(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Har Nof
Rosh Kollel: Rav Mordecai Kornfeld

Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Pesachim 85


QUESTION: The verse teaches that it is forbidden to break the bone of the Korban Pesach even if one wants to get to the marrow in order to eat it. Had the verse not stated this explicitly, we might have thought that breaking the bone is permitted in such a case, because the Mitzvas Aseh to eat the Pesach is Docheh the Lo Sa'aseh of breaking the bone.

Why would we have thought that breaking the bone is permitted for the reason of "Aseh Docheh Lo Sa'aseh?" In order for an Aseh to be Docheh a Lo Sa'aseh, both the Aseh and the Lo Sa'aseh must be done *at the same time* ("b'Idnei"). At the very moment that one fulfills the Aseh he has to be doing the Lo Sa'aseh as well, in order for the Aseh to be Docheh it. If he does the Lo Sa'aseh now but he will only fulfill the Mitzvas Aseh later, then it is not permitted to transgress the Lo Sa'aseh. For example, if a Kohen has a Nega (a leprous mark which makes it forbidden for him to perform the Avodah), he may not transgress the Isur of cutting it off ("Ketzitzas Baheres") in order to do the Avodah, because when he cuts it off he is not yet doing the Avodah (Shabbos 133b). (TOSFOS, DH k'she'Hu Omer -- see also Insights to 35:2(e), 47:3)


(a) The PISKEI TOSFOS (Zevachim 97b, #69) explains that when it is *impossible* to fulfill the Aseh without transgressing the Lo Sa'aseh, then one may transgress the Lo Sa'aseh even before he actually fulfills the Aseh. This is not clear, though, because in the case of the Kohen with a Nega it is also impossible for him to do the Avodah without removing the Nega, and yet he is *not* allowed to cut it off! Perhaps the Piskei Tosfos means that in case of a *type* of Mitzvah which could never be fulfilled unless one does a Lo Sa'aseh, the Aseh is Docheh the Lo Sa'aseh even when the Aseh is not fulfilled at the time the Lo Sa'aseh is done. If the Mitzvah of eating the Pesach applies to the marrow inside the bone, then that Mitzvah could *never* be fulfilled without breaking the bone. A Kohen who has a Nega, though, can fulfill the Mitzvah of performing the Avodah at a different time, or have another Kohen do it for him now. It is merely incidental that the Kohen has a Nega. In the case of the marrow inside a bone of the Korban Pesach, eating a Korban Pesach entirely will *always* necessitate breaking the bone.

(b) The YA'AVETZ answers with a principle of the RAN cited by the NEMUKEI YOSEF (Bava Metzia 30a). The Gemara in Bava Metzia implies that if there would only be a Lo Sa'aseh preventing a Kohen from entering a cemetery, then there would be grounds to say that the Mitzvas Aseh of returning a lost object (which is resting in the cemetary) is Docheh the Lo Sa'aseh which forbids a Kohen to go into a cemetery and become Tamei. The Rishonim ask, why would we think that this is a case of Aseh Docheh Lo Sa'aseh? The Kohen transgresses the Lo Sa'aseh right when he enters the cemetery, but at that time he has not yet fulfilled the Mitzvah of returning the lost object!

The Ran answers that the act of walking somewhere to return the lost object is part of the Mitzvah and is Docheh the Lo Sa'aseh, since the person is already involved in the action of returning the lost object. Similarly, in our case, when one breaks into the bone to get the marrow, suggests the Ya'avetz, he is in the process of eating the marrow. Since he breaks the bone during that process, the principle of "Aseh Docheh Lo Sa'aseh" should apply.

(The comparison between the lost object in the cemetery and the case of breaking a bone to get to the marrow is not clear, though. In the case of returning a lost object, the Nemukei Yosef holds that the Mitzvah is not merely to place the lost object into the hands of the rightful owner, but rather the Mitzvah is the involvement in returning the lost object from the moment that one finds it and moves towards it. That is why -- if one turns away from the lost object after seeing it -- he transgresses a Mitzvas Aseh (Bava Metzia 26a). Here, though, the Mitzvah is solely to eat the meat of the Pesach, and even though one has made efforts to get the meat, one has not fulfilled the Mitzvah until he has done an act of *eating*.)


The Gemara in Shabbos (92b) derives from a verse that in order to be Chayav for performing a Melachah on Shabbos, one must do the entire Melachah by himself. If he does a part of the Melachah and someone else does the rest, then they are not Chayav.

RASHI here (DH d'Avid Lei) explains that this rule applies not just to Shabbos but to all Chiyuvei Chatas and Chiyuvei Kares. It does not apply to Isurei Lav, though, except for one -- the Lav of "Lo Totzi," bringing the meat of the Korban Pesach out of its designated place. Since the Lav is called "Hotza'ah," it is compared to the Hotza'ah of Shabbos, even though this Hotza'ah is only an Isur Lav and the Hotza'ah of Shabbos is a Chiyuv Chatas.

The TORAH TEMIMAH used this Gemara to explain an oddity in the wording of the verse, Shemos 12:46. Concerning the Korban Pesach, the verse states, "It must be eaten in one house; do not bring (*Lo Totzi*) any of its meat out of the house, and do not break (*Lo Tishberu*) a bone in it." When the verse teaches the prohibition against breaking a bone, it says, "Lo Tishberu," in the plural form. But when it teaches the prohibition against taking the meat out of its place, it says, "Lo Totzi," in the singular form! Why does the verse change its style?

RAV ZALMAN VOLOZHEN (cited in Sefer Toldos Adam) explains that according to the YERUSHALMI, the Torah prohibits breaking an already broken bone, but it does not prohibit taking meat of the Pesach to another house if it already was removed from its original house. This is why the verse describes the prohibition against breaking a bone in plural form (i.e., even if you are the second person to break this very bone), while it describes the prohibition of Hotza'ah in singular form.

The Torah Temimah suggests that according to the Bavli, another answer may be suggested. We find in Shabbos (92b) that one is Chayav for doing a Melachah on Shabbos only when one does it by himself. If two people do it together, they are Patur ("ba'Asosah"), because each person is only doing half of the act. According to Rashi in our Sugya, this does not apply to any Isur Lav; only to Isurei Kares. However, when it comes to the prohibition of removing meat of the Pesach from its house, if one person does the Akirah and another person does the Hanachah, then they will *not* be Chayav, since this particular Lav is compared to Hotza'ah on Shabbos.

Consequently, the verse is written with remarkable exactitude. When it teaches the Lav against breaking the bone of the Korban Pesach, it says "Lo Tishberu" in the plural form, because even if two people do the act of breaking a bone together, they will be Chayav, because the rule that one person must do the act does not apply to Isurei Lav such as this one. On the other hand, the prohibition against taking the meat out of its area is compared to the Isur of Hotza'ah on Shabbos, and one is Chayav only when one does it by himself, but not when one does it with somebody else. Therefore, the verse says, "Lo Totzi," in the singular form!

OPINIONS: We know that the Korban Pesach must remain within the boundaries of Yerushalayim, and if it goes out, it becomes Pasul. The Mishnah, in defining the boundaries, says that the "Agaf," the area within each of the city's gates that is beneath the door of the gate -- that is, the part of the floor which the door covers when it is closed (which can be quite a large area, considering the thickness of the doors in the wall of the city), is considered part of the inside of the city. The Mishnah then says that it is considered part of the outside of the city. The Gemara explains that the Mishnah means that with regard to the gates of the *Azarah* and items which cannot be taken out of the Azarah, it is considered part of the inside of the city. With regard to the gates of *Yerushalayim* and those items which cannot be taken out of Yerushalayim, the "Agaf" is like the outside of the city and is not sanctified.

Rav Yehudah in the name of Rav says that these guidelines also apply to Tefilah, so that the area of the "Agaf" is considered as part of the inside. Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi argues and says that when it comes to Tefilah, "even an iron barrier does not separate between the Jews and Hashem." To which Halachah of Tefilah is this referring?

(a) RASHI (DH v'Chen l'Tefilah) says that one who is standing on or within the area of the "Agaf" is able to be included in a Minyan for Tefilah. If he is standing outside the entrance, then he cannot join to make a Minyan, according to Rav. Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi says that he can be included in the Minyan even though he is standing outside of the entranceway.

(b) TOSFOS (DH v'Chen l'Tefilah) argues with Rashi and says that everyone agrees that a person standing outside of the room does not join to make a Minyan, as is implied by the Gemara in Eruvin (92b). Rather, the Gemara here is discussing a case when there is already a Minyan inside of the room, and a person standing outside (or on the "Agaf") wants to answer to the Kedushah or Kaddish (or be Yotzei "Tefilah b'Tzibur" -- Meiri) with the Minyan inside. Rav maintains that he may answer to Kedushah or Kaddish only if he is standing on or within the "Agaf," and Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi permits him to answer even if he is standing outside.

The MEIRI explains that Rashi may have understood that our Gemara is not in disagreement with the Gemara in Eruvin. Our Gemara is discussing what the Halachah is when a single person is in the outer half of the doorway. In such a case we rule in Eruvin that he can be indeed counted together with the nine people inside the house. Although the Gemara says that "an iron door cannot separate" people for Tefilah, it doesn't mean that *any* Mechitzah cannot separate them; rather it is referring only to the specific case mentioned above. It is teaching that although the door is closed, be it iron or wood, since it will soon be opened it cannot separate the people outside the door from those inside of it. It is not to be compared to a permanent Mechitzah.

Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,