ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafPesachim 82
PESACHIM 82 - dedicated in honor of the Bar-Mitzvah (in
Yerushalayim) of Yosef Tavin, by his family. May he continue to
grow "from strength to strength" in Torah and the fear of
Hashem, and bring true Nachas to his family.
(a) The Mishnah on Daf 49a. which obligates someone who left Yerushalayim
with a small piece of Kodshim-meat and who has not yet passed Tzofim, to
return to Yerushalayim and to burn it in front of the Beis Hamikdash with
wood for the Ma'arachah, appears to clash with *our* Mishnah - which
requires one's own wood to be used for a minority of the Pesach which became
(b) Rav Papa establishes our Mishnah by a guest who has not yet set out on
his homeward journey, and who is therefore
obligated to use his own wood; whereas the Mishnah on 49a. permits one to
use wood from the Ma'arachah only if has already set out on his homeward
journey. And he infers this from the Lashon of that Mishnah 've'Chein *Mi
she'Yatza* mi'Yerushalayim' ...
(c) Rav Zevid agrees with Rav Chama bar Ukva, and it is only a resident of
Yerushalayim that they obligated to find his own wood, but not a guest. The
reason that the Tana mentions his leaving Yerushalayim, is not because of
the wood, but in order to teach us that he has to return if he has not
(a) A person is not Mo'el when he uses the wood for the Ma'arachah to burn
his Pesach, seeing as does so with the permission of the Beis-Din, who make
a condition permitting people to use the wood - under the circumstances set
down by them.
(b) According to Rava, we do not permit him to use his own wood to burn the
Pesach in front of the Beis Hamikdash - because when people see him taking
home the wood that remains they will suspect him of using wood from the
Ma'arachah for his own purposes.
(c) Should he bring canes and palm-branches etc., which are not fit for the
Ma'arachah anyway, he will not be subject to the above suspicion, but the
reason of shaming those who do not have, will still be applicable.
(a) Rava explains that the head of the Ma'amad would stand the Tamei Kohanim
by the East-gate - because otherwise, their fellow Kohanim may suspect them
of absenting themselves on account of their private business-affairs.
(b) A second distinction between the two explanations is by a Kohen whose
job is a low-paid one (such as twisting ropes), whom nobody will suspect of
absenteeism (since it is not worth his cwhile staying away from the Avodah
for such a low wage); whereas the reason of putting him to shame will still
(a) A Pesach which is taken outside the Azarah or becomes Tamei after
nightfall, cannot be burnt immediately, since Kodshim may not be burned on
(b) If the *owner* became Tamei or died - it is not a Pesul ha'Guf, in which
case the Pesach will require Ibur Tzurah and cannot be burned before the
morning of the sixteenth(since one cannot burn Kodshim on Yom-Tov).
(c) According to Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah - a Pesach which has no owner
does not require Ibur Tzurah and is also burned immediately.
(a) Initially, we think that Moshe asked Aharon "Hen Lo Huva es Damah El
ha'Kodesh" - whether he had burnt the Chatas because its *blood* had *gone
in* to the Heichal (see Rashash), or maybe it was because the *flesh* had
gone *outside* the Azarah (which we learn from the extra word "Penimah"
(which is really Aharon's reply to Moshe - and which means "it remained
(b) We learn that Kodshei Kodshim must be burnt from a Kal va'Chomer from
(c) The problem with learning Yotzei from "Hen Lo Huva" ... which we tried
to do above, is that then we will only know Kodshei Kodshim, but from where
will we know Kodshim Kalim?
(d) In addition, if all we have to rely on is the above source, from where
will we know that a Korban whose blood became Pasul be'Linah or that was
spilt must also be burnt (and we know that it must be burnt from a Beraisa,
which says so specifically) or any other Kodshim Pesulim for that matter,
which throughout Shas we take on, must be burned?
(a) Rebbi Shimon learns from the Pasuk in Tzav "ba'Kodesh ba'Eish Tisaref" -
that Chata'os which became Pasul (through Yotzei or another Pesul other than
Tum'ah - which we learned already on the previous Amud), other Kodshei
Kodshim and the Eimurim of Kodshim Kalim (which have the Din of Kodshei
Kodshim) must be burned in the Azarah.
(b) We cannot learn Kodshim Kalim from that Pasuk.
(c) Basar of Kodshim Kalim that became Pasul can be burned anywhere in
Yerushalayim, since that is where they are eaten when they are Tahor.
(d) We cannot learn *other Pesulim* of Kodshim Kalim from the *Tum'ah* of
Kodshim Kalim - because Tum'ah is more stringent than they are, inasmuch as
it also disqualifies Terumah and Ma'aser Sheni, which they do not.
(a) The Gemara finally learns the obligation to burn Kodshim Kalim that are
Pesulan ba'Kodesh from a Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai.
(b) The Tana of Rabah bar Avuha learns that even Pigul requires Ibur Tzurah
from the Gezeirah Shavah of "Avon" "Avon" from Nosar. He does not want to
learn the same Gezeirah Shavah from the Chatas of Aharon (which was burnt
immediately) - because the Chatas of Aharon itself was a momentary ruling
(issued exclusively for that occasion); normally, it would have required
(c) The Chatas of Aharon was burnt either because it became Tamei, or
because Aharon and his sons were Onenim.
(a) From "ba'Kodesh ba'Eish Tisaref" we learn that Kodshei Kodshim that
became Pasul must be burned in the Azarah?
(b) And we learn from the Pasuk "ve'ha'Basar Asher Yiga be'Chol Tamei, Lo
Ye'achel, *ba'Eish Tisaref*" - that even the Pesul of Tum'ah must also be
burned; otherwise we might have thought that the Halachah only pertains to
other Pesulim, which do *not* apply to Chulin, but not to Tum'ah, which
*does*, and by which burial will therefore suffice.
(a) We cannot accept Rav Yosef's initial statement (that the Tana Kama
agrees with Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah, who holds that even Nitme'u Ba'lim
is burned immediately, if the Tum'ah preceded the Zerikah), because of the
Tana Kama's Lashon 'be'Dam u've'Ba'lim', which suggests that Ba'lim, like
Dam, speaks *before* the Zerikah, yet they still require Ibur Tzurah!
(b) The correct version of Rav Yosef's statement therefore reads - 'the
Tana'im only argue when the owner became Tamei *before* the Zerikah, but if
he became Tamei *after* the Zerikah, when the flesh had already become fit
to eat, then even Raban Yochanan ben Berokah will agree that it is an
external Pesul, and requires Ibur Tzurah'.
(c) According to Rebbi Yochanan, Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah will argue even
if the owner became Tamei *after* the Zerikah.
(d) Rebbi Nechemyah says that the Chatas of Aharon was burned (immediately)
because of Aninus, even though the blood was sprinkled be'Hechsher (even if
it happened *before* the Zerikah - since a Chatas does not become
invalidated by the fact that the owner is unable to eat it). Consequently,
by equating the opinion of Rebbi Nechemyah with that of Rebbi Yochanan ben
Berokah, Rebbi Yochanan is substantiating his statement in c. (since both a
Pesach after the Zerikah, and a Chatas where the Kohen Gadol became an Onan
even before the Zerikah are valid Korbanos).
(a) If the Chatas of Aharon was burned because of Aninus - it must have been
the Chatas of Rosh Chodesh (otherwise, why did Aharon not eat it, as Moshe
had instructed him?). Moshe forgot that Hashem had only told him to instruct
Aharon to eat the *special Korbanos* of the day (those of the Milu'im), even
as an Onan, but not the *regular Korbanos*, whose regular procedure still
prevailed (i.e. that although the Kohen Gadol must still *bring* it, he may
not *eat* it).
(b) When Moshe asked him whether the Chatas was perhaps brought (be'Isur)
ba'Aninus (and was therefore burned because it was Pasul) - he replied 'Was
it they (Elazar and Isamar - who are forbidden to bring any Kodshim
ba'Aninus) who brought the Korbanos? It was I (the Kohen Gadol, by whom the
Avodah over-rides Aninus) who brought them!'