user111544: Many OPCODES like OP_AND, OP_CAT, OP_SUBSTR are disabled as described in https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Script. Although, with Bitcoin Core 0.10.0 Gavin Andresen proposed "any Script" in P2SH transactions to be relayed/mined:

I'm still unsure if this applies disabled opcodes. I've come across a Mainnet coinbase transaction with disabled "OP_AND" opcode here, and a Testnet transaction here. I'm very curios if P2SH transactions with disabled opcodes in the redeem script relayed and mined on the BTC Mainnet.

user47827: On that wiki link you posted it states:

If any opcode marked as disabled is present in a script, it must abort and fail.

An attempted UTXO spend with a failed script will not be relayed between nodes running Bitcoin Core (and other major implementations) and certainly won't be included in a mined block.
The mainnet coinbase transaction you link to includes an OP_AND in an input scriptSig. But input(s) in a coinbase transaction are ignored as it is mining new Bitcoins and is not spending from any output from another transaction.
The testnet transaction you link to includes an OP_AND in an output scriptPubKey. It hasn't been spent and can't be spent because there is no scriptSig that can spend from it.
BIP-Tapscript (BIP 342) proposes to make disabled opcodes like OP_AND OP_SUCCESSx which would mean that the Tapscript would automatically succeed if the opcode is encountered. This is so that new opcode functionality could potentially be introduced in a future soft fork without breaking backwards compatibility. But Taproot/Tapscript is not yet activated on the network at the time of writing (October 2020).

111544: <p>Many OPCODES like OP_AND, OP_CAT, OP_SUBSTR are disabled as described in <a href="https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Script" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Script</a>. Although, with Bitcoin Core 0.10.0 Gavin Andresen <a href="https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/4365" rel="nofollow noreferrer">proposed</a> &quot;any Script&quot; in P2SH transactions to be relayed/mined:
<a href="https://i.stack.imgur.com/Z9pPN.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.stack.imgur.com/Z9pPN.png" alt="enter image description here" /></a>
I'm still unsure if this applies disabled opcodes. I've come across a Mainnet coinbase transaction with disabled &quot;OP_AND&quot; opcode <a href="https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/bcd93f13f78bc66e4ab5c3e468c386466d0aa307b15b58d0e42b8afa4fffaaba" rel="nofollow noreferrer">here</a>, and a Testnet transaction <a href="https://www.blockchain.com/btc-testnet/tx/19f8799e074bf253ac1ed39aa25d97b7fd5d82d962d268723971dd84a7cd08f3" rel="nofollow noreferrer">here</a>. I'm very curios if P2SH transactions with disabled opcodes in the redeem script relayed and mined on the BTC Mainnet.</p>
 47827: <p>On that wiki <a href="https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Script" rel="nofollow noreferrer">link</a> you posted it states:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>If any opcode marked as disabled is present in a script, it must abort and fail.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>An attempted UTXO spend with a failed script will not be relayed between nodes running Bitcoin Core (and other major implementations) and certainly won't be included in a mined block.</p>
<p>The mainnet coinbase <a href="https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/bcd93f13f78bc66e4ab5c3e468c386466d0aa307b15b58d0e42b8afa4fffaaba" rel="nofollow noreferrer">transaction</a> you link to includes an OP_AND in an input scriptSig. But input(s) in a coinbase transaction are ignored as it is mining new Bitcoins and is not spending from any output from another transaction.</p>
<p>The testnet <a href="https://www.blockchain.com/btc-testnet/tx/19f8799e074bf253ac1ed39aa25d97b7fd5d82d962d268723971dd84a7cd08f3" rel="nofollow noreferrer">transaction</a> you link to includes an OP_AND in an output scriptPubKey. It hasn't been spent and can't be spent because there is no scriptSig that can spend from it.</p>
<p>BIP-Tapscript (<a href="https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0342.mediawiki#specification" rel="nofollow noreferrer">BIP 342</a>) proposes to make disabled opcodes like OP_AND OP_SUCCESSx which would mean that the Tapscript would automatically succeed if the opcode is encountered. This is so that new opcode functionality could potentially be introduced in a future soft fork without breaking backwards compatibility. But Taproot/Tapscript is not yet activated on the network at the time of writing (October 2020).</p>
