this one is disqualified, and the prohibition does not apply. However, according to the one who says that it depends on whether the offering is fit for eating, this offering that is brought in a state of ritual impurity is also fit for eating, and the prohibition of breaking a bone therefore applies.

Rav Yosef said: In a case like this, in which the Paschal lamb was brought in a state of ritual impurity, everyone agrees that it is not subject to the prohibition of breaking a bone. This is because Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi only came to be lenient, and this offering is disqualified due to the fact that it is ritually impure, despite the fact that such an offering is accepted and therefore obligatory.

Rather, the practical difference between them is with regard to a Paschal lamb that had a time when it was valid and then became disqualified. According to the one who says that the verse should be understood as indicating that the prohibition of breaking a bone applies only to a valid Paschal lamb, this one is valid and the prohibition applies. According to the one who says that the prohibition applies only to an offering that is fit for eating, it is not fit for eating now, and therefore the prohibition does not apply.

Abaye said: In any case like this, everyone agrees that it is not subject to the prohibition of breaking a bone. What is the reason? Now, at least, it is disqualified. Rather, the halakha with regard to breaking a bone while it is still day on Passover eve is the practical difference between them. According to the one who says the verse should be understood as applying the prohibition to any Paschal lamb that is valid, this one is valid and the prohibition applies. According to the one who says the prohibition applies to a Paschal lamb that is fit for eating, now it is not fit for eating and therefore the prohibition does not yet apply.

The Gemara raises an objection: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: One may register for a Paschal lamb to eat the marrow of the head, and one may not register for the purpose of eating the marrow of the thigh bone. The Gemara clarifies: What is the reason one may register for the marrow of the head? It is since one can extract it from inside the head and remove it without breaking any of the bones, which is not the case with regard to marrow from the thigh bone. And if it should enter your mind to say that breaking a bone while it is still day seems well, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi should hold that we may break the thigh bone as well and remove its marrow, and it should be permitted to register for it.

The Gemara responds: Abaye could have said to you: And according to your reasoning, after nightfall there is also a permissible way to consume the marrow of the thigh bone: We should bring a coal, and place it on the bone, and burn it, and remove its marrow, and therefore it should be permissible to register for it, for it was taught explicitly in a baraita: But one who burns bones of the Paschal lamb and one who cuts sinews do not transgress the prohibition of breaking a bone.

Rather, what have you to say in order to explain why one may not remove the marrow from the thigh bone by burning the bone? It must be due to a rabbinic prohibition. Why did the Sages enact this prohibition? Abaye said: It is because the heat might cause the bone to burst at a location other than where the coal is placed, which would be considered breaking rather than burning. Rava said: It is due to ruining sacrificial food, as one who burns a hole in the bone ruins it actively because it is possible that the fire will consume some of its marrow. Similarly, breaking a bone while it is still day is also prohibited due to rabbinic decree. The Sages prohibited the breaking a bone while it still day due to the concern lest one do so after dark.

Rav Pappa said: With regard to any case like this, everyone agrees it is subject to the prohibition of breaking a bone. What is the reason? It is because at night it will be fit for eating. Rather, it is with regard to a portion of a limb that has gone out of its permissible boundary and thereby become disqualified that they disagree. In such an instance, one removes the disqualified part in order to be able to eat the rest, and the Sages disagree about whether one may cut the bone. According to the one who said that the verse limits the prohibition of breaking a bone to a Paschal lamb that is valid, this one is valid, and it is therefore prohibited to break a bone. And according to the one who said the prohibition applies to any Paschal lamb that is fit for eating, this one is not fit for eating, and it should therefore be permitted to break its bones.

As it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka, says: If a portion of a limb has gone out of its permissible boundary and one broke it, one has not transgressed. It is not subject to the prohibition of breaking a bone. This is in accordance with the view that the prohibition of breaking bones applies only to a Paschal lamb that is fit for eating.

Rav Sheshet, son of Rav Idi, said: With regard to any case like this, everyone agrees that it is not subject to the prohibition of breaking a bone, as this limb is disqualified and not merely unfit for eating. Rather, breaking a bone of a Paschal lamb when it is not yet fully roasted and still raw is the practical difference between them. According to the one who said the prohibition applies only to a Paschal lamb that is valid, this one is valid, and it is therefore prohibited to break a bone. And according to the one who said the prohibition applies to any Paschal lamb that is fit for eating, the prohibition does not apply to this offering because now it is not fit for eating.

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: Any case like this is subject to the prohibition of breaking a bone. What is the reason? It is because it is still considered fit for eating, since one can roast it and eat it. Rather, breaking a bone in the tail is the practical difference between them. According to the one who says the prohibition applies to any Paschal lamb that is valid, this one is valid and the prohibition applies. According to the one who says the prohibition applies to any Paschal lamb that is fit for eating, this is not fit for eating, as the tail is consecrated to God, meaning that it is burned on the altar.

Rav Ashi said: A case like this is certainly not subject to the prohibition of breaking a bone, as the tail is certainly not fit for eating at all. Rather, the case of a limb upon which there is not an olive-bulk of meat is the practical difference between them. According to the one who says the prohibition applies to any Paschal lamb that is valid, this is valid, and the prohibition applies. According to the one who says the prohibition applies to any Paschal lamb that is fit for eating, we require the minimal measure of meat that would constitute an act of eating, and there is not enough meat on this bone; therefore, the prohibition does not apply.

Ravina said: Any case like this is not subject to the prohibition of breaking a bone, as we require the minimal measure of meat that would constitute an act of eating. Rather, the case of a limb upon which there is not an olive-bulk of meat in this place and there is an olive-bulk of meat in another place is the practical difference between them. According to the one who says the prohibition applies to any Paschal lamb that is valid, this one is valid, and it is prohibited to break a bone. According to the one who says the prohibition applies to any Paschal lamb that is fit for eating, we require the minimal measure of meat that would constitute an act of eating in the place of the break, and there is not enough meat there. Therefore, the prohibition of breaking a bone does not apply.

The Gemara points out that it was taught in a baraita in accordance with four of the interpretations cited above. As it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: The verse ''In one house shall it be eaten…and you shall not break a bone in it'' (Exodus 12:46) teaches that one is liable for breaking the bone of a valid Paschal lamb, and one is not liable for breaking the bone of a disqualified Paschal lamb.

If it had a time in which it was valid and it became disqualified at the time of eating, it is not subject to the prohibition of breaking a bone. This supports the opinion of Rav Yosef.

If it has the minimal measure of meat that would constitute an act of eating, it is subject to the prohibition of breaking a bone; if it does not have the minimal measure of meat necessary to constitute an act of eating, it is not subject to the prohibition of breaking a bone. This supports the opinion of both Rav Ashi and Ravina.

That which is fit for the altar, such as the tail, is not subject to the prohibition of breaking a bone. This supports the opinion of Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak.

At the time of eating, it is subject to the prohibition of breaking a bone; when it is not the time for eating, it is not subject to the prohibition of breaking a bone. This supports the opinion of Abaye.

It was stated that the amora’im argued about the following matter: In the case of a limb upon which there is not an olive-bulk of meat in this place in which one breaks the bone, and there is an olive-bulk of meat in a different place, has one violated the prohibition of breaking a bone? Rabbi Yoḥanan said: It is subject to the prohibition of breaking a bone. Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: It is not subject to the prohibition of breaking a bone.

Rabbi Yoḥanan raised an objection to Reish Lakish from a baraita: The verse states: ''And you shall not break a bone in it,'' which indicates that the prohibition applies to both a bone upon which there is an olive-bulk of meat and a bone upon which there is not an olive-bulk of meat. What is the meaning of the phrase: Upon which there is not an olive-bulk of meat? If we say that it does not have an olive-bulk of meat on it at all, it is not fit for eating at all. Why, then, is it subject to the prohibition against breaking a bone? Rather, is it not true that this is what it is saying: The prohibition applies both to a bone upon which there is an olive-bulk of meat in this place, and to a bone upon which there is not an olive-bulk of meat in this place and there is an olive-bulk of meat in a different place? This poses a difficulty to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish.

He said to him: