Moed Katan 5

תולדות לא אסר רחמנא דכתיב (ויקרא כה, ד) ובשנה השביעית שבת שבתון יהיה לארץ שדך לא תזרע וגו'

but derivative<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Or secondary processes which are not unspecified.');">¹</span> operations it has not forbidden, for it is written: But in the seventh year shall be a sabbath solemn rest for the land. , thou shalt neither sow thy field nor prune thy vineyard. That which groweth of itself of thy harvest thou shalt not reap and the grapes of thy undressed vine thou shalt not gather.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXV, 4-5.');">²</span>

מכדי זמירה בכלל זריעה ובצירה בכלל קצירה למאי הלכתא כתבינהו רחמנא

Now, since pruning comes within the general process of sowing<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Or planting, as explained above by R. Kahana.');">³</span> and grape-gathering within the general process of reaping,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Shab. 73a.');">⁴</span> what law then did the All-Merciful desire to inculcate by inserting these [secondary processes] into the text?

למימרא דאהני תולדות מיחייב אאחרנייתא לא מיחייב

To indicate that only for these secondary processes [specified in the text] is one [to be] held liable<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To a judicial flogging.');">⁵</span> and for [any] other [secondary processes] one is not [to be] held liable.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., scripturally (even according to the Rabbis) though reprehensible rabbinically.');">⁶</span> Indeed not?

ולא והתניא שדך לא תזרע וכרמך לא תזמור אין לי אלא זירוע וזימור מנין לניכוש ולעידור ולכיסוח ת"ל שדך לא כרמך לא לא כל מלאכה שבשדך ולא כל מלאכה שבכרמך

Surely it has been taught: Thou shalt neither sow thy field nor prune thy vineyard,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The order of the Hebrew words in the text is: 'Thy field thou shalt not sow nor thy vineyard shalt thou etc.'');">⁷</span> that only forbids me sowing or pruning; whence is forbidden weeding or hoeing or the trimming of wilted parts? From the instructive [form of the] text: Thy field thou shalt not.

מנין שאין מקרסמין ואין מזרדין ואין מפסגין באילן ת"ל שדך לא כרמך לא לא כל מלאכה שבשדך ולא כל מלאכה שבכרמך

thy vineyard thou shalt not. [which means] no manner of work in thy field; no manner of work in thy vineyard. [Likewise] whence [is derived the rule] not to cut back shoots, or thin twigs or put up props for supporting [fruit trees]?

מנין שאין מזבלין ואין מפרקין ואין מאבקין ואין מעשנין באילן ת"ל שדך לא כרמך לא כל מלאכה שבשדך לא וכל מלאכה שבכרמך לא

From the [same] instructive text: Thy field thou shalt not. thy vineyard thou shalt not. [which means] no manner of work in thy field, no manner of work in thy vineyard.

יכול לא יקשקש תחת הזיתים ולא יעדר תחת הגפנים ולא ימלא נקעים מים ולא יעשה עוגיות לגפנים ת"ל שדך לא תזרע

[Similarly] whence [is derived the rule] not to manure,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Yalkut reads: 'remove excrescences' or 'warts'.');">⁸</span> or remove stones, or dust [with flower of sulphur]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus J. Sheb. II, 2; Aruch explains 'remove dust from the foliage' and Rashi here takes it as covering with dust the exposed roots. The context seems to favour the first explanation here adopted.');">⁹</span> or fumigate the tree?

זריעה בכלל היתה ולמה יצתה להקיש אליה לומר לך מה זריעה מיוחדת עבודה שבשדה ושבכרם אף כל שהיא עבודה שבשדה ושבכרם

From the instructive wording of the text: Thy field thou shalt not. thy vineyard thou shalt not, that is, no manner of work in the field, no manner of work in the vineyard. Shall I say that one should not [even] stir the soil under the olive trees, nor use the hoe under the vines, nor fill the gaps [under the olive trees]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' After thinning olive trees, by lifting some to give more room for the other young trees, the gap left in the soil would ordinarily be filled with manure and olive trees need much water. Cf. Sheb. IV, 5, and Sifra Behar Rabad's Commentary.');">¹⁰</span>

מדרבנן וקרא אסמכתא בעלמא

with water nor make drills<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Or small ridges with furrows on top between the vines. V. loc. cit.');">¹¹</span> for the vines? There is the Instructive wording of the text: Thy field thou shalt not sow [nor thy vineyard shalt thou prune].

וקשקוש בשביעית מי שרי והא כתיב (שמות כג, יא) והשביעית תשמטנה ונטשתה תשמטנה מלקשקש ונטשתה מלסקל

Now, as 'sowing' was already embraced in the general terms of the ordinance,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXV, 4: But the seventh year shall be a sabbath of solemn rest for the land, a sabbath unto the Lord, in direct contrast to verse 3; there was therefore no further need to continue with specific instances of the prohibition, such as sowing the field and pruning the vineyard.');">¹²</span> why then was it singled out [for mention]? To provide ground for an analogy, namely that just as sowing has the special quality of being a work common to field and orchard,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e.,common to both, agriculture and horticulture.');">¹³</span>

אמר רב עוקבא בר חמא תרי קשקושי הוו חד אברויי אילני וחד סתומי פילי אברויי אילן אסור סתומי פילי שרי

so is every [other] work that is common to field and orchard [forbidden]!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Excluding the last mentioned processes which are not common to both field and vineyard. At all events this teaching shows that a number of processes though of the secondary type are forbidden in the sabbatical year) .');">¹⁴</span> - [That is only] Rabbinically; and the text is adduced merely as a support.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., mnemotechnical and Biblically only sowing, pruning, reaping and gleaning are forbidden explicitly. The inclusion of ploughing, digging, hoeing or watering in the prohibition is purely Rabbinic. Thus the ruling of the Mishnah that an irrigated field may be watered . . in the sabbatical year has now been explained: by Abaye on the basis of Rabbi's view, namely, that the restrictions of the sabbatical year are not operative nowadays; and, on the other hand by Raba, on the view of the other Rabbis (who do not concede Rabbi's interpretation of Deut. XV, 2) , by pointing out that 'watering' is, strictly speaking, not textually forbidden, it being a 'derivative' (secondary) process, and hence allowed by the Rabbis in the sabbatical year where damage (loss of crop) is likely.');">¹⁵</span> But, is it permitted to stir the soil [under the olive tree] in the sabbatical year?

איתמר החורש בשביעית ר' יוחנן ור' אלעזר חד אמר לוקה וחד אמר אינו לוקה לימא בדר' אבין אמר רבי אילעא קמיפלגי דאמר רבי אבין אמר ר' אילעא כל מקום שנאמר כלל בעשה ופרט בלא תעשה אין דנין אותו בכלל ופרט וכלל

Surely [is it not taught]: It is writt But the seventh year thou shalt let it rest and lie fallow;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXIII, 11.');">¹⁶</span> 'let it rest' - not to hoe; and '[let it] lie fallo not to remove stones? - Said R''Ukba B'Haba, there are two sorts of hoeing, one for strengthening the [olive] tree, and another to close up fissures; that for strengthening the tree is forbidden, whereas that for closing up fissures is allowed.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The former is for enhancing profit and the latter is prevention of loss, namely, to save the tree from bleeding or rotting.');">¹⁷</span> It has been stated:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The same question is again discussed from a different angle in Palestinian schools.');">¹⁸</span>

מאן דאמר לוקה לית ליה דרבי אבין אמר רבי אילעא

- If one ploughed in the sabbatical year,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' After having been duly cautioned.');">¹⁹</span> R'Johanan and R'Eleazar<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' B. Pedath.');">²⁰</span> [took opposite views].

ומאן דאמר אינו לוקה אית ליה דר' אבין

One said that he is flogged<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As having offended against a Biblical prohibition.');">²¹</span> and the other said that he is not flogged.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because 'ploughing' is not distinctly forbidden, but is only an implied offence, for which no judicial flogging can be given.');">²²</span> Might I suggest that the issue turns on the dictum of R'Ela as reported by R'Abin?

לא דכולי עלמא לית ליה דרבי אבין אמר ר' אילעא מאן דאמר לוקה שפיר

For R'Abin reported R'Ela to have stated that wherever a general [proposition] is stated in the form of a positive command and a particular [specification] in the form of a negative injunction,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., in Lev. XXV, 2-5. We have first a general ordinance in positive terms: The land shall keep a sabbath unto the Lord. Six years thou shalt sow . . prune . . gather in the produce thereof, but the seventh year shall be a sabbath of solemn rest unto the Lord (cf. Ex. XXIII,11) ; then follow the particulars in negative terms. Thou shalt neither sow thy field, nor prune thy vineyard. That which groweth of itself thou shalt not reap and the grapes of thy undressed vines thou shalt not gather (Lev. XXV, 4-5) . Then follows a general rule again in positive form: It shall be a year of solemn rest for the land.');">²³</span> the hermeneutical rule of General-Particular-General<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to this rule, the particulars are in such a case considered typical as illustrations serving to include in the general rule all such items as are similar to the particulars. E.g. in Ex. XXII, 8 the text first states that an oath can be judicially imposed 'for every matter of trespass'');">²⁴</span> does not apply to it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But it is treated merely as a general proposition which is followed only by a particularization, in which case the general proposition does not go beyond what has actually been specified by the particularization that follows it.');">²⁵</span>

ומאן דאמר אינו לוקה אמר לך מכדי זמירה בכלל זריעה ובצירה בכלל קצירה למאי הלכתא כתבינהו רחמנא למימר דאהני תולדות הוא דמיחייב אתולדה אחרינא לא מיחייב

[Accordingly], the one who says the offender is flogged, did not agree with that dictum of R'Abin in the name of R'Ela,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., he interprets the Sabbatical Ordinance as a pure instance of a General-Particular-General form and takes sowing, pruning, reaping and gleaning as typical illustrative instances and, accordingly, considers 'ploughing' as included in the general terms of the Ordinance and hence as a punishable offence.');">²⁶</span> while the other who says that the offender is not flogged did agree with the dictum of R'Abin [in the name of R'Ela]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., that the Sabbatical Ordinance cannot be treated as a pure form of General-Particular-General, it being negative in the particulars, which amounts to saying, 'Not a, not b, not c; these, I mean, precisely, and no others'. 'Ploughing' therefore is not included among the forbidden processes and hence is not a punishable offence.');">²⁷</span> - Not [necessarily].

ולא והתניא שדך לא תזרע וכרמך לא תזמור אין לי אלא זירוע וזימור מנין לעידור ולקישקוש ולכיסוח ת"ל שדך לא כרמך לא לא כל מלאכה שבשדך ולא כל מלאכה שבכרמך

It can be maintained that nobody agrees with the dictum of R'Ela, as reported by R'Abin. As to the one who says that the offender is flogged<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For ploughing in the sabbatical year.');">²⁸</span> it of course is in order, while the other who says the offender is not flogged may tell you thus:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In interpreting the import of the wording of the text, to show that there is no penalty for ploughing, although the application of the General-Particular-General rule would indicate to the contrary.');">²⁹</span>

ומנין שאין מקרסמין ואין מזרדין ואין מפסגין באילן ת"ל שדך לא כרמך לא כל מלאכה שבשדך לא כל מלאכה שבכרמך לא

Consider: pruning comes within [the general process of] sowing and grape-gathering within [the general process of] reaping, what rule did the All-Merciful intend to inculcate by inserting these [secondary processes] into the text? To indicate that only for these secondary processes [specified in the text] is one [to be] held liable, but for any other secondary process<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., ploughing.');">³⁰</span> he is not [to be] held liable.

מנין שאין מזבלין ואין מפרקין ואין מעשנין באילן ת"ל שדך לא כרמך לא כל מלאכה שבשדך לא וכל מלאכה שבכרמך לא

But is he not? Surely it taught: Thou shalt neither sow thy field nor prune thy vineyard, this only forbids me sowing or pruning; whence is forbidden weeding, hoeing, or the trimming of wilted parts? From the instructive [form of] the text: Thy field thou shalt not.

יכול לא יקשקש תחת הזיתים ולא יעדר תחת הגפנים ולא ימלא נקעים מים ולא יעשה עוגיות לגפנים תלמוד לומר שדך לא תזרע

thy vineyard thou shalt not. [which means] no manner of work in thy field; no manner of work in thy vineyard. Whence [is derived the rule] not to cut back shoots, or thin twigs or put up props for [fruit] trees?

זריעה בכלל היתה ולמה יצתה להקיש אליה לומר לך מה זריעה מיוחדת עבודה שבשדה ושבכרם אף כל שהיא עבודה שבשדה ושבכרם

From the [same] instructive text: thy field thou shalt not. thy vineyard th shalt not. [which means] no manner of work in thy field, no manner of work in thy vineyard.

מדרבנן וקרא אסמכתא בעלמא

Whence [is derived the rule] not to manure, or remove stones, [or dust] or fumigate the trees? From the instructive text: Thy field thou shalt not. thy vineyard thou shalt not. [that is], no manner of work in thy field, no manner of work in thy vineyard. Am I then to say that one may not stir the soil under the olive trees, nor use the hoe under the vines, nor fill the [open] gaps [under the olives] with water, nor make drills for the vines? There is the instructive wording of the text: Thy field thou shalt not sow and thy vineyard thou shalt not prune. Now, sowing was already embraced in the general terms of the ordinance, why then was it singled out [for mention]? For the purpose of providing [ground for] an analogy, that just as sowing has the special quality of being a work common to field and vineyard, so is any other work that is common to field and orchard [forbidden]? - [That is only] rabbinically; and the text is [adduced] as a mere support.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For notes v. supra p. 9, n. 6.');">³¹</span>