Pesachim 164

נשפך דמה יצא דמה חוץ לקלעים דקיימא לן בשריפה מנלן

if its blood was poured out, or if the blood passed outside the Temple enclosures, - where it is all established law that it requires burning;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In all these cases the blood is unfit for sprinkling and in turn the flesh cannot be eaten, and it must be burnt.');">¹</span>

נפקא לן מדר"ש דתניא ר"ש אומר (ויקרא ו, כג) בקדש באש תשרף לימד על חטאת ששריפתה בקודש

whence do we learn it? - We deduce it from R'Simeon['s teaching].

אין לי אלא זו בלבד שאר פסולי קדשי קדשים ואימורי קדשים קלים מנין ת"ל (וכל) בקדש באש תשרף

For it was taught, R'Simeon said: In the holy place.

אשכחן קדשי קדשים קדשים קלים מנלן אלא כל פסולו בקדש בשריפה לא שנא קדשים קלים ולא שנא קדשי קדשים גמרא גמירי לה וחטאת דאהרן משום מעשה שהיה כך היה

it shall be burnt with fire:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. VI, 23.');">²</span>

ולתנא דבי רבה בר אבוה דאמר אפילו פיגול טעון עיבור צורה מנא לן

this teaches of the sin-offering that is burnt in the holy place [sanctuary].

יליף עון עון מנותר

Now, I only know this alone: how do we know it of the unfit of the [other] Most Holy sacrifices and the emurim of the lesser Holy sacrifices?

ונילף עון עון מחטאת דאהרן אמר לך חטאת דאהרן כי האי גוונא נמי עיבור צורה לדורות בעיא והתם הוראת שעה היתה

Therefore it is stated, 'in the holy place.

השתא דאמרינן כל פסולי דקדש בשריפה לא שנא דקדשי קדשים ולא שנא קדשים קלים גמרא גמירי לה בקדש באש תשרף למה לי ההוא מבעי ליה ששריפתה בקדש

it shall be burnt with fire.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra ');">³</span>

(ויקרא ז, יט) והבשר אשר יגע בכל טמא לא יאכל באש ישרף למה לי ההוא לגופיה איצטריך

We have [thus] found it of the Most Holy sacrifices; whence do we know it of the lesser Holy sacrifices?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The verse quoted refers only to the emurim of the lesser holy sacrifices.');">⁴</span>

סד"א כל פסולי דקדש כגון לן דמה ונשפך דמה ויצא דמה ונשחטה בלילה דבשריפה דליתנהו בחולין

Rather [that] wherever there is a disqualification in the sacred [sacrifices]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Or, whatever its disqualification (that arises) in the sanctuary.');">⁵</span>

אבל נטמא דבחולין נמי מפסיל אימא הואיל ואיתעביד ביה עובדין דחול אימא לא תיבעי שריפה ותיסגי ליה בקבורה קמ"ל:

burning is required, no matter whether it is the Most Holy sacrifices or the lesser Holy sacrifices; - this is known by tradition.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is not intimated in the Bible.');">⁶</span>

נטמאו הבעלים או שמתו תעובר צורתן וכו': אמר רב יוסף מחלוקת שנטמאו בעלים אחר זריקה דאיתחזי בשר לאכילה אבל נטמאו בעלים לפני זריקה דלא איתחזי בשר לאכילה דברי הכל ישרף מיד

And as for Aaron's sin-offering, that is because the incident that happened, happened thus.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Bible does not record this story in order to teach, as stated above, but simply because it happened so.');">⁷</span>

מיתיבי זה הכלל כל שפסולו בגופו ישרף מיד בדם ובבעלים תעובר צורתו ויצא לבית השריפה

Now, according to the tanna of the School of Rabbah B'Abbuhah who said, Even piggul requires disfigurement,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though the disqualification is certainly in itself; v. supra 34b.');">⁸</span>

קתני בעלים דומיא דדם מה דם לפני זריקה אף בעלים לפני זריקה

whence do we know it - [because] he learns the meaning of iniquity from nothar:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Iniquity' is written in connection with piggul and nothar. Piggul: and the soul that eateth of it shall bear his iniquity (Lev. VII, 18) ; nothar: but every one that eateth of it shall bear his iniquity (ibid. XIX, 8, - this verse is applied to nothar in Ker. 5a) . Now nothar is naturally disfigured, having been kept too long, and the employment of 'iniquity' in both cases teaches that piggul too requires disfigurement,');">⁹</span>

אלא אי איתמר הכי איתמר מחלוקת שנטמאו בעלים לפני זריקה דלא איתחזי בשר לאכילה דהוה ליה כפסולו בגופו אבל נטמאו בעלים לאחר זריקה דאיתחזי בשר לאכילה דברי הכל פסולו מחמת דבר אחר ובעיא עיבור צורה

yet let us learn the meaning of iniquity from Aaron's sacrifice?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. X, 17: and he hath given it to you to bear the iniquity of the congregation. Hence just as it was burnt there on the same day, before it could become disfigured, so should piggul be.');">¹⁰</span>

ורבי יוחנן אמר אף לאחר זריקה נמי מחלוקת ואזדא ר"י לטעמיה דאמר רבי יוחנן ר"י בן ברוקה ור' נחמיה אמרו דבר אחד ר' יוחנן בן ברוקה הא דאמרן

- He can answer you: [A sacrifice such as] Aaron's sin-offering too in such a case<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whatever the cause of its disqualification. On this there are two views: (i) it had been defiled; (ii) it could not be eaten because Aaron and his sons were bereaved that day by the death of Nadab and Abihu.');">¹¹</span>

ר' נחמיה מאי היא דתניא ר' נחמיה אומר מפני אנינות נשרפה זו לכך נאמר (ויקרא י, יט) כאלה

would require disfigurement in [future] generations;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., if a sin-offering becomes thus disqualified it normally requires disfigurement.');">¹²</span>

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>