Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) THE PLACES FOR BURNING THE KORBAN PESACH

(a) Question: Why burn the Korban in front of the Bais HaMikdash?
(b) Answer: To embarrass those who were negligent.
(c) Question: Our Mishna contradicts the Mishna on 49a where we learn that even a *small* part of the Korban is burnt with the Ma'arachah wood.
(d) Answer #1: One Mishna is speaking of a visitor and one of a homeowner.
(e) Answer #2: One Mishna speaks where he has already gone a considerable distance; the other he is still close.
(f) Answer #3: We consider a visitor like a Miser to permit the Ma'arachah wood.

(a) It is not permitted to use Ma'arachah wood to burn in one's private yard.
(b) It is also not permitted to burn by the Bais HaMikdash with private wood.
(c) Question: Why is the latter prohibited? (The former is understood, as some of the wood might be leftover.)
(d) Answer #1: Not to embarrass those who do not have.
(e) Answer #2: To avoid suspicion.
(f) Question: What is the difference between the answers?
(g) Answer: If one uses wood which would never be used for Ma'arachah.

(a) The head of the Mishmar would place the Kohanim who were Tamei at the East Gate.
(b) Question: Why?
(c) Answer #1: To embarrass them (for being careless).
(d) Answer #2: To avoid suspicion (of intentional absence).
(e) Question: What is the difference between the answers?
(f) Answers: Delicate Kohanim or those whose work at home is not prestigious.

(a) If the Pesach became Tamei or went out of the Mikdash it is burnt right away.
(b) If the owner became Tamei or died the Korban is left till the next day before being burnt.
(c) R. Yochanan b. Beroka: This is also burnt immediately.
(d) Question: Why does the Korban that "went out" need to be burnt?
(e) Answer: The source is the discussion between Moshe and Aharon regarding the burnt Korban where we see that had the Korban gone out or become Tamei it would be burnt.
(f) Question #1: We only know the Din by Kodshei Kodeshim (that going out causes it to be burnt) how do we know it by Kodshim Kalim?

(g) Question #2: What is the source for burning a Korban whose blood was left past sunset, spilled or taken out?
(h) Answer: We learn it from "Bakodesh BaEsh Tisaref."
(i) Question: That covers a Chatas, what of the other Kodshei Kodeshim and the Emurim of Kodshim Kalim?
(j) Answer: Again, from Bakodesh BaEsh Tisaref.
(k) Question: How do I know Kodshim Kalim (even other Pesulim, other than Tumah - Rashi)?
(l) Answer: It is all Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai.

1. Question: Why discuss the Chatas of Aharon?
2. Answer: Simply to analyze the incident as it was.

(m) Question: Why should Pigul require overnight?
(n) Answer: A Gezeirah Shavah (Avon) from Pigul to Nosar.
(o) Question: Then learn the Avon connection to the Chatas of Aharon and burn it right away?
(p) Answer: That was a unique Halachah, not applicable to later generations.
(q) Question: So why do we need Bakodesh BaEsh Tisaref?
(r) Answer: It teaches that the burning must take place where the Korban could have been eaten.
(s) Question: Why do I need a Pasuk by Shlamim "v'Habasar Asher...?"
(t) Answer: To teach that if it becomes Tamei it must be burnt.

1. We might think that only invalidations which are unique to Korbanos would require burning.
2. Tumah, which could apply to Chulin, might only demote the Korban to "Chulin" and burial would suffice.

(a) [R. Yosef] The dispute in the Mishna is only when the Tumah happened *after* the Zerikah.
(b) Question: The Bereisa equates the owners to the blood, meaning the invalidation came *before* Zerikah, and says that they must remain overnight!
(c) Answer: R. Yosef is understood as saying that the dispute in the Mishna is *before* Zerikah (but *after* Zerikah all would agree that it must remain overnight).
(d) [R. Yochanan] It is a dispute even *after* Zerikah.