משנה: כָּל הַנֶּאֱכָל בְּשׁוֹר הַגָּדוֹל יֵאָכֵל בִּגְדִי הָרַךְ וְרָאשֵׁי כְנָפַיִם וְהַסְּחוּסִין. הַשּׁוֹבֵר אֶת הָעֶצֶם בְּפֶסַח טָהוֹר הֲרֵי זֶה לוֹקֶה אַרְבָּעִים אֲבָל הַמּוֹתִיר בַּטָּהוֹר וְהַשּׁוֹבֵר בַּטָּמֵא אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה אֶת הָאַרְבָּעִים׃ MISHNAH: Anything eaten of a large bull shall be eaten of the soft lamb272Since it is forbidden to break a bone of the Pesaḥ (Ex. 12:46), any part of the animal which cannot be eaten of an adult bull even after extended cooking is considered bone also of a lamb whose sinews are still soft. Since these may not be broken they cannot be eaten. The borderline cases are cartilage and shoulder tendons which become edible in adult cattle by extended cooking. These are considered meat and the number of subscribers to one Pesaḥ may be increased accordingly., including the ends of the shoulder bone and cartilage. He who breaks a bone of a pure Pesaḥ is whipped forty [lashes]; but he who leaves over of a pure273Even though it is prohibited to have edible leftovers of the Pesaḥ(Exodus.12.10">Ex. 12:10), leaving leftovers is a transgression by inaction which cannot be prosecuted. or who breaks of an impure is not whipped forty [lashes].
הלכה: גִּידִּים הָרַכִּים. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. נִימְנִין עֲלֵיהֶן. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר. אֵין נִימְנִין עֲלֵיהֶן. רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי זְעוּרָה. מִחְלְפָה שִׁיטָּתֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. מִחְלְפָה שִׁיטָּתֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ. דְּאִיתְפַּלְּגוֹן. [דְּתַנִּינָן תַּמָּן.] אֵילּוּ שֶׁעוֹרוֹתֵיהֶן כִּבְשָׂרָן. עוֹר הָאָדָם וְעוֹר חֲזִיר שֶׁל יִישּׁוּב. רִבִּי יוֹסֵה אוֹמֵר. אַף עוֹר שֶׁלְחֲזִיר הַבָּר. [עוֹר חֲטֶרוֹת גָּמָל הָרַכָּה. עוֹר הָרֹאשׁ שֶׁל עֵגֶל הָרַךְ. עוֹר בֵּית הַפְּרָסוֹת. עוֹר בֵּית הַבּוֹשֶׁת. וְעוֹר הַשְּׁלִיל. וְעוֹר שֶׁתַּחַת הָאַלְיָה. וְעוֹר הָאֲנָקָה וְהַכֹּחַ וְהַלְּטָאָה וְהַחוֹמֶט. רִבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר. הַלְּטָאָה כַּחוּלְדָּה. וְכוּלָּן שֶׁעִיבְּדָן. אוֹ שֶׁהִילֵּךְ בָּהֶן כְּדֵי עֲבוֹדָה. טְהוֹרִין. חוּץ מֵעוֹר הָאָדָם. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי אוֹמֵר. שְׁמֹנָה שְׁרָצִים יֵשׁ לָהֶן עוֹרוֹת׃] אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא לְאִיסּוּר וּלְטומְאָה. אֲבָל לִלְקוֹת. עוֹר הוּא. וְאֵין לוֹקִין עָלָיו מִשּׁוּם נְבֵילָה. רִבִּי שִׁמָעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר. מִשְׁנָה שְׁלֵימָה שָׁנָה רִבִּי. בֵּין לְאִיסּוּר בֵּין לִלְקוֹת בֵּין לְטוּמְאָה. מִחְלְפָה שִׁיטָּתֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי שִׁמָעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ. תַּמָּן הוּא עֲבַד לֵיהּ בָּשָׂר. וָכָא לָא עֲבַד לֵיּהּ בָּשָׂר. אָמַר רִבִּי יוּדָה בַּר פָּזִי. שַׁנְייָא הִיא תַמָּן שֶׁהוּא עוֹר. וְעוֹר סוֹפוֹ לְהַקְשׁוֹת. כָּל־שֶׁכֵּן מִחְלְפָה שִׁיטָּתֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי שִׁמָעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ. מַה אִין תַּמָּן שֶׁסוֹפוֹ לְהַקְשׁוֹת הוּא עֲבַד לֵיהּ בָּשָׂר. כָּאן שֶׁאֵין סוֹפוֹ לְהַקְשׁוֹת לֹא כָל־שֶׁכֵּן. אָמַר רִבִּי אַבּוּן. טַעֲמָא דְרִבִּי שִׁמָעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ וְאָֽכְל֥וּ אֶת־הַבָּשָׂר֭. לֹא גִידְים HALAKHAH: 274This paragraph also is in Sanhedrin 8:2:3" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Sanhedrin.8.2.3">Sanhedrin 8:2, Note 23–29. What is the rule about soft sinews? Rebbi Joḥanan said, one subscribes to them; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, one does not subscribe to them. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira: The argument of Rebbi Joḥanan is inverted; the argument of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is inverted. As they disagreed about what is stated there275Chullin 9:2" href="/Mishnah_Chullin.9.2">Mishnah Ḥulin 9:2. Pesachim 9:1:1-8" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Pesachim.9.1.1-8">Mishnah 9:1 states that in general the hide of an animal is subject to the rules of impurity of food, but not to those of impurity of carcasses. Then Pesachim 7:2:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Pesachim.7.2.1">Mishnah 2 lists some animals whose hides follow the rules of flesh in all respects; general consensus exists only for humans and domesticated pigs. R. Joḥanan holds that for eating pigskin one never can be prosecuted, while R. Simeon ben Laqish holds that eating pigskin, not yet transformed into leather, is as punishable as eating pork.: “The following have their hides treated like their flesh: Human skin, and the hides of domesticated pigs, Rebbi Yose says also of wild pigs. 276The text in brackets, the remainder of the Mishnah, was added by the corrector; it is neither in K nor in Sanhedrin and is not relevant for the discussion here.[The soft skin of camel’s hump, the soft skin of a calf’s head, the skin near the hooves, the skin of genitals, the skin of an embryo, the skin under the fat tail, and the skin of anaqa, koah, leta’ah, and homet lizards.277The lizards in the list of “crawling animals”, Leviticus.11.29-30">Lev. 11:29–30, whose carcasses are severely impure. Rebbi Jehudah says, a lizard is like a mole. In all cases, if one tanned them, or started to use them as working material, they are pure, except for human skin. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri says, the “eight crawling animals” have hides278None of the animals mentioned in Leviticus.11.29-30">Lev.11:29–30 fall under the exceptions of Pesachim 9:2:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Pesachim.9.2.1">Mishnah 9:2..”] Rebbi Joḥanan said, this was only said as prohibition and regarding impurity, but for flogging it is hide. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, Rebbi stated a complete Mishnah, for prohibition, for flogging, for impurity. The reasoning of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish seems inverted. There, he treats it as flesh, but here, he does not treat it as meat. Rebbi Judah bar Pazi said, there is a difference, since there one refers to skin which in the end will become hard. This emphasizes that the reasoning of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish seems inverted! Since there, where in the end it will harden, he treats it as flesh, here where in the end it will not harden279Animal hide will become inedible; soft sinews and cartilage will remain edible after cooking., not so much more? Rebbi Abun said, the reason of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is: they shall eat the meat in that night280Exodus.12.8">Ex. 12:8., not sinews.
רַבָּנִן דְּקַיְסָרִין אָֽמְרִין. רִבִּי חִייָה רִבִּי אִיסִּי חַד מִיחְלַף וְחַד כְּהָדֵין תַּנָּייָא. מָאן דְּמִחְלַף לֵית לֵיהּ כְּאִילֵּין קִישּׁוּיָא. וְכַמְּה יִשְׁבּוֹר. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי וְרִבִּי זְעוּרָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. עַד כְּדֵי שֶׁתְּהֵא הַיָּד מְחַגֶּרֶת. רִבִּי יוֹנָה אָמַר. רִבִּי זְעוּרָה וְרִבִּי בָּא תְּרֵיהוֹן בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. חַד אָמַר. כְּדֵי שֶׁתְּהֵא הַיָּד מְחַגֶּרֶת. וְחוֹרָנָה אָמַר. אֲפִילוּ צִפּוֹרֶן. מָאן דְּאָמַר. יָד. כָּל־שֶׁכֵּן צִפּוֹרֶן. מָאן דְּאָמַר. צִפּוֹרֶן. אֲבָל יָד לֹא. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ תְּרֵיהוֹן אָֽמְרֵי. לְעוֹלָם אֵינוֹ חַייָב עַד שֶׁיִּשְׁבּוֹר עֶצֶם שֶׁיֵּשׁ עָלָיו בָּשָׂר וּמִמְּקוֹם בָּשָׂר. רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא אָמַר. שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר אַבָּא בָעֵי. מֵעַתָּה לְעוֹלָם אֵינוֹ חַייָב עַד שֶׁיִּטּוֹל אֶבֶן וִירַסֵּס. עֶ֖צֶם. לְחַייֵב עַל כָּל־עֶצֶם וָעֶצֶם. הָדָא דְתֵימַר. בְּהַתְרָייָה אַחַת. אֲבָל בִּשְׁתֵּי הַתְרָיוֹת. שֶׁכֵּן אֲפִילוּ עֶצֶם אֶחָד וְשִׁבְּרוֹ וְחָזַר וְשִׁבְּרוֹ חַייָב שְׁתַּיִם. רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה בָעֵי. לֵית הָדָא פְלִיגְא עַל רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ. דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר. עֶצֶם שֶׁאֵין עָלָיו בָּשָׂר מוּתָּר לְשׁוֹבְרוֹ. לֹא אָמַר אֶלָּא שֶׁלֹּא יִלָּקֶה. הָא לֶאֱסוֹר אָסוּר. The rabbis of Caesarea are saying, Rebbi Ḥiyya and Rebbi Issy281Since Issy also is a nickname for Josef, probably one should read “Yasa”. K reads “Yasi” R. Ḥiyya here is R. Ḥiyya bar Abba., one switches and one follows as it was stated282The disagreement of R. Joḥanan and R. Simeon ben Laqish.. The one who switches does not have these problems283If the names are switched in the statement, the arguments of each one of the parties are consistent..And how much does he have to break284How much of the bone has to be broken to constitute a prosecutable offense. In the following, “liable” means liable to possible criminal prosecution and punishment by whipping.? Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: until the hand be grated285If passing with the back of the hand over the bone, the skin is grated.. Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Zeˋira and Rebbi Abba both in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan. One said, until the hand be grated; but the other said, even a finger nail286One notices a dent in the surface of the bone if moving a finger nail along its surface.. He who said the hand, so much more the finger nail. He who said the finger nail, but not the hand.Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both are saying, one never is liable unless one break a bone on which there is meat in the size of an olive, at one place of meat287Pesachim.84b">Babli 84b.. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, Samuel bar Abba asked, then he never should be liable unless he take a stone and smash it into little pieces288Since if one starts to break a bone with meat on it, the meat will be loosened in the process and then there no longer will be an olive sized piece firmly attached to the bone unless the breaking is done with one stroke or by smashing with a stone.. A bone, to make him liable for each single bone289The singular used in Exodus.12.46">Ex. 12:46 implies that breaking multiple bones is counted as multiple offenses.. This is, with one warning290Since there can be no criminal prosecution unless the perpetrator was duly warned that his intended behavior was criminal, no prosecution can exceed the scope of the warning (cf. Introduction to Tractate Sanhedrin, on Chapter Five). Unless the warning was extended to cover both breaking multiple bones and multiple breaking of one bone, only one prosecution is possible.. But with two warnings, then he will be twice liable even for a single bone which he broke repeatedly. Rebbi Jeremiah asked, does this not disagree with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? Since Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, one is permitted to break a bone without meat. He said this only that he cannot be whipped, but as a prohibition, it is prohibited291Breaking any bone of the Pesaḥ always is sinful, even if not prosecutable..
אֲבָל הַמּוֹתִיר [בַּטָּהוֹר] וְהַשּׁוֹבֵר בַּטָּמֵא אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה אַרְבָּעִים. רִבִּי אַבּוּן בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר. מַתְנִיתָא כְּשֶׁבָּא בְטוּמְאָה מִשָּׁעָה רִאשׁוֹנָה. אֲבָל אִם בָּא בְטַהֲרָה וְנִטְמָא כְּבָא בְטַהֲרָה וְלוֹקִין עַל שְׁבִירָתוֹ. “But he who leaves over of a pure {Pesaḥ} or who breaks of an impure is not whipped forty {ashes}.” Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: The Mishnah if it came in impurity from the start. But if it came in purity292If the blood was poured in purity. and became impure it is as if coming in purity and one is whipped for its breaking293This is in line with his earlier statement, Pesachim 7:10:2" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Pesachim.7.10.2">Note 260. In the Pesachim.84">Babli 84a–b this is a matter of disagreement of Tannaim..
מָתִיב רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן לְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ. וְהָא תַנִּינָן. הָעֲצָמוֹת וְהַגִּידִים וְהַנּוֹתָר יִשָּֽרְפוּ בְשִׁשָּׁה עָשָׂר. וְיִקּוֹץ. מִפְּנֵי מוֹחַ. וְיַחֲלוֹץ בָּשָׂר מִן הָעֶצֶם. וְיִקּוֹץ. שֶׁלֹּא לְפַקֵּעַ תַּחַת הַבָּשָׂר. Rebbi Joḥanan objected to Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Did we not state, “the bones, the sinews, and leftovers are to be burned on the Sixteenth”? Could he not chop? Because of the marrow259One treats all bones as marrow bones to avoid problems in borderline cases. A different approach in Pesachim.84b">Babli 84b referring to Pesachim 7:11:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Pesachim.7.11.1">Mishnah 8.. Could one not strip off all meat from the bone and cut? Not to break under the flesh299Except for the last sentence this is copied from earlier, Halakhah 9. Here it is R. Joḥanan ’s objection to R. Simeon ben Laqish who declares breaking a bone without flesh not prosecutable. Then why does the Mishnah require that one take out the entire bone after stripping off the meat; could one not strip off the meat and then break the bone, without cutting the sinews at the next joint? The answer is that in theory one could do this but in practice one could never be sure whether all meat was safely stripped off; for R. Simeon ben Laqish Mishnah 9 is rabbinical prescription. (Pesachim.85a">Babli 85a, opinion of Abbai.).