Pesachim 84a (פד.) — the Talmud in English

And not a circumcision that is not performed at its proper time, derived by means of a kal va-chomer.

That is: If Scripture had not excluded it, it could be derived by a kal va-chomer that it overrides the prohibition. For if leprosy, which overrides the Temple service, and the Temple service overrides Shabbat, nevertheless circumcision—even when not performed at its proper time—overrides leprosy, so that if a baheret is present at the site of the circumcision, one cuts it away; then Shabbat, which is overridden by the Temple service, should certainly be overridden by circumcision that is not performed at its proper time. Scripture therefore comes and excludes it: Since it is not performed at its proper time, one postpones it until the following day.

And since this is so, the burning of consecrated meat can likewise be compared to circumcision not performed at its proper time, and it does not override the Festival, even though the accepted rule in general is that a positive commandment overrides a negative commandment, since it is possible to postpone it.

Rav Ashi said

he answers: It is impossible for the positive commandment of burning notar to override the negative commandment against performing labor on a Festival, since

“Shabbaton”

stated

on a Festival is a positive commandment

to desist from labor, for the meaning of the verse is “rest from labor”; and this positive commandment joins the negative commandment stated concerning labor on a Festival.

And a positive commandment does not override

the

negative commandment and positive commandment.

Mishna:

There are parts of a kid’s flesh that, when it is young and tender, are soft and fit for eating. Once the kid grows, they harden and are no longer fit for eating.

These parts, even while the animal is a kid, are not subject to the mitzva of eating, and one may leave them over [the Ra'avad; see the note ]. Since they will eventually harden and will no longer be fit for eating.

The general rule for determining which part is eaten and which is not eaten is:

Everything that is eaten in a bull

when fully grown,

after all the parts that will harden have hardened [and according to the Gemara’s conclusion, even if it is eaten only by means of extended cooking], that alone

may be eaten in the tender kid

of the Paschal offering,

the tender one [

the young animal, from its eighth day, once it is fit to be offered, as the verse states: “From the eighth day onward it will be acceptable as an offering made by fire to the Lord,” until it is one year old].

But whatever is not eaten in a fully grown bull is not eaten in a Paschal kid. For although it is now tender, it will eventually harden.

And

they may eat

the tips

of the

wings [

the cartilage at the tips of the shoulders, Melekhet Shlomo],

and the cartilage [

that is, the other cartilage], such as the cartilage of the ear, the cartilage of the chest, and the small ribs at the end of the spine, although these will eventually harden [Tosafot, s.v. ho'il, first explanation].

The Gemara below will explain why they may be eaten.

Gemara:

Rabba raised a contradiction [

he challenged] our Mishna:

In the first clause

we learned: “Everything that is eaten in a fully grown bull may be eaten in the tender kid”; and

it apparently means: That which

is not eaten may not

be eaten, and one may not register for it.

But

consider the latter clause: “The tips of the wings and the cartilage”

may be eaten, and one may register for them,

and

why?

These are not eaten in a fully grown bull!

And we answer:

Rather,

the one who taught the first clause did not teach the latter clause, and

it is a dispute among tannaim

who disagree in our Mishna concerning the law of the tips of the wings and the cartilage.

And this is what it teaches

in our Mishna:

Everything that is eaten in a fully grown bull

is

may be eaten in the tender kid, but whatever is not eaten

in a fully grown bull by ordinary cooking, although it can be eaten by shelika [extended cooking], is

not

to be eaten.

And there are those who say: Even the tips of the wings and the cartilage

may be eaten, because although they are not eaten in a fully grown bull by ordinary cooking, since they can be eaten in it by shelika, they may be eaten in the tender kid even by roasting. (\224)

Rava said

he explains:

“What are they”

is what the Mishna

teaches!

And this is what it teaches: Everything that is eaten in a fully grown bull

even

by shelika [

by means of shelika], is

to be eaten in the tender kid by roasting

by means of roasting.

And what are

the parts eaten in a fully grown bull by shelika?

The tips of the wings and the cartilage.

It was taught in a beraita in accordance with Rava:

Everything that is eaten in a fully grown bull by shelika may be eaten in the tender kid by roasting; and what are they? The tips of the wings and the cartilage.

And the tender sinews [

this is the continuation of the beraita]

are treated as flesh

of the Paschal offering, so that they may be eaten and one may register for them [Rashi’s view is that Rabbi Yohanan and Reish Lakish disagree in their interpretation of the latter clause, concerning which tender sinews the beraita is speaking, as will be explained]. [

The following passage is explained according to the first answer of Tosafot, s.v. ho'il.]

It was stated:

Sinews

in the tender kid

that will eventually harden, [

these are the sinews of the neck, according to Rashi; Tosafot dispute this identification], and that can be eaten in a fully grown bull by shelika:

Rabbi Yohanan said: One may register for them for the Paschal offering,

that is, even if a person registered with the group only in order to eat them, he has fulfilled the mitzva of eating the Paschal offering [Rashi, Hullin 77a].

For in his view, this is what the beraita said: The tender sinews, although they will eventually harden when the animal grows old, are treated as flesh, and one may register for them [Rashi; Tosafot write that this has no connection to the beraita].

Reish Lakish said: One may not register for them for the Paschal offering;

and what the beraita said—that tender sinews are treated as flesh—refers to sinews that always remain tender. The Gemara now explains the reasoning of Rabbi Yohanan and Reish Lakish:

Rabbi Yohanan said: One may register for them,

because he holds: Since they can be eaten in a fully grown bull by shelika, and they are now tender,

we follow the present state

when they are tender and fit for eating;

we follow it.

Reish Lakish said: One may not register for them,

because he holds:

we follow the eventual state,

when they will harden and no longer be fit for eating;

we follow it.

Although concerning flesh we say that anything eaten in a fully grown bull by shelika may be eaten in the tender kid, this applies specifically to the tips of the wings and the cartilage, which have a stronger designation of flesh than sinews, which have little taste of flesh. Therefore, since the sinews are never eaten, one may not register for them.

Reish Lakish raised an objection to Rabbi Yohanan

from the beraita cited above:

“Everything that is eaten in a fully grown bull may be eaten in the tender kid, and what are they? The tips of the wings and the cartilage.”

You can infer from this:

These,

which are flesh,

yes,

the fact that they are eaten in a fully grown bull by shelika is effective;

but sinews that will eventually harden,

although they can be eaten in a bull by shelika,

no, it is not effective.

For if this were not so, the beraita should have taught a greater novelty: that even with sinews, which are not as much flesh, the fact that they are eaten in a fully grown bull by shelika is effective [explained according to the Tosafot cited above; see Rashi’s wording].

He said to him,

Rabbi Yohanan to Reish Lakish:

The tanna

in the beraita

taught these,

the tips of the wings and the cartilage;

and the same law applies to those,

the sinews that will eventually harden.

For

what is the reason these

may be registered for, since

they are eaten in a fully grown bull by shelika?

And if so,

those

sinews that will eventually harden

are also eaten in a fully grown bull by shelika; and since they are eaten in a fully grown bull by shelika and are currently tender, we follow their present state.

Rabbi Yohanan holds that one cannot prove from the fact that the beraita did not teach the greater novelty concerning sinews—namely, that these are included but sinews are not—because “there is no novelty at all in the fact that they have so little taste of flesh. For if they remained tender forever, it would not disqualify them. Therefore, since they are eaten by shelika, one may register for them just as for the tips of the wings and the cartilage” [the language of Tosafot].

But according to Rabbi Yoḥanan, we follow their present state?!

Rabbi Yirmeya said to Rabbi Avin: When you go before Rabbi Abbahu, raise this contradiction to him [

when you come to Rabbi Abbahu, challenge him]:

Did [

is it possible that]

Rabbi Yohanan say: “One may register for sinews that will eventually harden”?

But according to Rabbi Yohanan, we follow the present state?!

But Reish Lakish asked Rabbi Yohanan

concerning whether it can contract the impurity of “food” [Rashi, (\225):

The scalp of a tender calf [

as long as it is nursing]—which can be eaten as it is by scalding, by pouring boiling water over it, but which eventually becomes like other hides, which are not food and cannot contract the ritual impurity of food—

what is the ruling: Does it become impure

now, when it is fit for eating?

And he said to him,

Rabbi Yohanan to Reish Lakish:

It does not contract

the ritual impurity of food.

Apparently,

according to Rabbi Yohanan himself,

we follow the eventual state?!

When Rabbi Avin came before Rabbi Abbahu and posed this difficulty to him,

he said to him,

Rabbi Abbahu to Rabbi Avin:

The one who raised this [

the one who presented this difficulty to you]

did not pay attention to his flour [

he did not take care to inspect the flour he was grinding, to see whether he was grinding wheat or perhaps refuse], meaning: He is saying many words that have no substance [Rashi, Sukkah].

For

Rabbi Yohanan in fact retracted his position in favor of Reish Lakish

that is, from the answer Rabbi Yohanan gave Reish Lakish and from the continuation of their exchange, the one who raised the difficulty should have understood that Rabbi Yohanan had retracted what he said here and conceded to Reish Lakish that one may not register for sinews that will eventually harden, because indeed we follow the eventual state.

For Reish Lakish challenged Rabbi Yohanan—who had said that the scalp of a tender calf does not contract impurity—from the following Mishna in Hullin: “These are whose hides are like their flesh: the scalp of a tender calf.”

And

behold,

he said to him,

Rabbi Yohanan to Reish Lakish:

Do not vex me

by challenging me from that Mishna, since

I teach it in the singular

as an individual opinion and not as an anonymous Mishna; for I say that it was stated by Elazar ben Yehuda [Rashi, Hullin], who is the one who holds this view in a beraita [cited in the Gemara, Hullin 122b].

If so, it can be said that initially Rabbi Yohanan too held that this Mishna proves that we follow the present state, and it was on the basis of that Mishna that Rabbi Yohanan initially said that one may register for sinews that will eventually harden, since we follow the present state.

Accordingly, once Rabbi Yohanan retracted his position and said that this Mishna is the view of an individual authority, he necessarily also retracted what he had said: that one may register for sinews that will eventually harden as part of the Paschal offering.

Mishna:

One who breaks a bone of a ritually pure Paschal offering is

liable to forty lashes,

because he violated the prohibition, “You shall not break any bone in it.”

But one who leaves over

the

ritually pure

Paschal offering, and certainly one who leaves over a ritually impure one, thereby violating “You shall not leave any of it over,”

and one who breaks a bone of

a

ritually impure

Paschal offering or of other invalid offerings—where, if he did so with a valid offering, he would violate “You shall not break any bone in it”—

is not liable to forty lashes;

the Gemara explains the reason for each of these rulings.

Gemara:

The Gemara explains the Mishna:

Granted, as for one who leaves over a pure offering,

he is not flogged, although he violated “You shall not leave any of it over until morning.”

This is

as it was taught:

It is written:

“You shall not leave any of it over until morning, and whatever is left over from it until morning”

shall be burned in fire.

The verse comes to assign a positive commandment,

“It shall be burned in fire,”

following a negative commandment,

“You shall not leave any of it over,”

to say that he is not flogged,

for this is the rule throughout the Torah: One is not flogged for a negative commandment whose remedy is a positive commandment,

the words of Rabbi Yehuda.

Rabbi Yaakov says: That is not the reason. “

This reason is not fundamental, for a prohibition that is accompanied by a positive commandment is not punishable by lashes” [Rashi, Makkot 4b]!

Rather,

why is one who leaves over the meat not flogged,

because

it is “

You shall not leave any of it over”

a prohibition that does not involve an action,

since it becomes leftover on its own,

and one is not flogged for it.

Rather, as for one who breaks a bone of a ritually impure offering, from where do we know

that he is not flogged?

And we explain:

as the verse states: “And you shall not break any bone

of it”;

and we learned:

“of it”

means of a valid offering, but not of an invalid one.

The Sages taught:

It is written:

“And you shall not break any bone

of it”;

“of it”

means of a valid offering, but not of an invalid one.

Rabbi says:

It is written:

“In one house”

“shall it be eaten”;

do not take the meat out of the house, outside,

“and you shall not break any bone of it,”

and we interpret it as follows: “shall it be eaten” refers to “and you shall not break any bone of it,” as though it said: And you shall not break any bone of that which is eaten [Re'em on the Humash].

This teaches you:

Everything fit for eating is subject to the prohibition of breaking a bone, and

whereas

that which is not fit for eating is not subject to the prohibition of breaking a bone.

And we explain:

what is the difference between them

between the first tanna, who made the prohibition of breaking a bone dependent on its being “valid,” and Rabbi, who made it dependent on its being “fit for eating”?

Rabbi Yirmeya said: A Pesach offering brought in ritual impurity

by permission, such as when the community became impure [Meiri, Likkutei Halakhot],

is the difference between them:

For

according to the one who says

that we require a Pesach offering to be

“valid,”