Pesachim 85b — the Talmud in English

And now we explain the law of one who takes the Paschal offering from one group to another:

And one who takes Paschal-offering meat ![](pamud.bmp "

precise page location")

from one group to another

in one house,

from where

did we learn that it is forbidden?

And we explain:

as it was taught:

It is written:

“You shall not take out from the house, from the meat, outside.”

I have only

to learn from the verse

that

one who takes Paschal-offering meat

from a house

in which the group eats

to a house

other than it; but

from one group to another

in the same house,

from where?

The verse therefore says: “outside,”

to teach you: Do not take the meat

outside the

group of

its eating [Rashi].

Rabbi Ami said: One who takes Passover-offering meat from one group to another,

he

is not liable

Rabbi Ami said: One who takes Paschal-offering meat from one group to another,

he

is not liable

for lashes

until he places it down,

after he has taken the meat out.

And the reason is:

“taking out”

is written concerning it [not “you shall take out”]

as concerning Shabbat,

where it is stated concerning the labor of taking out from a private domain to a public domain: “Let no man go out from his place on the seventh day,” that is, “let him not take out” [Tosafot].

And since this is so, we derive:

Just as with Shabbat, until he performs uprooting and placing down, so too here, until he performs uprooting and placing down.

to Rabbi Ami’s statement from the following Mishna that we learned in tractate Zevaḥim:

Rabbi Abba bar Memel raised an objection

to Rabbi Ami’s words from the Mishna that we learned in Zevaḥim:

Burnt bulls and burnt goats [such as the bull and goat of the Day of Atonement, the bull of the anointed priest, and the bull for an unwitting matter of the community, which are burned outside the three camps]—

they would carry

them

on poles

outside the three camps in order to burn them.

If

the foremost ones

at the head of the pole

went out beyond the wall of the Temple courtyard

[which is the first camp], while

the latter ones

still

did not go out, their law is:

The foremost ones render the garments impure

that are upon them, and require immersion, for the Torah said: “The one who burns them shall wash his garments”; and in Yoma we derive from the wording of the verse, “He shall take it out beyond the camp [in the singular], and they shall burn it,” that as soon as they went outside the wall of the Temple courtyard, which is the first camp, they already render garments impure.

But

those

latter ones, who still had not gone outside the wall of the Temple courtyard,

do not render garments impure

that are upon them.

And now there is a difficulty against Rabbi Ami: Since you say that wherever the Torah uses the wording “taking out,” the law of taking out is like the taking out of Shabbat, for which uprooting and placing down are required, then here too, since the verse says, “He shall take it out beyond the camp,” according to Rabbi Ami’s words they should not be made subject to the washing of garments until he has performed uprooting and placing down.

But

in the case discussed in the Mishna—

it did not rest

the bull at the time when the foremost ones took it outside the wall of the Temple courtyard. For they were still carrying the bull outside the three camps; so why are they required to wash their garments?!

He,

Rabbi Abba bar Memel,

raised it

as an objection to Rabbi Ami from this Mishna,

and he

also

resolves it

from his objection: Here it is speaking

of dragging

the bulls along the ground, and this is placing down; therefore they render garments impure.

Mishna:

A limb

of the Paschal offering

whose part went out

outside the wall of Jerusalem and became disqualified by “that which goes out.”

It

cuts

the meat, making a cut in the meat at the place where it went out,

until he reaches the bone.

And he peels

the meat

until he reaches the joint

[the place where the bones are joined to one another].

And he cuts

there the sinews that join the bone.

But at the boundary of the place of going out, he does not break it, because of the prohibition against breaking a bone in the Paschal offering [and this Mishna was already mentioned above, on page 84a, and explained there].

And

if it were a limb of

other

sacred offerings

that went out in part

outside its partition [most sacred offerings outside the Temple courtyard, and lesser sacred offerings outside the wall of Jerusalem], he

cuts off

the part of the limb that went out

with a hatchet,

at the line separating the place where the bone went out from the part that remained inside,

because there is no prohibition of breaking a bone in it.

And our Mishna explains the law of the wall of the city of Jerusalem with regard to eating the Paschal offering and lesser sacred offerings:

The wall of the city of Jerusalem was thick, and at its gates there were doors that stood within the thickness of the wall.

The thickness of the gateway was divided into three areas.

The wall of the city of Jerusalem was thick, and at its gates there were doors, which stood within the thickness of the wall.

The thickness of the gate was divided into three places.

a. The place where the door is located [when it is closed], up to the place where the door knocks against the frame surrounding the door.

This place is called “the wing.”

b. The place from the beginning of the edge of the thickness of the opening in the wall toward the city of Jerusalem, up to the place where the door is located, is called “from the wing inward.” c. The place from the door’s point of contact up to the end of the thickness of the opening in the wall toward outside the city of Jerusalem is called “from the wing outward.”

From the door hinge area

of the opening in the wall of the city of Jerusalem

The law of the opening of the wall is:

From the wing

of the opening of the wall of the city of Jerusalem

and inward,

toward the city—it is

like the inside

of the city, and there they eat the Paschal offering and lesser sacred offerings.

But the thickness of the opening that is

from the wing outward—

it is

like the outside

of the city, and they do not eat there [and there is no distinction whether the door was open or locked].

And the law of the wing itself will be explained in the Gemara.

The place of

the windows

in the thickness of the wall of Jerusalem,

and the thickness

of the wall [on top of the wall], it is like the inside of the city, and there they eat lesser sacred offerings.

Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: Just as the Mishna distinguished between the different parts of the opening with regard to eating sacrificial offerings — from the door hinge area inward it is considered inside, and from the door hinge area outward it is considered outside [Meiri; see Rashi],

Just as the Mishna distinguished the law of the opening with regard to eating offerings—that from the agaf inward it is considered inside, and from the agaf outward it is considered outside [Meiri; see Rashi],

so

it is also the case with regard to joining people together to form the quorum

for prayer.

Gemara:

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav:

Just as they divided in the Mishna the law of the opening with regard to eating sacred offerings, that from the wing inward it is like the inside, and from the wing outward it is like the outside [Meiri; see Rashi

—so

also with regard to joining for the quorum

for prayer.

If nine stood inside the house, and the tenth stood from the wing inward, he is like the inside and joins them to complete the quorum, for he too is inside the house; but if he stood outside the wing [even when the door was open], he does not join them.

And it differs

from this statement of Rav, who holds that from the wing outward is like the outside, from the opinion of Rabbi Joshua ben Levi. For Rabbi Joshua ben Levi said: Even a partition of iron does not separate between Israel and their Father in Heaven!

That is, there is no separation before the Omnipresent; everything is exposed and known before Him, and there is no obstruction before Him.

And therefore, even if a partition of iron separated between the ten who join for prayer, this is not considered a separation, and they join.

And according to Rabbi Joshua ben Levi’s method, even those standing from the wing outward join [Meiri].

In the first clause,

you stated: From the door hinge area inward is considered inside,

and one can infer:

And now we explain what we learned in the Mishna: from the wing inward is like the inside; from the wing outward is like the outside:

And we challenge it:

This itself is difficult [the Mishna appears to contradict itself within itself]:

In the first clause

you said: From the wing inward is like the inside,

and you should infer:

that

within the

wing itself is like the outside.

But

say the latter clause: From the wing outward is like the outside,

and you should infer the opposite:

that

within the

wing itself is like the inside?!

And we answer: It is not difficult: Here it is concerning the gates of the Temple courtyard. Here it is concerning the gates of Jerusalem. At the gates of the Temple courtyard, the inside of the wing was sanctified, and it is like the inside [apart from the Gate of Nicanor, whose inside of the wing was not sanctified, as explained shortly in the Gemara, Rashi], as we inferred from the latter clause of the Mishna.

At the gates of Jerusalem, even the wing itself was not sanctified, and it is like the outside, as we inferred from the first clause of the Mishna. [See another explanation of Rashi’s words in the Gemara’s resolution, in the note ].

Why were the gates of Jerusalem not sanctified

because of lepers

who are sent outside the three camps, and are forbidden to enter Jerusalem — they would sit there and

shelter beneath them from the sun in sunny weather and from the rain in rainy weather;

And

as Rabbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said: Why were the gates of Jerusalem not sanctified [even though the windows and the thickness of the wall are like the inside, according to Rashi in the Mishna]? Because lepers who are sent outside the three camps, and are forbidden to enter Jerusalem, sit there and take shelter beneath them in the sun from the sun and in the rain from the rain; and if they had been sanctified with the sanctity of Jerusalem, it would have been forbidden for them to sit in the place of the thickness of the gates. And

further

Rabbi Shmuel bar Rav Yitzhak said: Why was the Nicanor Gate not sanctified [

the eastern gate of the Temple courtyard]?

Because metzoraim

on their eighth day—who are still lacking their atonement offerings and are forbidden to enter the courtyard—

stand there, and insert the thumbs of their hands

into the courtyard, so that they may place upon them some of the blood of the guilt-offering of the metzora.

Rav said: Roofs and upper chambers—

of Jerusalem with regard to the sanctity of Jerusalem for lesser sanctities, and of the courtyard with regard to the sanctity of the courtyard for the most sacred sanctities—

were not sanctified.

And we challenged this:

Is that so? For Rav said

himself

in the name of Rabbi Hiyya:

Large groups would register for a single Pesach, so that there would reach each one only

an olive-sized portion of the Paschal offering [

an olive-sized portion of the Pesach];

and the Hallel burst through the roof [

the Hallel was splitting the roof], meaning: Because of the tumult of the multitude—which was standing on the roofs and reciting the Hallel over the Pesach, which requires Hallel when it is eaten—it seemed as though the roofs were splitting.