1)

WHEN THE PESACH BECAME TAMEH (yerushalmi Halachah 8 Daf 52b)

משנה נטמא שלם או רובו שורפין אותו לפני הבירה מעצי המערכ'

(a)

(mishnah): If all or most of the Korban became Tameh, they burn it in front of the Beis HaMikdash using the wood of the woodpile.

נטמא מיעוטו והנותר שורפין אותו בחצרותיהן או על גגותיהן מעצי עצמן

(b)

If part (the minority) of it became Tameh or if the Korban became Nosar (it was left until after its time limit without eating), they burn it in their courtyards or on their roofs from their own wood supply.

הציקנים שורפין אותו לפני הבירה בשביל ליהנות מעצי המערכה

(c)

The misers would also burn it (the two cases of (b)) before the Beis HaMikdash in order to benefit from the wood of the woodpile.

[דף נג עמוד א] גמרא ר' חמא בר עוקבה בשם ר' יוסי בן חנינה כדי לפרסמו להודיע שקילקל בו

(d)

(gemara) - R. Chama bar Ukva quoting R. Yosi ben Chanina: (if the Korban became Tameh, it was burned in public) in order to publicize that it had become ruined.

אמר הריני שורפו לפני הבירה מעצי עצמו אין שומעין לו

(e)

If a person said, "I will burn it in front of the Beis HaMikdash using my own wood'' - we do not listen to him (in order to prevent embarrassing those that do not have).

לא צורכה דלא אמר הריני שורפו על גגי מעצי עצמי כל שכן אין שומעין לו

(f)

Certainly if he said, "I will burn it on my roof using my own wood'' - we do not listen to him.

רבי ירמיה בשם רבי הילא להודיע לבוא אחריו שהוא צוייקן

(g)

R. Yirmiyah quoting R. Hila: They allowed him (this miser whose Korban became Tameh in part) to use wood from the woodpile in order to inform those that follow him that he is miserly (as if they would also burn in front of the Mikdash using their own wood, they would not know that he is miserly as they would assume that it was his wood).

[דף סב עמוד ב (עוז והדר)] תדע לך בכל אתר לא צווח ליה צוייקן וכא את צווח ליה צוייקן

(h)

Support: In all other cases we do not call him a miser, but in this Mishnah we do (as here Chazal were concerned that if we do not allow him to use the woodpile, he would refrain from burning it).

קל הקילו באכסניי

(i)

(the Mishnah taught eariler that one who realized that he had removed Kodesh meat from Yerushalayim should return and burn it in front of the Mikdash using wood from the woodpile. This implies that even a minor part of the Korban that became invalid is burned with wood from the woodpile. This is why we say that) it is a leniency that they gave for a guest (who does not have a supply of wood) that he can use the woodpile.

אמר ר' יוחנן מגדל היה עומד בהר הבית והיה קרוי בירה

(j)

(what is the "Birah''?) - R. Yochanan said that there was a tower on Har Habayis called the "Birah''.

רבי שמעון בן לקיש אמר כל הר הבית קרוי בירה (דברי הימים א כט) ולעשות הכל ולבנות הבירה אשר הכינותי

(k)

R''SBL said that all of Har HaBayis was called "the Birah'' as the Pasuk states (divrei Hayamim 1, 29, 19), "and to do everything and to build the "Birah'' that I prepared''.

2)

WHEN THE PESACH WAS TAKEN OUT OR IT BECAME TAMEH (yerushalmi Halachah 9 Daf 53a)

משנה הפסח שיצא או שנטמא ישרף מיד

(a)

(mishnah) A Korban Pesach that was removed [from Yerushalayim] or became Tameh must be burned immediately.

נטמאו הבעלים או שמתו תעובר צורתו ויצא לבית השריפה

(b)

If the owners became Tameh or died, they must leave it until it becomes Nosar and then take it out to burn.

ר''י בן ברוקה אומר אף ישרף מיד שאין לו אוכלין

(c)

R.Yochanan ben Beroka: (if the owners became Tameh or died before the blood was thrown) it should be burned immediately as nobody can eat it.

גמרא תני רבי חייה פסול פגול גוף הוא ונשרף מיד

(d)

(gemara - Beraisa - R. Chiya): Pigul is an internal disqualification and it is immediately burned.

נטמאו בעלים או שמתו פסול מכשיר טעון צורה

(e)

If the owners became Tameh or died, it is an external disqualification and it must first be left until it becomes Nosar.

א''ר יוסה מתניתא אמרה כן פסח שיצא או שנטמא פסול גוף הוא ונשרף מיד נטמאו הבעלים או שמתו פסול מכשיר הוא וטעון צורה

(f)

Support - Beraisa (r. Yosa): A Pesach that was taken out (of Yerushalayim) or it became Tameh, it is an internal disqualification and it is immediately burned. If the owners became Tameh or died, it is an external disqualification and must first be left until it becomes Nosar.

רבי חמא בר עוקבה בשם ר' יוסה בר חנינה רבי נחמיה ר' יוחנן ברוקה שניהם אמרו דבר אחד

(g)

R. Chama bar Ukva quoting R. Yosa bar Chanina: R. Nechemia and R. Yochanan Beroka have the same opinion.

דתני מפני אנינות שרפוהו לכך נאמר כאלה דברי ר' נחמיה

1.

(Beraisa) - R.Nechemia says - (on the 8th day of the Milu'im, Moshe became upset with Elazar and Isamar that they had not eaten from the Chatas offering and had instead) burned it. (Aharon justified that they were not able to eat) since they were in a state of Aninus (- impurity due to the recent death of his other two sons, Nadav and Avihu) - this is the understanding of the Pasuk (vayikra 10, 19) that states "Ka'Eileh''.

ר' 'יהודה ור' שמעון אומרים וכי מפני אנינות נשרף והא לא נשרף אלא מפני הטומאה שאילו מפני אנינות נשרף היה לשלשתן לישרף

2.

R. Yehuda and R. Shimon say - Did they burn it because of Aninus? They burned it becaue of Tumah (that it touched the goat of Rosh Chodesh that had been sacrificed on the 1st day of the Milu'im)! If they would have burned it because of Aninus, they would have burned all three (the goats of Rosh Chodesh, of Nachshon and of the Milu'im)!

דבר אחר והלא פינחס היה עמהן

i.

Alternatively, (r. Yehuda and R. Shimon asked) - surely Pinchas was with them, who was a Kohen and not an Onen?!

דבר אחר והלא מותר לאוכלו מבערב

ii.

Alternatively, (r. Yehuda and R. Shimon asked) - surely it could have been eaten that evening?!

על דעתיה דרבי נחמיה ישרוף (וימנה)[לשלשתן]

(h)

Question: According to R. Nechemya, why did they not burn all three goats (see above)?

[דף סג עמוד א (עוז והדר)] סבר רבי נחמיה שלשתן נשרפו

(i)

Answer: According to R. Nechemya, they did burn all three.

היה לו לפינחס לוכל

(j)

Question: Pinchas should have eaten it (see above)?

ועדיין לא נתמנה כהן גדול

(k)

Answer: Pinchas had not been appointed Kohen Gadol yet.

והיה לו לאהרן לוכל מבערב

(l)

Question: So Aharon should have eaten it in the evening!

סבר רבי נחמיה אנינה לילה תורה

(m)

Answer: R. Nechemya holds that the Aninus of the evening is Biblical.

[דף נג עמוד ב] א''ר ירמיה אוף ר''י הגלילי דכוותהון תנינן תמן

(n)

R. Yirmiyah: Even R. Yosi HaGlili agrees to R. Nechemya and R. Yochanan B''B (see above (g)) as the Mishnah in Zevachim teaches -

חטאת שקיבל דמה בשני כוסות יצא אחד מהן לחוץ הפנימי כשר

1.

If the blood of a Chatas offering was received in two cups, if one cup was taken out of the Temple Courtyard, the other one is valid.

נכנס אחד מהן לפנים ר''י הגלילי מכשיר בחיצון וחכמים פוסלין

2.

If one cup was brought into the Heichal building, R. Yosi HaGlili says that the other one is valid and Chachamim say that it is invalid.

אמר ר''י הגלילי ומה אם במקום שמחשבה פוסלת בחוץ לא עשה בה המשואר כיוצא מקום שאין המחשבה פוסלת בפנים אינו דין שלא נעשה המשואר כנכנס

3.

R. Yosi HaGlili said - If in a place when wrong intent disqualifies outside, they did disqualify that which remains [inside]; in a place when wrong intent does not disqualify inside (the Heichal), certainly that which remains [outside] is not considered as if it had been brought inside!

נכנס לכפר

4.

If the blood was brought into the Heichal to be sprinkled inside (for atonement) -

אע''פ שלא כפר פסול דברי ר''א

i.

R. Eliezer says - even if it did not atone (as it was not sprinkled), it is invalid.

ר' שמעון אומר עד שיכפר

ii.

R. Shimon says - it is invalid only if it was sprinkled.

ר' יודה אומר אם הכניס ושגג כשר

iii.

R. Yehuda says - if he mistakenly entered, even if it was sprinkled, it is valid.

כל הדמים פסולין שנתנו ע''ג המזבח לא הורצה הציץ אלא טמא שהציץ מרצה על טמא ואינו מרצה על היוצא

5.

For all invalid bloods that were put onto the Altar, the Tzitz does not bring about Divine favor, except if they became Tameh; as the Tzitz only brings atonement for something that became Tameh but not for something that was disqualified by taking it out of the Temple Courtyard.

א''ר לעזר תדע לך שהוא פסול מכשיר כר''י הגלילי שהרי חבירו מבחוץ והוא כשר

(o)

R. Elazar: You should know that according to R. Yosi HaGlili, blood taken out is an external disqualification, since we find that the other cup which is outside in the Temple Courtyard is valid (as if it would be an internal disqualification, even the other cup would become invalid).

תדע לך שהוא פסול גוף כרבנן שהרי הוא במחיצתו והוא פסול

(p)

But according to Rabbanan, it is an internal disqualification, as the one that remained in the Courtyard becomes invalid.

רבנן דרשין מפני שלא נכנס מקצת דמה לפנים (ויקרא י) אכול תאכלו אתה. הא אם נכנס מקצת דמה לפנים יפה עשיתם ששרפתם

(q)

Rabbanan expound - since some of its blood was not taken inside, the Pasuk (vayikra 10, 18), "...you shall surely eat it'' can be applied; but if some of its blood was taken inside, you are correct to have burned it.

[דף סג עמוד ב (עוז והדר)] ר''י הגלילי דרש מפני שלא נכנס כל דמה לפנים אכל תאכלו אתה האם אם נכנס כל דמה לפנים יפה עשיתם ששרפתם

(r)

R. Yosi HaGlili expounds - since all of its blood was not taken inside, "...you shall surely eat it''; but if all of it had been taken inside, you are correct to have burned it.

מה טעמא דרבנן (ויקרא ו) וכל חטאת אשר יובא מדמה אפילו מקצת דמה

(s)

Reasoning of Rabbanan: The Pasuk states (vayikra 6, 23), "And any Chatas that from its blood was brought'' - even some of its blood.

מה טעמא דר''י הגלילי (ויקרא י) הן לא הובא את דמה אל הקדש פנימה

(t)

Reasoning of R. Yosi HaGlili: The Pasuk states (vayikra 10, 18), "Its blood was not brought inside to the Holy place'' - this implies 'all of its blood'.

כהדא דתני

(u)

This is like the Beraisa that teaches -

ר''י הגלילי אומר אין כל העניין הזה מדבר אלא בפרים הנשרפין ובשעירים הנשרפים ליתן עליהן לא תעשה על אכילתן וללמד שפסוליהן נשרפין בבית הבירה

1.

R. Yosi HaGlili says - This section only refers to the cows that are burned and the goats that are burned, to apply a negative commandment against eating them and to teach that if they become disqualified, they are burned in the Beis HaMikdash (i.e. in Kedushah).

אמרו לו מניין לחטאת שאם נכנס מדמה לפנים תהא פסולה לא מן הדין קרייא הן לא הובא את דמה אל הקדש פנימה הא אינו אומר מדמה אלא כל דמה

2.

Rabbanan respond - What is the source to say that if all of its blood of the Chatas was taken inside, that it is invalid? Is it not from the Pasuk that states (ibid), "Its blood was not brought inside to the Holy place''; the Pasuk refers not to some but to all of its blood.

תשובה לר' עקיבה שהיה אומר מדמה לא כל דמה

(v)

(the following statement refers to another Beraisa that appears to use a different Pasuk to teach that according to R. Yosi HaGlili, all of its blood must brought inside to make the Chatas invalid, as the Pasuk states, "VeChol Chatas''. Therefore the Gemara resolves that this second Pasuk was used only) to answer according to R. Akiva who said that "from its blood'' means "all of its blood''.