Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) MISHNA: EDIBLE PARTS OF THE KORBAN PESACH

(a) All edible parts of the adult ox may be eaten in the kid.
(b) This includes Roshei Knafayim and S'chuchim.
(c) Question: The Reisha implies that the Roshei Knafayim and S'chuchim could *not* be eaten, contradicting the Seifa?!
(d) Answer #1: It is a Machlokes, and the Mishna should be understood as such.
(e) Answer #2 [Rava]: The Seifa explains the Reisha.
(f) The Bereisa supports Rava (and adds that the soft sinews are considered meat).

(a) R. Yochanan holds that soft Gidin which are going to harden are considered an edible part of the Korban.
(b) Resh Lakish says that one may not join the Korban over that part of the Korban.

1. R. Yochanan sees the sinews as of now (edible).
2. Resh Lakish sees how they will be (non-edible).

(c) Question: But our Mishna limits the permitted sinews?!
(d) Answer: The sinews listed in the Mishna generalize to those other sinews which can be eaten by over-cooking.
(e) Question: What is R. Yochanan's real position?

1. Here he sees the meat "as of now," yet;
2. He sees the skin of the kid's head as it will be!

(f) Answer: R. Yochanan retracted his position (after recognizing his position as a lone Tana's opinion).

(a) One who breaks a bone of a Kosher Korban incurs Malkos.
(b) One who leaves over meat does not incur Malkos.
(c) One who breaks a bone of a Tamei Korban also does not.

(a) [R. Yehudah] Leaving over is a case of an Aseh after a Lo Sa'aseh, and that is why it does not incur Malkos.
(b) [R. Yakov] Leaving over is violated through inaction.
(c) Question: What is the source for [not incurring Malkos for] breaking the bone of a Tamei Korban?
(d) Answer: "Bo" teaches that the prohibition only applies to a *Kosher* Korban.
(e) The Bereisa cites R. Yehudah's source as "b'Vayis Echad..." [only that which is eaten cannot be broken].
(f) Question: What case will cause a difference between the two sources?
(g) Answer #1: A Pesach brought b'Tumah.

1. The first view exempts it from the prohibition since such a Korban is, technically, Pasul.
2. The second view prohibits since it can be eaten.

(h) Answer #2: A Korban which was Kosher and became Pasul.

1. The first view sees this as Kosher.
2. The second view - it is now not fit to be eaten.

(i) Answer #3: The Korban Pesach while it is still day.

1. The first view sees it as Kosher.
2. The second view - it is not yet fit to be eaten.
3. Question: If we can break a bone during the day, we should be able to include the marrow of the Kulis?!

(i) Question: Why can't we remove the marrow from the Kulis even at night by burning a hole in its side?
(ii) Answer #1: For fear of the bone cracking elsewhere from the heat of the coal.
(iii) Answer: #2: For fear of burning some of the marrow (thus destroying Kodeshim).

4. Answer: We do not remove the marrow from the Kulis during the day lest one come to do so at night.

(j) Answer #4: A bone which partially left Jerusalem.

1. The first view sees it as still Kosher.
2. The second view - it cannot be eaten!
3. We learned in the Bereisa that it can be broken.

(k) Answer #5: A half-roasted bone. (Same distinctions.)
(l) Answer #6: The tail. (Same distinctions.)
(m) Answer #7: A bone without a Kazayis meat.

1. Same distinctions as above.
2. Less than a Kazayis is not enough to be "eaten."

(n) Answer #8: A bone without a Kazayis in the place of the break (but with a Kazayis elsewhere). (Same as above.)
(o) There is a Bereisa cited to support four of the cases.

(a) R. Yochanan applies the prohibition of breaking to it.
(b) Resh Lakish does not apply the prohibition.
(c) Question: The Bereisa says that it is prohibited.

1. The Bereisa cannot mean a bone with less than a Kazayis meat on it.
2. It must mean to prohibit a bone such as ours!