Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

February 13, 2021 | 讗壮 讘讗讚专 转砖驻状讗

Masechet Pesachim is sponsored by Sivya Twersky in honor of her daughter, Shoshana Baker, her grandson's upcoming Bar Mitzvah ,and in memory of her father, Harav Pesach Zachariah Halevi ben Reuven and Leah Z'late Z'L. He lived Torah and emunah by example to congregational and biological families. His yahrzeit falls within this masechet.

Pesachim 84

One needs to register for an animal that has at least a piece of meat the size of an olive to eat. What parts of the animal count as meat for these purposes? What is the status of sinews that are soft now but will ultimately harden, as the animal used for the Pesach sacrifice is young. One gets lashes for breaking a bone in a valid sacrifice but not if the sacrifice is invalid. Also one does not receive lashes if one leaves the meat over beyond the designated time. From where are there laws derived? Regarding breaking bones, two different sources are brought – what is the practical difference (nafka mina) between the two Eight answers are given. Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish disagree about the law of a limb with an olive bulk of meat on one part and one breaks a bone on the other part – is one obligated or not?

讜诇讗 诪讬诇讛 砖诇讗 讘讝诪谞讛 讛讘讗讛 诪拽诇 讜讞讜诪专


but not a circumcision that is not at its ideal time. If, for some reason, circumcision was not performed on the eighth day after birth, its performance at a later date does not override a Festival, because the obligation to perform the circumcision is not particular to that specific day. This needed to be emphasized. Otherwise, it would have come to be derived through an a fortiori inference that circumcision does override Shabbat and Festivals, based on the fact that it overrides the laws of leprosy. Therefore, the Torah emphasized that circumcision performed later than the eighth day does not override Festivals.


专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 砖讘转讜谉 讚讬讜诐 讟讜讘 注砖讛 讛讜讗 讜讗讬谉 注砖讛 讚讜讞讛 诇讗 转注砖讛 讜注砖讛:


Rav Ashi said a different reason that the leftover Paschal lamb is not burned on the Festival: The obligation of solemn rest stated with regard to Festivals is a positive mitzva. Therefore, the halakhot of Festivals include both a positive mitzva to rest from performing prohibited labor and a prohibition to avoid such labor, and a positive mitzva such as burning leftover sacrificial meat does not override both a prohibition and a positive mitzva.


诪转谞讬壮 讻诇 讛谞讗讻诇 讘砖讜专 讛讙讚讜诇 讬讗讻诇 讘讙讚讬 讛专讱 讜专讗砖讬 讻谞驻讬诐 讜讛住讞讜住讬诐:


MISHNA: Anything that is fit to be eaten in an adult ox, whose bones have fully hardened, may be eaten in a young kid. One may register for a Paschal offering in order to eat any of these parts, and eating any such part is considered a fulfillment of the mitzva to eat the Paschal lamb. However, any part of the animal that is inedible in an adult ox is not considered meat, even if it is soft enough to be eaten in a young kid. One may not register for a Paschal offering in order to eat one of these parts, and eating it is not a fulfillment of the mitzva to eat the Paschal lamb. And the soft ends of the ribs and the cartilage are soft enough to be considered edible and may therefore be eaten from the Paschal lamb.


讙诪壮 专讘讛 专诪讬 转谞谉 讻诇 讛谞讗讻诇 讘砖讜专 讛讙讚讜诇 讬讗讻诇 讘讙讚讬 讛专讱 讜砖讗讬谞讜 谞讗讻诇 诇讗 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 专讗砖讬 讻谞驻讬诐 讜讛住讞讜住讬诐 讜讛讗 讛谞讬 诇讗 诪转讗讻诇讬 讘砖讜专 讛讙讚讜诇


GEMARA: Rabba raised a contradiction: We learned in the mishna that anything that is fit to be eaten in an adult ox may be eaten in a young kid, which indicates clearly that anything that is not eaten in an adult ox is not eaten even when it comes from a young kid. Say the latter clause of the mishna: The ends of the ribs and the cartilage of the young kid may be eaten. But these are not eaten in an adult ox, because they have already become as hard as bone and are no longer edible.


讗诇讗 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讜讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 讻诇 讛谞讗讻诇 讘砖讜专 讛讙讚讜诇 讬讗讻诇 讘讙讚讬 讛专讱 讜砖讗讬谞讜 谞讗讻诇 诇讗 讜讬砖 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗祝 专讗砖讬 讻谞驻讬诐 讜讛住讞讜住讬诐


Rather, it is a dispute between tanna鈥檌m, and both opinions are mentioned in the mishna, and this is what it is teaching: Anything eaten in an adult ox may be eaten in a young kid, and anything that is not eaten in an adult ox is not eaten in a young kid. And some say that even the ends of the ribs and the cartilage are eaten from a young kid, because even these parts of an adult ox can be made edible through extensive cooking.


专讘讗 讗诪专 诪讛 讛谉 拽转谞讬 讜讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 讻诇 讛谞讗讻诇 讘砖讜专 讛讙讚讜诇 讘砖诇拽讗 讬讗讻诇 讘讙讚讬 讛专讱 讘爪诇讬 讜诪讛 讛谉 专讗砖讬 讻谞驻讬诐 讜讛住讞讜住讬诐


Rava said: The mishna teaches employing the style: What are they, in which the mishna establishes a principle and then provides detail, and this is what it is teaching: Anything that is fit to be eaten in an adult ox through cooking may be eaten in a young kid through roasting, even if this part of an adult ox cannot be made edible through roasting. And what are these parts? They are the ends of the ribs and the cartilage.


转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘讗 讻诇 讛谞讗讻诇 讘砖讜专 讛讙讚讜诇 讘砖诇拽讗 讬讗讻诇 讘讙讚讬 讛专讱 讘爪诇讬 讜诪讛 讛谉 专讗砖讬 讻谞驻讬诐 讜讛住讞讜住讬诐 讜讙讬讚讬谉 讛专讻讬谉 谞讬讚讜谞讬谉 讻讘砖专


It was taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rava: Anything that is fit to be eaten in an adult ox through cooking may be eaten in a young kid through roasting; and what are these parts? They are the ends of the ribs and the cartilage; and the soft sinews are judged as meat.


讗讬转诪专 讙讬讚讬谉 砖住讜驻谉 诇讛拽砖讜转 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 谞诪谞讬谉 注诇讬讛谉 讘驻住讞 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 讗讬谉 谞诪谞讬谉 注诇讬讛谉 讘驻住讞 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 谞诪谞讬谉 注诇讬讛谉 讘转专 讛砖转讗 讗讝诇讬谞谉 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 讗讬谉 谞诪谞讬谉 注诇讬讛谉 讘转专 讘住讜祝 讗讝诇讬谞谉


It was stated that the Sages disputed the issue of sinews that will eventually harden but are currently soft. Rabbi Yo岣nan said: One may register for them in the Paschal lamb. Reish Lakish said: One may not register for them in the Paschal lamb. The Gemara explains: Rabbi Yo岣nan said that one may register for them in the Paschal lamb because we follow the current condition of the sinews; since they are edible in their current state, they are considered meat. Reish Lakish said that one may not register for them in the Paschal lamb because we follow the eventual condition of the sinews, and they eventually become inedible.


讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻诇 讛谞讗讻诇 讘砖讜专 讛讙讚讜诇 讬讗讻诇 讘讙讚讬 讛专讱 讜诪讛 讛谉 专讗砖讬 讻谞驻讬诐 讜讛住讞讜住讬诐 讛谞讬 讗讬谉 讗讘诇 讙讬讚讬谉 砖住讜驻谉 诇讛拽砖讜转 诇讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 转谞讗 讛谞讬 讜讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 诇讛谞讱 讛谞讬 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚讛讗 诪转讗讻诇讬 讘砖讜专 讛讙讚讜诇 讘砖诇拽讗 讛谞讱 谞诪讬 诪转讗讻诇讬 讘砖讜专 讛讙讚讜诇 讘砖诇拽讗


Reish Lakish raised an objection to Rabbi Yo岣nan: It was stated that anything eaten in an adult ox may be eaten in a young kid, and what are these parts? They are the ends of the ribs and the cartilage. This indicates that with regard to these items, yes, they may be eaten; but with regard to sinews that will eventually harden, no, they may not. This contradicts the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan. Rabbi Yo岣nan said to him: It taught these, the ends of the ribs and the cartilage, and the same is true for those, i.e., the same halakha applies to sinews that will eventually harden. What is the reason that people may register for these, the ends of the ribs and the cartilage? It is because they are eaten in an adult ox through cooking. These, too, the sinews that will eventually harden, are eaten in an adult ox through cooking.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 诇专讘讬 讗讘讬谉 讻讬 讗讝诇转 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 专诪讬 诇讬讛 诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讙讬讚讬谉 砖住讜驻谉 诇讛拽砖讜转 谞诪谞讬谉 注诇讬讛谉 讘驻住讞 讗诇诪讗 讘转专 讛砖转讗 讗讝诇讬谞谉 讜讛讗 讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诪专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 注讜专 讛专讗砖 砖诇 注讙诇 讛专讱 诪讛讜 砖讬讟诪讗 讜讗诪专 诇讜 讗讬谉 诪讟诪讗 讗诇诪讗 讘转专 讘住讜祝 讗讝诇讬谞谉


Rabbi Yirmeya said to Rabbi Avin: When you go before Rabbi Abbahu, raise the following contradiction to him: Did Rabbi Yo岣nan actually say: With regard to sinews that will eventually harden, people may register for them in the Paschal lamb, which would apparently indicate that we go according to the current condition of the sinews? But Reish Lakish asked Rabbi Yo岣nan: With regard to the hide of the head of a young calf, which is still edible, what is the halakha with regard to the possibility of it becoming ritually impure as a food? Do we view it as a food and apply the rules of ritual impurity of foods, or do we view it as a hide? And he said to him: It does not become ritually impure. Apparently, we go according to the eventual condition of the hide, which contradicts Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 own opinion with regard to sinews.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讚专诪讗 诇讱 讛讗 诇讗 讞砖 诇拽诪讞讬讛 讛讗 讛讚专 讘讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讙讘讬 讚专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗诇 转拽谞讬讟谞讬 砖讘诇砖讜谉 讬讞讬讚 讗谞讬 砖讜谞讛 讗讜转讛:


When Rabbi Avin came before Rabbi Abbahu and asked him this question, Rabbi Abbahu said to him: Whoever asked you this question was not concerned for his flour, meaning he did not carefully consider what he said. Rabbi Yo岣nan retracted his opinion in this regard in favor of the opinion of Reish Lakish, and Rabbi Yo岣nan said to him, at the end of their discussion on the topic: Do not trouble me by asking a question based on a mishna that seems to prove that we follow the current state of the hide, as I teach it in the singular. That mishna, on which I previously relied, is the opinion of one Sage and should not be relied upon. This proves that Rabbi Yo岣nan changed his mind and concluded that the status of parts of the animal is established based on their eventual condition. The opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan with regard to the Paschal lamb was stated before he changed his mind.


诪转谞讬壮 讛砖讜讘专 讗转 讛注爪诐 讘驻住讞 讛讟讛讜专 讛专讬 讝讛 诇讜拽讛 讗专讘注讬诐 讗讘诇 讛诪讜转讬专 讘讟讛讜专 讜讛砖讜讘专 讘讟诪讗 讗讬谞讜 诇讜拽讛 讗转 讛讗专讘注讬诐:


MISHNA: One who breaks the bone of a Paschal lamb that is ritually pure receives forty lashes for having violated a prohibition stated in the Torah. But one who leaves over part of a ritually pure Paschal lamb and one who breaks the bone of a ritually impure Paschal lamb do not receive forty lashes.


讙诪壮 讘砖诇诪讗 诪讜转讬专 讘讟讛讜专 讚转谞讬讗 诇讗 转讜转讬专讜 诪诪谞讜 注讚 讘拽专 讜讛谞转专 诪诪谞讜 注讚 讘拽专 讜讙讜壮 讘讗 讛讻转讜讘 诇讬转谉 注砖讛 讗讞专 诇讗 转注砖讛 诇讜诪专 砖讗讬谉 诇讜拽讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛


GEMARA: The Gemara analyzes the mishna鈥檚 rulings: Granted, one who leaves over part of a ritually pure Paschal lamb is not flogged for having violated Torah law. There is good reason for this, as it was taught in a baraita: The verse states: 鈥淎nd you shall not leave any of it until morning; and that which remains of it until morning you shall burn with fire鈥 (Exodus 12:10). The verse comes to provide a positive mitzva to burn the leftover after the prohibition against leaving it over, to say that one is not flogged because any prohibition that can be rectified by the performance of a positive mitzva does not carry a punishment of lashes. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.


专讘讬 讬注拽讘 讗讜诪专 诇讗 诪谉 讛砖诐 讛讜讗 讝讛 讗诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诇讗讜 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 诪注砖讛 讜讗讬谉 诇讜拽讬谉 注诇讬讜 讗诇讗 砖讜讘专 讘讟诪讗 诪谞诇谉 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讜注爪诐 诇讗 转砖讘专讜 讘讜 讘讜 讘讻砖专 讜诇讗 讘驻住讜诇


Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov says: This is not for that reason. Rather, it is because it is a prohibition that does not involve an action. The transgression is simply the failure to consume all the meat during the allotted time rather than the performance of an action. And one is not flogged for any prohibition that does not involve an action. But with regard to one who breaks the bone of a ritually impure Paschal lamb, from where do we derive that he, too, does not receive lashes? The Gemara answers that the source is as the verse states: 鈥淚n one house shall it be eaten; you shall not remove any of the meat from the house to the outside, and you shall not break a bone in it鈥 (Exodus 12:46). It may be inferred that the prohibition applies 鈥渋n it,鈥 in a valid Paschal lamb, and not in a disqualified one.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讜注爪诐 诇讗 转砖讘专讜 讘讜 讘讜 讘讻砖专 讜诇讗 讘驻住讜诇 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讘讘讬转 讗讞讚 讬讗讻诇 讜注爪诐 诇讗 转砖讘专讜 讘讜 讻诇 讛专讗讜讬 诇讗讻讬诇讛 讬砖 讘讜 诪砖讜诐 砖讘讬专转 注爪诐 讜砖讗讬谉 专讗讜讬 诇讗讻讬诇讛 讗讬谉 讘讜 诪砖讜诐 砖讘讬专转 注爪诐


The Sages taught with regard to that same topic: 鈥淎nd you shall not break a bone in it鈥; the prohibition applies in it, i.e., in a valid Paschal lamb and not in a disqualified one. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says that this halakha should be learned in the following manner: It states: 鈥淚n one house shall it be eaten,鈥 and shortly thereafter the verse states: 鈥淎nd you shall not break a bone in it,鈥 from which one can derive that any Paschal lamb fit for eating is subject to the prohibition of breaking a bone, and any Paschal lamb that is not fit for eating is not subject to the prohibition of breaking a bone.


诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 驻住讞 讛讘讗 讘讟讜诪讗讛 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讻砖专


The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between them? Rabbi Yirmeya said: The practical difference between them is with regard to a Paschal lamb that is brought when the majority of the nation is in a state of ritual impurity. According to the one who says that the prohibition of breaking a bone applies only to a valid Paschal lamb,


讛讗讬 驻住讜诇 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 专讗讜讬 诇讗讻讬诇讛 讛讗讬 谞诪讬 专讗讜讬 诇讗讻讬诇讛 讛讜讗


this one is disqualified, and the prohibition does not apply. However, according to the one who says that it depends on whether the offering is fit for eating, this offering that is brought in a state of ritual impurity is also fit for eating, and the prohibition of breaking a bone therefore applies.


专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 讻讬 讛讗讬 讙讜讜谞讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讗讬谉 讘讜 诪砖讜诐 砖讘讬专转 讛注爪诐 讚专讘讬 诇讗拽讜诇讬 拽讗 讗转讬 讜讛讗讬 讛讗 驻住讜诇 讛讜讗


Rav Yosef said: In a case like this, in which the Paschal lamb was brought in a state of ritual impurity, everyone agrees that it is not subject to the prohibition of breaking a bone. This is because Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi only came to be lenient, and this offering is disqualified due to the fact that it is ritually impure, despite the fact that such an offering is accepted and therefore obligatory.


讗诇讗 讛讬转讛 诇讜 砖注转 讛讻讜砖专 讜谞驻住诇 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讻砖专 讛讗 讻砖专 讛讜讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 专讗讜讬 诇讗讻讬诇讛 讛讗 讛砖转讗 诇讗讜 专讗讜讬 诇讗讻讬诇讛 讛讜讗


Rather, the practical difference between them is with regard to a Paschal lamb that had a time when it was valid and then became disqualified. According to the one who says that the verse should be understood as indicating that the prohibition of breaking a bone applies only to a valid Paschal lamb, this one is valid and the prohibition applies. According to the one who says that the prohibition applies only to an offering that is fit for eating, it is not fit for eating now, and therefore the prohibition does not apply.


讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讻诇 讻讬 讛讗讬 讙讜讜谞讗 讗讬谉 讘讜 诪砖讜诐 砖讘讬专转 讛注爪诐 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讛砖转讗 诪讬讛转 讛讗 驻住讜诇 讛讜讗 讗诇讗 砖讘讬专转 讛注爪诐 诪讘注讜讚 讬讜诐 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讻砖专 讛讗 讻砖专 讛讜讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 专讗讜讬 诇讗讻讬诇讛 讛砖转讗 诇讗讜 讘专 讗讻讬诇讛 讛讜讗


Abaye said: In any case like this, everyone agrees that it is not subject to the prohibition of breaking a bone. What is the reason? Now, at least, it is disqualified. Rather, the halakha with regard to breaking a bone while it is still day on Passover eve is the practical difference between them. According to the one who says the verse should be understood as applying the prohibition to any Paschal lamb that is valid, this one is valid and the prohibition applies. According to the one who says the prohibition applies to a Paschal lamb that is fit for eating, now it is not fit for eating and therefore the prohibition does not yet apply.


诪讬转讬讘讬 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 谞诪谞讬谉 注诇 诪讜讞 砖讘专讗砖 讜讗讬谉 谞诪谞讬谉 注诇 诪讜讞 砖讘拽讜诇讬转 注诇 诪讜讞 砖讘专讗砖 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讬讻讜诇 诇讙讜专专讜 讜诇讛讜爪讬讗讜 讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 砖讘讬专转 讛注爪诐 诪讘注讜讚 讬讜诐 砖驻讬专 讚诪讬 拽讜诇讬转 谞诪讬 谞转讘专讬讛 诪讘注讜讚 讬讜诐 讜谞驻拽讜讛 诇诪讜讞 讚讬讚讬讛 讜谞诪谞讜 注诇讬讛


The Gemara raises an objection: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: One may register for a Paschal lamb to eat the marrow of the head, and one may not register for the purpose of eating the marrow of the thigh bone. The Gemara clarifies: What is the reason one may register for the marrow of the head? It is since one can extract it from inside the head and remove it without breaking any of the bones, which is not the case with regard to marrow from the thigh bone. And if it should enter your mind to say that breaking a bone while it is still day seems well, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi should hold that we may break the thigh bone as well and remove its marrow, and it should be permitted to register for it.


讗诪专 诇讱 讗讘讬讬 讜诇讟注诪讬讱 诪砖讞砖讬讻讛 谞诪讬 谞讬讬转讬 讙讜诪专转讗 讜谞讬讞讜转 注诇讬讛 讜谞拽诇讛 讜谞驻拽讛 诇诪讜讞 讚讬讚讬讛 讜谞讬诪谞讬 注诇讬讛 讚讛讗 转谞讬讗 讗讘诇 讛砖讜专祝 讘注爪诪讜转 讜讛诪讞转讱 讘讙讬讚讬谉 讗讬谉 讘讜 诪砖讜诐 砖讘讬专转 讛注爪诐


The Gemara responds: Abaye could have said to you: And according to your reasoning, after nightfall there is also a permissible way to consume the marrow of the thigh bone: We should bring a coal, and place it on the bone, and burn it, and remove its marrow, and therefore it should be permissible to register for it, for it was taught explicitly in a baraita: But one who burns bones of the Paschal lamb and one who cuts sinews do not transgress the prohibition of breaking a bone.


讗诇讗 诪讗讬 讗讬转 诇讱 诇诪讬诪专 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 驻拽注 专讘讗 讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 讛驻住讚 拽讚砖讬诐 讚拽讗 诪驻住讬讚 诇讬讛 讘讬讚讬诐 讚讬诇诪讗 讗讻讬诇 谞讜专讗 诪诪讜讞 讚讬讚讬讛 诪讘注讜讚 讬讜诐 谞诪讬 讙讝讬专讛 诪讘注讜讚 讬讜诐 讗讟讜 诪砖讞砖讬讻讛


Rather, what have you to say in order to explain why one may not remove the marrow from the thigh bone by burning the bone? It must be due to a rabbinic prohibition. Why did the Sages enact this prohibition? Abaye said: It is because the heat might cause the bone to burst at a location other than where the coal is placed, which would be considered breaking rather than burning. Rava said: It is due to ruining sacrificial food, as one who burns a hole in the bone ruins it actively because it is possible that the fire will consume some of its marrow. Similarly, breaking a bone while it is still day is also prohibited due to rabbinic decree. The Sages prohibited the breaking a bone while it still day due to the concern lest one do so after dark.


专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 讻诇 讻讬 讛讗讬 讙讜谞讗 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讬砖 讘讜 诪砖讜诐 砖讘讬专转 讛注爪诐 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗讜专转讗 诪讬讞讝讬 诇讗讻讬诇讛 讗诇讗 讘讗讘专 砖讬爪讗 诪拽爪转讜 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讻砖专 讛讗 讻砖专 讛讜讗 讜诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 专讗讜讬 诇讗讻讬诇讛 讛讗讬 诇讗讜 讘专 讗讻讬诇讛 讛讜讗


Rav Pappa said: With regard to any case like this, everyone agrees it is subject to the prohibition of breaking a bone. What is the reason? It is because at night it will be fit for eating. Rather, it is with regard to a portion of a limb that has gone out of its permissible boundary and thereby become disqualified that they disagree. In such an instance, one removes the disqualified part in order to be able to eat the rest, and the Sages disagree about whether one may cut the bone. According to the one who said that the verse limits the prohibition of breaking a bone to a Paschal lamb that is valid, this one is valid, and it is therefore prohibited to break a bone. And according to the one who said the prohibition applies to any Paschal lamb that is fit for eating, this one is not fit for eating, and it should therefore be permitted to break its bones.


讻讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘谞讜 砖诇 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讛 讗讜诪专 讗讘专 砖讬爪讗 诪拽爪转讜 讜砖讘专讜 讗讬谉 讘讜 诪砖讜诐 砖讘讬专转 讛注爪诐


As it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka, says: If a portion of a limb has gone out of its permissible boundary and one broke it, one has not transgressed. It is not subject to the prohibition of breaking a bone. This is in accordance with the view that the prohibition of breaking bones applies only to a Paschal lamb that is fit for eating.


专讘 砖砖转 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬讚讬 讗诪专 讻诇 讻讬 讛讗讬 讙讜讜谞讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讗讬谉 讘讜 诪砖讜诐 砖讘讬专转 讛注爪诐 讚讛讗讬 讗讘专 讛讗 驻住讜诇 讛讜讗 讗诇讗 砖讘讬专转 讛注爪诐 讘谞讗 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讻砖专 讛讗 讻砖专 讛讜讗 讜诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 专讗讜讬 诇讗讻讬诇讛 讛砖转讗 讗讬谞讜 专讗讜讬 诇讗讻讬诇讛


Rav Sheshet, son of Rav Idi, said: With regard to any case like this, everyone agrees that it is not subject to the prohibition of breaking a bone, as this limb is disqualified and not merely unfit for eating. Rather, breaking a bone of a Paschal lamb when it is not yet fully roasted and still raw is the practical difference between them. According to the one who said the prohibition applies only to a Paschal lamb that is valid, this one is valid, and it is therefore prohibited to break a bone. And according to the one who said the prohibition applies to any Paschal lamb that is fit for eating, the prohibition does not apply to this offering because now it is not fit for eating.


专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讗诪专 讻诇 讻讬 讛讗讬 讙讜讜谞讗 讬砖 讘讜 诪砖讜诐 砖讘讬专转 讛注爪诐 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚讛讗 讞讝讬 诇讗讻讬诇讛 讚诪讟讜讬 诇讬讛 讜讗讻讬诇 诇讬讛 讗诇讗 砖讘讬专转 讛讗诇讬讛 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讻砖专 讛讗 讻砖专 讛讜讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 专讗讜讬 诇讗讻讬诇讛 讛讗讬 讗讬谞讜 专讗讜讬 诇讗讻讬诇讛 讚讗诇讬讛 诇讙讘讜讛 住诇拽讗


Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: Any case like this is subject to the prohibition of breaking a bone. What is the reason? It is because it is still considered fit for eating, since one can roast it and eat it. Rather, breaking a bone in the tail is the practical difference between them. According to the one who says the prohibition applies to any Paschal lamb that is valid, this one is valid and the prohibition applies. According to the one who says the prohibition applies to any Paschal lamb that is fit for eating, this is not fit for eating, as the tail is consecrated to God, meaning that it is burned on the altar.


专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讻诇 讻讬 讛讗讬 讙讜讜谞讗 讜讚讗讬 讗讬谉 讘讜 诪砖讜诐 砖讘讬专转 讛注爪诐 讚讛讗 讜讚讗讬 讗讬谞讜 专讗讜讬 诇讗讻讬诇讛 讻诇诇 讗诇讗 讗讘专 砖讗讬谉 注诇讬讜 讻讝讬转 讘砖专 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讻砖专 讛讗 讻砖专 讛讜讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 专讗讜讬 诇讗讻讬诇讛 讘注讬谞谉 砖讬注讜专 讗讻讬诇讛 讜诇讬讻讗


Rav Ashi said: A case like this is certainly not subject to the prohibition of breaking a bone, as the tail is certainly not fit for eating at all. Rather, the case of a limb upon which there is not an olive-bulk of meat is the practical difference between them. According to the one who says the prohibition applies to any Paschal lamb that is valid, this is valid, and the prohibition applies. According to the one who says the prohibition applies to any Paschal lamb that is fit for eating, we require the minimal measure of meat that would constitute an act of eating, and there is not enough meat on this bone; therefore, the prohibition does not apply.


专讘讬谞讗 讗诪专 讻诇 讻讬 讛讗讬 讙讜讜谞讗 诇讬转 讘讬讛 诪砖讜诐 砖讘讬专转 讛注爪诐 讚讘注讬谞谉 砖讬注讜专 讗讻讬诇讛 讗诇讗 讗讘专 砖讗讬谉 注诇讬讜 讻讝讬转 讘砖专 讘诪拽讜诐 讝讛 讜讬砖 注诇讬讜 讻讝讬转 讘砖专 讘诪拽讜诐 讗讞专 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讻砖专 讛讗 讻砖专 讛讜讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 专讗讜讬 诇讗讻讬诇讛 讘注讬谞谉 砖讬注讜专 讗讻讬诇讛 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讘讬专讛 讜讛讗 诇讬讻讗


Ravina said: Any case like this is not subject to the prohibition of breaking a bone, as we require the minimal measure of meat that would constitute an act of eating. Rather, the case of a limb upon which there is not an olive-bulk of meat in this place and there is an olive-bulk of meat in another place is the practical difference between them. According to the one who says the prohibition applies to any Paschal lamb that is valid, this one is valid, and it is prohibited to break a bone. According to the one who says the prohibition applies to any Paschal lamb that is fit for eating, we require the minimal measure of meat that would constitute an act of eating in the place of the break, and there is not enough meat there. Therefore, the prohibition of breaking a bone does not apply.


转谞讬讗 讻讗专讘注讛 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讘讘讬转 讗讞讚 讬讗讻诇 讜注爪诐 诇讗 转砖讘专讜 讘讜 注诇 讛讻砖专 讛讜讗 讞讬讬讘 讜讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 注诇 讛驻住讜诇


The Gemara points out that it was taught in a baraita in accordance with four of the interpretations cited above. As it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: The verse 鈥淚n one house shall it be eaten鈥nd you shall not break a bone in it鈥 (Exodus 12:46) teaches that one is liable for breaking the bone of a valid Paschal lamb, and one is not liable for breaking the bone of a disqualified Paschal lamb.


讛讬转讛 诇讜 砖注转 讛讻讜砖专 讜谞驻住诇 讘砖注转 讗讻讬诇讛 讗讬谉 讘讜 诪砖讜诐 砖讘讬专转 注爪诐


If it had a time in which it was valid and it became disqualified at the time of eating, it is not subject to the prohibition of breaking a bone. This supports the opinion of Rav Yosef.


讬砖 讘讜 砖讬注讜专 讗讻讬诇讛 讬砖 讘讜 诪砖讜诐 砖讘讬专转 注爪诐 讗讬谉 讘讜 砖讬注讜专 讗讻讬诇讛 讗讬谉 讘讜 诪砖讜诐 砖讘讬专转 注爪诐


If it has the minimal measure of meat that would constitute an act of eating, it is subject to the prohibition of breaking a bone; if it does not have the minimal measure of meat necessary to constitute an act of eating, it is not subject to the prohibition of breaking a bone. This supports the opinion of both Rav Ashi and Ravina.


讛专讗讜讬 诇诪讝讘讞 讗讬谉 讘讜 诪砖讜诐 砖讘讬专转 讛注爪诐


That which is fit for the altar, such as the tail, is not subject to the prohibition of breaking a bone. This supports the opinion of Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k.


讘砖注转 讗讻讬诇讛 讬砖 讘讜 诪砖讜诐 砖讘讬专转 注爪诐 砖诇讗 讘砖注转 讗讻讬诇讛 讗讬谉 讘讜 诪砖讜诐 砖讘讬专转 注爪诐


At the time of eating, it is subject to the prohibition of breaking a bone; when it is not the time for eating, it is not subject to the prohibition of breaking a bone. This supports the opinion of Abaye.


讗讬转诪专 讗讘专 砖讗讬谉 注诇讬讜 讻讝讬转 讘砖专 讘诪拽讜诐 讝讛 讜讬砖 注诇讬讜 讻讝讬转 讘砖专 讘诪拽讜诐 讗讞专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讬砖 讘讜 诪砖讜诐 砖讘讬专转 讛注爪诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 讗讬谉 讘讜 诪砖讜诐 砖讘讬专转 注爪诐


It was stated that the amora鈥檌m argued about the following matter: In the case of a limb upon which there is not an olive-bulk of meat in this place in which one breaks the bone, and there is an olive-bulk of meat in a different place, has one violated the prohibition of breaking a bone? Rabbi Yo岣nan said: It is subject to the prohibition of breaking a bone. Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: It is not subject to the prohibition of breaking a bone.


讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讜注爪诐 诇讗 转砖讘专讜 讘讜 讗讞讚 注爪诐 砖讬砖 注诇讬讜 讻讝讬转 讘砖专 讜讗讞讚 注爪诐 砖讗讬谉 注诇讬讜 讻讝讬转 讘砖专 诪讗讬 讗讬谉 注诇讬讜 讻讝讬转 讘砖专 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚讗讬谉 注诇讬讜 讻讝讬转 讘砖专 讻诇诇 讗诪讗讬 讬砖 讘讜 诪砖讜诐 砖讘讬专转 讛注爪诐 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗讞讚 注爪诐 砖讬砖 注诇讬讜 讻讝讬转 讘砖专 讘诪拽讜诐 讝讛 讜讗讞讚 砖讗讬谉 注诇讬讜 讻讝讬转 讘砖专 讘诪拽讜诐 讝讛 讜讬砖 注诇讬讜 讻讝讬转 讘砖专 讘诪拽讜诐 讗讞专 (拽砖讬讗 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖)


Rabbi Yo岣nan raised an objection to Reish Lakish from a baraita: The verse states: 鈥淎nd you shall not break a bone in it,鈥 which indicates that the prohibition applies to both a bone upon which there is an olive-bulk of meat and a bone upon which there is not an olive-bulk of meat. What is the meaning of the phrase: Upon which there is not an olive-bulk of meat? If we say that it does not have an olive-bulk of meat on it at all, it is not fit for eating at all. Why, then, is it subject to the prohibition against breaking a bone? Rather, is it not true that this is what it is saying: The prohibition applies both to a bone upon which there is an olive-bulk of meat in this place, and to a bone upon which there is not an olive-bulk of meat in this place and there is an olive-bulk of meat in a different place? This poses a difficulty to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish.


讗诪专 诇讬讛


He said to him:


Masechet Pesachim is sponsored by Sivya Twersky in honor of her daughter, Shoshana Baker, her grandson's upcoming Bar Mitzvah ,and in memory of her father, Harav Pesach Zachariah Halevi ben Reuven and Leah Z'late Z'L. He lived Torah and emunah by example to congregational and biological families. His yahrzeit falls within this masechet.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Pesachim 81-87 – Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time

This week we will learn what happens to the leftover meat of the Korban Pesach and about the prohibition of...

Pesachim 84

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Pesachim 84

讜诇讗 诪讬诇讛 砖诇讗 讘讝诪谞讛 讛讘讗讛 诪拽诇 讜讞讜诪专


but not a circumcision that is not at its ideal time. If, for some reason, circumcision was not performed on the eighth day after birth, its performance at a later date does not override a Festival, because the obligation to perform the circumcision is not particular to that specific day. This needed to be emphasized. Otherwise, it would have come to be derived through an a fortiori inference that circumcision does override Shabbat and Festivals, based on the fact that it overrides the laws of leprosy. Therefore, the Torah emphasized that circumcision performed later than the eighth day does not override Festivals.


专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 砖讘转讜谉 讚讬讜诐 讟讜讘 注砖讛 讛讜讗 讜讗讬谉 注砖讛 讚讜讞讛 诇讗 转注砖讛 讜注砖讛:


Rav Ashi said a different reason that the leftover Paschal lamb is not burned on the Festival: The obligation of solemn rest stated with regard to Festivals is a positive mitzva. Therefore, the halakhot of Festivals include both a positive mitzva to rest from performing prohibited labor and a prohibition to avoid such labor, and a positive mitzva such as burning leftover sacrificial meat does not override both a prohibition and a positive mitzva.


诪转谞讬壮 讻诇 讛谞讗讻诇 讘砖讜专 讛讙讚讜诇 讬讗讻诇 讘讙讚讬 讛专讱 讜专讗砖讬 讻谞驻讬诐 讜讛住讞讜住讬诐:


MISHNA: Anything that is fit to be eaten in an adult ox, whose bones have fully hardened, may be eaten in a young kid. One may register for a Paschal offering in order to eat any of these parts, and eating any such part is considered a fulfillment of the mitzva to eat the Paschal lamb. However, any part of the animal that is inedible in an adult ox is not considered meat, even if it is soft enough to be eaten in a young kid. One may not register for a Paschal offering in order to eat one of these parts, and eating it is not a fulfillment of the mitzva to eat the Paschal lamb. And the soft ends of the ribs and the cartilage are soft enough to be considered edible and may therefore be eaten from the Paschal lamb.


讙诪壮 专讘讛 专诪讬 转谞谉 讻诇 讛谞讗讻诇 讘砖讜专 讛讙讚讜诇 讬讗讻诇 讘讙讚讬 讛专讱 讜砖讗讬谞讜 谞讗讻诇 诇讗 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 专讗砖讬 讻谞驻讬诐 讜讛住讞讜住讬诐 讜讛讗 讛谞讬 诇讗 诪转讗讻诇讬 讘砖讜专 讛讙讚讜诇


GEMARA: Rabba raised a contradiction: We learned in the mishna that anything that is fit to be eaten in an adult ox may be eaten in a young kid, which indicates clearly that anything that is not eaten in an adult ox is not eaten even when it comes from a young kid. Say the latter clause of the mishna: The ends of the ribs and the cartilage of the young kid may be eaten. But these are not eaten in an adult ox, because they have already become as hard as bone and are no longer edible.


讗诇讗 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讜讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 讻诇 讛谞讗讻诇 讘砖讜专 讛讙讚讜诇 讬讗讻诇 讘讙讚讬 讛专讱 讜砖讗讬谞讜 谞讗讻诇 诇讗 讜讬砖 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗祝 专讗砖讬 讻谞驻讬诐 讜讛住讞讜住讬诐


Rather, it is a dispute between tanna鈥檌m, and both opinions are mentioned in the mishna, and this is what it is teaching: Anything eaten in an adult ox may be eaten in a young kid, and anything that is not eaten in an adult ox is not eaten in a young kid. And some say that even the ends of the ribs and the cartilage are eaten from a young kid, because even these parts of an adult ox can be made edible through extensive cooking.


专讘讗 讗诪专 诪讛 讛谉 拽转谞讬 讜讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 讻诇 讛谞讗讻诇 讘砖讜专 讛讙讚讜诇 讘砖诇拽讗 讬讗讻诇 讘讙讚讬 讛专讱 讘爪诇讬 讜诪讛 讛谉 专讗砖讬 讻谞驻讬诐 讜讛住讞讜住讬诐


Rava said: The mishna teaches employing the style: What are they, in which the mishna establishes a principle and then provides detail, and this is what it is teaching: Anything that is fit to be eaten in an adult ox through cooking may be eaten in a young kid through roasting, even if this part of an adult ox cannot be made edible through roasting. And what are these parts? They are the ends of the ribs and the cartilage.


转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘讗 讻诇 讛谞讗讻诇 讘砖讜专 讛讙讚讜诇 讘砖诇拽讗 讬讗讻诇 讘讙讚讬 讛专讱 讘爪诇讬 讜诪讛 讛谉 专讗砖讬 讻谞驻讬诐 讜讛住讞讜住讬诐 讜讙讬讚讬谉 讛专讻讬谉 谞讬讚讜谞讬谉 讻讘砖专


It was taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rava: Anything that is fit to be eaten in an adult ox through cooking may be eaten in a young kid through roasting; and what are these parts? They are the ends of the ribs and the cartilage; and the soft sinews are judged as meat.


讗讬转诪专 讙讬讚讬谉 砖住讜驻谉 诇讛拽砖讜转 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 谞诪谞讬谉 注诇讬讛谉 讘驻住讞 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 讗讬谉 谞诪谞讬谉 注诇讬讛谉 讘驻住讞 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 谞诪谞讬谉 注诇讬讛谉 讘转专 讛砖转讗 讗讝诇讬谞谉 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 讗讬谉 谞诪谞讬谉 注诇讬讛谉 讘转专 讘住讜祝 讗讝诇讬谞谉


It was stated that the Sages disputed the issue of sinews that will eventually harden but are currently soft. Rabbi Yo岣nan said: One may register for them in the Paschal lamb. Reish Lakish said: One may not register for them in the Paschal lamb. The Gemara explains: Rabbi Yo岣nan said that one may register for them in the Paschal lamb because we follow the current condition of the sinews; since they are edible in their current state, they are considered meat. Reish Lakish said that one may not register for them in the Paschal lamb because we follow the eventual condition of the sinews, and they eventually become inedible.


讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻诇 讛谞讗讻诇 讘砖讜专 讛讙讚讜诇 讬讗讻诇 讘讙讚讬 讛专讱 讜诪讛 讛谉 专讗砖讬 讻谞驻讬诐 讜讛住讞讜住讬诐 讛谞讬 讗讬谉 讗讘诇 讙讬讚讬谉 砖住讜驻谉 诇讛拽砖讜转 诇讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 转谞讗 讛谞讬 讜讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 诇讛谞讱 讛谞讬 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚讛讗 诪转讗讻诇讬 讘砖讜专 讛讙讚讜诇 讘砖诇拽讗 讛谞讱 谞诪讬 诪转讗讻诇讬 讘砖讜专 讛讙讚讜诇 讘砖诇拽讗


Reish Lakish raised an objection to Rabbi Yo岣nan: It was stated that anything eaten in an adult ox may be eaten in a young kid, and what are these parts? They are the ends of the ribs and the cartilage. This indicates that with regard to these items, yes, they may be eaten; but with regard to sinews that will eventually harden, no, they may not. This contradicts the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan. Rabbi Yo岣nan said to him: It taught these, the ends of the ribs and the cartilage, and the same is true for those, i.e., the same halakha applies to sinews that will eventually harden. What is the reason that people may register for these, the ends of the ribs and the cartilage? It is because they are eaten in an adult ox through cooking. These, too, the sinews that will eventually harden, are eaten in an adult ox through cooking.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 诇专讘讬 讗讘讬谉 讻讬 讗讝诇转 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 专诪讬 诇讬讛 诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讙讬讚讬谉 砖住讜驻谉 诇讛拽砖讜转 谞诪谞讬谉 注诇讬讛谉 讘驻住讞 讗诇诪讗 讘转专 讛砖转讗 讗讝诇讬谞谉 讜讛讗 讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诪专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 注讜专 讛专讗砖 砖诇 注讙诇 讛专讱 诪讛讜 砖讬讟诪讗 讜讗诪专 诇讜 讗讬谉 诪讟诪讗 讗诇诪讗 讘转专 讘住讜祝 讗讝诇讬谞谉


Rabbi Yirmeya said to Rabbi Avin: When you go before Rabbi Abbahu, raise the following contradiction to him: Did Rabbi Yo岣nan actually say: With regard to sinews that will eventually harden, people may register for them in the Paschal lamb, which would apparently indicate that we go according to the current condition of the sinews? But Reish Lakish asked Rabbi Yo岣nan: With regard to the hide of the head of a young calf, which is still edible, what is the halakha with regard to the possibility of it becoming ritually impure as a food? Do we view it as a food and apply the rules of ritual impurity of foods, or do we view it as a hide? And he said to him: It does not become ritually impure. Apparently, we go according to the eventual condition of the hide, which contradicts Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 own opinion with regard to sinews.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讚专诪讗 诇讱 讛讗 诇讗 讞砖 诇拽诪讞讬讛 讛讗 讛讚专 讘讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讙讘讬 讚专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗诇 转拽谞讬讟谞讬 砖讘诇砖讜谉 讬讞讬讚 讗谞讬 砖讜谞讛 讗讜转讛:


When Rabbi Avin came before Rabbi Abbahu and asked him this question, Rabbi Abbahu said to him: Whoever asked you this question was not concerned for his flour, meaning he did not carefully consider what he said. Rabbi Yo岣nan retracted his opinion in this regard in favor of the opinion of Reish Lakish, and Rabbi Yo岣nan said to him, at the end of their discussion on the topic: Do not trouble me by asking a question based on a mishna that seems to prove that we follow the current state of the hide, as I teach it in the singular. That mishna, on which I previously relied, is the opinion of one Sage and should not be relied upon. This proves that Rabbi Yo岣nan changed his mind and concluded that the status of parts of the animal is established based on their eventual condition. The opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan with regard to the Paschal lamb was stated before he changed his mind.


诪转谞讬壮 讛砖讜讘专 讗转 讛注爪诐 讘驻住讞 讛讟讛讜专 讛专讬 讝讛 诇讜拽讛 讗专讘注讬诐 讗讘诇 讛诪讜转讬专 讘讟讛讜专 讜讛砖讜讘专 讘讟诪讗 讗讬谞讜 诇讜拽讛 讗转 讛讗专讘注讬诐:


MISHNA: One who breaks the bone of a Paschal lamb that is ritually pure receives forty lashes for having violated a prohibition stated in the Torah. But one who leaves over part of a ritually pure Paschal lamb and one who breaks the bone of a ritually impure Paschal lamb do not receive forty lashes.


讙诪壮 讘砖诇诪讗 诪讜转讬专 讘讟讛讜专 讚转谞讬讗 诇讗 转讜转讬专讜 诪诪谞讜 注讚 讘拽专 讜讛谞转专 诪诪谞讜 注讚 讘拽专 讜讙讜壮 讘讗 讛讻转讜讘 诇讬转谉 注砖讛 讗讞专 诇讗 转注砖讛 诇讜诪专 砖讗讬谉 诇讜拽讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛


GEMARA: The Gemara analyzes the mishna鈥檚 rulings: Granted, one who leaves over part of a ritually pure Paschal lamb is not flogged for having violated Torah law. There is good reason for this, as it was taught in a baraita: The verse states: 鈥淎nd you shall not leave any of it until morning; and that which remains of it until morning you shall burn with fire鈥 (Exodus 12:10). The verse comes to provide a positive mitzva to burn the leftover after the prohibition against leaving it over, to say that one is not flogged because any prohibition that can be rectified by the performance of a positive mitzva does not carry a punishment of lashes. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.


专讘讬 讬注拽讘 讗讜诪专 诇讗 诪谉 讛砖诐 讛讜讗 讝讛 讗诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诇讗讜 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 诪注砖讛 讜讗讬谉 诇讜拽讬谉 注诇讬讜 讗诇讗 砖讜讘专 讘讟诪讗 诪谞诇谉 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讜注爪诐 诇讗 转砖讘专讜 讘讜 讘讜 讘讻砖专 讜诇讗 讘驻住讜诇


Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov says: This is not for that reason. Rather, it is because it is a prohibition that does not involve an action. The transgression is simply the failure to consume all the meat during the allotted time rather than the performance of an action. And one is not flogged for any prohibition that does not involve an action. But with regard to one who breaks the bone of a ritually impure Paschal lamb, from where do we derive that he, too, does not receive lashes? The Gemara answers that the source is as the verse states: 鈥淚n one house shall it be eaten; you shall not remove any of the meat from the house to the outside, and you shall not break a bone in it鈥 (Exodus 12:46). It may be inferred that the prohibition applies 鈥渋n it,鈥 in a valid Paschal lamb, and not in a disqualified one.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讜注爪诐 诇讗 转砖讘专讜 讘讜 讘讜 讘讻砖专 讜诇讗 讘驻住讜诇 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讘讘讬转 讗讞讚 讬讗讻诇 讜注爪诐 诇讗 转砖讘专讜 讘讜 讻诇 讛专讗讜讬 诇讗讻讬诇讛 讬砖 讘讜 诪砖讜诐 砖讘讬专转 注爪诐 讜砖讗讬谉 专讗讜讬 诇讗讻讬诇讛 讗讬谉 讘讜 诪砖讜诐 砖讘讬专转 注爪诐


The Sages taught with regard to that same topic: 鈥淎nd you shall not break a bone in it鈥; the prohibition applies in it, i.e., in a valid Paschal lamb and not in a disqualified one. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says that this halakha should be learned in the following manner: It states: 鈥淚n one house shall it be eaten,鈥 and shortly thereafter the verse states: 鈥淎nd you shall not break a bone in it,鈥 from which one can derive that any Paschal lamb fit for eating is subject to the prohibition of breaking a bone, and any Paschal lamb that is not fit for eating is not subject to the prohibition of breaking a bone.


诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 驻住讞 讛讘讗 讘讟讜诪讗讛 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讻砖专


The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between them? Rabbi Yirmeya said: The practical difference between them is with regard to a Paschal lamb that is brought when the majority of the nation is in a state of ritual impurity. According to the one who says that the prohibition of breaking a bone applies only to a valid Paschal lamb,


讛讗讬 驻住讜诇 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 专讗讜讬 诇讗讻讬诇讛 讛讗讬 谞诪讬 专讗讜讬 诇讗讻讬诇讛 讛讜讗


this one is disqualified, and the prohibition does not apply. However, according to the one who says that it depends on whether the offering is fit for eating, this offering that is brought in a state of ritual impurity is also fit for eating, and the prohibition of breaking a bone therefore applies.


专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 讻讬 讛讗讬 讙讜讜谞讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讗讬谉 讘讜 诪砖讜诐 砖讘讬专转 讛注爪诐 讚专讘讬 诇讗拽讜诇讬 拽讗 讗转讬 讜讛讗讬 讛讗 驻住讜诇 讛讜讗


Rav Yosef said: In a case like this, in which the Paschal lamb was brought in a state of ritual impurity, everyone agrees that it is not subject to the prohibition of breaking a bone. This is because Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi only came to be lenient, and this offering is disqualified due to the fact that it is ritually impure, despite the fact that such an offering is accepted and therefore obligatory.


讗诇讗 讛讬转讛 诇讜 砖注转 讛讻讜砖专 讜谞驻住诇 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讻砖专 讛讗 讻砖专 讛讜讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 专讗讜讬 诇讗讻讬诇讛 讛讗 讛砖转讗 诇讗讜 专讗讜讬 诇讗讻讬诇讛 讛讜讗


Rather, the practical difference between them is with regard to a Paschal lamb that had a time when it was valid and then became disqualified. According to the one who says that the verse should be understood as indicating that the prohibition of breaking a bone applies only to a valid Paschal lamb, this one is valid and the prohibition applies. According to the one who says that the prohibition applies only to an offering that is fit for eating, it is not fit for eating now, and therefore the prohibition does not apply.


讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讻诇 讻讬 讛讗讬 讙讜讜谞讗 讗讬谉 讘讜 诪砖讜诐 砖讘讬专转 讛注爪诐 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讛砖转讗 诪讬讛转 讛讗 驻住讜诇 讛讜讗 讗诇讗 砖讘讬专转 讛注爪诐 诪讘注讜讚 讬讜诐 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讻砖专 讛讗 讻砖专 讛讜讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 专讗讜讬 诇讗讻讬诇讛 讛砖转讗 诇讗讜 讘专 讗讻讬诇讛 讛讜讗


Abaye said: In any case like this, everyone agrees that it is not subject to the prohibition of breaking a bone. What is the reason? Now, at least, it is disqualified. Rather, the halakha with regard to breaking a bone while it is still day on Passover eve is the practical difference between them. According to the one who says the verse should be understood as applying the prohibition to any Paschal lamb that is valid, this one is valid and the prohibition applies. According to the one who says the prohibition applies to a Paschal lamb that is fit for eating, now it is not fit for eating and therefore the prohibition does not yet apply.


诪讬转讬讘讬 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 谞诪谞讬谉 注诇 诪讜讞 砖讘专讗砖 讜讗讬谉 谞诪谞讬谉 注诇 诪讜讞 砖讘拽讜诇讬转 注诇 诪讜讞 砖讘专讗砖 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讬讻讜诇 诇讙讜专专讜 讜诇讛讜爪讬讗讜 讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 砖讘讬专转 讛注爪诐 诪讘注讜讚 讬讜诐 砖驻讬专 讚诪讬 拽讜诇讬转 谞诪讬 谞转讘专讬讛 诪讘注讜讚 讬讜诐 讜谞驻拽讜讛 诇诪讜讞 讚讬讚讬讛 讜谞诪谞讜 注诇讬讛


The Gemara raises an objection: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: One may register for a Paschal lamb to eat the marrow of the head, and one may not register for the purpose of eating the marrow of the thigh bone. The Gemara clarifies: What is the reason one may register for the marrow of the head? It is since one can extract it from inside the head and remove it without breaking any of the bones, which is not the case with regard to marrow from the thigh bone. And if it should enter your mind to say that breaking a bone while it is still day seems well, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi should hold that we may break the thigh bone as well and remove its marrow, and it should be permitted to register for it.


讗诪专 诇讱 讗讘讬讬 讜诇讟注诪讬讱 诪砖讞砖讬讻讛 谞诪讬 谞讬讬转讬 讙讜诪专转讗 讜谞讬讞讜转 注诇讬讛 讜谞拽诇讛 讜谞驻拽讛 诇诪讜讞 讚讬讚讬讛 讜谞讬诪谞讬 注诇讬讛 讚讛讗 转谞讬讗 讗讘诇 讛砖讜专祝 讘注爪诪讜转 讜讛诪讞转讱 讘讙讬讚讬谉 讗讬谉 讘讜 诪砖讜诐 砖讘讬专转 讛注爪诐


The Gemara responds: Abaye could have said to you: And according to your reasoning, after nightfall there is also a permissible way to consume the marrow of the thigh bone: We should bring a coal, and place it on the bone, and burn it, and remove its marrow, and therefore it should be permissible to register for it, for it was taught explicitly in a baraita: But one who burns bones of the Paschal lamb and one who cuts sinews do not transgress the prohibition of breaking a bone.


讗诇讗 诪讗讬 讗讬转 诇讱 诇诪讬诪专 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 驻拽注 专讘讗 讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 讛驻住讚 拽讚砖讬诐 讚拽讗 诪驻住讬讚 诇讬讛 讘讬讚讬诐 讚讬诇诪讗 讗讻讬诇 谞讜专讗 诪诪讜讞 讚讬讚讬讛 诪讘注讜讚 讬讜诐 谞诪讬 讙讝讬专讛 诪讘注讜讚 讬讜诐 讗讟讜 诪砖讞砖讬讻讛


Rather, what have you to say in order to explain why one may not remove the marrow from the thigh bone by burning the bone? It must be due to a rabbinic prohibition. Why did the Sages enact this prohibition? Abaye said: It is because the heat might cause the bone to burst at a location other than where the coal is placed, which would be considered breaking rather than burning. Rava said: It is due to ruining sacrificial food, as one who burns a hole in the bone ruins it actively because it is possible that the fire will consume some of its marrow. Similarly, breaking a bone while it is still day is also prohibited due to rabbinic decree. The Sages prohibited the breaking a bone while it still day due to the concern lest one do so after dark.


专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 讻诇 讻讬 讛讗讬 讙讜谞讗 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讬砖 讘讜 诪砖讜诐 砖讘讬专转 讛注爪诐 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗讜专转讗 诪讬讞讝讬 诇讗讻讬诇讛 讗诇讗 讘讗讘专 砖讬爪讗 诪拽爪转讜 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讻砖专 讛讗 讻砖专 讛讜讗 讜诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 专讗讜讬 诇讗讻讬诇讛 讛讗讬 诇讗讜 讘专 讗讻讬诇讛 讛讜讗


Rav Pappa said: With regard to any case like this, everyone agrees it is subject to the prohibition of breaking a bone. What is the reason? It is because at night it will be fit for eating. Rather, it is with regard to a portion of a limb that has gone out of its permissible boundary and thereby become disqualified that they disagree. In such an instance, one removes the disqualified part in order to be able to eat the rest, and the Sages disagree about whether one may cut the bone. According to the one who said that the verse limits the prohibition of breaking a bone to a Paschal lamb that is valid, this one is valid, and it is therefore prohibited to break a bone. And according to the one who said the prohibition applies to any Paschal lamb that is fit for eating, this one is not fit for eating, and it should therefore be permitted to break its bones.


讻讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘谞讜 砖诇 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讛 讗讜诪专 讗讘专 砖讬爪讗 诪拽爪转讜 讜砖讘专讜 讗讬谉 讘讜 诪砖讜诐 砖讘讬专转 讛注爪诐


As it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka, says: If a portion of a limb has gone out of its permissible boundary and one broke it, one has not transgressed. It is not subject to the prohibition of breaking a bone. This is in accordance with the view that the prohibition of breaking bones applies only to a Paschal lamb that is fit for eating.


专讘 砖砖转 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬讚讬 讗诪专 讻诇 讻讬 讛讗讬 讙讜讜谞讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讗讬谉 讘讜 诪砖讜诐 砖讘讬专转 讛注爪诐 讚讛讗讬 讗讘专 讛讗 驻住讜诇 讛讜讗 讗诇讗 砖讘讬专转 讛注爪诐 讘谞讗 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讻砖专 讛讗 讻砖专 讛讜讗 讜诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 专讗讜讬 诇讗讻讬诇讛 讛砖转讗 讗讬谞讜 专讗讜讬 诇讗讻讬诇讛


Rav Sheshet, son of Rav Idi, said: With regard to any case like this, everyone agrees that it is not subject to the prohibition of breaking a bone, as this limb is disqualified and not merely unfit for eating. Rather, breaking a bone of a Paschal lamb when it is not yet fully roasted and still raw is the practical difference between them. According to the one who said the prohibition applies only to a Paschal lamb that is valid, this one is valid, and it is therefore prohibited to break a bone. And according to the one who said the prohibition applies to any Paschal lamb that is fit for eating, the prohibition does not apply to this offering because now it is not fit for eating.


专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讗诪专 讻诇 讻讬 讛讗讬 讙讜讜谞讗 讬砖 讘讜 诪砖讜诐 砖讘讬专转 讛注爪诐 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚讛讗 讞讝讬 诇讗讻讬诇讛 讚诪讟讜讬 诇讬讛 讜讗讻讬诇 诇讬讛 讗诇讗 砖讘讬专转 讛讗诇讬讛 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讻砖专 讛讗 讻砖专 讛讜讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 专讗讜讬 诇讗讻讬诇讛 讛讗讬 讗讬谞讜 专讗讜讬 诇讗讻讬诇讛 讚讗诇讬讛 诇讙讘讜讛 住诇拽讗


Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: Any case like this is subject to the prohibition of breaking a bone. What is the reason? It is because it is still considered fit for eating, since one can roast it and eat it. Rather, breaking a bone in the tail is the practical difference between them. According to the one who says the prohibition applies to any Paschal lamb that is valid, this one is valid and the prohibition applies. According to the one who says the prohibition applies to any Paschal lamb that is fit for eating, this is not fit for eating, as the tail is consecrated to God, meaning that it is burned on the altar.


专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讻诇 讻讬 讛讗讬 讙讜讜谞讗 讜讚讗讬 讗讬谉 讘讜 诪砖讜诐 砖讘讬专转 讛注爪诐 讚讛讗 讜讚讗讬 讗讬谞讜 专讗讜讬 诇讗讻讬诇讛 讻诇诇 讗诇讗 讗讘专 砖讗讬谉 注诇讬讜 讻讝讬转 讘砖专 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讻砖专 讛讗 讻砖专 讛讜讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 专讗讜讬 诇讗讻讬诇讛 讘注讬谞谉 砖讬注讜专 讗讻讬诇讛 讜诇讬讻讗


Rav Ashi said: A case like this is certainly not subject to the prohibition of breaking a bone, as the tail is certainly not fit for eating at all. Rather, the case of a limb upon which there is not an olive-bulk of meat is the practical difference between them. According to the one who says the prohibition applies to any Paschal lamb that is valid, this is valid, and the prohibition applies. According to the one who says the prohibition applies to any Paschal lamb that is fit for eating, we require the minimal measure of meat that would constitute an act of eating, and there is not enough meat on this bone; therefore, the prohibition does not apply.


专讘讬谞讗 讗诪专 讻诇 讻讬 讛讗讬 讙讜讜谞讗 诇讬转 讘讬讛 诪砖讜诐 砖讘讬专转 讛注爪诐 讚讘注讬谞谉 砖讬注讜专 讗讻讬诇讛 讗诇讗 讗讘专 砖讗讬谉 注诇讬讜 讻讝讬转 讘砖专 讘诪拽讜诐 讝讛 讜讬砖 注诇讬讜 讻讝讬转 讘砖专 讘诪拽讜诐 讗讞专 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讻砖专 讛讗 讻砖专 讛讜讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 专讗讜讬 诇讗讻讬诇讛 讘注讬谞谉 砖讬注讜专 讗讻讬诇讛 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讘讬专讛 讜讛讗 诇讬讻讗


Ravina said: Any case like this is not subject to the prohibition of breaking a bone, as we require the minimal measure of meat that would constitute an act of eating. Rather, the case of a limb upon which there is not an olive-bulk of meat in this place and there is an olive-bulk of meat in another place is the practical difference between them. According to the one who says the prohibition applies to any Paschal lamb that is valid, this one is valid, and it is prohibited to break a bone. According to the one who says the prohibition applies to any Paschal lamb that is fit for eating, we require the minimal measure of meat that would constitute an act of eating in the place of the break, and there is not enough meat there. Therefore, the prohibition of breaking a bone does not apply.


转谞讬讗 讻讗专讘注讛 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讘讘讬转 讗讞讚 讬讗讻诇 讜注爪诐 诇讗 转砖讘专讜 讘讜 注诇 讛讻砖专 讛讜讗 讞讬讬讘 讜讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 注诇 讛驻住讜诇


The Gemara points out that it was taught in a baraita in accordance with four of the interpretations cited above. As it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: The verse 鈥淚n one house shall it be eaten鈥nd you shall not break a bone in it鈥 (Exodus 12:46) teaches that one is liable for breaking the bone of a valid Paschal lamb, and one is not liable for breaking the bone of a disqualified Paschal lamb.


讛讬转讛 诇讜 砖注转 讛讻讜砖专 讜谞驻住诇 讘砖注转 讗讻讬诇讛 讗讬谉 讘讜 诪砖讜诐 砖讘讬专转 注爪诐


If it had a time in which it was valid and it became disqualified at the time of eating, it is not subject to the prohibition of breaking a bone. This supports the opinion of Rav Yosef.


讬砖 讘讜 砖讬注讜专 讗讻讬诇讛 讬砖 讘讜 诪砖讜诐 砖讘讬专转 注爪诐 讗讬谉 讘讜 砖讬注讜专 讗讻讬诇讛 讗讬谉 讘讜 诪砖讜诐 砖讘讬专转 注爪诐


If it has the minimal measure of meat that would constitute an act of eating, it is subject to the prohibition of breaking a bone; if it does not have the minimal measure of meat necessary to constitute an act of eating, it is not subject to the prohibition of breaking a bone. This supports the opinion of both Rav Ashi and Ravina.


讛专讗讜讬 诇诪讝讘讞 讗讬谉 讘讜 诪砖讜诐 砖讘讬专转 讛注爪诐


That which is fit for the altar, such as the tail, is not subject to the prohibition of breaking a bone. This supports the opinion of Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k.


讘砖注转 讗讻讬诇讛 讬砖 讘讜 诪砖讜诐 砖讘讬专转 注爪诐 砖诇讗 讘砖注转 讗讻讬诇讛 讗讬谉 讘讜 诪砖讜诐 砖讘讬专转 注爪诐


At the time of eating, it is subject to the prohibition of breaking a bone; when it is not the time for eating, it is not subject to the prohibition of breaking a bone. This supports the opinion of Abaye.


讗讬转诪专 讗讘专 砖讗讬谉 注诇讬讜 讻讝讬转 讘砖专 讘诪拽讜诐 讝讛 讜讬砖 注诇讬讜 讻讝讬转 讘砖专 讘诪拽讜诐 讗讞专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讬砖 讘讜 诪砖讜诐 砖讘讬专转 讛注爪诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 讗讬谉 讘讜 诪砖讜诐 砖讘讬专转 注爪诐


It was stated that the amora鈥檌m argued about the following matter: In the case of a limb upon which there is not an olive-bulk of meat in this place in which one breaks the bone, and there is an olive-bulk of meat in a different place, has one violated the prohibition of breaking a bone? Rabbi Yo岣nan said: It is subject to the prohibition of breaking a bone. Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: It is not subject to the prohibition of breaking a bone.


讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讜注爪诐 诇讗 转砖讘专讜 讘讜 讗讞讚 注爪诐 砖讬砖 注诇讬讜 讻讝讬转 讘砖专 讜讗讞讚 注爪诐 砖讗讬谉 注诇讬讜 讻讝讬转 讘砖专 诪讗讬 讗讬谉 注诇讬讜 讻讝讬转 讘砖专 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚讗讬谉 注诇讬讜 讻讝讬转 讘砖专 讻诇诇 讗诪讗讬 讬砖 讘讜 诪砖讜诐 砖讘讬专转 讛注爪诐 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗讞讚 注爪诐 砖讬砖 注诇讬讜 讻讝讬转 讘砖专 讘诪拽讜诐 讝讛 讜讗讞讚 砖讗讬谉 注诇讬讜 讻讝讬转 讘砖专 讘诪拽讜诐 讝讛 讜讬砖 注诇讬讜 讻讝讬转 讘砖专 讘诪拽讜诐 讗讞专 (拽砖讬讗 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖)


Rabbi Yo岣nan raised an objection to Reish Lakish from a baraita: The verse states: 鈥淎nd you shall not break a bone in it,鈥 which indicates that the prohibition applies to both a bone upon which there is an olive-bulk of meat and a bone upon which there is not an olive-bulk of meat. What is the meaning of the phrase: Upon which there is not an olive-bulk of meat? If we say that it does not have an olive-bulk of meat on it at all, it is not fit for eating at all. Why, then, is it subject to the prohibition against breaking a bone? Rather, is it not true that this is what it is saying: The prohibition applies both to a bone upon which there is an olive-bulk of meat in this place, and to a bone upon which there is not an olive-bulk of meat in this place and there is an olive-bulk of meat in a different place? This poses a difficulty to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish.


讗诪专 诇讬讛


He said to him:


Scroll To Top