Pesachim 47b — the Talmud in English

E.

And

this plowing took place in the year of

the Sabbatical year.

And by his plowing it to cover the sowing, he transgresses a prohibition that is a derivative of sowing. And he is flogged also on account of “You shall not sow your field.” Here, then, are five prohibitions.

F. And he plowed this plowing

on Yom Tov,

and therefore he is flogged also on account of “You shall not perform any labor.” Here, then, are six prohibitions.

G. And the man who plows is

a kohen. And

he is also

a nazir.

And he plowed this plowing

on a source of impurity [בבית הקברות],

in the cemetery], and therefore he is flogged on account of the prohibition “He shall not defile himself for a person,” which is written concerning kohanim. Here, then, are seven prohibitions.

H. And likewise he is flogged on account of the prohibition “For a dead person he shall not come,” which is written concerning a nazir. Here, then, are eight prohibitions. It follows that through one plowing he becomes liable for eight sets of lashes.

Rav Hisda concluded his difficulty:

And if we say

like Rabba, that even if he does not presently need the labor, it is nevertheless considered a need,

since

a need for it may arise for him later—

for the plowing

on Yom Tov

he should not be liable!

For if many birds should happen upon him, and he wishes to slaughter them on Yom Tov in order to eat them, he will need this soil that was uprooted by the plowing, in order to fulfill with it the mitzva of covering the blood. And if so, he should not be liable for the plowing

since it is fit

this plowing

for covering the blood of a bird!?

Rav Pappa bar Shmuel said:

What are we dealing with here? With one who plows

in

soil consisting of

rounded stones,

which do not crumble into soil through the plowing. And they are not fit for covering the blood.

And we object: But

they are fit,

these stones are fit for covering, for he can

crush them

and make them into soil.

And we answer:

And

is

crushing on Yom Tov permitted?

But it is a derivative of grinding.

And we object: But

they are fit to crush them in an unusual manner,

by means of a deviation. For in this manner the labor is not forbidden by Torah law, but only on account of shevut. And it follows that when he plows with rounded stones, he should not be made liable for the plowing with lashes, since with these stones with which he plows it is possible, by Torah law, to cover the blood of a bird when they are crushed through a deviation

! And we answer: What are we dealing with here? With one who plows

in hard rock [סלע],

in a rocky field, whose rocks cannot be crushed, and they are not fit for covering the blood.

And we wonder: Is a field

of hard rock fit for sowing,

so that it would be possible to make one liable for plowing it on account of sowing diverse kinds?

And we answer: What are we dealing with here? That in this field there are

hard-rock

rocks

above, and loose soil below,

beneath the hard rock; and he scattered pits and seeds in the field, and through his plowing he turns the seeds and the pits into the soil, and he is liable on account of sowing diverse kinds and on account of sowing on Yom Tov.

The Gemara wonders: If so, the difficulty returns to its place: Why should we make him liable for this plowing on account of sowing on Yom Tov?

And

if we say “since”—

let it follow for him,

take it out and exempt him for the plowing, since if he should need soil for covering the blood, it turns out to be plowing needed for the matter of food for a person,

because

he needs the

soil

the

loose

that he plows for covering the blood.

Rather, Mar bar Rav Ashi said:

What are we dealing with here?

With clay [שהעפר הוא טיט לח ובלול] [where the soil is moist, mixed mud],

which is not fit for covering the blood.

And again we object:

And

is

clay fit for sowing?

And we answer: Rather,

with moist earth

we are dealing.

With moist soil, fit for sowing. But it is impossible to make soil from it, since when it is crushed, its grains adhere and clump together. Therefore it is not fit for covering.

Abaye raised an objection

to Rabba: We learned:

One who cooks the sciatic sinew in milk on Yom Tov, and

afterward

eats it—

he is flogged five times

lashes.

A.

He is flogged on account of

that he

cooks the sinew on Yom Tov,

and he transgressed “You shall not perform any labor,” for it was not permitted on account of “food for a person,” since the sciatic sinew is not fit for eating because of its prohibition.

B.

And he is flogged on account of

that he

eats the sinew

of the sciatic sinew.

C.

And he is flogged on account of cooking meat in milk,

for he transgressed “You shall not cook a kid in the milk of its mother.”

D.

And he is flogged on account of eating meat in milk.

E.

And he is flogged on account of kindling

on Yom Tov, for kindling wood for the sake of the cooking.

Abaye concluded his difficulty:

And if we say

“since” \-

for the kindling he should not be liable!?

For although at the time he kindled he had no need of food for a person in this kindling, nevertheless it should be considered a need of food for a person

since it is fit for him,

this kindling

for his need,

if he should need to cook another permitted food with it.

Rabba said to him

Rabba:

Take out [הוצא]

from these five prohibitions

kindling,

and do not read it in the Mishna.

And bring in [והכנס]

in its place the prohibition of eating an animal carcass. For the case is one who cooks

the sciatic sinew of an animal carcass

on Yom Tov, and eats it.

And Abaye again challenged him:

But Rabbi Hiyya taught

concerning that Mishna:

These five sets of lashes that were taught with regard to this eating—

two are flogged

of them

for its eating.

And they are: eating the sinew, and eating meat in milk.

And three

of them they are flogged

for its cooking.

And they are: cooking meat in milk, cooking on Yom Tov, and kindling on Yom Tov.

And if it is so

as you say, that kindling is removed and the prohibition of eating an animal carcass comes in its place, then there are not three sets of lashes for its cooking.

Rather, they are flogged

three for its eating—

Rabbi Hiyya ought to have needed

to say.

Rabba said to him:

Rather, take out

remove from the list the labor of

kindling, and bring in

in its place the prohibition of using

wood that is muktze,

for he kindled the fire with wood that had not been prepared for this from the eve of Yom Tov, which is forbidden for use on account of muktze.

And using muktze is forbidden on Yom Tov even for a need of food for a person.

Abaye said to him:

And

is the prohibition of using

muktze—

a prohibition

of Torah law,

for which one is flogged?

He said to him

Rabba:

Yes!

Indeed, it is a prohibition of Torah law.

Because

it is written

with regard to the manna:

“And it shall be on the sixth day—

and they shall prepare what they bring.”

For they must designate before the day all the needs of Shabbat, and say: This thing is for the need of Shabbat!

And this verse did not come to say that they should not engage in preparing food on Shabbat itself, since it was already written previously, “What they baked, bake, and what they cooked, cook.”

And necessarily, it comes to say that everything that is not designated before the day is forbidden to use on Shabbat.

And one is flogged for the prohibition of using muktze, because it is also included in the warning of a prohibition.

And its warning is from here:

for it is written

“You shall not perform any labor”!

For if he uses it on Shabbat without having designated it on the eve of Shabbat, he is designating it on Shabbat for use. And the designation is considered a labor, since the Merciful One calls it “preparation.”

Abaye said

to Rabba:

But you are the one who said: I asked [שאלתי]

[I asked]

from Rav Hisda. —

And some say: I asked from Rav Huna:

One who

[from the meadow, from a grazing place? It is considered set-aside property, since it was not prepared for use, as it does not enter a settled area for many days],

and slaughtered it as the daily offering on Yom Tov,

in the Temple courtyard for the sake of the daily offering—what is its law? Is it fit for sacrifice, or not?

And you [רבה]

[Rabba]

said to us concerning it:

it is fit, since it is written concerning the daily offering:

“One sheep from the flock, from two hundred from the watered places of Israel, for a meal-offering, for a burnt-offering and for peace-offerings, to atone for them, says the Lord God.”

And we expound from this verse:

“A sheep”—

and not a firstborn

of a pure animal. For the firstborn is sacrificed only under the designation of firstborn, and not for the sake of another offering. For “a sheep” implies something fit to be either male or female, whereas a firstborn is only male.

“One”—

and not an animal tithe

offering. But an animal-tithe offering is not fit for him to designate it as another offering.

And this is the meaning of the verse: “One”—an animal that comes alone, in and of itself, is fit to be a daily offering; to exclude an animal-tithe offering, which does not come on its own account, in and of itself, but comes as part of ten animals.

“From the flock”—

and not

all the flock. To exclude

a palges.

For every kind of flock up to the age of one year is called a “lamb.” And a “ram” is two years old. And after a full month has passed from its second year, it is already called a “ram,” for one month in a year is considered a year. And the palges is still within the thirteenth month. It has left the category of lamb, but has not yet entered the category of ram. And the Torah made fit for an offering only a lamb or a ram.