Pesachim 85a — the Talmud in English

No

this is not what was meant when you said that the beraita should be interpreted in that way. Rather, in every case where there is not an olive-bulk of meat on the bone at the place where it is broken, breaking the bone is not prohibited. And

this is what

the beraita is saying:

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

—the marrow, at the place where the bone is broken—are subject to the prohibition against breaking a bone. The beraita comes to teach us that even the marrow inside the bone is considered food [Rashi].

And they raise an objection from a source

[as an agreeable confirmation] to what we said: It is prohibited to break a bone containing marrow, and we do not say that the positive commandment to eat the marrow comes and overrides the negative commandment against breaking the bone:

As it was taught in a beraita: It is written:

“And you shall not break any bone of it.”

This teaches you:

Both a bone that contains marrow

may not be broken, even in order to remove its marrow and eat it.

And a bone that does not contain marrow

but has meat on top of it [Likkutei Halakhot] may not be broken.

And how do I apply the verse: “And they shall eat the meat on this night”?

Only

to meat that is on the bone,

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

Even piercing the bone with a coal [which does not constitute breaking a bone] is also not required, since Scripture does not require one to perform an act that could lead to a transgression. The bone might split somewhere other than at the place of the coal, and one would then violate “And you shall not break any bone of it” [Rashi].

Or perhaps

as we said,

but “And they shall eat the meat on this night” also includes

meat that is inside the bone; and

how do I apply

“And you shall not break

any bone of it”?

Only

to a bone that does not contain marrow.

But a bone that contains marrow

is one who

breaks

the bone

and eats

its marrow.

And do not be surprised

by this,

for surely a positive commandment can come and override

the

negative commandment.

This cannot be said.

For

when

the verse

says

“And you shall not break any bone of it”

with regard to the Second Passover,

there would be no need for the verse

[it is superfluous].

For it has already been stated

with regard to the Second Passover:

“They shall perform it according to every statute of the Passover offering,”

and the prohibition against breaking a bone is included.

By necessity,

you must say:

the verse comes to teach us that

both a bone that contains marrow and a bone that does not contain marrow

are included in the prohibition “And you shall not break any bone of it.”

They raise an objection from a source to Reish Lakish, who holds that if a limb does not have an olive-bulk of meat at this place but does have one elsewhere, breaking the bone is not prohibited, from what we learned in the Mishna:

A limb whose part came out

partially

outside the wall of Jerusalem [according to Rashi above, 84b], and that part became prohibited as “that which went out,” so that it must be burned [Meiri],

this limb

is cut

by making a cut around the meat, along the line separating the meat that went out from the meat that did not go out,

until the place where the bone is reached.

And

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

peels

away the meat that did not go out

until the joint is reached

[the place where two bones are joined], and

cuts

at the joint [since this is not breaking but separating the tendons, which is permitted with regard to the Paschal offering], then throws away the bone whose part went out, and eats the meat that was peeled away [Rashi; see the note ].

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

an olive-bulk of meat

[Bach]

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

as Reish Lakish holds,

then

why must he peel it until he reaches the joint and then cut it?!

Let him peel away a little

meat from the bone

and break it

near the place where it went out, since after the meat has been peeled away there is no meat on the bone at the place of the break?!

Abaye said

as an answer:

Because it may split,

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

Ravina said

as an answer: The Mishna is speaking

of

the

thighbone

that contains marrow. It is therefore like a bone that contains meat because of the marrow, and consequently it may not be broken at all.

We learned there

in the chapter “The Evenings of Passover”:

Piggul and notar render the hands impure,

as the Sages decreed impurity upon them, for the reason that the Gemara will explain.

Rav Huna and Rav Ḥisda

interpreted this Mishna, and also disagreed concerning it:

One said

that the reason for the impurity of piggul is

that it is

because of suspicions concerning the priests:

The priests were suspected of intentionally rendering the offerings of those they disliked into piggul. To prevent this, the Sages declared that hands that touched piggul are impure and must be immersed before eating consecrated food. As a result, the priests would refrain from rendering offerings into piggul, so as not to have to undergo the trouble of immersion afterward. Although they were wicked and did not hesitate to render offerings into piggul, they nevertheless were deterred by a severe impurity [Tosafot].

And one said

that the reason for the impurity of notar is

that it is

because of negligent priests,

who delay eating consecrated food within its designated time. Since they would then be forced to immerse their hands after touching what they had left over, and this would be troublesome for them, they would not leave over the consecrated food.

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

one master

of them

stated

his reason with regard to

piggul, and the other master stated his reason with regard to notar.

The one who stated it with regard to piggul

explained the reason as

because of suspicions concerning the priests.

And the one who stated it with regard to notar explained it as because of negligent priests.

Rav Huna and Rav Ḥisda also disagreed concerning another matter in this Mishna:

One master stated:

The measure of piggul and notar that renders the hands impure is

an olive-bulk.

And the other master stated:

The measure of piggul and notar is

an egg-bulk.

And the Gemara explains their reasons:

The one who stated

that the measure of impurity is

an olive-bulk

holds that the measure of its impurity is

like its prohibition:

Just as the measure for which eating them is prohibited is an olive-bulk, so too the measure that renders the hands impure is an olive-bulk.

And the one who stated

that the measure of impurity is

an egg-bulk

holds that the measure of this new impurity instituted by the Sages is

like its ordinary impurity—

that is, like the measure of these foods with regard to rendering others impure by Torah law if they were impure, which is an egg-bulk [since food of less than an egg-bulk does not render others impure].

They raised a question: Does the word

Did the Sages also

“that went out”

also mean that

the Sages decreed impurity

upon it because of negligent priests who might take it outside, just as they decreed this concerning notar because of them,

or not?

Do we say that only

notar

notar

is what

the Sages decreed

to have

impurity,

since

it may lead

priests

to be negligent with it, and through their negligence it will become notar on its own;

but yotzei,

but that which went out

does not raise concern that they might take it outside its proper place and boundary, since

they do not deliberately take it out by hand?

And if so,

the Sages did not decree impurity upon it.

Or perhaps there is no difference,

since concern exists in both cases?

Come and hear a proof

from the Mishna cited above:

“A limb whose part came out: he cuts until the place where the bone is reached, peels until the joint is reached, and cuts.”

And if you say that they decreed impurity upon it—

that which went out—

the Sages, what is accomplished by cutting it?!

For since the two parts were one piece of meat,

this

(renders it impure)

becomes impure

[Rashi]

from it: the part that did not go outside becomes impure from the part that went outside [since anything that renders the hands impure renders consecrated food impure, Meiri]. Since the part that did not go outside has also become impure, it is prohibited to eat it, so why does one peel it? The Gemara answers: Since you seek to render the part that did not go outside impure through its connection to the part that went outside, and the place where the two parts are connected is not visible and is therefore a “concealed area,”

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

it is concealed impurity, and concealed impurity does not render impure.

The Gemara is still puzzled:

And according to Ravina, who said that connections between foods

[connected food]

are not considered a connection and are regarded as though they had been separated,

they are not considered connected, but as though they were separate from one another, and the place is not considered a “concealed area.”

If so,

what can be said

to resolve our difficulty:

This part touches the other, and becomes impure?!

Rather,

this is how the matter can be answered: The Mishna is speaking of a case where the part that went outside does not have the measure capable of rendering food impure.

According to the one who stated

that the measure of their impurity is

an olive-bulk,

the case here is one

where it does not contain an olive-bulk

in the part that went outside, and therefore it does not render the part that did not go outside impure.

And

according to

the one who stated

that the measure of their impurity is

an egg-bulk,

the Mishna is speaking of a case

where it does not contain

in the part that went outside

an egg-bulk.

Come and hear a proof

to resolve our question whether the Sages decreed impurity upon that which went out:

Two groups, each eating one of two Paschal offerings in a single house, may not take meat of the Paschal offering from the place where one group is eating to the place where the other group is eating. This is included in what the Torah states: “You shall not take any of the meat outside from the house” [as expounded on page 85b].

One who takes Paschal-offering meat from one group to another, although he violates a negative commandment,

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

pure.

And

is it not

the case that “pure,” as stated in the beraita, means only that the meat is pure and has no impurity

but

nevertheless

it is prohibited,

namely, the meat that went out?

For

it is

going out from one group to another, like “going out”

outside its boundary

[for example, offerings of the most sacred order that went outside their boundary, the courtyard, or lesser sanctified offerings that went outside their boundary, the wall of Jerusalem]

and is disqualified

as “that which went out.”

Since it is disqualified, it is prohibited, as we learned above, on page 24a: “It shall not be eaten, because it is sacred”; the verse comes to impose a negative commandment against eating anything within the realm of consecrated offerings that becomes disqualified.

And since it is prohibited because it went out,

and even so it teaches

“pure,” which shows that the Sages did not decree

any status of

impurity upon that which went out.

The Gemara answers:

No,

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

Rather,

it is pure and permitted,

since

going out from one group to another is not comparable to going out beyond its boundary.

The Gemara rejects this answer:

And

if that is indeed so,

the meat that went out from one group to another

is not disqualified as “that which went out”?!

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

“It shall not be eaten, because it is sacred,” which shows that it is “that which went out” and is disqualified.

Since this is so, and it is indeed “that which went out,” the question returns: Why is it pure? Rather, it must be that everything that goes out does not become impure.

And

this is understandable according to the one who says that there is no impurity unless there is

an

egg-bulk:

one can say that the case is

where it contains an olive-bulk

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

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 involve an olive-bulk, since we have learned that one violates a negative commandment by eating it. If so,

what can be said?!

Rather,

this is how the matter should be resolved:

With regard to that which goes out in the case of the Paschal offering, there is no question 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 they are exceedingly careful with it;

there are many members of the group, and they caution one another not to take the meat outside. It is therefore unnecessary to impose additional stringency upon them by decreeing impurity, to prevent them from taking it outside.

Rather, the question was raised for us as follows: What is the status of that which goes out in the case of other consecrated offerings?

Did the Sages decree impurity upon it?

And we conclude:

teyku.