Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Pesachim 82

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 gate?"

(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 morning.

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.)

82b

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.

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?

ANSWERS:

(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.