Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

January 7, 2021 | 讻状讙 讘讟讘转 转砖驻状讗

Masechet Pesachim is sponsored by Sivya Twersky in honor of her daughter, Shoshana Baker, her grandson's upcoming Bar Mitzvah ,and in memory of her father, Harav Pesach Zachariah Halevi ben Reuven and Leah Z'late Z'L. He lived Torah and emunah by example to congregational and biological families. His yahrzeit falls within this masechet.

Pesachim 47

Today’s daf is sponsored by Dena Levie in honor of Hadran “who make learning a daf a day so enjoyable and attainable. Thank you to Shulie Mishkin who always writes an interesting article delving into the history behind the Daf.” And by Bethia Straus in memory of her father, Joseph Samuel Straus, Yosef Shmuel ben Binyamin z”l, on his yahrzeit. “My father dedicated his life to founding and supporting organizations that are dedicated to limud Torah both in Israel and in the United States. He would be delighted that I am learning the daf in concert with so many other women.” And by Ronnie Sichel in honor of Rochel Cheifetz “who inspired me to join them in learning Daf Yomi with Hadran.”

The gemara brings several questions against Rav Chisda – is one permitted to bake/cook from Yom Tov to Shabbat on a Torah level – if so, why did one not be able to bake the showbread on Yom Tov that falls on erev Shabbat or the two breads that one makes on Shavuot? The gemara questions Raba from other sources that have cases where one does one act (or two) and can be liable for receiving multiple sets of lashes. On each list, there is an item that can be removed from the list based on laws of “ho’il,” like plowing on Yom Tov, since it can be used for covering the blood, or making a fire to cook something forbidden to eat, since it can be used for cooking something permitted. Rava brings answers which are also questioned.

谞讗讻诇 诇转砖注讛 诇注砖专讛 讜诇讗讞讚 注砖专 诇讗 驻讞讜转 讜诇讗 讬讜转专 讻讬爪讚 讻讚专讻讜 诇转砖注讛 谞讗驻讛 讘注专讘 砖讘转 谞讗讻诇 讘砖讘转 诇转砖注讛 讞诇 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诇讛讬讜转 讘注专讘 砖讘转 谞讗讻诇 诇砖讘转 诇注砖专讛 砖谞讬 讬诪讬诐 讟讜讘讬诐 砖诇 专讗砖 讛砖谞讛 谞讗讻诇 诇砖讘转 诇讗讞讚 注砖专 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谞讜 讚讜讞讛 诇讗 讗转 讛砖讘转 讜诇讗 讗转 讛讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 爪讜专讻讬 砖讘转 谞注砖讬谉 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讗诪讗讬 诇讗 讚讞讬 讬讜诐 讟讜讘


may be eaten on the ninth, tenth, or eleventh days from when it is baked, no less and no more. How so? In its usual manner it is eaten on the ninth day after it was baked, as it is baked on Shabbat eve and it is eaten on the next Shabbat, on the ninth day from when it was baked. If a Festival occurs on Shabbat eve, the shewbread is not baked on the Festival day but rather on Thursday, the eve of the Festival. Consequently, it is eaten on Shabbat of the next week, on the tenth day from when it was baked. If the two Festival days of Rosh HaShana preceded Shabbat, the shewbread is baked on Wednesday, Rosh HaShana eve, and it is eaten on the next Shabbat, on the eleventh day from when it was baked, because baking the shewbread does not override Shabbat or a Festival. Rabba asks: If you say that whatever one needs for Shabbat may be done on a Festival, why doesn鈥檛 the baking of this bread override the Festival? Since the shewbread is eaten on Shabbat, it should be considered food that one is permitted to prepare during the Festival.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖讘讜转 拽专讜讘讛 讛转讬专讜 砖讘讜转 专讞讜拽讛 诇讗 讛转讬专讜


Rav 岣sda said to him: They permitted one to override the rabbinic decree in the Temple only with regard to baking on a Festival for the proximate Shabbat, i.e., Shabbat that immediately follows the Festival. However, they did not permit one to override the rabbinic decree to prepare for a distant Shabbat, namely Shabbat of the next week.


讜诇专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讚讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讛住讙谉 讚讜讞讛 讗转 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讜讗讬谞讜 讚讜讞讛 讗转 讬讜诐 爪讜诐 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专


The Gemara asks: And according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, who said in the name of Rabbi Shimon, son of the deputy High Priest, that the baking of the shewbread overrides a Festival but does not override the fast day of Yom Kippur, what can be said? Apparently, the issue is the subject of a tannaitic dispute between Rabbi Shimon, son of the deputy High Priest, who contends that it is permissible to prepare the shewbread during a Festival, and the Rabbis, who prohibit it.


讘讛讗 驻诇讬讙讬 诪专 住讘专 砖讘讜转 拽专讜讘讛 讛转讬专讜 砖讘讜转 专讞讜拽讛 诇讗 讛转讬专讜 讜诪专 住讘专 砖讘讜转 专讞讜拽讛 谞诪讬 讛转讬专讜


The Gemara explains that they do not dispute the basic principle. Rather, this is the point over which they disagree: One Sage, i.e., the Rabbis, holds that they permitted one to override the rabbinic decree only to prepare for the proximate Shabbat, but they did not permit one to override the rabbinic decree to prepare for a distant Shabbat. Therefore, the baking of the shewbread does not override the Festival. And one Sage, Rabbi Shimon, holds that they also permitted one to override the rabbinic decree in order to prepare for a distant Shabbat.


诪转讬讘 专讘 诪专讬 砖转讬 讛诇讞诐 讗讬谞谉 谞讗讻诇讜转 诇讗 驻讞讜转 诪砖谞讬诐 讜诇讗 讬讜转专 注诇 砖诇砖讛 讻讬爪讚 谞讗驻讜转 注专讘 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 谞讗讻诇讜转 诇讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诇砖谞讬诐 讞诇 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诇讛讬讜转 讗讞专 讛砖讘转 谞讗讻诇讜转 诇讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诇砖诇砖讛 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谞讛 讚讜讞讛 诇讗 讗转 讛砖讘转 讜诇讗 讗转 讛讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 爪讜专讻讬 砖讘转 谞注砖讬谉 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讛砖转讗 讚砖讘转 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 砖专讬 讚讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诪讬讘注讬讗


Rav Mari raised an objection: The two loaves of bread that are brought as a communal offering on Shavuot are eaten by the priests no sooner than the second day and no later than the third day from when they are baked. How so? They are generally baked on the eve of the Festival and eaten on the Festival, the second day from their baking. If the Festival occurs after Shabbat, they are baked on Friday and they are eaten on the third day from the baking, because the baking of the two loaves does not override Shabbat or the Festival. Rav Mari asks: If you say that whatever one needs for Shabbat may be done on a Festival, now that it is permitted to engage in the necessary preparations for Shabbat on a Festival, is it necessary to mention that it is permitted to bake for the Festival itself on the Festival? As such, why doesn鈥檛 the baking of the two loaves override the Festival?


砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 诇讻诐 诇讻诐 讜诇讗 诇讙讘讜讛


The Gemara answers: It is different there, in the case of the two loaves, as the verse says: 鈥淣o kind of labor shall be done on them, save that which every man must eat, that only may be done for you鈥 (Exodus 12:16). This indicates that it is permitted to cook and bake only 鈥渇or you,鈥 i.e., for human consumption, and not for the One above, namely for the Temple service.


讜诇专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讚讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讛住讙谉 讚讜讞讛 讗转 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 住讘专 诇讛 讻讗讘讗 砖讗讜诇 讚讗诪专 诇讻诐 诇讻诐 讜诇讗 诇讙讜讬诐


The Gemara asks: And according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, who said in the name of Rabbi Shimon, son of the deputy High Priest, that baking the shewbread overrides the Festival, what can be said? How does he understand the term: For you? The Gemara answers: He holds in accordance with the opinion of Abba Shaul, who said that this verse should be understood in the following manner: Cooking and baking are permitted for you, and not for gentiles; for the sake of the Temple service, however, they are permitted.


砖诇讞 诇讬讛 专讘 讞住讚讗 诇专讘讛 讘讬讚 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讛讗 转谞谉 讬砖 讞讜专砖 转诇诐 讗讞讚 讜讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讛 诪砖讜诐 砖诪讜谞讛 诇讗讜讬谉 讛讞讜专砖 讘砖讜专 讜讞诪讜专 讜讛谉 诪讜拽讚砖讬诐 讜讻诇讗讬诐 讘讻专诐


Rav 岣sda sent a question to Rabba with Rav A岣 bar Rav Huna: Do we say the principle: Since, etc.? Didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna: There is a case in which one plows one furrow and is liable for violating eight prohibitions with this single act? The mishna explains that this applies to one who plows with an ox and a donkey, thereby violating the prohibition: 鈥淵ou shall not plow with an ox and a donkey together鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:10), and they were consecrated, in which case plowing with them constitutes misuse of consecrated property. If his plowing aids the growth of food crops in a vineyard, he has transgressed a third prohibition.


讜砖讘讬注讬转 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讻讛谉 讜谞讝讬专 讗讘讬转 讛讟讜诪讗讛 讜讗讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讛讜讗讬诇 讗讞专讬砖讛 诇讗 诇讬讞讬讬讘 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讞讝讬 诇讻讬住讜讬 讚诐 爪讬驻讜专


And he is plowing during the Sabbatical year, when agricultural labor is prohibited, on a Festival. Additionally, the person plowing is a priest and a nazirite, and he is plowing a place of ritual impurity, i.e., a burial site. It is prohibited for a priest and a nazirite to become impure by walking over the burial spot of a corpse. Therefore, the one plowing commits two transgressions simply by traversing the field. And if we say the principle: Since, etc., he should not be liable for plowing on a Festival, since the dirt he loosens is fit for covering the blood of a bird. One who slaughters a bird or a non-domesticated animal is required by Torah law to cover the blood. Since it is possible that one will need to slaughter many such animals or birds and will not have enough dirt to cover their blood, his plowing may end up facilitating covering the blood. Therefore, it should not be considered a prohibited labor on the Festival.


讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讘专 砖诪讜讗诇 讘讗讘谞讬诐 诪拽讜专讝诇讜转


The Gemara answers that Rav Pappa bar Shmuel said: The case is one in which a person plowed sharp stones, i.e., clods of dirt that have hardened and are unfit to be used to cover blood.


专讗讜讬讜转 诇讻讜转砖谉 讜讻转讬砖讛 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诪讬 砖专讬 专讗讜讬讜转 诇讻讜转砖谉 讻诇讗讞专 讬讚 讘爪讜谞诪讗


The Gemara asks: Aren鈥檛 these clods of dirt fit to be crushed and used to cover blood? The Gemara responds: Is crushing permitted on a Festival? The Gemara counters: But they are fit to be crushed in an unusual manner, which is not prohibited by Torah law. The Gemara answers: The case is one in which a person plowed hard, rocky soil, which cannot be crushed.


爪讜谞诪讗 讘专 讝专讬注讛 爪讜谞诪讗 诪诇诪注诇讛 讜注驻专 转讬讞讜讞 诪诇诪讟讛 讜转讬驻讜拽 诇讬讛 诪砖讜诐 注驻专 转讬讞讜讞


The Gemara asks: Is hard soil fit for planting? The case under discussion is one in which a person was preparing the ground in order to plant food crops in a vineyard. The Gemara answers: In this case, there was hard soil above and fertile, loose soil underneath, into which seeds could be planted. The Gemara rejects this answer: Derive that the act of plowing would be permitted in that case due to the loose soil, which is suitable for covering blood.


讗诇讗 讗诪专 诪专 讘专 专讘 讗砖讬 讘讟讬谞讗 讜讟讬谞讗 讘专 讝专讬注讛 讛讜讗 讘诪转讜谞转讗


Rather, Mar bar Rav Ashi said: The case is one in which a person plowed mud, which is not fit for covering blood. The Gemara asks rhetorically: Is mud fit for planting? The Gemara answers: The case is one in which a person plowed moist earth, which is suitable for planting but which cannot be used to cover blood.


讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讛诪讘砖诇 讙讬讚 讛谞砖讛 讘讞诇讘 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讜讗讜讻诇讜 诇讜拽讛 讞诪砖 诇讜拽讛 诪砖讜诐 诪讘砖诇 讙讬讚 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讜诇讜拽讛 诪砖讜诐 讗讜讻诇 讙讬讚 讜诇讜拽讛 诪砖讜诐 诪讘砖诇 讘砖专 讘讞诇讘 讜诇讜拽讛 诪砖讜诐 讗讜讻诇 讘砖专 讘讞诇讘 讜诇讜拽讛 诪砖讜诐 讛讘注专讛 讜讗讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讛讜讗讬诇 讗讛讘注专讛 诇讗 诇讬讞讬讬讘 讛讜讗讬诇 讚讞讝讬 诇讬讛 诇爪专讻讜


Abaye raised an objection to Rabba鈥檚 acceptance of the principle: Since, etc. One who cooks the sciatic nerve in milk on a Festival and eats it is flogged for five distinct prohibitions. How so? He is flogged due to the prohibition of cooking the sciatic nerve on a Festival, which is prohibited because the sciatic nerve is unfit for consumption; and he is flogged due to the prohibition of eating the sciatic nerve, which is explicitly prohibited by the Torah; and he is flogged due to the prohibition of cooking meat in milk; and he is flogged due to the prohibition of eating meat cooked in milk; and lastly, he is flogged due to the prohibition of kindling a fire unnecessarily on a Festival. And if we say the principle: Since, etc., he should not be liable for kindling a fire unnecessarily, since the fire is fit for use in attending to his legitimate Festival needs, e.g., cooking permitted foods.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗驻讬拽 讛讘注专讛 讜注讬讬诇 讙讬讚 讛谞砖讛 砖诇 谞讘讬诇讛


Rabba said to him: Remove the prohibition of kindling a fire from this list and add the prohibition of eating a sciatic nerve from an animal carcass that was not properly slaughtered.


讜讛转谞讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 诇讜拽讬谉 砖转讬诐 注诇 讗讻讬诇转讜 讜砖诇砖 注诇 讘讬砖讜诇讜 讜讗讬 讗讬转讗 砖诇砖 注诇 讗讻讬诇转讜 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛


Abaye responded: Didn鈥檛 Rabbi 岣yya teach with regard to this mishna: He is flogged twice for his eating, as he violated the prohibitions of eating the sciatic nerve and eating meat cooked in milk, and three times for his cooking, as he violated the prohibitions of kindling a fire, cooking on a Festival, and cooking meat in milk? And if it is so, that the case is one in which the sciatic nerve was taken from an animal carcass, Rabbi 岣yya should have stated that he is flogged three times for his eating, as he violated the prohibitions of eating a sciatic nerve, eating meat cooked in milk, and eating an animal carcass.


讗诇讗 讗驻讬拽 讛讘注专讛 讜注讬讬诇 注爪讬 诪讜拽爪讛


Rather, Rabba said: Remove the prohibition of kindling a fire and add in its place the prohibition of using wood that has been set aside from use on the Festival.


讜诪讜拽爪讛 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讛讜讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谉 讚讻转讬讘 讜讛讬讛 讘讬讜诐 讛砖砖讬 讜讛讻讬谞讜 讗转 讗砖专 讬讘讬讗讜 讜讗讝讛专转讛 诪讛讻讗 诪诇讗 转注砖讛 讻诇 诪诇讗讻讛


The Gemara asks: Is the prohibition against utilizing set-aside material prohibited by Torah law, such that a person is flogged for violating this prohibition? He said to him: Yes, as it is written: 鈥淎nd it shall come to pass on the sixth day that they shall prepare that which they bring in鈥 (Exodus 16:5). This verse teaches that anything that has not been prepared before the Festival is considered to be set-aside, and it is prohibited to utilize it. This verse indicates that utilizing set-aside objects is prohibited; however, it does not formulate this prohibition as a negative commandment. Therefore, the Gemara adds that the warning indicating that it is a negative commandment is from here: 鈥淵ou shall not perform any labor鈥 (Exodus 20:10). This general statement pertaining to Shabbat includes utilizing objects that were not set aside for use before Shabbat.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜讛讗 讗转 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专转 讘注讗讬 诪讬谞讬讛 诪专讘 讞住讚讗 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 讘注讗讬 诪讬谞讬讛 诪专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛讘讬讗 砖讛 诪讗驻专 讜砖讞讟讜 转诪讬讚 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诪讛讜


Abaye said to him: Wasn鈥檛 it you who said: I raised a dilemma before Rav 岣sda, and some say the correct version is: I raised a dilemma before Rav Huna: If one brought a lamb from the meadow, and the lamb is therefore set-aside because it was not designated for use before the Festival, and he slaughtered it as the daily offering on a Festival, what is the halakha? Is it permissible to offer this sacrifice?


讜讗转 讗诪专转 诇谉 (讗诪专 诇讬) 注诇讛 砖讛 讜诇讗 讛讘讻讜专


And you said to us: He said to me about this issue that the answer can be derived from a verse in Ezekiel pertaining to communal offerings. The verse states: 鈥淎nd one lamb of the flock, out of two hundred, from the well-watered pastures of Israel鈥 (Ezekiel 45:15). This verse is expounded in the following manner: The word lamb is referring to either a male or female lamb, but not to a firstborn, as that status applies only to male sheep.


讗讞转 讜诇讗 诪注砖专


The word one indicates that a sacrifice may not be brought from the animal tithe. The lamb must be one that can stand alone. An animal designated as tithe is always part of a group, as it is the tenth animal to leave the pen; therefore, it cannot be offered as a communal offering.


诪谉 讛爪讗谉 讜诇讗 讛驻诇讙住


The expression: Of the flock indicates that only some animals of the flock may be offered, whereas one may not offer a palges, which is no longer a lamb but is not yet considered a ram.


Masechet Pesachim is sponsored by Sivya Twersky in honor of her daughter, Shoshana Baker, her grandson's upcoming Bar Mitzvah ,and in memory of her father, Harav Pesach Zachariah Halevi ben Reuven and Leah Z'late Z'L. He lived Torah and emunah by example to congregational and biological families. His yahrzeit falls within this masechet.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Pesachim 46-52 – Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time

This week we will learn about 鈥渄eaf dough鈥 and if you can separate Challah from your impure matzah dough. We...

Pesachim 47

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Pesachim 47

谞讗讻诇 诇转砖注讛 诇注砖专讛 讜诇讗讞讚 注砖专 诇讗 驻讞讜转 讜诇讗 讬讜转专 讻讬爪讚 讻讚专讻讜 诇转砖注讛 谞讗驻讛 讘注专讘 砖讘转 谞讗讻诇 讘砖讘转 诇转砖注讛 讞诇 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诇讛讬讜转 讘注专讘 砖讘转 谞讗讻诇 诇砖讘转 诇注砖专讛 砖谞讬 讬诪讬诐 讟讜讘讬诐 砖诇 专讗砖 讛砖谞讛 谞讗讻诇 诇砖讘转 诇讗讞讚 注砖专 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谞讜 讚讜讞讛 诇讗 讗转 讛砖讘转 讜诇讗 讗转 讛讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 爪讜专讻讬 砖讘转 谞注砖讬谉 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讗诪讗讬 诇讗 讚讞讬 讬讜诐 讟讜讘


may be eaten on the ninth, tenth, or eleventh days from when it is baked, no less and no more. How so? In its usual manner it is eaten on the ninth day after it was baked, as it is baked on Shabbat eve and it is eaten on the next Shabbat, on the ninth day from when it was baked. If a Festival occurs on Shabbat eve, the shewbread is not baked on the Festival day but rather on Thursday, the eve of the Festival. Consequently, it is eaten on Shabbat of the next week, on the tenth day from when it was baked. If the two Festival days of Rosh HaShana preceded Shabbat, the shewbread is baked on Wednesday, Rosh HaShana eve, and it is eaten on the next Shabbat, on the eleventh day from when it was baked, because baking the shewbread does not override Shabbat or a Festival. Rabba asks: If you say that whatever one needs for Shabbat may be done on a Festival, why doesn鈥檛 the baking of this bread override the Festival? Since the shewbread is eaten on Shabbat, it should be considered food that one is permitted to prepare during the Festival.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖讘讜转 拽专讜讘讛 讛转讬专讜 砖讘讜转 专讞讜拽讛 诇讗 讛转讬专讜


Rav 岣sda said to him: They permitted one to override the rabbinic decree in the Temple only with regard to baking on a Festival for the proximate Shabbat, i.e., Shabbat that immediately follows the Festival. However, they did not permit one to override the rabbinic decree to prepare for a distant Shabbat, namely Shabbat of the next week.


讜诇专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讚讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讛住讙谉 讚讜讞讛 讗转 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讜讗讬谞讜 讚讜讞讛 讗转 讬讜诐 爪讜诐 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专


The Gemara asks: And according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, who said in the name of Rabbi Shimon, son of the deputy High Priest, that the baking of the shewbread overrides a Festival but does not override the fast day of Yom Kippur, what can be said? Apparently, the issue is the subject of a tannaitic dispute between Rabbi Shimon, son of the deputy High Priest, who contends that it is permissible to prepare the shewbread during a Festival, and the Rabbis, who prohibit it.


讘讛讗 驻诇讬讙讬 诪专 住讘专 砖讘讜转 拽专讜讘讛 讛转讬专讜 砖讘讜转 专讞讜拽讛 诇讗 讛转讬专讜 讜诪专 住讘专 砖讘讜转 专讞讜拽讛 谞诪讬 讛转讬专讜


The Gemara explains that they do not dispute the basic principle. Rather, this is the point over which they disagree: One Sage, i.e., the Rabbis, holds that they permitted one to override the rabbinic decree only to prepare for the proximate Shabbat, but they did not permit one to override the rabbinic decree to prepare for a distant Shabbat. Therefore, the baking of the shewbread does not override the Festival. And one Sage, Rabbi Shimon, holds that they also permitted one to override the rabbinic decree in order to prepare for a distant Shabbat.


诪转讬讘 专讘 诪专讬 砖转讬 讛诇讞诐 讗讬谞谉 谞讗讻诇讜转 诇讗 驻讞讜转 诪砖谞讬诐 讜诇讗 讬讜转专 注诇 砖诇砖讛 讻讬爪讚 谞讗驻讜转 注专讘 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 谞讗讻诇讜转 诇讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诇砖谞讬诐 讞诇 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诇讛讬讜转 讗讞专 讛砖讘转 谞讗讻诇讜转 诇讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诇砖诇砖讛 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谞讛 讚讜讞讛 诇讗 讗转 讛砖讘转 讜诇讗 讗转 讛讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 爪讜专讻讬 砖讘转 谞注砖讬谉 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讛砖转讗 讚砖讘转 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 砖专讬 讚讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诪讬讘注讬讗


Rav Mari raised an objection: The two loaves of bread that are brought as a communal offering on Shavuot are eaten by the priests no sooner than the second day and no later than the third day from when they are baked. How so? They are generally baked on the eve of the Festival and eaten on the Festival, the second day from their baking. If the Festival occurs after Shabbat, they are baked on Friday and they are eaten on the third day from the baking, because the baking of the two loaves does not override Shabbat or the Festival. Rav Mari asks: If you say that whatever one needs for Shabbat may be done on a Festival, now that it is permitted to engage in the necessary preparations for Shabbat on a Festival, is it necessary to mention that it is permitted to bake for the Festival itself on the Festival? As such, why doesn鈥檛 the baking of the two loaves override the Festival?


砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 诇讻诐 诇讻诐 讜诇讗 诇讙讘讜讛


The Gemara answers: It is different there, in the case of the two loaves, as the verse says: 鈥淣o kind of labor shall be done on them, save that which every man must eat, that only may be done for you鈥 (Exodus 12:16). This indicates that it is permitted to cook and bake only 鈥渇or you,鈥 i.e., for human consumption, and not for the One above, namely for the Temple service.


讜诇专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讚讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讛住讙谉 讚讜讞讛 讗转 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 住讘专 诇讛 讻讗讘讗 砖讗讜诇 讚讗诪专 诇讻诐 诇讻诐 讜诇讗 诇讙讜讬诐


The Gemara asks: And according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, who said in the name of Rabbi Shimon, son of the deputy High Priest, that baking the shewbread overrides the Festival, what can be said? How does he understand the term: For you? The Gemara answers: He holds in accordance with the opinion of Abba Shaul, who said that this verse should be understood in the following manner: Cooking and baking are permitted for you, and not for gentiles; for the sake of the Temple service, however, they are permitted.


砖诇讞 诇讬讛 专讘 讞住讚讗 诇专讘讛 讘讬讚 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讛讗 转谞谉 讬砖 讞讜专砖 转诇诐 讗讞讚 讜讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讛 诪砖讜诐 砖诪讜谞讛 诇讗讜讬谉 讛讞讜专砖 讘砖讜专 讜讞诪讜专 讜讛谉 诪讜拽讚砖讬诐 讜讻诇讗讬诐 讘讻专诐


Rav 岣sda sent a question to Rabba with Rav A岣 bar Rav Huna: Do we say the principle: Since, etc.? Didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna: There is a case in which one plows one furrow and is liable for violating eight prohibitions with this single act? The mishna explains that this applies to one who plows with an ox and a donkey, thereby violating the prohibition: 鈥淵ou shall not plow with an ox and a donkey together鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:10), and they were consecrated, in which case plowing with them constitutes misuse of consecrated property. If his plowing aids the growth of food crops in a vineyard, he has transgressed a third prohibition.


讜砖讘讬注讬转 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讻讛谉 讜谞讝讬专 讗讘讬转 讛讟讜诪讗讛 讜讗讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讛讜讗讬诇 讗讞专讬砖讛 诇讗 诇讬讞讬讬讘 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讞讝讬 诇讻讬住讜讬 讚诐 爪讬驻讜专


And he is plowing during the Sabbatical year, when agricultural labor is prohibited, on a Festival. Additionally, the person plowing is a priest and a nazirite, and he is plowing a place of ritual impurity, i.e., a burial site. It is prohibited for a priest and a nazirite to become impure by walking over the burial spot of a corpse. Therefore, the one plowing commits two transgressions simply by traversing the field. And if we say the principle: Since, etc., he should not be liable for plowing on a Festival, since the dirt he loosens is fit for covering the blood of a bird. One who slaughters a bird or a non-domesticated animal is required by Torah law to cover the blood. Since it is possible that one will need to slaughter many such animals or birds and will not have enough dirt to cover their blood, his plowing may end up facilitating covering the blood. Therefore, it should not be considered a prohibited labor on the Festival.


讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讘专 砖诪讜讗诇 讘讗讘谞讬诐 诪拽讜专讝诇讜转


The Gemara answers that Rav Pappa bar Shmuel said: The case is one in which a person plowed sharp stones, i.e., clods of dirt that have hardened and are unfit to be used to cover blood.


专讗讜讬讜转 诇讻讜转砖谉 讜讻转讬砖讛 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诪讬 砖专讬 专讗讜讬讜转 诇讻讜转砖谉 讻诇讗讞专 讬讚 讘爪讜谞诪讗


The Gemara asks: Aren鈥檛 these clods of dirt fit to be crushed and used to cover blood? The Gemara responds: Is crushing permitted on a Festival? The Gemara counters: But they are fit to be crushed in an unusual manner, which is not prohibited by Torah law. The Gemara answers: The case is one in which a person plowed hard, rocky soil, which cannot be crushed.


爪讜谞诪讗 讘专 讝专讬注讛 爪讜谞诪讗 诪诇诪注诇讛 讜注驻专 转讬讞讜讞 诪诇诪讟讛 讜转讬驻讜拽 诇讬讛 诪砖讜诐 注驻专 转讬讞讜讞


The Gemara asks: Is hard soil fit for planting? The case under discussion is one in which a person was preparing the ground in order to plant food crops in a vineyard. The Gemara answers: In this case, there was hard soil above and fertile, loose soil underneath, into which seeds could be planted. The Gemara rejects this answer: Derive that the act of plowing would be permitted in that case due to the loose soil, which is suitable for covering blood.


讗诇讗 讗诪专 诪专 讘专 专讘 讗砖讬 讘讟讬谞讗 讜讟讬谞讗 讘专 讝专讬注讛 讛讜讗 讘诪转讜谞转讗


Rather, Mar bar Rav Ashi said: The case is one in which a person plowed mud, which is not fit for covering blood. The Gemara asks rhetorically: Is mud fit for planting? The Gemara answers: The case is one in which a person plowed moist earth, which is suitable for planting but which cannot be used to cover blood.


讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讛诪讘砖诇 讙讬讚 讛谞砖讛 讘讞诇讘 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讜讗讜讻诇讜 诇讜拽讛 讞诪砖 诇讜拽讛 诪砖讜诐 诪讘砖诇 讙讬讚 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讜诇讜拽讛 诪砖讜诐 讗讜讻诇 讙讬讚 讜诇讜拽讛 诪砖讜诐 诪讘砖诇 讘砖专 讘讞诇讘 讜诇讜拽讛 诪砖讜诐 讗讜讻诇 讘砖专 讘讞诇讘 讜诇讜拽讛 诪砖讜诐 讛讘注专讛 讜讗讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讛讜讗讬诇 讗讛讘注专讛 诇讗 诇讬讞讬讬讘 讛讜讗讬诇 讚讞讝讬 诇讬讛 诇爪专讻讜


Abaye raised an objection to Rabba鈥檚 acceptance of the principle: Since, etc. One who cooks the sciatic nerve in milk on a Festival and eats it is flogged for five distinct prohibitions. How so? He is flogged due to the prohibition of cooking the sciatic nerve on a Festival, which is prohibited because the sciatic nerve is unfit for consumption; and he is flogged due to the prohibition of eating the sciatic nerve, which is explicitly prohibited by the Torah; and he is flogged due to the prohibition of cooking meat in milk; and he is flogged due to the prohibition of eating meat cooked in milk; and lastly, he is flogged due to the prohibition of kindling a fire unnecessarily on a Festival. And if we say the principle: Since, etc., he should not be liable for kindling a fire unnecessarily, since the fire is fit for use in attending to his legitimate Festival needs, e.g., cooking permitted foods.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗驻讬拽 讛讘注专讛 讜注讬讬诇 讙讬讚 讛谞砖讛 砖诇 谞讘讬诇讛


Rabba said to him: Remove the prohibition of kindling a fire from this list and add the prohibition of eating a sciatic nerve from an animal carcass that was not properly slaughtered.


讜讛转谞讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 诇讜拽讬谉 砖转讬诐 注诇 讗讻讬诇转讜 讜砖诇砖 注诇 讘讬砖讜诇讜 讜讗讬 讗讬转讗 砖诇砖 注诇 讗讻讬诇转讜 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛


Abaye responded: Didn鈥檛 Rabbi 岣yya teach with regard to this mishna: He is flogged twice for his eating, as he violated the prohibitions of eating the sciatic nerve and eating meat cooked in milk, and three times for his cooking, as he violated the prohibitions of kindling a fire, cooking on a Festival, and cooking meat in milk? And if it is so, that the case is one in which the sciatic nerve was taken from an animal carcass, Rabbi 岣yya should have stated that he is flogged three times for his eating, as he violated the prohibitions of eating a sciatic nerve, eating meat cooked in milk, and eating an animal carcass.


讗诇讗 讗驻讬拽 讛讘注专讛 讜注讬讬诇 注爪讬 诪讜拽爪讛


Rather, Rabba said: Remove the prohibition of kindling a fire and add in its place the prohibition of using wood that has been set aside from use on the Festival.


讜诪讜拽爪讛 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讛讜讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谉 讚讻转讬讘 讜讛讬讛 讘讬讜诐 讛砖砖讬 讜讛讻讬谞讜 讗转 讗砖专 讬讘讬讗讜 讜讗讝讛专转讛 诪讛讻讗 诪诇讗 转注砖讛 讻诇 诪诇讗讻讛


The Gemara asks: Is the prohibition against utilizing set-aside material prohibited by Torah law, such that a person is flogged for violating this prohibition? He said to him: Yes, as it is written: 鈥淎nd it shall come to pass on the sixth day that they shall prepare that which they bring in鈥 (Exodus 16:5). This verse teaches that anything that has not been prepared before the Festival is considered to be set-aside, and it is prohibited to utilize it. This verse indicates that utilizing set-aside objects is prohibited; however, it does not formulate this prohibition as a negative commandment. Therefore, the Gemara adds that the warning indicating that it is a negative commandment is from here: 鈥淵ou shall not perform any labor鈥 (Exodus 20:10). This general statement pertaining to Shabbat includes utilizing objects that were not set aside for use before Shabbat.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜讛讗 讗转 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专转 讘注讗讬 诪讬谞讬讛 诪专讘 讞住讚讗 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 讘注讗讬 诪讬谞讬讛 诪专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛讘讬讗 砖讛 诪讗驻专 讜砖讞讟讜 转诪讬讚 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诪讛讜


Abaye said to him: Wasn鈥檛 it you who said: I raised a dilemma before Rav 岣sda, and some say the correct version is: I raised a dilemma before Rav Huna: If one brought a lamb from the meadow, and the lamb is therefore set-aside because it was not designated for use before the Festival, and he slaughtered it as the daily offering on a Festival, what is the halakha? Is it permissible to offer this sacrifice?


讜讗转 讗诪专转 诇谉 (讗诪专 诇讬) 注诇讛 砖讛 讜诇讗 讛讘讻讜专


And you said to us: He said to me about this issue that the answer can be derived from a verse in Ezekiel pertaining to communal offerings. The verse states: 鈥淎nd one lamb of the flock, out of two hundred, from the well-watered pastures of Israel鈥 (Ezekiel 45:15). This verse is expounded in the following manner: The word lamb is referring to either a male or female lamb, but not to a firstborn, as that status applies only to male sheep.


讗讞转 讜诇讗 诪注砖专


The word one indicates that a sacrifice may not be brought from the animal tithe. The lamb must be one that can stand alone. An animal designated as tithe is always part of a group, as it is the tenth animal to leave the pen; therefore, it cannot be offered as a communal offering.


诪谉 讛爪讗谉 讜诇讗 讛驻诇讙住


The expression: Of the flock indicates that only some animals of the flock may be offered, whereas one may not offer a palges, which is no longer a lamb but is not yet considered a ram.


Scroll To Top