(Mishnah): One may eat in a tender kid anything that can be eaten in a large ox; and the shoulder blade and cartilage.

One who breaks the bone of a Tahor Korban Pesach receives forty lashes.

But one who leaves over flesh of a Tahor Korban and one who breaks the bone of a Tameh Korban Pesach does not receive forty lashes.

(Gemara): What is the law of soft sinews (of the neck of the kid - they stiffen with age)?

R. Yochanan: A group may be designated upon it as if it is flesh. R''SBL said that they may not.

R. Yaakov/R. Acha quoting R. Zeira: The opinion of R. Yochanan has been reversed and the opinion of R''SBL has been reversed, as they disagree over a Mishnah in Chulin -

The skins of the following cases are treated like the flesh itself - the flesh of a person and of a domestic pig.

R. Yosa also includes the skin of a wild pig.

The skin of a camel's hump, the skin of a calf's head, the skin of the hooves, the skin of the womb, the skin of a fetus, the skin under the tail-fat and the skin of the Anakah, the Koach, the leta'ah, and the chomet.

R. Yehuda says that a leta'ah is like a chuldah (that its skin different from its flesh).

All of the above cases (that their skin is like their flesh), if the skins were tanned or walked upon, they are Tahor, except for human skin.

R. Yochanan ben Nuri says that the eight sheratzim have a skin (meaning that their skins are not Tameh like their flesh).

R. Yochanan: This Mishnah only refers to the prohibition to eat it and to Tumah, but for lashes (if a person ate from the skin) - there are no lashes (as the skin will eventually become hard), nor are there lashes for the prohibition of Neveilah.

R''SBL: Rebbi taught a complete Mishnah and did not differentiate between the prohibition to eat it, giving lashes and Tumah.

Question: The opinion of R''SBL has been switched as there (in Chulin) he considers skin like flesh and here he does not?!

Answer (r. Yuda bar Pazi): Over there it is skin and skin will eventually become hard (but soft sinews will not become so hard).

Question: If so, certainly R''SBL has switched his opinion! If over there (in Chulin), where it will eventually become hard, he considers it to be like flesh, here where the soft sinews will not become so hard, certainly he should consider it to be like flesh!

Answer (r. Avin): The reasoning of R''SBL is that the Pasuk states "and they shall eat of the flesh (of the Pesach)'' - but not the sinews!

Rabbanan of Kisarin: R. Chiya and R. Isi disagreed - One of them switched around the opinions of R. Yochanan and R''SBL (and said that R.Y held that a group may not be designated on sinews and R''SBL held that they may do so); the other one retained the present text.

The one that switched around the opinions did not have the difficulties (discussed above).

Question: How much does a person need to break to be liable?

Answer (r. Yosi/ R. Zeira quoting R. Yochanan): If big enough that a person's hand would be stopped if running his hand over the bone.

R. Yona quoting R. Zeira/ R. Ba, both quoting R. Yochanan: One said the size of the break must be enough that a person's hand would be stopped if running his hand over the bone. The other one said that even if his nail would be stopped, he would be liable.

The one that said 'nail' would certainly say that he is liable if his hand is stopped; the one that said 'hand' would say that if only his nail would be stopped, he would not be liable.

R. Yochanan/ R''SBL: He is only liable if he breaks a bone that has flesh on it and only if the break is at a place where there is flesh.

Question (r. Yaakov bar Acha quoting Shmuel bar Aba): If there must be a Kzayis of flesh at the place of the break, a person could never be liable unless he takes a stone and breaks the bone (as a bone broken in the course of eating would not usually have on it a Kzayis of flesh)!

Answer: The Pasuk states "bone'' - to obligate him for each and every bone.

One is only liable once for a bone if he was only warned once, but if he was warned twice, even if it was the same bone broken twice, he is liable for two sets of lashes.

Question (R. Yirmiyah): The Pasuk states "And you shall not break a bone'' - whether a bone with flesh or a bone without flesh. Does this not contradict R''SBL who said that one may break a bone without flesh?

Answer: R''SBL only said that a person would not receive lashes for such a bone, but it is nonetheless prohibited.

The Mishnah had taught: But one who leaves over flesh of a Tahor Korban and one who breaks the bone of a Tameh Korban Pesach does not receive forty lashes.

R. Avun quoting R. Elazar: The Mishnah refers to when the Korban had originally been Tameh, but if had been Tahor and then became Tameh, it is as if it was brought in Taharah and he receives lashes for breaking it.

Question-Beraisa (r.Y to R''SBL): Bones, sinews and Nosar are burned on the 16th. (the bones are burned because of the marrow inside.) If it is permitted to break a bone where there is no flesh, why not break open the bone and remove and burn only the marrow? (Note: This follows the explanation of Rav Chaim Kanievski.)

Answer: As the quantity of marrow which is edible is enough that it is prohibited to break the bone on account of it.

Question: (this is a question on the next Mishnah that teaches that if a limb protruded out of Yerushalayim, the flesh must be cut down to the bone and peeled back until it reaches a joint, and then it is cut). If he peels back the flesh, according to R''SBL, why can he not cut the bone in the middle?

Answer: Lest he break a bone under the flesh in the process.