Previous daf

1)

(a) By 'Kol ha'Ne'echal be'Shor ha'Gadol, Ye'achel bi'Gedi ha'Rach' - the Tana of our Mishnah means that any part of a fully-grown ox that can be eaten, is also considered meat by a lamb of a Korban Pesach; and conversely, any part of the fully-grown ox that is too hard to be eaten, is not considered meat by the lamb of the Pesach either, even though it is soft.

(b) According to Rabah, the Tana of the Seifa, which includes the cartilages and the shoulder-blades in the parts of a Pesach that are eaten (despite the fact that the cartilages and the shoulder-blades of a fully-grown ox are not edible), disagrees with the Tana of the Reisha, which precludes them.

(c) According to Rava, the cartilages and the shoulder-blades of a fully- grown ox cannot be eaten roasted (like the lamb of the Pesach is eaten); they can however, be eaten well-cooked, and what the Tana of the Seifa means is that, any part of the ox that can be eaten well-cooked, may be roasted and eaten by a lamb.

(a) Rebbi Yochanan permits soft sinews in the neckeven if they will become hard by the time the lamb is fully-grown - because he goes after how they are *now*.

(b) Resh Lakish permits only sinews that will remain soft even when the lamb becomes a ram - because he takes into account the final product i.e. what the sinews will be when the animal is fully-grown.

(c) Resh Lakish queries Rebbi Yochanan from the above-mentioned Beraisa 'Kol ha'Ne'echal ... u'Mah Hen, Roshei Kenafayim, ve'ha'Sechusim' - implying that only these sinews are considered meat, since they remain soft even when the lamb grows older; but not those that harden when it becomes a ram?

(d) Rebbi Yochanan replies that there is no difference between them - since the latter, just like the former, can be eaten in the case of a fully-grown ox.

(a) The soft skin of a young calf is not Metamei Tum'as Ochlin.

(b) This in fact, the opinion of Resh Lakish above - Rebbi Yochanan goes after the way they are *now*.

(c) According to Rebbi Yochanan, the Mishnah in 'ha'Or ve'ha'Rotav' which rules to the contrary is an individual opinion, and not Halachah. In fact, he retracted from his original stance.

(a) Both someone who leaves over meat from a Tahor Pesach and someone who breaks the bone of a Tamei Pesach - are Patur from Malkos.

(b) Rebbi Yehudah derives the Petur from Malkos in the former case, from the Pasuk in Bo "ve'ha'Nosar Mimenu Ad Boker, ba'Eish Tisrofu" - which adds an Asei to the La'v of leaving over meat from a Tahor Pesach, making it a 'La'v ha'Nitak la'Asei', which is Patur from Malkos.

(c) Acording to Rebbi Ya'akov, someone who leaves over meat from a Tahor Pesach is Patur from Malkos - because it is a 'La'v she'Ein Bo Ma'aseh', for which there is no Malkos.

(d) We learn from the Pasuk in Bo "ve'Etzem Lo Sishberu *Bo*" - 'Bo ve'Lo be'Pasul' (that there is no Malkos for breaking the bone of a Pasul Pesach).

5)

(a) Rebbi does not explain "Bo" the way the Tana Kama does. He does however, learn from the juxtaposition of the two phrases in the Pasuk ("ba'Bayis Echad Ye'achel, ve'Etzem Lo Sishberu Bo") - that one may not break the bones of a Pesach only when it *is* fit to eat, but that no such prohibition exists when it is *not*.

(b) According to Rebbi Yirmiyah, the difference whether it is Kosher or whether it is fit to eat - lies in a Pesach ha'Ba be'Tum'ah, which (seeing as 'Tum'ah Dechuyah Hi be'Tzibur') is basically Pasul, yet it is fit to eat (making the opinion of Rebbi the more stringent opinion).

(c) Rav Yosef argues that Rebbi comes to be lenient, not strict, and that consequently, they will all agree that one is Patur for breaking a bone on a Pesach ha'Ba be'Tum'ah, since it is not fit to bring. According to him, Rebbi and the Chachamim argue by a Pesach that was initially Kosher but became Pasul after the Zerikah: according to the Tana Kama, one may not break its bones, since, as a Korban it is fit; whereas according to Rebbi, since it may not be eaten, there is no prohibition against breaking its bones.

(d) If Rebbi permits breaking the bones of the Pesach by day, then why does he differentiate between the marrow in the head (which he permits) and the marrow in the thigh-bone (which he forbids)? Why can one not break the thigh-bone by day and extract the marrow - to eat by night?

(a) Abaye explains that the Rabbanan forbade burning a hole in the thigh- bone to extract the marrow because of 'Paka' - which means that we are afraid that due to the heat of the coal, the bone will crack in another area - and that will be considered *breaking* the bone, not *burning* it.

(b) According to Rava, the reason that the Rabbanan forbade burning a hole in the thigh-bone to extract the marrow, is because one may come to burn away some of the marrow, and it is better to allow Kodshim to become Pasul automatically, than to destroy it with one's hands.

(c) In similar vein, Rebbi forbids breaking the thigh-bone of the Korban Pesach by day, for fear that one may come to break it after nightfall, even though he holds that breaking a bone by day, is permitted min ha'Torah (and the contradiction in 5d is resolved).

(a) Rebbi Yishmael Be'no shel Rebbi Yochanan Ben Berokah says that one is not Chayav for breaking the bone of a limb, the other half of which was taken outside Yerushalayim.

(b) Rebbi, who contends with whether the limb is fit to eat or not, will hold like Rebbi Yishmael; the Rabbanan will hold Chayav, since that limb is Kosher (see Tosfos DH 'Eiver').

(c) According to Rav Shisha B'rei de'Rav Idi, they argue by Na - which is Kosher (and is therefore subject to the Isur of breaking a bone, according to the Chachamim), but not edible (at this stage) - which is why he will be Patur according to Rebbi.

(d) Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak establishes the Machlokes by the fat-tail, which is Kosher (and is therefore subject to the Isur of breaking a bone, according to the Chachamim), but not edible - which is why he will be Patur according to Rebbi.

(a) According to Rav Ashi, they argue as to whether one may break a bone which does not contain a k'Zayis of flesh, which is Kosher on the one hand, but not fit to eat on the other.

(b) Ravina establishes the Machlokes between Rebbi and the Rabbanan in the case of breaking a limb at a point where there is not a k'Zayis of flesh, though there *is* a k'Zayis *elsewhere*: according to the Rabbanan he will be Chayav, since the Pesach is Kosher; whereas according to Rebbi, he will be Patur, because it must be edible at the point where one breaks the bone.

(c) When Rebbi says 'Ein Bo Shiur Achilah' - he might be referring to a bone which does not contain a k'Zayis *at all* (like Rav Ashi), or he might be referring to a bone that does not contain a k'Zayis *at the point where it is broken* but does contain one elsewhere (like Ravina).

(a) If a bone contains a k'Zayis of meat in one place, Rebbi Yochanan renders Chayav someone who breaks it even in another - where there is none. He attempts to prove this (to Resh Lakish, who disagrees with him) from the Beraisa, which, commenting on the Pasuk "ve'Etzem Lo Sishberu Bo" states 'Echad Etzem she'Yesh Alav k'Zayis Basar, ve'Echad Etzem she'Ein Alav k'Zayis Basar'. The Tana cannot be referring (in the latter case) to a bone which has no meat on it at all, because then, everyone will agree, that one is Patur for breaking it. It must therefore be speaking he maintains, by one which contains a k'Zayis of meat, but not at the spot where the bone is being broken.

(b) Resh Lakish replies that the Beraisa may well be referring to a bone which has no meat on the outside at all, but which does have meat on the inside (i.e. marrow) - at the spot where he breaks it (and the Chidush is that marrow is considered meat).