Babylonian Talmud

Rodkinson 1918 — source 5, scan section 63

Can, then, R. Johanan assert, that the small sinews may be selected as a share of the paschal sacrifice ? Did not ResV Lakish ask R. Johanan whether the skin of a young calf's head TRACT PESACHIM (PASSOVER). 165 is subject to defilement, and the latter answered that (on account of such a skin eventually becoming hard) it is not subject to defilement (as is the case with hide); (hence should we not assume that R. Johanan did so because he took into considera- tion its final condition — then why should he not also consider the future condition of the sinews, which eventually become hard and inedible) ?" (R. Abbahu replied): " The man who evolved this contradictory question did not watch the meal he had ground {i.e., he did not consider the correctness of his deductions); for we have learned that at the same time when Resh Lakish showed R. Johanan a Mishna which refuted the answer rendered, R. Johanan replied: ' Anger me not! The Mishna thou citest I attribute to an individual opinion, that I myself do not uphold ' (whence we see that he retracted his assertion to the effect that the future condition need not be considered)." MISHNA: Whosoever breaks any bones of the clean paschal lamb incurs the penalty of forty stripes; but the person who should leave a part of the paschal lamb over night, or who breaks a bone of an unclean paschal sacrifice, does not incur that penalty. GEMARA: It is perfectly proper that a man who leaves part of the paschal lamb over night should not incur the penalty of stripes, because the negative commandment [Exod. xii. 10] : " Ye shall not let anything of it remain until morning," does not involve the execution of an act, and the violation of a negative commandment of such a character does not carry with it the penalty of stripes; but whence do we adduce that a person who breaks a bone of an unclean paschal sacrifice should not incur that penalty? Because it is written [ibid. xii. 46]: " No bone shall ye break in it,'' and the term " in it'' signifies, that only in a clean paschal sacrifice it is not allowed, but not in an unclean. The rabbis taught: It is written: " No bone shall ye break in it," and this signifies that this must be done in a valid sacri- fice but not in an invalid. Rabbi, however, said: " I do not derive this rule from this passage alone, but from the fact that in the same verse [Exod. xii. 46] we find : ' In one house shall it be eaten, etc., and no bone shall ye break in it,* and hence we must say, that only if a bone was broken in a lamb which may be eaten is the penalty of stripes incurred, but not in a lamb which must not be eaten." Wherein do these two statements differ ? Said Abayi : " The difference arises in a case where a bone was i66 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD. broken in the lamb on the day preceding Passover. According to the one statement, which makes a man punishable with stripes if he break a bone in a valid paschal sacrifice, as the pas- chal lamb is already valid, the man incurs that penalty; but according to the other statement, the fact that the lamb could not at that time be eaten absolves the culprit from the penalty." An objection was made : Rabbi said, that if a man select only the brains of the paschal sacrifice as his share he may be included in the number appointed to eat it; but he must not be included if he selects as his share the marrow of the thigh-bone. Why should a man be allowed to select as his share the brains of the lamb ? Because, in order to extract them it is not nec- essary to break one of the bones (as they may be extracted through the nostrils). On the other hand, the marrow of the thigh-bone should not be selected because it would necessitate the breaking of that bone. If, however, it is allowed to break the bone during the day, why may not the bone be broken at that time, and thus the marrow, being accessible, be allowed to serve as the share of one of the number appointed to eat the paschal lamb ? If the breaking of the bone be the only impedi- ment, then Abayi may reply, there is no need of doing this dur- ing the day; for even in the evening the bone maybe placed over live coals and burned until the marrow is easily extract- able, and thus render it capable of serving as the share of one of the number; for we have learned in a Boraitha, that the burn- ing of the bones or cutting of the sinews cannot be considered a violation of the law against breaking the bones. Hence we must say, that the reason the bones must not be burned, according to Abayi, is for fear lest they split while burn- ing, which will be considered as breaking the bones, and, accord- ing to Rabha, for fear lest the marrow, which is a consecrated thing, be burnt (and the law is that consecrated things must not be burned to commence with) ; therefore it may be claimed that this should not be done during the day, as a precaution against a person doing it at night. R. Papa, however, said : Breaking the bone during the day is, according to the opinion of all, prohibited, even though the sac- rifice may not yet be eaten at that time, because at night it will be suitable for that purpose and is therefore considered suitable even during the day. They differ, however, concerning a part of a member which had protruded beyond the wall and which must not on that account be eaten. According to the one who TRACT PESACHIM (PASSOVER). 167 maintains that a person who is guilty of breaking a bone in a valid sacrifice incurs the penalty of stripes, if a man had broken a bone in that member which is valid, he incurs the penalty of stripes ; but according to the one who maintains that breaking a bone of such a sacrifice as may be eaten only involves punish- ment with stripes, he does not incur the penalty, because the member must not be eaten, as we have learned in a Boraitha; R. Ishmael the son of R. Johanan ben Broka said: " A man who had broken a bone in a member of the sacrifice which had pro- truded beyond the wall does not incur the penalty of stripes." R. Shesheth the son of R. Idi, however, said, that concerning such a member all agree that one who breaks a bone thereof does not incur the penalty, because it is invalid and must not be eaten. They differ, however, concerning one who had broken a bone in a paschal lamb that was yet raw. The one who claims that it is valid, maintains that the man incurs the penalty, but the other says that he does not, because the lamb cannot yet be eaten. R. Na'hman bar Itz'hak said : " This is not the point of vari- ance, because all agree, that one who breaks a bone in a paschal lamb which was still raw incurs the penalty, as the lamb may be roasted and then be eaten. They do differ, however, concerning a man who breaks the tail of the lamb, which must not be