Moed Katan 3a — the Talmud in English

However, only the

derivatives

of the labors

did the Merciful One not prohibit.

.

Irrigation is only a derivative, and is not a primary labor stated in the Torah. Therefore, its prohibition is only rabbinic, and the Sages were lenient where there is financial loss.

And for this reason one may irrigate during the seventh year: although the Sages did prohibit derivatives during the seventh year, they permitted them where there is financial loss.

The proof that the Torah did not prohibit derivatives during the seventh year is from this:

as it is written: “

: «

And in the seventh year there shall be a complete rest for the land;

.

you shall not sow your field;

and you shall not prune your vineyard. You shall not harvest your untended crop, and you shall not gather the grapes of your untrimmed vines.”

The Gemara—the Talmudic discussion of the Mishna—infers from the wording of the verse that it repeated the same labors with regard to the field and the tree:

Now,

the labor of

pruning is included

within the labor of

sowing,

and is its derivative, since the essential purpose of pruning is to increase the growth of a tree, similar to sowing, whose essential purpose is to produce growth in a field.

And

likewise, the labor of

harvesting grapes is included

within the labor of

harvesting,

and is its derivative, since the essential nature of both is the same: cutting the fruit from the place where it grows.

If so,

for what legal purpose,

for what matter,

did the Merciful One write

the prohibitions of pruning and harvesting grapes? We already know that pruning is prohibited from the prohibition of sowing, and that harvesting grapes is prohibited from the prohibition of harvesting! It must be that the labors of pruning and harvesting grapes were written in order

,

that only

the effective aspect

of these two

derivatives

—pruning, which is a derivative of sowing, and harvesting grapes, which is a derivative of harvesting—

makes one liable

during the seventh year. But

other

derivatives

—other ones —

— не

do not

make one liable!

But it was taught in a beraita:

It is written, “

You shall not sow your field, and you shall not prune your vineyard.”

The

tan­na—

:

I know only about sowing and pruning,

pruning meaning the cutting of dry branches from a grapevine, for which one is liable during the seventh year.

».

And the tanna infers:

From where

do we know that we may not weed—uprooting harmful plants from among the desirable ones—

or hoe,

digging beneath grapevines to loosen the soil,

or cut weeds,

cutting harmful plants above the ground from among the desirable ones? From where do we know that these labors are also prohibited during the seventh year?

The verse teaches: “

Your field—you shall not;

your vineyard—you shall not.” The point is that the verse did not say, “You shall not sow your field; you shall not prune your vineyard.” Instead, it says, “Your field—you shall not sow,” implying: “Your field—you shall not.”

: «

And we derive:

. Виноградник твой не

».

any labor in your field!

This derivation prohibits weeding and similar activities.

Likewise, since it is written, “Your vineyard—you shall not prune,” and not, “You shall not prune your vineyard,” it implies: “Your vineyard—you shall not.”

And

we derive:

Do not perform any labor in your vineyard!

The verse therefore teaches about hoeing and similar activities.

Thus, there are other derivatives prohibited by the Torah, in addition to those two derivatives, pruning and harvesting grapes!

And another teaching was transmitted there:

From where do we know that one may not trim

—a form of pruning in trees——

And one may not cut

unnecessary branches from a tree —

And one may not support

a tree that is excessively young and flexible —

With regard to a tree

during the seventh year?

The verse teaches: “

Your field—you shall not; your vineyard—you shall not”!

And we derive as above:

Do not

perform any labor in your field, and do not perform any labor in your vineyard. The same is learned in the beraita there: From where do we know that one may not fertilize

—placing manure at the base of a tree—

and one may not remove

: « Поле твое не, виноградник твой не

»!

and one may not cover

exposed roots with dust—

and one may not smoke

the tree to remove worms—

and is all this prohibited

with regard to the

.

labor of the

tree?

The verse teaches: “

Your field—you shall not; your vineyard—you shall not.”

And we derive:

Any labor in your field—you shall not,

and any labor in your vineyard—you shall not.

The beraita concludes:

One might have thought that one may not hoe

between the olive trees

beneath the olive trees, nor hoe beneath the grapevines, nor fill hollows with water, nor make basins around grapevines?

The verse teaches: “

You shall not sow your field.”

?

Sowing was already included

: «

in the verse, “And in the seventh year there shall be a complete rest for the land”;

».

why, then, did sowing emerge

to be written as a labor in its own right?

.

To compare other labors to it,

.

and

to tell you: Just as sowing is distinctive,

in that it is

a labor performed in both a field and a vineyard,

?

meaning that it applies to both,

: «

so too every

». Посев как понятие уже входил

labor during the seventh year is prohibited by Torah law

.

Excluded from this rule are hoeing, loosening the soil, filling hollows with water, and making basins for grapevines, since each of these is performed either only in a vineyard or only in a field; therefore, they are not prohibited during the seventh year by Torah law.

. И почему вышел

And why did sowing emerge

?

To juxtapose other labors to it,

and

to tell you: Just as sowing is distinctive,

It is evident from the beraita that many derivatives were prohibited by the Torah, and not only harvesting grapes and pruning. This is difficult for Rava, who says that only those two are prohibited by Torah law during the seventh year.

We answer: In truth, all these derivatives are prohibited

only rabbinically.

so too, every

And the verse from which we derive “Your field—you shall not; your vineyard—you shall not,” to prohibit the other derivatives,

is merely a supporting scriptural reference. By Torah law, only harvesting grapes and pruning are prohibited.

.

And we ask:

But is hoeing during the seventh year permitted? But it is written: “ And the seventh year you shall let it rest and leave it untended.” And we derive: “ You shall let it rest”—from hoeing. “ And leave it untended”—from removing stones,

that is, one may not remove stones from the vineyard.

Thus, hoeing is prohibited.

.

Rab Ukva bar Hama said: There are two types of hoeing.

One is improving the trees,

strengthening and improving the tree.

And the other is closing cracks,

sealing cracks in the tree.

The derivation from the verse “You shall let it rest” as prohibiting hoeing refers to

—

improving the tree,

?

which is done merely for additional benefit; therefore, it is

: « А седьмой год оставь ее и покинь ее

».

But the hoeing that the Mishna says is permitted refers to

closing cracks,

» —

since without it the tree would suffer loss; therefore, it is

. «

permitted.

» —

It was stated: With regard to one who plows during the seventh year,

Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabbi Eliezer disagreed about its legal status.

It follows that hoeing is prohibited.

And we answer:

Rabbi Ukva bar Ḥama said: There are two types of hoeing.

. Один — улучшение деревьев

,

strengthening and improving the tree.

And the other is sealing cracks

—sealing cracks in the tree.

And that which we derived from the verse, “You shall release it,” from hoeing, refers to

improving the tree,

which is performed merely for enhancement. Therefore, it is

prohibited.

.

But the hoeing that we learned is permitted refers to

sealing cracks,

since without it the tree would suffer loss. Therefore, it is

permitted . .

. .

Сообщено: тот, кто пашет в седьмой год

,

they disagreed about his status,

Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabbi Eliezer.

.

One says: he receives lashes

, and one says: he does not receive lashes.

And we raise the question concerning their reasoning: shall we say that in the words of

the words of

Rabbi Avin said in the name of Rabbi Ilaa—

they disagree!

It is written: “And in the seventh year there shall be a complete cessation for the land. You shall not sow your field, and you shall not prune your vineyard.”

And we have the principle

that Rabbi Avin said in the name of Rabbi Ilaa said: Wherever a generalization is stated in a positive commandment, and a specification in a prohibition,

such as in this verse, which begins, “There shall be a complete cessation for the land”—for it included everything in the positive commandment of cessation. And afterward it specified, “You shall not sow your field, and you shall not prune your vineyard,” in a prohibition.

And even if an additional generalization is written in the language of a positive commandment, after it specified in a prohibition, such as in this verse, which concludes, “A year of cessation shall there be for the land”—

one does not expound it by means of a

generalization, specification, and generalization!

And the reason is that, indeed, in the derivation of “generalization, specification, and generalization,” we maintain that one expounds only in accordance with the specification, and includes every matter resembling the specification. But this is only when the generalization, specification, and generalization are written in the same form, whether in a positive commandment or in a prohibition. But in a case such as this, where the specification is not written in the same form as the generalization, we judge it as merely “generalization and specification,” and then, there is in the generalization only what is in the specification! That is, only sowing and pruning are included, but not plowing and the like.

And this is how Rabbi Yohanan and Rabbi Elazar disagree about it:

The one who says: he receives lashes—

does not have

this

that

Rabbi Avin said in the name of

Rabbi Ilaa. Rather, he expounds here as well the derivation of generalization, specification, and generalization, and includes in the generalization “complete cessation” also plowing, which resembles sowing and pruning, and one receives lashes for it as for “you shall not sow.”

Rather, he applies here as well the general-specific-general interpretation, and includes plowing, which resembles sowing and pruning, in the general statement “there shall be a complete rest,” so that one receives lashes for it just as for “you shall not sow.”

And the one who says: he does not receive lashes—

has

the view like

that

which

Rabbi Avin said in the name of Rabbi Ilaa,

and he does not include anything in the generalization and specification, and one receives lashes only for sowing and pruning, but not for plowing, which is not written.

And we reject this:

No,

that is not the basis of their disagreement.

Rather,

everyone does not have the view of Rabbi Avin said in the name of Rabbi Ilaa,

and the reasoning of

the one who says: he receives lashes is well

understood, for he derives plowing by means of generalization, specification, and generalization from sowing.

And

if

the one who says: he does not receive lashes

for plowing,

could say to you: since pruning is included in sowing,

for through pruning the tree grows better,

and harvesting is included in reaping,

the former being in a vine and the latter in grain. And if so,

for what purpose did the Merciful One write them

both?

It necessarily follows that

it is to say that

only

the derivatives

of harvesting and pruning

are liable

in the seventh year. But

for another derivative,

such as plowing,

he is not liable,

and therefore he said that one does not receive lashes for plowing and the like.

And we raise an objection:

and

if

not,

are the other derivatives not written in a prohibition?

But it was taught

in the earlier beraita [and there it was explained]:

“You shall not sow your field and you shall not prune your vineyard”—I have only sowing and pruning; from where do I derive digging, hoeing, and cutting?

The verse states:

“Your field—not; your vineyard—not.”

And we expound:

Any labor that is in your field—not,

shall you do;

any labor that is in your vineyard—not,

shall you do.

And from where is it derived that one may not scrape, nor trim branches, nor split branches on a tree?

The verse states:

“Your field—not; your vineyard—not.”

And we expound:

Not

shall you do

any labor that is in your field, and not

shall you do

any labor that is in your vineyard.

And from where is it derived that one may not fertilize, nor remove branches, nor smoke a tree?

The verse states:

“Your field—not, your vineyard—not”—

any labor that is in your field—not, and any labor that is in your vineyard—not.

Could it be that one may not hoe beneath olive trees, nor dig beneath vines, nor fill depressions with water, nor make basins for vines?

The verse states:

“You shall not sow your field.”

Sowing was included in

“A year of cessation shall there be for the land”

itself.

And why did it emerge

to be written separately, sowing?—

To juxtapose it,

and

to tell you: just as sowing is distinctive

in that it is

work that is in the field and in the vineyard—

so too, anything that is work in the field and in the vineyard

is forbidden.

And it is demonstrated from this beraita that many derivatives were included in the prohibition of “Your field—not, your vineyard—not,” and not only pruning and harvesting; so why should one not also receive lashes for plowing!?

And we answer: all these derivatives in the beraita were forbidden only

by rabbinic law. And

the fact that it derives them from a

verse—

is merely an asmachta,

and one receives lashes for derivatives only for harvesting and pruning.