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.

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.

The Gemara asks: Aren’t 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.

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.

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.

Abaye raised an objection to Rabba’s 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.

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.

Abaye responded: Didn’t Rabbi Ḥiyya 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 Ḥiyya 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.

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.

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: “And it shall come to pass on the sixth day that they shall prepare that which they bring in” (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: “You shall not perform any labor” (Exodus 20:10). This general statement pertaining to Shabbat includes utilizing objects that were not set aside for use before Shabbat.

Abaye said to him: Wasn’t it you who said: I raised a dilemma before Rav Ḥisda, 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?

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: “And one lamb of the flock, out of two hundred, from the well-watered pastures of Israel” (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.

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.

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.