Pesachim 82b — the Talmud in English

Or if

its blood was spilled

of the sacrificial animal, and it was not sprinkled so as to permit the meat.

Or if

its blood went outside the curtains

of the courtyard, and the blood became disqualified. (188)

For it is established for us

that in all these cases the meat is

burning; from where do we derive this?

And we explain:

we derive it from Rabbi Shimon.

For it was taught: Rabbi Shimon says:

It is written: “And every sin-offering whose blood is brought into the Tent of Meeting to make atonement in the Sanctuary shall not be eaten; it shall be burned in fire.”

And we expound:

“In the Sanctuary it shall be burned in fire”—this teaches concerning a sin-offering

that became disqualified,

that its burning is in the Sanctuary

in the courtyard, since the boundary of a sin-offering, when it is fit, is the courtyard.

I have only this one,

but

the other disqualified offerings of the Most Holy

whose boundary, when they are fit, is the courtyard,

and

likewise

the sacrificial portions of offerings of lesser sanctity

whose boundary is in the courtyard,

from where

do we know that they too are burned in the courtyard?

The verse says: “And every”

sin-offering—

“in the Sanctuary it shall be burned in fire.”

And consequently, from this verse you also learn the basic law of burning.

But still:

we have found this for offerings of the Most Holy

[and the sacrificial portions of offerings of lesser sanctity], but

from where do we derive offerings of lesser sanctity

that they are burned?

Rather,

the Gemara retracts everything it has said until now, for the law of burning is learned from the verses, and explains:

All disqualified offerings of the Sanctuary—

[Rashash] that are

burned, whether offerings of lesser sanctity or offerings of the Most Holy, is a halakha

[Rashi] transmitted to Moses at Sinai;

it is known by tradition.

And

even

Aaron’s sin-offering

on the eighth day of the inauguration, the Torah did not need to teach us the basic law of burning, but

because of the incident that occurred, this is how it happened.

That is to say: The Torah teaches us that such and such was the exchange concerning that sin-offering, and not to innovate for us the law of burning.

And since the Gemara brought the matter of Aaron’s sin-offering, we raise an objection from it:

And according to the teacher of the house of Rabbah bar Avuha, who says: even pigul requires ibur tzura

and likewise all disqualified offerings, even when their disqualification is inherent in them,

from where do we know

that pigul requires ibur tzura? Because

he derives it

by a gzera shava:

“Iniquity”

[and “the person who eats of it shall bear his iniquity,” stated concerning pigul]

“iniquity”

from notar

[as it is written concerning it: “Those who eat it shall bear its iniquity”], for Scripture required burning only after its form has passed, since its form has already passed through one night of being left overnight.

And one can object to him:

Let us derive

“iniquity”

“iniquity”

from Aaron’s sin-offering

on the eighth day of the inauguration [as it is written concerning it: “And He has given it to you to bear the iniquity of the assembly”], which was burned on the very day on which it became disqualified, without ibur tzura. Yet it was burned properly, for at the end of that section it is written: “Moses heard, and it was good in his eyes”?!

And we answer:

Rabbah bar Avuha can say to you

:

Aaron’s sin-offering, in such a case

[in that manner], in which it became disqualified,

also requires ibur tzura for future generations

[had it become disqualified after that incident, it would have required ibur tzura].

But there,

on the eighth day of the inauguration,

it was an emergency ruling

to burn it without ibur tzura.

That is to say: Moses had still not explained to them the basic law of ibur tzura, and therefore they burned it without ibur tzura [Tosafot in the name of Rashi; see the Maharsha and Hokhmat Manoah, and Rashi’s words at the end of the discussion, in the heading “He said to them”].

And we return to our matter and ask:

Now that we say: all disqualified offerings of the Sanctuary are burned, whether offerings of the Most Holy or offerings of lesser sanctity, it is known by tradition.

If so, concerning what Scripture said about a sin-offering whose blood entered within:

“In the Sanctuary

it shall be burned in fire”—

why do I need this,

for it is included in the tradition?!

And we answer:

That

verse—

it is needed for it

in order to teach

that its burning is in the Sanctuary

in the courtyard [as we derived above from “In the Sanctuary it shall be burned in fire”], and not to teach the basic law of burning, which is from the tradition transmitted to Moses at Sinai.

And we still ask: But what of that which is written:

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

why do I need this,

since it is learned from the tradition transmitted to Moses at Sinai?!

And we answer:

That

verse—

for itself,

to teach the basic law of burning for meat that became impure,

was necessary.

Since

it might enter your mind

that only

all disqualified offerings

“of the Sanctuary”

alone,

such as: its blood remained overnight, its blood was spilled, its blood went out, and it was slaughtered at night,

only concerning these disqualifications was the tradition stated:

that they are burned,

since these disqualifications

do not exist in unconsecrated things,

for there is no disqualification resembling these among unconsecrated things, but only among offerings, and they are included among “disqualified offerings of the Sanctuary.”

But

the disqualification of

“became impure”,

since it is not included in the tradition concerning disqualified offerings of the “Sanctuary,”

for

this

is also disqualified among unconsecrated things

[such as teruma, Lekah Tov 3], it cannot be learned from disqualified offerings of the Sanctuary, since

one might say: since there was performed upon it

an act of

ordinary use

[an ordinary act] [the person] was not careful, and it became impure, and through this it was profaned and its sanctity was diminished—

one might say that burning is not required, and burial is sufficient for it

[and it will be enough for it]

by burial,

in order to conceal it from sight, so that dogs will not eat it.

Therefore

the verse teaches us

that even “became impure” \-

is burned.

We learned in the Mishna:

If the owners became impure or died, its form shall pass,

and it shall be burned on the sixteenth.

Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka says: This too shall be burned immediately, since it has no people who can eat it:

Rav Yosef said:

The dispute

between the first tanna and Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka is as follows: The first tanna said that its form shall pass only when

the owners became impure after the sprinkling,

since

the meat was fit for eating

[it appeared and became fit for eating] at the time of the sprinkling, and the sprinkling was valid.

And since the sacrificial rites were performed validly, but now owners who can eat are lacking, it is only “a disqualification because of another matter,” and it requires ibur tzura; [but Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka holds that even “a disqualification because of another matter” does not require ibur tzura].

But if the owners became impure before the sprinkling, for

then

the meat was not fit for eating

at the time of the sprinkling, and the sprinkling is invalid, since the essence of the Passover-offering is that it stands for eating [Rashi below].

If so, it is considered “a disqualification inherent in it,” and

according to everyone it is burned immediately

without ibur tzura.

He raised an objection:

This is the rule: Anything whose disqualification is inherent in it

is

burned immediately.

But if its disqualification is

in the blood,

such as when it became impure or was spilled before the sprinkling, or

in the owners, its form shall pass and it shall go to the place of burning.

Here,

it teaches: “the owners”

analogous to “the blood.”

Just as the blood means before the sprinkling, so too the owners means before the sprinkling

[and all the more so afterward]. Nevertheless, the tanna of the beraita holds that its form shall pass before it is burned.

Rather, if it was stated—

according to Rav Yosef—

it was stated as follows:

The dispute,

that is to say: Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka did not say that a Passover-offering whose owners died requires no ibur tzura, except when

the owners became impure

the

before the sprinkling.

For

then

the meat was not fit for eating

at the time of the sprinkling.

And since the essence of the Passover-offering is that it stands for eating, the sprinkling is invalid, and

it is

like

“its disqualification

is inherent in it”;

[but the first tanna holds: “In any event, this disqualification came only because of another matter,” and therefore it requires ibur tzura, Rashi].

But if the owners became impure after the sprinkling, when the meat was fit for eating

at the time of the sprinkling,

according to everyone its disqualification

is

because of another matter, and it requires ibur tzura!

That is to say: According to everyone—and even according to Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka—a disqualification because of another matter requires ibur tzura.

And Rabbi Yohanan said: Even after the sprinkling, there is also a dispute.

According to the first tanna: Even if the owners died before the sprinkling, the Passover-offering is not burned without ibur tzura.

According to Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka: Even if the owners died after the sprinkling, the Passover-offering is burned without ibur tzura.

And Rabbi Yohanan proceeds—

he who holds that according to Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka, a Passover-offering disqualified because of its owners, even after the sprinkling, does not require ibur tzura—

according to his position:

For Rabbi Yohanan said: Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka

in our Mishna,

and Rabbi Nehemiah stated one and the same thing.

And we explain:

Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka:

that is

the matter that we said

in our Mishna, that disqualification because of the owners does not require ibur tzura.

What is Rabbi Nehemiah’s position,

where do we find that he holds that disqualification because of the owners does not require ibur tzura?

For it was taught: Rabbi Nehemiah says:

Because of the mourning

of Aaron and his sons on the eighth day of the inauguration—they were mourners over the death of Nadav and Avihu, who died that day, and they were not permitted to eat Aaron’s sin-offering that was brought that day; because of this

this one was burned.

Since Aaron and his sons were mourners, and there were no other priests at that time who would be fit to eat the sin-offering, it was therefore burned.

For

for this reason it was said:

after Moses became angry about the burning of the sin-offering: “And Aaron spoke to Moses, and behold, this has befallen me,”

“like these”

[that I am a mourner], “and had I eaten sin-offering today, would it have been good in the eyes of the Lord?”

And we learned: Even according to Rabbi Nehemiah, disqualification because of the owners—that is, that the offering has no one who will eat it—does not require ibur tzura.

For the sin-offering was burned on that very day and without ibur tzura, even though it was not disqualified inherently, but merely had no priests who could eat it.

And now we explain that Rabbi Yohanan’s words prove that according to Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka, disqualification because of the owners does not require ibur tzura, even when it became disqualified after the sprinkling:

But

a sin-offering that became disqualified because of

the mourning

of those who would eat it—even when they were already mourners before the sprinkling—

as

a disqualification

after the sprinkling it is,

since the sprinkling is not invalid because of the lack of people who would eat it.

For the sprinkling is invalid because of the lack of people who would eat the offering only with a Passover-offering, whose essence is for eating; but with a sin-offering, whose essence is not for eating, the sprinkling is not invalid.

If so, this is analogous to a Passover-offering disqualified because of the owners after the sprinkling,

and

even so,

when it was burned

[when the sin-offering was burned]—

it was burned immediately

without ibur tzura.

Here, according to Rabbi Nehemiah, whose position is like that of Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka, every disqualification because of the owners does not require ibur tzura, even after the sprinkling; and this is because these two tannaim hold that even “a disqualification because of another matter” does not require ibur tzura.