Moed Katan 3a (ג.) — the Talmud in English

Only the

derivatives

of the primary labors—

the Torah did not prohibit them.

Irrigation is merely a derivative, and not a primary labor stated in the Torah. Therefore, its prohibition is only rabbinic, and the Sages were lenient in a case of loss.

And for this reason one may irrigate during the Sabbatical Year: although the Sages indeed decreed that derivatives are prohibited during the Sabbatical Year, they permitted them in a case of financial loss.

The proof that the Torah did not prohibit derivatives during the Sabbatical Year is from the following:

as it is written: “

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

your field you shall not sow;

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

The Gemara 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 in

the labor of

sowing,

and it is its derivative, since the essence of pruning is to increase the growth of the tree, analogous to sowing, whose essence is causing growth in the field.

And

likewise, the labor of

gathering is included in

the labor of

reaping,

and it is its derivative, since the essence of both is cutting the fruit from the place where it grows.

If so,

for what halakhic purpose,

for what matter,

did the Torah write

pruning and gathering? We already know that pruning is prohibited from the prohibition against sowing, and that gathering is prohibited from the prohibition against reaping! It necessarily follows that the labors of pruning and gathering were written in order

to say

that only

the effective performance

of these two

derivatives

—[pruning, which is the derivative of sowing, and gathering, which is the derivative of reaping—]

entails liability

during the Sabbatical Year. But

other

derivatives

—other ones—

do not

entail liability!

And we ask: But if one is not liable for the other derivatives during the seventh year, is that so?

And we raise an objection:

But

if

no

liability is incurred for the other derivatives during the Sabbatical Year—

But was it not taught:

It is written, “

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

And the tanna infers:

I have only sowing and pruning,

the cutting of dry branches from the vine, for which one is liable during the Sabbatical Year.

From where is it derived with regard to weeding,

the uprooting of harmful plants from among beneficial ones,

and hoeing,

digging beneath the vines in order to loosen the soil,

and cutting,

cutting the harmful plants above the ground from among the beneficial ones— from where is it derived that these labors too are prohibited during the Sabbatical Year?

The verse states: “

Your field—not

your vineyard—not.”

That is, since the verse did not write the reverse, “Do not sow your field; do not prune your vineyard,” but rather wrote, “Your field—you shall not sow,” the implication is: “Your field—not.”

And we expound:

Do not

perform

any labor in your field!

This derivation prohibits weeding and the like.

Likewise, from the fact that it is written, “Your vineyard you shall not prune,” and not, “Do not prune your vineyard,” the implication is: “Your vineyard—not.”

And

we expound:

Do not

perform

any labor in your vineyard!

The verse comes to teach with regard to hoeing and the like.

It follows that there are other derivatives prohibited by the Torah, in addition to those two derivatives, pruning and gathering!

And it was further taught there:

From where is it derived that one may not scrape

—a form of pruning performed on trees——

And one may not trim

—cutting unnecessary branches from a tree——

And one may not support

—supporting a tree that is excessively tender——

With regard to a tree

during the Sabbatical Year?

The verse states: “

Your field—not, your vineyard—not”!

And we expound as above:

Do not

perform

any labor in your field, and do not

perform

any labor in your vineyard.

And similarly, the beraita there derives:

From where is it derived that one may not fertilize

—placing manure at the base of the tree—

and one may not remove

—stones from the base of the tree—

and one may not cover

—covering exposed roots with dust—

and one may not fumigate

—fumigating to rid the tree of worms—

And all of this is prohibited

in

the labor of the

tree?

The verse states: “

Your field—not, your vineyard—not.”

And we expound:

Any labor in your field—not.

And any labor in your vineyard—not.

The beraita concludes:

One might have thought that one may not hoe

among the olive trees

beneath the olive trees, and may not hoe beneath the vines, fill depressions with water, or make basins around the vines?

The verse states: “

Your field you shall not sow.”

Sowing is included

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

was.

And why did sowing emerge

to be written as a labor in its own right?

To juxtapose other labors to it,

and

to tell you: Just as sowing is distinctive,

being

a labor performed in a field and in a vineyard,

being applicable to both—

so too, every

labor during the Sabbatical Year is prohibited by Torah law

when it is a labor performed in a field and in a vineyard.

Excluded from this category are hoeing, loosening the soil, filling depressions with water, and making basins around vines, since each of these is performed either only in a vineyard or only in a field, and therefore they were not prohibited during the Sabbatical Year .

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

And we answer: In fact, all these derivatives

are prohibited only by rabbinic decree

and not by Torah law.

And the verse

from which we expound, “Your field—not, your vineyard—not,” to prohibit the other derivatives

is merely an allusion. By Torah law, only gathering and pruning are prohibited.

And we raise a difficulty:

sealing cracks in the tree.

But hoeing during the Sabbatical Year—

is it permitted?

But it is written: “

And the seventh year you shall release it and abandon it.”

And we expound: “

You shall release it”

from hoeing. “

And abandon it”

from removing stones,

meaning that one may not remove stones from the vineyard.

It follows that hoeing is prohibited.

And we answer:

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

One is improving the trees,

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 . .

It was stated: With regard to one who plows during the Sabbatical Year,

they disagreed about his status,

Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabbi Eliezer.

According to Abaye, who holds that derivatives are prohibited by Torah law [and interprets the previous beraita according to its plain meaning], the prohibition against the hoeing mentioned here is nevertheless not of Torah origin, even when it is performed to improve the tree, because this labor is performed not in both a field and a vineyard, but only in a vineyard. In Avoda Zara [50a], the Gemara likewise distinguishes between a labor that is “maintaining the tree,” which is permitted, and a labor that is “improving the tree,” which is prohibited. The Mikdash David [Zeraim 59:6] wrote that the fundamental basis of this distinction requires investigation: Is it as it appears—that the Sages permitted labors prohibited only by their decree in a case of loss? Or is it that when the labor is performed to preserve what already exists, and not to improve it, it is not considered agricultural labor at all, and therefore is not prohibited during the Sabbatical Year? He wrote there that apparently there is a contradiction in the words of The Mikdash David [Zeraim 59:6] wrote that the fundamental basis of this distinction requires investigation: Is it as it appears—that the Sages permitted labors prohibited only by their decree in a case of loss? Or is it that when the labor is performed to preserve what already exists, and not to improve it, it is not considered agricultural labor at all, and therefore is not prohibited during the Sabbatical Year? He wrote there that apparently there is a contradiction in the words of Rashi Rashi: From Rashi’s words here, it appears that he explains the matter according to the first possibility; see his wording. But in Avoda Zara [there] he wrote: “The Torah prohibited agricultural labor, but these are not agricultural labors,” and this is likewise evident from the wording of the Ritva here. See there what he wrote to resolve the matter. However, the more difficult point is that according to Rashi’s reasoning there, it should follow that even labors prohibited by Torah law might be permitted under the principle of maintaining the tree, since they are not agricultural labors. Yet earlier the Gemara taught that when irrigation is prohibited by Torah law, it is not permitted even in a case of loss, although such loss would apparently qualify as maintaining the tree. He answered that when one irrigates, he indeed does so so that the plants will not be lost, but ultimately the irrigation also improves them, causing them to grow more. Therefore, it can be permitted only on the basis that the Sages did not decree in a case of loss. Rashi’s reasoning that such labors are not considered agricultural labors applies only when the act benefits the tree solely by maintaining it, and does not add to or improve it. The Gemara below explains that although plowing is prohibited by Torah law during the thirty days preceding the Sabbatical Year, because of the mitzva of adding to the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year, it is nevertheless permitted at that time to plow for the sake of young saplings, so that they will not die. In a manuscript of Rashi Rashi the reason is given that this is considered maintaining the tree [see the Melekhet Shlomo, Shevi’it 1:1]. Apparently, we learn from this that this reasoning is effective even with regard to a Torah prohibition. In truth, however, that source proves the opposite: This permission applies specifically to the additional period before the Sabbatical Year, because the entire nature of the prohibition during that period is that one may not work the land in the sixth year for the sake of produce of the Sabbatical Year. This is not the case here, where one plows for the sake of preserving the tree itself so that it will not die. During the Sabbatical Year itself, however, even such plowing for the purpose of maintaining the tree is certainly prohibited, as Tosafot wrote [Rosh HaShana 9b] in the name of Rabbenu Tam , Rabbeinu Tam: It is permitted to plant a tree during the additional period before the Sabbatical Year, since the entire prohibition during that period applies when one acts for the sake of produce of the Sabbatical Year, but not when one acts for the sake of preserving the tree itself. See Madaney Eretz, Sabbatical Year [notes 8:8].

One says that he is liable to lashes

, and one says that he is not liable to lashes .

And we raise an objection concerning their reasoning: Shall we say that according to

the words of

Rabbi Avin said Rabbi Ila—

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

stated by Rabbi Avin, who said that Rabbi Ila said: Wherever a generalization is stated in a positive commandment and a specification in a prohibition

, as in this verse, which begins, “There shall be a complete cessation for the land”—thereby including everything in the positive commandment of cessation. And afterward it specifies, “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 the specification in a prohibition, as in this verse, which concludes, “It shall be a year of cessation for the land”

—

it is not interpreted by means of a “generalization, specification, and generalization”!

The reason is that although with regard to the derivation of “generalization, specification, and generalization,” we hold that one interprets only those things similar to the specification, thereby including everything resembling the specification, this applies 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 interpret it as merely a “generalization and specification”; in that case, only what is included in the specification is included in the generalization. Thus, only sowing and pruning are included, but not plowing and the like.

And this is how Rabbi Yohanan and Rabbi Elazar disagree:

The one who says that he is liable to lashes—

does not hold

this

that

was stated by

Rabbi Avin said Rabbi Ila. Rather, he derives here as well the derivation of generalization, specification, and generalization, and includes plowing, which is similar to sowing and pruning, within the generalization “a complete cessation,” making one liable to lashes for it just 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 that he is not liable to lashes—

holds

that he holds like

that

which was stated by

Rabbi Avin said Rabbi Ila, and he does not include anything through the generalization and specification; one is liable to lashes only for sowing and pruning, but not for plowing, which is not written explicitly.

And we reject this:

We challenge this:

No

this is not the basis of their disagreement.

Rather,

everyone does not hold the principle of Rabbi Avin, who said that Rabbi Ila said

, and the reasoning of

the one who says that he is liable to lashes is readily

understood: he derives plowing through a generalization, specification, and generalization from sowing.

And

if

the one who says that he is not liable to lashes

for plowing

, he would say: Since pruning is included within sowing

, because through pruning the tree grows better,

and harvesting is included within reaping

, since the former applies to grapes and the latter to grain, then

for what halakhic purpose did the Torah write them

both?

Necessarily,

it is to say that

only

the derivatives

of harvesting and pruning

make one liable

in the Sabbatical year. But

another derivative

, such as plowing,

does not make one liable

, and therefore he said that one is not liable to lashes for plowing and the like.

And we challenge this:

And

if

not

written, are the other derivatives not included in the prohibition?

But it was taught

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

‘You shall not sow your field, and you shall not prune your vineyard’: I have derived only sowing and pruning; from where do I derive hoeing, scraping, and cutting?”

The verse states: “

Your field, no; your vineyard, no.”

And we derive:

Every labor that is prohibited in your field

you shall not perform;

every labor that is prohibited in your vineyard

you shall not perform.

And from where is it derived that one may not remove branches, prune branches, or prop up trees?

The verse states: “

Your field, no; your vineyard, no.”

And we derive:

Do not

perform

any labor that is prohibited in your field, and do not

perform

any labor that is prohibited in your vineyard.

And from where is it derived that one may not fertilize, remove growths, or smoke trees?

The verse states: “

Your field, no; your vineyard, no”—

every labor that is prohibited in your field, and every labor that is prohibited in your vineyard.

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

The verse states: “

You shall not sow your field.”

Sowing was already included

“It shall be a year of cessation for the land”

.

And why did it emerge

to be written separately

? To juxtapose it

and

to tell you: Just as sowing is distinctive

in that it is

work that is performed in both field and vineyard—

so too, anything that is work performed in both field and vineyard

is prohibited.

This beraita proves that many derivatives were included in the prohibition of “Your field, no; your vineyard, no,” and not only pruning and harvesting. Why, then, should one not be liable to lashes even for plowing!?

And we answer: All these derivatives mentioned in the beraita are prohibited only

by rabbinic law. And

the fact that they are derived from a

verse—

is merely an asmachta

, while one is liable to lashes for derivatives only in the cases of harvesting and pruning.