מֵחֲבוּרָה לַחֲבוּרָה מִנַּיִן? דְּתַנְיָא: ״לֹא תוֹצִיא מִן הַבַּיִת מִן הַבָּשָׂר חוּצָה״, אֵין לִי אֶלָּא מִבַּיִת לְבַיִת, מֵחֲבוּרָה לַחֲבוּרָה מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״חוּצָה״ — חוּץ לַאֲכִילָתוֹ.
from the location of its group to the location of another group, from where is it derived that he has violated a prohibition? As it was taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: “In one house shall it be eaten; you shall not carry out any of the meat from the house to the outside” (Exodus 12:46), I have derived only that it is prohibited to remove meat from house to house; from where do I derive that it is prohibited even to transfer the meat from group to group within one house? The verse states: To the outside, which includes any case in which one brings the meat outside of the place where it may be eaten.
אָמַר רַבִּי אַמֵּי: הַמּוֹצִיא בְּשַׂר פֶּסַח מֵחֲבוּרָה לַחֲבוּרָה, אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב עַד שֶׁיַּנִּיחַ. הוֹצָאָה כְּתִיב בֵּיהּ כְּשַׁבָּת: מָה שַׁבָּת — עַד דְּעָבֵד עֲקִירָה וְהַנָּחָה, אַף הָכָא נָמֵי — עַד דְּעָבֵד עֲקִירָה וְהַנָּחָה.
Rabbi Ami said: One who carries out the meat of the Paschal lamb from the location of one group to another group is not liable until he places the meat in the location of the second group. The reason for this is that the term carrying out is written about it, as the Torah says: “You shall not carry out,” which is similar to the prohibited labor of the same name pertaining to Shabbat. Therefore, just as when it comes to Shabbat one is not liable for carrying from one domain to another until he performs an act of lifting from one domain and placing in the other domain, so too, here also one is not liable until he performs an act of lifting the meat from the location of one group and placing it in the location of another group.
מֵתִיב רַבִּי אַבָּא בַּר מֶמֶל: הָיוּ סוֹבְלִים אוֹתָן בְּמוֹטוֹת, הָרִאשׁוֹנִים יָצְאוּ חוּץ לְחוֹמַת הָעֲזָרָה וְהָאַחֲרוֹנִים לֹא יָצְאוּ, הָרִאשׁוֹנִים מְטַמְּאִין בְּגָדִים וְהָאַחֲרוֹנִים אֵין מְטַמְּאִין בְּגָדִים. וְהָא לָא נָח?
Rabbi Abba bar Mammal raised an objection based upon the halakha that those who remove the inner sin-offerings from the Temple become ritually impure. A baraita with regard to that halakha teaches as follows: If those carrying the inner sin-offerings were carrying them on poles, and those in front already went outside the wall around the Temple courtyard, and those in the rear had not yet gone out, the ones in front nonetheless immediately cause their garments to become ritually impure, and the ones in the rear do not cause their garments to become ritually impure until they also leave. This proves that the people carrying these offerings become impure immediately. But the meat has not yet been placed outside the courtyard, so why should it already be considered to have been taken out?
הוּא מוֹתֵיב לַהּ וְהוּא מְפָרֵק לַהּ, בְּנִגְרָרִין.
He raised the objection and he resolved it: The baraita addresses a case in which the people are dragging the offerings, and therefore as soon as they leave the courtyard the offerings are considered to have been placed on the ground.
מַתְנִי׳ אֵבֶר שֶׁיָּצָא מִקְצָתוֹ, חוֹתֵךְ עַד שֶׁמַּגִּיעַ לָעֶצֶם, וְקוֹלֵף עַד שֶׁמַּגִּיעַ לַפֶּרֶק, וְחוֹתֵךְ. וּבַמּוּקְדָּשִׁין — קוֹצֵץ בְּקוֹפִיץ, שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ מִשּׁוּם שְׁבִירַת הָעֶצֶם.
MISHNA: If a portion of a limb has gone out of its permissible boundary, one must cut the meat until one reaches the bone at the point that separates between the part of the limb that went out of its boundary and the part that did not, and then peel the meat away from the bone until one reaches the joint, and cut off the limb at the joint, as it is prohibited to break the bone itself. And with regard to other offerings, one may chop off the part that exited with a hatchet, as it is not subject to the prohibition of breaking a bone.
מִן הָאֲגַף, וְלִפְנִים — כְּלִפְנִים, מִן הָאֲגַף וּלְחוּץ — כְּלַחוּץ. הַחַלּוֹנוֹת וְעוֹבִי הַחוֹמָה — כְּלִפְנִים.
How does one determine the outer boundaries of a particular location? Anything that is located from the inside of the doorway inward is considered as though it is inside, and anything that is located from the doorway outward is considered as though it is outside. And the windows in the wall and the thickness of the wall are considered as though they are inside, such that an offering is considered to have exited the premises only if it is taken outside the wall.
גְּמָ׳ אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: וְכֵן לִתְפִלָּה. וּפְלִיגָא דְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי. דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: אֲפִילּוּ מְחִיצָה שֶׁל בַּרְזֶל אֵינָהּ מַפְסֶקֶת בֵּין יִשְׂרָאֵל לַאֲבִיהֶם שֶׁבַּשָּׁמַיִם.
GEMARA: Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: And the halakha is similar with regard to prayer, in that a one who is standing outside the doorway cannot be included together with those praying inside. The Gemara notes that Rav disagrees with Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, as Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: Even a barrier of iron does not separate between the Jewish people and their Father in Heaven. Barriers are irrelevant with regard to prayer.
הָא גוּפָא קַשְׁיָא, אָמְרַתְּ: מִן הָאֲגַף וְלִפְנִים — כְּלִפְנִים, הָא אֲגַף עַצְמוֹ — כְּלַחוּץ. אֵימָא סֵיפָא: מִן הָאֲגַף וּלְחוּץ — כְּלַחוּץ. הָא אֲגַף עַצְמוֹ — כְּלִפְנִים!
The Gemara questions the mishna: This matter itself is difficult; the mishna itself contains an internal contradiction. At first you said that the space from the doorway inward is considered as though it is inside, which indicates that the space of the doorway itself is like the outside. Now you say the latter clause of the mishna’s ruling, which states that from the doorway outward is considered as though it is outside, which indicates that the doorway itself is considered as though it is inside.
לָא קַשְׁיָא: כָּאן — בְּשַׁעֲרֵי עֲזָרָה, כָּאן — בְּשַׁעֲרֵי יְרוּשָׁלַיִם.
The Gemara answers: It is not difficult, as one can explain that these two statements are referring to different situations: Here, in the latter clause of the mishna’s ruling, it is referring to the gates of the Temple courtyard, where the inside of the doorways were considered as though they were inside the courtyard and had the sanctity of the courtyard itself. There, in the first clause, it is discussing the gates of Jerusalem, where the insides of the gates were considered like the outside and did not have the sanctity of Jerusalem.
דְּאָמַר רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר רַב יִצְחָק: מִפְּנֵי מָה לֹא נִתְקַדְּשׁוּ שַׁעֲרֵי יְרוּשָׁלַיִם? מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמְּצוֹרָעִין מְגִינִּין תַּחְתֵּיהֶן, בַּחַמָּה מִפְּנֵי הַחַמָּה, וּבַגְּשָׁמִים מִפְּנֵי הַגְּשָׁמִים.
As Rabbi Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak said: For what reason were the insides of the gates of Jerusalem not sanctified? Because lepers protect themselves by sitting under them; in the sun they protect themselves from the sun and in the rain they sit in the gateway to protect themselves from the rain. Lepers are not permitted to enter Jerusalem. In order to allow them to use the gates of the city as shelter from the elements, the gateways were not sanctified.
וְאָמַר רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר רַב יִצְחָק: מִפְּנֵי מָה לֹא נִתְקַדְּשָׁה שַׁעַר נִקָּנוֹר? מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמְּצוֹרָעִין עוֹמְדִין שָׁם וּמַכְנִיסִין בְּהוֹנוֹת יָדָם.
Similarly, Rabbi Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak said: For what reason was the inside of the Gate of Nicanor not sanctified with the sanctity of the Temple courtyard? It is because lepers who had healed and needed to bring their purification offerings would stand there and insert their thumbs into the courtyard, so that the blood of the offerings could be sprinkled on them, which would allow them to be purified. These sources indicate that the insides of the other gates of the Temple courtyard were sanctified and that the insides of the gates of Jerusalem were not sanctified.
הַחַלּוֹנוֹת וָעוֹבִי הַחוֹמָה וְכוּ׳. אָמַר רַב: גַּגִּין וַעֲלִיּוֹת לֹא נִתְקַדְּשׁוּ. אִינִי?! וְהָאָמַר רַב מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי חִיָּיא ״כְּזֵיתָא פִּסְחָא, וְהַלֵּילָא פָּקַע אִיגָּרָא״.
The mishna states that the windows and the thickness of the wall are considered to be on the inside. Rav said: Roofs and upper stories were not sanctified. Therefore, the roofs of the chambers in the Temple courtyard did not have the sanctity of the courtyard, and the roofs of buildings in Jerusalem did not have the sanctity of Jerusalem. The Gemara asks: Is that so? Didn’t Rav say the following aphorism in the name of Rabbi Ḥiyya: The Paschal lamb is the size of an olive-bulk, as it was common for so many people to register for a single Paschal lamb that each one would receive only an olive-bulk of its meat. And the hallel that is said during its consumption breaks the roof; there were so many people who said hallel together, it seemed as though the roofs were breaking due to all the commotion and noise.