Pesachim 47a (מז.) — the Talmud in English

Rabba raised an objection to Rav Ḥisda

to what he had said, that “by Torah law, the needs of Shabbat may be prepared on a Festival,” from that which we learned in a Mishna:

the shewbread is eaten

on the ninth

day after it was baked, or

on the tenth

day, or

on the eleventh

day after it was baked.

Neither fewer nor more. How so? —

Ordinarily,

throughout the year, it is eaten

on the ninth

day after it was baked. And it is

baked on Friday,

since its baking does not override Shabbat. On Shabbat it is arranged on the golden Table. And it is

eaten on the Shabbat

that follows it

on the ninth

day after it was baked.

And if

a Festival falls on Friday,

it is baked on the eve of the Festival, on Thursday, since its baking does not override the Festival. It is arranged on Shabbat, and it is

eaten on the Shabbat

that follows it, which is

on the tenth

day after it was baked.

And if

the two Festival days of Rosh HaShana

fall immediately before Shabbat, on Thursday and Friday, it is baked on the eve of Rosh HaShana, which is Wednesday, and arranged on Shabbat. It is

eaten on the Shabbat

that follows it, which is

on the eleventh

day after it was baked,

because it does not override

the baking of the shewbread —

neither Shabbat nor the Festival.

And it is always baked on the eve of Shabbat or on the eve of a Festival.

Rabba concluded his objection:

And if you say that “the needs of Shabbat may be prepared on a Festival”

by Torah law,

why does

the baking of the shewbread not override

the Festival?

For it is certainly a need of Shabbat, since the shewbread is eaten by the kohanim on the following Shabbat.

And although the Sages prohibited baking on a Festival for Shabbat outside the Temple, that is only a shevut—a rabbinic prohibition. In the Temple, they did not issue a decree on account of shevut.

Rav Ḥisda said to him:

In fact, the prohibition against baking on a Festival for Shabbat is only due to shevut. Nevertheless, they issued a decree concerning it even in the Temple.

For specifically

a proximate shevut

that concerns the very same day

they permitted

in the Temple, as they did not issue a decree on account of shevut.

But

a remote shevut,

which is not needed for that day, but only for another Shabbat—even in the Temple

they did not permit

it to override the Festival’s shevut prohibition on its account.

They asked again:

And according to Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel, who said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben HaSegan

that the shewbread

overrides

in its baking

the Festival,

because preparation of food for personal consumption is permitted on it,

“but it does not override the day of fasting

Yom Kippur,” [as labor for the purpose of preparing food is not permitted on it]] —

what can be said?

It is evident from our Mishna that no distinction is made between a proximate shevut and a remote shevut.

Granted, according to me, they disagree concerning a Torah matter: according to the Sages, the needs of Shabbat may not be prepared on a Festival, whereas according to Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel, the needs of Shabbat may be prepared on a Festival.

And I hold in accordance with the Sages.

But according to you, concerning what do they disagree? For if you say, as I do, that this is the basis of their disagreement, why did you rule against the Sages? [Tosafot]

Rav Ḥisda said to him:

Rav Ḥisda:

They disagree about this:

One master [

the first tanna ]

holds that shevut

only

a proximate one was permitted

in the Temple. But

a remote shevut was not permitted!

And therefore, by rabbinic decree, its baking does not override the Festival.

And the other master [

Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel ]

holds that they also permitted a remote shevut

in the Temple, and they did not decree there against baking on a Festival for Shabbat.

Rav Mari raised an objection

to Rav Ḥisda:

The two loaves

that are brought on Shavuot

are not eaten fewer than two

days after they are baked,

and not more than three

days after they are baked.

How so? —

Ordinarily, when they are

baked

on the

eve of the Festival

of Shavuot, they are

eaten on the Festival!

That is,

on the second [

[the second day after they are baked].

And if

the Festival

of Shavuot

falls

on the first day

after Shabbat,

when they are baked on Friday, they are

eaten on the Festival, on

the

third

day after they are baked.

Because

the baking of the two loaves

does not override either Shabbat or the Festival.

Rav Mari concluded his objection:

And if you say

as Rav Ḥisda holds, that

the needs of Shabbat may be prepared on a Festival,

why does their baking not override the Festival?

Now,

needs

of Shabbat,

to prepare them

on a Festival are permitted.

Needs

of the Festival

itself, to prepare them

on the Festival —

is it necessary

to say that it is permitted?! Even if they are not fit to be eaten at the moment they are baked [because they may not be eaten until the two sheep of Shavuot are slaughtered over them and their blood is sprinkled], they are nevertheless fit for that very day. Surely they are no less than the needs of Shabbat that follows the Festival, which Rav Ḥisda permits one to prepare by Torah law on the Festival even after he has eaten his fill and is preparing them entirely for the needs of the Festival.

Rather, conclude from this that the Torah permitted labor on a Festival only for the sake of something that is already fit at that moment, and not for something that will be needed later, even if it is needed on that very day.

And all the more so, it is forbidden to perform labor on it for the sake of the Shabbat immediately following the Festival.

And it follows that the needs of Shabbat may not be prepared on a Festival. Rather, the entire permission to bake on a Festival for Shabbat is in accordance with Rabba’s explanation, on the basis of ho’il—since, if guests happen to come to him, it will be fit for the Festival itself.

Therefore, the baking of the two loaves does not override the Festival, since one cannot apply the principle of “since” to them: as long as the sheep have not been slaughtered over them and their blood has not been sprinkled, they are not fit to be eaten.

And any need related to offerings that is not a need of food preparation and that could have been performed on the eve of the Festival does not override the Festival.

And we answer: In fact, even a need that will arise later is permitted if it is for that very day or for the Shabbat following the Festival.

Rather,

there it is different,

in the case of the two loaves,

as the verse states concerning the law of preparing food for the sake of the Most High: “He alone shall be prepared

for you.”

And we interpret it as follows:

“For you” —

but not for the sake of the Most High!

And although they are eaten by the kohanim, nevertheless, their primary purpose is the offering to the Most High.

We raise an objection:

And according to Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel, who said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben HaSegan:

“The baking of the two loaves

overrides

the

Festival,

and they are baked on Shavuot” —

what can be said?

And we answer: He

holds in accordance with Abba Shaul, who says:

Regarding that which is written, “He alone shall be prepared for you,” we derive the exclusion:

“For you” —

but not for gentiles!

It is permitted to cook on a Festival only for the needs of Jews, and not for the needs of gentiles. But we do not derive from it an exclusion of eating that serves the needs of the Most High.

Rav Ḥisda sent the following message to Rabba through Rav Aḥa bar Rav Huna:

Is it the case that

we say

that cooking on a Festival is permitted even when one has no need for it, on the basis of

“since

if guests happen to come to him, it will be fit for them”?!

But we learned in a Mishna: If one plows a single furrow, he is liable for it

for that plowing

on account of eight different prohibitions

.

A.

One who plows with an ox and a donkey,

who thereby transgresses the prohibition, “You shall not plow with an ox and a donkey together.”

B. And the ox

and

the donkey are

consecrated animals.

Regarding the donkey, which is consecrated for the Temple treasury, he transgresses the prohibition of misuse of consecrated property [for anyone who intentionally misuses consecrated property is subject to a prohibition, as we derive by a gzera shava from the identical terms “sin” and “sin” in the laws of teruma, concerning which it is written, “No non-kohen may eat what is sacred”]. Thus, there are two prohibitions here.

C. And regarding the ox, which is consecrated for the altar, he also transgresses the prohibition, “You shall not work with the firstborn of your ox.” This is a warning concerning all offerings consecrated for the altar, which may not be used for labor. Thus, there are three prohibitions here.

D.

And

plowing with an ox and a donkey is plowing that turns over the seeds, and through this he transgresses the prohibition against sowing

mixed species in a vineyard.

For he scattered grape seeds and grain seeds on the ground and plowed the ground, thereby covering them with earth. Covering mixed species is considered sowing. Thus, he is also flogged for the prohibition, “You shall not sow your vineyard with mixed species.” There are therefore four prohibitions here.