Pesachim 83a — the Talmud in English

Rabba adds —

to those two tanna’im who maintain that a disqualification due to another factor does not require ibbur tzura —

also

Rabbi Yosei HaGelili,

for we find that he maintains that a disqualification involving the blood, which is a “disqualification due to another factor,” does not require ibbur tzura.

As it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says:

The entire passage —

namely, what the Torah stated: “And any sin-offering whose blood is brought into the Tent of Meeting to effect atonement within the Sanctuary shall not be eaten; it shall be burned in fire” —

does not speak

of an external sin-offering, whose blood is sprinkled in the courtyard, whose blood was brought inside improperly [as the Sages who disagree with Rabbi Yosei HaGelili explained the verse in tractate Zevakhim],

rather

the verse speaks:

of bulls that are burned

such as the bull for an unwitting communal decision]

and goats that are burned

the goat of Yom Kippur], which are internal sin-offerings, whose blood is sprinkled inside, and whose blood was sprinkled inside in accordance with their mitzva.

And what the verse states, “shall not be eaten; it shall be burned,” does not come to teach us that internal sin-offerings must be burned, since the verse already stated this in its proper place: that they are to be burned outside the three camps.

Rather, it comes to teach concerning internal sin-offerings that were disqualified because they left the permitted area or became impure:

a. They should not be burned in accordance with their law outside the three camps, but

to burn their disqualified portions in the Temple courtyard

which was sometimes in the courtyard and sometimes on the Temple Mount, as explained in Zevakhim 104a], as the verse states: “within the Sanctuary… it shall be burned in fire” [as stated above, on page 82b].

b.

And to impose a prohibition against eating them,

as the verse states: “shall not be eaten.”

The Sages said to him

—to Rabbi Yosei HaGelili: According to your statement, that you do not interpret the verse as referring to an external sin-offering whose blood entered inside improperly—

a sin-offering

that is external

whose blood entered the innermost area

the Sanctuary]

from where

do you derive that it is disqualified?

He said to them

Rabbi Yosei HaGelili said to the Sages: I derive it from the wording of the verse concerning Aaron’s sin-offering, which was burned:

“Behold, its blood was not brought

of the sin-offering, which was external]

into the Sanctuary”

“within”; this implies:

a.

that if it itself had gone out

if the sin-offering itself had left the courtyard, which was its enclosure], and was not “within” [as explained above, on page 82a].

b.

Alternatively

or]

its blood had entered

if the blood of the sin-offering had entered inside].

Either way,

it is burned;

you have therefore learned: A sin-offering whose blood entered inside is disqualified and is burned.

And since this is demonstrated, it follows that Rabbi Yosei HaGelili maintains that even a disqualification involving the blood, whose disqualification is due to another factor, is burned and does not require ibbur tzura, like that sin-offering which was burned without ibbur tzura:

Although from the plain meaning of the verse—which everyone agrees regarding—one cannot derive concerning a disqualification involving the blood that it does not require ibbur tzura, since one can say that it was a temporary ruling [as stated above, on page 82b, in Tosafot’s understanding of Rashi].

But from Rabbi Yosei HaGelili’s statement, since he derived the very basis of the disqualification from this verse and did not say that it was a temporary ruling, he would say the same concerning ibbur tzura: It was not a temporary ruling, but rather this is the halakha for all generations [Rashi].

The Gemara now explains why Rabbi Yohanan did not include Rabbi Yosei HaGelili among those who maintain that a “disqualification due to another factor” does not require ibbur tzura.

And Rabbi Yohanan,

who did not include Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, because

he held

Rabbi Yohanan held: A disqualification involving the

blood and

a disqualification involving the

flesh are one matter,

and they are considered a “disqualification in its own body.”

Only a disqualification involving the

owners —

is another matter;

for a disqualification involving the flesh and blood is a “disqualification in its own body,” whereas a disqualification involving the owners is a “disqualification due to another factor.”

And since this is so, one cannot derive from Rabbi Yosei HaGelili’s statement that a disqualification involving the blood does not require ibbur tzura that a disqualification involving the owners likewise does not require ibbur tzura, in accordance with Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka. Therefore, Rabbi Yohanan did not include him with Rabbi Neḥemya, who said concerning a disqualification involving the owners [mourning] that it does not require ibbur tzura.

Mishna:

The bones and the sinews,

which from the outset are destined to become notar, on the morning of the first day of Pesaḥ.

For the bones contain marrow suitable for eating, and the law of notar applies to it; and since it is impossible to eat it because it is prohibited to break a bone on Pesaḥ, it is destined from the outset to become notar.

And the sinews: The Gemara will explain which sinews are meant in our Mishna and for what reason they are destined to become notar.

And

likewise

the notar,

the flesh that could have been eaten, but they were negligent in eating it, and it became notar.

They may not burn them—as is the law of notar, concerning which the Torah states: “Whatever is left of it until morning you shall burn in fire”—on a Festival, since work is prohibited then. Rather, they

shall be burned

only

on the sixteenth,

after the Festival.

And if

the sixteenth falls on Shabbat,

these

shall be burned on the seventeenth.

кости святых жертв, послужившие

And the reason for all that was stated is:

because they do not override either Shabbat or the Festival.

Gemara:

Rav Mari bar Abbahu said that Rabbi Yitzḥak said:

The bones of consecrated offerings—that contain no marrow, or from which the marrow was removed before they became notar and they subsequently became notar—do not require burning.

This is because the Torah commanded that only notar that is fit to eat be burned, as it is written: “You shall not leave any of it until morning [but shall eat it], and whatever is left of it until morning you shall burn in fire.” Thus, the Torah commanded that only what the Torah prohibited leaving over must be burned, namely, that which is fit to eat.

But

the bones of consecrated offerings that served

as notar,

meaning that marrow remained in them after it became notar, so that the bones served the marrow that was notar [although now they contain no marrow and no longer serve notar]. They

impart impurity to the hands,

like notar itself, concerning which the Sages decreed that it imparts impurity to the hands.

And the reason is:

since they became

Ḥakhamat Manoah]

a base (202)

for a forbidden object.

?

Let us say that this supports him

from our Mishna:

“The bones”

and the sinews and the notar shall be burned on the sixteenth.

But

what are these bones? (202)

If you say that they contain no marrow,

then

why are they burned

at all?

Let him cast them away

throw them away].

Rather, it is obvious that they contain marrow

fit to eat, except that he could not eat it because one may not break a bone on Pesaḥ.

And since this is so,

if you grant that

“the use of notar”

is a matter, for this reason

по этой причине]

because of that]

the bones themselves require burning, since they are like notar itself, as they served it.

But if you say that “the use of notar”

is not a matter,

then the bone itself does not require burning; rather, it is the marrow inside it that is subject to burning.

If so, why should he trouble himself to gather wood and waste it on burning the entire bone?!

He has another option:

he should break them, extract their marrow, burn it, and cast the bones away

he should break the bones, extract the marrow from them, burn the marrow alone, and throw away the bones]!

This is because the Gemara currently holds that there is no violation here of “you shall not break a bone in it,” since the Torah said “in it” and not in a disqualified offering. This teaches that this prohibition was stated only with regard to a valid Pesaḥ offering; but an offering that became notar and was disqualified is not subject to the prohibition against breaking a bone.

Rather, learn from this: “the use of notar”

is a matter.

Песахе

The students of the yeshiva said

to reject this:

No! I can tell you that “the use of notar”

is not a matter

!

And the reason he does not break the bones that became notar in order to extract the marrow from them is that

he holds

the tanna of our Mishna interprets “You shall not break a bone”

“in it”

to mean:

in

a valid

Pesaḥ offering, and even in

a

disqualified Pesaḥ offering;

for the Torah did not say “in it” to exclude a disqualified offering; rather, this is simply the manner of biblical expression.

We challenge this: Would it enter your mind that

even in a

disqualified

Pesaḥ offering it is prohibited

to break a bone?!

But we learned:

But one who leaves over in a

Pesaḥ offering

that is pure,

and all the more so in a ritually impure Pesaḥ offering,

and one who breaks

a bone

in a

Pesaḥ offering

that is impure,

which is disqualified,

does not receive forty lashes?!

таннаем

And we answer:

There is no difficulty:

Here

—in our Mishna, where we explained that it is impossible to break it even after it became notar and disqualified—is

when it had a period of fitness

when it was valid] after the sprinkling, and became notar only in the morning.

Whereas

here

—in the Mishna that we cited, which makes clear that it is permitted to break a bone in a disqualified Pesaḥ offering—is

when it did not have a period of fitness,

such as when it became impure before the sprinkling.

And we explain:

And who

is the

tanna

of our Mishna

who distinguishes

who differentiates]

between one that had a period of fitness and one that did not have a period of fitness?

It is Rabbi Yaakov.

As

it was taught:

It is written:

“You shall not break a bone

‘in it,’

teaching you:

‘in it’

means in a valid offering, but not in a disqualified offering.

The tanna’im disagree concerning the explanation of the first tanna’s words [Tosafot]:

Rabbi Yaakov says: If

it

had a period of fitness, and

afterward

became disqualified, breaking the bone is still prohibited;

but only if

it did not have a period of fitness is breaking the bone not prohibited.

Rabbi Shimon says: In both this case and that case, breaking the bone is not prohibited.

The following objection is raised

against Rabbi Yitzḥak, who said that “the use of notar” is a matter:

All the bones of consecrated offerings

that became notar

do not require

the bones themselves

to be burned, except for the bones of the Pesaḥ offering, because of the potential mishap,

that is, because of the prohibition “You shall not break a bone in it”; and the beraita proceeds to explain this.

But

what are these bones?

If you say that they contain no marrow, why should they require burning?!

Rather, it is obvious that they contain marrow,

and therefore: In the case of the bones of all other consecrated offerings, one breaks them, extracts the marrow inside them, and burns it alone. But in the case of the bones of the Pesaḥ offering, which one cannot break, he burns the marrow together with the bones themselves.

And if it enters your mind that “the use of notar”

is a matter,

as Rabbi Yitzḥak said,

then even

the bones

of other

consecrated offerings—why do they not require burning

when they became a base for the notar that they served?!

Rav

answered

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak: Here, with what are we dealing? With a case in which,

when he came to burn them,

he found

the bones broken and

emptied

empty; the marrow had been removed and was no longer present].

And this is what we are saying:

The bones

of other

consecrated offerings,

since

they contain no

prohibition

against breaking the bone,

we assume: Presumably,

before they became notar, he extracted the marrow from the bones

[before they became notar, he emptied them] and ate their marrow, since it is prohibited to leave the marrow over;

and

therefore they never

were

“the use of notar,” and

consequently they

do not require burning.

But

the bones of the Pesaḥ offering, “because of the potential mishap,” that is,

because

breaking the bone is prohibited,

and it is prohibited to break them before they become notar [Tosafot], we are concerned:

Perhaps

it was only after they became notar that he extracted the marrow

he emptied them only after they became notar], because after they became notar it is permitted to break them [for this tanna holds that it is permitted to break them after they became notar, in accordance with Rabbi Shimon, Rashi].

And

if so,

they were

the bones, until he emptied them,

“the use of notar,” and

therefore

they require

the bones themselves

to be burned.

Rav Zevid disagrees with Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak, who maintains that the bones of a Pesaḥ offering concerning which there is uncertainty whether they were “the use of notar” require burning. In his view, the rabbinic law of “the use of notar” [Maharsha] is not so stringent as to require burning in a case of uncertainty.

спорит с Равом Нахманом бар Ицхаком, который считает: кости Песаха, относительно которых есть сомнение, не являются ли они «служением нотар», требуют сжигания; ибо, по его мнению, постановление о «служении нотар», являющееся постановлением мудрецов [Махарша], не настолько строго, чтобы обязать сжигать его в случае сомнения.

Therefore

he said

another answer: