פסחים 85 — Soncino English Talmud

¹No: it means this: Both a bone which has as much as an olive of flesh on the outside and a bone which has not as much as an olive of flesh on it on the outside, but contains as much as an olive of flesh [marrow] inside, [yet still] at the point of breaking. And it was taught [even so]: ‘Neither shall ye break a bone thereof’: [this refers to] both a bone which contains marrow and a bone which does not contain marrow, while to what do I apply, and they shall eat the flesh in that night? To the meat on the bone. Yet perhaps it is not so , but [it applies] to the meat [marrow] inside the bone [too], while to what do I apply, ‘neither shall ye break a bone thereof’? To a bone which does not contain marrow; but in the case of a bone which contains marrow he breaks [it] and eats [the marrow]; and do not wonder thereat, for the affirmative command comes and overrides the negative command! When, [however,] ‘they shall not break a bone thereof is stated in connection with the second Passover, which need not have been taught, seeing that it has already been said, according to all the statute of the Passover they shall keep it, deduce from this [that it means] both a bone which, contains marrow and a bone which does not contain marrow. An objection is raised: [With regard to] a limb part of which went outside, he cuts [the flesh] as far as the bone, and pares it until he reaches the joint and then cuts it off. Now if you say [that] a limb upon which there is not as much as an olive at this point but there is as much as an olive on it elsewhere is not subject to the [prohibition of] breaking a bone, why does he pare it until he reaches the joint and [then] cut it off? Let us scrape a little away and break it? — Abaye said: [This cannot be done] because of a [possible] split. Rabina said: This refers to the thigh bone. We learned elsewhere: Piggul and nothar defile the hands. R. Huna and R. Hisda, — One maintained: It was on account of the suspects of the priesthood; while the other maintained: It was on account of the lazy priests. One recited [the reason] in reference to piggul, while the other recited it in reference to nothar. He who recited it in reference to piggul [gave the reason as being] on account of the suspects of the priesthood. While he who recited it in reference to nothar [stated that it was] on account of the lazy priests. One recited: As much as an olive; while the other recited: As much as an egg. He who recited, as much as an olive [took the same standard] as its prohibition, while he who recites, as much as an olive, [takes the same standard] as its uncleanness. The scholars asked: Did the Rabbis enact uncleanness in respect of what goes outside or not? Do we say, they imposed uncleanness on nothar because they [the priests] might come to be lazy about it; but [concerning] that which goes outside, they will [certainly] not carry it out with [their own] hands, [and so] the Rabbis did not decree uncleanness in connection therewith. Or perhaps there is no difference? — Come and hear: If part of a limb went outside, he cuts [the flesh] as far as the bone and pares it until he reaches the joint and then cuts it off. Now if you say that the Rabbis imposed uncleanness upon it, what if he does cut? Surely it defiles it? — It is concealed uncleanness, and concealed uncleanness does not defile. But according to Rabina who maintained: The connection of foodstuffs is not a real connection, and they are as though separated, what can be said: surely they touch each other and it [the inner portion] is defiled? — Hence according to him who recited, as much as an olive, [we must say here] that it did not contain as much as an olive; while according to him who recited, as much as an egg, [we must say] that it did not contain as much as an egg. Come and hear: If a man carries out flesh of a Passover-offering from one company to another, though he [has violated] a negative injunction, it [the flesh] is clean. Now does that not mean that it is clean yet forbidden, because that which goes out from one company to another company is like that which goes outside its boundary and is disqualified [for eating], yet even so it teaches [that] it is clean, which proves that the Rabbis did not decree uncleanness! — No: it is clean and permitted, because that which goes out from company to company is not like that which goes outside its boundary, and it is not disqualified. But surely the second clause teaches: He who eats it is subject to a negative injunction? As for him who says, as much as an egg, it is well: [this may refer to] where it contains as much as an olive but not as much as an egg. But according to him who says as much as an olive, what can be said? — Rather [say thus]: We do not ask in respect of what goes out in the case of a Passover-offering, for the Rabbis [certainly] did not decree uncleanness [there]. What is the reason? The members of a company are most scrupulous, and so are very careful with it. But we do ask in respect of what goes out in the case of sacrifices [in general]: what [is the law]? The question stands over. Now he who carries out flesh of the Passover-offering^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ

^ᵃnote:Lit., ‘and how do I fulfil?’
^ᵇnote:Ex. XII, 8.
^ᶜnote:V. supra 83b, P. 439. n. 1.
^ᵈnote:Num. IX, 12.
^ᵉnote:Num. IX, 12.
^ᶠnote:V. supra 84b, p. 444, n. 2.
^ᵍnote:While the flesh which he cut on (i.e., which had not gone outside) is eaten.
^ʰnote:When he hits the bone to break it, it may split elsewhere, not just where it was scraped.
^ⁱnote:Which contains marrow; hence scraping the flesh off is of no avail.
^ʲnote:V. Glos.
^ᵏnote:By Rabbinic law; v. infra 120b.
^ˡnote:Who were suspected of maliciously making the sacrifice piggul to hurt its owner, who would have to bring another; therefore the priest who handles it was declared unclean, since defilement was regarded as very serious even by the wicked (Rashi, and Tosaf. quoting Yoma 23a). Another interpretation: so that he who touched it should not be suspected of intending to eat it, as it would be known that he could not do this in his unclean state.
^ᵐnote:Who were too indolent to consume the flesh within the permitted period and allowed it to become nothar.
^ⁿnote:Of these defiled the hands.
^ᵒnote:That quantity involves punishment if it is eaten.
^ᵖnote:As much as an egg is the smallest quantity which defiles by Biblical law. Hence when the Rabbis enacted that this defiles the hands, they adopted the same standard.
^ᵠnote:Its appointed boundaries.
^ʳnote:The inner portion of the flesh is defiled by contact with the part which went outside.
^ˢnote:This is a technical term: the actual point of contact is not visible in the same way that the contact of two separate pieces of flesh is visible.
^ᵗnote:Since foodstuffs are intended to be cut up. In his view the law of concealed uncleanness is only applicable where the object is not intended to be cut, e.g., a piece of cloth, v. Hul. 72b.
^ᵘnote:The two parts.
^ᵛnote:The portion which went outside.
^ʷnote:Cf. Mishnah infra 86a.
^ˣnote:Within which it much be eaten. Viz., the walls of Jerusalem.
^ʸnote:Which involves punishment.
^ᶻnote:Who have registered for one paschal sacrifice.
^ᵃᵃnote:Hence there is no need for a preventive measure.

²from one company to another company, how do we know [that he violates a negative injunction]? — Because it was taught: Thou shalt not carry forth aught of the flesh abroad out of the house: I only know [that it must not be taken] from one house to another house; whence do we know [that it must not be taken] from one company to another company? Because it is stated, ‘abroad’, [meaning] outside [the place of] its consumption. R. Ammi said: He who carries out flesh of the Passover-offering from one company to another company is not culpable unless he deposits [it there]: ‘carrying out’ is written in connection with it as [in connection with] the Sabbath; [hence] just as [in the case of] the Sabbath, [he is not culpable] unless he removes and deposits, so here too [he is not culpable] unless he removes it [from one company] and deposits it [with the second]. R. Abba b. Mammel raised an objection: If they were carrying them on staves, the front bearers having gone outside the walls of the Temple Court while the rear ones had not [yet] gone out, those in front defile [their] garments while those behind do not defile their garments. But it has not come to rest? He raised the objection and he himself answered it: It refers to [carcasses] which are trailed [along the ground]. MISHNAH. IF PART OF A LIMB WENT OUTSIDE, HE CUTS [THE FLESH] AS FAR AS THE BONE AND PARES IT UNTIL HE REACHES THE JOINT AND CUTS IT AWAY. BUT IN THE CASE OF [OTHER] SACRIFICES HE CUTS IT OFF WITH A CHOPPER, BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE [PROHIBITION OF] BREAKING A BONE. FROM THE DOOR-STOP AND WITHIN RANKS AS WITHIN [THE CITY]; FROM THE DOOR-STOP AND WITHOUT IS AS OUTSIDE [THE CITY]. THE WINDOWS AND THE THICKNESS OF THE WALL ARE AS THE INSIDE. GEMARA. Rab Judah said in Rab's name: And it is likewise in respect of prayer. He differs from R. Joshua b. Levi. For R. Joshua b. Levi said: Even an iron partition cannot interpose between Israel and their Father in Heaven. Now this is self-contradictory. You say, FROM THE DOORSTOP AND WITHIN RANKS AS WITHIN [THE CITY]; hence the [area of] the door-stop itself is as the outside. Then consider the sequel: FROM THE DOOR-STOP AND WITHOUT IS AS OUTSIDE [THE CITY]; hence the door-stop itself is as the inside? — There is no difficulty: one refers to the gates of the Temple Court; the other, to the gates of Jerusalem. For R. Samuel b. R. Isaac said: Why were the gates of Jerusalem not sanctified? Because lepers shelter under them in summer from the sun and in winter from the rain. R. Samuel son of R. Isaac also said: Why was the gate of Nicanor not sanctified? Because lepers stand there and insert the thumbs of their hands [into the Court]. THE WINDOWS AND THE THICKNESS OF THE WALL etc. Rab said: The roofs and the upper chambers were not sanctified. But that is not so, for Rab said on the authority of R. Hiyya: There was [only] as much as an olive of the Passover-offering [to eat], yet the Hallel split the roofs!22^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ^ᵃᵠ^ᵃʳ^ᵃˢ^ᵃᵗ^ᵃᵘ^ᵃᵛ^ᵃʷ

^ᵃᵇnote:Ex. XII, 46.
^ᵃᶜnote:Even in the same house.
^ᵃᵈnote:Sc. in Ex. XVI, 29: let no man go out of his place on the seventh day (Tosaf. s.v. vtmuv).
^ᵃᵉnote:Lit., ‘he uproots and lays at rest’. Removing it from private and depositing it in public ground or the reverse; v. Shab. 2a.
^ᵃᶠnote:This refers to the bullocks which were burnt outside the three camps (v. p. 343 n. 2); Jerusalem itself is the third camp but the bearers defiled their garments as soon as they left the first camp, viz., the Temple Court. This is deduced in Yoma 68a from Lev. XVI, 27: and the bullocks of the sin-offering . . . shall be carried forth without the camp.
^ᵃᵍnote:It was not put down, yet it defiles, though ‘carrying out’ is written there.
^ᵃʰnote:Which constitutes depositing.
^ᵃⁱnote:The door-frame in the the city walls of Jerusalem was of considerable breadth — sufficient for the Passover-offering to be eaten there. The Mishnah states that everywhere on the inside of this door-frame is as inside the city, while that on the outside is as the outside of the city. The Gemara discusses the status of the door-frame space itself.
^ᵃʲnote:In the city walls; these too occupied a considerable breadth.
^ᵃᵏnote:Certain portions of the service are recited only when there is a quorum of ten men (called minyan). A man standing in the inside of the door-stop is counted with those inside the room, but not he who is standing outside the door-stop.
^ᵃˡnote:Hence even if he stands outside the door-stop, he is counted with the others.
^ᵃᵐnote:There the space of the door-stop itself is as the inside.
^ᵃⁿnote:There it is as the outside.
^ᵃᵒnote:I.e., the space occupied by the thickness of the gates.
^ᵃᵖnote:Lit., ‘the sun’.
^ᵃᵠnote:Lit., ‘the rain’.
^ᵃʳnote:The east gate of the Temple Court.
^ᵃˢnote:V. Lev. XIV, 17 and Yeb. 7b.
^ᵃᵗnote:The roofs of the houses of Jerusalem are not sanctified, in the sense that sacrifices which are eaten anywhere in Jerusalem nay not be eaten on them. Similarly, the sacrifices which had to be eaten within the Temple precincts might not be eaten on its roof or in its upper chambers.
^ᵃᵘnote:Very large companies registered for each sacrifice, so that each person could not receive more than that.
^ᵃᵛnote:V. p. 324, n. 2.
^ᵃʷnote:It was sung with such gusto.