ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafPesachim 85
(a) We learn from the redundant Pasuk (with regard to the Pesach Sheni)
"ve'Etzem Lo Yishberu Bo" - that even the breaking of a marrow-bone (in
order to extract the marrow) is forbidden.
(b) The Pasuk is redundant - because the Torah already writes "ke'Chol
Chukas ha'Pesach Ya'asu Oso", which teaches us that the Pesach Sheni has the
same Dinim as the Pesach Rishon.
(c) We might otherwise have thought that one is permitted to break a bone on
the Pesach to get to the marrow inside - because the Pasuk in Bo writes
"ve'Achlu es ha'Basar ba'Laylah ha'Zeh" (marrow is also called Basar), and
due to the principle 'Asei Docheh Lo Sa'aseh', this Asei would normally
over-ride the La'v of "ve'Etzem Lo Sishberu Bo".
(a) If a limb of the Korban Pesach was partially taken outside the Azarah -
one cuts the flesh down to the bone, and peels it inwards until one reaches
the joint. One then separates the bone that was taken out, and burns it
together with the flesh that is still attached to it.
(b) According to Resh Lakish (who permits breaking a bone at a point where
there is no meat), why will it not suffice to peel just a little of the
flesh, and to then cut the bone at the point where it left the Azarah.
(c) Abaye answers (like he answered above on the previous Amud) that the
Chachamim forbade doing that, for fear that the bone might crack at the
point where the flesh is still attached to the bone.
(d) Ravina answers that the Beraisa is talking about the thigh-bone - which
contains marrow. Consequently, peeling it will not remove the prohibition of
(a) 'ha'Pigul ve'ha'Nosar Metam'in es ha'Yadayim. Rav Huna and Rav Chisda
discuss this: one says because of 'Chashadei Kehunah', and the other says
because of 'Atzlei Kehunah'. The one who says because of Chashadei Kehunah -
is referring to Pigul; the one who says because of Atzlei Kehunah - to
(b) The one who gives the above Shiur Tum'ah as a k'Zayis holds that Chazal
gave this Tum'ah the same Shiur as its *Isur*; whereas the one who gave the
Shiur as a k'Beitzah, holds that they gave it the same Shiur as the its
regular Shiur of *Tum'ah*.
(c) The Gemara asks whether Chazal decreed Tum'as Yadayim on Kodshim that
were taken outside its boundaries - perhaps they only decreed Tum'ah by
Nosar, which is caused by laziness, and is an automatic process, but not by
Yotze, which requires the act of being taken outside, since Kohanim are not
suspected of sinning in this way.
(a) Even if they decreed Tum'ah on the hands, by Yotze, it would
nevertheless be necessary to cut away the limb that was taken *outside* from
the limb that remained *inside*; the former will not be Metamei the latter
(as we thougt) - because it is a case of 'Tum'as Beis ha'Setarim' (i.e. the
touching occurs in an invisible location, which is not considered touching.
(b) Ravina holds that 'Chiburei Ochlin La'v Chibur Hu' (i.e. by food, which
stands to be cut up anyway, even what is joined is considered as if it is
already cut up), in which case the touching of the two halves should be
Metamei the half that is Tahor.
(c) Ravina answers the Kashya - by establishing the Beraisa when the part of
the limb that was taken out did not contain sufficient flesh to be Metamei
(a k'Zayis according to one opinion, a 'k'Beitzah, according to the other).
(a) Presuming that carrying a piece of Pesach from one group to another is
considered like taking it outside Yerushalayim, the Gemara attempts to prove
from the Beraisa ('ha'Motzi Be'sar ha'Pesach me'Chaburah la'Chuburah, Af al
Pi she'Hu be'Lo Sa'aseh, Tahor') that Chazal did not decree Tum'ah by Yotze.
(b) We cannot accept the Gemara's suggestion that really there is no Isur
either, because carrying a piece of Pesach from one group to another is
*not* considered like taking it outside Yerushalayim (and that is why there
is no Tum'ah either) - because in the Seifa, the Beraisa writes 'ha'Ochlo,
Harei Zeh be'Lo Sa'aseh', clearly indicating that it is considered as if it
had left Yerushalayim.
(c) Those who give the Shiur of Tum'as Yadayim by Pigul and Nosar (and
Yotze) as a k'Beitzah, interpret the Beraisa by more than a k'Zayis (in
which case, he will have transgressed the Isur), but less than a k'Beitzah
(where the Rabbanan did not decree Tum'ah).
(d) Those who maintain that the Shiur is a k'Zayis - are forced to learn
that although it is forbidden to carry the Pesach from one group to another,
Chazal did not decree Tum'ah on Yotze, because the members of a group of
Pesach-eaters are alert, and remind each other to be careful.
(a) The Pasuk in Bo "Lo Sotzi Min ha'Bayis Min ha'Basar *Chutzah* - is the
source for the Din that we have just been discussing; i.e. the prohibition
of carrying the Pesach from one group to another.
(b) We learn from the fact that the Torah uses the expression "Lo Sotzi"
(like on Shabbos), that, like Shabbos, one is only Chayav if one makes an
Akirah brfore carrying the Pesach outside its boundaries, and a Hanachah
(c) Parim ha'Nisrafin, like Shabbos, require Akirah and Hanachah before they
are Metamei; however, the Beraisa which renders those in front Tamei as soon
as they step outside the Azarah, despite the fact that those at the back are
still in the Azarah ,and despite the fact that they did not yet put the Par
down - is speaking when they are dragging it along the ground, which is
always considered a Hanachah [presumably, since it is a Makom Chashuv] (i.e.
it does not need a specific Hanachah - see Rabeinu Chananel. See also Tosfos
(a) If someone carried the limb of other Kodshim partially outside
Yerushalayim - one would simply chop it in two at that point.
(b) The border of Yerushalayim regarding the Pesach and the Basar of Kodshim
Kalim constitutes from the threshold of the gate (where the gate hits the
lintel) and within.
(c) The Mishnah leaves the area that is underneath the actual lintel in
(d) The windows in the walls of Yerushalayim and the top of the outer walls
- are also considered to be inside Yerushalayim.
(a) When Rav Yehudah Amar Rav says 've'Chein li'Tefilah' - he means that
someone who stands within the lintel of the door of the Shul, is considered
inside and *combines* to make up a Minyan, whereas if he is standing outside
the lintel, he does *not*, just like we learned in our Mishnah regarding the
(b) Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi maintains that not even a metal barrier can
divide between Yisrael and their Father in Heaven. Consequently, there are
no boundaries in Tefilah, and even someone who is standing on the other side
of a wall can combine to make up a Minyan.
(a) To resolve the contradiction of implications from the Reisha of our
Mishnah (from where it appears that underneath the lintel itself is *not*
sanctified), to the Seifa (from where it appears that it *is*) - we
establish the Reisha by the walls of Yerushalayim, and the Seifa by those of
(b) The recesses of the walls of Yerushalayim were not sanctified - to allow
the Metzora'im (who were not permitted to enter Yerushalayim, or any town
for that matter) the opportunity of sheltering there from the sun and the
(c) The area in front of the gate of Nikanor was not sanctified with the
Kedushah of the Azarah - to allow the Metzora'im to stand there and to
place their right hand and right foot for the Kohen to put the blood of
their Asham (which in turn, was forbidden to leave the Azarah) on their
right thumb and big toe.
(a) A Mechusar Kipurim who enters the Azarah is Chayav Kares (and we learn
this from the Pasuk "Od Tum'aso Bo").
(b) The Metzora did not defile the sanctity of the Azarah when he put his
fingers and toes inside, for the blood of the Asham to be placed on them -
because 'a partial entry is not called an entry'.