Pesachim 85a (פה.) — the Talmud in English

No,

not when you said that in order to interpret the beraita; rather, in every case where there is no olive-bulk of meat on it at the place of the break, there is no prohibition of breaking a bone. And

this is what it means: the

beraita:

Both a bone that has an olive-bulk of meat on its outside, and a bone that does not have an olive-bulk of meat on its outside but has an olive-bulk of meat on its inside

(marrow) at the place of the break are subject to the prohibition of breaking a bone; and the beraita comes to teach us that even the marrow inside the bone is considered food [Rashi]:

And it was taught

[agreeably]: As we said, it is prohibited to break a bone that contains marrow, and we do not say that the positive mitzva of eating the marrow should come and override the prohibition against breaking a bone:

As it was taught: It is written:

“And you shall not break a bone in it.”

This teaches you:

Both a bone that contains marrow

is prohibited to break, even in order to extract its marrow and eat it.

And a bone that does not contain marrow

[but has meat on top of it, Likutei Halakhot] is prohibited to break.

And how do I fulfill: “And they shall eat the meat on this night,” only

the

meat that is on top of the bone,

but it is not necessary to eat the marrow inside the bone.

And even perforating the bone with an ember [which does not involve breaking a bone] is likewise not subject to liability, since the verse does not require one to perform an act that could lead to a transgression, as the bone might split somewhere other than at the place of the ember, causing him to transgress “And you shall not break a bone in it” [Rashi].

Or perhaps

as we said,

rather, “And they shall eat the meat on this night” includes

even the meat inside the bone;

and how do I fulfill

“And you shall not break

a bone in it” only

in

a bone that does not contain marrow.

But a bone that contains marrow

is one that

he breaks

the bone

and eats

its marrow.

And do not be surprised

by this,

for the positive mitzva will come and override

the

negative mitzva.

The Tosafot were puzzled: At the moment when one uproots the prohibition “You shall not break any bone of it,” the positive commandment “And they shall eat the meat” has not yet been fulfilled. In such a case, does a positive commandment override a negative commandment? In the Tosafot’s rulings, Zevahim, section 69, they wrote [as explained by Or Hadash] that when it is impossible ever to fulfill the positive commandment except by violating the negative commandment, the positive commandment overrides it even when the two do not occur simultaneously. The Sefat Emet raised a difficulty concerning the Tosafot’s question: It is possible to find a case where the breaking of the bone occurs simultaneously with eating the meat, namely, when one eats soft bones that break as he eats them [and this too is considered “breaking,” as explained by Maimonides, chapter 10 of the Laws of the Paschal Offering];

This cannot be said.

For

when

the verse

It cannot be said so:

For

when the verse says

“And you shall not break a bone in it”

with regard to the Second Paschal offering,

which need not be stated

[it is superfluous].

For it has already been stated

with regard to the Second Paschal offering,

“They shall perform it according to every statute of the Paschal offering,” and the prohibition of breaking a bone is included.

You must say:

The verse comes to teach us:

Both a bone that contains marrow and a bone that does not contain marrow—

it is included in “And you shall not break a bone in it.”

Meytivi

to Reish Lakish, who maintains that an organ that does not have an olive-bulk of meat in this place but has one elsewhere is not subject to the prohibition of breaking a bone, from what we learned:

An organ part of which emerged

outside the wall of Jerusalem [according to Rashi above, 84b], and that part became prohibited as yotzei, and must be burned [Meiri].

It is

cut,

cutting around the meat along the line separating the meat that emerged from the meat that did not emerge,

until he reaches the bone.

And

he does not break it there because of the prohibition against breaking a bone; rather,

he peels

the meat that did not emerge

until he reaches the joint

[the place where two bones are connected],

and cuts

at the joint [as this is not breaking but rather severing the tendons, which is permitted with regard to the Paschal offering], and throws away the bone part of which emerged, and eats the meat that he peeled [Rashi; and see the note ].

And if you say: A limb that does not have an olive-bulk of meat at this place but has

And if you say: An organ that does not have an olive-bulk of meat in this place but has

an olive-bulk of meat

in another place is not subject to the prohibition against breaking the bone,

as Reish Lakish maintains:

If so,

why do I need him to peel it until he reaches the joint and cut it?!

Let him peel a little

meat from the bone,

and break it

near the place where it emerged, for once it has been peeled, there is no longer meat on the bone at the place of the break?!

Abaye said

as an answer:

Abaye said

he answers:

Because of the possibility that it may split, we are concerned that when he strikes the peeled place in order to break it, it may split and break even the bone beneath the meat.

Ravina said

he answers: The Mishna is speaking

of a

thighbone

that contains marrow, and it is like a bone that contains meat because of the marrow; therefore, it is altogether prohibited to break it.

We learned there,

in the chapter Arvei Pesaḥim:

Pigul and notar render the hands impure,

as the Sages decreed impurity upon them, as the reason is explained below.

Rav Huna and Rav Ḥisda

interpreted this Mishna, and also disagreed concerning it:

One said

that the reason for the impurity in the case of pigul is as follows [as the Gemara explains below]:

It is

due to suspicions concerning the priesthood:

the priests were suspected of intentionally rendering the offerings of those they disliked into pigul. In order to prevent them from doing so, the Sages said that hands that touched pigul are impure and require immersion for [eating] consecrated food. Consequently, they would refrain from rendering offerings into pigul so as not to trouble themselves with immersion afterward. Although they are wicked, as they do not hesitate to render offerings into pigul, nevertheless, they are deterred by severe impurity [Tosafot].

And one said

that the reason for the impurity in the case of notar is as follows [as the Gemara explains below]:

It is

due to the lazy priests,

who are lax in eating consecrated food within its allotted time. Since they would be forced to immerse their hands once they subsequently touched what they had left over, and this would be troublesome for them, they would not leave anything over.

The Gemara explains that Rav Huna and Rav Ḥisda did not disagree in their interpretation of the Mishna. Rather,

one

of them

taught

his statement’s reason

with regard to pigul, and the other taught it with regard to notar.

The one who taught it with regard to pigul

explained the reason

as due to suspicions concerning the priesthood.

And the one who taught it with regard to notar, [explained the reason] as due to the lazy priests.

Rav Huna and Rav Ḥisda also disagreed concerning this Mishna:

One taught:

The measure of pigul and notar sufficient to render the hands impure is

an olive-bulk.

And one taught:

The measure of pigul and notar is

an egg-bulk.

And we explain their reasons:

The one who taught

that the measure of impurity is

an olive-bulk,

does so because he maintains that its measure of impurity is

like its measure of prohibition:

just as the measure for which eating them is prohibited is an olive-bulk, so too their measure for rendering impurity is an olive-bulk.

And the one who taught

that the measure of impurity is

an egg-bulk,

does so because he maintains that the measure of this novel impurity decreed by the Sages is

like its measure of impurity—

that is, like the measure of these foods with regard to rendering others impure with Torah-level impurity if they themselves were impure, which is an egg-bulk [as food smaller than an egg-bulk does not render others impure].

It was raised as a dilemma for them:

Did the Sages also

decree impurity

with regard to

“yotzei”

because of the lazy priests, who might come to remove it, just as they decreed impurity upon notar because of them,

or not?

Do we say: Only

notar

is what

the Sages

decreed

impurity

upon,

since

it may come

that the priests

will be lax concerning it, and through their laxity it will become notar on its own;

but yotzei,

there is no concern that they might remove it outside its proper place and boundary, because

they do not remove it by hand

intentionally?

And if so,

the Sages did not decree impurity upon it.

Or perhaps it is no different,

as there is concern for this as for that?

Come and hear

from the Mishna cited above:

“An organ part of which emerged: he cuts until he reaches the bone, and peels until he reaches the joint, and cuts.”

And if you say that they decreed impurity upon it—

with regard to yotzei—

the Sages, what is accomplished by cutting it?!

For since the two parts were originally one piece of meat,

this

(renders it impure

becomes impure,

Rashi]

it:

the part that did not emerge becomes impure from the part that emerged [as anything that renders the hands impure renders consecrated food impure, Meiri]. Since the part that did not emerge has also become impure, it is prohibited to eat it, so why does he peel it?! And we answer: Since you would come to render the part that did not emerge impure through its connection to the meat that emerged, and since the place where the parts were connected is not visible, it is a “concealed area,” therefore

this is impurity of a concealed area, and impurity of a concealed area does not render impure.

And we still ask:

But according to Ravina, who said: The connections between foods

[connected food]

are not considered a connection, and are considered as though they were separated,

they are not called connected, and it is as though they are separate from one another, so it is not considered a “concealed area.”

If so,

what is there to say

to resolve our difficulty:

This one touches the other, and it renders it impure?!

Rather,

this is how it can be answered: The Mishna is speaking of a case in which the part that emerged does not contain the measure sufficient to render impure.

According to the one who taught

that the measure of their impurity sufficient to render impure is

an olive-bulk,

here it is speaking

of a case in which it does not contain an olive-bulk

in the part that emerged, and therefore it does not render the part that did not emerge impure.

And

according to

the one who taught

that the measure of their impurity is

an egg-bulk,

the Mishna is speaking

of a case in which it does not contain

an egg-bulk in the part that emerged,

an egg-bulk.

Come and hear

in order to resolve our dilemma whether they decreed impurity upon yotzei:

Two groups, each consisting of people registered for one of two Paschal offerings, were eating in one house. It is prohibited to remove the meat of the Paschal offering from the place where one group is eating to the place where the other group is eating, and this is included in what the Torah said: “You shall not take any of the meat outside from the house” [as expounded on 85b].

One who removes Paschal-offering meat from one group to another, although this violates a negative mitzva,

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

is pure.

And

is it not the case that

“pure,” as stated in the beraita, means only that it is pure and does not contain impurity,

but

nevertheless

it is prohibited

to eat the meat that emerged?

For

it is

comparable to meat that emerges from one group to another, to “yotzei”

outside its boundary

[for example, sacrificial meat of the most sacred order that emerged beyond its boundary, which is the Temple courtyard, or lesser sanctified meat that emerged beyond its boundary, which is the wall of Jerusalem]

and becomes disqualified

as yotzei.

And since it has become disqualified, it is prohibited, as we learned above, on page 24a: “It shall not be eaten, for it is sacred”; wherever consecrated food becomes disqualified, the verse comes to impose a negative mitzva for eating it.

And since it is prohibited because of yotzei,

and even so it teaches

“pure,” apparently the Sages did not decree

any status of

impurity upon yotzei.

And we answer:

No,

not as you said—that “pure” in the beraita comes only to declare it free of impurity, while nevertheless it becomes disqualified as yotzei and is prohibited to eat.

Rather, it is

pure and permitted,

since

meat that emerges from one group to another is not comparable to yotzei outside its boundary.

We reject this answer:

And

is it indeed the case that

the meat that emerged from one group to another

is not disqualified as yotzei?!

But the latter clause teaches: “One who eats it has violated a negative mitzva,”

namely, “It shall not be eaten, for it is sacred”; therefore, it is yotzei and disqualified.

And since it is indeed yotzei, the difficulty returns to its place: Why is it pure? Rather, you must conclude that all yotzei is not impure.

And

granted, according to the one who says that impurity applies only to

an

egg-bulk,

one can say that the case is

that it contains an olive-bulk

[the measure of the prohibition for which one violates a negative mitzva],

but

nevertheless

it does not contain an egg-bulk.

But according to the one who says that the measure of its impurity is

an

olive-bulk,

the case must be that it contains an olive-bulk, since we learned that one violates a negative mitzva; if so,

what is there to say?!

Rather,

this is how it must be resolved:

With regard to yotzei in the case of the Paschal offering, it is not a question for us that the Sages did not decree impurity!

And

what is the reason that the Paschal offering differs from other consecrated offerings?

Because

the members of the group are vigilant, and are exceedingly careful with it: there are many members of the group, and they urge one another not to remove the meat, so there is no need to impose an additional stringency upon them and decree impurity upon it in order to prevent them from coming to remove it.

Rather, the question is: With regard to yotzei in the case of other consecrated offerings, what

is the law? Did they decree impurity upon it?

Did the Sages decree impurity upon it?

And we conclude:

teiku.