ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafPesachim 83
PESACHIM 83 (Cheshvan 18) - dedicated anonymously in
memory of Chaim Mordechai ben Harav Yisrael Azriel
(Feldman) of Milwaukee.
(a) According to Rebbi Yossi Hagelili, the Pasuk "ve'Chol Chatas Asher Yuva
mi'Damah El ha'Kodesh Penimah, Lo Se'achel, ba'Eish Tisaref" - refres to
Chata'os ha'Penimiyos (such as the Par He'lam Davar shel Tzibur, which is
supposed to be brought *outside* the Azarah, whose blood was brought
(legitimately) into the Kodesh; to tell us that, if they became Pasul, they
must be burned, not outside the three camps (as they normally would have
been), but in the Beis ha'Birah - inside the Har ha'Bayis. That is the Asei
of "ba'Eish Tisaref". The La'v of "Lo Se'achel" teaches us the prohibition
of eating the flesh of those Pasul Chata'os.
The Rabbanan disagree with Rebbi Yossi Hagelili in the previous question -
because they do not learn Kodshei Doros from Kodshei Sha'ah. According to
them, the command to burn the Chatas whose blood was taken inside pertained
to that time only, and not to future generations.
(b) Rebbi Yossi Hagelili learns from the Pasuk "Hen Lo Huva es Damah El
ha'Kodesh Penimah" - what the Chachamim learn from "ve'Chol Chatas ...
ba'Eish Tisaref" (i.e. that a Chatas Penimis whose blood was taken inside
the Kodesh, must be burned).
(c) Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili (in the previous case) is referring to Chatas
Aharon, which was burned immediately, even though (like the Pesul Ba'lim of
Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah) it was only a Pesul in *the blood* (and not in
the actual body of the Korban), explaining why Rabah equates the two
(d) Rebbi Yochanan does not equate Rebbi Yossi Hagelili with Rebbi Yochanan
ben Berokah - because according to him, it is only the Pesul *Ba'lim* that
is considered an external Pesul, but not that of the *blood*, which is a
Pesul ha'Guf (since the blood is considered part of the animal?
(a) Bones which contain marrow may not be broken.
(b) The bones, sinews and Nosar are burned only on the seventeenth of Nisan
- when Erev Pesach falls on Friday.
(a) Bones that contain marrow after the time that the marrow becomes Nosar,
render the hands Tamei mi'de'Rabbanan - since ('Shimush Nosar Milsa Hi',
and) they are a 'Basis le'Davar ha'Asur'.
(b) Our Mishnah says 'ha'Atzamos ... Yisareifu be'Shishah-Asar'. If the
bones did not contain any marrow, then why would they be burned? One could
just throw them away? Consequently, the Tana must be speaking about
*marrow*-bones. If not for the fact that 'Shimush Nosar Milsa Hi', why
should they require burning? Why not break them, extract the marrow, burn
*it*, and then throw away the bones.
(c) The Mishnah which writes 've'ha'Shover be'Tamei, Eino Sofeg es
ha'Arba'im' - is speaking about one which became Tamei *before* the Zerikah,
and did not therefore have a moment when it was Kasher. The Gemara on the
other hand, relates to a bone which became Tamei *after* the Zerikah, which
did have a moment when it was Kosher, whch explains why it is Metamei the
(a) The Tana who differentiates between 'Haysah Lah Sha's ha'Kosher' and 'Lo
Haysah Lah Sha's ha'Kosher' (in this regard) is Rebbi Ya'akov.
(b) Rebbi Shimon holds that the Tana Kama (see Tosfos DH 'Rebbi Shimon')
precludes a Pasul Pesach from the prohibition of breaking a bone, whether it
had a moment when it was Kasher or not.
(c) If 'Shimush Nosar, Milsa Hi', like Rav Yitzchak contends - then why
should the marrow-bones of *all* Kodshim not require burning?
(d) Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak establishes the Beraisa when he discovered all
the bones to be broken and the marrow removed. Because one is permitted to
break bones of Kodshim, one can assume that the owner broke them before they
became Nosar, in which case, they will not have served Nosar, and may be
thrown away. Whereas regarding the bones of the Pesachim, due to the
prohibition of breaking them, one must assume that the owner did not do so
before they became Nosar, in which case, they served Nosar and must be
(a) Rav Zevid disagrees. According to him, if *all* the bones were found to
be broken with the marrow removed - we would not assume that they were
definitely broken *after* becoming Nosar, and would therefore be Asur
because they served Nosar (in other words, we would suspect that, perhaps
the bones were broken and the marrow removed *before* it became Nosar, in
which case, they would not have served Nosar any more than the bones of
other Kodshim (It seems illogical however, to suspect that the owner would
have broken the bones be'Isur, rather than to assume that he did so
be'Heter. See Maharsha).
(b) Rav Zevid establishes the Beraisa when they found piles of bones, of
which the top ones *only* were broken and the marrow removed. By the bones
of Kodshim, which one is permitted to break, we assume that, in order to
avoid the marrow from becoming Nosar (and the bones Shimush Nosar), the
owner will have also broken the bones that are underneath and removed the
marrow; these may now be thrown away without examination. One cannot
however, make the same assumption with regard to the bones of the Pesach,
which may not be broken (as long as they are Kosher). Consequently, the
bones underneath must be examined before being discarded.
(a) Rav maintains that all the sinews on the Korban Pesach are considered
meat, except for those of the neck, which, due to their hardness, are like
(b) The Gemara has a problem with this from our Mishnah, which states
'ha'Atzamos, ve'ha'Gidin ve'ha'Nosar Yisarefu be'Shishah-Asar'. Now if the
Tana is referring to ordinary sinews, why should one not eat them? Those
that are leftover are included in Nosar (already mentioned by the Tana)? So
he must be referring to the sinews of the neck. Again, if these sinews are
considered like wood (like Rav contends), then why should they be burned? We
are therefore forced to say that the sinews in the neck are considered like
Basar - in spite of their hardness, a Kashya on Rav.
(a) The Gemara establishes our Mishnah by the Gid ha'Nasheh, which is
edible, but may be eaten.
The Tana uses the plural 'Gidin' in the plural -
because he holds like Rebbi Yehudah, who says that although the Isur of Gid
ha'Nasheh probably applies to the right one, this is not certain, in which
case, the left Gid must be burnt, too.
(b) There is no proof however, that Rebbi Yehudah himself is in doubt as to
which of the Gidin the Torah forbids. It may well be that he is in fact,
sure that it is the *right* Gid which the Torah forbids. However, the
Beraisa speaks when the two Gidin got mixed up, and he did not know which is
(c) If Rebbi Yehudah is indeed certain that it is the right Gid which is
forbidden, then when he says 've'ha'Da'as Machra'as shel Yemin' - he means
Da'as Torah, meaning that he derives it from the word "*ha*'Yerech" -
'ha'Meyumenes she'be'Yerech' (implying the right one, since the right side
always has a more significance).
(d) According to Ravina, 'Gidin' in the plural, incorporates the outer Gid,
which the Torah forbids, and the inner one, which it permits, but which the
Rabbanan forbade. Both must be burned.
(a) Chizkiyah answers why the Asei of "ba'Eish Tisrofu" does not over-ride
the La'v of Yom-Tov, with the Pasuk in Bo "Lo Sosiru Mimenu Ad Boker,
ve'ha'Nosar Mimenu *Ad Boker*, ba'Eish Tisrofu" - which teaches us that
Nosar etc. is not to be burnt on the first morning (the fifteenth), but on
the second (the sixteenth - i.e. Chol ha'Mo'ed).
1. ... Abaye answers from the Pasuk in Pinchas "Olas Shabbos be'Shabbato" -
from which we infer 've'Lo Olas Chol be'Shabbos, ve'Lo Olas Chol be'Yom-
(c) Rava learns from "*Hu* Levado Ye'aseh Lachem" - that Machshirei Melachah
that could have been prepared before Yom-Tov, may not be performed on Yom-
2. ... Rava answers from the Pasuk in Bo "Hu *Levado* Ye'aseh Lachem" -
"Levado" ve'Lo Milah she'Lo bi'Zemanah"; and burning Pesulei Kodshim are
comparable to Milah after the eighth day, since Pasul Kodshim, like Milah
after the eighth day, can wait until the following day (since their time is
3. ... Rav Ashi learns it from the Pasuk in Emor "Shaboson", which implies
an Asei; since Yom-Tov is now an Asei as well as a Lo Sa'aseh, it cannot be
over-ridden by an Asei alone.