## Pesachim Daf 83a

###### Pesachim 83a:1
[Pesachim 83a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/83a:1)

רַבָּה מוֹסִיף, אַף רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי. דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי אוֹמֵר: כׇּל הָעִנְיָן כּוּלּוֹ אֵינוֹ מְדַבֵּר אֶלָּא בְּפָרִים הַנִּשְׂרָפִים וּבִשְׂעִירִין הַנִּשְׂרָפִין, לִשְׂרוֹף פְּסוּלֵיהֶן אַבֵּית הַבִּירָה, וְלִיתֵּן ״לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה״ עַל אֲכִילָתָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabba adds** that these tanna’im were not the only ones who maintain this opinion; **even Rabbi Yosei HaGelili** agreed with them, **as it was taught** in a *baraita* that **Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says: The entire matter** that is stated in the verse: “Any sin-offering from which some blood has been brought to the Tent of Meeting, to make atonement in the sacred place, shall not be eaten; it shall be burned in fire” (Leviticus 6:23) is not stated with regard to a regular sin-offering improperly brought inside the Sanctuary; rather, it **speaks only about bulls that are burned and goats that are burned.** These are unique sin-offerings, and the Torah states that their blood should be brought inside the Sanctuary. The verse is stated with regard to these sin-offerings both in order to command the Jewish people **to burn the disqualified ones in the place of the *bira*** on the Temple Mount **and** in order **to establish a prohibition with regard to their consumption.**


###### Pesachim 83a:2
[Pesachim 83a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/83a:2)

אָמְרוּ לוֹ: חַטָּאת שֶׁנִּכְנַס דָּמָהּ לִפְנַי וְלִפְנִים מִנַּיִן? אָמַר לָהֶן: ״הֵן לֹא הוּבָא אֶת דָּמָהּ אֶל הַקֹּדֶשׁ פְּנִימָה״, מִכְּלָל דְּאִי נָפֵיק אִיהִי, אִי נָמֵי עָיֵיל דָּמָהּ — בִּשְׂרֵיפָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Rabbis **said to** Rabbi Yosei HaGelili: If you expound the verse in this fashion, then with regard to a regular **sin-offering whose blood entered inside** the Sanctuary, **from where** is it derived that it must be burned? **He said to them:** It is derived from the verse: **“Behold, its blood was not brought into the Sanctuary within”** (Leviticus 10:18). This proves **by inference that if** the sin-offering **is taken out** of its permitted area, **or alternatively,** if **its blood enters** the Sanctuary, it must be **burned** immediately without waiting for decay of form.


###### Pesachim 83a:3
[Pesachim 83a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/83a:3)

וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן סָבַר: דָּם וּבָשָׂר חֲדָא מִילְּתָא הִיא. בְּעָלִים מִלְּתָא אַחֲרִיתִי הִיא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **And Rabbi Yoḥanan** did not include Rabbi Yosei HaGelili because Rabbi Yoḥanan **holds** that there is a difference between the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili and those of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka and Rabbi Neḥemya. The reason for this difference is that impurity of **blood and meat,** about which Rabbi Yosei HaGelili was speaking, **is one matter,** and impurity of the blood can therefore be considered a disqualification in the animal itself, but disqualification of the **owners is a different matter.** Therefore, Rabbi Yosei HaGelili does not necessarily agree with the *tanna’im* who allow the offering to be burned immediately in the case of disqualification of the owners.


###### Pesachim 83a:4
[Pesachim 83a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/83a:4)

**מַתְנִי׳** הָעֲצָמוֹת וְהַגִּידִין וְהַנּוֹתָר — יִשָּׂרְפוּ בְּשִׁשָּׁה עָשָׂר. חָל שִׁשָּׁה עָשָׂר לִהְיוֹת בְּשַׁבָּת — יִשָּׂרְפוּ בְּשִׁבְעָה עָשָׂר. לְפִי שֶׁאֵינָן דּוֹחִין לֹא אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת וְלֹא אֶת יוֹם טוֹב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** **The bones** of the Paschal lamb that contain edible marrow but cannot be eaten because it is prohibited to break the bones of the Paschal lamb; **and the sinews; and the leftover** meat **should** all **be burned on the sixteenth** of Nisan, immediately after the first day of the Festival. If **the sixteenth occurs on Shabbat, they should be burned on the seventeenth, because** the mitzva to burn **them does not override Shabbat or the Festival.** Therefore, they are burned on the first weekday.


###### Pesachim 83a:5
[Pesachim 83a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/83a:5)

**גְּמָ׳** אָמַר רַב מָרִי בַּר אֲבוּהּ אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק: עַצְמוֹת קָדָשִׁים שֶׁשִּׁימְּשׁוּ נוֹתָר — מְטַמְּאִין אֶת הַיָּדַיִם, הוֹאִיל וְנַעֲשָׂה בָּסִיס לְדָבָר הָאָסוּר. נֵימָא מְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ: הָעֲצָמוֹת וְהַגִּידִים וְהַנּוֹתָר — יִשָּׂרְפוּ לְשִׁשָּׁה עָשָׂר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **Rav Mari bar Avuh said** that **Rabbi Yitzḥak said: Bones of offerings that served** as a base for **leftover,** meaning that they have leftover meat on them or inside them after the time of eating, **render hands impure,** just as the leftover sacrificial parts themselves render hands impure. **Since** the bones **have become a base for an** intrinsically **prohibited object,** they are treated in the same manner as the prohibited object itself. The Gemara suggests: **Let us say** that the following expression in the mishna **supports him: The bones, and the sinews, and the leftover should be burned on the sixteenth** of Nisan.


###### Pesachim 83a:6
[Pesachim 83a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/83a:6)

הָנֵי עֲצָמוֹת הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִילֵּימָא דְּלֵית בְּהוּ מוֹחַ, לָמָּה בִּשְׂרֵיפָה? נִשְׁדִּינְהוּ! אֶלָּא פְּשִׁיטָא, דְּאִית בְּהוּ מוֹחַ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What are the circumstances** in which **these bones** must be burned? **If we say** that **there is no marrow in them, why** must they be **burned? We should discard them,** as the Torah requires that leftover parts of offerings be burned only when they are edible. **Rather,** it is **obvious that** we are dealing with bones that **have marrow in them.** The marrow is part of the meat of the offering, and in other offerings one would have broken the bones in order to eat the marrow.


###### Pesachim 83a:7
[Pesachim 83a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/83a:7)

אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא שִׁימּוּשׁ נוֹתָר מִילְּתָא הִיא, אַמְּטוּ לְהָכִי בָּעֵי שְׂרֵיפָה. אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ שִׁימּוּשׁ נוֹתָר לָאו מִילְּתָא הִיא, לְמָה לְהוּ שְׂרֵיפָה? נִתְבְּרִינְהוּ וְנַחְלְצֵהּ לְמוֹחַ דִּידְהוּ וְנִשְׂרְפֵיהּ וְנִשְׁדִּינְהוּ לְדִידְהוּ. אֶלָּא לָאו שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ, שִׁימּוּשׁ נוֹתָר מִילְּתָא הִיא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Granted, if you say that** an item that **serves** as a base or container for **leftover is something** significant and becomes disqualified in the same manner as the leftover themselves, **because of this it needs burning** like the leftover itself. **But if you say that serving** as a base for **leftover is nothing** significant, **why do these** bones need to be **burned? Let us break them, and remove their marrow, and burn** the marrow, **and discard** the bones. **Rather,** must one **not conclude from it that serving** as a base for **leftover is something** significant, and the bones themselves become prohibited and impart ritual impurity due to their consecrated contents?


###### Pesachim 83a:8
[Pesachim 83a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/83a:8)

אָמְרִי: לָא, לְעוֹלָם אֵימָא לָךְ שִׁימּוּשׁ נוֹתָר — לָאו מִילְּתָא, וְקָסָבַר: ״בּוֹ״ בְּכָשֵׁר, וַאֲפִילּוּ בְּפָסוּל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Say** in refutation of this proof: **No. Actually, I could say to you that serving** as a base for **leftover is nothing** significant, **and** the *tanna* of the mishna **holds** that the prohibition stated in the Torah: “And you shall not break a bone **in it”** (Exodus 12:46), applies **even to a disqualified** Paschal lamb. The prohibition to break the bones of the Paschal lamb applies even when the Paschal lamb itself may no longer be eaten. Thus, the bones must be burned because there is no way to extract the marrow. They are not burned because they themselves have served as a base for the leftover marrow.


###### Pesachim 83a:9
[Pesachim 83a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/83a:9)

אֲפִילּוּ בְּפָסוּל סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ? וְהָא תְּנַן: אֲבָל הַמּוֹתִיר בַּטָּהוֹר וְהַשּׁוֹבֵר בַּטָּמֵא אֵינוֹ סוֹפֵג אֶת הָאַרְבָּעִים! לָא קַשְׁיָא, כָּאן — שֶׁהָיְתָה לוֹ שְׁעַת הַכּוֹשֶׁר, כָּאן — שֶׁלֹּא הָיְתָה לוֹ שְׁעַת הַכּוֹשֶׁר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara expresses surprise at the previous answer: **Can** it **enter your mind** to say that the prohibition applies **even to a disqualified** Paschal lamb? **Didn’t we learn** in a mishna: **But one who leaves over** part of **a pure** Paschal lamb or **one who breaks** the bone of **a ritually impure** Paschal lamb **does not receive forty** lashes, which indicates that the Torah prohibition to break a bone applies only to a Paschal lamb that is still valid? The Gemara responds: This is **not difficult. Here,** when the mishna indicates that it is prohibited to break even the bone of a disqualified Paschal lamb, it is referring to a case where **it had a time when it was valid,** such as leftover sacrificial meat, which was valid before it was left over, and the prohibition therefore became relevant when it was valid. **There,** when the other mishna stated that the prohibition does not apply, it is referring to sacrificial meat **that did not have a time when it was valid.**


###### Pesachim 83a:10
[Pesachim 83a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/83a:10)

וּמַאן תַּנָּא דְּשָׁנֵי לֵיהּ בֵּין שֶׁהָיְתָה לוֹ שְׁעַת הַכּוֹשֶׁר לְלֹא הָיְתָה לוֹ שְׁעַת הַכּוֹשֶׁר, רַבִּי יַעֲקֹב הִיא. דְּתַנְיָא: ״וְעֶצֶם לֹא תִשְׁבְּרוּ בוֹ״, ״בּוֹ״ בְּכָשֵׁר וְלֹא בְּפָסוּל. רַבִּי יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר: הָיְתָה לוֹ שְׁעַת הַכּוֹשֶׁר וְנִפְסַל — יֵשׁ בּוֹ מִשּׁוּם שְׁבִירַת הָעֶצֶם, לֹא הָיְתָה לוֹ שְׁעַת הַכּוֹשֶׁר — אֵין בּוֹ מִשּׁוּם שְׁבִירַת הָעֶצֶם. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: אֶחָד זֶה וְאֶחָד זֶה — אֵין בּוֹ מִשּׁוּם שְׁבִירַת הָעֶצֶם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara adds: **And who is the *tanna* who differentiates between** a Paschal lamb **that had a time when it was valid and** one that **did not have a time when it was valid? It is Rabbi Ya’akov, as it was taught** in a *baraita*: The verse states: **“And you shall not break a bone in it,”** and the emphasis of the expression **“in it”** teaches that the prohibition applies only **to a valid** Paschal lamb **and not to a disqualified** one. **Rabbi Ya’akov says:** If an offering **had a time when it was valid and** then **became disqualified, it is subject to** the prohibition of **breaking a bone;** if **it did not have** any **time when it was valid, it is not subject to** the prohibition of **breaking a bone. Rabbi Shimon says:** With regard to **both this and that,** whether the offering was valid at some point or not, once it becomes disqualified **it is not subject to** the prohibition of **breaking a bone.**


###### Pesachim 83a:11
[Pesachim 83a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/83a:11)

מֵיתִיבִי: כׇּל עַצְמוֹת הַקֳּדָשִׁים אֵין טְעוּנִין שְׂרֵיפָה, חוּץ מֵעַצְמוֹת הַפֶּסַח מִפְּנֵי הַתַּקָּלָה. הָנֵי עֲצָמוֹת הֵיכִי דָּמֵי? אִילֵּימָא דְּלֵית בְּהוּ מוֹחַ, לְמָה לְהוּ שְׂרֵיפָה? אֶלָּא פְּשִׁיטָא דְּאִית בְּהוּ מוֹחַ, וְאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ שִׁימּוּשׁ נוֹתָר מִילְּתָא הִיא — עַצְמוֹת קָדָשִׁים אַמַּאי אֵין טְעוּנִין שְׂרֵיפָה?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara **raises an objection** based on what was taught in the following *baraita*: **No bones of offerings require burning except for the bones of the Paschal lamb, due to the** possibility that leaving the bones around will lead to **a mishap** because one may eventually transgress the prohibition of breaking the bones. The Gemara asks: **What are the circumstances** in which **these bones** must be burned? **If we say** we are dealing with a case **where there is no marrow** in the bones, **why must they be burned?** They should simply be discarded. **Rather,** it is **obvious that there is marrow in them. And if it should enter your mind that serving** as a base for **leftover** meat of an offering **is something** significant, **why do bones of** other **offerings not require burning?** They are serving as a base for the leftover marrow in them.


###### Pesachim 83a:12
[Pesachim 83a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/83a:12)

אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן? כְּגוֹן שֶׁמְּצָאָן חֲלוּצִין: עַצְמוֹת קָדָשִׁים, דְּאֵין בָּהֶן מִשּׁוּם שְׁבִירַת הָעֶצֶם — קַמֵּי דְּנֶהְווֹ נוֹתָר חַלְצִינְהוּ, וְלָא הָווּ שִׁימּוּשׁ נוֹתָר, וְלָא בָּעוּ שְׂרֵיפָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: With what are we dealing here?** We are dealing with a special case **where one finds** bones from which the marrow had already been **removed.** Therefore, there is room to differentiate between the different cases: With regard to **bones of** other **offerings, to which** the prohibition of **breaking a bone does not apply,** one may presume that **before they became leftover one removed** the marrow from them and ate it. Therefore, these bones **were not serving** as a base for **leftover** sacrificial meat, **and they do not require burning** and may be discarded.


###### Pesachim 83a:13
[Pesachim 83a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/83a:13)

עַצְמוֹת הַפֶּסַח, דְּיֵשׁ בָּהֶן מִשּׁוּם שְׁבִירַת הָעֶצֶם — לְבָתַר דְּנֶהְווֹ נוֹתָר הוּא דְּחַלְצִינְהוּ, וְהָווּ לְהוּ שִׁימּוּשׁ נוֹתָר, וּבָעוּ שְׂרֵיפָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
On the other hand, **bones of the Paschal lamb, to which** the prohibition of **breaking a bone does apply,** were certainly not broken while the prohibition applied; rather, **it was after they became leftover that one removed** the marrow **from them,** when the prohibition of breaking a bone no longer applied, according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon above. In that case, the bones temporarily **served** as a base for **leftover** sacrificial meat, and therefore **they require burning.**


###### Pesachim 83a:14
[Pesachim 83a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Pesachim/r/83a:14)

רַב זְבִיד אָמַר: הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן? כְּגוֹן

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Zevid said** that one can answer in a different way: **With what are we dealing here?** We are dealing with a case **such as**