Daf 74

1) You need to use a pomegranate branch as a spit to roast the Korban Pesach. You can't have a metal spit since the Torah says to roast the Pesach from a fire, and not from something else like hot metal. Although you might say that, since the metal spit is buried in the meat, and the fire can't get to it to heat it up, still, the middle of the spit is heated from the ends that are exposed to the fire, as we say by metal: if some of it is hot, all of it will become hot. (However, R' Yehuda holds it's Kosher with the metal spit, as we say that the fire can't get to it just as we see that a fire doesn't get to a wooden spit to burn it.)

2) You can't use a palm branch, since there are rows of indentations that surround it; the liquid of the branch will leak out and cook the Pesach. You also can't use a fig branch, since it's moist inside, liquid will seep out and cook it. You can't use a branch from the Allon, carob or sycamore trees, since they have bumps on them, you need to smooth them out with a knife, and liquid will escape from those exposed areas. Although a pomegranate branch also has bumps, but their bumps are smoother and don't need to be scraped by a knife. Alternatively, we refer to a branch in the first year that doesn't have bumps. We must say that the place where you cut it off the tree is sticking out of the animal, or liquid will escape through the cut area.

3) You stick the branch through the opening of the place it was Shechted [Tosfos: so that the thick side of the branch that's sticking out of the opening should be placed lower in order that the mouth be pointing down so the blood could flow out.] R' Yossi Haglili holds that they put the feet and intestines into the body's cavity. R' Akiva disagrees since it would be like cooking them. Rather, it's placed next to its head on the outside.

4) Therefore, nowadays, when we can't cook an animal Pesach night the same way they roasted the Pesach in the days of the Mikdash, you may roast it this way if you would cut off one limb, or you cook one limb while it's still on the rest of the animal (and then roast it all together). [Tosfos says: even so, it seems that this is only the L'chatchila way to roast the Pesach, but B'dieved, even if you cut it into pieces and roast it, it's Kosher. (However, since it's only a B'dieved way of roasting, they didn't forbid roasting this way nowadays.) A proof to this: later, we'll bring opinions whether you can bring a Safeik Korban Pesach on condition, if he was already Yoitza Korban Pesach, it will be a Shlomim. Although you need to separate the breast and leg during the roasting since, if it would be a Shlomim, it could only be eaten by Kohanim and the roasting will forbid the rest to Yisraelim. Also, later we permit if he cut it up and roasted it on top of coals. However, Rashi there says that he didn't completely separated the pieces, but they're all still slightly attached.]

5) Rabbah permits roasting unsalted meats stuffed in the cavity of other meats. Although the meat will absorb the blood from the other one, but the same way that it absorbed, it will release the blood too.

6) [Rashi says that, when you roast meat to release its blood, you need to slightly salt it first to help in the blood's release. However Tosfos disagrees. After all, we see that roasting releases blood better than salting. As we see that salting doesn't release all of the liver's blood, and it's forbidden to cook afterwards, but you can cook a liver that was roasted. Even if you didn't end up roasting it all that's needed, it's still permitted since the blood that didn't come out yet is permitted, as we permit eating raw meat without salting. We also allow eating meat that the blood was sealed in by cooking in vinegar or hot water. Although we say that someone transgresses a Lav if he eats the blood in limbs, that's only after it comes out of the limb. Whenever the Gemara says about salting for roasting, it was not a Halachic salting but they were just accustomed to salt it.]

7) [The same way we only permit meat roasted under liver B'dieved although we say that usually the blood drips off, since there is too much blood in the liver to permit, we can't allow it L'chatchlia just because "the same way it absorbs the blood, it will release the blood." Although we allow it L'chatchila by the Korban Pesach, that's because we give a special disposition by Pesach. This is even true to those who even forbid the bottom meat B'dieved, it's only rabbinically forbidden, and they permitted it for the Korban Pesach. Alternatively, they must have salted the liver before they roasted it in the Pesach. This is not only so according to R' Tam who permits cooking liver after it's salted, but even according to us who usually forbid. After all, even though there is still blood inside, there is not an abundance of blood as there was before, and you can roast it above meat.]

8) You can't bring a proof to the rule "the same way it absorbs blood, it will release blood" from the fact that we put the intestines inside the cavity of the Pesach, since we can say that since the place where you Shechted it is pointing downwards, the blood will drain towards that hole and won't get absorbed in the meat.[Bach in first Tosfos: you need it pointing down even according to the side that "what it absorbs it will release," since you need to drain what's in the veins.]

9) We also can't prove it from the case of a heart that wasn't cut before roasting to drain its blood, that we say that you cut it open afterwards and let it drain, and we don't say that it absorbed during the roasting; since the heart is different than other meats since it's smooth. [Tosfos says: specifically the blood, which is thick, won't absorb. However, it would absorb from non-Kosher fatty gravy, since they flow throughout the whole piece, they absorb in the heart too. Especially according to R' Tam who says that, since we conclude that the Halacha is that "the same way it absorbs, it releases," so we don't need to say that the heart is too smooth to absorb, the fatty Issur will forbid it.]

10) We permit roasting a piece of meat that has a fine flour dough surrounding it, whether the dough gets red through the roasting, or not. [Tosfos brings a proof from here that when you stuff meat in the cavity of another meat, even if the outer meat was salted and not the inner one, or viceversa, it's Kosher. After all, here we permit the flour because it released the blood as it absorbs even though it doesn't have any of its own blood. However, this is not compared to meat that fell into blood, since that's like salting it in a utensil without holes.] This is not a proof that we say that it releases the blood as it absorbs it, since fine flour is different since they crumb up, and there's enough place for the blood to flow between the crumbs.

11) There is no proof to if from what we disallow if it's covered with regular white flour unless it ends up as clear as glass; that's because it's very hard and doesn't allow the releasing of the blood. (We conclude that the Halacha is, if it's surrounded by all other flour (that's between the fine flour and the white flour), it's still Kosher unless it becomes red.)

12) [Rashi explains this as a meat pie, that we apply the rule of "the same way it absorbs it releases." Tosfos disagrees, since the place it's on in the oven is always dry. We only allow it by a fine flour covering because it's made from a liquid batter, but not a pie made from hard dough.]

13) The one who forbids meat that's stuffed with meat, forbids even when the cavity's opening is facing down. [Tosfos says: this is not similar to our Mishna that we allow roasting the Pesach when the hole is lower, since the place of the Shechita is wide and drains better.] The one who permits, permits even if the opening of the cavity is facing up. The Halacha is like those who permit.

14) A piece of meat that became redden (since blood swelled up in it), or the male scrotum [Rashi: that also reddened; Tosfos: even without reddening, it has a membrane over it that's forbidden since it's full of blood, as it says in Chulin]), everyone agrees that you can cut it up (to drain the blood) and salt it for cooking, or you can roast it on a spit over a fire so that the blood drains. However, if it's put on coals; R' Acha permits since the blood will be drawn to the fire, and Raveina forbids since the coals will seal the blood inside it.

15) The jugular in the neck is permitted to cook according to all if its cut up and salted. It's also permitted if roasted on a spit over a fire if the neck is facing downwards. R' Acha and Raveina argue again if its placed on the coals; and the Halacha is like R' Acha who was lenient in these three Halachos.

16) If you have a piece of meat that reddens, its 'Chailu' is forbidden. [Rashi's first explanation of 'Chailu' is its juices. However Tosfos disagrees. After all, if it's completely roasted, why would the juices be forbidden? If it wasn't completely roasted, why would the meat be permitted? After all, you can't consider the blood left in like blood that never left the meat, like we see Raveina forbade if the blood gets sealed in by the coals. So, we must consider it as blood that left the piece. Also, we see this word later refers to vinegar, so we should assume it means that too here.

Rashi's second explanation that they sealed it in vinegar after it was roasted. However, Tosfos still disagrees since, if the vinegar is forbidden, the meat should be forbidden too. Rather, we must explain like the Riva: we're placing regular non-reddened raw meat into the vinegar, but it doesn't stay in it for long; if it doesn't become red, it hadn't released any blood, and it had sealed the blood in, and it's permitted. However if you left it in long, if the vinegar becomes red, everything is forbidden. However, if it doesn't become red], the unnamed opinion in the Gemara permits the vinegar, but Raveina forbids since it's impossible that some red streaks shouldn't seep out [Tosfos: however, it's a very small amount that we don't say that the blood will then, in turn, come back and forbid the meat.]

17) If you seal meat with vinegar once, you can't seal other meat with it since the power of the vinegar weakens. However, you can seal off with naturally weak vinegar. Although it's naturally weak, but it's in its full power.

Daf 75

18) You can't roast it over a grate, but if there is a big hole between bars, you can put the spit on both bars and roast the Pesach between the bars.

18a) According to the opinion that bread baked in an oven fueled by peels of Orlah fruits is forbidden; we have an inquiry if it still forbids after you shovel out all the coals. [Tosfos says: although they admit that it's permitted if it was cooked over coals, and even if you say that they only allowed with dim coals, but it's still more of the prohibition than shoveling out all the coals; we must say that we consider the earthenware walls of the oven that was heated by fire to be like fire. However, the coals are hot by themselves, and not because they were heated by the fire.

Although the Yerushalmi allows roasting a Pesach in an earthenware oven, so it's considered as fire, or else it would be Pasul for being roasted through some other means; that's different since there is actual fire there, so we say the fire is the main heat, and the Pesach is mainly heated from it and not from the hot walls. The purpose of having the walls is to keep in the heat of the coals.]

R' Ada b. Ahava concludes that it's permitted. [Tosfos has an unanswered question: if we say that the walls are like the fire, then it shouldn't be better than when the fire is there from a torch baking it, which is forbidden.]

19) Although we need the Pasuk to say twice by a Korban Pesach "roasted by fire" to exclude roasting in an oven that the coals were all swept out; implying that all other Halachos that doesn't have this Drasha will consider it as real fire; we must say that the Torah reveals this Halacha by Pesach that it's not really fire, and we'll extrapolate it to the rest of the Torah. Alternatively, by a Korban Pesach, all you need it to be is fire, so without the Pasuk, we'll say that it's really fire. However, by fuels that are prohibited to have pleasure from, the prohibition is on the wood (i.e., fuel) and it's only forbidden while the wood is still there.

20) Rebbi permits a Korban Pesach that was cut and roasted on top of coals. This proves that coals are considered fire. We have a Braisa that learns that a Tzaras formed by touching a coal is a Michva (a Tzaras from being burned by fire) from a Pasuk. [Tosfos: you can't say that the Braisa needs the Pasuk for dim coals, since Braisos referring to 'coals' refer to flaming coals. The difference in Halacha whether it's classified as a Michva from a burn, or it's a Tzaras from a regular hit (Shchin), although they both have the same Halachos, is if it combines to a Shchin for the Shiur, or to a Michva for a Shiur.] Even though this might sound that, without a Drasha, coals are not considered fire, [Tosfos: according to the first answer earlier, we can say that we extrapolate that coals are fire to all Halachos of the Torah from Tzaras. According to the second answer earlier, we can answer] we only need a Pasuk for red hot metal coals, but not for wood coals.

21) Even though metal coals are considered fire regarding the burning execution, that we execute by putting molten lead heated by a fire down the throat but that's only allowed with an extra Pasuk of "you shall burn" to include it. The only reason the Pasuk needs to say 'fire' by the execution, (although with the extra words, we include everything even what's not technically fire), to exclude mined lead (which is boiling from the ground) since it's not even heated through fire.

22) Raveina answers the Braisa by Michva: it hadn't learned coals are like fire from a Drasha, but from the simple meaning of the word fire. The Drasha was only to include boiling hot plaster and lime. [Tosfos concludes with a question: earlier, we needed a Drasha by roasting a Korban Pesach to say that the oven walls are not like fire (but regularly they're fire), yet, here, we need a Drasha to say that plaster and lime heated up by fire is like fire (but regularly it isn't fire), and there is no reason to say that they're different than the oven's wall.]

23) (You need to burn the Korbanos i.e., the bulls that are to be burned outside the Mikdash, with fire, and in the place that you dump the ashes of the Deshen, even if those ashes aren't there. You still need to help in the burning even if the fire already caught onto most of it.)

24) When the Kohein Gadol on Yom Kippur brings coals for the Ketoras, he can't take dim coals, since the Torah called the coals 'fire.' You also need them to be flaming when you take them, (and not to have half of them dim, that will flame up by the time he enters the Kodesh Hakadoshim) since the Pasuk says "take coals of fire." [Tosfos: however you don't need the Pasuk to say that you can't have it half dimmed when entering the Kodesh Hakadoshim, since this would be a bad way to serve your master, and you wouldn't do it before a human king, so, of course you shouldn't do it before the KIng of kings]

25) If the Korban Pesach touches the earthenware oven (and that area is now roasting by the hot walls, and not from the fire), you need to remove a Klipa (i.e., a peel's worth). If some of the gravy drips on the oven, and then goes back into the Korban, you need to remove a Netila (which is more, a finger's worth). [Tosfos says: since there is a lot of gravy in these drips. However, when it touches the wall, it only forbids a minute amount of gravy within the Pesach, and that can only forbid a very small amount, like we'll say later regarding smearing the Pesach with Trumah oil.]

26) If some of the gravy drips in flour, you need to remove a fist-full of the flour to remove the forbidden gravy. If you smear Trumah oil on the Pesach that was designated for non-Kohanim; if it's still raw, you just need to wash it off. If it's roasted, you need to remove a Klipa [Tosfos: implying, even if it's cold, similar to the contrasted raw meat. Since it's now soft, it absorbs more than when it was raw.]

Daf 76

27) If you have two foods, one permitted and one forbidden; if the scenario is that hot food falls on top of hot food, then it's completely forbidden (since the permitted food will absorb taste from the forbidden food). If both are cold, they're permitted. If only one of them was hot; Rav says that the top food will win out (and would forbid if the top is hot, and it would remain permitted if the top one was cold). Shmuel says that the bottom food wins out. The Gemara asks on Shmuel from the Mishna of having the gravy drip on the floor of the oven, or into the flour, why would it forbid since the bottom is cold? The Gemara answers: we refer to a case where the oven and flour were hot.

28) [R' Chananel's text: but if the bottom would be cold, you wouldn't need to take a fist full, but just a Netila. However, Rashi erases it, since it was cold, it's not heated by something else besides a fire. However, R' Tam defends it, even if it's not roasted through some other means, it's still only partially roasted, and the Torah forbids a Pesach that's partially roasted. (You wouldn't be able to finish roasting it by putting it in the oven since the flour would also heat up and roast the gravy, and it would be roasted by something that's not fire.) We must be referring to a case where it wasn't roasted completely yet, or else it wouldn't be forbidden if it would be heated up by something else besides fire. After all, how else can you cut the Pesach with a knife when its hot? (Although we forbid cooking after roasting, that's because we have an explicit Drasha to Pasul it.)]

29) [Tosfos says: you can't forbid the Pesach since it's heated by the spit just like the oven's wall and hot flour forbids, since the wood doesn't retain heat like earthenware and flour. Alternatively, the spit is not effected by the fire from the inside like the oven's wall and flour that are exposed to the fire.]

30) [Tosfos says that the Mishna's first clause is not difficult to Shmuel that forbids when it touches the walls, (and that's why the Gemara only asks from the second clause) since we conclude it absorbs a Klipa amount, we can also say that the wall can heat up a Klipa amount too. Alternatively, we can say that it touched the upper part of the oven's wall, which it overpowers. It was only difficult from the second clause where it talks about the gravy dripping, which always drips down.]

31) The Gemara asks on Shmuel: why smearing Trumah oil upon the Pesach forbid only a Klipa if the bottom is hot? After all, it should spread at least a Netila. [Tosfos points out that we must refer to the case when it was removed from the oven, or else the heat of the oven would heat up the oil and it would be difficult even to Rav who says the top overpowers.] The Gemara answers: smearing oil is different, since it's only a small amount, it only seeps in a Klipa.

32) We have a Braisa that supports Shmuel that cold in hot forbids completely. Hot in cold forbids only a Klipa's worth since, as the top cools down, it absorbs slightly. The same applies when meat falls into milk. [Tosfos says: this is a Chiddush that the milk is permitted even though you can't remove a Klipa. However, the Riva argues and needs sixty times the Klipa in the milk to permit it.]

33) Pickling is like cooking, and salting is like roasting. However, it's only if it's not edible because of its salt. [Rashi explains: not exactly inedible, but as long as it ruins its taste.] Even if it's still edible, it's only permitted by raw meat, but you need a Klipa by roasted meat. If the [Rashi: roasted] meat has cracks or was spiced, it's completely forbidden.

34) Rav holds that the smells of the roasting foods is considered something (and if it's forbidden, it could be absorbed in other foods and forbid it). Therefore, even a fatty piece of Kosher meat (that gives off such smells) that is roasted with a lean Neveila meat becomes forbidden. After all, the smells of the fatty Kosher meat fatten up the lean Neveila meat, and then the Treifa will forbid the Kosher one with its smells. Levi holds that smells are nothing and don't ever forbid even if the Neveila is fatty.

35) Although we have a Braisa that forbids roasting two Pesachs in one oven, even if one is a sheep and the other is a goat, since they might mistakenly switch the Korbanos and eat from a Pesach they weren't designated for, implying that you don't need to worry that one will absorb from the other; Rav must explain it that we refer to a case where the ash and coals form a partition between the two Pesachs that block the smells. [Tosfos says: from here, it's difficult to Rashi's opinion that Levi only permits B'dieved, why didn't we ask on Levi too how can they be in the oven together L'chatchila (if it wasn't for the worry they'll exchange the Pesachs). Furthermore, it's difficult, why can't Rav answer that both Pesachs were lean and there's no smells?]

36) The Gemara suggests that it's a Tannaic argument. If you have hot bread upon a barrel of forbidden wine; R' Meir forbids it (since it absorbs its smells), R' Yehuda permits (since it doesn't absorb smells) and R' Yossi permits a wheat bread, but not a barley bread since they absorb.

37) The Gemara concludes: according to Levi, you definitely need to conclude that it's a Tannaic argument. However, we can explain all of them according to Rav: if the barrel is open and the bread is hot, then everyone will hold it will absorb. if it's closed and the bread is cold, everyone agrees that it won't absorb. the argument is only when it's hot bread on a closed barrel, or it's a cold bread on an open barrel. Therefore, since hot meat in a hot oven is similar to a hot bread over an open barrel; all the Tannaim will agree that it absorbs smells. [Rashi says: even though we can fit Rav according to all Tannaim, and Levi only can hold like one of them, the Halacha is like Levi since Rava in Mesechta Avaoda Zara holds like him.]

Rava from Prezika forbids a bread baked in the same oven with meat to be eaten with a milky dip. Also, a fish roasted in the same oven as meat is forbidden with this milky dip. [Tosfos quotes R' Tam that this would seem that the Halacha is like Rav. Rava in Mesechta Avoda Zara is no proof that he holds like Levi, as Tosfos explains there. However, Tosfos concludes, you can bake a meat pie in the same oven as bread since the meat is covered with the dough, and it's like items in pots that don't forbid through smells. Tosfos' Rebbi holds that our ovens are very big and the smells get diluted as it spreads throughout the oven and wouldn't forbid.] However, Mar b. R' Ashi forbade the fish completely since it was roasted with meat since it's unhealthy to smell, and it's also brings on Tzaras.

38) If you smear Maasar Sheini oil on the Pesach, you can't charge your group for it since you can't redeem Maasar Sheini in Yerushalayim. [Tosfos asks: that's only to redeem it so you'll eat it as Chulin, and here its just sold, but will be in the same Kedusha as before. Therefore, Tosfos says that some have the text that you can't sell it in Yerushalayim, and the rabbis decree to forbid it so that you won't come to redeem Maasar Sheini too. Alternatively, selling it is a disgrace to the Mitzvah, as we learned in the beginning of Maasar Sheini; you shouldn't sell it, use it as a collateral, or use it as a weight to weigh other items against it on a scale.]

39) The following Korbanos are brought in Tumah (if necessary), but can't be eaten: the Omer, the two loaves (Shtei Halechem) [Tosfos: even though there is nothing that goes on the Mizbeach, but the idea is that you can wave them], Lechem Hapanim, the communal Shlomim and any other communal Korban that has a set time to be brought, including the Rosh Chodesh goat (even though it's not called explicitly a Moed).

40) This excludes the Korban Chagiga, even though it's a communal Korban, still, since it has a time to make-up the Korban, it doesn't supersede Shabbos or Tumah. [Tosfos says that this shouldn't be the right text. After all, a Pesach has a make up time, i.e., Pesach Sheini. Also there is an opinion later in the Perek that, if he was Tamai the first day, he can't make up the Chagiga on the other days. Also, the only reason Chagiga doesn't supersede them is from a Drasha.]

Daf 77

41) R' Shimon holds that a communal Korban supersedes Tumah. (However, the problem of Tumah still remains, and we need to rely on the Tzitz to appease for the Tumah in order to make the Korban acceptable. Therefore, we must say that the Tzitz appeases even when it's not on the forehead of the Kohein Gadol, or else how can the Korbanos of Yom Kippur supersede Tumah if the Kohein Gadol doesn't wear the Tzitz then.)

However, R' Yehuda says that Tumah is permitted by a communal Korban. (Therefore, it doesn't need the Tzitz to appease for it to make it Kosher. Therefore, he holds the Tzitz only appeases for Tumah while it's on the forehead of the Kohein Gadol, since the Korbanos of Yom Kippur doesn't need the Tzitz to appease, there's no proof from there that it needs to appease when it's not on his forehead.) The Gemara concludes that R' Shimon's position is more probable [Tosfos: since R' Yossi, who we always Paskin like since his reasons are known to be the most understandable, agrees with him that communal Korbanos only supersede Shabbos. Tosfos concludes with a question: if Tumah is only superseded by a communal Korban through the Tzitz appeasing for it, how does it work when the Kohein is Tamai? After all, it only appeases for when the Korban is Tamai, and not when the Kohein bringing it is Tamai.]

42) R' Eliezer held that the Tzitz appeases for eating it in Tumah, and R' Yossi says it doesn't, and it's probable like him.

43) Therefore, if you hold that communal Korbanos supersede Tumah and the Tzitz doesn't appease for eating; our Mishna can't be R' Yehoshua who holds that you can't sprinkle a Korban's blood unless you also have meat that still exists and is Tahor. (R' Eliezer holds that it's enough just to have the blood around without any meat.) After all, the meat is Tamai, and you can't have it be appeased through the Tzitz. [Tosfos asks: even without R' Yehoshua, how can you bring the Shtei Halechem? After all, there is nothing brought from it on the Mizbeach, and it's only for eating. if you hold the Tzitz doesn't appease for eating, you shouldn't bring it when you're Tamai.]

44) You can't say that, since R' Yehoshua really holds that you either need meat that people eat, or the limbs that are brought on the Mizbeach for it "to eat," you may bring these Korbanos since, perhaps, the Tzitz appeases for bringing Tamai limbs on the Mizbeach. After all, it still would be difficult because of Menachos, which doesn't have any leftovers of the Korban (after the Kemitza which is in place of the blood) that's brought on the Mizbeach, but it's only eaten. After all, we see R' Yehoshua holds that the leftovers of Menachos must be Tahor to bring the Kemitza on the Mizbeach. You can't say that R' Yehoshua holds that the Tzitz appeases for eatings too, since he says not to sprinkle the blood if the meat and limbs are Tamai (and we see that he explicitly doesn't agree to the earlier thought that limbs on the Mizbeach might be appeased).

Daf 78

45) The Gemara answers: he only holds this way by individual Korbanos, but not by communal Korbanos. [Rashi says: since he holds that Tumah is permitted by communal Korbanos, and not only supersedes (so you don't need the Tzitz to appease). However, Tosfos disagrees. After all, if this would be so, the Gemara should have said explicitly that this is the reason. Also, it wouldn't fit into answering R' Yossi, (as we'll see soon). Rather, R' Yehoshua holds that the Tzitz appeases for eatings, but the rabbis decreed not to sprinkle the blood L'chatchila, but the Gemara says that, B'dieved, the Korban is Kosher. However, they didn't decree this for communal Korbanos and permitted sprinkling the blood L'chatchila. The reason they were more lenient by communal Korbanos than by individual Korbanos, since we see communal Korbanos has a greater leniency that we even allow when the Kohein bringing the Korban is Tamai, while we only allow the Tzitz to be appease by individual Korbanos when the Korban is Tamai, but not the Kohein.]

46) (Just as there is a Mitzvah to 'throw' blood on the Mizbeach, there's a Mitzvah to throw the meat (that will be burned) on the Mizbeach. Therefore, there was a small gap between the ramp and the Mizbeach to throw the meat on the Mizbeach. [Tosfos explains: you could fulfill the throwing without the gap, but it's only there as a reminder to throw the meat.])

47) (It's not permitted to eat the Korbanos' meat until after the sprinkling of the blood and after the burning of the limbs. However, the difference between them, if the limbs get lost before burning, it doesn't prevent the eating. If the blood is lost before sprinkling, it prevents the eating of the meat.)

48) The Gemara concludes that our Mishna can't be R' Yossi who holds that the Tzitz doesn't appease for eatings. Even if we say that he holds like R' Eliezer that you don't need any meat left over to sprinkle the blood; however, since it won't help to explain the Shtei Halechem that there is only eating by it, and it only makes sense if the Tzitz appeases for eatings.

(The practical difference according to R' Yossi that the Tzitz doesn't appease for eatings if he would hold of R' Eliezer that you don't need meat in the first place; in order to make it forbidden for Pigul, where it's only Assur because of Pigul if there is no other P'sul by it, and if it would appease eatings of Tumah, then we wouldn't consider this meat Pasul because of the Tumah, so the prohibition of Pigul can take effect. Alternatively, to say that the sprinkling of the blood permitted it, and it wouldn't have the prohibition of Meila on it anymore. [Tosfos asks: why don't we say that Shtei Halechem is also a difference?])

49) We can't say that it's like R' Yossi and that he holds that Tumah is permitted by communal Korbanos, and not that they only supersede Tumah. After all, we see is position that a Kohein Gadol (before Yom Kippur) and the Kohein that will burn the Parah Aduma that they separated from society eight days before; they need to sprinkle the Parah Aduma waters on him on the third and seventh day (because they may once had Tumah on them). If it would be true that Tumah would be permitted, they wouldn't need to make such precautionary actions. So, we must say he holds that it only supersedes Tumah, and therefore, we must remove any worry of him being Tamai if possible. (However, R' Meir requires to sprinkle them all seven days just because of a rabbinical stringency for these important jobs.)

50) The Gemara concludes that R' Yossi holds like R' Yehoshua that you may not sprinkle the blood until there is also meat, but B'dieved, he agrees with R' Eliezer, it's Kosher even if the meat is burned or lost. (However, R' Yehoshua only permits B'dieved if the meat was Tamai [Tosfos: since the Tzitz will appease for it.])

51) However, a Korban Pesach that's brought when they're Tamai is also eaten when it's Tamai, since its main Mitzvah is to eat it.

52) If the Pesach meat became Tamai, even if the fats (to burn on the Mizbeach) is Tahor, you don't sprinkle the blood (even according to R' Eliezer who doesn't usually require either to be Tahor, by Pesach he needs the meat Tahor since it's mainly for eating). However, by other Korbanos, you would sprinkle the blood as long as the fats are around to burn, even according to R' Yehoshua.

53) If you B'dieved sprinkle the Pesach's blood after its meat became Tamai; the Rabanan of R' Nosson says that it's even B'dieved not a valid Korban. After all, the Pasuk says "each man, according to what he can eat." It also says "according to the ones counted into the group." We learn from here that a Pesach can only be Shechted for those who were counted to be part of the group, and we have a Hekish from someone counted in the group to those who can eat it. [Tosfos points out: although having in mind people that aren't among the group, or can't eat, is only Pasul by Shechita, and not by sprinkling; still, since there are actually no one who can eat the Pesach by the sprinkling, which is the main Avodah, and the main Mitzvah is to eat it, it should logically be Pasul since we see that even thoughts for doing it for those who can't eat Pasuls during Shechita.]

Therefore, (since you have two P'sukim repeating itself, which tells us that you're not Yoitza otherwise), the Rabanan hold that; if you have one group counted on the Pesach, and you have enough meat for everyone to get a Kazayis, and then a second group joined and there's no longer a Kazayis for all; the first group is Yoitza, and not the second group, since they don't have a Kazayis for each one of them, and they need to bring a Pesach Sheini.

54) However, R' Nosson holds that the whole Jewish nation could be Yoitza with one Korban Pesach [Tosfos: B'dieved, but not L'chatchila. Therefore, he agrees that you can't sprinkle the blood L'chatchila.] Therefore, in the above case of two groups, even the second group is Yoitza, and even if the case where the meat is Tamai, they're Yoitza. (This is learned from what R' Nosson says the reason they're Yoitza is because it was sprinkled, that it's all depends on having the blood sprinkled. However, you can't learn it as a good comparison to the cases where there is not enough for a Kezayis for everyone. After all, perhaps they're only Yoitza when they have too many people on for each one to eat a Kazayis, since some could remove themselves from the group until there is enough for the remaining people to have a Kazayis, but he's not Yoitza if all the meat is unfit to everyone because it's Tamai. [Tosfos explains: Although the Rabanan hold no one could remove themselves after Shechita, he may hold like R' Shimon that they could remove themselves until the sprinkling. Alternatively, even if no one at that point can remove themselves, still some of the members could die or become Tamai before nightfall and there will be a Kazayis for all those who are left.]

55) According to R' Nosson, we need the Pasuk "each man, according to what he can eat," (since it's not coming as a second Pasuk telling us it needs to be eaten to say that, even B'dieved if it wasn't fit, it prevents him from being Yoitza); we must say that it teaches us that the ones who's on the Pesach must be fit to be able to eat Pesach meat in order to be Yoitza, even if the meat doesn't need to be edible.

56) We have a Braisa: if you Shechted for those who can eat it, and then sprinkle the blood for those who can't eat it, [Tosfos explains: i.e., they're not fit to eat, like when they're sick], it's Kosher. We don't need to say that it's R' Nosson [Tosfos: since we see that he doesn't need it to be fit for eating, it might be that he holds that if there is no eaters by sprinkling, it doesn't Pasul the Pesach. However, the Rabanan who require them to be edible also require that they still can eat by the sprinkling. (As we'll see later that R' Elazar holds that R' Nosson only needs the eaters to be fit by the Shechita, not by the sprinkling.)] However, it's not necessary, since the Rabanan could agree that thoughts of non-eaters is not Pasul by sprinkling [and even the Rabanan don't need him to be fit to eat by the sprinkling].

57) We have a Braisa: if the owner of the Pesach became sick by the sprinkling, (and of course it applies when he was already sick by the Shechita), you shouldn't sprinkle the blood. We don't need to say it's the Rabanan since even R' Nosson agrees, even though the meat doesn't need to be edible, the owner needs to be fit to eat.

58) We have a Braisa: if the person gets Tamai between the Shechita and sprinkling, you sprinkle the blood when it's Tahor. R' Elazar says that it must be like R' Nosson. However, R' Yochanan says that it can be like everyone and it refers to the whole community (like, when the Nassi dies between the Shechita and sprinkling, and most of the Jews became Tamai to him). The only reason why they can't eat it is because a decree that they may become Tamai the next year after sprinkling, and he'll think he may eat the Pesach Tamai like he ate it the year before (when they were Tamai by the sprinkling and it was considered as a Pesach brought in Tumah).

Daf 79

59) According to R' Yehoshua, you only sprinkle the blood if you have a full Kazayis left of the meat, or a full Kazayis left of the fats, but not if you have a half of Kazayis left from each one; unless it's from an Olah that they both get burned on the Mizbeach. You also don't sprinkle if you don't have either, even if you have the Mincha of the Nesachim that gets burned on the Mizbeach despite that it's also being brought for the Korban, but it doesn't count in this aspect.

60) The Korban Pesach is brought in Tumah, whether the Jews are Tamai, or the Kohanim are Tamai, or the Kli Shareis are Tamai. [Tosfos says: even though, when the Kohanim are Tamai, they can avoid touching the meat and the Yisraelim can eat the meat in Tahara; still, since the limbs brought on the Mizbeach will be Tamai, the meat are permitted in Tumah too. (see R' Akiva Eiger who asks: the Heter of Tumah is not dependent on whether the meat and limbs become Tamai, but since the Avodah is done in Tumah).]

61) R' Chisda says: when we say the Kli Shareis are Tamai, it's only when it's Tamai from a corpse, which makes the knife as Tamai as the corpse and will make the Kohein Tamai too. However, when it's only Tamai from a Sheretz, then it's a Rishon that doesn't make people Tamai, so only the meat is Tamai. Therefore, we shouldn't allow a Tamai person to eat the Tamai meat. Since eating Tamai meat is only a Lav, and a Tamai person eating Kodshim is stricter, that he gets Kareis. Since he holds that Pesach only supersedes Tumah, and it's not a complete Heter, you can't add onto the prohibition. [Tosfos says: even though it only supersedes Tumah, we don't require them to do it in a way to avoid as much Tumah, like to Shecht with real long knives so that the Tamai Kohanim that Shecht don't need to enter the Mikdash, or to get wooden knives that are not susceptible to Tumah since they're wooden utensils without a receptacle; since they don't have enough time to Shecht all the Pesachims in this fashion. After all, they don't have enough time to exchange the knives to Tahor ones.]

62) Rava permits Tamai people to eat even when Shechted with knives that became Tamai from a Sheretz. As there is a Hekish between eating Tamai Kodshim to a Tamai eating Kodshim. Therefore, it's only forbidden for a Tamai to eat Kodshim when it's also forbidden to eat Tamai Kodshim.

63) If you have exactly half of the Jews Tahor and half Tamai; Rav holds that half is like most, therefore, the Tahorim bring it by themselves in Tahor, and the Tamai bring it by themselves in Tumah, The first version of R' Kahana held that they're not like half, so the Tahorim bring on Pesach Rishon, and the Tamai on Pesach Sheini. In the second version, R' Kahana holds that the Tahorim bring them on the Rishon, and those who are Tamai don't bring it at all. [Tosfos explains: they don't bring it on the Rishon since they're not the majority, and not on the Sheini, since they're not the minority either. Therefore, they're totally exempt and you don't need to make one of the Tahor Tamai to obligate those who are Tamai. We can't say like Rav that the Tahorim bring it by themselves, and the Tamaim bring it by themselves, since he holds like R' Yehuda's opinion later that you can't have a Pesach brought differently, some Tamai and some Tahor, but not exactly like R' Yehuda who says that, therefore, they'll all bring it in Tumah.]

64) Those who hold that women are obligated in the Pesach Rishon, but Pesach Sheini is only voluntary to them; we can say that, if most men are Tamai, they can combine on the Rishon to the minority of Tahor men to make a majority of Tahorim. However, they don't combine for the Pesach Sheini, and those men who were Tamai on the Rishon are now the majority, and they can't bring a Pesach Sheini, so they're exempt.

65) The Tanna Kama held that half and half like Rav, that the Tahorim bring it by themselves, and the Tamaim by themselves. However, if there is one more person Tamai than Tahor they all bring it in Tumah. R' Elazar b. Masya holds that one Tamai person can't tip the scale, but you need two extra people Tamai for them all to bring in Tamai. R' Shimon holds that, even if one of the Shevatim are Tamai, they bring their Korbanos in Tumah, and the rest of the Shevatim bring it in Taharah, since even one Shevet is considered a 'Kahal.' R' Yehuda agrees with R' Shimon and he adds that they all need to bring it in Tumah since you can't have different people bring the Korban differently.

Daf 80

66) Rav held; if you have an opinion who holds like the Tanna Kama that half and half should bring it by themselves, but also holds like R' Yehuda that you can't bring the Korban Pesach differently; you need to make one of the Tahorim Tamai with a Sheretz so they can bring them all in Tumah. Ullah says that the only way to do it is to send one of the Tahorim to a far place. [Tosfos: but we don't just send one of the Tamaim away, since we're trying to make it that all the jews can bring their Korban on Pesach Rishon. However, we can't explain like the Rivan that the fact of being far away doesn't effect someone who is anyhow Tamai. After all, we only say that when, if he would be in Yershalayim, he wouldn't be bringing a Korban anyhow, but here, where there is half Tamaim, he would be Chayiv in a Korban.] He holds that you can't make him Tamai with a Sheretz, since he holds that you could Shecht and sprinkle the blood for someone who is Tamai from a Sheretz (since he could become Tahor by nightfall). We can't make him Tamai with a corpse, therefore, it will cause him not to be able to bring his Chagiga this Yom Tov. [Tosfos says: granted, we say that a Tamai can send his Korban, but a Korban Chagiga has a Hekish to going up to the Mikdash during the Regel. The same way the Tamai person is exempt from going to the Mikdash, he's exempt from a Chagiga too.] Although he can become Tahor on the last day of Yom Tov, and then he can bring his Korban, but Ullah holds that the make up is only to make up for the main obligation on the first day, and if he's exempt on the first day, he's exempt all the other days too. However, Rav who says to make him Tamai holds that he can bring it later, since they're not only a make up for the first day, but each day has its own obligation.

67) [Tosfos asks: according to Ullah, how can he bring a Korban Chagiga on the first day since he's outside the T'chum? After all if he can't bring it the first day, he can't bring it the other days. Tosfos answers: since T'chumim is only rabbinically forbidden, he's fit from the Torah to bring it. Alternatively, he was only sent away by the Shechita, but he comes back within the T'chum before nightfall. Alternatively, since he's not actually exempt on the first day, but he just can't bring it for a technicality that he's outside the T'chum. This is similar why they're Chayiv to bring a Chagiga if the first day fell out on Shabbos, an the Chagiga doesn't supersede Shabbos.]

68) R' Nachman asked on Ullah: who will listen to you to leave his house for Yom Tov to go far away? [Tosfos adds: this is not a problem to those who define "far away" as being outside the Azarah. Although R' Nachman holds that you can Shecht and sprinkle the blood for someone who's Tamai because of a Sheretz, but he can hold that you can make him Tamai from a corpse since he can hold that the Chagiga is not a make up for the first day, but each day has an equal obligation.]

69) If most people were Zavs (who don't bring their Pesach with this Tumah) and a minority of people who are Tamai from corpse; Rav says that the latter don't bring a Pesach Rishon (since they're not the majority), nor a Pesach Sheini (since the majority haven't brought a Pesach Rishon). However, Shmuel held that they need to bring the Pesach Rishon, since the Torah says that it must be brought. Rav answered: the Torah only says to bring it when it's Halachically possible. After all, how else would you explain that Pasuk if everyone is a Zav?

70) If most of the people were Tamai from a corpse, and a minority of people were Zavs, of course, those who were Tamai from a corpse bring it on Pesach Rishon. However, R' Huna says that Zavs can't bring the Pesach Sheini since there is no make up for a Pesach that's brought in Tumah. R' Ada b. Ahava holds that the Zavs can bring the Pesach Sheini. We don't need to say that they argue whether Pesach supersedes Tumah, or permitted by Tumah, (and if it's permitted, it's like it was brought as Tahor). Rather, we can say that everyone holds it only supersedes Tumah, and they argue with this logic whether you say that a Pesach that's brought in Tumah has a make up or not. [Tosfos explains: you shouldn't say that, just because it says "when an individual is Tamai (he brings a Pesach Sheini), that it comes to exclude when the majority is Tamai. Rather, it's only saying that individuals in general bring Pesach Sheinis, and not the majority of people.]

71) If a third are Zavs, a third are Tahorim, and a third are Tamai from a corpse; the latter don't bring Pesach Rishon since they're a minority, but they can't bring Pesach Sheini either since, with the Zavs, they're the majority. [Tosfos explains: this is only according to Rav, but Shmuel holds that you need to fulfill the Pasuk that the Jews bring the Korban Pesach. Therefore, since the majority are not Tahor, the Tamaim don't get pushed off to Pesach Sheini. (See R' ReShas {that the Mahrsha explanation is difficult, therefore} the explanation is: just like when the majority were Zavim, we ignore them and consider the Tamai from a corpse as if they're the whole amount of Jews, we should do the same here, and consider the remaining Tahorim and Tamai from a corpse as half and half, where everyone brings the Pesach by themselves.)]

72) The Tzitz appeases for Tumah in one instance whether it's done intentionally or unintentionally, and in another aspect, only if it was done unintentionally. Raveina says that it appeases whether he became Tamai intentionally or unintentionally, but it only appeases if he sprinkles the blood unintentionally (i.e., not realizing that he's Tamai). R' Shila holds the opposite. It only appeases if the original Tumah happened unintentionally, but it appeases for sprinkling the blood whether it was done intentionally or unintentionally.

73) [Rashi holds that the Tzitz appeases both for the blood and the meat. Tosfos quotes Riva: we must say it's like R' Nosson or else he's not Yoitza when the meat is inedible because of Tumah. If so, we must say that he's Yoitza if done intentionally from the Torah, since we can't differentiate from the Torah between intentionally or unintentionally. If so, how can we say that he brings a Pesach Sheini if he's Yoitza from the Torah? Tosfos answers: he's definitely Yoitza in all cases and can't bring a Pesach Sheini, but, the Rabanan decreed not to burn the limbs on the Mizbeach, and regarding that we'll consider it a Pasul Korban. However Riva explains: it doesn't appease the sprinkling of the blood in order to make the meat permitted to eat, but, of course you're Yoitza and you don't bring a Pesach Sheini.]

74) There is a Halacha that if there is "Tumah from the depths," i.e.,when the item that made him Tamai was hidden); the Pesach is Kosher. There's an inquiry whether if it's only Kosher when the owner was Tamai from it, or even if the Kohein who does the Avoda was Tamai from it.

75) We have a statement that they only permitted "Tumah from the depths" by a corpse. We don't need to say that it's coming to exclude a Tumah from a Sheretz [Tosfos: where you stuck your hand in straw that had a Sheretz in it. Otherwise, it couldn't make you Tamai since it's only Tamai through touching.] After all, if it did, then we can prove that this rule was said by the Kohein too, since there is no difference to the owner (since he holds that you can Shecht and sprinkle the blood for someone who's Tamai because of a Sheretz). [Tosfos says: you can't say the difference by the owner is that he Shechted the Pesach, since it would prove that it helps for a Tamai Shochet.] After all, we can say that it only comes to exclude a "Tumah from the depths"of a Zav (if they Shecht for him after he became Tahor on the seventh day, and then he sees again later that day, that he retroactively destroys his Taharah and it was as if he was Tamai the whole day).

76) At first, it seems that R' Yossi's opinion is not like that. As he says by the first two days of Zavah (where she needs a day of Taharah to be able to be Toivel and become Tahor), and she Toivels on the next day, or a Zav who saw twice, and he Toivels on the seventh day; and after their Teviela, they Shecht a Korban Pesach for them, and they see Tumah later that day, they don't bring a Pesach Sheini. You don't need to say that the Tzitz appeases for the "Tumah from the depths" of Zavs, but because he holds that they only become Tamai from that time on, and not retroactively. Although we see that R' Yossi agrees that they're Tamai retroactively, that's only rabbinical Tumah.

Daf 81

77) This is the same way that R' Oshiya explains R' Yochanan who says it doesn't retroactively ruin the Teveila, that he's saying like R' Yossi who only says he's Tamai from this time an on.

78) You can't even bring R' Yossi as a proof to our inquiry. Although we can't answer, according to him, like we answered before that we're excluding "Tumah from the depths" of Ziva, since there is no such Tumah, since he's only Tamai from when he sees and on. Therefore, we can only say that the difference is if he was Tamai from a Sheretz, but we're not forced to say that the only difference is to the Kohein. Since we can say that R' Yossi holds that you can't Shecht a Pesach and sprinkle its blood for a Tamai Sheretz, but it's Kosher if he was "Tamai from the depths."

79) According to R' Yossi, the only way a woman can be the "great Zava" (for seing three days in a row, if you can't connect the days, since we view that she's Tahor right away at the beginning of the next day, so its seeing is separated); we must say when she has a constant flow of blood, or that she saw two Bein Hashmasheses in a row. [Tosfos says: although nighttime is not given to be counted, (so it doesn't make a difference that there wasn't a moment at night that was clean from seeing blood), but our concern that there shouldn't be a moment at the end of the day that's clean from seeing blood that we'll say that we considered that small part of the day like a whole day. However, you can't say that the middle of the day is considered as part of the day that's clean, since we only consider part of a day like the full day if it's at the beginning of the day or the end of the day. This is not similar to the Kusims' opinion who counted the day the "Zava Gedola" stops seeing as the first clean day, since there, they're counting the part of the day as the first day of the count, while R' Yossi only allows it as the last day of the count.

We see similarly in Mesechta Rosh Hashana (that there is a difference between the beginning of counts and the ends) that we count the end of the first day a Nidda saw, but we don't count the beginning of the seventh day as the finish. (Granted, it's the opposite of what we're saying here about a Zava,)]

80) If the answer of our inquiry that "Tumah from the depths" is Kosher to the Kohein by both Pesach and Nazir, the same would apply to the Tamid since we'll learn it from a Gezeira Shava "Moed, Moed."

81) "Tumah from the depths" is permitted even when he finds out about it before sprinkling, he's allowed to L'chatchila sprinkle it [Tosfos quoting Tosefta: as long as it became known after Shechita.]

82) [Tosfos explains: this last Halacha would only apply to a Nazir according to the Rabanan who say that the Nazir's haircut doesn't prevent the Nazir to be atoned, but according to R' Eliezer who holds that it prevents the atonement, even if the Tumah was known after all the Korbanos were brought, as long as you know it before the haircut, it breaks the whole Naziris and he needs to start again, since it's its own action that you didn't start before you know about the Tumah. This is not like the Rabanan who say it all depends on the Korbanos, as long as you started bringing the Karbonos before you know, you could finish bringing them after you know about the Tumah.]

83) If a corpse is laying across a street, the Kohein passing over it is Tamai regarding Trumah if it's impossible to walk over without missing it. However, if it's possible to miss it, then he's not Tamai because it's only a Safeik Tumah in a Reshus Harabim. The same is even if it stretches across the street, but the body was broken, he's Tahor if it's possible that he walked in between the limbs. However, if it was buried in a grave, the grave combines all its space to make him Tamai, even if he doesn't pass over the actual body. Also, even if it's laying there, we only say he's Tahor if he's walking, but if he's riding, or he's carrying something heavy, where he spreads out his steps, it's impossible that he doesn't walk over it and he's Tamai.

84) "Tumah from the depths" refers to when no one in the world knows about it, like when you eventually find it buried under hay, dirt or pebbles. However, if it was passed over in the dark, or it's in an enclave, or under water, it's not considered a "Tumah from the depths." [Rashi explains: since he can peek through the water, it's not considered in this aspect as covered. Tosfos explains: only under dirt is considered as it's fit for nobody to know about it, but it's fit for people to know about it if it's under water.]

85) If the whole Pesach became Tamai, or, at least, most of it, you must burn it in the Mikdash (with the wood designated for the Mizbeach's bonfire) in order to embarrass him that he allowed it all to become Tamai. However, if it's only a minority of the Pesach that became Tamai, or Nossar, you burn it in your courtyard with your own wood. However, the misers would bring it to the Mikdash in order to benefit from the Mizbeach's wood. [Tosfos explains: (although you can't have benefit from Hekdesh, but Beis Din makes a condition that it wouldn't be Hekdesh if needed for these uses. (Even according to the opinion in Shvuos that Beis Din doesn't make such conditions, that's only on items that's body is actual Kodesh, like Korbanos, and not items that are only Kodesh for their worth.) However, they only made this condition when most of the Pesach was burnt so not to bother him to drag his own wood to the Mikdash, or for misers to make sure that it gets burnt. However, they never made such conditions for other people.]

86) The Gemara asks: If someone leaves Yerushalayim and remembers that he has Kodesh meat on him, if he already passed the place 'Tzofim,' he burns it in its place. Otherwise, he needs to return to the Mikdash to burn it, and he doesn't need to use his own wood (even though it's a minority of the Pesach). R' Pappa answers that this is only for the guests who were traveling, so we don't want to bother them too much, but someone who lives there, or a guest that wasn't yet travelling home must use their own wood. R' Zvid answers that it even applies to guests that weren't yet traveling home, since the rabbis gave them a status like the misers who don't need to use their own wood.

Daf 82

87) You can't burn from the Mizbeach's wood in their own courtyards, since they might have some leftovers, which might lead to them benefiting from it and transgress Meila. Also, you can't use your own wood in the Mikdash, so not to embarrass those who don't have their own wood, or, when you take your leftover wood home, people will suspect you of stealing from the Mikdash. The practical difference between the two reasons, if you use palm leaves or wood chips, which they didn't use on the Mizbeach, then no one will suspect that you're taking the Mizbeach's wood.

88) The head of the Mishmar needed to line the Tamai Kohanim [Tosfos: even the Baal Keris] outside the eastern gate [Tosfos: that's in front of the Ezras Nashim. Although a Baal Keri that's a T'vul Yom is forbidden in the Leviyim's camp; he's not forbidden in the whole camp, but only in the Ezras Nashim.] R' Yosef explains: in order to embarrass them for not being careful not to become Tamai. Rava says: so that they shouldn't be suspected that they didn't come up with the Mishmar because they're busy with their business. The practical difference between the two reasons, if he's known as someone who's unemployed, or has a lousy job, like to twist ropes, that the salary is not great and someone wouldn't refrain from coming to the Mishmar just to get that salary.

89) If a Pesach goes out of its Mechitza, or it became Tamai, you can burn it right away. However, if the owners become Tamai, or died, you need to first wait until "it loses its form" (i.e., left overnight to become Nossar) and burn it on the sixteenth of Nissan. R' Yochanan b. Broka says that you burn them all right away since there is no one who can eat it.

90) [Tosfos says: the logical assumption is; if the actual Korban becomes Pasul, you should burn it right away, but if it's a P'sul in the owner or the blood, you need to wait until "it loses its form" before you burn it. (You can't say that there is no Chiddush to that, and doesn't need to be learned from a Pasuk because you burn all Nossar, since I might say you only burn Nossar that was fit to eat up to the time of Nossar. Alternatively, I might think you may bury it before it becomes Nossar, so we're taught otherwise.) However, according to R' Yochanan b. Broka who says that you burn them in all cases], he has a Halacha L'Moshe M'sinai to teach us that. According to the Braisa that Rabbah b. Avuha taught that says that you need to wait until "it loses its form" for Pigul (that's a P'sul on the actual Korban), it's because he learns a Gezeira Shava of "Avon, Avon" from Nossar.

91) R' Yosef explains the argument between the Chachumim and R' Yochanan b. Broka if the owners became Tamai before the sprinkling of the blood, but if they became Tamai after the sprinkling, since there was a time it was fit for them to eat, everyone agrees that you need to wait until it "loses its form" (i.e., become Nossar).

92) R' Yochanan held that they argue even after the sprinkling. R' Yochanan b. Broka held like R' Nechemia that the reason Ahron burned his Korban because of Anininus (of his sons), which is a P'sul that comes after sprinkling. (After all, since a Kohein Gadol is allowed to do the Avodah while he's an Onain, and the P'sul is only afterwards, since he's not allowed to eat.) So, we see that you need to burn right away for a P'sul after sprinkling. [Tosfos says: don't say that it's a Haraos Shaah (i.e., a special P'sak) since the Parsha of what to do with Pasul Korbanos wasn't said yet. After all, we already said that the assumed logic is that you need to wait until it "loses its form," and they wouldn't decide to do against logic. Therefore, we must say that this is what the Torah commanded.]

Daf 83

93) Rabbah says that R' Yossi Haglili also held this way, since he holds that blood that needs to be sprinkled on the Mizbeach in the courtyard was brought into the Kodesh Hakadashim, it's Pasul, as it is said by Ahron's Chatos, and therefore, just like it says there, it's burned immediately. [Tosfos says: even though that was before sprinkling the blood, but Rabbah holds like R' Yochanan that we don't differentiate whether it's before, or after, sprinkling.]

[Rashi says: however, the Rabanan say not to burn it right away, and we don't learn from Ahron's Chatos since it's only done for that moment, and wasn't meant to be the Halacha for generations. Tosfos says: don't say that it was only done for a Korban that was commanded for the moment, but not for generations, since it was the Musaf goat of Rosh Chodesh. Rather, this was a Horas Shaah (i.e., a special P'sak given for that occasion, but it's not the P'sak forever.) However, this is difficult, since this defies logic why they should Paskin this way. After all, we say, logically, that a P'sul in the blood should be burned. Rather, we must say that they held that Moshe only admitted that they did well on not eating it, and not for burning it. However, Tosfos remains with a question: if so, how can the Rabanan learn from Ahron's Chatos that you burn it right away if you take it out of its boundaries? Perhaps Moshe only agreed that it's a reason not to eat it, but didn't agree to the burning.])

94) However, R' Yochanan didn't want say that R' Yossi Haglili held like R' Yochanan b. Broka. After all, we only see he holds that way by a P'sul blood that we can say it's more logic to compare it to a P'sul in the meat since they're from one body. However, it's no proof what he would hold when the P'sul is from the owners.

95) R' Yitzchok holds that bones of Kodshim that hold Nossar (i.e., that house marrow that become Nossar) makes your hands Tamai the same way Nossar does, since it was a base to the Nossar.

96) We can't bring a proof from the fact that you need to burn the bones of the Nossar of a Korban Pesach (and you just don't break the bone to remove the marrow to burn). It's not necessary to say the reason is because it housed Nossar, but it's because he holds like R' Yaakov who holds there is a prohibition to break Korban Pesach bones after it became Pasul since it had a time that it was Kosher. (However R' Shimon argues and holds, even if it was Kosher, there's no prohibition to break the bones after it becomes Pasul.) [Tosfos says: we don't say that you don't need to burn it, since you can remove the marrow by burning part of the bone with a coal, and then you can scoop out the marrow. After all, we would need to worry that the coal may cause the bone to crack, and you'll transgress the prohibition of breaking the bones. Alternatively, we don't bother you that much to require taking out the marrow that way.]

97) We find that there is no need to burn the bones of Kodshim except for the Korban Pesach (because it's forbidden to break its bones). You don't need to say that the reason that you don't burn the bones of regular Korbanos is because we don't say the bones are like Nossar. Rather, it's like Nossar, and we refer to a case where you find them empty of the marrow. Therefore, regularly you can assume that it was removed before it became Nossar so that you can eat the marrow before it's Nossar. Only by Pesach you assume that it was removed after it's Nossar (since it's forbidden to break it beforehand) and the bones held Nossar, so you need to burn it.

98) R' Zvid says that we refer to finding piles of bones, and you find that the marrow was already removed from the top ones; therefore, you can assume by other Korbanos that the rest was also removed, so you don't need to inspect them, and by a Korban Pesach, you need to assume that they weren't broken and you need to inspect them if they have their marrow. (However, if you find them all to have their marrow removed, you don't need to worry that they were removed after it was Nossar, so you wouldn't need to burn it from a Safeik.)

99) Rav holds that all sinews are considered like meat and must be burned if it becomes Nossar except for sinew in the neck, which is equivalent to wood, since it's hard.

100) Although the Mishna says that you need to burn the sinew, (and it couldn't mean regular sinew, since that's too simple that it's like meat and needs to be burned, and the Mishna doesn't need to teach us that), you don't need to say that it refers to the neck sinew. Rather, it could refer to the Gid Hanashe, and it's like R' Yehuda who says that the Torah only forbade the Gid on one side of the animal, and the intellect tells us it's the right side. (Therefore, on the side that it's only probable to say that it's the right side, but he's still in doubt and wouldn't allow eating the left Gid, we can say that, since both will be leftover, you need to burn both because one of them is really edible, and therefore, Nossar. Even according to the side that the Torah's intellect says definitely it's the right side, still, we can explain it referring to a case where the two Gids got mixed up, so they'll both will be left over, and you need to burn both to make sure you burned the Kosher one.) Alternatively, we refer to the fats of the Gid Hanashe (that's only rabbinically forbidden). Alternatively, according to Shmuel who says that the "outer Gid" (when it's no longer stuck to the bone, but enters the meat) is only rabbinically forbidden, it means to burn that part of the Gid. After all, he holds that the Torah only forbids the "inner Gid" that's attached to the femur.

101) You need to burn the Nossar on the first day of Chol Hamoed, but not on Yom Tov morning. We don't say that the Asei to burn the Nossar supersedes the Lav of Melacha on Yom Tov. One reason; because of the Pasuk that seems to give a second morning to burn it. Alternatively, the Pasuk says that only an Olah of Shabbos is burned on Shabbos, but not one from the weekday. [Tosfos says: although we say that you can burn the limbs of weekday Korbanos on Shabbos; that's only if it was already burning on the Mizbeach and the fire already took hold of it. At that point, it's becomes the 'bread' of the Mizbeach and it's as if its a Korban for today. The Riva was in doubt whether this only applies to limbs of the Tamid, since that type of Korban usually supersedes Shabbos, but not for the limbs of other Korbanos, or not.]

Alternatively, it's learned from the words "by itself" that excludes a Milah not on the eighth day that it doesn't supersede Yom Tov, although I might have thought it did with a Kal V'chomer. [Rashi: since Milah supersedes Tzaras that supersedes Avodah and Avodah supersedes Shabbos. Tosfos disagrees since Rava in Mesechta Shabbos doesn't hold of that Kal V'chomer. Rather, Tosfos explains: just like voluntary Korbanos supersede Yom Tov even though Hashem didn't make thirteen treaties with us over them, so, of course Milah that has those treaties should supersede Yom Tov.] (Therefore, the same way Milah not on its eighth day doesn't supersede Yom Tov since you can wait to do it on the next day, so too the Mitzvah of burning Nossar can wait.)

Alternatively, Yom Tov has also an Asei to rest, so an Asei can't supersede a Lav and an Asei. [Tosfos points out that the previous answer also held of this, and this is why they would need the Kal V'chomer to assume that Milah not on the eighth day supersedes Yom Tov and we don't just say that it supersedes because of an Asei supersedes a Lav.]

Daf 84

102) Anything that's eaten in a large ox can be eaten from the Korban Pesach in the young goat, but if it can't be eaten in a large ox, then it can't be eaten on a Korban Pesach despite being edible on a young goat. Then the Mishna says that you can eat the tops of the foreleg and the cartilage (even though they're inedible in a large ox). Rabbah answers: we must say that it's a Tannaic argument. Rava answers: we mean to say; anything eaten in a large ox by boiling it for along time can be eaten in a Pesach, which includes that top of the foreleg and cartilage. We have a Braisa like that.

103) Regarding sinews that will get hard [Rashi: the neck sinew. Tosfos disagrees, since the sinew here seems to be completely edible by a Pesach, but the neck sinew were hard even when they're a Pesach, i.e., when they're young a,nd wasn't eaten, and thus, it was always left over. Rather, these are the sinews in the spine. However, the totally edible sinews are those that are in the meat.] R' Yochanan originally held that we should follow the status that it's in now, and you can count people on the Pesach to give it to them as their portion since they're eaten on a large ox with a lot of boiling. However, Reish Lakish says that you follow its end status. His proof is that the Mishna only counts the tops of the forelegs and the cartilage as articles that you may eat because of that rule, and not these sinews. [Tosfos explains: although that it does have the ability to be eaten in a large ox with a lot of boiling, but it's worse than those other parts since it doesn't taste like meat. R' Yochanan held that it can't be a factor, because even Reish Lakish would agree that you can eat it if it wasn't going to eventually harden even though it doesn't taste like meat. The Rashba explains Reish Lakish: the top of the forelegs and the cartilage never hardens in a goat, only by an ox, so we can be lenient. However, these sinews will harden eventually in a goat, so you can't eat it even when it's soft since it's a stronger reason that it should take the status of what it will eventually turn into.]

104) However, R' Yochanan reverses his opinion; as Reish Lakish brought a Mishna that the soft skin of a calf is susceptible to Tumah for being food, and R' Yochanan says that it's a single Tannaic opinion, but the majority holds that it's not susceptible since we follow its status of its end when it will harden. [Tosfos says: although Reish Lakish by the calf seems to contradict what he said here by sinews, we must say that he holds that the calf skin is more like meat since it has a stronger taste of meat than the sinew has. However, the Yerushalmi explains: Reish Lakish is stricter by a Korban Pesach since the Pasuk says 'eat the meat,' which excludes sinew. However, regularly, we would give it the status of meat.]

105) You don't get Malkos for leaving over and making Nossar. According to R' Yehuda, since the Lav is fixed with an Asei (to burn it) According to R' Yaakov, since it's a Lav that doesn't have an action.

106) You only get Malkos from breaking a bone from a Kosher Pesach, and not from a Pasul one. The Tanna Kama learns it from "you shouldn't break it," i.e., it, as a Kosher Pesach, but not as a Pasul one. Rebbi learns it from the Hekish from breaking to eating, so you're only Chayiv if you break a bone from a Pesach that you can eat.

107) The practical difference between them; R' Yirmiya says in the case where the Pesach was brought when everyone was Tamai. As the Pesach is truely Pasul (since he holds that the Tumah is superseded, and not really permitted), but it could be eaten. R' Yosef holds that everyone agrees that there is no problem of breaking bones by Tamai. After all, Rebbi is a leniency that, even if it's Kosher, it's not prohibited unless it's also edible. Rather the difference is if it once had a time that it was Kosher (even if it's Pasul now). The Tanna Kama holds that it's still considered a Kosher Korban since it was once Kosher, but Rebbi would consider it inedible.

108) Abaya holds that once it's now Pasul, it's not considered Kosher just because it was once Kosher. Rather, the difference is; if he broke it before dark. The Tanna Kama holds it to be a Kosher Korban, and Rebbi held that it's not edible now. Although we say that you can't eat the marrow in the femur since it can't be broken open to get to, the reason according to Rebbi that you can't break it before nightfall is a decree that you might come to break it after nightfall. This is similar to the reason why, according to Abaya, you can't burn a hole through it at night with a coal in order to access the marrow, since you might make it crack, and it would be breaking it. (However, Rava held the problem is that you might burn some of the marrow, and you would be destroying Hekdesh.)

109) (However, you may be counted as part of the group to eat the brains since that could be accessed without braking the skull, by dragging it out through the ear.)

110) R' Pappa held: since it will be ready to eat at night, everyone holds that you can't break a bone before nightfall. The difference between them: if part of a limb goes out of its boundaries, it's still considered Kosher, but it's not fit to eat. [Tosfos remains with a question: why is it considered more Kosher than edible? After all, whatever left that can't be eaten, it's because it's no longer Kosher.]

111) R' Sheishes held that what left the boundaries are Pasul and it doesn't have the prohibition to break its bones. The difference between them: if you broke it before its completely roasted. It's a Kosher Korban, but it's not fit to eat. R' Nachman b. Yitzchok says: in this case, everyone holds that there is a problem of breaking bones since it's fit to be eaten after its roasted. Rather, the difference is: if he broke the tailbone. It's Kosher but it's not edible since it's brought on the Mizbeach.

112) R' Ashi says that everyone agrees that you're not Chayiv for breaking the tailbone since it's never meant for people to eat. Rather, they argue whether you need a Kazayis of meat on the bone. After all, it's Kosher, but you don't have the Shiur for eating. Raveina says that everyone needs to have the Shiur of edible meat on the bone; but they argue if that Kazayis needs to be on the place that you broke. After all, it's Kosher, but it's not fit to eat at the break.

Daf 85

113) Even if there is a Kazayis of marrow in the bone, you can't break it in order to access it, and we don't say that the Asei of eating the Pesach supersedes the Lav of not breaking the bone. [Tosfos says: the Gemara in Zevachim learns from here that you don't say that an Asei supersedes a Lav by Kodshim. However, Tosfos asks: why would we anyhow say that it would supersede since he doesn't fulfill the Asei at the moment that he transgresses the Lav. Also, why would it anyhow supersede if there's a way to access it without breaking it, by burning it with a coal (unless you say that it will definitely burn the marrow, which would forbid this method too).]

114) We say that a limb that left its boundaries, you pull off all the meat that was still inside until you get to the end of the bone, and cut off the whole bone. The Gemara asks: if it's true that there is no problem cutting where there is no meat, why don't you just pull off the meat where you plan to cut it? Abaya answers: maybe the bone will crack up to the part that still has meat on it. Raveina answers: we refer to the femur that has marrow inside, so it's always in a place of meat until you get to the end of the bone.

115) The rabbis decreed that Pigul and Nossar make hands Tamai. They decreed it on Pigul because of the suspected Kohanim (so the shouldn't make a Korban Pigul on purpose to get back at an enemy. [Tosfos explains: even such a wicked person would refrain from such action in order to save himself from Tumah. After all, the Gemara in Yuma says that they were more strict keeping their utensils Tahor than they were about murder.] They decreed it by Nossar because of the lazy Kohanim. Some say they made Tamai with the Shiur of a Kazayis, like the Shiur of the prohibition of eating it, and some say like an egg's worth, which is the Shiur of its Tumah.

116) The Gemara inquires if they decreed Tumah for carrying the Kodshim out of its boundaries like Nossar, or did they only decree by Nossar since you can transgress it passively, but they didn't have the same worry that someone will actively carry it out.

117) The Gemara concludes: they definitely didn't need to decree by the Korban Pesach since the people of the groups are very zealous. After all, we see that if someone carries meat from one group to another, if it's eaten, he transgresses a Lav, but the meat is still Tahor. According to the opinion that it would become Tamai with a Kazayis, why would it remain Tahor? You can't say that it was less than a Kazayis, then he wouldn't transgress fully the Lav of eating it. Rather, the inquiry was only regarding other Kodshim. [Tosfos asks: we see by the problem of using fire on Shabbos (like having food cooking on it, or getting heat from it), that there is an opinion that only Kohanim are zealous that we're not worried that they'll come to stir the fire, but not the group of a Korban Pesach. Tosfos answers: that's because the prohibition to stir on Shabbos is not associated to the Korban Pesach, so the group is not so careful, but the prohibition of carrying out the Korban, since it concerns the Korban, the group is the most careful and zealous.]

118) If you carry it from one group to another, you're not Chayiv until you make a Hanacha (make it rest), as the Pasuk calls it 'carrying' like its called by Shabbos (so they must have the same parameters). Although we see by carrying out a bull being burned; if it's carried out by two people on a pole, if one is still inside, and the other outside, the one outside is Tamai, (and the one inside is Tahor) despite that it wasn't placed down yet; we must say that we refer to a case where they were dragging it out (and it was already on the ground). [Tosfos points out: it's not exact, since it doesn't need to be directly on the ground, since we say it's as if it's landed if it's within three Tefachim from the ground, even according to those who don't hold that objects that are suspended in the air is if its landed. We don't say that it's not considered completely taken outside according to those who consider items in a utensil is considered as one item with the utensil; that's only when it has a receptacle since you can pull it back with what's in your hand, but not if it's on a pole where the inside person can't pull the bull back in with the pole.]

119) If a limb stays within the threshhold, it's considered inside, but past the threshhold is considered outside and is Pasul.

120) Rav Paskins that way for Davening, and R' Yehoshua b. Levi held that even an iron partition can't separate the people from their Father in Heaven. [Rashi explains their argument whether you can combine them for a Minyan if some are past the threshhold. However, Tosfos argues, since we Paskin in Sotah like R' Yehoshua b. Levi, yet, we Paskin in Eiruvin that a Mechitza separates people so that they can't count as a Minyan. Rather, you must say that they argue whether someone behind the Mechitza can answer to a Minyan saying "Davor Shebikidusha" (that needs ten people to say). However, we have explicit Mishnayos that you don't need to be in the same room to be Yoitza Shofar and Megila, where you don't need a Minyan to be Yoitza.]

Daf 86

121) The threshhold itself is Kodesh by all the Azarah's gates, except for the gates of Niknor, that they refrained from making it Kodesh in order for it to protect the Metzorah from the sun and rain when he brings his Korbanos. Also, they didn't make the gates of Yerushalayim Kodesh in order to protect the Metzorim (who can't enter the city).

122) Windows in the walls and tops of walls have the Halacha of being inside if its even ground with the floor, even if the wall is only even to the ground on one of its sides. However, second floors and roofs are not Kodesh, since they didn't Mekadesh them except for the second floor over the Kodesh Hakedoshim (which was a stricter Kedusha than the Kodesh Hakedoshim where the Kohein Gadol enters at least once a year, and the second floor is only entered twice every fifty years to see what repairs it needs.) That second floor is different since it was part of the "blueprints of Hashem."

123) We say that the storerooms that were build in the place that has the Kedusha of the Mikdash, but is only open to the outside, which is not Kodesh, it's not Kodesh, but its roof is Kodesh (since its open to the Mikdash). However, according to what we said earlier, it's only if the roof is even to the Azarah's ground.

However, if it was build not in a place of Kedusha, and it's only open to the Mikdash, it has Kedusha, and its roof is not Kodesh if open to the non-Kodesh area. Even though according to this, the storeroom is underground, it's still Kodesh since it's only open to Kodesh. We don't say that they didn't make the underground tunnels Kodesh unless it's also open to the outside (and it doesn't even have the Kedusha of Har Habayis so you can send a Baal Keri there).

124) Although we say that the roofs of storerooms in the Mikdash are holy, it doesn't mean that it has the Kedusha of the Mikdash to eat Kodshim there, but it's Kodesh to leave two rulers that's Amah is bigger than Moshe's. This is, when they give material to a craftsman, they measure with Moshe's Amah, and have them return it with the measurement of one of the bigger Amos to make sure that the craftsman should return at least what they took, and not measure it a little short and steal from Hekdesh and do Meila. (The craftsmen of gold and silver return with the Amah that's only a half of Etzbah (finger's width) extra, and the craftsmen working Wih building stones return with the Amah that's a full Etzbah more.) [Tosfos says: it's not exact, since those rulers were on top of the gate, and not on storerooms' roofs. Rather, just like those areas were Kodesh to keep those rulers, the storehouse's roofs were Kodesh to keep Kli Shareis.]

125) R' Yehuda says that a Pesach is eaten in two groups, but they can't eat it in two places (i.e., the group can't move in middle of eating). R' Shimon holds that it could be eaten in two places, but not in two groups (i.e., they must start eating together, but an individual may wander off to another place in middle of eating).

126) R' Kahana held simply: if you're eating all together, and then someone spread a Mechitza to separate them, it's forbidden according to R' Shimon, since they form two groups, but is permitted to R' Yehuda since they're not in two places, since they're in the same place they were in, and it didn't expand to give a extra room, but, on the contrary, it got smaller. However, if there was a Mechitza between them originally, and now it was removed, R' Shimon permits since they're now one group, but R' Yehuda forbids since they're considered as in another place, since they're room got bigger and added extra area. However, R' Ashi had it as an unresolved inquiry is if building a Mechitza makes it like two groups, and if removing the Mechitza makes it like two places.

127) A person turning his face around is like eating in a second house. Therefore, according to R' Yehuda that it could be eaten in two groups, and each group can eat it in their own house; two groups could eat in the same room if they turn their faces away from each other. The hot water urn can be between them since they don't need a distinction to have it differently than they have usually. You can have one waiter for both, and when he serves the other group, he closes his mouth and turns his face away so that they shouldn't suspect him that he's eating with the other group. A bride turns her head away to eat because of embarrassment (to eat with her new family), and we don't need to worry that it would be considered as if the Pesach is eaten in two groups in two places. [Tosfos says: the Chiddush is even if she eats some of it without turning her face around, it's not a problem of eating it in two places. Alternatively, that it teaches s that she has to turn her face around.]

128) Therefore, according to R' Yehuda, if the waiter accidentally ate a Kazayis of the Pesach by the oven, he would need to finish his fill there, since, if he changes his position to serve, he would be in another place and can't return to eat. However, if the group wants to do him a favor, they can uproot from their place to join the waiter to eat it at that corner.

129) You do not refuse a greater man when he offers you something [Tosfos unless it's something that may be considered haughty and a position of power]. Everything that the house owner tells you to do, you must do [Tosfos: even if it's a position of power]. The proper way to drink wine is in two gulps. (In one gulp, he's gluttonous; in three gulps, he's too haughty.) However, if it's a small cup, or sweet wine, or if he has a large stomach, it's even proper to drink it all at once.

130) If a group of people coming to eat [Rashi: not regarding the Korban Pesach; Tosfos: regarding eating the Korban Pesach]; they come in in three [Rashi: the waiter doesn't need to start serving until three people show up. Tosfos: they can start eating the Pesach even though all of the group didn't show up, as long as they arrived at the time it's normal to eat the Pesach.] If they leave, then it's done even with one [Rashi: if two of them left, the waiter still needs to continue serving to the one. Tosfos: if there were three people who came, and two left, the one doesn't have to wait anymore to eat the Pesach since there was originally three already there.] However, it's only if they came in at the time to eat and as long as they informed [Rashi they informed the waiter that usually, in their group, people enter individually, and not all together. Tosfos: they sent the waiter to gather the other people in the group.] Raveina says that the last of the group needs to pay the waiter extra, but we don't Paskin like him.