פסחים 83 — parallel

83:1

Rabbah added: R. Jose the Galilean too. For it was taught, R. Jose the Galilean said: The whole passage speaks only of the bullocks which were burnt and the he-goats which were burnt, and its purpose is to teach that when they are disqualified, they must be burnt before the Temple, and to impose a negative injunction against eating them. Said they to him: A sin-offering whose blood entered the innermost [sanctuary], whence do we know [that it is disqualified]? Said he to them, [From the verse] Behold, the blood of it was not brought into the sanctuary within, whence it follows that if it [the sacrifice] went outside or if its blood entered within, it requires burning. But R. Johanan holds: The blood and the flesh are one thing; [while the defilement of] the owners is a different thing. MISHNAH. THE BONES, AND THE SINEWS, AND THE NOTHAR OF THE PASCHAL LAMB ARE TO BE BURNT ON THE SIXTEENTH. IF THE SIXTEENTH FALLS ON THE SABBATH, THEY ARE TO BE BURNT ON THE SEVENTEENTH, BECAUSE THEY DO NOT OVERRIDE EITHER THE SABBATH OR THE FESTIVAL. GEMARA. R. Mari b. Abbuha said in R. Isaac's name: Bones of sacrifices which served nothar defile the hands, since they became a stand for a forbidden article. Shall we say that this supports him: THE BONES, AND THE SINEWS, AND THE NOTHAR ARE TO BE BURNT ON THE SIXTEENTH. How are these bones meant? If we say that they contain no marrow, why burn them? Let us throw them away! Hence it is obvious that they contain marrow. Now, it is well if you agree that the serving of nothar is a [substantial] fact: then it is right that they require burning. But if you say [that] the serving of nothar is not a [substantial] fact, why do they need burning? Let us break them, scoop out their marrow and burn it, and throw them [the bones] away. Hence this surely proves that the serving of nothar is a [substantial] fact! — I will tell you. It is not so: in truth I may argue that the serving of nothar is not a [substantial] fact, but he holds: [neither shall ye break a bone] thereof [means] of a fit [bone], and even of an unfit [one]. [You say] ‘Even of an unfit [one]’ — can you think so! Surely we learned: But he who leaves anything over [even] of clean [flesh], or he who breaks [a bone] of: an unclean [Passover-offering], does not receive forty [lashes]? — There is no difficulty: here it means where it enjoyed a period of fitness; there it means where it never enjoyed a period of fitness; And which Tanna admits a distinction between where it enjoyed a period of fitness and where it did not enjoy a period of fitness? — It is R. Jacob. For it was taught: ‘Neither shall ye break a bone thereof’: ‘thereof’ implies of a fit one, but not of an unfit one. R. Jacob said: If it enjoyed a period of fitness and became unfit, it is subject to the prohibition of breaking a bone; if it did not enjoy a period of fitness, it is not subject to the prohibition of breaking a bone. R. Simeon said: Both the one and the other are not subject to the prohibition of breaking a bone. An objection is raised: No bones of sacrifices require burning, except the bones of the Passover-offering, on account of the stumbling-block. How are these bones meant? If we say that they contain no marrow, why do they need burning? Hence it is obvious that they contain marrow. Now if you should think [that] the serving of nothar is something substantial, why do the bones of [other] sacrifices not require burning? — Said R. Nahman b. Isaac: The circumstances here are e.g., if he found them [the bones] scooped out: [in the case of] the bones of [other] sacrifices which are not subject to the prohibition of breaking a bone, [we assume that] they were scooped out before it [the marrow] became nothar’, Hence they did not serve nothar and do not require burning. [But in the case of] the bones of the Passover-offering which are subject to the prohibition of breaking a bone, we assume that they were scooped out after they became nothar; hence they had served nothar and require to be burnt. R. Zebid said: The circumstances here are e.g.,

—

83:2

that he found them piled up in heaps and some of them were scooped out: [in the case of] bones of [other] sacrifices which are not subject to the prohibition of breaking a bone, [I assume] that they have all been scooped out and [the marrow] eaten; hence they do not require burning. But in the case of bones of the Passover-offering which are subject to the prohibition of breaking a bone, [I say] perhaps it is these [only] which were scooped out, while the others were not scooped out; hence they require burning. Rab Judah said in Rab's name: All sinews are flesh, except the sinews of the neck. We learned: THE BONES, THE SINEWS, AND THE NOTHAR ARE TO BE BURNT ON THE SIXTEENTH. How are these sinews meant? If they are sinews of flesh, let us eat them! While if they remained over, then they are [indeed] nothar? Hence it is obvious [that] the sinews of the neck [are meant]. Now it is well if you say that they are flesh: therefore they require burning. But if you say that they are not flesh, why do they require burning? — Said R. Hisda: This [teaching] arises only in respect of the thigh sinew, and in accordance with R. Judah. For it was taught, R. Judah said: [The prohibition of the thigh sinew] is operative only in respect of one, and reason determines, that of the right [thigh]. Then in that case conclude that R. Judah is in doubt, for if he is really certain, let us eat that which is permitted, and throw away that which is forbidden. Why then do they [both] need burning? — Said R. Ika b. Hinena: [This law was stated] where e.g., they were [originally] distinguished but subsequently mixed up. R. Ashi said: It is necessary [to teach it] only in respect of the fat of the sinew of the thigh. For it was taught: Its fat is permitted, but the Israelites are holy and treat it as forbidden. Rabina said: It refers to the outer [sinew of the thigh], and is in accordance with Rab Judah's dictum in Samuel's name. For Rab Judah said in Samuel's name: The inner one which is near the bone is forbidden, and a person is liable on its account [to flagellation]; the other which is near the flesh is forbidden, but a person is not liable on its account. IF THE SIXTEENTH FELL etc. Yet why so? Let the affirmative command come and override the negative command? — Said Hezekiah, and the School of Hezekiah taught likewise: And ye shall let nothing of it remain until the morning; but that which remaineth of it until the morning ye shall burn with fire: now [the second] ‘until the morning’ need not be stated, What then is the teaching of ‘until the morning’? [Scripture comes] to appoint a second morning for its burning. Abaye said: Scripture saith, The burnt-offering of the Sabbath [shall be burnt] on its Sabbath: but the burnt-offering of weekdays is not [to be burnt] on the Sabbath, nor is the burnt-offering of weekdays [to be burnt] on Festivals. Raba said: Scripture saith, [no manner of work shall be done in them — sc. Festivals — , save that which every man must eat,] that only may be done by you: ‘that’ but not its preparatory requisites: ‘only,’

—