Previous daf

1)

(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 Tamei?

(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 passed Tzofim.

(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 apply.

(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 Yom-Tov.

(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 inside").

(b) We learn that Kodshei Kodshim must be burnt from a Kal va'Chomer from Kodshim Kalim.

(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?

6)

(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 'Ibur Tzurah'.

(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!'