Pesachim 84b — the Talmud in English

Thus, in the Passover-offering that comes while the community is impure, there is no prohibition of breaking a bone, since

this disqualification

is because it was performed in a state of impurity, and the impurity is only “deferred” in the community, [Rabbi Akiva Eiger and Minḥat Ḥinukh in their understanding of Rashi].

But

according to the one who says

—Rabbi—who derives that we require a Passover-offering that is

“fit for eating,”

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

this too is fit for eating,

for the Passover-offering that comes while the community is impure is also eaten in impurity, as we learned above in the Mishna [76b]: The Passover-offering that comes in impurity is eaten in impurity.

Rav Yosef

disagreed with Rabbi Yirmeya, who had understood Rabbi’s view to be that breaking a bone was permitted only in a Passover-offering that was not fit for eating. Rather, he holds: Rabbi too agrees with the First Tanna that whenever the Passover-offering is “disqualified,” there is no prohibition of breaking a bone; he came only to add that even with a valid Passover-offering that is not fit for eating, there is likewise no prohibition of breaking a bone. Therefore he

said:

In such a case—

of a Passover-offering that comes in impurity—

everyone,

even Rabbi,

has no prohibition of

breaking the bone

[for Rabbi came to be lenient,

the Baḥ erased this],

and

because

this

Passover-offering that comes in impurity

is in fact disqualified,

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

Rather,

when

it had

the Passover-offering

a time of fitness

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

that is the difference between them:

For

according to the one who says

—the First Tanna—that we require

“valid,”

there is a prohibition of breaking a bone, since

this

“valid”

it is,

for all its procedures were performed validly [Rashi].

But

according to the one who says

that we require

“fit for eating,”

there is no prohibition of breaking a bone, since

this now is not fit for eating.

Abaye said

disagreeing:

In every such case,

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

everyone

[Baḥ]—even the First Tanna—

has no prohibition of breaking the bone;

What is the reason?

At any rate now, it is in fact disqualified.

Rather, breaking the bone before daytime,

when it is still not fit for eating, for the time of eating the Passover-offering is only at night, is that

which is the difference between them:

For

according to the one who says “valid,” this

is

indeed valid.

But

according to the one who says

“fit for eating,”

it is

now

still

not fit for eating,

and one is not yet liable for breaking its bones.

Meitivi

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

Rabbi says:

One may register for the marrow in the head.

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

But one may not register for the marrow that is in

the bone of the

thigh,

for he cannot eat it without breaking a bone.

But

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

does one register for it? Necessarily:

Since he can scrape it

to the marrow through the nose

and remove it

and eat it.

And

since this is so,

if it enters your mind that breaking a bone before daytime—according to Rabbi himself—

according to Rabbi himself

is proper,

then

he should likewise break the thigh-bone before daytime, remove its marrow, and register for it?!

That is to say: Why may one not register while it is alive even for the thigh-bone, since he can remove its marrow before daytime by breaking it?!

Abaye could say to you: And according to your reasoning, once it grows dark,

when there is certainly a prohibition of breaking a bone,

one should likewise bring a coal, place it upon it, and burn it,

[let him bring a coal, place it on the bone, and burn it]

and remove its marrow and register for it?!

That is to say: But according to your words too, there is a difficulty: Why may one not register for the marrow of the thigh-bone, when he can remove its marrow by placing a coal upon the bone and piercing it?!

For this is not breaking, but burning, which is permitted with the Passover-offering.

For

so

it was taught: But one who burns the bones and cuts the sinews

[even hard sinews, Zevaḥ Todah]

has no prohibition of breaking the bone.

Rather, what can you say

in explanation, whether according to Abaye or according to Rava:

That

Abaye said—one may not register for the marrow of the thigh-bone, although he can pierce it by means of a coal—

То есть нельзя делать это ради извлечения мозга: возможно, кость треснет от жара, даже не в том месте, где находится уголёк, и тогда такое действие будет считаться ломанием, а не обжиганием.

because of splitting.

That is to say: It is forbidden to do so in order to remove its marrow, lest the bone split as a result of the burning, even not at the place of the coal; and at that place it is considered breaking and not burning.

And

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

[lest the fire consume even part of the marrow], and it is preferable that it become disqualified by itself through notar and that he not cause it loss actively [Rashi and Meiri].

And now that you have arrived at this: Even according to me, that it is permitted to break it before daytime, there is likewise no difficulty as to why one may not register for it, since

even before daytime

it is rabbinically forbidden to break it, because of

a decree before daytime on account of once it grows dark.

Rav Pappa

disagreed with Abaye, who said that before daytime, according to Rabbi, there is no prohibition of breaking a bone [and this is the difference between them], and

said:

In every such case,

where he comes to break the bones of the Passover-offering before daytime, for

everyone—

even Rabbi—

there is a prohibition of breaking the bone.

What is the reason?

For

toward evening

[in the evening] it

appears fit for eating.

Rather, with regard to a limb part of which came out

outside the wall of Jerusalem, which is the place of its eating, and part of it became disqualified through “that which goes out,” and he comes to break the bone at the place of its exit in order to separate that which went out from that which is valid, it is that

about which they disagree,

the First Tanna and Rabbi.

Do we say: Since, with regard to that part which went out, there is no prohibition of breaking, since it became disqualified [and although it had a time of fitness, Rashi], it is automatically permitted to break the bone at the line separating the place of the exit from the place that remained inside—or not?

For

according to the one who says

“valid”

we require,

this too

[Baḥ]

is valid,

for the inner part is valid, and he is breaking that part and incurs liability because of “and you shall not break a bone in it”

But

according to the one who says

“fit for eating”

we require, there is no prohibition of breaking a bone, because

this

bone at the place of the breaking

is not fit for eating.

все согласны — даже первый таннай, — что запрет ломать кость здесь не действует, поскольку эта конечность ведь непригодна.

As it was taught: Rabbi Yishmael, the son of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka, says: A limb part of which came out, and he broke it, has no prohibition of breaking the bone.

Rav Sheshet, son of Rav Idi,

disagreed with Rav Pappa, who held that with regard to a bone part of which came out, according to the First Tanna there is a prohibition of breaking a bone, and

said:

In every such case

where part of it came out,

everyone—

even the First Tanna—

has no prohibition of breaking the bone, for this limb is in fact disqualified.

Rather, breaking the bone while it is “raw,” that is, a Passover-offering that has not yet been roasted as required, is that

is the case in which

which is the difference between them:

For

according to the one who says

“valid,”

we require,

this

is

indeed valid,

and breaking a bone in it is forbidden.

But

according to the one who says

“fit for eating”

we require, there is no prohibition of breaking a bone, since

it is now not fit for eating.

Rav Naḥman bar Yitsḥak

disagreed with Rav Sheshet, who held according to Rabbi that a Passover-offering which will be fit for eating after it is roasted has no prohibition of breaking a bone, and

said:

In every such case

that lacks only roasting,

there is a prohibition of breaking the bone,

even according to Rabbi,

for it is fit for eating, since he can roast it and eat it

[it is fit for eating through roasting].

Rather, breaking

a

bone of the tail

in a Passover-offering brought from sheep, it is that

which is the difference between them:

For

according to the one who says

“valid,”

we require,

this

is

indeed valid.

But

according to the one who says

“fit for eating”

we require,

this

tail

is not fit for eating,

it is,

for the tail

of a sheep

goes up for the Most High

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

Rav Ashi

disagreed with Rav Naḥman bar Yitsḥak, who held that according to the First Tanna breaking the bone is forbidden even in the tail, which goes up for the Most High, and

said:

In every such case,

concerning a tail that goes up for the Most High,

there is certainly no prohibition of breaking the bone, for it certainly is not fit for eating at all, [see note ].

[see note ].

Rather, a limb upon which there is not an olive-volume of meat is the difference between them:

For

according to the one who says

“valid,”

we require,

it is indeed valid,

and there is a prohibition of breaking the bone.

But

according to the one who says

“fit for eating”

we require, there is no prohibition of breaking the bone, because

we require

that there be in the limb

the measure of eating,

which is an olive-volume,

and there is none.

Ravina

disagreed with Rav Ashi, who held that according to the First Tanna it is not necessary that there be in the limb the measure of eating, and

said:

In every such case,

where the limb has no measure of eating whatsoever,

there is no prohibition of breaking the bone, for we require the measure of eating.

«В одном доме» «пусть едят его»

Rather, a limb that has no olive-volume of meat upon it at this place

[at the place of the breaking],

but has an olive-volume of meat upon it at another place,

is that

which is the difference between them:

For

according to the one who says

“valid,”

we require,

it is indeed valid.

But

according to the one who says

“fit for eating”

we require, there is no prohibition of breaking the bone, because

we require the measure of eating at the place of the breaking, and here there is none.

It was taught in accordance with four of them,

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

For it was taught: Rabbi says:

It is written:

“In one house”

“it shall be eaten,”

“You shall not take any of the meat outside from the house,”

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

to teach you:

For a valid one he is liable

if he broke a bone in it,

but he is not liable for a disqualified one.

And what disqualified offering did the Torah exclude, in which there is no prohibition of breaking the bone?

a. Even if

it had a time of fitness

at the time of the sprinkling,

and

it

became disqualified

only

at the time of eating,

this is a “disqualified” offering in which

there is no prohibition of breaking a bone;

this accords with Rav Yosef, who said above that Rabbi came to exclude even when it had a time of fitness. b.

If it has the measure of eating, there is a prohibition of breaking a bone,

but

if it does not have the measure of eating, there is no prohibition of breaking a bone;

this accords either with Rav Ashi, that Rabbi came to exclude anything in whose limb there is no measure of eating whatsoever, or with Ravina, who requires the measure of eating at the place of the breaking [Rashi]. c.

That which is fit for the altar,

such as the bone of the tail,

has no prohibition of breaking the bone;

this accords with Rav Naḥman bar Yitsḥak, for Rabbi came to exclude the bone of the tail. d.

At the time of eating,

on the night of the fourteenth,

there is a prohibition of breaking a bone,

but

not at the time of eating,

that is, before daytime,

there is no prohibition of breaking a bone;

this accords with Abaye, for Rabbi came to exclude breaking before daytime.

It was stated: A limb that has no olive-volume of meat upon it at this place,

that is, at the place of the breaking,

but has an olive-volume of meat upon it at another place,

according to Rabbi [Tosafot ], Rabbi Yoḥanan and Resh Lakish disagree concerning it:

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

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: There is no violation concerning the breaking of

a

bone,

for we require the measure of eating at the place of the breaking.

Rabbi Yohanan raised an objection to Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish,

from that which was taught in a beraita:

This is what the Torah said:

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

But behold:

what

is meant by “upon which there is no olive-bulk of flesh”

that they said in the beraita: there is a violation concerning the breaking of a bone?

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

then

why is there a violation concerning the breaking of the bone?!

Rather, is it not saying this: whether a bone upon which there is an olive-bulk of flesh in this place, and whether

a bone

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

in both this case and that case there is a violation concerning the breaking of a bone.

This is difficult for Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish

for we learned not in accordance with Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, who holds: there is no violation concerning the breaking of a bone when there is no olive-bulk of flesh upon it at the place of the breaking.

He said to him

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish to Rabbi Yohanan: