Pesachim 82b (פב:) — the Talmud in English

Or if

its blood was spilled

—the blood 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 Temple courtyard, and the blood became disqualified. (188)

As we hold

that in all these cases the meat is

burned, from where do we derive this?

And we explain:

We derive it from Rabbi Shimon.

As 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 Temple courtyard—for the boundary of a sin-offering, when it is fit, is the courtyard.

I have derived only this one,

but

the other disqualified offerings of the most sacred order,

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

and

likewise

the sacrificial portions of offerings of lesser sanctity,

whose place is in the courtyard,

from where

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

The verse states: “And every”

sin-offering—

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

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

But still:

We have found this stated with regard to offerings of the most sacred order

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

from where do we derive

that offerings of lesser sanctity are burned?

Rather,

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

All disqualified sacred offerings—

[Rashash: which]

are burned, whether offerings of lesser sanctity or offerings of the most sacred order, are a halakha

[Rashi: transmitted to Moses at Sinai]

that was received.

And

even

Aaron’s sin-offering,

on the eighth day of the inauguration, did not require the Torah to teach us the fundamental law of burning; rather,

because of the incident that occurred, it happened in that manner.

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

And since the Gemara mentioned Aaron’s sin-offering, it raises a difficulty from it:

And according to the tanna of the school of Rabba bar Avuha, who says: Even piggul requires the passing of its form,

as do all disqualified offerings, even when their disqualification is inherent in them,

from where do we know

that piggul requires the passing of its form? Because he

derives

it through a gzera shava:

“Iniquity”

[and “it shall bear its iniquity,” stated with regard to piggul]

“iniquity”

from notar

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

He could object to this:

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 congregation”], which was burned on the very day it became disqualified, without the passing of its form. And it was burned in accordance with the law, as at the end of that passage it is written: “And Moses heard, and it was pleasing in his eyes”?!

And we answer:

Rabba bar Avuha can say to you:

Rabba bar Avuha:

Aaron’s sin-offering, in a case such as this

[in the same manner], in which it became disqualified—

would also require the passing of its form for future generations

[had it become disqualified after that incident, it would have required the passing of its form].

But there,

on the eighth day of the inauguration,

it was an exceptional temporary instruction

to burn it without the passing of its form.

That is: Moses had not yet explained to them the fundamental law of the passing of its form; therefore they burned it without the passing of its form [Tosafot in the name of Rashi; see the Maharsha and the Hakhmat Manoah, and Rashi’s comments at the end of the sugya, beginning “He said to them”].

And we return to our matter and ask:

Now that we say: All disqualified sacred offerings are burned, whether offerings of the most sacred order or offerings of lesser sanctity; it is a received halakha.

If so, concerning what the verse says about a sin-offering whose blood entered within:

“In the Sanctuary

it shall be burned in fire”—

why do I need this,

when it is already included in the halakha?!

And we answer:

That

verse

is needed

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 fundamental law of burning, which is a halakha transmitted to Moses at Sinai.

And we continue to ask: But regarding what 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 derived from the halakha transmitted to Moses at Sinai?!

And we answer:

That

verse

is needed for itself,

to teach the fundamental law of burning in the case of meat that became impure;

it was necessary.

Since

it might have entered your mind

that only

all disqualified offerings

“of sacred status”

alone,

such as blood that remained overnight, blood that was spilled, blood that went outside, and an animal slaughtered at night,

only with regard to these disqualifications was the halakha stated:

that they are burned,

because these disqualifications

do not apply to unconsecrated animals,

for there are no disqualifications of this kind with unconsecrated animals, but only with sacred offerings, and they are included among “disqualified sacred offerings.”

But

the disqualification of

“became impure,”

since it is not included in the halakha concerning disqualified sacred offerings,

for

this disqualification

also applies to unconsecrated produce

[such as teruma, Leket Tov 3], it cannot be learned from disqualified sacred offerings, since

one might say: Since secular acts were performed with it

—they were performed with it—

ordinary acts

[ordinary conduct], for they were not careful and it consequently became impure, thereby desecrating it and diminishing its sanctity—

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

[it is enough for it]

to be buried,

in order to conceal it from view, 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 must pass,

and it is burned on the sixteenth.

Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka says: This too is burned immediately, since it has no one to 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 must 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.

Since the sacrificial rites were performed validly, and only now there are no owners to eat it, this is merely “a disqualification due to another factor,” and it requires the passing of its form; [whereas Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka holds that even “a disqualification due to another factor” does not require the passing of its form].

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 essential purpose of the Paschal offering is eating [Rashi below].

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

according to everyone it is burned immediately

without the passing of its form.

He raised an objection:

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

is

burned immediately.

But if its disqualification is

in the blood,

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

in the owners, its form must pass and it is taken to the place of burning.

It follows that

it teaches: “the owners”

analogously to “the blood.”

Just as blood refers to before the sprinkling, so too owners refers to before the sprinkling

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

Rather, if it was stated—

according to Rav Yosef—

this is what was stated:

The dispute

is as follows: Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka said that a Paschal offering whose owners died does not require the passing of its form only when

the

owners

became impure before the sprinkling,

for

then

the meat was not fit for eating

at the time of the sprinkling.

Since the essential purpose of the Paschal offering is eating, the sprinkling is invalid, and

it is

like

“a disqualification

inherent in it”;

[whereas the first tanna holds: “Nevertheless, this disqualification came only because of another factor,” and therefore it requires the passing of its form, 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

due to another factor, and it requires the passing of its form!

That is: According to everyone—including Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka—a disqualification due to another factor requires the passing of its form.

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

According to the first tanna, even if the owners died before the sprinkling, the Paschal offering is not burned without the passing of its form.

According to Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka, even if the owners died after the sprinkling, the Paschal offering is burned without the passing of its form.

And Rabbi Yohanan follows—holding that according to Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka, a Paschal offering disqualified because of its owners, even after the sprinkling, does not require the passing of its form—

this view

is consistent with his own position:

For Rabbi Yohanan said: Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka

in our Mishna

and Rabbi Neḥemya stated the same position.

And we explain:

Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka:

This is

what we said

in our Mishna: Disqualification because of the owners does not require the passing of its form.

What is Rabbi Neḥemya’s position—

where do we find that he holds that disqualification because of the owners does not require the passing of its form?

As it was taught: Rabbi Neḥemya says:

Because of the mourning

of Aaron and his sons on the eighth day of the inauguration—for they were mourners over the death of Nadav and Avihu, who had died that day—and they were not permitted to eat Aaron’s sin-offering, which had been offered that day, therefore

this one was burned.

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

For

for this reason it was said:

After Moses became angry over the burning of the sin-offering: “And Aaron spoke to Moses, and so forth, and such things as these have happened to me,” and

“such things as these”

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

And we learn: Even according to Rabbi Neḥemya, disqualification because of the owners—that is, when there is no one to eat the offering—does not require the passing of its form.

For the sin-offering was burned that very day and without the passing of its form, even though it was not inherently disqualified, 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 the passing of its form 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 had already been mourners before the sprinkling—

as

a disqualification

after the sprinkling it is,

since the sprinkling is not invalid because those who would eat it are lacking.

The sprinkling is invalid because of the absence of those who would eat the offering only in the case of the Paschal offering, whose essential purpose is eating; but with a sin-offering, whose essential purpose is not eating, the sprinkling is not invalid.

If so, this is comparable to a Paschal offering disqualified because of its owners after the sprinkling,

and

even so,

when it was burned

[when the sin-offering was burned]—

it was burned immediately

without the passing of its form.

It follows that according to Rabbi Neḥemya, whose position is identical to that of Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka, no disqualification because of the owners requires the passing of its form, even after the sprinkling; for these two tannaim hold that even “a disqualification due to another factor” does not require the passing of its form.