## Pesachim Daf 82b

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

נִשְׁפַּךְ דָּמָהּ, יָצָא דָּמָהּ חוּץ לַקְּלָעִים — דְּקַיְימָא לַן בִּשְׂרֵיפָה, מְנָלַן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
or **its blood was spilled,** or **its blood was taken outside the hangings** that denoted the courtyard of the Tabernacle, **we maintain** that it must be **burned; from where do we** derive this *halakha*?


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

נָפְקָא לַן מִדְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: ״בַּקֹּדֶשׁ בָּאֵשׁ תִּשָּׂרֵף״ — לִימֵּד עַל חַטָּאת שֶׁשְּׂרֵיפָתָהּ בַּקּוֹדֶשׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **We derive it from** the exposition of **Rabbi Shimon, as it was taught** in a *baraita* that **Rabbi Shimon says:** The verse that states: “Any sin-offering from which some blood has been brought to the Tent of Meeting, to make atonement **in the sacred place,** shall not be eaten; **it shall be burned in fire”** (Leviticus 6:23), **has taught that the burning of a sin-offering is in the sacred** area, the Temple courtyard.


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

אֵין לִי אֶלָּא זוֹ בִּלְבַד, שְׁאָר פְּסוּלֵי קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים וְאֵימוּרֵי קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״(וְכׇל) ... בַּקֹּדֶשׁ ... בָּאֵשׁ תִּשָּׂרֵף״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**I have** derived **only** that the *halakha* applies to **this alone,** a sin-offering; with regard to **the rest of the disqualified offerings of the most sacred order and the portions of offerings of lesser sanctity** that are consumed on the altar, **from where do we** derive that they must be burned in the Temple courtyard, which is their boundary when they are valid? **The verse states: “Any…in the sacred place…shall be burned in fire,”** which teaches that any consecrated item must be burned in a sacred place.


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

אַשְׁכְּחַן קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים, קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים מְנָלַן? אֶלָּא: כׇּל פְּסוּלוֹ בַּקֹּדֶשׁ בִּשְׂרֵיפָה, לָא שְׁנָא קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים וְלָא שְׁנָא קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים — גְּמָרָא גְּמִירִי לַהּ, וְחַטָּאת דְּאַהֲרֹן מִשּׁוּם מַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁהָיָה כָּךְ הָיָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks further: **We found** a source for **offerings of the most sacred order; from where do we derive** that it also applies to **offerings of lesser sanctity? Rather,** we must say as follows: **Anything disqualified in the sacred** area, the Temple courtyard, must be **burned.** It is **no different** whether it is **offerings of lesser sanctity, and** it is **no different** whether it is **offerings of the most sacred order; they learned it as a tradition. And the sin-offering of Aaron** that was burned on the eighth day of inauguration was mentioned only **because the incident that took place, took place in this way.** It was not mentioned in order to teach the *halakhot* of offerings.


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

וּלְתַנָּא דְּבֵי רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ, דְּאָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ פִּיגּוּל טָעוּן עִיבּוּר צוּרָה. מְנָא לַן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara proceeds to ask an unrelated question with regard to *piggul*: **And according to** the opinion of **the *tanna* from the school of Rabba bar Avuh, who said** that **even *piggul*,** which is a disqualification of the animal itself, **requires decay of form,** meaning that it must be left over until the next day so that it will begin to decay and is only then burned, **from where do we** derive that it requires decay of form?


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

יָלֵיף ״עָוֹן״ ״עָוֹן״ מִנּוֹתָר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **It is derived** from a verbal analogy from the parallel words **“iniquity”** and **“iniquity.”** With regard to *piggul*, the verse states: “It remains rejected [*piggul*]; and the soul that eats it shall bear its iniquity” (Leviticus 7:18), and with regard to **leftover** sacrificial meat, the verse states: “And whatever is leftover…shall be burned in fire…and each of those who eat it shall bear his iniquity” (Leviticus 19:6–8). Just as leftover sacrificial meat is burned after it has been left over to the next day, so too, *piggul* is burned only after it has been left over to the next day and its form has decayed.


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

וְנֵילַף ״עָוֹן״ ״עָוֹן״ מֵחַטָּאת דְּאַהֲרֹן! אָמַר לָךְ: חַטָּאת דְּאַהֲרֹן כִּי הַאי גַוְונָא נָמֵי עִיבּוּר צוּרָה לְדוֹרוֹת בָּעֲיָא, וְהָתָם — הוֹרָאַת שָׁעָה הָיְתָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Let us** instead **learn** the rules of *piggul* **through** a verbal analogy based on the parallel words **“iniquity”** and **“iniquity”** from **the sin-offering of Aaron,** with regard to which the verse states: “Why did you not eat the sin-offering in the place of sanctity…and He gave it to you to bear the iniquity of the congregation” (Leviticus 10:17). The sin-offering of Aaron was burned immediately, without decay of form, so why can it not be learned from there that *piggul* does not require decay of form either? That *tanna* could have **said to you: The sin-offering of Aaron in a case like this would also require decay of form** were it to occur **in** future **generations; but there,** when it was burned immediately, **it was a provisional edict** issued in exigent circumstances.


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

הַשְׁתָּא דְּאָמְרִינַן כָּל פְּסוּלֵי דְקֹדֶשׁ בִּשְׂרֵיפָה, לָא שְׁנָא דְּקׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים וְלָא שְׁנָא קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים, גְּמָרָא גְּמִירִי לַהּ, ״בַּקֹּדֶשׁ ... בָּאֵשׁ תִּשָּׂרֵף״ לְמָה לִי? הָהוּא מִבְּעֵי לֵיהּ שֶׁשְּׂרֵיפָתָהּ בַּקֹּדֶשׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Now that we say** that we have accepted the conclusion that **all disqualified sacred** offerings must be **burned,** and it is **no different** whether they are disqualified **offerings of the most sacred order** or **offerings of lesser sanctity,** because in both cases **they learned it as a tradition,** with regard to the verse that says: **“In the sacred place…shall be burned in fire,” why do I** need it? What does this verse teach that is not known from oral tradition? The Gemara answers: **That** verse **is required** to teach that the requirement of burning that is learned from the oral tradition cannot take place anywhere; **its burning** must take place only **in the sacred** place, the Temple courtyard.


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

״וְהַבָּשָׂר אֲשֶׁר יִגַּע בְּכׇל טָמֵא לֹא יֵאָכֵל בָּאֵשׁ יִשָּׂרֵף״, לְמָה לִי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks further: If the source of the *halakha* is an oral tradition, with regard to the verse that states: **“The flesh that touches any impure item shall not be eaten, it shall be burned in fire”** (Leviticus 7:19), **why do I** need it? This *halakha* is included in the oral tradition and should not require its own verse.


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

הַהוּא, לְגוּפֵיהּ אִיצְטְרִיךְ. סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא כֹּל פְּסוּלֵי דְקֹדֶשׁ, כְּגוֹן: לָן דָּמָהּ, וְנִשְׁפַּךְ דָּמָהּ, וְיָצָא דָּמָהּ, וְנִשְׁחֲטָה בַּלַּיְלָה, דְּבִשְׂרֵיפָה דְּלֵיתַנְהוּ בְּחוּלִּין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **That** verse is **necessary for itself. It could enter your mind to say** that **disqualified sacred** offerings include only a case **where its blood was left overnight** instead of being sprinkled on the altar on the day the offering was slaughtered; or **its blood was spilled;** or **its blood was taken outside** the hangings; **and** similarly, the case of an offering that **was slaughtered at night.** In all these cases, the offering must be **burned** because these are disqualifications unique to sanctified offerings **that do not exist with regard to unconsecrated** items.


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

אֲבָל נִטְמָא, דִּבְחוּלִּין נָמֵי מִפְּסִיל, אֵימָא הוֹאִיל וְאִיתְעֲבִיד בֵּיהּ עוֹבָדִין דְּחוֹל — אֵימָא לָא תִּיבְּעֵי שְׂרֵיפָה, וְתִיסְגֵּי לֵיהּ בִּקְבוּרָה, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But** if the meat **became ritually impure, which disqualifies unconsecrated** meat **also, say** that **since it was treated in the manner of unconsecrated items,** as the disqualification is not unique to consecrated items, **it should not require burning, and burial should be sufficient for it.** Therefore, the verse **teaches us** that an offering that is disqualified through ritual impurity must also be burned.


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

נִטְמְאוּ הַבְּעָלִים אוֹ שֶׁמֵּתוּ תְּעוּבַּר צוּרָתָן וְכוּ׳. אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: מַחְלוֹקֶת שֶׁנִּטְמְאוּ בְּעָלִים אַחַר זְרִיקָה, דְּאִיתְחֲזִי בָּשָׂר לַאֲכִילָה. אֲבָל נִטְמְאוּ בְּעָלִים לִפְנֵי זְרִיקָה, דְּלָא אִיתְחֲזִי בָּשָׂר לַאֲכִילָה — דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל יִשָּׂרֵף מִיָּד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
It was taught in the mishna that if **the owners** of the offering **became ritually impure or died** before the offering was completed, **its form** must be left to **decay,** and it is burned after the first day of the Festival. Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka disagrees and says that it is burned immediately. **Rav Yosef said:** This **dispute** is about a case in which **the owners became ritually impure after the sprinkling** of the blood, **because the meat was fit for eating** since all its services were completed in a valid way. **But** if **the owners became ritually impure before the sprinkling** of the blood, such that **the meat was not fit for eating** even for a moment, **all agree** that **it should be burned immediately.**


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

מֵיתִיבִי, זֶה הַכְּלָל: כׇּל שֶׁפְּסוּלוֹ בְּגוּפוֹ — יִשָּׂרֵף מִיָּד. בַּדָּם וּבַבְּעָלִים — תְּעוּבַּר צוּרָתוֹ וְיֵצֵא לְבֵית הַשְּׂרֵיפָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara **raises an objection** to this statement based on the *Tosefta*: **This is the principle:** In **all** cases in which **its disqualification is in itself, it should be burned immediately.** If the disqualification is **in the blood** of the offering or **in the owners, its form** should be left to **decay, and** then **it should be taken out to the place** designated for **burning.**


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

קָתָנֵי בְּעָלִים דּוּמְיָא דְּדָם: מָה דָּם לִפְנֵי זְרִיקָה, אַף בְּעָלִים לִפְנֵי זְרִיקָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The following inference can be made based on the formulation of the *Tosefta*: **It is teaching** that the case of disqualified **owners** is **similar to** the case of disqualified **blood: Just as** in the case of **blood** the disqualification necessarily occurred **before the sprinkling** of the blood, as the offering is not disqualified if anything happens to the blood after sprinkling, **so too,** the case of **owners** is referring to one in which they became disqualified even **before the sprinkling** of the blood, which contradicts the statement of Rav Yosef.


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

אֶלָּא אִי אִיתְּמַר, הָכִי אִיתְּמַר: מַחְלוֹקֶת שֶׁנִּטְמְאוּ בְּעָלִים לִפְנֵי זְרִיקָה, דְּלָא אִיתְחֲזִי בָּשָׂר לַאֲכִילָה, דְּהָוֵה לֵיהּ כִּפְסוּלוֹ בְּגוּפוֹ. אֲבָל נִטְמְאוּ בְּעָלִים לְאַחַר זְרִיקָה, דְּאִיתְחֲזִי בָּשָׂר לַאֲכִילָה — דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל פְּסוּלוֹ מֵחֲמַת דָּבָר אַחֵר, וּבָעֲיָא עִיבּוּר צוּרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, if** this **was stated** in the name of Rav Yosef, **it was stated as follows:** This **dispute** is specifically about a case in which **the owners became ritually impure before the sprinkling** of the blood, such that **the meat was never fit for eating, which** makes it **as though its disqualification is in itself. But** if **the owners became ritually impure after sprinkling** of the blood, such that **the meat was fit for eating, all agree** that **its disqualification is due to a different matter,** i.e., an external factor, **and it requires decay of form.**


###### Pesachim 82b:16
[Pesachim 82b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/82b:16)

וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: אַף לְאַחַר זְרִיקָה נָמֵי מַחְלוֹקֶת. וְאַזְדָּא רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן לְטַעְמֵיהּ, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָה וְרַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה אָמְרוּ דָּבָר אֶחָד, רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָה הָא דַּאֲמַרַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Even** a case in which the owners became ritually impure **after sprinkling** the blood **is** included in **the dispute** about whether decay of form is necessary. **And Rabbi Yoḥanan follows his** line of **reasoning, as Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka and Rabbi Neḥemya said the same thing.** The statement of **Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka is that which we said.**


###### Pesachim 82b:17
[Pesachim 82b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/82b:17)

רַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה מַאי הִיא? דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה אוֹמֵר: מִפְּנֵי אֲנִינוּת נִשְׂרְפָה זוֹ, לְכָךְ נֶאֱמַר ״כָּאֵלֶּה״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
With regard to **Rabbi Neḥemya, what is** the ruling in which he expressed his opinion? It is **as it was taught** in a *baraita*: **Rabbi Neḥemya says:** Aaron’s sin-offering that was burned on the eighth day of inauguration **was burned due to acute mourning,** as that was the day his sons Nadav and Avihu died. **For this** reason, **it is stated** that Aaron explained to Moses: “Now that events such **as these** befell me, were I to eat this day’s sin-offering would the Lord approve?” (Leviticus 10:19). In other words, it was due to the deaths of his sons, which Aaron referred as “events such as these,” that Aaron burned the sin-offering instead of eating it.


###### Pesachim 82b:18
[Pesachim 82b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/82b:18)

וְהָא אֲנִינוּת כִּלְאַחַר זְרִיקָה הָוְיָא, וְכִי אִשְׂתְּרוּף — לְאַלְתַּר (נִשְׂתְּרוּף).

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Yoḥanan analyzes Rabbi Neḥemya’s statement: **Now, acute mourning is similar to** a case of disqualification **after sprinkling** of the blood, because acute mourning merely disqualifies the owners from eating the offering. It does not disqualify the actual performance of the sacrificial service by a High Priest, such as Aaron. Therefore, it is like other disqualifications that take effect after the sprinkling, which simply prohibit the eating of the meat. **And when it was burned, it was burned immediately,** without waiting until the following day. This shows that Rabbi Neḥemya agrees that an offering that becomes disqualified after its blood has been sprinkled should be burned immediately.