Pesachim 83b (פג:) — the Talmud in English

Here, with what are we dealing? For example:

that he found them

as bones

in piles, piles

[heaps, heaps],

and some of them

[some of the piles]

hollowed out,

meaning that he examined the upper bones and found them hollowed out, whereas he had not yet examined the rest of the bones in the pile to determine whether they contained marrow.

And the beraita teaches us the law concerning these bones:

the bones

of other

sacrificial offerings, which are not subject to the prohibition against breaking a bone,

we assume that

all of them had been hollowed out and eaten,

that is, presumably, just as he did with the upper bones, so he did with the lower ones: He broke them, removed their marrow during the time permitted for eating them, and ate it.

And

consequently

the lower bones do not require

the

burning,

since they never served as notar.

But

the bones of the Paschal offering—“because of the mishap,” meaning

that

they are subject to the prohibition against breaking a bone—

we are concerned:

perhaps

only

these

upper bones

did he hollow out

[empty them].

But

those

lower bones

he did not hollow out;

they still contain marrow.

And

therefore

they require burning.

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav:

All sinews

are like

meat,

and one may register for them for the Paschal offering and fulfill his obligation with them.

Except for the sinews of

the

neck,

which are called “the broad allel” [Maharshal]. One does not register for them, since they are hard and are merely like wood.

And we challenge this from our Mishna:

We learned: The bones

“and the sinews”

which will certainly become notar,

and the notar shall be burned on the sixteenth.

But

what are these sinews?

Which sinews does our Mishna say are destined from the outset for burning, because they certainly will not be eaten and will become notar?

If you say they are sinews of meat

[the soft sinews that spread through the meat, Rashi, Hullin 90b], which people customarily eat,

if so, why are they destined from the outset for burning?

Let us eat them

[let him eat them], and they will not become notar!

And if

you would explain that the sinews were not destined from the outset to become notar, but rather this is what happened:

they became notar

through laziness,

if so,

that is

“notar,”

so why did the tanna distinguish the sinews from other notar?

Rather, it is obvious

that it is speaking

of the sinews of the neck,

which are not customarily eaten because they are hard, and presumably will be left over. [They resemble the bones that were mentioned separately, because from the outset it is known that they will be left over.]

And since this is so, this is difficult for Rav:

Granted, if you say that they are meat,

and if one eats them he fulfills his obligation with them,

it is for this reason that they require

[for this reason they require]

burning.

But if you say that they are not meat,

if so,

why do they require burning?!

The designation “notar” does not apply to them, and one may simply discard them.

Rav

answered,

Rav Ḥisda:

Actually, the sinews of the neck are not meat, whereas the other sinews are fully meat and fit to eat.

And our Mishna—which implies that there are sinews that are meat and therefore require burning, yet are presumed not to be eaten—

is necessary only with regard to the sciatic sinew.

But it is not speaking of a definite sciatic sinew, which does not require burning since it is forbidden to eat; rather, it is speaking of a doubtful sciatic sinew, and

according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.

As it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Yehuda says: The prohibition does not apply

to the sciatic sinew

except in

one

thigh,

but it is not known which one,

and reasoning determines

that it is in

the

thigh

on the right.

And we object: In tractate Chullin, the Gemara itself is uncertain how to understand Rabbi Yehuda’s statement that “reason determines” that it is the right thigh. Does he mean that he is uncertain, but his own reasoning inclines him to say that it is in the right thigh, or perhaps he is certain of this, and “the reasoning of the Torah” determined that it is in the right thigh?

Since the sinew in each thigh is doubtful as to whether the prohibition applies to it, it is forbidden to eat it because of the doubt; on the other hand, it must be burned, lest it not be the forbidden sciatic sinew. It is with regard to this sinew that our Mishna said that it is destined from the outset for burning.

And we challenge this: In Hullin, the Gemara is uncertain regarding the explanation of Rabbi Yehuda’s statement, “and reasoning determines” the right thigh: Does he mean that he is uncertain and “his own reasoning inclines” to say that it is in the right thigh or perhaps he is certain of this, and it is “the reasoning of Torah” that determined that it is in the right thigh ?

But if so

[according to Rav Ḥisda’s explanation],

resolve

from here

that Rabbi Yehuda is uncertain

in which thigh the sciatic sinew is subject to the prohibition. It follows that every sinew is a doubtful case of notar and therefore requires burning because of the doubt.

For if he were certain

that the prohibition applies to the right thigh, then:

that one

—the left one—

which is permitted, let him eat it,

and it will not become notar;

and

that sinew—the one in the right thigh—

which is forbidden, let him discard it

and

why does it require burning,

since the law of notar does not apply to it, as it is forbidden to eat?!

Rav

answered,

Rav Ika bar Ḥinnana:

Actually, it is speaking of the sciatic sinew, and in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda, who holds that the two sinews in the two thighs are not both forbidden. One may indeed say that Rabbi Yehuda is certain that the sinew in the right thigh is forbidden, whereas the one in the left thigh is permitted.

And our Mishna, which we explained as speaking of a sciatic sinew that is forbidden only because of a doubt, is referring to

a case where they were identified and ultimately became intermingled.

That is, initially, before the sinews were removed from the thighs, they were certainly identified, since there is no person who cannot distinguish between the right and left sides. But after the sinews were removed from the thighs, it was not known which had been removed from the right thigh and which from the left thigh [Rashi, Hullin]. Because of the doubt, none of the sinews may be eaten, and they are destined for burning.

Rav Ashi said,

he offered another answer to explain the “sinews” in our Mishna, so that it would not be difficult for Rav:

It is necessary

for our Mishna

only with regard to its fat

[the fat of]

the sciatic sinew,

which is not forbidden by Torah law. The Mishna comes to teach us that it is nevertheless forbidden to eat [Rashi], and from the outset it is destined for burning.

For

so

it was taught: The fat

of the sciatic sinew

is permitted

by Torah law,

but Israel are holy

[they make a safeguard for the Torah, Rashi, Hullin 91a]

and observe it as forbidden.

Since it is permitted by Torah law, the designation “notar” applies to it and it requires burning. And since it is forbidden to eat it, it will certainly become notar, and one must burn it.

Ravina said

he offered another answer: Our Mishna is speaking

of

the

outer sciatic sinew,

the sinew on the outer side of the thigh, facing the air [and not on the inner side, facing the other thigh], which is forbidden only by rabbinic law.

It follows that one is compelled to leave it over, since he cannot eat it because of rabbinic law. Nevertheless, since it is permitted by Torah law, the designation “notar” applies to it, and it requires burning.

And this is in accordance with the statement of Rav Yehuda in the name of Shmuel, as Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: There are two sinews:

1.

The inner one,

[the one facing the other thigh],

which is adjacent to the bone

of the thighbone, embedded in the buka de-atma, is

forbidden, and one is liable for it

to receive lashes, since it is forbidden by Torah law.

2.

The outer one,

[the one facing the air outside the animal],

which is adjacent to the flesh

[embedded in the flesh], is

forbidden

by rabbinic law,

but one is not liable for it

to receive lashes.

We learned in the Mishna:

If the sixteenth

falls on Shabbat, they shall burn them after Shabbat, since they do not override either Shabbat “or a Festival”: (216)

And we ask:

Why

does it not override the Festival [Rashi]?!

And

let the positive commandment

written concerning notar, “You shall burn it in fire,”

override the negative commandment

concerning labor on a Festival?!

He

answered,

Ḥizkiya, and so it was taught in the academy of Ḥizkiya

[this was likewise cited as a beraita in Ḥizkiya’s beit-midrash]:

Since

the verse says: “You shall not leave any of it until morning, and what is left of it”

“until morning”

“you shall burn in fire”—there would be no need for

“until morning”,

since it could have said, “and what is left of it you shall burn in fire,” as it had already stated “until morning” at the beginning of the verse.

And

what does

“until morning”

teach? Rather, it is connected with “you shall burn it in fire,” teaching you

to give it a second morning for its burning.

The verse therefore means: What is left of it at the time by which I prohibited you from leaving it over—that is, the first morning—when the second morning arrives, which is a weekday during the Festival, you shall burn it; but not on the Festival [Rashi, Shabbat 133a].

Abaye said

he offered another answer: Since

the verse says

“The burnt offering of Shabbat on its Shabbat,”

and we learn from the word “on its Shabbat” that only the burnt offering of that Shabbat is offered on the altar,

and not a weekday burnt offering,

he may offer

on Shabbat, and not a weekday burnt offering—

such as the limbs of the daily offering of the eve of a Festival that were not offered during the day [Rashi, Shabbat 24a]—he may offer them

on a Festival.

We have therefore learned that even offering the limbs of a weekday burnt offering does not override a Festival; all the more so, burning the disqualified remains of a weekday burnt offering does not override it. And the Paschal offering is a weekday offering, since its blood was sprinkled on the eve of Passover.

Rava said

he offered another answer: Since

the verse says:

“However, whatever may be eaten by every person,”

“that alone”

shall be done for you;

and we learn:

“That”: but not its preparations,

the preparations of food that can be performed on the preceding day.

“Alone”: