Daf Ditty Pesachim 81 Revised

וֹפְרוֹשְׂו יֵנְפִל הָריִבַּה :Daf Ditty Pesachim 81 If all of it or most of it contracted ritual impurity it is to be incinerated before the Shrine using wood from the fire stack. If a small part of it contracted ritual impurity, and what was left over, it is to be incinerated in their own courtyards or on their own roofs using their own wood. The miserly incinerate it before the Shrine so as to benefit from the wood of the fire stack. 1: We have already learned that a paschal lamb whose meat had contracted ritual impurity was thus invalidated and could not serve as the paschal lamb to be eaten, together with matzah and maror, at the Seder service. If all or most of the animal were contaminated by ritual impurity (through contact with a corpse) the carcass had to be disposed of by incineration. This was done immediately, using wood from the stock that fueled the fire stack on the main altar. According to the Talmud of Eretz-Israel [Pesaĥim 53a] it was done this way - immediately and publicly - in order to shame the owner who had been so careless as to let his animal contract ritual impurity. If only part of the animal had contracted ritual impurity that too had to be incinerated, but this could be done privately and at the owner's expense. 2: Concerning the consumption of the paschal lamb at the seder service the Torah stipulates: You shall let nothing of it remain until the morning; but that which remains of it until the morning you shall burn with fire. 1 Our mishnah explains that if the subscription party was not able to consume a whole lamb the 'left- overs' were to be treated in similar fashion: they were to be burned privately at the owner's expense. 3: Our mishnah adds one further detail. It seems that certain people who could have burned their left- overs privately chose to do so publicly, in the Bet Mikdash, at public expense, using the fire stack wood instead of their own. This is put down to miserliness on their part. 4: Our mishnah uses a Hebrew word 'Birah'. In 3:8 I translated this term as 'shrine', an oblique reference to the Bet Mikdash. This is based on the interpretation of the Hebrew term by the 2nd century Amora of Eretz-Israel Resh Lakish, who says in the Talmud of Eretz-Israel [Pesaĥim 53a] that the term is biblical [1Chronicles 29:19] and there clearly indicates the Bet Mikdash. His even greater friend, Rabbi Yoĥanan, holds that the Hebrew word 'Birah' is an attempt to render the Greek word 'Baris'. According to Yosef ben-Matityahu (Josephus) this was a citadel overlooking the courtyard of the Bet Mikdash. In Roman times it was called Antonia and was used to house troops to prevent and deal with riots [Antiquities of the Jews 15:11:4]. The whole context of our mishnah strongly suggests to me that Resh Lakish is correct in this matter. MISHNA: If the whole Paschal lamb or most of it became ritually impure, one burns it before the Temple [habira] with wood from the arrangement of wood on the altar that was given to the owners of the Paschal lamb for this purpose. If a minority of it became impure, and similarly, with regard to the parts of the Paschal lamb that are leftover, which must be burned, the owners of the Paschal lamb burn it in their courtyards or on their roofs, with their own wood. Only the miserly, who want to save the expenditure of wood, burn it before the Temple in order to benefit from the wood of the arrangement. RASHI 2 GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What is the reason that the Paschal lamb must be burned before the Temple and that those who prefer to burn it elsewhere are not permitted to do so? Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina said: In order to embarrass them. Presumably, the reason that most of the offering became impure is because the owners were not sufficiently careful with it. Therefore, the Sages decreed that it be burned in a public place. Tosafos 'סות ה"ד אמטנ ובור יפרוש ן א ותו נפל י בה י הר צעמ י כ ו ' יצמ ריב Tosfos presents the reason for this and elaborates. הרנא םעטה םושמ בל'ד תיב יד ן הנתמ 'םהילע .'הל נמ דתבב' ומםט The reason seems to be because of the principle 'Lev Beis-Din Masneh aleihem' (Beis-Din stipulate that it is in order to do so). פל י והוקיקזהש ופרושל נפל י הריבה ידכ יבל ושי , אל והוחירטה איבהל םיצע ולשמ , ו לוכי תונהל לשמ .שדקה לשמ תונהל לוכי ו , ולשמ םיצע איבהל והוחירטה אל , ושי יבל ידכ הריבה י נפל ופרושל והוקיקזהש Because since they forced him to burn it in front of the Beis-ha'Mikdash in order to embarrass him, they did not trouble him to bring his own wood, and permitted him to use that of Hekdesh. כון ןינקיצב ונתה ומכ ןכ , אלו ,לכל ךותמד נקיצ ןתו ויה ןיענמנ ופרושלמ , יתאו ידיל .הריבע ידיל יתאו , ופרושלמ ןיענמנ ויה ןתו נקיצ ךותמד ,לכל אלו , ןכ ומכ ונתה ןינקיצב כון Likewise, they made a similar condition, permitting misers to do so (and not everybody) because on account of their miserliness, they will refrain from burning it, and will come to sin. ודואק נקיצב ןי וא יאנסכאב , ירמאדכ ' ארמגב והואשעד נקיצכ ;ןי לבא םדא ,רחא .אל ,רחא םדא לבא ;ןי נקיצכ והואשעד ארמגב ' ירמאדכ , יאנסכאב וא ןי נקיצב ודואק And Davka misers and guests (whom they gave the Din of misers), as the Gemara explains, but nobody else. וליאופ ןאמל תילד היל ק"פב תועובשד .אי( ) בל' ד"ב הנתמ ?'ןהילע הנתמ ד"ב בל' ) .אי( תועובשד And although there is an opinion in the first Perek of Shevu'os (11.) that does not hold of 'Leiv Beis-Din Masneh aleihen' ... "המ נברקב תו ישידקד תשודק ,ףוגה לבא תשודקב םימד ילוכ אמלע ודומ .וו מע לכםמ שדבלא ףג שד ייק ונרב ה That pertains exclusively to Korbanos that are Kadosh Kedushas ha'Guf, but when it comes to Kedushas Damim, they too, agree. Steinzaltz 3 Sefer He Aruch letter zaddi GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What is the reason that the Paschal lamb must be burned before the Temple and that those who prefer to burn it elsewhere are not permitted to do so? Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina said: In order to embarrass them. Presumably, the reason that most of the offering became impure is because the owners were not sufficiently careful with it. Therefore, the Sages decreed that it be burned in a public place. RASHI 4 It was stated in the mishna that if a minority of it became ritually impure, and similarly, if part of it was left over, it is burned in the owners’ courtyards with their own wood. The Gemara raises a contradiction based on what was taught in a different mishna: And similarly, with regard to one who left Jerusalem and remembers that there is consecrated meat in his hand, which is now disqualified because it has left Jerusalem and must therefore be burned, if he passed Mount Scopus, he burns the meat at the site where he is located, and he need not return to burn it in Jerusalem; and if he has not yet passed Mount Scopus, he must return and burn it before the Temple with wood from the arrangement. The mishna’s formulation uses the word remembered, implying that not only a large piece of meat that became ritually impure or somehow disqualified, but even a piece that is so small that it could become forgotten, must be burnt with wood from the arrangement. Rav Ḥama bar Ukva said: It is not difficult. Here, where it is stated that one burns it in the Temple with wood from the arrangement, it is referring to a visitor who does not live in Jerusalem or have wood there, and he may therefore use wood from the arrangement. While there, where it is stated that one burns it at home with one’s own wood, it is referring to a resident of Jerusalem. The “Tzaikanim” would burn it in front of the bira in order to derive benefit from the wood of the ma’aracha. Rashi explains, “Tzaikanim”—they are ‘atzaranim’ i.e., stingy people. We learn here that ‘atzaranim’ is the negative character trait of stinginess. 5 However, in Chullin (1) it says that for a righteous person, his money is more beloved to him than his own body, for he never takes any stolen properties.1 The Meiri (2) there explains, it is proper for them to limit their spending. What then is the difference between stinginess and frugality? In Orchos Tzadikim (3) it says not to waste money for unnecessary things. However, when performing a mitzvah, one should spend a lot. Based on this, in our sugya, the Tzaikanim are holding back their money in a way that causes a loss to hekdesh. Therefore, this is looked upon as stinginess. Nonetheless, even when performing a mitzvah with one’s money, for example lending money, one must be careful not to cause himself a loss. For example, one should lend the money in the presence of witnesses (4) or with a document5 or at least with a signature of the borrower (6). Therefore, if Shimon comes to Reuven (7) and says, “lend me $100 but I won’t be able to pay you back all at once but in very small increments,” Reuven does not have an obligation to lend the money.

Load more