Pesachim 83b — the Talmud in English

Here, with what are we dealing? For example: ![](pamud.bmp "

precise page location")

that he found them

as bones

in piles, piles

[heaps, heaps],

and some of them

[and part of them]

stripped

, having examined the upper ones and found them stripped, whereas the rest of the bones in the pile he had still not examined to see whether there was marrow in them.

And it teaches us the beraita concerning the law of these bones:

bones

of other

sacrificial meat, for which there is no prohibition of breaking the bone,

we suspend judgment concerning them: for presumably

he had stripped all of them and eaten them,

that is: presumably, when he did so to the upper ones, he likewise did so to the lower ones, breaking them and removing their marrow within the time of his eating and eating it,

and

consequently

the lower bones do not require

the bones

burning,

for they never served as notar.

But

the bones of the Pesach-offering: “because of the mishap,” that is,

“because they are subject to the prohibition of breaking the bone,”

for which there is a prohibition of breaking the bone,

we are concerned:

perhaps

only

these

upper bones—

he stripped them

[emptied them].

But

those

lower bones

he did not strip them,

and there is still marrow in them,

and

therefore

they require burning.

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav:

All sinews

are considered

flesh,

and one may register for them for the Pesach-offering and fulfill his obligation through them.

Except for the sinews of

the

neck,

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

And we raise an objection to it from our Mishna:

We learned: The bones

“and the sinews”

which will certainly become notar,

and notar they shall burn on the sixteenth.

But

these sinews—what are they like,

with regard to which sinews did our Mishna say that from the outset they stand to be burned, because they certainly will not eat them and they will become notar?

If you say the sinews of flesh

[the soft sinews that spread through the flesh, Rashi, Hullin 90b], which one normally eats,

if so, why do they stand from the outset to be burned?

Let him eat them

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

And if

you would come to explain: the sinews did not stand from the outset to become notar; rather, this is what happened:

that it became notar

through laziness.

If so,

that is

“notar”,

and why did the tannai distinguish sinews from other notar?!

Rather, it is obvious

that it deals

with the sinews of the neck,

which one does not normally eat because of their hardness, and presumably they will leave them over, [and they resemble the bones that were taught separately, because from the outset it is known that they will leave them over].

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

Granted, if you say that they are flesh,

and if he eats them he fulfills his obligation through them,

for this reason they require

[for this reason they require]

burning.

But if you say that they are not flesh,

if so,

why do they require burning?!

After all, the designation “notar” does not apply to them, and he may throw them away.

Said

in answer

Rav Hisda:

Actually, the sinews of the neck are not flesh, whereas the other sinews are complete flesh and fit for eating.

And the Mishna—which implies that there are sinews that are flesh, to require burning, yet ordinarily they are not eaten—

was necessary only for the sciatic sinew.

However, not for a definite sciatic sinew, which does not require burning since it is forbidden to eat, but for a doubtful sciatic sinew, and

according to Rabbi Yehuda.

As it was taught: Rabbi Yehuda says: It applies—

the sciatic sinew—

only to

one thigh,

one

and it is not known which one,

and reason determines

that it is in the

right

thigh,

of the

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?

thigh.

Since the sinew in every thigh is doubtful as to whether the prohibition applies to it, it is forbidden to eat it because of the doubt; and, on the other hand, one must burn it, lest it not be the forbidden sciatic sinew. It is concerning this sinew that our Mishna said that it stands from the outset for burning. And we object: the Gemara is doubtful in Hullin concerning the explanation of Rabbi Yehuda’s words, who said, “and reason determines” that it is the right one: whether his intention is to say that he is in doubt and “his own reasoning inclines” to say that it is in the right one , or perhaps it is obvious to him that this is so, and it is “the reasoning of the Torah” that determined that it is the right one .

But rather

[if so, according to Rav Hisda’s explanation],

resolve

from here

that Rabbi Yehuda is in doubt

as to which thigh the sciatic sinew applies, and it follows that every sinew is a doubtful notar; therefore it requires burning because of the doubt.

For if it is absolutely obvious to him

that it applies in the right one, then:

that one—

the left one—

which is permitted, let him eat it,

and it will not come to be notar;

and

that sinew—the right one—

which is forbidden, let him throw it away,

let him throw it away, and

why does it require burning,

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

Said

in answer

Rav Ika bar Hinena:

Actually, it is dealing with the sciatic sinew, and in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda, who holds: the two sinews in the two thighs are not both forbidden; and one must say that it is absolutely obvious to Rabbi Yehuda that the sinew in the right thigh is forbidden, and 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 doubt:

For example, they were identified and ultimately became mixed up.

That is: at first, before the sinews were removed from the thighs, they were certainly identified, for there is no person who does not distinguish between the right side and the left side. But after the sinews were removed from the thighs, it was not known which one had been removed from the right thigh and which one had been removed from the left thigh [Rashi, Hullin], and because of the doubt no sinew is eaten, and they stand for burning.

Rav Ashi said,

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

it was necessary

for our Mishna

only for its fat

[its fat]

of the sciatic sinew,

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

For

so

it was taught: Its fat

of the sciatic sinew

is permitted

by Torah law,

and Israel are holy

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

and practice prohibition with regard to it.

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 he burns it.

Ravina said

in answer: Our Mishna is speaking

of

the sciatic sinew, the

outer

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

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

And in accordance with Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel, for Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: There are two sinews:

a.

The inner one

[which faces the other thigh]

adjacent to the bone,

the thighbone inserted into the buka de-atma, is

forbidden, and one is liable for it

lashes, for it is forbidden by Torah law.

b.

The outer one

[which faces the air outside the animal]

adjacent to the flesh

[embedded in the flesh], is

forbidden

by rabbinic law,

and one is not liable for it

lashes.

We learned in the Mishna:

If the sixteenth falls

on Shabbat, they shall burn them after Shabbat, because they do not override either Shabbat “or the Festival day”: (216)

And we wonder:

And why

does it not override the Festival day [Rashi]?!

And

let the positive commandment come

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

and override the negative commandment

of the labor of the Festival day?!

Said

in answer

Hezekiah, and so taught the school of Hezekiah

[so too a beraita was brought in the beit-midrash of Hezekiah]:

Since

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

“until morning”

“you shall burn it in fire”; there is no need for the verse to say

“until morning”,

for it should have said, “And that which is left of it you shall burn in fire,” since at the beginning of the verse it had already said “until morning.”

And

what does it teach

“until morning”?

Rather, it belongs to “you shall burn it in fire,” and it teaches you:

to give it a second morning for its burning,

and this is what the verse says: the remainder that remains from the time when I prohibited it to you, namely the first morning, when the second morning arrives, which is the intermediate days of the Festival, you shall burn it; but on the Festival day, no [Rashi, Shabbat 133a].

Abaye said

in answer: Since

the verse says

“The burnt-offering of Shabbat on its Shabbat”,

and we learn from what the verse said, “on its Shabbat,” that only the burnt-offering of that Shabbat is offered on the altar,

and not a weekday burnt-offering

shall he offer

on Shabbat, and not a weekday burnt-offering—

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

on the Festival day.

We have therefore learned that even the offering of the limbs of a weekday burnt-offering does not override the Festival day, and all the more so the burning of an invalid matter of a weekday burnt-offering does not override it; and the Pesach-offering is a weekday offering, since its blood was sprinkled on the eve of the Pesach-offering.

Rava said

in answer: Since

the verse says:

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

“it alone”

shall be done for you;

and we learn:

“It”: but not its accessories

of the food of the person, which can be done on the preceding day.

“Alone”: