פסחים 83:1 — Soncino English Talmud

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.,^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ

^ᵃnote:This refers to Lev. VI, 23: And no sin-offering, whereof any of the blood is brought into the tent of meeting to make atonement in the holy place, shall be eaten; it shall be burnt with fire. The Rabbis relate this to a sin-offering which is sacrificed in the inner court, whose blood was carried into the inner court, thereby thus qualifying it. But R. Jose the Galilean relates it to a sin-offering which is sacrificed in the inner court, e.g., the bullock brought when the entire congregation sins in ignorance (v. Lev. IV, 13 f.). Hence he interprets the verse thus: And no sin-offering thereof any of the blood is rightly brought into the tent of meeting etc., shall be eaten. Now this is superfluous in respect of a valid sacrifice, since it is explicitly stated in IV, 21: and he shall carry forth the bullock without the camp, and burn it. Hence the verse must mean that if it became unfit though going outside its legitimate boundary or through defilement, it must be burnt in front of the Birah, and not be carried ‘without the camp’, i.e., beyond the Temple Mount. Further, this prohibits the eating of its flesh by a negative injunction, violation of which involves flagellation (Lev. IV, 21 merely contains an affirmative precept whose disregard is not punished by flagellation).
^ᵇnote:Lev. X, 18.
^ᶜnote:Now, since R. Jose the Galilean learns sacrifices for all time from Aaron's sin-offering, he evidently holds that for all time if the blood is brought within, it requires immediate burning without awaiting disfigurement, though the disqualification of the blood is like a disqualification through something else. Rabbah assumes that the same law viz., that it must be burnt without awaiting disfigurement, applies to the owner's defilement, though it is a disqualification through something else. Hence R. Jose the Galilean and R. Johanan b. Berokah say the same thing.
^ᵈnote:Who does not include R. Jose he Galilean.
^ᵉnote:Hence when the blood goes without its precincts, it is a disqualification in the sacrifice itself.
^ᶠnote:I.e., it is a disqualification through something else, and therefore one cannot be deduced from the other.
^ᵍnote:Of the paschal lamb. They may not be broken (Ex. XII, 46), and therefore their marrow becomes nothar (v. Glos.) and must be burnt (ibid. 10).
^ʰnote:Not on the fifteenth, which is a festival day, but on the sixteenth, which is the first of the Intermediate days (hol ha-mo'ed); v. p. 16, n. 4.
^ⁱnote:I.e., the burning of them.
^ʲnote:I.e. , the marrow was left in them after the time permitted for the eating of the sacrifice, and thus became nothar, for which the bones served as a container.
^ᵏnote:Just as nothar itself, v. infra 85a, 120b.
^ˡnote:Sc. the marrow.
^ᵐnote:Nothar, which must he burnt, is applicable only to what can be eaten in the first place, viz.,the flesh and the marrow.
^ⁿnote:I.e., of sufficient importance to be treated as nothar itself.
^ᵒnote:I.e.,the bones themselves too.
^ᵖnote:For as stated anon, only a fit bone may not be broken; here, once the marrow is nothar, the bone ceases to be fit.
^ᵠnote:The Tanna of our Mishnah.
^ʳnote:Ex. XII, 46.
^ˢnote:Flagellation, the penalty for violating a negative injunction. V. infra 84a. Since he is not so punished, the prohibition evidently does not apply.
^ᵗnote:E.g., if a bone is rendered unfit on account of nothar, it was fit before it became nothar. Then the prohibition remains even when it becomes unfit. (9) E.g., if the bone was defiled before the sprinkling of the blood. Then it was never fit, and the prohibition does not apply to it.
^ᵘnote:Though the marrow in them, if uneaten, is nothar. The bones are broken while the marrow is scooped out and burnt.
^ᵛnote:Where the bones themselves are burnt.
^ʷnote:One might Otherwise be led to violate the prohibition of breaking bones.
^ˣnote:I.e., the bones were already broken and their marrow removed.
^ʸnote:The plural in the text probably refers to the separate marrows distributed among the bones.