Pesachim 166

שמצאן צבורין צבורין ומהן חלוצין עצמות קדשים דאין בהן משום שבירת העצם לכולהו הוה חליץ להו ואכיל להו ולא בעי שריפה

that he found them piled up in heaps and some of them were scooped out:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He only examined those on top and found them thus.');">¹</span> [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.

עצמות הפסח דיש בהן משום שבירת העצם דילמא הני דחלצינהו ולהנך לא חלצינהו ובעי שריפה

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<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which he did not examine.');">²</span> were not scooped out; hence they require burning.

א"ר יהודה אמר רב כל הגידין בשר חוץ מגידי צואר

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.

תנן העצמות והגידים והנותר ישרפו בט"ז הני גידין היכי דמי אילימא גידי בשר ניכלינהו ואי דאיתותר היינו נותר אלא פשיטא גידי צואר

How are these sinews meant? If they are sinews of flesh, let us eat them! While if they remained over,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Accidentally or through negligence.');">³</span>

א"א בשלמא בשר נינהו אמטו להכי בעי שריפה אלא אי אמרת לאו בשר נינהו למה להו שריפה א"ר חסדא לא נצרכא אלא לגיד הנשה ואליבא דרבי יהודה

then they are [indeed] nothar?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why state it separately?');">⁴</span> Hence it is obvious [that] the sinews of the neck [are meant].

דתניא ר' יהודה אומר אינו נוהג אלא באחת והדעת מכרעת של ימין

Now it is well if you say that they are flesh:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In spite of their woodenness.');">⁵</span> therefore they require burning.

ואלא תפשוט דספוקי מספקא ליה לר' יהודה דאי מיפשיט פשיטא ליה ההיא דהיתירא ניכליה ודאיסורא נישדייה למה ליה שריפה

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].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Gen. XXXII, 33. Thus actually one of the thigh sinews is permitted, though we do not know which; this one therefore is really nothar and must be burnt.');">⁶</span>

א"ר איקא בר חיננא כגון שהוכרו ולבסוף נתערבו

Then in that case conclude that R'Judah is in doubt,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is forbidden and which is permitted.');">⁷</span> for if he is really certain, let us eat that which is permitted, and throw away that which is forbidden.

רב אשי אמר לא נצרכא אלא לשמנו דגיד הנשה דתניא שמנו מותר וישראל קדושים הם ונוהגין בו איסור

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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Judah may be certain that the prohibition applies to the right thigh only, but these sinews referred to in our Mishnah, though distinguished when drawn out, are now mixed up and we do not know which is the right and which is the left, and hence both require burning.');">⁸</span> R'Ashi said: It is necessary [to teach it] only in respect of the fat of the sinew of the thigh.

רבינא אמר בחיצון וכדר"י אמר שמואל דאמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל ב' גידין הן פנימי הסמוך לעצם אסור וחייבין עליו חיצון הסמוך לבשר אסור ואין חייבין עליו:

For it was taught: Its fat is permitted, but the Israelites are holy and treat it as forbidden.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since therefore according to Scriptural law it can be eaten, it is nothar and must be burnt. On the other hand, since in actual practice it could not be eaten the Tanna cannot include it in the term nothar, which generally implies flesh which could have been eaten, and must mention it separately.');">⁹</span> Rabina said: It refers to the outer [sinew of the thigh], and is in accordance with Rab Judah's dictum in Samuel's name.

חל ט"ז וכו': ואמאי ניתי עשה וידחי לא תעשה

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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is forbidden by Rabbinical law only. The reasoning in the preceding note applies here too.');">¹⁰</span> IF THE SIXTEENTH FELL etc. Yet why so?

אמר חזקיה וכן תני דבי חזקיה אמר קרא (שמות יב, י) לא תותירו ממנו עד בוקר והנותר ממנו עד בוקר באש תשרופו שאין ת"ל עד בקר מה ת"ל עד בקר ליתן לו בקר שני לשריפתו

Let the affirmative command come and override the negative command?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is a general principle that if an affirmative command and a negative command are in conflict, the former overrides the latter. Here we have all affirmative command to burn the nothar, Ex. XII, 10, and a negative command forbidding work on a festival, ibid. 16.');">¹¹</span> - 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'?

אביי אמר אמר קרא (במדבר כח, י) עולת שבת בשבתו ולא עולת חול בשבת ולא עולת חול ביום טוב

[Scripture comes] to appoint a second morning for its burning.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Translating: but that which remaineth of it, (ye shall wait) until the (following) morning (sc. that of the sixteenth) (and) burn (it) with fire.');">¹²</span> Abaye said: Scripture saith, The burnt-offering of the Sabbath [shall be burnt] on its Sabbath:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XXVIII, 10; this is the literal translation.');">¹³</span>

רבא אמר אמר קרא (שמות יב, טז) הוא לבדו יעשה לכם הוא ולא מכשיריו לבדו

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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., the animal sacrificed before the Sabbath or Festival must not be burnt the following evening. Hence sacrifices and sacred food in general, if unfit, must not be burnt on Festivals, a fortiori.');">¹⁴</span> 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:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XII, 16.');">¹⁵</span> 'that' but not its preparatory requisites:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., you may roast meat, but may not sharpen a spit for impaling the meat on it.');">¹⁶</span> 'only,'