Moed Katan 3b (ג:) — the Talmud in English

When Rav Dimi came

from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia,

he said:

I heard in Eretz Yisrael the words of the questioner:

Is it possible that one is flogged

for working the land during the Sabbatical Year, even

for the “

additional period”?

And he brought it

and he again brought

a teaching

a derivation from the verse,

to exempt him

for there is no liability for lashes for the “additional period.”

Rav Dimi added:

But I do not know,

I do not know

what “

teaching”

is the derivation that exempts,

and what “additional period” means,

and which additional period he was discussing in the first place.

The Gemara presents two different explanations of what the question was concerning lashes for the “additional period,” and what the derivation from the verse was that exempted one from lashes:

Rabbi Elazar said:

this “additional period” means

plowing

during the Sabbatical Year. It is called an “additional period” because it is not explicitly stated in the Torah; rather, it is derived through the principle of a generalization, a specification, and a generalization .

And this is what he said,

this is what the questioner in Eretz Yisrael said:

Is it possible that one is flogged for plowing

during the Sabbatical Year, since

plowing is derived

plowing

from

the derivation of “

a generalization, a specification, and a generalization”?

And he brought

and again brought

for it a teaching,

the above derivation [on the previous page],

to exempt.

For one is liable only for harvesting grapes and pruning, but not for plowing.

And this is the above derivation:

For if so,

if one is flogged for every derivative labor—

why are all these particulars

of sowing, pruning, reaping, and harvesting grapes stated as prohibited,

why do I need

the verse to write and specify them?

Rather, from here you learn that the verse comes to exclude the other derivative labors and exempt them.

And

And

Rabbi Yohanan said:

this “additional period” is

the days that the Sages added

to the prohibition

before Rosh HaShana

of the Sabbatical Year.

And this is what

the questioner in Eretz Yisrael said:

Is it possible that one is flogged for

working during the “

additional period

of the Sabbatical Year” during the days before

Rosh HaShana,

since

it is derived

as being learned

from “

you shall desist from plowing and reaping” .

The Tosafot raised the following difficulty: How can one be liable to lashes for working the land during the additional period of the Sabbatical Year? The entire prohibition is derived only from “You shall desist from plowing and harvesting,” which is a positive commandment, and there is no prohibition stated there at all. They answered that the definition of the additional period of the Sabbatical Year is that the Sabbatical Year is considered to begin at that point. Since prohibitions concerning working the land are stated for the Sabbatical Year itself, the same applies to the additional period preceding it, which has all the laws of the Sabbatical Year. See the Ritva. Below, in note 41, we will explain the law concerning lashes according to the conclusion of the discussion.

And he brought a teaching to exempt it, as we are going to say below.

For they annulled the additional period, since it is derived through a gzera shava from Shabbat that there is no need to add time before it.

We inquire concerning this:

What are “

the days before Rosh HaShana”?

And we explain:

As we learned

at the beginning of tractate Shevi’it:

Until when may one plow an orchard

on

on the eve of the Sabbatical Year?

Beit Shammai say: For as long as

Beit Shammai say: As long as the plowing

is beneficial to the fruit

of the sixth year. Plowing benefits the fruit that grew during the sixth year, and this time is close to Shavuot. But afterward it is prohibited to plow, because one is preparing the land for growth during the Sabbatical Year, and it is considered as though he were improving produce of the Sabbatical Year .

And Beit Hillel say:

one may plow

until Atzeret,

until Shavuot, and they are somewhat more lenient than Beit Shammai .

And these words are close to being like those words,

for Beit Shammai were more stringent than Beit Hillel only during the short period before Shavuot.

And until when may one plow a grain field,

a field of grain,

on the eve of the Sabbatical Year?

Until the moisture has dissipated.

Until the moisture in the ground from the rains of the sixth year has dissipated, for plowing benefits the sowing of that same year [the sixth year] only while there are rains.

And

And

that is, for as long as people plow

in order

to plant cucumber and gourd patches,

since cucumbers and gourds require extra moisture in order to ripen before the Sabbatical Year. Even if he does not intend to plant them, an observer says that he is plowing in order to plant cucumbers, and he does not appear to be preparing his field for the Sabbatical Year.

But afterward it is prohibited, because he appears to be plowing for the needs of the Sabbatical Year.

Rabbi Shimon

disagrees, and

disagrees, and says: If so,

if the matter depends on the time when people plow in order to plant cucumber patches—

the Torah has given a measure

for the period during which it is permitted to plow

individually, according to each person.

For not everyone plows for cucumber patches at the same time, and it would follow that one person is permitted to plow at a time when another is already prohibited from plowing.

The Torah does not give its measures according to each individual.

Rather,

there is also a fixed time

for a grain field,

and it is

until Passover.

Since he wishes to sow it after plowing and requires considerable moisture, he may not plow after Passover, when there is generally insufficient moisture; observers will think that his plowing is not now for sowing but for the needs of the Sabbatical Year.

And in an orchard,

which was planted previously, one may plow

until Atzeret.

For an orchard does not require moist soil; the purpose of the plowing is to enable the ground to absorb water deeply, and this is needed for the sixth year.

It follows that the “days before Rosh HaShana” are from Passover onward in a grain field, and from Atzeret onward in an orchard.

And Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi said that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said in the name of bar Kappara: Rabban Gamliel and his court deliberated concerning these two periods,

the period from Passover in a grain field and the period from Atzeret in an orchard,

and annulled them,

permitting plowing until Rosh HaShana.

The dispute concerning the grain field parallels the dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel concerning the orchard. The first tanna, who said “until the moisture dissipates,” follows Beit Shammai, who makes the time depend on when plowing benefits the fruit; Rabbi Shimon follows Beit Hillel, who established a fixed time for this season.

Rabbi Zeira said to Rabbi Abbahu—and some say that Reish Lakish said to Rabbi Yohanan: Rabban Gamliel and his court—

how could they annul the enactment [

not to plow from Passover and Atzeret]

of Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel!?

But we learned: A court cannot annul the words of another court unless

it was

greater than it in wisdom and in number.

He was astonished;

Rabbi Abbahu remained silent and thought

for about an hour

about what he would answer Rabbi Zeira’s question.

And afterward

he said to him: Say that this is what

Shammai and Hillel

stipulated between themselves

at the time of the enactment:

Whoever wishes to annul

the enactment concerning the additional period before the Sabbatical Year—

let him come and annul it!

The Tosafot explain that when the Sages enacted this additional period, they were concerned that in later generations the condition of people’s lands might deteriorate if they did not plow from Passover and Atzeret onward. Therefore, they stipulated that this enactment concerning the additional period could be annulled.

And we raise an objection: Is the additional period of the Sabbatical Year merely an enactment

of theirs,

so that they could stipulate that it might be annulled?

After all, the prohibition against working the land during the additional period of the Sabbatical Year

is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai,

and it is impossible to stipulate that it may be annulled.

For

For

Rabbi Asi said that Rabbi Yohanan said in the name of Rabbi Neḥunya, a man of the valley of Beit Ḥortan:

In the bейт-мидраш they were asked concerning three halakhot what their source in the Torah was, and they answered that they are halakhot transmitted to Moses from Sinai. These are they: “

Ten saplings”:

there is a special dispensation to plow an orchard containing ten young trees until Rosh HaShana [but an ordinary orchard may not be plowed until Rosh HaShana, because of the law of the additional period of the Sabbatical Year].

This special dispensation is due to the need for their ongoing care; without it, they would dry out and die.

But not every field of young trees may be plowed. This applies only when it contains ten saplings in an area of a beit se’a [which is fifty by fifty cubits], with ten young saplings evenly distributed throughout its length and width. “

Willow”:

the mitzva of circling the altar with a willow branch [apart from the willow branch of the lulav, which is explicitly stated in the Torah].

And “

the water libation,”

where, together with the morning tamid offering during the days of the festival of Sukkot, a water libation is also performed.

And all three are not halakhot explicitly stated in the Torah, but rather

they are halakhot transmitted to Moses from Sinai.

The Gemara now assumes that the halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai prohibited plowing around mature trees and permitted it around saplings.

If so, it follows that the additional period of the Sabbatical Year is not a new matter instituted by the Sages; rather, it is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai, by virtue of which work was prohibited before the Sabbatical Year. The difficulty therefore remains: How could Rabban Gamliel and his court annul this prohibition?

We answer:

Rabbi Yitzḥak said: When the halakha was transmitted

to Moses from Sinai that time must be added to the Sabbatical Year and that an ordinary orchard may not be plowed until Rosh HaShana, this meant only that one may not plow

during the thirty days before Rosh HaShana.

But until then, plowing is permitted by Torah law.

And these,

Hillel and Shammai,

Hillel and Shammai, came and enacted

to prohibit plowing beginning

from Passover

in a grain field

and

and beginning

from Atzeret

in an orchard.

And they stipulated,

and stipulated only

in

with regard to

their enactment,

that

that whoever wishes to annul

the period added by the enactment

may come and annul it.

When Rabban Gamliel annulled it, the prohibition against plowing during the thirty days before Rosh HaShana, which derives from the halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai, nevertheless remained.

And we raise another objection:

But

But if

these thirty days before Rosh HaShana

the

are from the halakha

transmitted to Moses from Sinai,

are they

derived in this way?

But

they are derived from verses!

For it was taught in a beraita: [

Exodus 34] “

You shall desist from plowing and reaping.”

This verse begins with the subject of Shabbat: “For six days you shall labor, and on the seventh day you shall desist.” But the Gemara interprets its conclusion, “you shall desist from plowing and reaping,” as referring to the Sabbatical Year.

For if it does not refer to Shabbat, since all labors, and not only reaping and plowing, are prohibited on Shabbat, apply it to the Sabbatical Year.

Rabbi Akiva says: There is no need

for this verse

to teach

the prohibition against

the prohibition against the

the

plowing and reaping of the Sabbatical Year.

For it has already been stated

concerning the Sabbatical Year [Leviticus 25]: “

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

Rather,

the verse “You shall desist from plowing and harvesting” comes to prohibit

the verse “you shall desist from plowing and reaping” comes to prohibit plowing on the eve of the Sabbatical Year.

The Tosafot raised the following difficulty: We learned above that we prohibit only those activities explicitly mentioned in the verse. If so, we would not know that plowing is prohibited if “plowing” were not mentioned here. They answered that Rabbi Akiva’s primary derivation is from “harvesting,” whose prohibition is already stated explicitly. They also answered that Rabbi Akiva certainly follows Abaye’s reasoning, which prohibits all derivative activities on the basis of the additional wording of the verses. Apparently, they mean that Rava proved from the fact that the anonymous tanna of our Mishna permitted irrigating an irrigated field during the Sabbatical Year that this tanna certainly disagrees with Rabbi Akiva and permits derivative activities by Torah law. The Ḥazon Ish [Sheviit 17:1], however, wrote that the words of Rav Dimi above are not Rav Dimi’s own words, but a beraita. He cited the Jerusalem Talmud for this. Therefore, Rava can explain the passage according to Rabbi Elazar, who holds that one is not flogged for plowing, and can rule according to this beraita against Rabbi Akiva.