(a)What do we learn from the Pasuk in Beha'aloscha (with regard to the Pesach Sheni) "v'Etzem Lo Yishberu Bo"?
(b)Why is this Pasuk in itself redundant?
(c)Why might we otherwise have thought that one is permitted to break a bone on the Pesach to get to the marrow inside?
1)
(a)We learn from the redundant Pasuk (with regard to the Pesach Sheni) "v'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 "k'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 "v'Achlu es ha'Basar ba'Laylah ha'Zeh" (marrow is also called Basar), and due to the principle 'Aseh Docheh Lo Sa'aseh', this Aseh would normally over-ride the Lav of "v'Etzem Lo Sishberu Bo".
2)
(a)What does one do with a limb of the Korban Pesach that was partially taken outside the Azarah?
(b)How does this present Resh Lakish (who permits breaking a bone at a point where there is no meat) with a Kashya?
(c)What does Abaye answer?
(d)Ravina answers that the Beraisa is talking about the thigh-bone. How does this dispense with the Kashya?
2)
(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 breaking it.
3)
(a)'ha'Pigul v'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'. On the assumption that they are not really arguing at all, what does each one mean?
(b)One of them gives the above Shi'ur Tum'ah as a k'Zayis, the other, as a k'Beitzah. What are their respective reasons?
(c)The Gemara asks whether Chazal decreed Tum'as Yadayim on Kodshim that were taken outside its boundaries. Why should that be any different than Nosar, where they did?
3)
(a)'ha'Pigul v'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 Nosar.
(b)The one who gives the above Shi'ur Tum'ah as a k'Zayis holds that Chazal gave this Tum'ah the same Shi'ur as its Isur; whereas the one who gave the Shi'ur as a k'Beitzah, holds that they gave it the same Shi'ur as the its regular Shi'ur 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 Yotzei, which requires the act of being taken outside, since Kohanim are not suspected of sinning in this way.
4)
(a)If they decreed Tum'ah on the hands by Yotzei, then what is the point of cutting away the limb that was taken outside from the limb that remained inside, since anyway, the former will be Metamei the latter?
(b)This answer does not conform with the opinion of Ravina with regard to 'Chiburei Ochlin'. What does Ravina say?
(c)How would Ravina then answer the Kashya?
4)
(a)Even if they decreed Tum'ah on the hands, by Yotzei, 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 thought) - 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 Lav 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).
5)
(a)The Beraisa states 'ha'Motzi Besar ha'Pesach me'Chaburah la'Chuburah, Af al Pi she'Hu b'Lo Sa'aseh, Tahor'. How does the Gemara atempt to resolve the above She'eilah (whether Chazal decreed Tum'ah by 'Yotzei'), from this Beraisa? What do we have to presume with regard to carrying a piece of Pesach from one group to another?
(b)On what grounds does the Gemara refute 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?
(c)How do those who give the Shi'ur of Tum'as Yadayim by Pigul and Nosar (and Yotzei) as a k'Beitzah, easily interpret the Beraisa?
(d)How will those who maintain that the Shi'ur is a k'Zayis, explain it?
5)
(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 b'Lo Sa'aseh, Tahor') that Chazal did not decree Tum'ah by Yotzei.
(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 b'Lo Sa'aseh', clearly indicating that it is considered as if it had left Yerushalayim.
(c)Those who give the Shi'ur of Tum'as Yadayim by Pigul and Nosar (and Yotzei) 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 Rabanan did not decree Tum'ah).
(d)Those who maintain that the Shi'ur 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 Yotzei, because the members of a group of Pesach-eaters are alert, and remind each other to be careful.
85b----------------------------------------85b
6)
(a)What do we learn from the Pasuk in Bo "Lo Sotzi Min ha'Bayis Min ha'Basar Chutzah?
(b)And what do we learn from the fact that the Torah uses the expression "Lo Sotzi"?
(c)We learn from Pesukim that the Parim ha'Nisrafin render the clothes of those who are transporting it Tamei the moment they leave the Azarah. There too, the Torah writes "v'Hotzi es ha'Par". How do we now explain 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?
6)
(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 before carrying the Pesach outside its boundaries, and a Hanachah afterwards.
(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 DH 'be'Nigrarin').
7)
(a)We already discussed earlier the procedure if someone carried the limb of a Pesach partially outside Yerushalayim, how one divides the section of a limb that is outside from that which is still inside. What would one do with a limb of other Kodshim (where there is no prohibition of breaking bones)?
(b)What constitutes the border of Yerushalayim regarding the Pesach and the Basar of Kodshim Kalim?
(c)Which area does the Mishnah leave in doubt?
(d)What about the windows in the walls and the top of the outer walls? Are they considered to be inside Yerushalayim or outside?
7)
(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 doubt.
(d)The windows in the walls of Yerushalayim and the top of the outer walls - are also considered to be inside Yerushalayim.
8)
(a)What did Rav Yehudah Amar Rav mean when he said 've'Chen li'Tefilah'?
(b)What does Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi say about boundaries in Tefilah?
8)
(a)When Rav Yehudah Amar Rav says 've'Chen 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 Pesach.
(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.
9)
(a)The Mishnah left us in doubt as to whether underneath the lintel itself is sanctified with the sanctity of Yerushalayim or not. How do we resolve the contradiction of implications from the Reisha (from where it appears that it is not), to the Seifa (from where it appears that it is)?
(b)Why were the recesses of the walls of Yerushalayim not sanctified?
(c)Why was the area in front of the gate of Nikanor not sanctified with the Kedushah of the Azarah?
9)
(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 the Azarah.
(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 rain.
(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.
10)
(a)What is the Din of a Mechusar Kipurim who enters the Azarah?
(b)Why did the Metzora 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?
10)
(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'.
