Pesachim 82a — the Talmud in English

And if he wishes to derive benefit from the wood of the arrangement [the innovations of the Ran above

he returns and burns it before the Chamber —

outside the Temple courtyard, and there was the ash chamber there for this purpose —

from the wood of the arrangement,

the wording of Rashi above, 24a, s.v. pesulei, and see above in the note 177].

We have therefore learned: that anyone who wishes to burn disqualified sacred matter with the wood of the arrangement is permitted, and not as explained in our Mishna?!

Rav Hama bar Ukva said: It is not difficult:

For

here —

in the above Mishna — it is not speaking of someone who was a resident of Jerusalem who left the city, but rather

of

one who was

a guest

only in Jerusalem [and even if he had not yet set out on the road, they permitted him].

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 the wood of the arrangement.

Here —

in our Mishna, where they did not permit him to burn the small portion that became impure or the notar with the wood of the arrangement — it is speaking

of a homeowner

who is a resident of the city of Jerusalem; since he has wood with which to burn it, why should the Sages permit him to take from the wood of the arrangement?

Rav Pappa was not satisfied with the words of Rav Hama bar Ukva, who explained the reason for the above Mishna as being that he was a guest.

For they said in the Mishna: “One who left” Jerusalem. It follows that all the laws mentioned in the Mishna, both the law of returning and the permission to burn with the wood of the arrangement, were stated only with regard to one who set out on the road; and therefore:

Rav Pappa said

to resolve it:

Both this and that,

the two Mishnayot,

are speaking of a guest

, that is: it is possible to establish our Mishna even with a guest, because being a guest alone is not sufficient to permit it, and the distinction between the two Mishnayot is:

Here —

in the above Mishna, where they permitted him to burn it with the wood of the arrangement — with a guest [and some say: even a homeowner] who had already

set out on the road

, since he had already set out on the road, they did not trouble him to search for wood.

Here —

in our Mishna, where they did not permit him — it is speaking even of a guest, but

who had not set out on the road

, and he was still in Jerusalem.

Rav Zevid said

to explain the view of Rav Hama bar Ukva [Rashi, and see in Tosafot, who disagreed]:

It is always as he said —

Rav Hama bar Ukva —

at the outset

to resolve it:

here is with a guest, here is with a homeowner, and

they permitted the guest to burn it with the wood of the arrangement

even though he had not set out on the road.

For:

a guest, since he does not have

wood,

they treated him

as the Sages

treated the misers, as we learned: The misers burn it before the Chamber, in order to derive benefit from the wood of the arrangement.

And this difficulty that Rav Pappa raised against this, from what we learned in the above Mishna, “One who left” Jerusalem, implying that he had already set out on the road, and only in his case did they leniently permit him to burn it with the wood of the arrangement?!

This is not difficult: “One who left” was stated only with regard to the law of returning to Jerusalem, which is the subject of that Mishna; but with regard to the second law, namely burning with the wood of the arrangement, they did not distinguish between one who left and one who did not leave, since he is a guest [Rashi].

The Sages taught:

If

the misers [Maharsha, and see below in note 181]

came to burn it in their courtyards and with the wood of the arrangement, we do not listen to them

, as he proceeds to explain the reason.

If they came to burn it

before the Chamber and with their own wood, we do not listen to them

, as he proceeds to explain the reason.

And we explain:

Granted

that when we say: they came to burn it

with the wood of the arrangement in their courtyards, we do not listen to them

, there is a reason to give for this:

perhaps some of it will remain with them

perhaps some of the wood of the arrangement will remain in their possession],

and they will come through it to a transgression

by deriving some other benefit from consecrated property that was not permitted to them.

But

what we say: they came to burn it

before the Chamber with their own wood

and we do not listen to them —

what is the reason that they may not

burn it there?!

Rav Yosef said: So as not to disgrace one who does

not

have

wood of his own.

Rava said:

Therefore it is forbidden to burn there with their own wood

because of suspicion

, for after they burn it, they return the remaining wood to their homes, and one who sees them suspects them that they too burned there with the wood of the arrangement, and are taking the consecrated wood that remains to their homes.

What is the difference between them

between the reason of Rav Yosef and the reason of Rava?

The difference between them is: where he brought reeds and palm branches [

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

that

these

are not fit for the arrangement

on the altar, since they burn quickly, and the fire of the arrangement does not endure but is quickly extinguished.

For according to Rava’s reason — because of suspicion — it is permitted to burn it before the Chamber with these woods that he brought from his own, since there is no concern that they will suspect him of taking the wood of the arrangement home.

But according to Rav Yosef’s reason — because of disgrace — it is forbidden to burn there even with these woods, since either way they are disgraced.

And since the disagreement of the amoraim concerning the reason “because of suspicion” was mentioned here in the Gemara, the Gemara brings another matter in which they too disagreed concerning this reason [Rashi].

We learned there:

The head of the division [

the official over the stationing that is explained here]

would station

each morning

the impure ones

from that paternal household whose turn it was to serve on that day

at the eastern gate

of the Temple Mount, which is the place of entry for everyone to the Temple Mount.

And we explain:

What is the reason?

Rav Yosef said: In order to disgrace them

for not having been careful and having become impure, and for being unable to serve during their division.

Rava said:

They would station them there for the benefit of the impure ones, and

because of suspicion

, so that people should not say — when they see them not serving — that because they are going to their work, they refrain from serving; therefore they station them in a special place for impure people, so that everyone will know that they are impure, and that because of their impurity they refrain from serving.

What is the difference between them

between the reason of Rav Yosef and the reason of Rava?

The difference between them is:

priests who are

pampered [

spoiled, who do not perform labor] and became impure — whether they station them there.

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

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

Alternatively,

the difference between them is:

An impure priest whose entire occupation is

that he twists rope [

he braids ropes], which is a light trade with little profit, and people do not suspect that he would stop coming to the Temple service because of neglecting this work.

It follows that according to Rava, they should not station these at the eastern gate, while according to Rav Yosef, whose reason is because of disgrace, they station even these there.

Mishna:

The Pesah that went out

outside Jerusalem, which is the place where the Pesah is eaten, and became disqualified through “going out,” 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 body” of the offering, these do not require “passing of form” [that the appearance of meat should pass from the meat through one night’s lodging], but

it is burned

even

immediately

on the fourteenth.

But if

the owners became impure or died [

and the same law applies if they withdrew their hands from it, Meiri], so that the Pesah has no one who will eat it, [and in the Gemara it will be explained: whether they died before the sprinkling of the blood or afterward].

Since “its disqualification is not in its body” of the offering, but rather “because of another matter,” that it has no eaters,

therefore

its form must pass

before it is burned.

And

since he cannot burn it on the Festival day once its form has passed, it

is burned on the sixteenth

in the morning [Rashi].

Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka says: This too —

that the owners became impure or died —

is burned immediately, because it has no eaters

, and his words will be explained in the Gemara.

Gemara:

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

Granted, impure

requires burning, since

it is written:

“And this is the law of the sacrifice of the peace offerings, and so forth.”

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

But

“that went out,”

from where do we know

that it requires burning?

And we explain:

For it is written

in the passage of the eighth day of the inauguration, after the death of Nadab and Abihu on that day:

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

Behold, its blood was not brought inside to the holy place,

you should surely eat it in the holy place [you should have eaten it], as I commanded.”

The verse could have said: “Behold, its blood was not brought to the holy place,” and the expression “inside” would be superfluous.

Therefore we expound: “Behold, its blood was not brought to the holy place” separately, and “inside” separately, and this was the dialogue between them:

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

Perhaps its blood entered —

that of the sin offering, in order to atone —

within and within

, that is: into the Sanctuary? For if so, you did well to burn it, as it is written: “And any sin offering whose blood is brought into the Tent of Meeting to atone in the holy place shall not be eaten; it shall be burned in fire.”

He said to him,

Aaron to Moses:

No.

He said to him,

Moses to Aaron:

Perhaps outside its boundary [

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

it went out,

and therefore you burned it?

He said to him,

Aaron to Moses:

No,

but: “inside” [Bach]

it was in the holy place.

He said to him,

Moses to Aaron:

If it was in the holy place

and was not disqualified through “going out,”

and

also

“behold, its blood was not brought inside to the holy place”;

if so,

why did you not eat it?!

You have therefore learned:

by implication, if it went out [

it went out] the sin offering outside its boundary,

or alternatively [

or]

its blood entered [

the blood entered]

inside —

it is subject to burning.

it is subject to burning.

And indeed, we have still learned only with regard to a sin-offering, which is an offering of the most sacred order; but here we are dealing with the Passover-offering, which is an offering of lesser sanctity, and therefore we say:

Granted

the burning of

an offering that became impure

which is written in the passage concerning peace-offerings, which are offerings of lesser sanctity: you do not need another verse to learn about the burning of offerings of the most sacred order that became impure.

For:

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

and

all the more so with regard to offerings of the most sacred order.

Rather,

the burning of

“that which went out”: behold, the verse that we brought is not sufficient to explain our Mishna, that the Passover-offering that went out requires burning; for we have not

learned

found

except with regard to

offerings of the most sacred order,

but

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

Furthermore,

it is still necessary to clarify:

that which was taught:

Its blood remained overnight

of the sacrificial animal: they did not sprinkle the blood on the day of slaughter, and it became invalid at sunset through remaining overnight.