Pesachim 84a — the Talmud in English

And not a circumcision not in its proper time, which follows by kal va-chomer.

That is: if Scripture had not excluded it, it would follow by kal va-chomer that it overrides [the prohibition]. For what of tzaraat, which overrides the Temple service, and the Temple service overrides Shabbat—then circumcision, even when not in its proper time, overrides it, and if there is a baheret at the place of the circumcision, he cuts it off. Shabbat, which is overridden because of the Temple service—is it not logical that circumcision not in its proper time should override it? Scripture therefore comes and excludes it: since it is not in its proper time, he should postpone it until tomorrow.

And since this is so, even the burning of consecrated offerings can be compared to circumcision not in its proper time, and it does not override a festival, even though we hold generally that a positive commandment overrides a prohibition, since it is possible to postpone it.

Rav Ashi said

he answers: It is impossible that the positive commandment of burning notar should override the prohibition of labor on a festival, since

“Shabbaton”

that is stated

on a festival is a positive commandment

to abstain from labor, for the meaning of the verse is “rest from labor,” and this positive commandment is joined to the prohibition stated concerning labor on a festival.

And a positive commandment does not override

the

prohibition and positive commandment.

Mishna:

There are parts of the flesh of a kid which, when it is small and tender, are soft and fit for eating. Once the kid grows, they become hard, and are no longer fit for eating.

These parts, even while they are in the kid, do not have the mitzva of eating, and one may leave them over [Raavad; see the note ], since they will eventually harden and will not be fit for eating.

And the rule for knowing which part is eaten and which is not eaten is:

Everything that is eaten in a bull

that is full-grown,

after everything that will harden in it has hardened [and according to the Gemara’s conclusion, even if it is eaten only through extended cooking], that alone

may be eaten while the kid is tender

of the Passover offering,

when young

[the small one, which is from eight days old, from when it is fit for acceptance, as the verse says: “And from the eighth day onward it shall be accepted as an offering made by fire to the Lord,” until one year].

But whatever is not eaten in the full-grown bull is not eaten in the Passover kid, for although it is now tender, it will eventually harden.

And

they may eat

the heads

of the

wings

[the cartilages at the heads of the shoulders, Melekhet Shlomo],

and the cartilages

[that is, the other cartilages], such as the cartilage of the ear, the cartilages of the chest, and the small ribs at the end of the spine, even though these will eventually harden [Tosafot, s.v. “since,” in the first explanation].

And the Gemara below will explain why they are eaten.

Gemara:

Rabba raised a contradiction

[he challenged] our Mishna:

At the beginning

we learned: Everything that is eaten in the full-grown bull may be eaten in the tender kid; and

it implies: but

what is not eaten may not

be eaten, and one does not register for it.

But

consider the end: “the heads of the wings and the cartilages”

are eaten, and one registers for them,

and

why?

For these are not eaten in the full-grown bull?!

And we answer:

Rather, the one who taught the beginning did not teach the end, and

it is a dispute among tannaim

who dispute the law of the heads of the wings and the cartilages in our Mishna;

and

thus it teaches

in our Mishna:

Everything that is eaten in the full-grown bull

that is

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

in the full-grown bull through ordinary cooking, although it is eaten through shelika [extended cooking], that is

not

to be eaten.

And there are those who say: Even the heads of the wings and the cartilages

are eaten, for although they are not eaten in the full-grown bull through ordinary cooking, since they are eaten in it through shelika, they are eaten in the tender kid even through roasting. (224)

Rava said

he explains:

“What are they”

it teaches

in our Mishna!

And thus it teaches: Everything that is eaten in the full-grown bull,

even

through shelika

[through shelika], that is

may be eaten in the tender kid through roasting,

through roasting;

and what are they

that are eaten in the full-grown bull through shelika?

The heads of the wings and the cartilages.

It was taught in a beraita in accordance with Rava:

Everything that is eaten in the full-grown bull through shelika may be eaten in the tender kid through roasting; and what are they? The heads of the wings and the cartilages.

And the soft sinews

[this is the continuation of the beraita]

are treated as flesh

of the Passover offering, to eat them and to register for them [Rashi’s view: Rabbi Yohanan and Resh Lakish dispute the explanation of the end, concerning which soft sinews the beraita spoke, as will be explained].

[The following discussion is explained according to the words of Tosafot, s.v. “since,” in their first resolution.]

It was stated:

Sinews

in the tender kid

whose end is to harden,

[these are the sinews of the neck, Rashi; Tosafot dispute this] and they are eaten in the full-grown bull through shelika:

Rabbi Yohanan said: One registers for them on Passover,

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

For in his view, this is what they said in the beraita: soft sinews—although their end is to harden when the animal grows old—are now treated as flesh, and one registers for them [Rashi; Tosafot wrote that this has no connection to the beraita].

Resh Lakish said: One does not register for them on Passover;

and what they said in the beraita, “the soft sinews are treated as flesh,” refers to sinews that are forever soft. And now we explain the reasoning of Rabbi Yohanan and Resh Lakish:

Rabbi Yohanan said: One registers for them,

because he holds: since they are eaten in the full-grown bull through shelika, and now they are soft,

we follow the present

when they are soft and fit for eating

we follow.

Resh Lakish said: One does not register for them,

because he holds:

we follow the end,

when they will eventually harden and become unfit for eating

we follow.

And although concerning flesh we say: everything that is eaten in the full-grown bull through shelika is eaten in the tender kid, this applies specifically to the heads of the wings and the cartilages, for the designation of flesh applies to them more than to sinews, which do not have so much of the taste of flesh. Therefore, whenever the sinews are never eaten, one does not register for them.

Resh Lakish raised an objection to Rabbi Yohanan

from the above beraita:

Everything that is eaten in the full-grown bull may be eaten in the tender kid, and what are they? The heads of the wings and the cartilages.

And you may infer:

these,

which are flesh,

do not

indeed benefit from the fact that they are eaten in the full-grown bull through shelika;

but sinews whose end is to harden,

although they are eaten in the bull through shelika,

do not.

For if not, the beraita should have taught us the greater novelty: that even with sinews which are not so much flesh, the fact that they are eaten in the full-grown bull through shelika benefits them?! [This was explained according to the above words of Tosafot; see Rashi’s wording.]

He said to him,

Rabbi Yohanan to Resh Lakish:

The tanna

in the beraita

taught these,

the heads of the wings and the cartilages,

and the same law applies to those,

the sinews whose end is to harden.

For indeed,

these, for what reason

does one register for them? Since

they are eaten in the full-grown bull through shelika;

and if so,

those,

the sinews whose end is to harden,

are also eaten in the full-grown bull through shelika; and since they are eaten in the full-grown bull through shelika, and now they are soft, we follow the present.

And Rabbi Yohanan holds that one cannot prove from the fact that the beraita did not state the greater novelty concerning sinews—these, yes, and sinews, no—for “there is no novelty at all in the fact that they do not have so much of the taste of flesh; for if they were forever soft, it would not disqualify them. Therefore, since they are eaten through shelika, one registers for them just as for the heads of the wings and the cartilages” [the wording of Tosafot].

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

[when you come to Rabbi Abahu, challenge him]:

Did

[is it so that]

Rabbi Yohanan say: One registers for sinews whose end is to harden

—but according to Rabbi Yohanan, we follow the present?!

But Resh Lakish asked Rabbi Yohanan

concerning receiving the impurity of “foods” [Rashi] (225):

The scalp of a tender calf

[as long as it is nursing]—which is eaten as it is through scalding, by pouring boiling water over it, but which will eventually become like other hides, which are not food and do not receive the impurity of foods—

what is the law: does it become impure

now, when it is fit for eating?

And he said to him,

Rabbi Yohanan to Resh Lakish:

It does not become impure

with the impurity of foods.

It follows

that according to Rabbi Yohanan himself

we follow the end?!

did not pay attention to the flour he was grinding

When Rabbi Avin came to Rabbi Abahu and presented this difficulty to him,

he said to him,

Rabbi Abahu to Rabbi Avin:

The one who raised this

[the one who raised this difficulty for you]

did not take care with his flour

[he did not take care to see what flour he was grinding, whether he was grinding wheat or perhaps refuse]; that is, he multiplies words that have no substance [Rashi, Sukka].

For

Rabbi Yohanan indeed retracted his position in favor of Resh Lakish,

that is: from the very answer that Rabbi Yohanan gave to Resh Lakish, and from the continuation of their dialogue, that questioner should have understood that Rabbi Yohanan retracted what he said here and conceded to Resh Lakish that one does not register on Passover for sinews whose end is to harden, because indeed we follow the end.

For Resh Lakish challenged Rabbi Yohanan—who had said that the scalp of a tender calf does not become impure—from the Mishna in Chullin: “These are those whose hides are like their flesh: the scalp of a tender calf.”

And

indeed

he said to him,

Rabbi Yohanan to Resh Lakish:

Do not vex me

by challenging me from that Mishna, since

I teach it in the singular language,

as a Mishna and not in the language of an anonymous Mishna, for I say: Elazar ben Yehuda stated it [Rashi, Chullin], for this is the one who holds this view in a beraita [brought in the Gemara, Chullin 122b].

And if so, it can be said that at first Rabbi Yohanan too held that from this Mishna one can learn that we follow the present, and it was by virtue of that Mishna that Rabbi Yohanan initially said that one registers for sinews whose end is to harden, since we follow the present.

And if so: when Rabbi Yohanan retracted and said, “This Mishna is the view of an individual,” he automatically also retracted what he had been saying: that one registers for sinews whose end is to harden on Passover.

Mishna:

One who breaks a bone on a pure Passover offering, that person

receives forty lashes,

because he transgressed “and a bone you shall not break in it.”

But one who leaves over from

the

pure

Passover offering—and all the more so from an impure one—and transgressed “you shall not leave over,”

and one who breaks a bone in

the

impure

Passover offering, or in other disqualified offerings, for had he done so in a valid one he would have transgressed “and a bone you shall not break in it,”

does not receive the forty lashes;

and the Gemara explains the reason for all of them.

Gemara:

And we explain the Mishna:

Granted, one who leaves over from a pure offering

does not receive lashes, although he transgressed “and you shall not leave any of it until morning.”

Because

it was taught:

it is written:

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

“you shall burn in fire”;

the verse comes to place a positive commandment,

“you shall burn it in fire,”

after a prohibition,

“you shall not leave over,”

to say that he does not receive lashes,

for such is the rule throughout the Torah: one does not receive lashes for a prohibition that is remedied by a positive commandment,

the words of Rabbi Yehuda.

Rabbi Yaakov says: That is not the reason. "

The reason is not that a prohibition whose fulfillment is interrupted by a positive commandment is not subject to lashes" [Rashi, Makkot 4b]!

Rather,

why does the one who leaves over not receive lashes,

because

it is "

you shall not leave over"

a prohibition involving no action,

for it remains over on its own,

and one does not receive lashes for it.

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

that he does not receive lashes?

And we explain:

as Scripture says: “And you shall not break a bone”

“in it”;

and we learned:

“in it”

in a valid one and not in an invalid one.

The Sages taught:

It is written:

“And you shall not break a bone”

“in it”;

“in it”

in a valid one and not in an invalid one.

Rabbi says:

It is written:

“In one house”

“shall it be eaten,”

you shall not take out from the house, from the meat, outside,

“and you shall not break a bone in it,”

and we expound: that “shall it be eaten” applies to “and you shall not break a bone in it,” as though it said: And a bone of what is eaten, you shall not break in it [Re'em on the Pentateuch].

To teach you:

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

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 “valid,” and Rabbi, who made it dependent on “fit for eating”?

Rabbi Jeremiah said: A Pesach offering brought in impurity

permitted, such as when the public became impure [Meiri, Likutei Halakhot],

there is a difference between them:

For

according to the one who says:

that we require a Pesach

“valid,”