Pesachim 82a (פב.) — the Talmud in English

And if he wishes to derive benefit from the wood of the pyre [Novellae of the Ran above],

he returns and burns it before the Temple building

—outside the Temple courtyard, where there was a designated ash heap for this purpose—

from the wood of the pyre

, [the wording of Rashi above, 24a, s.v. Pesulei; see above in note 177].

We have therefore learned: Anyone who wishes to burn disqualified sacred offerings with wood from the pyre is permitted to do so, contrary to what is explained in our Mishna?!

Rav Hama bar Ukva said: This is not difficult:

For

here

—in the earlier Mishna—the case is not one of a resident of Jerusalem who left the city, but rather

a

person who was merely

a guest

in Jerusalem [and even if he had not yet set out on his journey, they permitted him to do so].

Since his home is not in Jerusalem and he has no wood there with which to burn it, the Sages treated him like the misers, who are permitted to burn it with wood from the pyre.

Here

—in our Mishna, which did not permit him to burn the small portion that became impure or the notar with wood from the pyre—the case is

that of a homeowner

, a resident of Jerusalem. Since he has wood with which to burn it, why should the Sages permit him to take wood from the pyre?

Rav Pappa was not satisfied with Rav Hama bar Ukva’s explanation that the reason for the earlier Mishna is that he was a guest.

For the Mishna says: “One who left” Jerusalem. This indicates that all the laws mentioned in the Mishna—the law requiring him to return, as well as the permission to burn it with wood from the pyre—were stated only with regard to one who had set out on his journey. Therefore:

Rav Pappa said

to resolve the contradiction:

Both cases

—the two Mishnayot—

deal with a guest

. That is, it is possible to establish our Mishna even with regard to a guest, since being a guest alone is insufficient to permit this; rather, the distinction between the two Mishnayot is:

Here

—in the earlier Mishna, which permitted him to burn it with wood from the pyre—the case is that of a guest [and some say: even a homeowner] who had already

set out on his journey

, since, once he had already set out, the Sages did not trouble him to search for wood.

Here

—in our Mishna, which did not permit him to do so—the case is even that of a guest, but one

who had not set out on his journey

, and he was still in Jerusalem.

Rav Zevid said

to explain Rav Hama bar Ukva’s position [Rashi; and see Tosafot, who disagreed]:

Actually, it is as he said

—Rav Hama bar Ukva—

originally

to resolve the contradiction:

Here it is a guest, and here it is a homeowner, and

with regard to a guest they permitted him to burn it with wood from the pyre

even though he had not set out on his journey.

For:

A guest, since he does not have

wood,

the Sages treated him

as

the misers, as we learned: The misers burn it before the Temple building, in order to derive benefit from the wood of the pyre.

And as for what troubled Rav Pappa regarding this, from what we learned in the earlier Mishna, “One who left” Jerusalem, which indicates that he had already set out on his journey and that only in his case did they leniently permit him to burn it with wood from the pyre?!

This is not difficult: The phrase “one who left” was stated only with regard to the law requiring him to return to Jerusalem, which is mentioned in that Mishna. But with regard to the second law, namely, burning it with wood from the pyre, they did not distinguish between one who had left and one who had not left, since he was a guest [Rashi].

The Sages taught:

If

the misers [Maharsha; see below in note 181]

came to burn it in their courtyards and with wood from the pyre, we do not heed them

, as the Gemara proceeds to explain the reason.

If they came to burn it

before the Temple building and with their own wood, we do not heed them

, as the Gemara proceeds to explain the reason.

And we explain:

Granted

, as for what we said: If they came to burn it

with wood from the pyre in their courtyards, we do not heed them

, there is a reason for this:

Perhaps some of it will remain

in their possession [perhaps some of the wood from the pyre will remain with them],

and they will come to a mishap through it

, by deriving from consecrated property a form of benefit that was not permitted to them.

But

, as for what we said: If they came to burn it

before the Temple building with their own wood

, we do not heed them,

for what reason not

to burn it there?!

Rav Yosef said: In order not to shame one who does

not

have

wood of his own.

Rava said

: Therefore, it is forbidden to burn it there with one’s own wood,

because of suspicion

, since after burning it, they return the surplus wood to their homes, and an observer will suspect them of having also burned it there with wood from the pyre and of taking the consecrated wood that remained home.

What is the difference

between Rav Yosef’s reason and Rava’s reason?

The difference between them is a case where one brought reeds and palm branches

[he brought reeds and palm branches of his own in order to burn it]

that

these

are not fit for the pyre

on the altar, since they burn quickly, and the fire of the pyre would not endure but would quickly be extinguished.

According to Rava’s reason—because of suspicion—it is permitted to burn it before the Temple building with these pieces of wood that he brought from his own supply, since there is no concern that he will be suspected of taking wood from the pyre home.

But according to Rav Yosef’s reason—because of shame—it is forbidden to burn it there even with these pieces of wood, since in either event he will be shamed.

And since the Gemara mentioned here the dispute between the amoraim concerning the reason of “because of suspicion,” the Gemara cites another matter in which they likewise disputed this reason [Rashi].

We learned there:

The head of the ma’amad

[the official responsible for the arrangement of the standing, as explained here]

would station

each morning

the impure priests

from the priestly clan whose watch was serving that day

at the Eastern Gate

of the Temple Mount, which was the place where everyone entered the Temple Mount.

And we explain:

What is the reason?

Rav Yosef said: In order to shame them

, for failing to take care and becoming impure, so that they could not serve in their watch.

Rava said

: They stationed them there for the benefit of the impure priests, and

because of suspicion

, so that people would not say—when they saw that they were not serving—that they were refraining from serving because they were going to their work. Therefore, they stationed them in a special place for the impure, so that everyone would know that they were impure and that it was because of their impurity that they refrained from serving.

What is the difference

between Rav Yosef’s reason and Rava’s reason?

The difference between them is

priests who are

pampered

[spoiled and do not work] who became impure: whether they station them there.

According to Rava’s reason, because of suspicion, they should not station them there, since everyone knows that they are pampered and do not go to work; everyone will understand that they are not serving in the Temple because of their impurity.

But according to Rav Yosef’s reason, because of shame, they station even these priests there in order to shame them.

Alternatively

, the difference between them is:

A priest whose sole occupation is

making rope

[twisting ropes], which is an easy craft with little income, and people would not suspect him of refraining from coming to serve in the Temple because of the loss of this work.

It follows that according to Rava, they should not station such priests at the Eastern Gate, whereas according to Rav Yosef, whose reason is because of shame, they station even these priests there.

Mishna:

The Paschal offering that went out

outside Jerusalem, which is the place where the Paschal offering is eaten, and became disqualified through the law of yotzei, and requires burning, as the Gemara explains.

Or that became impure

—the meat—and requires burning, as the Gemara explains.

Since these disqualifications are disqualifications in the offering itself, these offerings do not require ibbur tzura [that the appearance of meat should pass from the meat through one night’s leaving it overnight]. Rather, it

is burned

even

immediately

on the fourteenth.

But if

the owners became impure or died

[and the same applies if they withdrew from it, Meiri], so that there is no one to eat the Paschal offering [and the Gemara will explain whether they died before the sprinkling of the blood or afterward],

since the disqualification is not in the offering itself, but “because of another matter,” namely, that it has no one to eat it,

therefore

its appearance should pass

before it is burned.

And

, since he cannot burn it on a Festival once its appearance has passed, it

is burned on the sixteenth

in the morning [Rashi].

Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka says: This one too

—whose owners became impure or died—

is burned immediately, because it has no one to eat it

, and his words will be explained in the Gemara.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: The Paschal offering that went out or became impure is burned immediately.

Granted, one that became impure

requires burning, since

it is written

: “And this is the law of the sacrifice of the peace offering,” and so on:

“And the meat that touches anything impure shall not be eaten; it shall be burned in fire!”

But

a Paschal offering that

went out

—from where do we know that it requires burning?

And we explain:

As it is written

in the passage concerning the eighth day of the inauguration, after Nadav and Avihu died that same day:

“And Moses diligently inquired about the goat of the sin offering [the additional goat of the New Moon], and behold, it had been burned; and he became angry with Elazar and Itamar: Why did you not eat the sin offering in the sacred place, for it is most holy?

Behold, its blood was not brought inside the Sanctuary

, so you should have eaten it in the sacred place [you were required to eat it], as I commanded.”

The verse could have stated: “Behold, its blood was not brought into the Sanctuary,” and the word “inside” would then be superfluous.

Therefore, we expound: “Behold, its blood was not brought into the Sanctuary” on its own, and “inside” on its own. This was the dialogue between them:

Moses said to Aaron: Why did you not eat the sin offering?!

Perhaps its blood entered

—the blood of the sin offering, in order to atone—

into the innermost place

, that is, into the Sanctuary? If so, you acted properly by burning it, as it is written: “And any sin offering whose blood is brought into the Tent of Meeting to make atonement in the sacred place shall not be eaten; it shall be burned in fire.”

He said to him

—Aaron said to Moses—

No.

He said to him

—Moses said to Aaron—

Perhaps it went outside its designated area

[outside the Temple courtyard, which is the boundary of the most sacred offerings]

and left

, and that is why you burned it?

He said to him

—Aaron said to Moses—

No

, rather: “Inside” [Bah]

it was in the sacred place.

He said to him

—Moses said to Aaron—

If it was in the sacred place

and was not disqualified through “going out,”

and

also

“behold, its blood was not brought inside the Sanctuary”;

if so,

why did you not eat it?!

You have therefore learned:

By inference, if it went out

[it left] the sin offering outside its designated area,

or alternatively

[or]

if its blood entered

[the blood entered]

inside

—

it is subject to burning.

Yet we have still learned only with regard to a sin-offering, which is a most sacred offering, whereas we are discussing the Passover offering, which is an offering of lesser sanctity; therefore we say:

Granted

the burning of an offering that

became impure

is mentioned in the passage concerning peace offerings, which are offerings of lesser sanctity; you do not need another verse to teach that most sacred offerings that became impure are burned.

For:

the Torah explicitly revealed this law with regard to offerings of lesser sanctity,

and

all the more so with regard to most sacred offerings.

But

the burning of an offering

“that exited”

—the verse we cited is insufficient to explain our Mishna, which states that a Passover offering that exited must be burned, for we have not

found

anything except with regard to

most sacred offerings,

but

from where do we derive this with regard to offerings of lesser sanctity?

Furthermore

we still need to clarify

this that was taught:

Its blood lodged overnight

the blood of the sacrificial animal, whose blood they did not sprinkle on the day of slaughter, and it became disqualified at sunset on account of lodging overnight.