פסחים 47 — Soncino English Talmud

¹is eaten on the ninth, the tenth, or the eleventh [day], neither earlier nor later. How so? Normally it is eaten on the ninth [day]: it is baked on the eve of the Sabbath [and] eaten on the Sabbath [of the following week], [which is] on the ninth. If a Festival occurred on the eve of the Sabbath, it is eaten on the Sabbath, on the tenth. [If] the two Festival days of New Year [occurred before the Sabbath], it is eaten on the Sabbath on the eleventh day, because it [the baking of the shewbread] does not override either the Sabbath or the Festival. Now if you say [that] the requirements of the Sabbath may be prepared on a Festival, why does it not override the Festival? — Said he to him, A near shebuth they permitted; a distant shebuth they did not permit. Then according to R. Simeon b. Gamaliel, who said on the authority of R. Simeon the son of the Segan: It overrides the Festival, but it does not override the fast-day, what is to be said? — They differ in this: one Master holds, They permitted a near shebuth, [but] a distant shebuth they did not permit; while the other Master holds: a distant shebuth too they permitted. R. Mari raised an objection: The two loaves are eaten neither less than two [days after baking] nor more than three [days after baking]. How so? They were baked on the eve of the Festival [and] eaten on the Festival, [i.e.,] on the second [day]. If the Festival fell after the Sabbath, they are eaten on the Festival, on the third [day], because it [the baking] does not override either the Sabbath or the Festival. But if you say [that] the requirements of the Sabbath may be prepared on the Festival, seeing that [those] of the Sabbath are permitted on the Festival, is there a question about [those] of the Festival on the Festival! There it is different, because Scripture saith, [Save that which every man must eat, that only may be done] for you: ‘for you’, but not for the Most High. Then according to R. Simeon b. Gamaliel who said on the authority of R. Simeon the son of the Segan: It overrides the Festival, what is there to be said? — He holds as Abba Saul, who interpreted: ‘for you’, but not for Gentiles. R. Hisda sent to Rabbah by the hand of R. Aha son of R. Huna: But do we say ‘since’? Surely we learned: One may plough one furrow, and be culpable for it on account of eight negative injunctions. [Thus:] he who ploughs with an ox and an ass [together], which are sacred, [and the furrow consists of] kil'ayim in a vineyard,^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ

^ᵃnote:After it is baked. The shewbread was generally baked on Friday, placed on the Table in the Temple on the Sabbath, and removed the following Sabbath and eaten; when it was removed it was replaced by fresh bread.
^ᵇnote:Lit., ‘less’ . . . ‘more’.
^ᶜnote:For it would have to be baked on Thursday.
^ᵈnote:Even in Palestine, where all festivals were kept one day only, in accordance with Scripture, New Year was sometimes kept two days v. R.H. 30b.
^ᵉnote:Since baking on a Festival for the Sabbath (without an ‘erub) is thus but a Rabbinical prohibition (a shebuth; v. Glos.) and as since does not apply to the Temple.
^ᶠnote:I.e., they permitted the abrogation of the shebuth in the Temple when it was shortly required, viz., for that same Sabbath, but not when it would only be required a week later.
^ᵍnote:V. supra 14a, p. 62, n. 1.
^ʰnote:Sc. the baking of the shewbread. The Fast-day is the Day of Atonement.
^ⁱnote:Why may it not be baked on the Festival? Tosaf.: On my view, says Rabbah, there is no difficulty, as I maintain that this is precisely the point of the controversy: the first Tanna holds that the requirements of the Sabbath may not be prepared on a Festival, while R. Simeon b. Gamaliel holds that they may be prepared. But on your view that the first Tanna too holds that the requirements of the Sabbath may be prepared on a Festival, but that here it is forbidden as a distant shebuth, R. Simeon b. Gamaliel should merely state that even a distant Shebuth is permitted.
^ʲnote:And that is what R. Simeon b. Gamaliel really means.
^ᵏnote:Which were brought on Pentecost, v. Lev. XXIII, 17.
^ˡnote:The figures are inclusive of the day on which they were baked.
^ᵐnote:I.e., on Sunday, so that they would be baked on the previous Friday.
^ⁿnote:Hence they could not be baked on the Festival itself and eaten on the same day.
^ᵒnote:Ex. XII, 16.
^ᵖnote:The two loaves, as well as the shewbread, are sacred, and regarded as being ‘for the Most High’.
^ᵠnote:Lit., ‘strangers’, v. Bez 20b.

²and it is the seventh year, on a Festival, [and he is] a priest and a nazirite, [while this furrow is] in unclean ground. Now if we say ‘since’, let him not be liable for ploughing [on the Festival], since it is fit for covering the blood of a bird? — Said R. Papa b. Samuel: The reference is to smooth, round stones. [But] they are fit for crushing? — Is then crushing permitted on the Festival? But they are fit for crushing in an unusual manner? — The reference is to rocky ground. Is then rocky ground capable of being sown? — It is rocky ground above, but powdered [loose] earth beneath. Then deduce it [that he is not culpable] because of the loose earth? But said Mar the soil of R. Ashi: The reference is to clayey earth. And is clayey earth capable of being sown? — It refers to swampy earth. Abaye raised an objection against him: He who cooks the thigh sinew on a Festival and eats it is flagellated five times. He is flagellated on account of cooking the sinew on a Festival; he is flagellated on account of eating the sinew; he is flagellated for cooking meat in milk; he is flagellated for eating meat [cooked] in milk; and he is flagellated on account of lighting [a fire]. But if we say, ‘since’, let him not be liable on account of lighting, since it is fit for him for his [legitimate] needs? — Said he to him, Omit lighting and substitute the thigh sinew of a nebelah. But R. Hiyya taught: He is flagellated twice for his eating and thrice for his cooking; now if this is correct, he should say, thrice for his eating? — Rather, omit lighting and substitute the wood of mukzeh. And is mukzeh a Scriptural [interdict]? — Yes, he replied, for it is written, And it shall come to pass on the sixth day that they shall prepare that which they bring in; and its ‘warning’ [injunction] is [learnt] from here, [viz.,] from, thou shalt not do any manner of work. Said he to him, But it was you who said,I asked of R. Hisda, — others state, I asked of R. Huna: What if he brought a lamb from the meadow and slaughtered it as a continual burnt-offering on a Festival? And you said to us: He answered me, [It is written], And a lamb, [implying], but not a firstling; one, but not the tithe; of the flock, this is to exclude a palges;27^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ^ᵃᵠ^ᵃʳ

^ʳnote:V. Mak., Sonc. ed. p. 149, n. 1-9.
^ˢnote:When a bird is slaughtered its blood must be covered, v. Lev. XVII, 13. This ploughing crushes the earth and makes it fit for that purpose, and since a bird might be slaughtered on the Festival, that too would be necessary.
^ᵗnote:The ploughing breaks up the earth into smooth, round lumps; these are not fit for covering the blood, for which crushed, dust-like earth is required. Rashi, however, merely reads: stones; v. Tosaf. s.v. ,ukzruen ohbctc.
^ᵘnote:And then be used for covering the blood.
^ᵛnote:Surely not.
^ʷnote:Lit., ‘as with the back of the hand’. Such a crushing is not Scripturally forbidden but merely as a Shebuth (v. Glos.). That being so, flagellation, which is administered for the violation of a Scriptural prohibition, should not be incurred.
^ˣnote:Harder than ordinary stones; this cannot be crushed.
^ʸnote:This makes his action non-punishable.
^ᶻnote:With which blood may not be covered.
^ᵃᵃnote:Which is fit for sowing, yet cannot be crushed into dust for covering blood.
^ᵃᵇnote:Against Rabbah.
^ᵃᶜnote:Which may not be eaten, v. Gen. XXXII, 32.
^ᵃᵈnote:Which is a forbidden labour, since it is not the preparation of food which may be eaten.
^ᵃᵉnote:These are two separate offences.
^ᵃᶠnote:Which is likewise prohibited on a Festival, save when required for cooking permitted food, v. Bez. 12a.
^ᵃᵍnote:I.e., it was the thigh sinew of a nebelah, and he is flagellated for eating nebelah.
^ᵃʰnote:Sc. the proposed emendation.
^ᵃⁱnote:v. Glos. this may not be handled on Festivals. — He is thus flagellated not for lighting but for putting it to use.
^ᵃʲnote:Ex. XVI, 5. This teaches that only what is ‘prepared’, as opposed to mukzeh, may be handled on Sabbaths and Festivals.
^ᵃᵏnote:Ex. XX, 10. Flagellation is administered only for the violation of a negative injunction, not an affirmative precept. The first verse quoted belongs to the latter category, hence the second verse must be added. Thus, since the use of mukzeh is forbidden by the first verse, making a fire with it is all ordinary labour forbidden by the second. — Though the second verse refers to the Sabbath, whereas we are here treating of the Festival, these two are alike in respect to work, save that the preparation of food is permitted on Festivals, but not on the Sabbath. Once however it is shown that a particular action is forbidden, it does not matter whether it is the Sabbath or a Festival.
^ᵃˡnote:Outside the town. Animals that graze there are brought home (i.e., into town) only’ at intervals, not every evening, and therefore they are mukzeh, and may not be slaughtered on Festivals unless designated for that purpose on the eve of the Festivals.
^ᵃᵐnote:V. Num. XXVIII, 3.
^ᵃⁿnote:May it be offered?
^ᵃᵒnote:Ezek. XLV, 15, whence the whole verse which follows is quoted.
^ᵃᵖnote:A ‘lamb’ implies both male and female, whereas a firstling applies only to males.
^ᵃᵠnote:I.e., the tithe of animals cannot be dedicated for a daily burnt-offering. ‘One’ implies that it stands by itself, whereas the tithe is one out of ten.
^ᵃʳnote:A sheep beyond the age of acf (lamb) and below that of kht (ram). — Jast.; i.e., a sheep in it thirteenth month. ‘Of’ is partitive and implies limitation.