Answer (Reish Lakish): No, it obligates when it has a k'Zayis in the place of breakage, whether the k'Zayis is external (meat) or internal (marrow).

Support (Beraisa): "V'Etzem Lo Sishberu Vo" - this applies to bones with or without marrow (the Ase to eat does not override this Lav).

Question: How do we fulfill "V'Ochlu ha'Basar ba'Laylah ha'Zeh?" (Surely, the Torah would not command to extract the meat using coals, for this is likely to lead to a transgression!)

Answer: We eat only meat on the bones [but not marrow].

Suggestion: Perhaps it is also a Mitzvah to eat the marrow!

Question: If so, how do we fulfill "V'Etzem Lo Sishberu Vo?"

Answer: It applies to bones without marrow, but one may break bones with marrow to eat the marrow!

This is not surprising - an Ase (eating the meat) overrides a Lav!

Rejection: It says "V'Etzem Lo Sishberu Vo" regarding Pesach Sheni - this is extra, for it already says "K'Chol Chukas ha'Pesach Ya'asu Oso;"

The repetition teaches that the Isur applies to bones with and without marrow.

Question (against Reish Lakish - Mishnah (Amud B)): If part of a limb left [Yerushalayim], we cut [through the meat to divide between what left and what stayed inside] to the bone and peel off the meat [inside] until reaching a joint; at the joint we cut.

If one may break a limb in a place without a k'Zayis, there is no need to peel so far - we can peel a bit of meat off and cut the bone there!

Answer #1 (Abaye): This is forbidden lest striking the bone where the meat was peeled will make the bone break [elsewhere, where there is a k'Zayis of meat].

Answer #2 (Ravina): The Beraisa discusses a bone with a k'Zayis of marrow inside.

(Mishnah): Pigul and Nosar are Metamei the hands.

(Rav Huna or Rav Chisda): This is [a decree] on account of Kohanim who are suspected [to intentionally Mefagel Korbanos of people they dislike];

(The other of Rav Huna and Rav Chisda): This is on account of lazy Kohanim (Rashbam - and Yisraelim, who are not zealous to finish in time).

The first opinion explains the decree about Pigul; the latter opinion explains the decree about Nosar.

(Rav Huna or Rav Chisda): A k'Zayis is Metamei.

(The other of Rav Huna and Rav Chisda): A k'Beitzah is Metamei.

The first opinion says that Chachamim fixed the Shi'ur for Tum'ah to be like the Shi'ur for [liability for the] Isur; the second opinion adopts the Shi'ur for [mid'Oraisa] Tum'ah of food.

Question: Did Chachamim decree that Yotzei is Tamei?

Perhaps they decreed about Nosar, for people are prone to be lazy about eating Kodshim - but they did not need to decree about Yotzei, for people would not explicitly take Kodshim outside;

Or, perhaps we are concerned also for this!

Answer (Mishnah): If part of a limb left, we cut to the bone and peel off the meat [inside] until reaching a joint; at the joint we cut.

If Yotzei is Tamei, this does not help - the Yotzei was Metamei the Nish'ar (the meat that remained inside)!

Answer #1: This is Tum'as Beis ha'Starim (they touched internally), it is not Metamei.

Question: Ravina holds that a food is considered to be cut (it is as if the Yotzei and the Nish'ar are separate), so this is not Tum'as Beis ha'Starim - how can he answer?

Answer #2: The case is, there is less than a k'Zayis or k'Beitzah (the Shi'ur Tum'ah of Yotzei).

Question (Beraisa): If one takes meat of Pesach from one Chaburah to another, even though he transgresses a Lav, it is Tahor.

Suggestion: It is Tahor but forbidden - Yotzei from Chaburah to Chaburah is like Yotzei from its permitted place (Yerushalayim) - even though it is forbidden, Chachamim did not decree Tum'ah on it!

Answer #1: No, it is Tahor and permitted - Yotzei from Chaburah to Chaburah is unlike Yotzei from its permitted place.

Rejection (Seifa): One who eats it transgresses a Lav.

Answer #2: According to the opinion that the Shi'ur of Yotzei to be Tamei is k'Beitzah, we can say that there is a k'Zayis but not k'Beitzah - therefore one transgresses, but it is not Tamei.

Question: According to the opinion that the Shi'ur is k'Zayis, how can we answer? (From the Seifa we know that there is a k'Zayis!)

Answer #3: All agree that Yotzei of Pesach is not Tamei.

Question: What is the reason?

Answer: Benei Chaburah are zealous; they warn each other to be careful.

The question is about other Kodshim; it is not resolved.

Question: What is the source to forbid taking Pesach from one Chaburah to another?

Answer (Beraisa): "Lo Sotzi Min ha'Bayis Min ha'Basar Chutzah."

Question: This forbids taking from one house to another - what is the source to forbid from one Chaburah to another [in the same house]?

Answer: "Chutzah" - you may not take it out from where it may be eaten.

(R. Ami): One who takes Pesach from one Chaburah to another is not liable until Hanachah (setting it at rest), for it says "Sotzi" - it is like Hotza'ah (transferring from Reshus to Reshus) of Shabbos:

One is not liable for Hotza'ah on Shabbos unless he does Akirah (uproots it from a resting position) and Hanachah - the same applies to Pesach.

Question (R. Aba bar Mamal - Mishnah): [Regarding Chata'os that must be burned outside Yerushalayim, it says "V'Hotzi Es ha'Par" (Vayikra 4:21).] If the animal was being carried out on poles, when the people in front have left the Azarah but not the people in back, those in front are Metamei Begadim, those in back are not [Tamei until they themselves leave].

There was not Hanachah yet!

Answer (R. Aba bar Mamal): The case is, it is being dragged on the ground (this is considered Hanachah).

(Mishnah): If part of a limb left [Yerushalayim], we cut to the bone and peel off the meat [inside] until reaching a joint; at the joint we cut.

Regarding other Kodshim, we cut the bone itself with a chopping knife, for there is no Isur to break bones.

Inside from the Agaf (where the door rests when it is closed) is considered inside; outside the Agaf is considered outside; windows in the wall and the thickness [of the top] of the the wall itself are like inside.

(Gemara - Rav Yehudah): The same applies to prayer (Rashi - to join to form a Minyan; Tosfos - to answer to things that may be said only with a Minyan).

He argues with R. Yehoshua ben Levi:

(R. Yehoshua ben Levi): Even an iron wall cannot separate between Yisrael and Hash-m (it does not matter if one is outside and the Minyan is inside).

Contradiction: The Reisha says that inside from the Agaf is considered inside - this implies that the Agaf itself is considered outside;

The Seifa says that outside the Agaf is considered outside - this implies that the Agaf itself is considered inside!

Resolution: The Agaf of a gate of the Azarah [except for Sha'ar Niknor, between Ezras Nashim and the Azarah] is like inside, since the gate itself was Hukdash [to be like the Azarah; this pertains to limbs of Kodshei Kodoshim, which may not leave the Azarah];

The Agaf of a gate of Yerushalayim is like outside, since the gate itself was not Hukdash [to be like Yerushalayim].

(R. Shmuel bar Rav Yitzchak): The gates of Yerushalayim were not Hukdash, to allow Metzora'im [who may not enter the city] to take shelter underneath from sun and rain;

(R. Shmuel bar Rav Yitzchak): Sha'ar Niknor (the gate between Ezras Nashim and the Azarah) was not Hukdash, to allow a Metzora [in the final stage of Taharah, who may not yet enter the Azarah] to stand inside and stick in his ear, thumb and toe so the blood of his Asham can be put on them. (Tosfos Yevamos (7B) - here also, the intent was to shelter him from sun and rain; alternatively, he could not stand outside the gate and stick his ear inside for the blood, for even if the gate was Hukdash, it would not be "Lifnei Hash-m".)