Pesachim 47b (מז:) — the Talmud in English

5.

And if

this plowing had taken place during the year of

Shemitta.

By plowing in order to cover the seeds, he violates a prohibition that is a derivative of sowing. And he is also flogged for the prohibition, “You shall not sow your field.” Thus, there are five prohibitions here.

6. And if he performed this plowing

on a Festival,

he is also flogged for the prohibition, “You shall not perform any labor.” Thus, there are six prohibitions here.

7. And the person performing the plowing is

a kohen. And

he is also a

nazirite.

And he performed this plowing

on account of a father of impurity

[in a cemetery], and he is flogged for the prohibition, “He shall not defile himself for a dead person,” which is stated with regard to kohanim. Thus, there are seven prohibitions here.

8. And he is likewise flogged for the prohibition, “He shall not come upon a dead person,” which is stated with regard to a nazirite. Thus, there are eight prohibitions here. It follows that for one act of plowing he becomes liable to eight sets of lashes.

Rav Ḥisda concluded his difficulty:

And if we say

in accordance with Rabba, that even if at present he has no need for the labor, it is nevertheless considered a need

since

he may come to have a need for it later—

for plowing

on a Festival

he should not be liable!

For if many birds happen to come to him, and he wishes to slaughter them on the Festival in order to eat them, he will need this earth that was displaced by the plowing, in order to fulfill with it the mitzva of covering the blood. If so, he should not be liable for the plowing

since it is suitable

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 composed of

pebbles,

which do not crumble into earth through plowing and are not suitable for covering the blood.

And we challenge this: Are they not

suitable

—these stones—for covering the blood? For he can

crush them

and turn them into earth.

And we answer:

But

is

crushing on a Festival permitted?

Is it not a derivative of grinding?

And we challenge this: They are

suitable to be crushed in an unusual manner,

through a change in the normal procedure. In such a manner, the labor is prohibited by Torah law only as a rabbinic prohibition. It follows that when one plows among pebbles, he should not be liable to lashes for the plowing, since with these stones among which he plows it is possible, on a Torah level, to cover the blood of a bird, by crushing them in an unusual manner!?

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

rock

[a cliff], in a rocky field whose rocks cannot be crushed and are not suitable for covering the blood.

And we wonder: Is a field of

rock suitable for sowing

that it would be appropriate to make him liable for plowing it on account of sowing mixed species?

And we answer: What are we dealing with here? With a field in which there are

rocks

on the surface,

and loose earth beneath,

under the rocks. He scattered kernels and seeds in the field, and through his plowing he turns the seeds and kernels into the soil, becoming liable both for sowing mixed species and for sowing on a Festival.

The Gemara asks: If so, the difficulty returns to its place: Why should he be liable for this plowing on account of sowing on a Festival?

And

if we say, “Since”—

let it follow

that he should be exempt from liability for the plowing, since if he should need earth for covering the blood, this would be plowing required for the purpose of food preparation,

because

he needs the

earth

that is

loose

and that he plows, for covering the blood.

Rather, Mar bar Rav Ashi said:

What are we dealing with here?

With clay

[where the earth is wet and well mixed], which is not suitable for covering the blood.

And we challenge this again:

But

is

clay suitable for sowing?

And we answer: Rather,

with moist soil

we are dealing.

With moist soil that is suitable for sowing. But it is impossible to turn it into earth suitable for covering the blood, since when it is crushed its grains adhere and clump together. Therefore, it is not suitable for covering the blood.

Abaye raised an objection

to Rabba: We learned

one who cooks the sciatic nerve on a Festival, and

afterward

eats it—

he is flogged five times

for five sets of lashes.

a. He

is flogged for

he

cooking the sciatic nerve on a Festival,

for he violated “You shall not perform any labor,” since it was not permitted on account of “food preparation.” The sciatic nerve is not fit for eating because of its prohibition.

b. He

is flogged for

he

eating the sciatic nerve

.

c. He

is flogged for cooking meat with milk,

as he violated, “You shall not cook a kid in its mother’s milk.”

d. He

is flogged for eating meat with milk.

e. He

is flogged for kindling

on a Festival, for the wood that he kindled for the purpose of cooking.

Abaye concluded his difficulty:

And if we say

“since” -

he should not be liable for kindling!?

For although at the time he kindled the fire he had no food-preparation need for this kindling, nevertheless it should be considered a food-preparation need

since this kindling is suitable for him

for

his needs,

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

He said to him,

Rabba:

Remove

[take out] from these five prohibitions

kindling,

and do not include it in the Mishna.

And insert

[put in] in its place the prohibition of eating an animal carcass. The case is one who cooks

the sciatic nerve of an animal carcass

on a Festival and eats it.

Abaye challenged him again:

But Rabbi Ḥiyya taught

with regard to that Mishna:

Of these five sets of lashes that were enumerated for this eating,

two are flogged

for

eating it.

They are: eating the sciatic nerve and eating meat with milk.

And three

of them are flogged

for cooking it.

They are: cooking meat with milk, cooking on a Festival, and kindling on a Festival.

And if it is so

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

Rather, he is flogged

three times for eating it—

it would have been necessary

for Rabbi Ḥiyya to say.

Rabba said to him:

Rather, remove

from the list the labor of

kindling, and insert

in its place the prohibition of using

muktze wood,

as he kindled the fire with wood that had not been prepared for use before the Festival, and whose use is prohibited because it is muktze.

And using muktze is prohibited on a Festival even for the purpose of food preparation.

Abaye said to him:

But

the prohibition of using

muktze—

is the prohibition

of Torah origin,

for which one is flogged?

He said to him,

Rabba:

Yes!

Indeed, it is a prohibition of Torah origin.

Because

it is written

with regard to the manna:

“And it shall be on the sixth day

that they shall prepare what they bring.”

They must set aside all the needs of Shabbat during the day before, saying: This item is for the needs of Shabbat!

This verse does not come to say that one may not engage in the preparation of food on Shabbat itself, for it is already written beforehand, “That which they bake, bake; and that which they cook, cook.”

Necessarily, it comes to say that anything that was not prepared during the preceding day may not be used 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 derived from here:

as

it is written, “You shall not perform any labor”!

For if he uses it on Shabbat without having set it aside before Shabbat, he is preparing it on Shabbat for use. And preparation is considered a labor, since the Merciful One calls it “preparation.”

Abaye said to him,

to Rabba:

But you are the one who said: “I asked”

[I inquired]

of Rav Ḥisda—

and some say, I asked Rav Huna:

One who

brought a lamb from the pasture

[from the meadow, from the grazing place; it is muktze, since it was not prepared for use because it had not entered an inhabited area for many days],

and regularly slaughtered it on a Festival, what

is its status, when he slaughtered it in the Temple courtyard for the sake of the daily offering? Is it fit to be sacrificed or not?

And

[Rabba]

you told us concerning it: It is fit, since it is written with regard to the daily offering:

“One lamb from the flock, from the two hundred of the drink offerings of Israel, for a meal offering, for a burnt offering, and for peace offerings, to make atonement for them, says the Lord God.”

And we derive the following from this verse:

“A lamb”—

but not a firstborn

animal. For a firstborn may be sacrificed only as a firstborn, and not as another offering. The term “lamb” indicates something that can be either male or female, whereas a firstborn is only male.

“One”—

but not an animal tithe

offering. An animal-tithe offering is not fit to be consecrated as another offering.

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

“From the flock”—

but not

all of the flock. This serves to exclude

“a palges”.

Every member of the sheep species up to the age of one year is called a “lamb,” while a “ram” is two years old. Once a full month has passed in its second year, it is already called a “ram,” since one month of a year is considered a year. A palges is still within the thirteenth month: it has left the category of a lamb but has not yet entered the category of a ram. The Torah rendered fit for an offering only a lamb or a ram.

Every member of the flock until the age of one year is called a lamb, and a ram is an animal in its second year. Once a full month of its second year has passed, it is already called a ram, since one month of a year is considered a year. A palges is still within its thirteenth month: it has left the category of lamb but has not yet entered the category of ram. The Torah made fit for an offering only a lamb or a ram.