Pesachim 168

האי פסול למ"ד ראוי לאכילה האי נמי ראוי לאכילה הוא

this however is unfit;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Normally such is unfit, for uncleanness is merely overridden in favour of a community, but not permitted, v. supra 77a, p. 398, n. 2; hence it is not subject to the prohibition of breaking a bone.');">¹</span> but on the view that whatever is fit for eating [is subject to this law], [surely] this is fit for eating.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since a Passover offered in uncleanness may be eaten in uncleanness, v. supra 76b.');">²</span>

רב יוסף אמר כי האי גוונא דכולי עלמא אין בו משום שבירת העצם דר' לאקולי קא אתי והאי הא פסול הוא

R'Joseph said: In such a case all agree that it is not subject to the [prohibition of] breaki bone, for Rabbi comes to be [more] lenient<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Some versions omit this (Bah) .');">³</span> and this is surely unfit.

אלא היתה לו שעת הכושר ונפסל איכא בינייהו למ"ד כשר הא כשר הוא למ"ד ראוי לאכילה הא השתא לאו ראוי לאכילה הוא

But<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Var. lec. omit 'In such a case . But'.]');">⁴</span> they differ where it enjoyed a period of fitness and then became unfit:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., the paschal sacrifice became unclean after the sprinkling of the blood.');">⁵</span>

אביי אמר כ"ע כל כי האי גוונא אין בו משום שבירת העצם מאי טעמא השתא מיהת הא פסול הוא אלא שבירת העצם מבעוד יום איכא בינייהו למ"ד כשר הא כשר הוא למ"ד ראוי לאכילה השתא לאו בר אכילה הוא

on the view that [the verse refers to] a fit [sacrifice], this [inde was fit; but on the view that [only what is] fit for eating [is meant], surely it is not fit for eating now. Abaye said: In such a case all hold that it is not subject to the [prohibition of] breaking a bone.

מיתיבי רבי אומר נמנין על מוח שבראש ואין נמנין על מוח שבקולית על מוח שבראש מ"ט הואיל ויכול לגוררו ולהוציאו ואי ס"ד שבירת העצם מבעוד יום שפיר דמי קולית נמי נתבריה מבעוד יום ונפקוה למוח דידיה ונמנו עליה

What is reason? [Because] at all events it is unfit now.

אמר לך אביי ולטעמיך משחשיכה נמי נייתי גומרתא וניחות עליה ונקלה ונפקה למוח דידיה ונימני עליה דהא תניא אבל השורף בעצמות והמחתך בגידין אין בו משום שבירת העצם

But they differ in respect of breaking a bone during the daytime.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the fourteenth, before the Festival commences on the evening of the fifteenth.');">⁶</span> On the view that [the verse refers to] a fit [sacrifice], this [indeed] is fit; but on the view, that what is] fit for eating [is subject to this law], at present<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., when he actually breaks it.');">⁷</span>

אלא מאי אית לך למימר אביי אמר משום פקע רבא אמר משום הפסד קדשים דקא מפסיד ליה בידים דילמא אכיל נורא ממוח דידיה מבעוד יום נמי גזירה מבעוד יום אטו משחשיכה

it is not fit for eating. An objection is raised: 'Rabbi said: One may register for the marrow in the head, but one may not register for the marrow in the thigh-bone'.

רב פפא אמר כל כי האי גונא כ"ע יש בו משום שבירת העצם מאי טעמא לאורתא מיחזי לאכילה אלא באבר שיצא מקצתו קמיפלגי מ"ד כשר הא כשר הוא ומ"ד ראוי לאכילה האי לאו בר אכילה הוא

Why [may one register for] the marrow in the head? Because one is able to scrape it and extract it.

כדתניא ר' ישמעאל בנו של ר' יוחנן בן ברוקה אומר אבר שיצא מקצתו ושברו אין בו משום שבירת העצם

Now if you think that the breaking of the bone by daylight is permitted, then the thigh-bone too, let us break it during the day, extract the marrow, and register for it? - Abaye can answer you: Yet even according to your view,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. that this is forbidden.');">⁸</span> let us still take a glowing coal after nightfall, place it upon it, bur and extract the marrow and register for it?

רב ששת בריה דרב אידי אמר כל כה"ג דכולי עלמא אין בו משום שבירת העצם דהאי אבר הא פסול הוא אלא שבירת העצם בנא איכא בינייהו מ"ד כשר הא כשר הוא ומ"ד ראוי לאכילה השתא אינו ראוי לאכילה

For surely it was taught: But he who burns the bones or cuts the sinew does not violate [the prohibition of] breaking a bone? Then what can you say?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why one may not register for the marrow.');">⁹</span>

רב נחמן בר יצחק אמר כל כי האי גוונא יש בו משום שבירת העצם מאי טעמא דהא חזי לאכילה דמטוי ליה ואכיל ליה אלא שבירת האליה איכא בינייהו למ"ד כשר הא כשר הוא למ"ד ראוי לאכילה האי אינו ראוי לאכילה דאליה לגבוה סלקא

Abaye said: Because it may split.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The fire may not burn it through but cause it to crack and split and this is the same as breaking it.');">¹⁰</span> Raba said: [This is impossible] on account of the loss of sacred food, which he may destroy with [his own] hands, as the fire may destroy some of the marrow.

רב אשי אמר כל כי האי גוונא ודאי אין בו משום שבירת העצם דהא ודאי אינו ראוי לאכילה כלל אלא אבר שאין עליו כזית בשר איכא בינייהו למ"ד כשר הא כשר הוא למ"ד ראוי לאכילה בעינן שיעור אכילה וליכא

[Hence] during the daytime too [it may not be broken] as a preventive measure on account of after nightfall.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The point of the 'too' ('during the daytime too') is this: just as it must not be burnt at night by Rabbinical law only, lest something else happen, so he must not break it during the day by Rabbinical law only', also because he may do something else instead, viz., break it at night.');">¹¹</span> R'Papa said: In such a case all hold that it is subject to the [prohibition of] breaking a bone.

רבינא אמר כל כי האי גוונא לית ביה משום שבירת העצם דבעינן שיעור אכילה אלא אבר שאין עליו כזית בשר במקום זה ויש עליו כזית בשר במקום אחר איכא בינייהו למ"ד כשר הא כשר הוא למ"ד ראוי לאכילה בעינן שיעור אכילה במקום שבירה והא ליכא

What is th reason? [Because] in the evening it is fit for eating.

תניא כארבעה מינייהו דתניא ר' אומר (שמות יב, מו) בבית אחד יאכל (שמות יב, מו) ועצם לא תשברו בו על הכשר הוא חייב ואינו חייב על הפסול

But they differ in respect of a limb part of which went out:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Without the walls of Jerusalem. The offering had to be eaten in Jerusalem; whatever went outside became unfit. Here as only part of a limb had gone out, this part should be cut out', but this entails cutting across the bone in the limb.');">¹²</span> On the view that [the verse refers to] a fit [sacrifice], this [indeed] is fit;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the part which remained inside, and when he breaks the bone he naturally touches on that part. Consequently it is forbidden; for the remedy v. Mishnah infra 85b.');">¹³</span>

היתה לו שעת הכושר ונפסל בשעת אכילה אין בו משום שבירת עצם

while on the view that [only what is] fit for eating [is subject to this law], this, however, is not fit for eating, as was taught: R'Ishmae son of R'Johanan B'Berokah said: A lamb part of which went outside, and which he broke, is not subject to the [prohibition of] breaking a bone. R'Shesheth the son of R'Idi said: In such a case all agree that it is not subject to the [prohibition of] breaking a bone, for this limb is surely unfit.

יש בו שיעור אכילה יש בו משום שבירת עצם אין בו שיעור אכילה אין בו משום שבירת עצם

But they differ in respect of breaking a bone of a half-roast [offering].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is itself forbidden, v. Ex. XII, 9: Eat not of it half-roast (so translated supra 41a) .');">¹⁴</span> On the view that [the verse refers to] a fit [sacrifice], this is fit;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The sacrifice itself is fit, though it may not be eaten because it was not properly prepared.');">¹⁵</span>

הראוי למזבח אין בו משום שבירת העצם

while on the view that [only what is] fit for eating [is subject to this law], now [however] it is not fit for eating. R'Nahman B'Isaac said: In such a case all agree that it is subject to the [prohibition of] breaking a bone What is the reason?

בשעת אכילה יש בו משום שבירת עצם שלא בשעת אכילה אין בו משום שבירת עצם

Because it is surely fit for eating, as he can roast it [completely] and eat it. But they di in respect of [the breaking of the bone of] the fat tail.

איתמר אבר שאין עליו כזית בשר במקום זה ויש עליו כזית בשר במקום אחר רבי יוחנן אמר יש בו משום שבירת העצם רבי שמעון בן לקיש אמר אין בו משום שבירת עצם

On the view that [the verse refers to] a fit [sacrific is indeed fit, but on the view that [only what is] fit for eating [is subject to this law], this [however] is no for eating, for the fat tail is offered to the Most High.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., it is burnt on the altar together with the emurim (v. Glos.) .');">¹⁶</span> R'Ashi said: In such a case it is certainly not subject to the [prohibition of] breaking a bone, for it is certainly unfit for eating at all.

איתיביה רבי יוחנן לרבי שמעון בן לקיש ועצם לא תשברו בו אחד עצם שיש עליו כזית בשר ואחד עצם שאין עליו כזית בשר מאי אין עליו כזית בשר אילימא דאין עליו כזית בשר כלל אמאי יש בו משום שבירת העצם אלא לאו הכי קאמר אחד עצם שיש עליו כזית בשר במקום זה ואחד שאין עליו כזית בשר במקום זה ויש עליו כזית בשר במקום אחר (קשיא לרבי שמעון בן לקיש)

But they differ in respect of [breaking the bone of] a limb upon which there less than an olive of flesh.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That is the least quantity which constitutes eating');">¹⁷</span> On the view that [the verse refers to] a fit [sacrifice], this indeed is fit; but view that [only what is] fit for eating [is subject to this law], we require the standard of eating, which is absent.

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,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where he actually breaks the bone.');">¹⁸</span> 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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [R. Joseph, R. Nahman b. Isaac, Abaye and Rabina (or R. Ashi) . V. n. 5. Var. lec., however, omits the passage.]');">¹⁹</span> 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,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Either at the point where it is broken, as required by Rabina, or on the limb itself', as required by R. Ashi.]');">²⁰</span> 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 altar<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the bone of the fat tail.');">²¹</span> 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 eating<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., before nightfall.');">²²</span> 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,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' At the point of breaking.');">²³</span> 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?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For R. Johanan and Resh Lakish both, agree that it must contain as much as an olive of flesh before it is subject to the prohibition.');">²⁴</span> 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,