REVIEW QUESTIONS ON GEMARA AND RASHI
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafPesachim 82
PESACHIM 82 - dedicated in honor of the Bar-Mitzvah (in Yerushalayim) of
Yosef Tavin, by his family. May he continue to grow "from strength to
strength" in Torah and the fear of Hashem, and bring true Nachas to his
(a) The Mishnah on Daf 49a. 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 (to place on the Mizbei'ach).
How does this appear to clash
with our Mishnah?
(b) Rav Chama bar Ukva differentiates between a guest, who has no wood of
his own, and a resident of Yerushalayim, who *does*. Rav Papa establishes
both by a guest.
How does he then resolve the discrepancy, and how does he
deduce this from the wording of the earlier Mishnah? Why does the Tana make
such a distinction?
(c) Rav Zevid agrees with Rav Chama bar Ukva.
How does he explain the
wording of the earlier Mishnah?
(a) We do not allow someone who wishes to use wood from the Ma'arachah to
burn the Tamei Pesach in his backyard, to do so, because of a Takalah.
that case, why is he permitted to use it at all, under any circumstances, to
burn his own Pesach? Why is he not Mo'el?
(b) Neither do we permit someone whose Pesach became Tamei to burn it in
front of the Beis Hamikdash using his own wood. According to Rav Yosef, this
is in order not to shame someone who does not have his own wood. Rava
What reason does *he* give?
(c) What is the difference between the two reasons?
(a) Rav Yosef and Rava argue in a similar manner over the Mishnah in Tamid,
where the head of the Ma'amad would stand the Tamei Kohanim by the East-
gate. According to Rav Yosef, it was in order to shame them, according to
Rava, because of suspicion.
Of what will they be suspected?
(b) The Gemara gives two differences between the two explanations; one of
them, by a finicky Kohen who anyway does no work and is beyond suspicion.
What is the second distinction?
(a) If a Pesach is taken outside the Azarah or becomes Tamei, it is burnt
Is there any difference whether this occurs on the fourteenth
*before* nightfall or *after* nightfall?
(b) How will the Din differ if the owner became Tamei or died?
(c) What does Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah say?
(a) What do we learn initially from the Pasuk in Shemini "Hen Lo Huva es
Damah El ha'Kodesh Penimah"? What was Moshe saying to Aharon (about the
relevant Korban and its blood)?
Answers to questions
(b) We learn that *Kodshim Kalim* which became Tamei must be burnt from the
Pasuk in Tzav "ve'ha'Basar Asher Yiga be'Chol Tamei, Lo Ye'achel, ba'Eish
How do we know that the same applies to *Kodshei Kodshim* which
(c) What is the problem with learning Yotzei from "Hen Lo Huva" ... ?
(d) What is the additional problem from a Korban whose blood became Pasul
be'Linah (at nightfall) or that was spilt?
(a) What does Rebbi Shimon learn from the Pasuk in Tzav "ba'Kodesh ba'Eish
(b) What can we not learn from that Pasuk?
(c) We finally learn the obligation to burn all Kodshim that became Pasul
ba'Kodesh from a Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai.
Where does one burn the
*Basar* of Kodshim Kalim that became Pasul?
(d) Why can we not learn *other Pesulim* of Kodshim Kalim from the *Tum'ah*
of Kodshim Kalim?
(a) What is the Gemara's final source for the burning of all Pasul Kodshim
that were Pesulan ba'Kodesh?
(b) The Tana of Rabah bar Avuha learns that even Pigul requires Ibur Tzurah
"Avon" "Avon" from Nosar.
Why does he not learn "Avon" "Avon" from the
Chatas of Aharon, which was burnt immediately?
(c) The Chatas of Aharon was burnt for one of two reasons.
What are they?
(a) Now that we learn the burning of all Kodshim that were Pesulan ba'Kodesh
from Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai, what do we learn from "ba'Kodesh ba'Eish
(b) And why do we need the Pasuk "ve'ha'Basar Asher Yiga be'Chol Tamei, Lo
Ye'achel, ba'Eish Tisaref"?
(a) According to Rav Yosef's initial text, 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 (so that the meat was never
fit to eat). The Gemara rejects this text however, because of the Tana
Kama's Lashon 'be'Dam u've'Ba'lim'.
What exactly, is the Gemara's
(b) What then, is the correct version of Rav Yosef's statement?
(c) What does Rebbi Yochanan say about this?
(d) How does this conform with another statement of his, where he equates
Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah with Rebbi Nechemyah, who says that the Chatas of
Aharon was burned (immediately) because of Aninus (and not because of
Tum'ah, like Rebbi Yehudah explains).
What makes the Aninus there (even
*before* the Zerikah) comparable to the Tum'ah of the Korban Pesach *after*
(a) Which three Chata'os were brought on that day? What was their status?
Answers to questions
(b) If the 'Chatas of Aharon' was burned because of Aninus, which Chatas
must it have been? What was Moshe's mistake?
(c) What did Aharon reply when Moshe asked him whether the Chatas was
perhaps brought (be'Isur) ba'Aninus (and was therefore burned because it was