(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 Mizbe'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)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'Chen 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)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. In 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 disagrees. What reason does he give?
(c)What is the difference between the two reasons?
(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)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)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 while staying away from the Avodah for such a low wage); whereas the reason of putting him to shame will still apply.
(a)If a Pesach is taken outside the Azarah or becomes Tamei, it is burnt immediately. 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)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)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)?
(b)We learn that Kodshim Kalim which became Tamei must be burnt from the Pasuk in Tzav "v'ha'Basar Asher Yiga b'Chol Tamei, Lo Ye'achel, ba'Esh Tisaref". How do we know that the same applies to Kodshei Kodashim which became Tamei?
(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 b'Linah (at nightfall) or that was spilt?
(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 Kodashim 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 Kodashim, 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 b'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?
(a)What does Rebbi Shimon learn from the Pasuk in Tzav "ba'Kodesh ba'Esh Tisaref"?
(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 l'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)Rebbi Shimon learns from the Pasuk in Tzav "ba'Kodesh ba'Esh 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 Kodashim and the Eimurim of Kodshim Kalim (which have the Din of Kodshei Kodashim) 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)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)The Gemara finally learns the obligation to burn Kodshim Kalim that are Pesulan ba'Kodesh from a Halachah l'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)Now that we learn the burning of all Kodshim that were Pesulan ba'Kodesh from Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai, what do we learn from "ba'Kodesh ba'Esh Tisaref"?
(b)And why do we need the Pasuk "v'ha'Basar Asher Yiga b'Chol Tamei, Lo Ye'achel, ba'Esh Tisaref"?
(a)From "ba'Kodesh ba'Esh Tisaref" we learn that Kodshei Kodashim that became Pasul must be burned in the Azarah.
(b)And we learn from the Pasuk "v'ha'Basar Asher Yiga b'Chol Tamei, Lo Ye'achel, ba'Esh 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)According to Rav Yosef's initial text, the Tana Kama agrees with Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah, who holds that even Nitme'u Be'alim 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'Be'alim'. What exactly, is the Gemara's disproof?
(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 the Zerikah?
(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 Be'alim is burned immediately, if the Tum'ah preceded the Zerikah), because of the Tana Kama's Lashon 'be'Dam u've'Be'alim', which suggests that Be'alim, 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 b'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)Which three Chata'os were brought on that day? What was their status?
(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 Pasul)?
(a)The three Chata'os that were brought on that day were - that of Rosh Chodesh, that of the Milu'im and that of Nachshon. The first as Kodshei Doros, the later two Kodshei Sha'ah.
(b)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 Hash-m 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).
(c)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!'