Moed Katan 4b — the Talmud in English

Rather,

what ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

“they thin out”—

they pull out!

It is an expression of thinning: one removes [pulls out] a vegetable from among densely packed vegetables.

If he removes it in order to eat it, it is permitted.

But if his intention is to improve the remaining vegetables so that they will grow well through the thinning, it is forbidden.

And if so, it is not possible to permit watering vegetables on the basis of that which we learned: “They thin out vegetables,” for there the intention is thinning.

And we find the expression “thins out” meaning thinning, with regard to pe'a and olelot:

As we learned

in tractate Pe'a [chapter 6]:

“One who thins vines”,

who plucks from a vine bearing more grape clusters than is appropriate, in order to thin it—

just as he thins

the vines,

his own

for the benefit of the vine’s growth,

so

it is permitted

for him

also to be

thinning in

pe'a

belonging to the poor, the words of Rabbi Yehuda.

Rabbi Meir says:

Only

in

a vine

of his own is he permitted

to thin;

but he is not permitted

to thin

that of the poor.

And it is demonstrated that the expression “thins out” means thinning dense growth, as Rabba Tosfa'a held.

Ravina said to him:

But they explicitly said that “they thin out vegetables” with regard to watering.

And it was taught in a beraita: They thin out water for vegetables in order to eat them.

Thus “they thin out” means for the purpose of watering with water!

He said to him,

Rabba Tosfa'a:

If it was taught—

it was taught,

and one should not excommunicate the one who waters vegetables during chol ha-moed, for perhaps he watered them for the needs of the Festival.

We learned in the Mishna:

“And one does not make circular basins for vines.”

And we explain:

What are “circular basins”?

Rav Yehuda said: Bankhei.

Round pits made beneath grapevines and olive trees, in order to receive rainwater in them.

It was likewise taught: What are circular basins?—

Bedidin,

pits

that

are made

at the roots of olive trees and at the roots of grapevines.

And we raise an objection:

Is that so? But Rav Yehuda permitted the people of Bar Tzita’i

a place-name

to make

to do it during the Festival

bankhei for their vineyards.

And if circular basins are bankhei, how did he permit them? But we learned that it is forbidden to make them.

And we answer:

It is not difficult.

This

which is forbidden

is with new ones,

for making new circular basins is excessive exertion, and it is forbidden.

This

which Rav Yehuda permitted

is with old ones,

where the circular basins that had already existed for the grapevines became blocked, and it is permitted to dig them out again during chol ha-moed, for this labor does not involve excessive exertion.

We learned in the Mishna:

“Rabbi Elazar ben Azaria says: One does not make the channel”

initially, whether during the Festival or during the Sabbatical year.

And we raise an objection:

Granted,

with regard to

the Festival,

it is forbidden to make it

because he is exerting himself,

and exertion was forbidden during chol ha-moed.

But

with regard to

the Sabbatical year—

what is the reason

that it is forbidden to dig the channel? Is it not agricultural labor, and ordinary exertion is not forbidden during the Sabbatical year?

And we answer: Regarding the reason for the prohibition,

Rabbi Zeira and Rabbi Abba bar Memel disagree.

One says: Because it appears as though he is hoeing

the soil during the Sabbatical year, for digging resembles hoeing.

And one says: Because

when he digs the channel, he places the earth that he removes on its edge, and thereby he

prepares

its

sides,

the sides of the channel,

for sowing,

with soft soil that he removes and places at the sides of the channel; and this is agricultural labor during the Sabbatical year.

What is the difference between them?

The difference between them is

in a situation

where the water comes after it.

Immediately after he digs, the excavation is destined to fill with water, which comes immediately with the digging.

The one who says

that the prohibition is

because he prepares its sides for sowing—the reason applies

here as well: there is a reason to prohibit because he prepares its sides for sowing, for when he digs and the water comes, he throws soft earth onto its sides; therefore it is forbidden for him to do so during the Sabbatical year.

But

if, according to

the one who says

that the prohibition is

because it appears as though he is hoeing, there is no

concern here, for at the moment when he hoes, it fills with water, and it is evident that he is digging for the purpose of repairing the channel and not for hoeing the field, since a person who hoes a field does not have it immediately fill with water. Therefore he is permitted to dig within the channel, since he does not appear to be hoeing.

And we raise an objection:

But according to the one who says, because it appears as though he is hoeing—

should we not be concerned

also

because he prepares its sides for sowing, and for this reason it should be forbidden even if “the water comes after it”?

на расстояние от его краев, так что не подготавливает их к посеву.

Rather, in this matter it is forbidden according to everyone.

поскольку он подготавливает края к посеву, не считает,

And in another manner,

the difference between them is:

when he digs within the channel,

that he takes from it

and removes earth from it,

and throws it outside,

throwing it far from its sides, so that he does not prepare them for sowing.

According to the one who says

that the prohibition against digging in the channel is

because he prepares its sides for sowing, there is no

reason here that he prepares its sides, and it is permitted.

But

according to the one who says, because it appears as though he is hoeing, there is

a concern that he will appear to be hoeing, and it is forbidden.

And we raise another objection:

But according to the one who says that he prepares its sides for sowing—

should we not be concerned

also

because it appears as though he is hoeing, and it should be forbidden even when he throws the earth far from its sides.

И

And we answer: Since he throws the earth, he does not appear to be hoeing. For

a hoeing person also [

that is, the hoeing person himself]

when he takes it,

when he takes the earth with the hoe, he does not throw it far away, but rather—

“he places it in its place!”

He does not remove it from his excavation, for the purpose of hoeing is only to loosen the soil.

Therefore, when he digs in the soil of a water channel, since he throws the earth a distance away, he does not appear at all to be hoeing, and it is permitted.

Ameimar taught it

this statement of Rabbi Elazar ben Azaria: “One does not make the channel during the Sabbatical year”

because it appears as though he is hoeing.

And

therefore

it is difficult for him that

the words of

Rabbi Elazar ben Azaria

in the Mishna are

against Rabbi Elazar ben Azaria

with regard to the Sabbatical year.

And this is his difficulty:

Did Rabbi Elazar ben Azaria say

“Anything that appears as though he is hoeing is forbidden”?

And we oppose

this to what we learned in tractate Shevi'it:

“A person may make his manure into a heap”,

bringing all his manure to one place in his field, and we are not concerned that he appears to be manuring his field.

Rabbi Meir prohibits, until he

digs and

deepens it three handbreadths,

and places the manure in the place that he deepened, so that it is evident that he brought it there not for the purpose of manuring the field,

or until he raises

a mound to a height of

three handbreadths, as a sign that he is not manuring his field, and he places the manure there.

до этого

But if

he had only a small amount,

a little manure, in that field before the Sabbatical year, he need not make a sign. Rather,

he adds to it and continues

during the Sabbatical year.

Rabbi Elazar ben Azaria prohibits

placing manure in his field even if he had a little manure there before the Sabbatical year,

until he deepens it three, or until he raises

three, or until he places it on a rock,

which is unfit for sowing, and he does not appear to be manuring the field by placing it on it.

This is difficult according to his position: How is he permitted to dig three [handbreadths] for the purpose of bringing in the manure? It appears as though he is hoeing.

And we answer:

Rabbi Zeira and Rabbi Abba bar Memel

both resolved the contradiction, each in his own way.

One says: It is such that

he had already

deepened

it before the Sabbatical year, and he does not need to deepen it during the Sabbatical year itself as a sign.

And one says

that even if he deepens it during the Sabbatical year, he does not appear to be hoeing, for

his manure demonstrates it,

that he is digging in order to place it there; therefore Rabbi Elazar ben Azaria permitted it in that case.

We learned in the Mishna: “And one repairs the damaged [channel] during the Festival.”

И исправляют испорченный канал в Хол-ха-Моэд.

And we inquire about it:

What is “damaged”?

How damaged may it be for him to be able to repair it?

Rabbi Abba said: If it was

blocked, and the channel remained

deep

only

one handbreadth,

out of the six handbreadths it originally had, he returns and

restores it to six

handbreadths

, for he is permitted to dig five handbreadths. For an ordinary channel is, as its name indicates, an “ammah” of six handbreadths.

It is obvious:

If it was three handbreadths deep and became blocked, and stood at

half a handbreadth,

and he wishes to dig two and a half handbreadths and restore it

to three handbreadths—

it is forbidden.

For since water does not pass

at three handbreadths, his act

is nothing,

and it is unnecessary exertion, and it is forbidden during the Festival.

It was twelve handbreadths deep, and became blocked and stood at

two handbreadths

, and he wants to return and dig it ten handbreadths and set it

at twelve

handbreadths; it is forbidden.

Since

he is exerting excessive labor, it is not

permitted to him except to dig the six handbreadths needed for a water channel.

Rather, it is uncertain to us concerning the permitted [case of a channel] that was seven handbreadths deep and became blocked and stood at

two handbreadths

, and he wants to deepen it and set it

at seven

handbreadths—

what is it?

Does this resemble one that stands at one handbreadth, which he may deepen to six, because

here he is deepening five, and

likewise

here

, when he deepens from two handbreadths to seven,

he is deepening five

, and it is permitted, for this is not excessive labor?

Or perhaps

when he deepens it to seven handbreadths,

since there is an extra handbreadth

, for he needs only six handbreadths for the water channel, and it is sufficient for him to dig four handbreadths. And since

there is labor

more

than

when he deepens from one handbreadth to six handbreadths—for the one who deepens it to seven needs to bend more during his digging—it is forbidden.

And we conclude the question:

teyku!

Abaye permitted the people of Bar Madekh to clear the river

, to uproot branches of trees growing in the river, during Chol ha-Moed.

Rabbi Yirmeya permitted the people of Sukota to dig out a sealed river

, to open the source of a spring that had become blocked.

Rav Ashi permitted the people of Mata Meḥasya to clear

silt from

the Burnitz River

.

And its reason:

as

the needs

of the public it is deemed.

And we learned

in our Mishna:

one may perform all public needs .