(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem

Previous daf

Pesachim 84

PESACHIM 84 (Cheshvan 19) - dedicated anonymously in memory of Chaim Mordechai ben Harav Yisrael Azriel (Feldman) of Milwaukee.


(a) What does the Tana of our Mishnah mean when he writes 'Kol ha'Ne'echal be'Shor ha'Gadol, Ye'achel bi'Gedi ha'Rach'?

(b) The Tana appears to include the cartilages and the shoulder-blades in the parts of a Pesach that are eaten.
Considering that the cartilages and the shoulder-blades of a fully-grown ox cannot be eaten, how does Rabah reconcile the Seifa with the Reisha?

(c) How does Rava correlate the two statements?

(a) Rebbi Yochanan permits soft sinews in the neck that will become hard as the lamb grows older.
What is his reason?

(b) What does Resh Lakish say and why?

(c) How does Resh Lakish query Rebbi Yochanan from the above-mentioned Beraisa ('Kol ha'Ne'echal - u'Mah Hen, Roshei Kenafayim, ve'ha'Sechusim')?

(d) Rebbi Yochanan replies that there is no difference between them.
Why is that?

(a) Why is the soft skin of a young calf not Metamei Tum'as Ochlin?

(b) How does this clash with Rebbi Yochanan's opinion with regard to soft sinews that will later become hard?

(c) What does he do with the Mishnah in 'ha'Or ve'ha'Rotav' which rules to the contrary?

(a) What do someone who leaves over meat from a Tahor Pesach and someone who breaks the bone of a Tamei Pesach have in common?

(b) Rebbi Yehudah derives the Petur from Malkos in the former of the two cases, from the Pasuk in Bo "ve'ha'Nosar Mimenu Ad Boker, ba'Eish Tisrofu". How does he learn it from there?

(c) Rebbi Ya'akov disagrees.
Why is one Patur, according to him?

(d) What do we learn from the Pasuk in Bo "ve'Etzem Lo Sishberu *Bo*"?

Answers to questions



(a) Rebbi learns the above Derashah from the Pasuk there "ba'Bayis Echad Ye'achel, ve'Etzem Lo Sishberu Bo".
How does he learn it from there?

(b) According to Rebbi Yirmiyah, what is the difference whether it is Kasher or fit to eat?

(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. According to him, Rebbi and the Chachamim argue by a Pesach that was initially Kasher.
What is then the Machlokes?

(d) Abaye maintains that there too, since the body of the Pesach is currently Pasul, someone who breaks a bone on it will be Patur, and their Machlokes is regarding breaking a bone by day (before one is permitted to eat it).
How does Rebbi appear to contradict himself, when he differentiates in another Beraisa, between the marrow in the head and the marrow in the thigh-bone? Why should there be a difference between them?

(a) Abaye explains that the Rabbanan forbade burning a hole in the thigh- bone to extract the marrow because of Paka.
What does this mean?

(b) What reason does Rava give for the prohibition?

(c) How do these reasons help to resolve the difficulty in 5d.?

(a) According to Rav Papa, everyone agrees that one would be Chayav for breaking a bone on the fourteenth, and they argue by a limb, half of which was taken outside the walls of Yerushalayim.
What does Rebbi Yishmael Be'no shel Rebbi Yochanan Ben Berokah say about such a limb?

(b) What is now the Machlokes between Rebbi and the Rabbanan?

(c) Rav Shisha B'rei de'Rav Idi holds that one will definitely be Patur in the previous case, since the limb is Pasul. According to him, they argue by Na.
What is now the Machlokes?

(d) Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak considers Na to be Kasher, since one is able to roast it, which is sufficient reason to make it subject to the Din of Sheviras Etzem. In his opiniion, Rebbi and the Rabbanan argue about breaking the bone of the fat-tail.
What is the basis of their Machlokes?

(a) According to Rav Ashi, the previous case is not called fit to eat at all, and one will be Patur for breaking its bones, even according to the Rabbanan; they argue, he maintains, by breaking a bone which does not contain a k'Zayis of flesh.
What will the basis of their Machlokes then be?

(b) Ravina rejects Rav Ashi's explanation because, he maintains, a bone which does not contain a k'Zayis of flesh, is not considered fit to eat and one will not be Chayav for breaking it.
How does *he* establish the Machlokes Rebbi and the Rabbanan?

(c) A Beraisa quoting Rebbi supports the explanations of Rav Yosef (a bone that had a Sha's ha'Kosher), Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak (the bone of the fat- tail) and Abaye (breaking a bone before night-fall).
When Rebbi says 'Ein Bo Shiur Achilah', which other two of the explanations might he be vindicating?

(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. What does he ask 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'?

(b) What is Resh Lakish's reply?

Answers to questions
Next daf

For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,