Pesachim 51b — the Talmud in English

Two concepts concerning shemitta are explained in the sugya before us: “sefiḥim” and “removal.”

A. The prohibition of sefiḥim.

The Sages and Rabbi Akiva disagreed whether, according to Torah law, it is permitted to eat what grew in the seventh year from seeds that fell on their own.

According to the Sages, according to Torah law it is permitted to eat everything that grew on its own in the seventh year.

But by enactment of the Sages it is prohibited to eat all grain and vegetables that grow on their own, because of the concern that people will come to work and sow during the seventh year, and transgressors will claim that this grain is from sowing that they sowed in the sixth year.

This decree was not imposed upon the fruits of trees, since in any event they grow on their own during the seventh year.

B. The time of removal.

The Torah desired that the produce of the land during the seventh year be designated for every person to eat during the seventh year, and that people should not come to trade in it in order to increase wealth, and remain with the sacred wealth possessing the sanctity of the seventh year even after the shemitta has ended. Therefore the Torah commanded that, when the produce is exhausted from the field, all the produce of the shemitta, and all the money received in exchange for this produce [and which acquired the sanctity of the seventh year], be removed, in order to prevent the preservation of the produce and the accumulation of the wealth deriving from it beyond the year of the shemitta. [See the Addenda, where Rashi explains this in this manner].

The removal is performed by declaring the produce ownerless, and if he did not declare it ownerless by the time of removal, it is prohibited to eat.

And he took

Rabbi Shimon

cabbage sefiḥim and ate from them, and he also

also

gave me

to eat them. And it was after the time of removal.

And he said to me: My son, eat in my presence

cabbage sefiḥim, even after the time of their removal.

But

not in my presence -

do not eat.

For

I, who saw Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai eating -

sufficiently

fit

is Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai

for me

to rely upon him both in his presence and not in his presence.

But

you, who did not

see Rabbi Shimon eating them, and you are permitted to eat them only because you saw me eating—specifically

in my presence eat

them. But

not in my presence, do not eat

from them.

Thus Rabbah bar bar Ḥana says that a person who saw a great deed performed by his teachers is permitted to rely upon it and be lenient on its account.

And not only is he himself permitted regarding it, but others are also permitted regarding it, provided that the matter is in his presence.

And this contradicts what was said above: that the matter is permitted only to the one who himself saw it. But others who hear from him about the deed of the great man were not permitted to rely upon it, even in the presence of the one who saw it.

And we inquire concerning it:

What

is the position of

Rabbi Shimon,

who permits cabbage sefiḥim to be eaten, even after the time of removal?

And we answer:

For it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Shimon says: All the sefiḥim,

vegetables that grew on their own during the seventh year -

are prohibited

to eat after the time of removal.

Except for cabbage sefiḥim

which are permitted.

And the reason for the permission is: because

there is nothing comparable to them among the field vegetables!

Cabbage is not similar to the other field vegetables, since its root, which is in the ground, is not exhausted for the animal of the field throughout all the days of winter. Therefore the leaves that emerge from the stalk are like fruits that grow on a tree. And the fruits of a tree are not included among the sefiḥim, because the tree is not exhausted [Rashi, according to Tosafot].

And the Sages say: All the sefiḥim [

vegetables that grow on their own without their having sown them]

are prohibited,

including cabbage sefiḥim.

And both of them [

Rabbi Shimon and the Sages] -

according to Rabbi Akiva,

who prohibits the sefiḥim by Torah law, disagreed and said this.

For it was taught in a beraita:

it is written: “And if you will say, ‘What shall we eat in the seventh year,”

“Behold, we shall not sow, and we shall not gather our produce.”

Rabbi Akiva said:

Why was it necessary to write “and we shall not gather”? Is it not self-evident that they will not gather?

For:

Since they do not sow -

from where

will they be

gathering?

Rather, necessarily, the verse also refers to grain that grew on its own. For it too is prohibited after the removal.

And this is what the verse says: Behold, we shall not sow, and even what grows on its own we will not be able to gather and eat.

From here we derive the

prohibition of

From here [there is a source] for the prohibition of sefiḥim, that they are prohibited by Torah law

to eat after the time of removal [according to Rashi’s position].

And we inquire concerning it: Since there is no removal for cabbage, because it is not exhausted,

over what do they disagree

Rabbi Shimon and the Sages?

And we explain:

The Sages hold: We impose a decree upon cabbage sefiḥim, on account of the other sefiḥim in the world!

For if we permit them, they will think that there is no prohibition of the seventh year in sefiḥim.

And Rabbi Shimon

holds:

We do not impose a decree upon cabbage sefiḥim on account of the other sefiḥim.

And since they have no removal, they are permitted to eat.

We learned in the Mishna:

One who goes from a place

where work is performed on the eves of Passover to a place where work is not performed, or from a place where work is not performed to a place where work is performed, the stringencies of the place from which he departed and the stringencies of the place to which he went are imposed upon him, and a person should not deviate on account of dispute!

And we inquire concerning it:

Granted,

the one who goes

from a place where they perform work

in it

to a place where they do not perform work,

it is well that it says that

the stringencies of the place to which he went are imposed upon him, and a person should not deviate on account of dispute, and he should not perform

work there.

But

the one who goes

from a place where they do not perform work

in it

to a place where they perform work -

what does it say

“A person should not deviate on account of dispute”!?

But this is an opposite reason -

that

he should

then he should perform

work in a place where they perform it.

But this you surely do not permit him, for

you said: “The stringencies of the place to which he went and the stringencies of the place from which he departed are imposed upon him.”

It follows that if he comes from a place where they do not perform work, he does not perform work even in a place where they do perform it.

Abaye said:

The principle “and a person should not deviate on account of dispute” was stated only

with regard to the first clause.

For if he went from a place where they perform work to a place where they do not perform work, he should not perform work for this reason. But in the latter clause, there is another reason: since he came from a place where they do not perform work, he is obligated by the practice of his established place.

Rava said: Actually

it also applies

to the latter clause. And this is what it says:

He should not perform work even though in the place where he is now they perform work. For they said that it is prohibited to deviate from the practice of the place only on account of dispute.

And in this there is no concern of dispute on account of deviation!

For refraining from performing work will not bring about dispute.

For

what are you saying?

Why do you have to be concerned?

If it is that

one who sees

him abstaining from work will

say

about him that he came to dispute with them and say

that work is prohibited

on the eves of Passover—there is no concern for this. For they will not attribute this to a prohibition against work.

Rather

they will say: “How many idle people there are in the marketplace.”

And they will attribute his abstention from work to mere idleness.

The observance of two festival days outside the Land of Israel was instituted because in the past they would sanctify the month according to visual sighting, and the agents of the court did not have enough time to reach all the exiles of Israel and inform them whether the month had been sanctified at its proper time or not.

Therefore, because of the doubt, they made two days a festival.

In the place of Rav Safra they observed only one festival day, because it was near the Land of Israel, and the agents of the court would arrive there before the festival and inform them when the month had been sanctified at its proper time.

And it happened that Rav Safra went before the festival to a place that the agents of the court did not reach, and therefore they observed two festival days there. [According to Tosafot, based on the Maharsha].

And Rav Safra said to Rabbi Abba: For example, we, who know the establishment of the month,

through the sanctification of the month, for I came from a place to which the agents of the court reached.