Pesachim 167

ולא מילה שלא בזמנה הבאה מק"ו

but not circumcision out of its proper time, which might [otherwise] be inferred a fortiori.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');">¹</span> R'Ashi said: [On the seventh day is a Sabbath of] solemn rest [Shabbathon],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXIII, 3.');">²</span>

רב אשי אמר (ויקרא כג, ג) שבתון די"ט עשה הוא ואין עשה דוחה לא תעשה ועשה:

[written] in connection with Festivals, is an affirmative precept<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For it intimates: rest thereon, so that work on a festival involves the transgression of both affirmative and negative precepts.');">³</span> and one affirmative precept cannot override a negative precept and an affirmative precept [combined].

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> כל הנאכל בשור הגדול יאכל בגדי הרך וראשי כנפים והסחוסים:

<big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>EVERYTHING WHICH CAN BE EATEN OF A FULL-GROWN OX MAY BE EATEN OF A TENDER GOAT,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');">⁴</span> AND ALSO THE TOPS OF THE FORELEGS AND THE GRISTLES.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., the cartilage of the ears, the gristly portion of the breast, and the small ribs at the end of the spine.');">⁵</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> רבה רמי תנן כל הנאכל בשור הגדול יאכל בגדי הרך ושאינו נאכל לא אימא סיפא ראשי כנפים והסחוסים והא הני לא מתאכלי בשור הגדול

<big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>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].

אלא תנאי היא והכי קתני כל הנאכל בשור הגדול יאכל בגדי הרך ושאינו נאכל לא וי"א אף ראשי כנפים והסחוסים

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,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'he teaches what they are'.');">⁶</span>

רבא אמר מה הן קתני והכי קתני כל הנאכל בשור הגדול בשלקא יאכל בגדי הרך בצלי ומה הן ראשי כנפים והסחוסי'

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.

תניא כוותיה דרבא כל הנאכל בשור הגדול בשלקא יאכל בגדי הרך בצלי ומה הן ראשי כנפים והסחוסים וגידין הרכין נידונין כבשר

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<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'judged'.');">⁷</span>

איתמר גידין שסופן להקשות רבי יוחנן אמר נמנין עליהן בפסח ריש לקיש אמר אין נמנין עליהן בפסח ר' יוחנן אמר נמנין עליהן בתר השתא אזלינן ריש לקיש אמר אין נמנין עליהן בתר בסוף אזלינן

as flesh. It was stated: [With regard to] sinews which would ultimately harden,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');">⁸</span>

איתיביה ריש לקיש לר' יוחנן כל הנאכל בשור הגדול יאכל בגדי הרך ומה הן ראשי כנפים והסחוסים הני אין אבל גידין שסופן להקשות לא א"ל תנא הני וה"ה להנך הני מ"ט דהא מתאכלי בשור הגדול בשלקא הנך נמי מתאכלי בשור הגדול בשלקא

- 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.

א"ל ר' ירמיה לרבי אבין כי אזלת לקמיה דר' אבהו רמי ליה מי אמר רבי יוחנן גידין שסופן להקשו' נמנין עליהן בפסח אלמא בתר השתא אזלינן והא בעא מיניה ריש לקיש מרבי יוחנן עור הראש של עגל הרך מהו שיטמא ואמר לו אין מטמא אלמא בתר בסוף אזלינן

Resh Lakish maintained. One may not register for them in the Passover-offering, [because] we decide by its ultimate [condition].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');">⁹</span>

א"ל דרמא לך הא לא חש לקמחיה הא הדר ביה רבי יוחנן לגבי דריש לקיש וא"ל אל תקניטני שבלשון יחיד אני שונה אותה:

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,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which even in the case of a full-grown ox can be eaten after protracted boiling.');">¹⁰</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> השובר את העצם בפסח הטהור הרי זה לוקה ארבעים אבל המותיר בטהור והשובר בטמא אינו לוקה את הארבעים:

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]?

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> בשלמא מותיר בטהור דתניא (שמות יב, י) לא תותירו ממנו עד בקר והנותר ממנו עד בקר וגו' בא הכתוב ליתן עשה אחר לא תעשה לומר שאין לוקה דברי רבי יהודה

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.

רבי יעקב אומר לא מן השם הוא זה אלא משום דהוה ליה לאו שאין בו מעשה ואין לוקין עליו אלא שובר בטמא מנלן דאמר קרא (שמות יב, מו) ועצם לא תשברו בו בו בכשר ולא בפסול

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'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');">¹¹</span>

ת"ר ועצם לא תשברו בו בו בכשר ולא בפסול ר' אומר (שמות יב, מו) בבית אחד יאכל ועצם לא תשברו בו כל הראוי לאכילה יש בו משום שבירת עצם ושאין ראוי לאכילה אין בו משום שבירת עצם

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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whether he milled sound wheat or the refuse! I.e., he was careless about his data.');">¹²</span> 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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This refers to the Mishnah in Hul. ');">¹³</span>

מאי בינייהו א"ר ירמיה פסח הבא בטומאה איכא בינייהו למ"ד כשר

<big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>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]. <big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XII, 10.');">¹⁴</span> 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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');">¹⁵</span> R'Jacob said: This is not the real reason,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'this is not of the same denomination'.');">¹⁶</span> but because It is a negative injunction involving no action,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is violated by remaining passive, not by committing a positive act.');">¹⁷</span> 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:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 46.');">¹⁸</span> 'thereof' [implies] of a fit sacrifice but not of an unfit one. Our Rabbis taught: 'Nei 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:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 46.');">¹⁸</span> [this intimates,] whatever is fit for eating 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:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., when the majority of the community were unclean; v. Mishnah supra 79a.');">¹⁹</span> on the view that [the verse refers to] a fit [sacrif