## Pesachim Daf 82a

###### Pesachim 82a:1
[Pesachim 82a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/82a:1)

חוֹזֵר וְשׂוֹרְפוֹ לִפְנֵי הַבִּירָה מֵעֲצֵי הַמַּעֲרָכָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
he must **return and burn it before the Temple with wood from the arrangement.** The mishna’s formulation uses the word remembered, implying that not only a large piece of meat that became ritually impure or somehow disqualified, but even a piece that is so small that it could become forgotten, must be burnt with wood from the arrangement.


###### Pesachim 82a:2
[Pesachim 82a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/82a:2)

אָמַר רַב חָמָא בַּר עוּקְבָא: לָא קַשְׁיָא, כָּאן — בְּאַכְסְנַאי. כָּאן — בְּבַעַל הַבַּיִת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ḥama bar Ukva said:** It is **not difficult. Here,** where it is stated that one burns it in the Temple with wood from the arrangement, it **is referring to a visitor** who does not live in Jerusalem or have wood there, and he may therefore use wood from the arrangement. While **there,** where it is stated that one burns it at home with one’s own wood, it **is referring to a resident** of Jerusalem.


###### Pesachim 82a:3
[Pesachim 82a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/82a:3)

רַב פָּפָּא אָמַר: הָא וְהָא בְּאַכְסְנַאי, כָּאן — שֶׁהֶחְזִיק בַּדֶּרֶךְ, כָּאן — שֶׁלֹּא הֶחְזִיק בַּדֶּרֶךְ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Pappa said: This** case **and that** case both refer **to a visitor. Here,** where it is stated that one may use wood from the arrangement, it **is referring to** one who already **set out on the road,** and it is difficult for him to collect wood. **There,** where it is stated that one must use his own wood, it **is referring to** a case in which the visitor **has not** yet **set out on the road,** and he can gather his own wood.


###### Pesachim 82a:4
[Pesachim 82a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/82a:4)

רַב זְבִיד אָמַר: לְעוֹלָם כִּדְאָמַר מֵעִיקָּרָא — כָּאן בְּאַכְסְנַאי כָּאן בְּבַעַל הַבַּיִת, וְאַף עַל גַּב דְּלָא הֶחְזִיק בַּדֶּרֶךְ, אַכְסְנַאי כֵּיוָן דְּלֵית לֵיהּ עֲשָׂאוּהוּ כְּצִיקָנִין. דִּתְנַן: הַצִּיקָנִין שׂוֹרְפִין אוֹתוֹ לִפְנֵי הַבִּירָה בִּשְׁבִיל לֵיהָנוֹת מֵעֲצֵי הַמַּעֲרָכָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Zevid** disagreed with Rav Pappa and clarified Rav Ḥama bar Ukva’s opinion. He **said: Actually,** it can be explained **as** Rav Ḥama **initially said: Here,** it **is referring to a visitor; there,** it **is referring to a resident. And even though he did not** yet **set out on the road, a visitor** may use wood from the arrangement for the following reason: **Since he does not have** his own wood, the Sages **treated him like the misers, as we learned** in a mishna: **The misers burn it before the Temple in order to benefit from the wood of the arrangement.** This indicates that anyone who is unconcerned about his reputation, like a miser, may use wood from the arrangement, and this is not considered to be a misuse of consecrated property. Similarly, the Sages also permitted a visitor to use wood from the arrangement.


###### Pesachim 82a:5
[Pesachim 82a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/82a:5)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: בָּאוּ לְשׂוֹרְפוֹ בְּחַצְרוֹתֵיהֶן וּמֵעֲצֵי הַמַּעֲרָכָה — אֵין שׁוֹמְעִין לָהֶן. לִפְנֵי הַבִּירָה וּמֵעֲצֵי עַצְמָן — אֵין שׁוֹמְעִין לָהֶן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**The Sages taught** in the *Tosefta*: If individuals **came** and wanted **to burn** the Paschal lamb that had become ritually impure **in their courtyards and** wanted to take **wood from the arrangement** to use for this purpose, **one does not listen to them.** Similarly, if they wanted to burn it **before the Temple with their own wood, one does not listen to them.**


###### Pesachim 82a:6
[Pesachim 82a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/82a:6)

בִּשְׁלָמָא מֵעֲצֵי הַמַּעֲרָכָה בְּחַצְרוֹתֵיהֶן אֵין שׁוֹמְעִין לָהֶן — דִּילְמָא פָּיְישָׁן מִינַּיְיהוּ, וְאָתוּ בְּהוּ לִידֵי תַקָּלָה. אֶלָּא לִפְנֵי הַבִּירָה מֵעֲצֵי עַצְמָן, מַאי טַעְמָא לָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Granted,** if people want to burn it **with wood from the arrangement in their** own **courtyards one does not listen to them.** This is because the Sages were concerned **lest they leave over some of the** wood they took to burn the Paschal lamb **and come to** experience **a mishap with it** by using the wood for another purpose. **But** in the case in which they wanted to burn the offering **before the Temple with their own wood, what is the reason** one does **not** listen to them?


###### Pesachim 82a:7
[Pesachim 82a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/82a:7)

רַב יוֹסֵף אָמַר: שֶׁלֹּא לְבַיֵּישׁ אֶת מִי שֶׁאֵין לוֹ. רָבָא אָמַר: מִפְּנֵי הַחֲשָׁד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Yosef said:** It is **in order not to embarrass one who does not have** the means to bring his own wood. If it were permitted to bring one’s own wood to burn in the Temple, people would realize that only the poor people take wood from the Temple. This would be embarrassing to the poor. **Rava said:** It is **due to suspicion.** People would take back their own unused wood that they had brought, and others might suspect that they were stealing consecrated wood from the Temple.


###### Pesachim 82a:8
[Pesachim 82a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/82a:8)

מַאי בֵּינַיְיהוּ? אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ דְּאַיְיתִי קְנֵי וְחַרְיָוָתָא, דְּלָא חֲזֵי לַמַּעֲרָכָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What is** the practical difference **between these** two answers? The Gemara answers: The practical difference **between them is** the case of one who **brings reeds** or **palm branches that are not fit for the arrangement.** Since these types of branches are not used for the arrangement of wood on the altar, there is no concern that people would be wrongly suspected of stealing them from the Temple; therefore, Rava would permit it. However, the concern that the poor will be embarrassed is still relevant, and so Rav Yosef would prohibit it.


###### Pesachim 82a:9
[Pesachim 82a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/82a:9)

תְּנַן הָתָם: רֹאשׁ הַמַּעֲמָד הָיָה מַעֲמִיד אֶת הַטְּמֵאִין עַל שַׁעַר הַמִּזְרָח. מַאי טַעְמָא? אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: כְּדֵי לְבַיְּישָׁן. רָבָא אָמַר: מִפְּנֵי הַחֲשָׁד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Another mishna teaches a similar dispute between Rav Yosef and Rava on a different subject: **We learned** in a mishna **there,** in tractate *Tamid*: The **head of the watch would stand the ritually impure** priests **at** the entrance to **the eastern gate** each morning. The Gemara asks: **What is the reason** that they did not simply send them home without making them stand at the entrance to the eastern gate? **Rav Yosef said:** It was **in order to embarrass them** for not having been careful to avoid becoming impure. **Rava said:** They would stand them there **to** avoid **suspicion,** so that people would realize that they were not performing the Temple service because they were impure, rather than in order to work in their regular professions.


###### Pesachim 82a:10
[Pesachim 82a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/82a:10)

מַאי בֵּינַיְיהוּ? אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ מְפַנְּקִי, אִי נָמֵי דְּקָא גָדֵיל שִׁישׁוּרָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What is** the practical difference **between these** two opinions? The Gemara answers: The practical difference **between them is** the case of **pampered people** who never work, whom others would not suspect of avoiding Temple service in order to work in their regular professions. **Alternatively,** it is the case of **one who twists ropes** for a living. No one would suspect someone of missing the Temple service in order to work in such a lowly and non-profitable occupation. These two categories of people would not have to stand at the gate according to Rava’s opinion, but would have to according to Rav Yosef’s opinion.


###### Pesachim 82a:11
[Pesachim 82a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/82a:11)

**מַתְנִי׳** הַפֶּסַח שֶׁיָּצָא אוֹ שֶׁנִּטְמָא — יִשָּׂרֵף מִיָּד. נִטְמְאוּ הַבְּעָלִים אוֹ שֶׁמֵּתוּ — תְּעוּבַּר צוּרָתוֹ, וְיִשָּׂרֵף בְּשִׁשָּׁה עָשָׂר. רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָה אוֹמֵר: אַף זֶה יִשָּׂרֵף מִיָּד לְפִי שֶׁאֵין לוֹ אוֹכְלִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** **A Paschal lamb that was taken out** of its permissible area **or that became ritually impure should be burned immediately** on the eve of Passover. If **the owners became ritually impure or died, its form must** be allowed to **decay** by leaving it for a period of time instead of burning it immediately, **and it should be burned on the sixteenth** of Nisan, immediately after the first day of the Festival. **Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka says: This, too, should be burned immediately, because it has no one to eat it,** which is also so severe a disqualification that decay of form is not required.


###### Pesachim 82a:12
[Pesachim 82a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/82a:12)

**גְּמָ׳** בִּשְׁלָמָא טָמֵא, כְּתִיב: ״וְהַבָּשָׂר אֲשֶׁר יִגַּע בְּכׇל טָמֵא לֹא יֵאָכֵל בָּאֵשׁ יִשָּׂרֵף״. אֶלָּא יוֹצֵא מְנָלַן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The Gemara asks: **Granted,** the fact that **ritually impure** sacrificial meat must be burned **is written** in the Torah, as it says: **“The flesh that touches any impure item shall not be eaten, it shall be burned in fire”** (Leviticus 7:19). **But** sacrificial meat that **is taken out** of its permissible area, **from where do we** derive that it must be burned?


###### Pesachim 82a:13
[Pesachim 82a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/82a:13)

דִּכְתִיב: ״הֵן לֹא הוּבָא אֶת דָּמָהּ אֶל הַקֹּדֶשׁ פְּנִימָה״. אָמַר לוֹ מֹשֶׁה לְאַהֲרֹן: מַדּוּעַ לֹא אֲכַלְתֶּם אֶת הַחַטָּאת? שֶׁמָּא נִכְנַס דָּמָהּ לִפְנַי וְלִפְנִים. אָמַר לוֹ: לָאו.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: It is derived from the verses describing Moses admonishing Aaron and his sons about the fact that they did not eat the sin-offering on the eighth day of inauguration, **as it is written: “Behold, its blood was not brought into the Sanctuary within;** you should have eaten it in the Sanctuary, as I commanded” (Leviticus 10:18). This should be understood as follows: **Moses said to Aaron: Why didn’t you eat the sin-offering? Perhaps its blood entered the innermost** chamber, the Sanctuary, in which case it must be burned? Aaron **said to him: No.**


###### Pesachim 82a:14
[Pesachim 82a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/82a:14)

אָמַר לוֹ: שֶׁמָּא חוּץ לִמְחִיצָתָהּ יָצְתָה? אָמַר לוֹ: לָאו, בַּקּוֹדֶשׁ הָיְתָה. אָמַר לוֹ: אִי בַּקּוֹדֶשׁ הָיְתָה וְ״הֵן לֹא הוּבָא אֶת דָּמָהּ אֶל הַקֹּדֶשׁ פְּנִימָה״, מַדּוּעַ לֹא אֲכַלְתֶּם אוֹתָהּ? מִכְּלָל דְּאִי נָפְקָא, אִי נָמֵי עָיֵיל דָּמָהּ לִפְנִים — בַּת שְׂרֵיפָה הִיא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Moses **said to him: Perhaps it was taken outside of its boundary,** and that is the reason you did not eat it? **He said to him: No, it was in the sacred** area, i.e., the courtyard. Moses **said to him: If it was in the sacred** area the entire time, **behold, its blood was not brought into the Sanctuary within, why didn’t you eat it?** This proves **by inference that if it leaves** its boundary, **or alternatively, if its blood enters within** the Sanctuary of the Temple, **it must be burned.** This can serve as a model for all offerings.


###### Pesachim 82a:15
[Pesachim 82a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/82a:15)

בִּשְׁלָמָא נִטְמָא, גַּלִּי רַחֲמָנָא בְּקָדָשִׁים קַלִּים, כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן בְּקׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים. אֶלָּא יוֹצֵא, אַשְׁכְּחַן קׇדְשֵׁי הַקֳּדָשִׁים, קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים מְנָלַן? וְתוּ, הָא דְּתַנְיָא: לָן דָּמָהּ,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Granted,** with regard to sacrificial meat that **became ritually impure, the Merciful One reveals** that *halakha* in the Torah **with regard to offerings of lesser sanctity,** as the verse: “The flesh that touches any impure item shall not be eaten,” is referring to a peace-offering, and it applies **all the more so with regard to offerings of the most sacred order. However,** with regard to sacrificial meat that **is taken out** of its boundary, **we** have **found** a source that this applies to **offerings of** only **the most sacred order.** With regard to **offerings of lesser sanctity,** such as the Paschal lamb, **from where do we** derive that they too must be burned? **And furthermore,** with regard to **that which is taught** in a *baraita*: If **the blood** of an offering **was left overnight** instead of being sprinkled on the altar on the day it was slaughtered,