Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

February 14, 2021 | 讘壮 讘讗讚专 转砖驻状讗

Masechet Pesachim is sponsored by Sivya Twersky in honor of her daughter, Shoshana Baker, her grandson's upcoming Bar Mitzvah ,and in memory of her father, Harav Pesach Zachariah Halevi ben Reuven and Leah Z'late Z'L. He lived Torah and emunah by example to congregational and biological families. His yahrzeit falls within this masechet.

Pesachim 85

This week of learning is sponsored by Hinda Herman in memory of her mother, Etel Bat Chaim z”l (Ethel Rosenthal), whose 4th yahrzeit is 3 Adar. “Among the many Mitzvot mom performed 讛讻谞住转 讗讜专讞讬诐 was the one closest to her heart.” Today’s Daf is sponsored by Rochie Sommer for her dear friend. Wishing a Refuah Shleima for Chana Adel bas Yenta Fruma. And by Tova and David Kestenbaum in memory of Tova’s grandfather Harav Chaim Yakov ben Yitzchok and Yetta Bulka zt”l. “He embodied Torah through his knowledge and his midot. He taught Torah his entire life as a young man sent from Germany to Gateshead Yeshiva soon after his Bar Mitzvah, as a Rav kehilla in the Bronx, and when he and my Bubby made Aliyah to Yerushalyim following retirement. He continued giving shiurim practically until his last day, on 2 Adar 5766. Teaching Torah invigorated him and he had the zechut of having chavrutot with his great grandchildren, who enjoyed every minute of learning with their Ur Zeidy. 讬讛讬 讝讻专讜 讘专讜讱.”聽And by Pamela Kaplan, commemorating the yahrzeit of her grandmother, Debbie Kaplan, Devorah bat Noach z”l. “She was a role model as a leader in the Jewish community, and who contributed so much as a former Hadassah national president.”

Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish disagree regarding a limb that has meat on one part and one breaks a bone on the other part 鈥 is this forbidden or not? Reish Lakish says it is not and Rabbi Yochanan brings two sources that raise questions against him. Why did the rabbis decree that pigul and notar renders one鈥檚 hands impure? Would the same be true to something that was removed from the designated area that it is allowed (either outside the azara or outside the walls of Jerusalem? The gemara brings sources to answer this question but the attempts are unsuccessful. One who removes meat is not obligated unless it is placed on the ground. How do you handle a limb that was partially taken out of the walls and partially in, if you cannot break the bones? What parts of the wall, windows, doorways are considered in the walls or outside the walls?

诇讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗讞讚 注爪诐 砖讬砖 注诇讬讜 讻讝讬转 讘砖专 诪讘讞讜抓 讜讗讞讚 注爪诐 砖讗讬谉 注诇讬讜 讻讝讬转 讘砖专 诪讘讞讜抓 讜讬砖 注诇讬讜 讻讝讬转 讘砖专 诪讘驻谞讬诐 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讘讬专讛


No, that is not what it means to say. Rather, this is what it is saying: It is prohibited to break both a bone upon which there is an olive-bulk of meat on the outside and a bone upon which there is not an olive-bulk of meat on the outside, but there is an olive-bulk of meat, i.e., bone marrow, on the inside at the place of the break.


讜讛转谞讬讗 讜注爪诐 诇讗 转砖讘专讜 讘讜 讗讞讚 注爪诐 砖讬砖 讘讜 诪讜讞 讜讗讞讚 注爪诐 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 诪讜讞 讜诪讛 讗谞讬 诪拽讬讬诐 讜讗讻诇讜 讗转 讛讘砖专 讘诇讬诇讛 讛讝讛 讘讘砖专 砖注诇 讙讘讬 讛注爪诐


And as a proof, the Gemara cites that which was taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: 鈥淎nd you shall not break a bone in it鈥 (Exodus 12:46). This prohibition includes both a bone in which there is marrow and a bone in which there is no marrow. How do I establish the positive mitzva expressed in the verse: 鈥淎nd they shall eat the meat on that night鈥 (Exodus 12:8)? It is to be fulfilled exclusively with meat that is on the bone.


讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 讘讘砖专 砖讘转讜讱 讛注爪诐 讜诪讛 讗谞讬 诪拽讬讬诐 讜注爪诐 诇讗 转砖讘专讜 讘讜 讘注爪诐 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 诪讜讞 讗讘诇 讘注爪诐 砖讬砖 讘讜 诪讜讞 砖讜讘专 讜讗讜讻诇 讜讗诇 转转诪讛 砖讛专讬 讬讘讗 注砖讛 讜讬讚讞讛 诇讗 转注砖讛


Or perhaps it means only that the positive mitzva also applies to the marrow meat that is inside the bone. And if so, how do I establish the prohibition: And you shall not break a bone in it? It is referring specifically to a bone that does not have marrow. However, in the case of a bone that does have marrow, one may break and eat the marrow. And do not be surprised that one may violate the prohibition of breaking a bone in order to eat the marrow, as it is possible to say that the positive mitzva to eat the meat comes and overrides the prohibition prohibiting one to break a bone, in accordance with the general principle that positive mitzvot override negative mitzvot.


讻砖讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜注爪诐 诇讗 讬砖讘专讜 讘讜 讘驻住讞 砖谞讬 砖讗讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 砖讛专讬 讻讘专 谞讗诪专 讻讻诇 讞拽转 讛驻住讞 讬注砖讜 讗转讜 讛讜讬 讗讜诪专 讗讞讚 注爪诐 砖讬砖 讘讜 诪讜讞 讜讗讞讚 注爪诐 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 诪讜讞


When it says: 鈥淭hey shall leave none of it until the morning, nor break a bone in it鈥 (Numbers 9:12), with regard to the Paschal lamb of the second Pesa岣, for which there is no need for the verse to state this prohibition, as it is already stated 鈥渁ccording to all the statute of the Paschal lamb they shall keep it,鈥 which includes the prohibition to break a bone, you must say that it is repeated in order to emphasize the prohibition and indicate that it applies to both a bone in which there is marrow and a bone in which there is no marrow.


诪讬转讬讘讬 讗讘专 砖讬爪讗 诪拽爪转讜 讞讜转讱 注讚 诪拽讜诐 砖诪讙讬注 诇注爪诐 讜拽讜诇祝 注讚 砖诪讙讬注 诇驻专拽 讜讞讜转讱


The Gemara raises an objection to the view of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish: If a portion of a limb has gone out of its permissible boundary, one must cut through the meat until one reaches the bone, and then peel the meat that did not go out of the boundary away from the bone until one reaches the joint, and cut off the limb. One then eats the meat that has been detached from the bone and discards the bone and the portion of the limb that went out of the appropriate location.


讜讗讬 讗诪专转 讗讘专 砖讗讬谉 注诇讬讜 讻讝讬转 讘砖专 讘诪拽讜诐 讝讛 讜讬砖 讘诪拽讜诐 讗讞专 讗讬谉 讘讜 诪砖讜诐 砖讘讬专转 讛注爪诐 诇诪讛 诇讬 讚拽讜诇祝 注讚 砖诪讙讬注 诇驻专拽 讜讞讜转讱 谞拽诇讜祝 讘讬讛 驻讜专转讗 讜谞转讘专讬讛


And if you say that a limb upon which there is not an olive-bulk of meat in this place but there is an olive-bulk of meat in a different place is not subject to the prohibition of breaking a bone, why do I need the halakha requiring one to peel the meat until he reaches the joint and then cut off the bone? Let him peel a little bit from the section of bone that adjoins the portion that went out of the boundary and break the bone once there is no meat at the location of the break.


讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 驻拽注 专讘讬谞讗 讗诪专 讘拽讜诇讬转


Abaye said: One may not do this, due to a concern that the entire bone will crack, including a part of the bone that has meat on it. Ravina said: This ruling was stated with regard to a thigh bone, which has a large amount of marrow in it. It cannot be broken even if one peels away the meat from the location of the break.


转谞谉 讛转诐 讛驻讬讙讜诇 讜讛谞讜转专 (讜讛讟诪讗) 诪讟诪讗讬谉 讗转 讛讬讚讬诐 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讜专讘 讞住讚讗 讞讚 讗诪专 诪驻谞讬 讞砖讚讬 讻讛讜谞讛 讜讞讚 讗诪专 诪驻谞讬 注爪诇讬 讻讛讜谞讛


We learned in a mishna there, at the end of the tractate: Piggul and leftover sacrificial meat render hands impure due to rabbinic edict, although they are not ritually impure by Torah law. Rav Huna and Rav 岣sda disagreed with regard to the reason for this. One said: The reason is due to priests, who were suspected of purposely disqualifying the offerings of people they disliked via improper intentions. The Sages decreed that the disqualified offerings immediately render the hands of the priest impure as a penalty. And one said: The reason is due to lazy priests. The decree is meant to stop them from allowing offerings to go uneaten.


诪专 诪转谞讬 讗驻讬讙讜诇 讜诪专 诪转谞讬 讗谞讜转专 诪讗谉 讚诪转谞讬 讗驻讬讙讜诇 诪砖讜诐 讞砖讚讬 讻讛讜谞讛 讜诪讗谉 讚诪转谞讬 讗谞讜转专 诪砖讜诐 注爪诇讬 讻讛讜谞讛


The Gemara explains that they do not really argue: One Sage teaches his reason with regard to piggul, and the other Sage teaches his reason with regard to leftover sacrificial meat. The one who teaches the reason with regard to piggul says: The decree is due to priests suspected of purposely disqualifying offerings via improper intentions, as an offering only becomes piggul through intent. And the one who teaches the reason with regard to leftover sacrificial meat says: It is due to lazy priests who would not eat the meat.


诪专 诪转谞讬 讻讝讬转 讜诪专 诪转谞讬 讻讘讬爪讛 诪讗谉 讚诪转谞讬 讻讝讬转 讻讗讬住讜专讜 讜诪讗谉 讚诪转谞讬 讻讘讬爪讛 讻讟讜诪讗转讜


One Sage teaches that this ritual impurity applies to meat in the amount of an olive-bulk, and the other Sage teaches that the minimum amount of meat necessary for the decree to apply is an egg-bulk. The Gemara explains: The reason for the one who teaches that the minimum amount of meat necessary for the decree to apply is an olive-bulk is that the decree is like its prohibition; one violates the prohibition to eat piggul or leftover sacrificial meat only when one eats an olive-bulk. And the one who teaches that the decree applies only when there is an egg-bulk of meat reasons that it is like its ritual impurity; by Torah law, only an egg-bulk of food can impart ritual impurity.


讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讬讜爪讗 讙讝专讜 专讘谞谉 讟讜诪讗讛 讗讜 诇讗 诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 谞讜转专 讚讙讝专讜 讟讜诪讗讛 讚讗转讬 诇讗讬注爪讜诇讬 讘讬讛 讗讘诇 讬讜爪讗 讗驻讜拽讬 讘讬讚讬诐 诇讗 诪驻拽讬 诇讬讛 讘讬讚讬诐 诇讗 讙讝专讜 讘讬讛 专讘谞谉 讟讜诪讗讛 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 诇讗 砖谞讗


A dilemma was raised before the Sages: With regard to sacrificial meat that has gone out of its permitted boundaries, did the Sages decree that it attains ritual impurity or not? Do we say that a decree had to be made with regard to leftover sacrificial meat, as the priests would come to be lazy about it and not eat it; but with regard to sacrificial meat that has gone out there is no reason for concern, because priests would not actively take it out of its boundaries and thereby disqualify it, and therefore the Sages did not decree that it be considered ritually impure? Or perhaps it is no different, as the Sages decreed that all disqualified sacrificial meat be considered ritually impure, so that the people handling it would do so with greater care.


转讗 砖诪注 讗讘专 砖讬爪讗 诪拽爪转讜 讞讜转讱 注讚 砖诪讙讬注 诇注爪诐 讜拽讜诇祝 注讚 砖诪讙讬注 诇驻专拽 讜讞讜转讱 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 讙讝专讜 讘讬讛 专讘谞谉 讟讜诪讗讛 讻讬 讞转讬讱 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 讛讜讬 讛讗 拽诪讟诪讗 诇讬讛


The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a solution to this dilemma based on the following mishna: If a portion of a limb has gone out of its permissible boundary, one must cut through the meat until one reaches the bone, and then peel the meat away from the bone until one reaches the joint, and cut off the limb. And if you say the Sages decreed ritual impurity on sacrificial meat that has gone out of its boundary, when one cuts it, what has been accomplished? The portion that has gone out renders impure the rest of the sacrificial meat through contact.


讟讜诪讗转 住转专讬诐 讛讬讗 讜讟讜诪讗转 住转专讬诐 诇讗 诪讟诪讬讗


The Gemara answers: It is a case of ritual impurity in a concealed place, as the part that has gone out would impart ritual impurity to the portion that has not gone out due to the contact they make underneath the skin, which is concealed from view; and the principle is that ritual impurity in a concealed place does not render other objects impure.


讜诇专讘讬谞讗 讚讗诪专 讞讬讘讜专讬 讗讜讻诇讬谉 诇讗讜 讞讬讘讜专 讛讜讗 讜讻诪讗谉 讚诪驻专转讬 讚诪讬 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讛讗 拽谞讙注 讘讛讚讚讬 讜拽讗 诪讟诪讗 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚诪转谞讬 讻讝讬转 讚诇讬转 讘讬讛 讻讝讬转 讜诪讗谉 讚诪转谞讬 讻讘讬爪讛 讚诇讬转 讘讬讛 讻讘讬爪讛


The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Ravina, who said that connections between two pieces of food are not considered true connections and are comparable to foods that are separate, and therefore it cannot be considered ritual impurity in a concealed place, what is there to say? They touch each other, and one imparts ritual impurity to the other. The Gemara answers: Rather, according to his opinion, this must be explained differently: According to the one who teaches that the decree applies only when there is an olive-bulk of meat, the mishna may be addressing a case in which it does not have an olive-bulk of meat. And according to the one who teaches that the decree applies only when there is an egg-bulk of meat, the mishna may be addressing a case in which it does not have an egg-bulk of meat.


转讗 砖诪注 讛诪讜爪讬讗 讘砖专 驻住讞 诪讞讘讜专讛 诇讞讘讜专讛 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讛讜讗 讘诇讗 转注砖讛 讟讛讜专 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讟讛讜专 讜讗住讜专 讚讬讜爪讗 诪讞讘讜专讛 诇讞讘讜专讛 讻讬讜爪讗 讞讜抓 诇诪讞讬爪转讜 讚诪讬 讜诪驻住讬诇 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 讟讛讜专 讗诇诪讗 诇讗 讙讝专讜 专讘谞谉 讟讜诪讗讛


Come and hear a different proof from a baraita: If one removes the meat of a Paschal lamb from the location of one group to the location of another group, although he violates a prohibition, as the Torah prohibits removing the Paschal lamb from the location of the group that registered for it, the Paschal lamb remains pure. The Gemara seeks to clarify: What, is it not that the meat remains pure, and yet it is prohibited to eat it, because a Paschal lamb that goes out from the location of one group to that of another group is comparable to any offering that goes out of its boundary, and it is disqualified? And even so, it is teaching that the meat remains pure. Apparently, based on this it seems that the Sages did not decree ritual impurity on meat that goes out of the location of its group.


诇讗 讟讛讜专 讜诪讜转专 讚讬讜爪讗 诪讞讘讜专讛 诇讞讘讜专讛 诇讗讜 讻讬讜爪讗 讞讜抓 诇诪讞讬爪转讜 讚诪讬 讜诇讗 诪驻住讬诇


The Gemara rejects this proof: No, the baraita should be understood as teaching that the meat is pure and permitted to be eaten because meat that goes from the location of one group to the location of another group is not comparable to sacrificial meat that goes out of its boundary, and it is not disqualified.


讜讛讗 拽讗 转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讛讗讜讻诇讜 讛专讬 讝讛 讘诇讗 转注砖讛 讘砖诇诪讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讻讘讬爪讛 讚讗讬转 讘讬讛 讻讝讬转 讜诇讬转 讘讬讛 讻讘讬爪讛 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讻讝讬转 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专


The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 the latter clause of the baraita teach that one who eats the meat of a Paschal lamb that was removed from the location of its group is in violation of a prohibition? Granted, according to the one who said that the Sages decreed ritual impurity on offerings only when there is at least an egg-bulk, the case in this baraita may be one in which there is an olive-bulk, which is the minimal measure one must eat to violate the prohibition, and there is not an egg-bulk, which is the minimal measure necessary for the rabbinic decree of ritual impurity to take effect. But according to the one who says that the Sages decreed ritual impurity even on an olive-bulk, what is there to say?


讗诇讗 讘讬讜爪讗 讘驻住讞 诇讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇谉 讚诇讗 讙讝专讜 专讘谞谉 讟讜诪讗讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讘谞讬 讞讘讜专讛 讝专讬讝讬谉 讛谉 讜诪讝讛专 讝讛讬专讬 讘讬讛 讗诇讗 讻讬 拽诪讬讘注讬讗 诇谉 讘讬讜爪讗 讘拽讚砖讬诐 诪讗讬 转讬拽讜


Rather, the previous answers may be withdrawn in favor of the following: With regard to meat that goes out of its location that is from the Paschal lamb, it is not necessary for us to say that the Sages did not decree ritual impurity on it, because it is obvious. What is the reason the Sages did not decree it to be ritually impure? It is because the members of the group are zealous and are very careful to ensure that the meat remains in its proper location, making it unnecessary to penalize those who allow the meat to leave the location of its group. Rather, when this question was asked, it was with regard to other sacrificial meat that has gone out of its boundary. What is the halakha? The Gemara does not have an answer to this question and concludes: Let it stand unresolved.


讜诪讜爪讬讗 讘砖专 驻住讞


The Gemara questions the source of a halakha mentioned above: And with regard to one who carries out meat from the Paschal lamb


诪讞讘讜专讛 诇讞讘讜专讛 诪谞讬谉 讚转谞讬讗 诇讗 转讜爪讬讗 诪谉 讛讘讬转 诪谉 讛讘砖专 讞讜爪讛 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 诪讘讬转 诇讘讬转 诪讞讘讜专讛 诇讞讘讜专讛 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讞讜爪讛 讞讜抓 诇讗讻讬诇转讜


from the location of its group to the location of another group, from where is it derived that he has violated a prohibition? As it was taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: 鈥淚n one house shall it be eaten; you shall not carry out any of the meat from the house to the outside鈥 (Exodus 12:46), I have derived only that it is prohibited to remove meat from house to house; from where do I derive that it is prohibited even to transfer the meat from group to group within one house? The verse states: To the outside, which includes any case in which one brings the meat outside of the place where it may be eaten.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讛诪讜爪讬讗 讘砖专 驻住讞 诪讞讘讜专讛 诇讞讘讜专讛 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 注讚 砖讬谞讬讞 讛讜爪讗讛 讻转讬讘 讘讬讛 讻砖讘转 诪讛 砖讘转 注讚 讚注讘讚 注拽讬专讛 讜讛谞讞讛 讗祝 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 注讚 讚注讘讚 注拽讬专讛 讜讛谞讞讛


Rabbi Ami said: One who carries out the meat of the Paschal lamb from the location of one group to another group is not liable until he places the meat in the location of the second group. The reason for this is that the term carrying out is written about it, as the Torah says: 鈥淵ou shall not carry out,鈥 which is similar to the prohibited labor of the same name pertaining to Shabbat. Therefore, just as when it comes to Shabbat one is not liable for carrying from one domain to another until he performs an act of lifting from one domain and placing in the other domain, so too, here also one is not liable until he performs an act of lifting the meat from the location of one group and placing it in the location of another group.


诪转讬讘 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讘专 诪诪诇 讛讬讜 住讜讘诇讬诐 讗讜转谉 讘诪讜讟讜转 讛专讗砖讜谞讬诐 讬爪讗讜 讞讜抓 诇讞讜诪转 讛注讝专讛 讜讛讗讞专讜谞讬诐 诇讗 讬爪讗讜 讛专讗砖讜谞讬诐 诪讟诪讗讬谉 讘讙讚讬诐 讜讛讗讞专讜谞讬诐 讗讬谉 诪讟诪讗讬谉 讘讙讚讬诐 讜讛讗 诇讗 谞讞


Rabbi Abba bar Mammal raised an objection based upon the halakha that those who remove the inner sin-offerings from the Temple become ritually impure. A baraita with regard to that halakha teaches as follows: If those carrying the inner sin-offerings were carrying them on poles, and those in front already went outside the wall around the Temple courtyard, and those in the rear had not yet gone out, the ones in front nonetheless immediately cause their garments to become ritually impure, and the ones in the rear do not cause their garments to become ritually impure until they also leave. This proves that the people carrying these offerings become impure immediately. But the meat has not yet been placed outside the courtyard, so why should it already be considered to have been taken out?


讛讜讗 诪讜转讬讘 诇讛 讜讛讜讗 诪驻专拽 诇讛 讘谞讙专专讬谉:


He raised the objection and he resolved it: The baraita addresses a case in which the people are dragging the offerings, and therefore as soon as they leave the courtyard the offerings are considered to have been placed on the ground.


诪转谞讬壮 讗讘专 砖讬爪讗 诪拽爪转讜 讞讜转讱 注讚 砖诪讙讬注 诇注爪诐 讜拽讜诇祝 注讚 砖诪讙讬注 诇驻专拽 讜讞讜转讱 讜讘诪讜拽讚砖讬谉 拽讜爪抓 讘拽讜驻讬抓 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 诪砖讜诐 砖讘讬专转 讛注爪诐


MISHNA: If a portion of a limb has gone out of its permissible boundary, one must cut the meat until one reaches the bone at the point that separates between the part of the limb that went out of its boundary and the part that did not, and then peel the meat away from the bone until one reaches the joint, and cut off the limb at the joint, as it is prohibited to break the bone itself. And with regard to other offerings, one may chop off the part that exited with a hatchet, as it is not subject to the prohibition of breaking a bone.


诪谉 讛讗讙祝 讜诇驻谞讬诐 讻诇驻谞讬诐 诪谉 讛讗讙祝 讜诇讞讜抓 讻诇讞讜抓 讛讞诇讜谞讜转 讜注讜讘讬 讛讞讜诪讛 讻诇驻谞讬诐:


How does one determine the outer boundaries of a particular location? Anything that is located from the inside of the doorway inward is considered as though it is inside, and anything that is located from the doorway outward is considered as though it is outside. And the windows in the wall and the thickness of the wall are considered as though they are inside, such that an offering is considered to have exited the premises only if it is taken outside the wall.


讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讜讻谉 诇转驻诇讛 讜驻诇讬讙讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讞讬爪讛 砖诇 讘专讝诇 讗讬谞讛 诪驻住拽转 讘讬谉 讬砖专讗诇 诇讗讘讬讛诐 砖讘砖诪讬诐


GEMARA: Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: And the halakha is similar with regard to prayer, in that one who is standing outside the doorway cannot be included together with those praying inside. The Gemara notes that Rav disagrees with Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, as Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: Even a barrier of iron does not separate between the Jewish people and their Father in Heaven. Barriers are irrelevant with regard to prayer.


讛讗 讙讜驻讗 拽砖讬讗 讗诪专转 诪谉 讛讗讙祝 讜诇驻谞讬诐 讻诇驻谞讬诐 讛讗 讗讙祝 注爪诪讜 讻诇讞讜抓 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 诪谉 讛讗讙祝 讜诇讞讜抓 讻诇讞讜抓 讛讗 讗讙祝 注爪诪讜 讻诇驻谞讬诐


The Gemara questions the mishna: This matter itself is difficult; the mishna itself contains an internal contradiction. At first you said that the space from the doorway inward is considered as though it is inside, which indicates that the space of the doorway itself is like the outside. Now you say the latter clause of the mishna鈥檚 ruling, which states that from the doorway outward is considered as though it is outside, which indicates that the doorway itself is considered as though it is inside.


诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘砖注专讬 注讝专讛 讻讗谉 讘砖注专讬 讬专讜砖诇讬诐


The Gemara answers: It is not difficult, as one can explain that these two statements are referring to different situations: Here, in the latter clause of the mishna鈥檚 ruling, it is referring to the gates of the Temple courtyard, where the inside of the doorways were considered as though they were inside the courtyard and had the sanctity of the courtyard itself. There, in the first clause, it is discussing the gates of Jerusalem, where the insides of the gates were considered like the outside and did not have the sanctity of Jerusalem.


讚讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 诇讗 谞转拽讚砖讜 砖注专讬 讬专讜砖诇讬诐 诪驻谞讬 砖诪爪讜专注讬谉 诪讙讬谞讬谉 转讞转讬讛谉 讘讞诪讛 诪驻谞讬 讛讞诪讛 讜讘讙砖诪讬诐 诪驻谞讬 讛讙砖诪讬诐


As Rabbi Shmuel bar Rav Yitz岣k said: For what reason were the insides of the gates of Jerusalem not sanctified? Because lepers protect themselves by sitting under them; in the sun they protect themselves from the sun and in the rain they sit in the gateway to protect themselves from the rain. Lepers are not permitted to enter Jerusalem. In order to allow them to use the gates of the city as shelter from the elements, the gateways were not sanctified.


讜讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 诇讗 谞转拽讚砖讛 砖注专 谞拽谞讜专 诪驻谞讬 砖诪爪讜专注讬谉 注讜诪讚讬谉 砖诐 讜诪讻谞讬住讬谉 讘讛讜谞讜转 讬讚诐:


Similarly, Rabbi Shmuel bar Rav Yitz岣k said: For what reason was the inside of the Gate of Nicanor not sanctified with the sanctity of the Temple courtyard? It is because lepers who had healed and needed to bring their purification offerings would stand there and insert their thumbs into the courtyard, so that the blood of the offerings could be sprinkled on them, which would allow them to be purified. These sources indicate that the insides of the other gates of the Temple courtyard were sanctified and that the insides of the gates of Jerusalem were not sanctified.


讛讞诇讜谞讜转 讜注讜讘讬 讛讞讜诪讛 讜讻讜壮: 讗诪专 专讘 讙讙讬谉 讜注诇讬讜转 诇讗 谞转拽讚砖讜 讗讬谞讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讻讝讬转讗 驻住讞讗 讜讛诇讬诇讗 驻拽注 讗讬讙专讗


The mishna states that the windows and the thickness of the wall are considered to be on the inside. Rav said: Roofs and upper stories were not sanctified. Therefore, the roofs of the chambers in the Temple courtyard did not have the sanctity of the courtyard, and the roofs of buildings in Jerusalem did not have the sanctity of Jerusalem. The Gemara asks: Is that so? Didn鈥檛 Rav say the following aphorism in the name of Rabbi 岣yya: The Paschal lamb is the size of an olive-bulk, as it was common for so many people to register for a single Paschal lamb that each one would receive only an olive-bulk of its meat. And the hallel that is said during its consumption breaks the roof; there were so many people who said hallel together, it seemed as though the roofs were breaking due to all the commotion and noise.


Masechet Pesachim is sponsored by Sivya Twersky in honor of her daughter, Shoshana Baker, her grandson's upcoming Bar Mitzvah ,and in memory of her father, Harav Pesach Zachariah Halevi ben Reuven and Leah Z'late Z'L. He lived Torah and emunah by example to congregational and biological families. His yahrzeit falls within this masechet.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Pesachim 81-87 – Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time

This week we will learn what happens to the leftover meat of the Korban Pesach and about the prohibition of...

Pesachim 85

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Pesachim 85

诇讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗讞讚 注爪诐 砖讬砖 注诇讬讜 讻讝讬转 讘砖专 诪讘讞讜抓 讜讗讞讚 注爪诐 砖讗讬谉 注诇讬讜 讻讝讬转 讘砖专 诪讘讞讜抓 讜讬砖 注诇讬讜 讻讝讬转 讘砖专 诪讘驻谞讬诐 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讘讬专讛


No, that is not what it means to say. Rather, this is what it is saying: It is prohibited to break both a bone upon which there is an olive-bulk of meat on the outside and a bone upon which there is not an olive-bulk of meat on the outside, but there is an olive-bulk of meat, i.e., bone marrow, on the inside at the place of the break.


讜讛转谞讬讗 讜注爪诐 诇讗 转砖讘专讜 讘讜 讗讞讚 注爪诐 砖讬砖 讘讜 诪讜讞 讜讗讞讚 注爪诐 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 诪讜讞 讜诪讛 讗谞讬 诪拽讬讬诐 讜讗讻诇讜 讗转 讛讘砖专 讘诇讬诇讛 讛讝讛 讘讘砖专 砖注诇 讙讘讬 讛注爪诐


And as a proof, the Gemara cites that which was taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: 鈥淎nd you shall not break a bone in it鈥 (Exodus 12:46). This prohibition includes both a bone in which there is marrow and a bone in which there is no marrow. How do I establish the positive mitzva expressed in the verse: 鈥淎nd they shall eat the meat on that night鈥 (Exodus 12:8)? It is to be fulfilled exclusively with meat that is on the bone.


讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 讘讘砖专 砖讘转讜讱 讛注爪诐 讜诪讛 讗谞讬 诪拽讬讬诐 讜注爪诐 诇讗 转砖讘专讜 讘讜 讘注爪诐 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 诪讜讞 讗讘诇 讘注爪诐 砖讬砖 讘讜 诪讜讞 砖讜讘专 讜讗讜讻诇 讜讗诇 转转诪讛 砖讛专讬 讬讘讗 注砖讛 讜讬讚讞讛 诇讗 转注砖讛


Or perhaps it means only that the positive mitzva also applies to the marrow meat that is inside the bone. And if so, how do I establish the prohibition: And you shall not break a bone in it? It is referring specifically to a bone that does not have marrow. However, in the case of a bone that does have marrow, one may break and eat the marrow. And do not be surprised that one may violate the prohibition of breaking a bone in order to eat the marrow, as it is possible to say that the positive mitzva to eat the meat comes and overrides the prohibition prohibiting one to break a bone, in accordance with the general principle that positive mitzvot override negative mitzvot.


讻砖讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜注爪诐 诇讗 讬砖讘专讜 讘讜 讘驻住讞 砖谞讬 砖讗讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 砖讛专讬 讻讘专 谞讗诪专 讻讻诇 讞拽转 讛驻住讞 讬注砖讜 讗转讜 讛讜讬 讗讜诪专 讗讞讚 注爪诐 砖讬砖 讘讜 诪讜讞 讜讗讞讚 注爪诐 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 诪讜讞


When it says: 鈥淭hey shall leave none of it until the morning, nor break a bone in it鈥 (Numbers 9:12), with regard to the Paschal lamb of the second Pesa岣, for which there is no need for the verse to state this prohibition, as it is already stated 鈥渁ccording to all the statute of the Paschal lamb they shall keep it,鈥 which includes the prohibition to break a bone, you must say that it is repeated in order to emphasize the prohibition and indicate that it applies to both a bone in which there is marrow and a bone in which there is no marrow.


诪讬转讬讘讬 讗讘专 砖讬爪讗 诪拽爪转讜 讞讜转讱 注讚 诪拽讜诐 砖诪讙讬注 诇注爪诐 讜拽讜诇祝 注讚 砖诪讙讬注 诇驻专拽 讜讞讜转讱


The Gemara raises an objection to the view of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish: If a portion of a limb has gone out of its permissible boundary, one must cut through the meat until one reaches the bone, and then peel the meat that did not go out of the boundary away from the bone until one reaches the joint, and cut off the limb. One then eats the meat that has been detached from the bone and discards the bone and the portion of the limb that went out of the appropriate location.


讜讗讬 讗诪专转 讗讘专 砖讗讬谉 注诇讬讜 讻讝讬转 讘砖专 讘诪拽讜诐 讝讛 讜讬砖 讘诪拽讜诐 讗讞专 讗讬谉 讘讜 诪砖讜诐 砖讘讬专转 讛注爪诐 诇诪讛 诇讬 讚拽讜诇祝 注讚 砖诪讙讬注 诇驻专拽 讜讞讜转讱 谞拽诇讜祝 讘讬讛 驻讜专转讗 讜谞转讘专讬讛


And if you say that a limb upon which there is not an olive-bulk of meat in this place but there is an olive-bulk of meat in a different place is not subject to the prohibition of breaking a bone, why do I need the halakha requiring one to peel the meat until he reaches the joint and then cut off the bone? Let him peel a little bit from the section of bone that adjoins the portion that went out of the boundary and break the bone once there is no meat at the location of the break.


讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 驻拽注 专讘讬谞讗 讗诪专 讘拽讜诇讬转


Abaye said: One may not do this, due to a concern that the entire bone will crack, including a part of the bone that has meat on it. Ravina said: This ruling was stated with regard to a thigh bone, which has a large amount of marrow in it. It cannot be broken even if one peels away the meat from the location of the break.


转谞谉 讛转诐 讛驻讬讙讜诇 讜讛谞讜转专 (讜讛讟诪讗) 诪讟诪讗讬谉 讗转 讛讬讚讬诐 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讜专讘 讞住讚讗 讞讚 讗诪专 诪驻谞讬 讞砖讚讬 讻讛讜谞讛 讜讞讚 讗诪专 诪驻谞讬 注爪诇讬 讻讛讜谞讛


We learned in a mishna there, at the end of the tractate: Piggul and leftover sacrificial meat render hands impure due to rabbinic edict, although they are not ritually impure by Torah law. Rav Huna and Rav 岣sda disagreed with regard to the reason for this. One said: The reason is due to priests, who were suspected of purposely disqualifying the offerings of people they disliked via improper intentions. The Sages decreed that the disqualified offerings immediately render the hands of the priest impure as a penalty. And one said: The reason is due to lazy priests. The decree is meant to stop them from allowing offerings to go uneaten.


诪专 诪转谞讬 讗驻讬讙讜诇 讜诪专 诪转谞讬 讗谞讜转专 诪讗谉 讚诪转谞讬 讗驻讬讙讜诇 诪砖讜诐 讞砖讚讬 讻讛讜谞讛 讜诪讗谉 讚诪转谞讬 讗谞讜转专 诪砖讜诐 注爪诇讬 讻讛讜谞讛


The Gemara explains that they do not really argue: One Sage teaches his reason with regard to piggul, and the other Sage teaches his reason with regard to leftover sacrificial meat. The one who teaches the reason with regard to piggul says: The decree is due to priests suspected of purposely disqualifying offerings via improper intentions, as an offering only becomes piggul through intent. And the one who teaches the reason with regard to leftover sacrificial meat says: It is due to lazy priests who would not eat the meat.


诪专 诪转谞讬 讻讝讬转 讜诪专 诪转谞讬 讻讘讬爪讛 诪讗谉 讚诪转谞讬 讻讝讬转 讻讗讬住讜专讜 讜诪讗谉 讚诪转谞讬 讻讘讬爪讛 讻讟讜诪讗转讜


One Sage teaches that this ritual impurity applies to meat in the amount of an olive-bulk, and the other Sage teaches that the minimum amount of meat necessary for the decree to apply is an egg-bulk. The Gemara explains: The reason for the one who teaches that the minimum amount of meat necessary for the decree to apply is an olive-bulk is that the decree is like its prohibition; one violates the prohibition to eat piggul or leftover sacrificial meat only when one eats an olive-bulk. And the one who teaches that the decree applies only when there is an egg-bulk of meat reasons that it is like its ritual impurity; by Torah law, only an egg-bulk of food can impart ritual impurity.


讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讬讜爪讗 讙讝专讜 专讘谞谉 讟讜诪讗讛 讗讜 诇讗 诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 谞讜转专 讚讙讝专讜 讟讜诪讗讛 讚讗转讬 诇讗讬注爪讜诇讬 讘讬讛 讗讘诇 讬讜爪讗 讗驻讜拽讬 讘讬讚讬诐 诇讗 诪驻拽讬 诇讬讛 讘讬讚讬诐 诇讗 讙讝专讜 讘讬讛 专讘谞谉 讟讜诪讗讛 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 诇讗 砖谞讗


A dilemma was raised before the Sages: With regard to sacrificial meat that has gone out of its permitted boundaries, did the Sages decree that it attains ritual impurity or not? Do we say that a decree had to be made with regard to leftover sacrificial meat, as the priests would come to be lazy about it and not eat it; but with regard to sacrificial meat that has gone out there is no reason for concern, because priests would not actively take it out of its boundaries and thereby disqualify it, and therefore the Sages did not decree that it be considered ritually impure? Or perhaps it is no different, as the Sages decreed that all disqualified sacrificial meat be considered ritually impure, so that the people handling it would do so with greater care.


转讗 砖诪注 讗讘专 砖讬爪讗 诪拽爪转讜 讞讜转讱 注讚 砖诪讙讬注 诇注爪诐 讜拽讜诇祝 注讚 砖诪讙讬注 诇驻专拽 讜讞讜转讱 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 讙讝专讜 讘讬讛 专讘谞谉 讟讜诪讗讛 讻讬 讞转讬讱 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 讛讜讬 讛讗 拽诪讟诪讗 诇讬讛


The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a solution to this dilemma based on the following mishna: If a portion of a limb has gone out of its permissible boundary, one must cut through the meat until one reaches the bone, and then peel the meat away from the bone until one reaches the joint, and cut off the limb. And if you say the Sages decreed ritual impurity on sacrificial meat that has gone out of its boundary, when one cuts it, what has been accomplished? The portion that has gone out renders impure the rest of the sacrificial meat through contact.


讟讜诪讗转 住转专讬诐 讛讬讗 讜讟讜诪讗转 住转专讬诐 诇讗 诪讟诪讬讗


The Gemara answers: It is a case of ritual impurity in a concealed place, as the part that has gone out would impart ritual impurity to the portion that has not gone out due to the contact they make underneath the skin, which is concealed from view; and the principle is that ritual impurity in a concealed place does not render other objects impure.


讜诇专讘讬谞讗 讚讗诪专 讞讬讘讜专讬 讗讜讻诇讬谉 诇讗讜 讞讬讘讜专 讛讜讗 讜讻诪讗谉 讚诪驻专转讬 讚诪讬 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讛讗 拽谞讙注 讘讛讚讚讬 讜拽讗 诪讟诪讗 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚诪转谞讬 讻讝讬转 讚诇讬转 讘讬讛 讻讝讬转 讜诪讗谉 讚诪转谞讬 讻讘讬爪讛 讚诇讬转 讘讬讛 讻讘讬爪讛


The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Ravina, who said that connections between two pieces of food are not considered true connections and are comparable to foods that are separate, and therefore it cannot be considered ritual impurity in a concealed place, what is there to say? They touch each other, and one imparts ritual impurity to the other. The Gemara answers: Rather, according to his opinion, this must be explained differently: According to the one who teaches that the decree applies only when there is an olive-bulk of meat, the mishna may be addressing a case in which it does not have an olive-bulk of meat. And according to the one who teaches that the decree applies only when there is an egg-bulk of meat, the mishna may be addressing a case in which it does not have an egg-bulk of meat.


转讗 砖诪注 讛诪讜爪讬讗 讘砖专 驻住讞 诪讞讘讜专讛 诇讞讘讜专讛 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讛讜讗 讘诇讗 转注砖讛 讟讛讜专 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讟讛讜专 讜讗住讜专 讚讬讜爪讗 诪讞讘讜专讛 诇讞讘讜专讛 讻讬讜爪讗 讞讜抓 诇诪讞讬爪转讜 讚诪讬 讜诪驻住讬诇 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 讟讛讜专 讗诇诪讗 诇讗 讙讝专讜 专讘谞谉 讟讜诪讗讛


Come and hear a different proof from a baraita: If one removes the meat of a Paschal lamb from the location of one group to the location of another group, although he violates a prohibition, as the Torah prohibits removing the Paschal lamb from the location of the group that registered for it, the Paschal lamb remains pure. The Gemara seeks to clarify: What, is it not that the meat remains pure, and yet it is prohibited to eat it, because a Paschal lamb that goes out from the location of one group to that of another group is comparable to any offering that goes out of its boundary, and it is disqualified? And even so, it is teaching that the meat remains pure. Apparently, based on this it seems that the Sages did not decree ritual impurity on meat that goes out of the location of its group.


诇讗 讟讛讜专 讜诪讜转专 讚讬讜爪讗 诪讞讘讜专讛 诇讞讘讜专讛 诇讗讜 讻讬讜爪讗 讞讜抓 诇诪讞讬爪转讜 讚诪讬 讜诇讗 诪驻住讬诇


The Gemara rejects this proof: No, the baraita should be understood as teaching that the meat is pure and permitted to be eaten because meat that goes from the location of one group to the location of another group is not comparable to sacrificial meat that goes out of its boundary, and it is not disqualified.


讜讛讗 拽讗 转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讛讗讜讻诇讜 讛专讬 讝讛 讘诇讗 转注砖讛 讘砖诇诪讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讻讘讬爪讛 讚讗讬转 讘讬讛 讻讝讬转 讜诇讬转 讘讬讛 讻讘讬爪讛 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讻讝讬转 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专


The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 the latter clause of the baraita teach that one who eats the meat of a Paschal lamb that was removed from the location of its group is in violation of a prohibition? Granted, according to the one who said that the Sages decreed ritual impurity on offerings only when there is at least an egg-bulk, the case in this baraita may be one in which there is an olive-bulk, which is the minimal measure one must eat to violate the prohibition, and there is not an egg-bulk, which is the minimal measure necessary for the rabbinic decree of ritual impurity to take effect. But according to the one who says that the Sages decreed ritual impurity even on an olive-bulk, what is there to say?


讗诇讗 讘讬讜爪讗 讘驻住讞 诇讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇谉 讚诇讗 讙讝专讜 专讘谞谉 讟讜诪讗讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讘谞讬 讞讘讜专讛 讝专讬讝讬谉 讛谉 讜诪讝讛专 讝讛讬专讬 讘讬讛 讗诇讗 讻讬 拽诪讬讘注讬讗 诇谉 讘讬讜爪讗 讘拽讚砖讬诐 诪讗讬 转讬拽讜


Rather, the previous answers may be withdrawn in favor of the following: With regard to meat that goes out of its location that is from the Paschal lamb, it is not necessary for us to say that the Sages did not decree ritual impurity on it, because it is obvious. What is the reason the Sages did not decree it to be ritually impure? It is because the members of the group are zealous and are very careful to ensure that the meat remains in its proper location, making it unnecessary to penalize those who allow the meat to leave the location of its group. Rather, when this question was asked, it was with regard to other sacrificial meat that has gone out of its boundary. What is the halakha? The Gemara does not have an answer to this question and concludes: Let it stand unresolved.


讜诪讜爪讬讗 讘砖专 驻住讞


The Gemara questions the source of a halakha mentioned above: And with regard to one who carries out meat from the Paschal lamb


诪讞讘讜专讛 诇讞讘讜专讛 诪谞讬谉 讚转谞讬讗 诇讗 转讜爪讬讗 诪谉 讛讘讬转 诪谉 讛讘砖专 讞讜爪讛 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 诪讘讬转 诇讘讬转 诪讞讘讜专讛 诇讞讘讜专讛 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讞讜爪讛 讞讜抓 诇讗讻讬诇转讜


from the location of its group to the location of another group, from where is it derived that he has violated a prohibition? As it was taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: 鈥淚n one house shall it be eaten; you shall not carry out any of the meat from the house to the outside鈥 (Exodus 12:46), I have derived only that it is prohibited to remove meat from house to house; from where do I derive that it is prohibited even to transfer the meat from group to group within one house? The verse states: To the outside, which includes any case in which one brings the meat outside of the place where it may be eaten.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讛诪讜爪讬讗 讘砖专 驻住讞 诪讞讘讜专讛 诇讞讘讜专讛 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 注讚 砖讬谞讬讞 讛讜爪讗讛 讻转讬讘 讘讬讛 讻砖讘转 诪讛 砖讘转 注讚 讚注讘讚 注拽讬专讛 讜讛谞讞讛 讗祝 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 注讚 讚注讘讚 注拽讬专讛 讜讛谞讞讛


Rabbi Ami said: One who carries out the meat of the Paschal lamb from the location of one group to another group is not liable until he places the meat in the location of the second group. The reason for this is that the term carrying out is written about it, as the Torah says: 鈥淵ou shall not carry out,鈥 which is similar to the prohibited labor of the same name pertaining to Shabbat. Therefore, just as when it comes to Shabbat one is not liable for carrying from one domain to another until he performs an act of lifting from one domain and placing in the other domain, so too, here also one is not liable until he performs an act of lifting the meat from the location of one group and placing it in the location of another group.


诪转讬讘 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讘专 诪诪诇 讛讬讜 住讜讘诇讬诐 讗讜转谉 讘诪讜讟讜转 讛专讗砖讜谞讬诐 讬爪讗讜 讞讜抓 诇讞讜诪转 讛注讝专讛 讜讛讗讞专讜谞讬诐 诇讗 讬爪讗讜 讛专讗砖讜谞讬诐 诪讟诪讗讬谉 讘讙讚讬诐 讜讛讗讞专讜谞讬诐 讗讬谉 诪讟诪讗讬谉 讘讙讚讬诐 讜讛讗 诇讗 谞讞


Rabbi Abba bar Mammal raised an objection based upon the halakha that those who remove the inner sin-offerings from the Temple become ritually impure. A baraita with regard to that halakha teaches as follows: If those carrying the inner sin-offerings were carrying them on poles, and those in front already went outside the wall around the Temple courtyard, and those in the rear had not yet gone out, the ones in front nonetheless immediately cause their garments to become ritually impure, and the ones in the rear do not cause their garments to become ritually impure until they also leave. This proves that the people carrying these offerings become impure immediately. But the meat has not yet been placed outside the courtyard, so why should it already be considered to have been taken out?


讛讜讗 诪讜转讬讘 诇讛 讜讛讜讗 诪驻专拽 诇讛 讘谞讙专专讬谉:


He raised the objection and he resolved it: The baraita addresses a case in which the people are dragging the offerings, and therefore as soon as they leave the courtyard the offerings are considered to have been placed on the ground.


诪转谞讬壮 讗讘专 砖讬爪讗 诪拽爪转讜 讞讜转讱 注讚 砖诪讙讬注 诇注爪诐 讜拽讜诇祝 注讚 砖诪讙讬注 诇驻专拽 讜讞讜转讱 讜讘诪讜拽讚砖讬谉 拽讜爪抓 讘拽讜驻讬抓 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 诪砖讜诐 砖讘讬专转 讛注爪诐


MISHNA: If a portion of a limb has gone out of its permissible boundary, one must cut the meat until one reaches the bone at the point that separates between the part of the limb that went out of its boundary and the part that did not, and then peel the meat away from the bone until one reaches the joint, and cut off the limb at the joint, as it is prohibited to break the bone itself. And with regard to other offerings, one may chop off the part that exited with a hatchet, as it is not subject to the prohibition of breaking a bone.


诪谉 讛讗讙祝 讜诇驻谞讬诐 讻诇驻谞讬诐 诪谉 讛讗讙祝 讜诇讞讜抓 讻诇讞讜抓 讛讞诇讜谞讜转 讜注讜讘讬 讛讞讜诪讛 讻诇驻谞讬诐:


How does one determine the outer boundaries of a particular location? Anything that is located from the inside of the doorway inward is considered as though it is inside, and anything that is located from the doorway outward is considered as though it is outside. And the windows in the wall and the thickness of the wall are considered as though they are inside, such that an offering is considered to have exited the premises only if it is taken outside the wall.


讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讜讻谉 诇转驻诇讛 讜驻诇讬讙讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讞讬爪讛 砖诇 讘专讝诇 讗讬谞讛 诪驻住拽转 讘讬谉 讬砖专讗诇 诇讗讘讬讛诐 砖讘砖诪讬诐


GEMARA: Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: And the halakha is similar with regard to prayer, in that one who is standing outside the doorway cannot be included together with those praying inside. The Gemara notes that Rav disagrees with Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, as Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: Even a barrier of iron does not separate between the Jewish people and their Father in Heaven. Barriers are irrelevant with regard to prayer.


讛讗 讙讜驻讗 拽砖讬讗 讗诪专转 诪谉 讛讗讙祝 讜诇驻谞讬诐 讻诇驻谞讬诐 讛讗 讗讙祝 注爪诪讜 讻诇讞讜抓 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 诪谉 讛讗讙祝 讜诇讞讜抓 讻诇讞讜抓 讛讗 讗讙祝 注爪诪讜 讻诇驻谞讬诐


The Gemara questions the mishna: This matter itself is difficult; the mishna itself contains an internal contradiction. At first you said that the space from the doorway inward is considered as though it is inside, which indicates that the space of the doorway itself is like the outside. Now you say the latter clause of the mishna鈥檚 ruling, which states that from the doorway outward is considered as though it is outside, which indicates that the doorway itself is considered as though it is inside.


诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘砖注专讬 注讝专讛 讻讗谉 讘砖注专讬 讬专讜砖诇讬诐


The Gemara answers: It is not difficult, as one can explain that these two statements are referring to different situations: Here, in the latter clause of the mishna鈥檚 ruling, it is referring to the gates of the Temple courtyard, where the inside of the doorways were considered as though they were inside the courtyard and had the sanctity of the courtyard itself. There, in the first clause, it is discussing the gates of Jerusalem, where the insides of the gates were considered like the outside and did not have the sanctity of Jerusalem.


讚讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 诇讗 谞转拽讚砖讜 砖注专讬 讬专讜砖诇讬诐 诪驻谞讬 砖诪爪讜专注讬谉 诪讙讬谞讬谉 转讞转讬讛谉 讘讞诪讛 诪驻谞讬 讛讞诪讛 讜讘讙砖诪讬诐 诪驻谞讬 讛讙砖诪讬诐


As Rabbi Shmuel bar Rav Yitz岣k said: For what reason were the insides of the gates of Jerusalem not sanctified? Because lepers protect themselves by sitting under them; in the sun they protect themselves from the sun and in the rain they sit in the gateway to protect themselves from the rain. Lepers are not permitted to enter Jerusalem. In order to allow them to use the gates of the city as shelter from the elements, the gateways were not sanctified.


讜讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 诇讗 谞转拽讚砖讛 砖注专 谞拽谞讜专 诪驻谞讬 砖诪爪讜专注讬谉 注讜诪讚讬谉 砖诐 讜诪讻谞讬住讬谉 讘讛讜谞讜转 讬讚诐:


Similarly, Rabbi Shmuel bar Rav Yitz岣k said: For what reason was the inside of the Gate of Nicanor not sanctified with the sanctity of the Temple courtyard? It is because lepers who had healed and needed to bring their purification offerings would stand there and insert their thumbs into the courtyard, so that the blood of the offerings could be sprinkled on them, which would allow them to be purified. These sources indicate that the insides of the other gates of the Temple courtyard were sanctified and that the insides of the gates of Jerusalem were not sanctified.


讛讞诇讜谞讜转 讜注讜讘讬 讛讞讜诪讛 讜讻讜壮: 讗诪专 专讘 讙讙讬谉 讜注诇讬讜转 诇讗 谞转拽讚砖讜 讗讬谞讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讻讝讬转讗 驻住讞讗 讜讛诇讬诇讗 驻拽注 讗讬讙专讗


The mishna states that the windows and the thickness of the wall are considered to be on the inside. Rav said: Roofs and upper stories were not sanctified. Therefore, the roofs of the chambers in the Temple courtyard did not have the sanctity of the courtyard, and the roofs of buildings in Jerusalem did not have the sanctity of Jerusalem. The Gemara asks: Is that so? Didn鈥檛 Rav say the following aphorism in the name of Rabbi 岣yya: The Paschal lamb is the size of an olive-bulk, as it was common for so many people to register for a single Paschal lamb that each one would receive only an olive-bulk of its meat. And the hallel that is said during its consumption breaks the roof; there were so many people who said hallel together, it seemed as though the roofs were breaking due to all the commotion and noise.


Scroll To Top