Talmud for Pesachim 168:21

א"ל

Rabina said: In such a case it is not subject to the [prohibition of] breaking a bone, because we require th standard of eating. But they differ in respect of a limb upon which there is less than an olive of flesh at this point,18 but which contains as much as an olive of flesh elsewhere. On the view that [the verse refers to] a fit [sacrifice],this indeed is fit. But on the view that [only what is] fit for eating [is subject to this law], we require the standard of eating at the point where it is broken, which is absent. It was taught as four of these.19 For it was taught, Rabbi said: 'In one house shall it be eaten. neithe shall ye break a bone thereof': he is culpable on account of that which is fit, but he is not culpable on accoun of that which is not fit. [Thus:] If it had a period of fitness but became unfit by the time of eating, it is no subject to the [prohibition of] breaking a bone. If it contains the standard of eating,20 it is subject to the [prohibition of] breaking a bone; if it does not contain the standard of eating, it is not subject to the [prohibition of] breaking a bone. That which is intended for the altar21 is not subject to the [prohibition of] breaking a bone. [Only] at the time of eating is it subject to the [prohibition of] breaking a bone; when not at the time of eating22 it is not subject to the [prohibition of] breaking a bone. It was stated: If a limb does no contain as much as an olive of flesh at this point,23 but does contain as much as an olive of flesh elsewhere, - R'Johanan maintained: It is subject to the [prohibition of] breaking a bone; R'Simeon B'Lakish said: It is not subject to the [prohibition of] breaking a bone. R'Johanan raised an objection against Resh Lakish: 'Neither shall ye break a bone thereof': both a bone upon which there is as much as an olive of flesh and a bone upon which there is not as much as an olive of flesh. Now what does 'there is not as much as an olive of flesh upon it' mean? Shall we say that there is not as much as an olive of flesh upon it at all, then why is subject to the [prohibition of] breaking a bone?24 Hence surely this is what it means: Both a bone upon which there is as much as an olive of flesh at this [very] point and a bone upon which there is not as much as an olive of flesh at this point, but there is as much as an olive of flesh upon it elsewhere? - Said he to him,

Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim

If he broke a bone of it when it still was daylight. There are Tannaim who state, he is liable, and there are Tannaim who state, he is not liable⁵¹Babli 84b.. He who says that he is liable, do not break a bone in it⁵²Ex. 12:46. etc., in any case. But he who says that he is not liable, at a time when he is not obligated to eat fire-roasted there is no do not break a bone in it; at a time when he is obligated to eat fire-roasted there is do not break a bone in it.

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim

HALAKHAH: A bone with no meat on it, Rebbi Joḥanan said, one is forbidden to break it; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, one is permitted to break it²⁵⁸While it is a biblical commandment not to break a bone of the Pesaḥ (Ex. 12:46), it is generally accepted that bone material is inert like wood; cf. Orlah 1:4, Note 163. Therefore the prohibition can only refer to a bone with some meat on it or to the marrow inside the bone. The question may be asked only for a bone whose marrow does not add up to the volume of an olive, since otherwise the marrow, being edible, becomes leftover and has to be burned with the leftover meat.. Rebbi Joḥanan objected to Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Did we not state, “the bones, the sinews, and leftovers are to be burned on the Sixteenth^258aText of the Mishnah in the independent Mishnah mss. and the Babli.”? Could he not chop? Because of the marrow in a marrow-bone²⁵⁹One treats all bones as marrow bones to avoid problems in borderline cases. A different approach in Babli 84b referring to Mishnah 8.. Could one not strip off all meat from the bone and profit from the bone? They wanted to say that one may not strip off from the disqualified. Rebbi Eleazar said, and even if you say that one may strip, he explains it following Rebbi Jacob, since Rebbi Jacob said, the prohibition of breaking a bone applies if at the start it was qualified and then became impure²⁶⁰Babli 84b. The prohibition of breaking a bone applies even to the leftovers with or without marrow; cf. Mekhilta dR. Ismael Bo15 (pp. 53–54).. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: why did they say, “the bones, the sinews, and leftovers are to be burned on the Sixteenth”? Because he who burns causes breaking²⁶¹It is forbidden when roasting the lamb on the 14th to cut the meat from the bones and expose the bones to direct fire to cause them to break and give access to the bone marrow.. Samuel said, one may subscribe to the brain in the head but one may not subscribe to the marrow in a marrow bone²⁶²Babli 84b. One may subscribe to the brain in the head because one can take it out through the ear. But one may not subscribe to the marrow in a marrow bone since one could only extricate it by breaking. Rebbi Joḥanan said, one may subscribe to the marrow in a marrow bone. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, one may not subscribe to the marrow in a marrow bone, but if he subscribed, he subscribed²⁶³He disagrees with the previous statement that burning is like breaking. Since the Pesaḥ may be eaten only by the subscribers to it, if somebody subscribed to the marrow he may open the bone by holding it into the fire; even though this is frowned upon it is not forbidden.. In Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion, could he not burn and subscribe? Because of the loss of sancta²⁶⁴Since some of the edible marrow also will be burned and become inedible.. In Samuel’s opinion, could he not burn and subscribe? Samuel thinks like Rebbi Jacob, as Rebbi Jacob said, the prohibition of breaking a bone applies if at the start it was qualified and then became impure.

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Previous Verse Full Chapter Next Verse