THOUGHTS ON THE DAILY DAF
brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Har Nof
Rosh Kollel: Rav Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question about the Daf
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
1) THE "TEMEI'IM" STANDING AT THE EASTERN GATE
OPINIONS: The Gemara cites a Mishnah in Tamid which states that at a certain
point during the morning service in the Beis ha'Mikdash, the Rosh ha'Ma'amad
stands all of the Temei'im (the people who are Tamei) near the eastern gate.
Rav Yosef says that this is done in order to embarrass the Temei'im, and
Rava says that it is done to prevent them from being suspected.
Who are these Temei'im, and what would we suspect them of, according to
Rava, and why would we want to embarrass them, according to Rav Yosef? In
addition, which gate is the Mishnah referring to when it says "the eastern
(a) RASHI explains that the Mishnah is referring to the gate at the entrance
to *Har ha'Bayis*. The "Temei'im" refers to the *Kohanim* who were supposed
to perform the Avodah but became Tamei. They had to stand at the entrance to
Har ha'Bayis either for their own benefit, so that everyone would see them
standing outside and not suspect that they are not in the Mikdash because
they went out to work somewhere else (this is the reason according to Rava),
or in order to embarrass them for not being careful to avoid becoming Tamei
(according to Rav Yosef).
In what way were these Kohanim Tamei? They could not be Tamei with Tum'as
Zivah, because then there would be no reason to embarrass them. The state of
Zav is a pathological condition beyond one's control. It must be referring
to Tum'as Mes and Tum'as Keri. If so, why were they kept outside the gate of
Har ha'Bayis? Those types of Tum'ah are allowed to go into the Machaneh
Leviyah inside Har ha'Bayis! Rashi explains that they had to stand at the
gate of Har ha'Bayis so that "everyone would see them there." If they stood
at the gate of the Azarah, not everyone would see them because the Azarah
had many gates through which people could enter, whereas everyone that came
to the Har ha'Bayis entered through this particular gate. (Actually, the
Mishnah in Midos says that people coming to the Har ha'Bayis would also
enter from the *south* and not the *east*. Apparently the Gemara, according
to Rashi, means the *easternmost* of the southern gates.)
(b) TOSFOS (DH Hayah) explains that the Mishnah is referring to the gate of
the *Ezras Nashim*, inside Har ha'Bayis. The "Temei'im" are Kohanim who are
Tamei with Tum'as Keri. The Rabanan made a Gezeirah that a Ba'al Keri is not
allowed to walk into the Ezras Nashim (Kelim 1:8), and therefore they had to
stand by the gate of the Ezras Nashim, to show that they were Ba'alei Keri
and were not permitted to go further.
(c) The RAMBAM (Perush ha'Mishnayos, Tamid 5:6; Hilchos Temidin u'Musafin
6:5) explains that the gate mentioned in the Mishnah is referring to *Sha'ar
Nikanor*, which was between the Ezras Nashim and the Ezras Yisrael. The
RASHASH and BRISKER RAV (Hil. Mechusrei Kaparah 3) points out that the SIFRI
(to Bamidbar 5:16) says this explicitly.
According to the Rambam, who were the Temei'im who were made to stand there?
The Rambam explains that the Mechusarei Kaparah (i.e. those who had to bring
a Korban to complete their Taharah process), such as the Metzora'im, were
brought there in order that they may bring their Korbanos immediately, in
The MAHARSHA in our Sugya points out that the Rambam's explanation seems to
conflict with our Gemara, which says that they were stood there either
because of suspicion or in order to embarrass them.
The Rambam in Hilchos Temidin u'Musafin is more specific and says that "they
are positioned there because of suspicion (Chashad), so that everyone should
know that they did not yet bring their Korban." It seems that the Rambam
understood "Mipnei he'Chashad" to mean that we suspect that they might go
eat Kodshim without having brought their Korbanos. By requiring them to
stand at the eastern gate, everyone will know that they are Tamei and will
prevent them from eating Kodshim until they have become Tahor.
However, according to the Rambam, what does Rav Yosef's reason mean -- "in
order to embarrass them?" Why should we want to embarrass the Metzora? It
cannot be because he spoke Lashon ha'Ra, because he is presently in the
process of atonement. Also, the Rambam does not limit this practice to
Metzora'im, but says that it refers to all Temei'im who must bring a Korban,
including Zavim, for whom (as we explained above) there is absolutely no
reason to embarrass. Perhaps the Rambam understood that "in order to
embarrass them" means that they should be embarrassed now to leave the
Azarah *without bringing their Korbanos*. Their shame should motivate them
to bring the Korban as soon as possible, just like Rava's reason of
suspicion is in order for other people to know that they may not eat from
Kodshim until they bring their Korbanos.
How, then, does the Rambam understand the two cases the Gemara gives as
practical differences between Rav Yosef's reason and Rava's reason? The
Gemara says that the difference between the reasons of Rav Yosef and Rava
will be in a case of a "Mefunak" and in a case of one who braids ropes.
According to the Rambam, what difference does it make if the person is a
"Mefunak" or if he is a rope-maker?
Perhaps the Rambam understood the Gemara in the same way that the RABEINU
CHANANEL explains it. Rabeinu Chananel explains that one who braids ropes
means that he is braiding ropes *while he is standing at the gate*. Others
will not know that he is standing there because he is Tamei and he needs to
be motivated to bring his Korban, but they will assume that he is standing
there because he found a convenient place to stand and do his work.
Therefore, if the reason is because of suspicion, a Metzora is not permitted
to braid rope at the gate, since it will not be obvious to all that he is
there because he is Tamei and has not yet brought his Korban. If the reason
is in order to embarrass him, then it is alright if he braids ropes, because
even though others might not realize why he is standing there, he still
knows that he is there because he has not yet brought his Korban.
As far as a "Mefunak" is concerned, it could be that people will not know
realize that he is there because of Tum'ah, for they assume he is standing
there because it is a shady, comfortable place to loiter (as the Gemara
later (85b) says, that gates of Yerushalayim were not sanctified so that
Metzora'im could stand under its shade in the sun, or be protected by its
overhang in the rain). Rava's reason, then, would not apply, although Rav
Yosef's would. (This, however, requires further clarification.)
2) BURNING A KORBAN WHEN ITS BLOOD WAS TAKEN OUT OF THE MIKDASH
QUESTION: The Gemara asks that even though we learn from the Chatas of
Aharon that a Korban whose meat was brought out of its designated area must
be burned, we do not have a source that if the Korban's *blood* was brought
out that the Korban must be burned.
3) THE "HORA'AS SHA'AH" FOR AHARON TO BURN THE KORBAN CHATAS OF ROSH CHODESH
RASHI says that although we do not have a source that the Korban is burned
when the blood is brought out, we do have a source that the blood is Pasul
when it is brought out, for we learn it from the Chatas of Aharon. The case
of the Chatas of Aharon teaches us that just like the flesh of the Korban
which leaves its designated area is Pasul, so, too, the blood is Pasul if it
leaves its designated area.
What is the difference between burning the Korban and invalidating the
Korban? If we compare the blood to the meat that was taken out of the
Azarah, then just like the blood is Pasul if it is taken out of its place,
so, too, the Korban should be burned, like the meat is, when it is taken
out! Why, according to Rashi, is the Gemara searching for a source that the
blood is burned? (RASHASH -- see Menachem Meshiv Nefesh)
ANSWER: When the *flesh* of the Korban is taken out of its area, then if the
Korban becomes Pasul as a result, it is the flesh itself that must be
burned. If the *blood* is taken out of its area, although we learn that it
also becomes Pasul because it went out of its designated place, we cannot
learn that the Korban must be burned. There is no reason to burn the *flesh*
-- it was the blood that went out and not the flesh! That is what Rashi
means; we know from the verse discussing flesh that the if the blood leaves
its proper place it is Pasul for Zerikah (and the Korban is disqualified
since Zerikah was not performed), but we do not know that the *flesh of the
Korban is burned* if the blood becomes Pasul.
Perhaps the Rashash did not accept this reasoning due to an inference from
the Halachah of "Nichnas Damo," when the blood was brought into the Kodesh
Ha'Kodoshim (in contrast to the Pesul of being brought *outside* of the
Mikdash). We learn from Aharon that the entire Korban is burned even when
the *blood alone* was brought into the Kodesh ha'Kodoshim. (Moving the
*meat* into the Kodesh ha'Kodoshim does not disqualify the Korban.) If so,
let that also be the source that the entire Korban is burned when the
*blood* is brought out of the Mikdash.
The two cases, though, are not comparable. In the case of Nichnas Damo, when
the blood went into the Kodesh ha'Kodoshim, it ruins the entire Korban,
because it is "a Korban whose blood has gone into the Kodesh ha'Kodoshim.".
It is not merely a problem in the blood, preventing the Zerikah from being
done, but a problem with the whole Korban. In contrast, when the blood is
taken *out* of the Mikdash, it is only a Pesul in the blood, and not in the
Korban. The Korban is merely missing its blood, but it is not Pasul. (M.
Kornfeld -- see also Chazon Yechezkel)
QUESTION: The Gemara says that the reason Aharon burned the Chatas (the Rosh
Chodesh Se'ir) immediately and did not wait for "Ibur Tzurah" was not
because that is the Halachah, but because he had a direct order to do so as
a "Hora'as Sha'ah," a ruling for the needs and circumstances of that moment.
A Hora'as Sha'ah is normally issued by a Navi who receives the injunction
from Hashem. In this case, though, who was the Navi who gave Aharon this
command? It could not have been Moshe Rabeinu, because he did not even know
that the Se'ir had been burned! Obviously, then, it was not he who gave the
order. If Hashem spoke directly to Aharon and gave him the command to burn
it immediately, then Aharon, when questioned by Moshe, should have answered
that Hashem told him to burn it. Furthermore, how could it be that Hashem
gave Aharon a command without telling Moshe?
(a) RASHI (83a, DH Amar Lahen) says that Hashem had told Moshe earlier that
if, in general, a Korban being brought by Aharon becomes Tamei or if the
blood is brought into the Kodesh Ha'Kodoshim, it has to be burned
immediately. Since that command was only said with regard to the Korbanos of
Aharon, it was considered a Hora'as Sha'ah.
(b) TOSFOS (DH Rebbi Yochanan) explains that "Hora'as Sha'ah" here does not
mean that a Navi had a prophecy. Rather, it means that Aharon, as a Halachic
authority, issued a Halachic ruling for himself on logical grounds. He
decided that since the Korban became Tamei with a Pesul ha'Guf, it should be
burned right away and not be left to become Nosar. The Halachah that Hashem
commanded for all future generations, though, is that it wait until it
becomes Nosar (Ibur Tzurah), according to Tana d'Vei Rabah Avuha.