Pesachim 51b (נא:) — the Talmud in English

The sugya before us explains two concepts relating to the Sabbatical year: “seventh-year growth” and “removal.”

A. The prohibition of seventh-year growth.

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

According to the Sages, Torah law permits eating everything that grows on its own during the seventh year.

However, by rabbinic ordinance it is prohibited to eat all grain and vegetables that grow on their own, due to the concern that people might come to work the land and sow during the seventh year, and transgressors would claim that this produce grew from seeds they had sown during the sixth year.

This decree was not imposed on 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 everyone to eat during that year, and that people should not engage in trading it in order to increase their wealth, thereby retaining wealth imbued with the sanctity of the seventh year even after the Sabbatical year had ended. Therefore, the Torah commanded that, when the produce is no longer available in the field, all seventh-year produce, as well as all money received in exchange for this produce [and thereby imbued with the sanctity of the seventh year], must be removed, in order to prevent the retention of the produce and the accumulation of wealth derived from it beyond the Sabbatical year. [See the Addenda, where Rashi explains it this way].

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

and he took

Rabbi Shimon

cabbage shoots and ate some of them, and he

also

gave me

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

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

cabbage shoots, even after the time of their removal.

But

not in my presence—

do not eat.

Because

I, who saw Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai eating—

it is enough

that

Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai

is worthy

of my relying upon him, both in his presence and not in his presence.

But

you, who did not

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

eat them in my presence.

But

not in my presence, do not eat

any of them.

Rabba bar bar Ḥana is thus saying that one who observed an authoritative action by his teachers may rely upon it and be lenient on its basis.

And not only is he himself permitted to rely upon it; others are also permitted to do so, provided that the matter is done in his presence.

This contradicts what was said above: that the matter is permitted only to one who himself witnessed the action. But others who hear from him about the teacher’s action are not permitted to rely upon it, even in the presence of the one who witnessed it.

We inquire:

what

is the position of

Rabbi Shimon

who permits eating cabbage shoots even after the time of removal?

And we answer:

As it was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Shimon says: All the seventh-year growth,

the vegetables that grew on their own during the seventh year—

are prohibited

for eating after the time of removal.

Except for cabbage shoots,

which are permitted.

And the reason for this permission is:

because there is nothing comparable to them among the field vegetables!

Cabbage is unlike the other field vegetables, since its root, which remains in the ground, is not exhausted for the wild animal of the field throughout the winter. Therefore, the leaves that emerge from the stalk are like fruits that grow on a tree. The fruits of a tree are not included in seventh-year growth, because the tree is not exhausted [Rashi, based on Tosafot].

And the Sages say: All the seventh-year growth

[vegetables that grow on their own, without having been sown]

are prohibited,

including cabbage shoots.

And both of them

[Rabbi Shimon and the Sages]—

according to Rabbi Akiva,

who prohibits seventh-year growth by Torah law—disagreed and stated their positions accordingly.

As it was taught in a baraita: It is written: “And if you should say, ‘What shall we eat in the seventh year?

For 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”? It is self-evident that they would not gather.

For surely:

Since they do not sow—

from where

will there be produce for them to

gather?

Rather, the verse must also refer to grain that grew on its own. It too is prohibited after the time of removal.

And this is what the verse is saying: “For we shall not sow,” and we will also be unable to gather and eat what grows on its own.

From here we derive the

prohibition of

seventh-year growth, which is prohibited by Torah law

for eating after the time of removal [according to Rashi’s method].

We inquire: Since there is no removal for cabbage, because it is not exhausted,

over what do

Rabbi Shimon and the Sages disagree?

And we explain:

The Sages hold: We impose a decree upon cabbage shoots because of other seventh-year growth!

If we permit them, people will conclude that seventh-year growth is not subject to the prohibition of the seventh year.

And Rabbi Shimon

holds:

We do not impose a decree upon cabbage shoots because of other seventh-year growth.

And since they are not subject to removal, they are permitted for eating.

We learned in the Mishna:

One who travels from a place

where work is performed on the eve 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, must observe the stringencies of the place from which he departed and the stringencies of the place to which he went; and a person may not deviate from the local practice because of the dispute it might cause!

We inquire:

Granted,

with regard to one who travels

from a place where work is performed

on the eve of Passover

to a place where work is not performed,

it is well stated that

he must observe the stringencies of the place to which he went, and a person may not deviate because of the dispute it might cause, and he must not perform work

there.

But

with regard to one who travels

from a place where work is not performed

on the eve of Passover

to a place where work is performed—

what does it mean when it says

“a person may not deviate because of the dispute it might cause”?

Is this not the opposite reason—

that

he should

perform

work in a place where work is performed?

Yet this is precisely what you do not permit him to do, because

you said: “He must observe the stringencies of the place to which he went and the stringencies of the place from which he departed.”

It follows that if he came from a place where work is not performed, he does not perform work even in a place where work is performed.

Abaye said: The principle “a person may not deviate because of the dispute it might cause” was stated only

with regard to the first clause.

Thus, if he traveled from a place where work is performed to a place where work is not performed, he must not perform work for this reason. But in the latter clause, there is a different reason: since he came from a place where work is not performed, he is bound by the practice of his established place.

Rava said: Actually,

it also applies

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

He must not perform work even though work is performed in the place where he now is. For they said that one may not deviate from the practice of the place only because of the dispute it might cause.

But here there is no concern over a dispute caused by the deviation!

Since refraining from performing work will not lead to a dispute.

For

what are you saying?

Why should you be concerned?

If it is because

one who sees

him refraining from work will

say

about him that he came to dispute their practice and to say

that work is prohibited

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

Rather,

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

They will attribute his refraining from work to mere idleness.

The practice of observing two days of Yom Tov outside Eretz Yisrael was instituted because in the past the month was sanctified on the basis of testimony concerning the sighting of the new moon, and the messengers of the court did not have enough time to reach all the Jewish communities in the Diaspora and inform them whether the month had been sanctified at its proper time.

Therefore, because of the doubt, they observed two days of Yom Tov.

In Rav Safra’s place, they observed only one day of Yom Tov, because it was near Eretz Yisrael, and the messengers of the court reached there before Yom Tov and informed them when the month had been sanctified at its proper time.

It happened that Rav Safra traveled before Yom Tov to a place that the messengers of the court did not reach, and therefore they observed two days of Yom Tov there. [According to Tosafot, based on the Maharsha].

And Rav Safra said to Rabbi Abba: In a case such as ours, who know the precise determination of the month,

concerning the sanctification of the month, since I came from a place reached by the messengers of the court.