Mesorat%20hashas for Pesachim 164:18

והא אנינות כלאחר זריקה הויא וכי אשתרוף לאלתר (נשתרוף)

but there it was a special dispensation.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'the ruling of the hour'.');">¹³</span> 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'? - Tha required [to teach] that its burning [must be] in the holy place.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the Temple Court.');">¹⁴</span> 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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., to teach that uncleanness too is a sacred disqualification in this respect.');">¹⁵</span> You might say, All disqualifications of the sacred [sacrifices mean] e.g. ,if its blood was kept overnight, if it 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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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 ');">¹⁶</span> 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 fle 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 a though its disqualification were in itself; but if the owners were defiled after the sprinkling, so that the fle 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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. X, 19; 'as these' directly refers to his bereavement.');">¹⁷</span> Now surely bereavement is as [a disqualification] after sprinkling.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');">¹⁸</span> Yet when it was burnt; it was burnt immediately.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');">¹⁹</span>

Explore mesorat%20hashas for Pesachim 164:18. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.