Pesachim 84b (פד:) — the Talmud in English

It follows that when the Pesach offering is brought in a state of ritual impurity, there is no prohibition against breaking a bone, since

this disqualification

is due to the fact that it was performed in a state of disqualification caused by ritual impurity, and the impurity is only “deferred” in the case of the community, [as Rabbi Akiva Eiger and the Minḥat Ḥinukh understood Rashi].

But

according to the one who says—Rabbi—

who derives that a Pesach offering must be

“fit to be eaten,”

even in this case there is a prohibition against breaking a bone, since

this offering too is fit to be eaten,

as the Mishna taught above [76b]: A Pesach offering that was brought in a state of ritual impurity is eaten in a state of ritual impurity.

Rav Yosef

disagreed with Rabbi Yirmeya, who had understood Rabbi’s opinion to be that breaking a bone was permitted only in the case of a Pesach offering that was unfit to be eaten. Rather, he held: Rabbi too agrees with the first tanna that whenever the Pesach offering is “disqualified,” there is no prohibition against breaking a bone. Rabbi came only to add that even in the case of a valid Pesach offering that is not fit to be eaten, there is likewise no prohibition against breaking a bone. Therefore he

said:

In a case such as this—

of a Pesach offering brought in a state of ritual impurity—

everyone,

even Rabbi,

holds that there is no prohibition against

breaking the bone

[because Rabbi comes to be lenient, the Bach deleted this phrase],

and

because

this

Pesach offering brought in a state of ritual impurity

is in fact disqualified,

and according to everyone there is no prohibition against breaking a bone in the case of a disqualified offering.

Rather,

when

it had

the Pesach offering

a period of fitness

at the time of the sprinkling of the blood, and afterward it became disqualified, it is then that

they differ:

For

according to the one who says—the first tanna—

that we require it to be

“valid,”

there is a prohibition against breaking a bone, since

this

“valid”

offering is,

as all its rites were performed properly [Rashi].

But

according to the one who says that we require it to be

“fit to be eaten,”

there is no prohibition against breaking a bone, since

this offering is now not fit to be eaten.

Abaye said

he disagreed:

In every such case,

although it was valid at the time of the sprinkling, since it is now disqualified,

everyone [the Bach]—

even the first tanna—

holds that there is no prohibition against breaking the bone;

What is the reason?

At any rate, it is now disqualified.

Rather, breaking the bone before the day,

when it is still not fit to be eaten, since the time for eating the Pesach offering is only at night, is the circumstance in which

they differ:

For

according to the one who says “valid,” this

is

indeed valid.

But

according to the one who says

“fit to be eaten,”

it is

now

still

not fit to be eaten,

and one is not yet liable for breaking its bones.

The beraita raises an objection

to Abaye, who said that according to Rabbi there is no prohibition against breaking a bone before the day:

Rabbi says:

One may register for the marrow in the head.

That is to say: Even if one registered only for the marrow, he has fulfilled his obligation, because he can extract it through the nose and eat it without breaking a bone.

But one may not register for the marrow in the

bone of the

thigh,

since he cannot eat it without breaking a bone.

But

with regard to the marrow in the head, what is the reason

that one may register for it? Necessarily:

Since he can scrape it

through the nose

and extract it

and eat it.

And

since this is so,

if it could enter your mind that breaking a bone before the day

according to Rabbi himself

is permitted,

then

he could likewise break the thighbone before the day, extract its marrow, and register for it?!

That is to say: Why may one not register, while the animal is still alive, even for the marrow in the thighbone, since he can extract its marrow before the day by breaking the bone?!

Abaye could say to you: And according to your reasoning, once night has fallen—

when there is certainly a prohibition against breaking a bone—

he should likewise bring a coal, place it upon the bone, and burn it

[he should bring an ember, place it on the bone, and burn it]

and extract its marrow and register for it?!

That is to say: Even according to your argument, there is a difficulty: Why may one not register for the marrow of the thighbone, since he can extract the marrow by placing an ember on the bone and perforating it?!

For this is not breaking, but rather burning, which is permitted with regard to the Pesach offering.

For

so

it was taught in a beraita: But one who burns through the bones or cuts through the sinews

[even hard sinews, Zevah Todah]

does not violate the prohibition against breaking a bone.

Rather, what can you say

in explanation, whether in accordance with Abaye or in accordance with Rava:

That

Abaye said—one may not register for the marrow of the thighbone, even though he can perforate it with an ember—

because of the possibility that it will split.

That is to say: It is prohibited to do this to extract its marrow, lest the bone split as a result of the burning, even away from the place of the ember; at that place it is considered breaking and not burning.

And

Rava said: Because of the loss of sacred offerings, as he is actively causing its loss; perhaps the fire will consume some of its marrow

[lest the fire consume even part of its marrow], and it is preferable that it become disqualified on its own through notar rather than that he actively cause its loss [Rashi and Meiri].

And now that you have arrived at this explanation: Even according to me, who permit breaking it before the day, there is likewise no difficulty as to why one may not register for it, since

even before the day

it is rabbinically prohibited to break it, because of

a decree concerning before the day on account of after nightfall.

Rav Pappa

disagreed with Abaye, who said that according to Rabbi there is no prohibition against breaking a bone before the day [and this is the point over which they differ], and

said:

In every such case,

when one comes to break the bones of the Pesach offering before the day,

everyone—

even Rabbi— -

holds that there is a prohibition against breaking the bone.

What is the reason?

For

in the evening

[at night]

it appears fit to be eaten.

Rather, the case of a limb that partially emerged,

outside the wall of Jerusalem, which is the place where it may be eaten, and part of it became disqualified due to being “outside,” and one comes to break the bone at the point where it emerged in order to separate the part that emerged from the part that remains inside, is the case in which

they disagree,

the first tanna and Rabbi.

The question is whether we say: Since there is no prohibition against breaking the portion that emerged, as it has become disqualified [even though it had a period of fitness, Rashi], it is consequently permitted to break the bone at the line separating the place that emerged from the place that remained inside—or not.

For

according to the one who says

“valid,”

we require it to be valid,

this too

[the Bach]

is valid,

since the inner part is valid, and that is the part whose bone he is breaking; he thereby violates the prohibition: “And you shall not break a bone of it” [rather, he cuts the meat until he reaches the bone, peels it until he reaches the joint, and cuts it, as stated below in the Mishna, 85b; Rashi].

But

according to the one who says

“fit to be eaten,”

we require it to be fit to be eaten, and there is no prohibition against breaking a bone, since

this

bone at the place of the break

is not fit to be eaten.

As it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka, says: If one broke a limb that partially emerged, he does not violate the prohibition against breaking a bone.

Rav Sheshet, son of Rav Idi,

disagreed with Rav Pappa, who held that, according to the first tanna, there is a prohibition against breaking a bone that partially emerged, and

said:

In every such case

in which part of the limb emerged,

everyone—

even according to the first tanna—

holds that there is no prohibition against breaking the bone, since this limb is in fact disqualified.

Rather, the case of breaking a bone while it is “raw,” that is, a Pesach offering that has not yet been roasted in the prescribed manner ,

is the case in which

they differ:

For

according to the one who says

“valid,”

we require it to be valid,

this

is

indeed valid,

and breaking a bone is prohibited.

But

according to the one who says

“fit to be eaten,”

we require it to be fit to be eaten, and there is no prohibition against breaking a bone, since

it is now not fit to be eaten.

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak

disagreed with Rav Sheshet, who understood Rabbi to hold that a Pesach offering that will be fit to be eaten after it is roasted is not subject to the prohibition against breaking a bone, and

said:

In every such case

that lacks only roasting,

there is a prohibition against breaking the bone,

even according to Rabbi,

since it is fit to be eaten, as he can roast it and eat it

[it is fit to be eaten through roasting].

Rather, the case of breaking

the bone of

the tail fat

of the Pesach offering brought from sheep is the case in which

they differ:

For

according to the one who says

“valid,”

we require it to be valid,

this

is

indeed valid.

But

according to the one who says

“fit to be eaten,”

we require it to be fit to be eaten, and

this

tail fat

is not fit to be eaten;

it

is tail fat

in a sheep,

and is destined for the Most High

[it ascends to the altar for the Most High], as it is written: “And if it is a sheep, he shall bring his offering. And he shall offer from the sacrifice of the peace-offerings a fire-offering to the Lord: its fat, the complete tail.”

Rav Ashi

disagreed with Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak, who held that according to the first tanna breaking the bone is prohibited even in the case of tail fat that ascends for the Most High, and

said:

In every such case,

that of tail fat that ascends for the Most High,

there is certainly no prohibition against breaking the bone, since it is certainly not fit to be eaten at all,

[see note ].

Rather, the case of a limb that does not have an olive-bulk of meat upon it is the case in which they differ:

For

according to the one who says

“valid,”

we require it to be valid, and

it is valid,

so there is a prohibition against breaking the bone.

But

according to the one who says

“fit to be eaten,”

we require it to be fit to be eaten, and there is no prohibition against breaking the bone, since

we require

the limb to contain

the measure for eating,

which is an olive-bulk,

and there is none.

Ravina

disagreed with Rav Ashi, who held that according to the first tanna the limb need not contain the measure for eating, and

said:

In every such case,

in which the limb contains no measure for eating whatsoever,

there is no prohibition against breaking the bone, since a measure for eating is required.

Rather, the case of a limb that does not have an olive-bulk of meat upon it in this place

[at the place of the breaking],

but does have an olive-bulk of meat upon it elsewhere,

is the case in which

they differ:

For

according to the one who says

“valid,”

we require it to be valid, and

it is valid.

But

according to the one who says

“fit to be eaten,”

we require it to be fit to be eaten, and there is no prohibition against breaking the bone, since

we require the measure for eating to be present at the place of the breaking, and it is not present there.

It was taught in accordance with four of them,

in accordance with the view of four of the amoraim cited above: Rav Yosef, Rav Ashi or Ravina, Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak, and Abaye:

As it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi says:

It is written:

“In one house”

“it shall be eaten”;

you shall not take any of the meat outside the house;

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

to teach you:

For a valid offering one is liable

if he breaks a bone of it,

but one is not liable for a disqualified offering.

And which disqualified offering did the Torah exclude, such that there is no prohibition against breaking a bone?

A. Even if

it had a period of fitness

at the time of the sprinkling,

and

it was

not disqualified

until

the time of eating,

this is an offering that is “disqualified,” such that

there is no prohibition against breaking a bone;

this is in accordance with Rav Yosef, who said above that Rabbi came to exclude even a case in which it had a period of fitness. B.

If it contains the measure for eating, there is a prohibition against breaking a bone,

but

if it does not contain the measure for eating, there is no prohibition against breaking a bone;

this is either in accordance with Rav Ashi, according to whom Rabbi came to exclude every case in which the limb does not contain the measure for eating, or in accordance with Ravina, who requires the measure for eating to be present at the place of the breaking [Rashi]. C.

That which is fit for the altar,

such as the bone of the tail fat,

is not subject to the prohibition against breaking a bone;

this is in accordance with Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak, according to whom Rabbi came to exclude the bone of the tail fat. D.

At the time of eating,

on the night of the fourteenth,

there is a prohibition against breaking a bone,

but

not at the time of eating,

that is, before the day,

there is no prohibition against breaking a bone;

this is in accordance with Abaye, according to whom Rabbi came to exclude breaking a bone before the day.

It was stated: In the case of a limb that does not have an olive-bulk of meat upon it in this place,

that is, at the place of the breaking,

but does have an olive-bulk of meat upon it elsewhere,

according to Rabbi [Tosafot ], Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish disagree:

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: There is a prohibition against breaking the bone.

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: There is no prohibition of breaking

the

bone,

as the requisite measure of eating must be present at the place where the bone is broken.

Rabbi Yohanan raised an objection to Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish,

from that which was taught in a beraita:

This is what the Torah stated:

“And you shall not break a bone of it”; whether a bone upon which there is an olive-bulk of meat, or a bone upon which there is no olive-bulk of meat.

But

what

is the meaning of “upon which there is no olive-bulk of meat,”

concerning which they said in the beraita that there is a prohibition of breaking the bone?

If you say that there is no olive-bulk of meat upon it at all,

if so,

why is there a prohibition of breaking the bone?!

Rather, is it not saying this: Whether a bone upon which there is an olive-bulk of meat in this place, or

a bone

upon which there is no olive-bulk of meat in this place, but there is an olive-bulk of meat upon it elsewhere,

in both this case and that case there is a prohibition of breaking the bone. [

This is difficult for Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish]

For we learned not in accordance with Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, who holds that there is no prohibition of breaking the bone when there is no olive-bulk of meat upon it at the place where it is broken.

He said to him,

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said to Rabbi Yohanan: