פסחים 82 — Soncino English Talmud

¹he returns and burns it in front of the Temple with the wood of the [altar] pile? — Said R. Hama b. ‘Ukba, There is no difficulty: One refers to a lodger; the other [our Mishnah] refers to a householder. R. Papa said, Both refer to a lodger: there he had repaired to the road; here he had not repaired to the road. R. Zebid said: in truth it is as was first stated, [viz.,] there it refers to a lodger, while here it refers to a householder, and even where he had not taken to the road; [in the case of] a lodger, since he has not [wood of his own] he was regarded as a miser, for we learned: MISERS BURN IT IN FRONT OF THE TEMPLE IN ORDER TO BENEFIT FROM THE WOOD OF THE [ALTAR] PILE. Our Rabbis taught: If they come [desire] to burn it in their own court-yards and with the wood of the [altar] pile, we do not heed [permit] them; in front of the Temple and with their own wood, we do not heed them. As for not heeding them [when they wish to burn it] with the wood of the pile in their own courtyards, that is well, [the reason being] lest some of it [the wood] be left over and they come to a stumbling-block through it. But what is the reason that [they may] not [burn it] in front of the Temple with their own wood? — Said R. Joseph: So as not to shame him who has none [of his own]. Raba said: On account of suspicion. Wherein do they differ? — They differ where he brought cane reeds and dried branches, which are not fit for the pile. We learned elsewhere: The head of the ma'amad used to place the unclean by the East Gate. What is the reason? Said R. Joseph: In order to put them to shame. Raba said: Because of suspicion. Wherein do they differ? — They differ in respect of delicate persons or ropemakers. MISHNAH. A PASSOVER-OFFERING WHICH PASSED OUT OR WAS DEFILED MUST BE BURNT IMMEDIATELY. IF ITS OWNERS WERE DEFILED OR THEY DIED, IT MUST BECOME DISFIGURED AND BE BURNT ON THE SIXTEENTH. R. JOHANAN B. BEROKAH SAID: THIS TOO MUST BE BURNT IMMEDIATELY, BECAUSE THERE ARE NONE TO EAT IT. GEMARA. As for uncleanness, It is well, because it is written, And the flesh that toucheth any unclean thing shall not be eaten; it shall be burnt with fire. But how do we know it of what goes out? Because it is written, Behold, the blood of it was not brought into the sanctuary within. Moses said to Aaron: ‘Why did ye not eat the sin-offering? Perhaps its blood entered the innermost [sanctuary]’? ‘No,’ he answered him. ‘Perhaps it passed without its barrier’? he asked. ‘No,’ replied he, ‘it was in the sanctuary.’ Said he to him, ‘If it was in the sanctuary, and "behold, the blood of it was not brought into the sanctuary within," wherefore have ye not eaten it?’ Whence it follows that if it passed out, or if its blood entered within, it requires burning. As for when it is defiled, it is well: the Divine Law revealed it in the case of lesser Holy sacrifices, and all the more in the case of Most Holy sacrifices. But as to what goes out; we have found [that it is disqualified in the case of] superior sacrifices; whence do we know [it of] inferior sacrifices? Moreover, as to what was taught: If its blood was kept overnight, 22^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ

^ᵃnote:V. Mishnah supra 49a for notes. — This shows that even a small portion is burnt thus.
^ᵇnote:Who has no home of his own and lacks the facilities for burning it at home.
^ᶜnote:Therefore it is too much trouble to return home, and so he burns it in front of the Temple.
^ᵈnote:They may use it for other purposes, which is forbidden.
^ᵉnote:He will take away any wood that is left over, but the onlooker will think that it is wood of the altar pile and so suspect him of theft.
^ᶠnote:Raba's reason is not applicable here, and therefore it is permitted; whereas R. Joseph's reason still hold hence it is forbidden.
^ᵍnote:Post, a division of popular representatives deputed to accompany the daily services in the Temple with prayers, and also a corresponding division in the country town, answering to the divisions (v. supra 57a, p. 284, n. 3) of priests and Levites. — Jast.
^ʰnote:Of the priestly division that should have officiated that day in the Temple.
^ⁱnote:That all who entered might see them.
^ʲnote:For not having taken care to be clean.
^ᵏnote:Lest they be suspected of neglecting the Temple service for their private affairs.
^ˡnote:Who receive little pay; no priest will neglect the Temple service for this. Raba's reason does not apply here, whereas R. Joseph's reason does.
^ᵐnote:Beyond its proper boundaries.
^ⁿnote:On the fourteenth.
^ᵒnote:So there is none to eat it. (13) V. supra 34a, p. 156, n. 7.
^ᵖnote:Lev. VII, 19.
^ᵠnote:Ibid. X, 18; the previous verses relate how Moses was angry with Eleazar and Ithamar for having the sin-offering burnt instead of eating it.
^ʳnote:I.e., the Holy of Holies — in that case you had rightly burnt it; v. ibid. VI, 23.
^ˢnote:I.e., outside the Temple court.
^ᵗnote:Var. lec.: the same law applies.
^ᵘnote:V. supra 24a, p. 108, n. 2. The verse quoted in connection with defilement refers to a peace-offering.
^ᵛnote:I.e., the blood of the sacrifice had not yet been sprinkled by sunset.

²if its blood was poured out, or if the blood passed outside the Temple enclosures, — where it is all established law that it requires burning; whence do we learn it? — We deduce it from R. Simeon[‘s teaching]. For it was taught, R. Simeon said: In the holy place . . . it shall be burnt with fire: this teaches of the sin-offering that is burnt in the holy place [sanctuary]. Now, I only know this alone: how do we know it of the unfit of the [other] Most Holy sacrifices and the emurim of the lesser Holy sacrifices? Therefore it is stated, ‘in the holy place . . . it shall be burnt with fire.’ We have [thus] found it of the Most Holy sacrifices; whence do we know it of the lesser Holy sacrifices? Rather [that] wherever there is a disqualification in the sacred [sacrifices] burning is required, no matter whether it is the Most Holy sacrifices or the lesser Holy sacrifices; — this is known by tradition. And as for Aaron's sin-offering, that is because the incident that happened, happened thus. Now, according to the tanna of the School of Rabbah b. Abbuhah who said, Even piggul requires disfigurement, whence do we know it — [because] he learns the meaning of iniquity from nothar: yet let us learn the meaning of iniquity from Aaron's sacrifice? — He can answer you: [A sacrifice such as] Aaron's sin-offering too in such a case would require disfigurement in [future] generations; but there it was a special dispensation. Now that we say, [that] ‘wherever there is a disqualification in the sacred [sacrifices] burning is required, no matter whether it is the most sacred sacrifices or the lesser sacrifices, — this is known by tradition,’ what is the purpose of ‘in the holy place . . . it shall be burnt with fire’? — That is required [to teach] that its burning [must be] in the holy place. What is the purpose of, ‘and the flesh that toucheth any unclean thing shall not be eaten; it shall be burnt with fire’?-That is required for its own sake. You might say, All disqualifications of the sacred [sacrifices mean] e.g.,if its blood was kept overnight, if its blood was spilled, if its blood went outside, or if it was slaughtered by night: these require burning because they do not apply to hullin. But if it became unclean, which disqualifies in the case of hullin too’ I would say, since it has been treated as profane [non-holy], it does not require burning, and burial should suffice for it. Hence we are informed [that it is not so]. IF ITS OWNERS WERE DEFILED OR THEY DIED, IT MUST BECOME DISFIGURED etc. R. Joseph said: The controversy is where the owners were defiled after the sprinkling, so that the flesh had become fit for eating. But if the owners were defiled before the sprinkling, so that the flesh had not become fit for eating, all agree that it must be burnt immediately. An objection is raised: This is the general rule: Wherever its disqualification is in itself, it must be burnt immediately; [if it is] in the blood or in its owner, [their flesh] must become disfigured and [then] it goes out to the place of burning?’ Now [the disqualification through] the owners is taught as analogous to [that of] the blood: just as [that of] the blood is before sprinkling, so was [the defilement of] the owners before sprinkling? — Rather if stated, it was thus stated: The controversy is where the owners were defiled before the sprinkling, so that the flesh is not fit for eating, whereby it is as though its disqualification were in itself; but if the owners were defiled after the sprinkling, so that the flesh had become fit for eating, all agree that its disqualification is through something else [extraneous] and it requires disfigurement. But R. Johanan maintained: The controversy holds good [even if the owners were defiled] after sprinkling too. Now R. Johanan is consistent with his view. For R. Johanan said: R. Johanan b. Berokah, and R. Nehemiah said the same thing. R. Johanan b. Berokah, this which we have stated. What is [the allusion to] R. Nehemiah? — For it was taught, R. Nehemiah said: This [Aaron's sin-offering] was burnt on account of bereavement, therefore it is stated, [and there have befallen me such things] as these. Now surely bereavement is as [a disqualification] after sprinkling. Yet when it was burnt; it was burnt immediately.19^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ

^ʷnote:In all these cases the blood is unfit for sprinkling and in turn the flesh cannot be eaten, and it must be burnt.
^ˣnote:Lev. VI, 23.
^ʸnote:V. supra 24a and notes a.l.
^ᶻnote:The verse quoted refers only to the emurim of the lesser holy sacrifices.
^ᵃᵃnote:Or, whatever its disqualification (that arises) in the sanctuary.
^ᵃᵇnote:It is not intimated in the Bible.
^ᵃᶜnote:The Bible does not record this story in order to teach, as stated above, but simply because it happened so.
^ᵃᵈnote:Though the disqualification is certainly in itself; v. supra 34b.
^ᵃᵉnote:‘Iniquity’ is written in connection with piggul and nothar. Piggul: and the soul that eateth of it shall bear his iniquity (Lev. VII, 18); nothar: but every one that eateth of it shall bear his iniquity (ibid. XIX, 8, — this verse is applied to nothar in Ker. 5a). Now nothar is naturally disfigured, having been kept too long, and the employment of ‘iniquity’ in both cases teaches that piggul too requires disfigurement,
^ᵃᶠnote:Lev. X, 17: and he hath given it to you to bear the iniquity of the congregation. Hence just as it was burnt there on the same day, before it could become disfigured, so should piggul be.
^ᵃᵍnote:Whatever the cause of its disqualification. On this there are two views: (i) it had been defiled; (ii) it could not be eaten because Aaron and his sons were bereaved that day by the death of Nadab and Abihu.
^ᵃʰnote:I.e., if a sin-offering becomes thus disqualified it normally requires disfigurement.
^ᵃⁱnote:Lit., ‘the ruling of the hour’.
^ᵃʲnote:In the Temple Court.
^ᵃᵏnote:I.e., to teach that uncleanness too is a sacred disqualification in this respect.
^ᵃˡnote:V. Glos. Hullin remains unaffected by these. Thus in spite of these disqualifications the sacrifice has not been subjected to an indignity, as it were, which would disqualify even in the case of hullin. (2) V. supra 34b for notes.
^ᵃᵐnote:Lev. X, 19; ‘as these’ directly refers to his bereavement.
^ᵃⁿnote:For even if Nadab and Abihu died before the sprinkling, this would not be invalid, the sin-offering being dissimilar to the Passover-offering in this respect. For the latter stands primarily to be eaten, and therefore if the owners are defiled before the sprinkling, the sprinkling is invalid, while if they are defiled after the sprinkling the sprinkling is valid. The purpose of the sin-offering however, is atonement, so that even if the priests are defiled (here, bereaved) before the sprinkling and cannot eat, the sprinkling is valid. Hence this bereavement, even if it occurred before the blood was sprinkled, is the same as when the owners of the Passover-offering are defiled after the sprinkling.
^ᵃᵒnote:Hence since R. Johanan identifies R. Johanan b. Berokah's view with that of R. Nehemiah, this must be the former's opinion also, and thus they differ in our Mishnah where the owners are defiled after the sprinkling too.