מילתא היא
Granted, if you say that an item that serves as a base or container for leftover is something significant and becomes disqualified in the same manner as the leftover themselves, because of this it needs burning like the leftover itself. But if you say that serving as a base for leftover is nothing significant, why do these bones need to be burned? Let us break them, and remove their marrow, and burn the marrow, and discard the bones. Rather, must one not conclude from it that serving as a base for leftover is something significant, and the bones themselves become prohibited and impart ritual impurity due to their consecrated contents?
אמרי לא לעולם אימא לך שימוש נותר לאו מילתא וקסבר ׳בו׳ בכשר ואפילו בפסול
Say in refutation of this proof: No. Actually, I could say to you that serving as a base for leftover is nothing significant, and the tanna of the mishna holds that the prohibition stated in the Torah: “And you shall not break a bone in it” (Exodus 12:46), applies even to a disqualified Paschal lamb. The prohibition to break the bones of the Paschal lamb applies even when the Paschal lamb itself may no longer be eaten. Thus, the bones must be burned because there is no way to extract the marrow. They are not burned because they themselves have served as a base for the leftover marrow.
אפילו בפסול סלקא דעתך והא תנן אבל המותיר בטהור והשובר בטמא אינו סופג את הארבעים לא קשיא כאן שהיתה לו שעת הכושר כאן שלא היתה לו שעת הכושר
The Gemara expresses surprise at the previous answer: Can it enter your mind to say that the prohibition applies even to a disqualified Paschal lamb? Didn’t we learn in a mishna: But one who leaves over part of a pure Paschal lamb or one who breaks the bone of a ritually impure Paschal lamb does not receive forty lashes, which indicates that the Torah prohibition to break a bone applies only to a Paschal lamb that is still valid? The Gemara responds: This is not difficult. Here, when the mishna indicates that it is prohibited to break even the bone of a disqualified Paschal lamb, it is referring to a case where it had a time when it was valid, such as leftover sacrificial meat, which was valid before it was left over, and the prohibition therefore became relevant when it was valid. There, when the other mishna stated that the prohibition does not apply, it is referring to sacrificial meat that did not have a time when it was valid.
ומאן תנא דשני ליה בין שהיתה לו שעת הכושר ללא היתה לו שעת הכושר רבי יעקב היא דתניא ועצם לא תשברו בו ׳בו׳ בכשר ולא בפסול רבי יעקב אומר היתה לו שעת הכושר ונפסל יש בו משום שבירת העצם לא היתה לו שעת הכושר אין בו משום שבירת העצם רבי שמעון אומר אחד זה ואחד זה אין בו משום שבירת העצם
The Gemara adds: And who is the tanna who differentiates between a Paschal lamb that had a time when it was valid and one that did not have a time when it was valid? It is Rabbi Ya’akov, as it was taught in a baraita: The verse states: “And you shall not break a bone in it,” and the emphasis of the expression “in it” teaches that the prohibition applies only to a valid Paschal lamb and not to a disqualified one. Rabbi Ya’akov says: If an offering had a time when it was valid and then became disqualified, it is subject to the prohibition of breaking a bone; if it did not have any time when it was valid, it is not subject to the prohibition of breaking a bone. Rabbi Shimon says: With regard to both this and that, whether the offering was valid at some point or not, once it becomes disqualified it is not subject to the prohibition of breaking a bone.
מיתיבי כל עצמות הקדשים אין טעונין שריפה חוץ מעצמות הפסח מפני התקלה הני עצמות היכי דמי אילימא דלית בהו מוח למה להו שריפה אלא פשיטא דאית בהו מוח ואי סלקא דעתך שימוש נותר מילתא היא עצמות קדשים אמאי אין טעונין שריפה
The Gemara raises an objection based on what was taught in the following baraita: No bones of offerings require burning except for the bones of the Paschal lamb, due to the possibility that leaving the bones around will lead to a mishap because one may eventually transgress the prohibition of breaking the bones. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances in which these bones must be burned? If we say we are dealing with a case where there is no marrow in the bones, why must they be burned? They should simply be discarded. Rather, it is obvious that there is marrow in them. And if it should enter your mind that serving as a base for leftover meat of an offering is something significant, why do bones of other offerings not require burning? They are serving as a base for the leftover marrow in them.
אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק הכא במאי עסקינן כגון שמצאן חלוצין עצמות קדשים דאין בהן משום שבירת העצם קמי דנהוו נותר חלצינהו ולא הוו שימוש נותר ולא בעו שריפה
Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a special case where one finds bones from which the marrow had already been removed. Therefore, there is room to differentiate between the different cases: With regard to bones of other offerings, to which the prohibition of breaking a bone does not apply, one may presume that before they became leftover one removed the marrow from them and ate it. Therefore, these bones were not serving as a base for leftover sacrificial meat, and they do not require burning and may be discarded.
עצמות הפסח דיש בהן משום שבירת העצם לבתר דנהוו נותר הוא דחלצינהו והוו להו שימוש נותר ובעו שריפה
On the other hand, bones of the Paschal lamb, to which the prohibition of breaking a bone does apply, were certainly not broken while the prohibition applied; rather, it was after they became leftover that one removed the marrow from them, when the prohibition of breaking a bone no longer applied, according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon above. In that case, the bones temporarily served as a base for leftover sacrificial meat, and therefore they require burning.
רב זביד אמר הכא במאי עסקינן כגון
Rav Zevid said that one can answer in a different way: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case such as