פסחים 84:1 — Soncino English Talmud

but not circumcision out of its proper time, which might [otherwise] be inferred a fortiori. R. Ashi said: [On the seventh day is a Sabbath of] solemn rest [Shabbathon], [written] in connection with Festivals, is an affirmative precept and one affirmative precept cannot override a negative precept and an affirmative precept [combined]. MISHNAH. EVERYTHING WHICH CAN BE EATEN OF A FULL-GROWN OX MAY BE EATEN OF A TENDER GOAT, AND ALSO THE TOPS OF THE FORELEGS AND THE GRISTLES. GEMARA. Rabbah pointed out a contradiction. We learned: EVERYTHING WHICH CAN BE EATEN OF A FULL-GROWN OX MAY BE EATEN OF A TENDER GOAT; hence that which cannot be eaten [of the former] may not [be eaten of the latter]. Then consider the sequel: [AND ALSO] THE TOPS OF THE FORELEGS AND THE GRISTLES: yet surely these cannot be eaten in the case of a full-grown ox? — Rather it is [dependent on] Tannaim, and it is taught thus: EVERYTHING WHICH CAN BE EATEN OF A FULL-GROWN OX MAY BE EATEN OF A TENDER GOAT, while that which cannot be eaten [of the former] may not be eaten [of the latter]: but some maintain, also THE TOPS OF THE FORELEGS AND THE GRISTLES. Raba said: This [the second] is a defining clause, and it teaches thus: EVERYTHING WHICH CAN BE EATEN OF A FULL-GROWN OX after [much] boning MAY BE EATEN OF A TENDER GOAT when roasted, and what is it? THE TOPS OF THE FORELEGS AND THE GRISTLES. It was taught in accordance with Raba: Everything which can be eaten of a full-grown ox after [much] boning may be eaten of a tender goat when roasted, and what is it? The tops of the forelegs and the gristles, and the soft sinews are treated as flesh. It was stated: [With regard to] sinews which would ultimately harden, — R. Johanan said: One may register for them in the Passover-offering; Resh Lakish maintained: One may not register for them in the Passover-offering. R. Johanan said, One may register for them in the Passover-offering, [because] we decide by the present. Resh Lakish maintained. One may not register for them in the Passover-offering, [because] we decide by its ultimate [condition]. Resh Lakish raised an objection against R. Johanan: Everything which can be eaten of a full-grown ox may be eaten of a tender goat, and what is it? The tops of the forelegs and the gristles; [thus] only these, but not sinews which would ultimately harden! — Said he to him: He teaches those, and the same applies to these. [Thus] why are those [permitted]? Because they can be eaten in the case of a full-grown ox after [much] boning; [so] these too call be eaten of a full-grown ox after [much] boning. R. Jeremiah said to R. Abin: When you go before R. Abbahu, point out a contradiction to him. Did then R. Johanan say, ‘[With regard to] sinews which would ultimately harden, one nay register for them in the Passover-offering’, which shows that we decide by the present? Surely Resh Lakish asked R. Johanan: ‘Can the skin of the head of a tender [sucking] goat be defiled’? And he answered him: ‘It cannot be defiled’, which proves that we decide by the future? — Said he to him: he who pointed out this contradiction to you was not particular about his flour. Surely R. Johanan retracted in favour of Resh Lakish[‘s view], and he said to him: Do not provoke me, for I learn it as the opinion of an individual. MISHNAH. HE WHO BREAKS A BONE OF A CLEAN PASSOVER-OFFERING RECEIVES FORTY [LASHES]. BUT HE WHO LEAVES OVER [FLESH] OF A CLEAN [OFFERING] OR BREAKS [A BONE] OF AN UNCLEAN [ONE] IS NOT FLAGELLATED WITH FORTY [LASHES]. GEMARA. As for leaving over [flesh] of a clean [offering], it is well. For it was taught: And ye shall let nothing of it remain until the morning; and that which remaineth of it until the morning ye shall burn with fire. Scripture desires to state an affirmative command after a negative command, thus teaching that one is not flagellated for it; this is R. Judah's view. R. Jacob said: This is not the real reason, but because It is a negative injunction involving no action, for which one is not flagellated. But how do we know [that] he who breaks [a bone] of an unclean [offering is not flagellated]? — Because Scripture states, Neither shall ye break a bone thereof: ‘thereof’ [implies] of a fit sacrifice but not of an unfit one. Our Rabbis taught: ‘Neither shall ye break a bone thereof’: ‘thereof’ implies of a fit sacrifice but not of an unfit one. Rabbi said: In one house shall it be eaten . . . neither shall ye break a bone thereof: [this intimates,] whatever is fit for eating is subject to the [prohibition of] breaking a bone, while whatever is not fit for eating is not subject to the [prohibition of] breaking a bone. Wherein do they differ? Said R. Jeremiah: They differ in respect of a Passover-offering which came in a state of uncleanness: on the view that [the verse refers to] a fit [sacrifice].^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ

^ᵃnote:An infant is circumcised even on the Sabbath, if it is the eighth day after birth (Lev. XII, 3), but not otherwise. This is deduced from ‘alone’, which is a limitation. But for this, one could infer a fortiori that it is permissible (v. Shab. 132b). Thus we see that an act which need not be done on a particular day may not be done on the Sabbath or on Festivals, and the same applies to unfit sacred food.
^ᵇnote:Lev. XXIII, 3.
^ᶜnote:For it intimates: rest thereon, so that work on a festival involves the transgression of both affirmative and negative precepts.
^ᵈnote:But not those portions of a full-grown ox which are too hard to be eaten (the reference, of course, is to the Passover-offering), though in the case of a young goat these are soft and edible.
^ᵉnote:E.g., the cartilage of the ears, the gristly portion of the breast, and the small ribs at the end of the spine.
^ᶠnote:Lit., ‘he teaches what they are’.
^ᵍnote:Lit., ‘judged’.
^ʰnote:The sinews of the neck of a young goat fit for a Passover-offering are soft, but when it grows older they harden and are unfit for food.
^ⁱnote:Thus R. Johanan interprets the ‘soft sinews’ of the foregoing Baraitha as meaning those which are soft now, even if they ultimately harden; while in the view of Resh Lakish it means only those which remain permanently soft.
^ʲnote:Which even in the case of a full-grown ox can be eaten after protracted boiling.
^ᵏnote:At present it is edible, but not when the goat grows older. Can it be defiled as food, since it can now be eaten, or not, since it will ultimately harden.
^ˡnote:Whether he milled sound wheat or the refuse! I.e., he was careless about his data.
^ᵐnote:This refers to the Mishnah in Hul. 122a which states that the skin of the head of a tender goat is as its flesh, i.e., can be defiled as an eatable, which proves that we decide by the present and thus contradicts R. Johanan's answer to Resh Lakish. He, however, countered by stating that he regarded it as an individual's ruling only. Hence when he rules in the present discussion that we decide by the present, it must be on the assumption that that Mishnah represents the opinion of the majority, an assumption, however, which he evidently abandoned.
^ⁿnote:Ex. XII, 10.
^ᵒnote:This is a general principle, for when an affirmative precept follows a negative one, it is implied that if the latter is violated, the remedy lies in the former.
^ᵖnote:Lit., ‘this is not of the same denomination’.
^ᵠnote:It is violated by remaining passive, not by committing a positive act.
^ʳnote:Ibid. 46.
^ˢnote:I.e., when the majority of the community were unclean; v. Mishnah supra 79a.