Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

January 14, 2022 | ื™ืดื‘ ื‘ืฉื‘ื˜ ืชืฉืคืดื‘

This monthโ€™s shiurim are dedicated by Efrat Arnold in loving memory of Joshua Carr, Yehoshua Aryeh Leib ben Yonatan Chaim and Malka Esther HaCohen.

This month's shiurim are dedicated by Tova and David Kestenbaum in honor of their children and grandchildren.

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Moed Katan 2

Todayโ€™s daf is sponsored by Blima Slutsky in loving memory of her father, Yitzhak Tzvi Ben Blima and Chaim Shimon.

Todayโ€™s daf is sponsored by Gabrielle Altman in loving memory her friend, Naomi Rosen on her second yahrzeit, and for a refuah shleima for Miriam Aliza bat Shifra Chana.ย 

Today’s daf is sponsored in honor of Seth Farber’s birthday from his brothers and sisters-in-law, David and Eve and Steven and Lynn, and their families.

Today’s daf is dedicated in memory of the two soldiers killed two night ago in a terrible accident Rav Seren Ofek Aharon and Rav Seren Itamar Elcharar.ย 

Can one water a field that needs irrigation on Chol Hamoed and in the Shmita year? On what does it depend? If there will be a financial loss, one can do actions that do not incur too much labor, or even if there is concern that one may end up having to do hard labor. However, not all agree with these rules. According to which tannaitic opinion is our Mishna? Watering is a sub-category of plowing or planting? Rava and Rav Yosef disagree on this issue. If it is a sub-category of their of those, how can the rabbis permit it to be done in the shmita year in a case of a financial loss if those actions are forbidden by Torah law?

 

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ืžืฉืงื™ืŸ ื‘ื™ืช ื”ืฉืœื—ื™ืŸ ื‘ืžื•ืขื“ ื•ื‘ืฉื‘ื™ืขื™ืช ื‘ื™ืŸ ืžืžืขื™ื™ืŸ ืฉื™ืฆื ื‘ืชื—ื™ืœื” ื‘ื™ืŸ ืžืžืขื™ื™ืŸ ืฉืœื ื™ืฆื ื‘ืชื—ื™ืœื” ืื‘ืœ ืื™ืŸ ืžืฉืงื™ืŸ ืœื ืžืžื™ ื”ื’ืฉืžื™ื ื•ืœื ืžืžื™ ื”ืงื™ืœื•ืŸ

MISHNA: One may irrigate a field that requires irrigation on the intermediate days of a Festival as well as during the Sabbatical Year, both from a newly emerged spring that began to flow only during the Festival, and from a spring that did not just emerge and that has been flowing for some time. However, one may not irrigate a field with rainwater collected in a cistern, a procedure that requires excessive exertion, or with water drawn with a shadoof [kilon], a lever used to raise water with a bucket from deep down in a well.

ื•ืื™ืŸ ืขื•ืฉื™ืŸ ืขื•ื’ื™ื•ืช ืœื’ืคื ื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื‘ืŸ ืขื–ืจื™ื” ืื•ืžืจ ืื™ืŸ ืขื•ืฉื™ืŸ ืืช ื”ืืžื” ื‘ืชื—ื™ืœื” ื‘ืžื•ืขื“ ื•ื‘ืฉื‘ื™ืขื™ืช ื•ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืื•ืžืจื™ื ืขื•ืฉื™ืŸ ืืช ื”ืืžื” ื‘ืชื—ื™ืœื” ื‘ืฉื‘ื™ืขื™ืช ื•ืžืชืงื ื™ืŸ ืืช ื”ืžืงื•ืœืงืœื•ืช ื‘ืžื•ืขื“

And one may not construct circular ditches around the bases of grapevines on the intermediate days of a Festival. Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya says: One may not construct a new water channel during the intermediate days of a Festival or during the Sabbatical Year. And the Rabbis say: One may construct a new water channel during the Sabbatical Year and one may repair damaged water channels during the intermediate days of a Festival.

ื•ืžืชืงื ื™ืŸ ืืช ืงืœืงื•ืœื™ ื”ืžื™ื ืฉื‘ืจืฉื•ืช ื”ืจื‘ื™ื ื•ื—ื•ื˜ื˜ื™ืŸ ืื•ืชืŸ ื•ืžืชืงื ื™ืŸ ืืช ื”ื“ืจื›ื™ื ื•ืืช ื”ืจื—ื•ื‘ื•ืช ื•ืืช ืžืงื•ื•ืช ื”ืžื™ื ื•ืขื•ืฉื™ืŸ ื›ืœ ืฆื•ืจื›ื™ ื”ืจื‘ื™ื ื•ืžืฆื™ื™ื ื™ืŸ ืืช ื”ืงื‘ืจื•ืช ื•ื™ื•ืฆืื™ืŸ ืืฃ ืขืœ ื”ื›ืœืื™ื

In addition to performing labor on oneโ€™s own property in order to avoid financial loss, it is also permitted to perform labor on the intermediate days of a Festival for the public welfare: One may repair damaged water cisterns that are in the public domain, and clean them out by removing the dirt and sediment that accumulated there; one may repair roads, streets, and ritual baths; and one may tend to all other public needs. So too, one may mark graves to inform the public of their ritual impurity, and inspectors may even go out to uproot the shoots of prohibited diverse kinds [kilayim] that grew in the fields during the rainy season.

ื’ืžืณ ื”ืฉืชื ื™ืฉ ืœื•ืžืจ ืžืžืขื™ื™ืŸ ืฉื™ืฆื ื‘ืชื—ื™ืœื” ื“ืืชื™ ืœืื™ื ืคื•ืœื™ ืžืฉืงื™ืŸ ืžืžืขื™ื™ืŸ ืฉืœื ื™ืฆื ื‘ืชื—ื™ืœื” ื“ืœื ืืชื™ ืœืื™ื ืคื•ืœื™ ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ื

GEMARA: The Gemara begins by questioning the wording of the mishna: Now that it has been said that on the intermediate days of a Festival one may irrigate a field from a newly emerged spring, whose walls have not yet stabilized and are likely to collapse, necessitating laborious repairs, is it necessary to mention that one may irrigate a field from a spring that did not just emerge, whose walls have already stabilized and are therefore not likely to collapse?

ืืžืจื™ ืืฆื˜ืจื™ืš ืื™ ืชื ื ืžืขื™ื™ืŸ ืฉื™ืฆื ื‘ืชื—ื™ืœื” ื”ื•ื” ืืžื™ื ื ื”ื›ื ื”ื•ื ื“ื‘ื™ืช ื”ืฉืœื—ื™ืŸ ืื™ืŸ ื‘ื™ืช ื”ื‘ืขืœ ืœื ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืืชื™ ืœืื™ื ืคื•ืœื™ ืื‘ืœ ืžืขื™ื™ืŸ ืฉืœื ื™ืฆื ื‘ืชื—ื™ืœื” ื“ืœื ืืชื™ ืœืื™ื ืคื•ืœื™ ืื™ืžื ืืคื™ืœื• ื‘ื™ืช ื”ื‘ืขืœ ื ืžื™

The Gemara answers: They say that it was necessary to mention the second case as well. For had the tanna taught us the halakha with regard to only a newly emerged spring, I would have said that here, in the case of a field that requires irrigation, yes, one is permitted to irrigate from such a spring, but in the case of a field that ordinarily suffices with rainwater, no, one is not permitted to do so, because it is likely to collapse. But with regard to a spring that did not just emerge, that is not likely to collapse, I might say that one may provide supplementary irrigation even in the case of a field that ordinarily suffices with rainwater.

ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ ืœื ืฉื ื ืžืขื™ื™ืŸ ืฉื™ืฆื ื‘ืชื—ื™ืœื” ื•ืœื ืฉื ื ืžืขื™ื™ืŸ ืฉืœื ื™ืฆื ื‘ืชื—ื™ืœื” ื‘ื™ืช ื”ืฉืœื—ื™ืŸ ืื™ืŸ ื‘ื™ืช ื”ื‘ืขืœ ืœื

Therefore, the tanna teaches us that a newly emerged spring is no different from a spring that did not just emerge. In the case of a field that requires irrigation, yes, one may irrigate on the intermediate days of a Festival, while in the case of a field that ordinarily suffices with rainwater, no, one may not do so, even from an established spring.

ื•ืžืื™ ืžืฉืžืข ื“ื”ืื™ ื‘ื™ืช ื”ืฉืœื—ื™ืŸ ืœื™ืฉื ื ื“ืฆื—ื•ืชื ื”ื™ื ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ืืชื” ืขื™ืฃ ื•ื™ื’ืข ื•ืžืชืจื’ืžื™ื ืŸ ื•ืืช ืžืฉืœื”ื™ ื•ืœืื™

The Gemara raises a question with regard to a linguistic issue: And from where may it be inferred that this term, beit hashelaแธฅin, a field that requires irrigation, is a term denoting thirst, implying that supplementary watering is necessary? The Gemara answers: As it is written: โ€œAnd you were faint and wearyโ€ (Deuteronomy 25:18). The term faint is referring to the thirst of the Israelites in the desert. And, in the standard Aramaic translation, we translate the verse as: And you were thirsty [meshalhei] and weary. The letters แธฅet and heh are sometimes interchanged, and therefore the term beit hashelaแธฅin connotes a thirsty field.

ื•ืžืื™ ืžืฉืžืข ื“ื”ืื™ ื‘ื™ืช ื”ื‘ืขืœ ืœื™ืฉื ื ื“ืžื™ื™ืชื‘ื•ืชื ื”ื™ื ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื›ื™ ื™ื‘ืขืœ ื‘ื—ื•ืจ ื‘ืชื•ืœื” ื•ืžืชืจื’ืžื™ื ืŸ ืืจื™ ื›ืžื” ื“ืžื™ืชื•ืชื‘ ืขื•ืœื ืขื ื‘ืชื•ืœืชื ื™ืชื™ื™ืชื‘ื•ืŸ ื‘ื’ื•ื™ืš ื‘ื ื™ื™ืš

And from where may it be inferred that this term, beit habaโ€™al, a field that suffices with rainwater, is a term denoting settlement, i.e., an established field that does not require extensive upkeep? As it is written: โ€œFor as a young man takes to himself [yivโ€™al] a virgin, so shall your sons take you to themselvesโ€ (Isaiah 62:5). And it is translated in the Aramaic translation: As a young man settles down with a virgin, so shall your sons become settled within you. Similarly, beit habaโ€™al is referring to a settled field that suffices with rainwater.

ืžืืŸ ืชื ื ื“ืคืกื™ื“ื ืื™ืŸ ื”ืจื•ื•ื—ื” ืœื ื•ืืคื™ืœื• ื‘ืžืงื•ื ืคืกื™ื“ื ืžื™ื˜ืจื— ื ืžื™ ืœื ื˜ืจื—ื™ื ืŸ

The Gemara begins to clarify the underlying principle of the mishna, asking: Who is the anonymous tanna of the mishna who maintains that labor performed to prevent a considerable loss, such as watering a field that requires irrigation, yes, it is permitted on the intermediate days of a Festival; but labor performed to increase oneโ€™s profit, such as watering a field that ordinarily suffices with rainwater, no, it is not permitted? Furthermore, even in a case involving loss, one may not excessively exert oneself, as the tanna of the mishna renders prohibited all cases of watering fields with collected rainwater or with water drawn with a shadoof, even in a field that requires irrigation.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื‘ืŸ ื™ืขืงื‘ ื”ื™ื ื“ืชื ืŸ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื‘ืŸ ื™ืขืงื‘ ืื•ืžืจ ืžื•ืฉื›ื™ืŸ ืืช ื”ืžื™ื ืžืื™ืœืŸ ืœืื™ืœืŸ ื•ื‘ืœื‘ื“ ืฉืœื ื™ืฉืงื” ืืช ื”ืฉื“ื” ื›ื•ืœื”

Rav Huna said: It is Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaโ€™akov, as we learned in a mishna: Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaโ€™akov says: In a field filled with trees, one may draw water via channels from tree to tree, provided that in doing so he does not water the entire field. As this field ordinarily suffices with rainwater, it is prohibited to water the entire field. Therefore, it is evident that Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaโ€™akov renders prohibited work performed to increase profit on the intermediate days of a Festival.

ืื™ืžื•ืจ ื“ืฉืžืขืช ืœื™ื” ืœืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื”ืจื•ื•ื—ื” ื“ืœื ื˜ื™ืจื—ื ื‘ืžืงื•ื ืคืกื™ื“ื ืžื™ ืฉืžืขืช ืœื™ื”

The Gemara challenges this comparison: Say that you heard that Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaโ€™akov holds that labor performed only to increase profit is not permitted. But did you hear him prohibit excessive exertion in a case of considerable loss? This aspect of the mishna finds no expression in the words of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaโ€™akov.

ืืœื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืคืคื ื”ื ืžื ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื”ื™ื ื“ืชื ื™ื ืžืขื™ื™ืŸ ื”ื™ื•ืฆื ื‘ืชื—ื™ืœื” ืžืฉืงื™ืŸ ืžืžื ื• ืืคื™ืœื• ืฉื“ื” ื‘ื™ืช ื”ื‘ืขืœ ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื•ืžืจ ืื™ืŸ ืžืฉืงื™ืŸ ืืœื ืฉื“ื” ื‘ื™ืช ื”ืฉืœื—ื™ืŸ ืฉื—ืจื‘ื” ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื‘ืŸ ืขื–ืจื™ื” ืื•ืžืจ ืœื ื›ืš ื•ืœื ื›ืš ื™ืชืจ ืขืœ ื›ืŸ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืœื ื™ืคื ื” ืื“ื ืืžืช ื”ืžื™ื ื•ื™ืฉืงื” ืœื’ื™ื ืชื• ื•ืœื—ื•ืจื‘ืชื• ื‘ื—ื•ืœื• ืฉืœ ืžื•ืขื“

Rather, Rav Pappa said: In accordance with whose opinion is this mishna? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, as it is taught in a baraita: From a newly emerged spring one may irrigate even a field that ordinarily suffices with rainwater; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: One may irrigate only a field requiring irrigation that dried up and needs water. Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya says: Neither the one nor the other. Furthermore, Rabbi Yehuda said: Owing to the exertion involved, one may not divert a water channel from its regular path in order to water his garden or his ruin, which is now being used for planting, during the intermediate days of a Festival.

ืžืื™ ื—ืจื‘ื” ืื™ืœื™ืžื ื—ืจื‘ื” ืžืžืฉ ืœืžื” ืœื™ ื“ืžืฉืงื™ ืœื” ืืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ืฉื—ืจื‘ื” ืžืžืขื™ื™ืŸ ื–ื” ื•ื™ืฆื ืœื” ืžืขื™ื™ืŸ ืื—ืจ

The Gemara first clarifies the case of the baraita: What does Rabbi Yehuda mean when he speaks of a field that is dried up? If we say that the field is literally dried up and the plants are already parched, why do I need to water it? Abaye said: It means that the one spring from which the field had been irrigated until now dried up, but in the meantime another spring emerged. If the field is not irrigated from this spring, it will be ruined.

ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื‘ืŸ ืขื–ืจื™ื” ืื•ืžืจ ืœื ื›ืš ื•ืœื ื›ืš ืœื ืฉื ื ื—ืจื‘ ืžืขื™ื™ื ื” ื•ืœื ืฉื ื ืœื ื—ืจื‘ ืžืขื™ื™ื ื” ืžืขื™ื™ืŸ ืฉื™ืฆื ื‘ืชื—ื™ืœื” ืœื

The Gemara explains the next clause of the baraita, which states: Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya says: Neither the one nor the other. By this he means that it is no different whether the original spring dried up or did not dry up. The guiding principle is: From a newly emerged spring one may not irrigate even a field that requires irrigation.

ื•ืžืžืื™ ื“ืœืžื ืขื“ ื›ืืŸ ืœื ืงืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื‘ื™ืช ื”ืฉืœื—ื™ืŸ ืื™ืŸ ื‘ื™ืช ื”ื‘ืขืœ ืœื ืืœื ืžืขื™ื™ืŸ ืฉื™ืฆื ื‘ืชื—ื™ืœื”

In any event, Rabbi Yehuda seems to maintain an opinion that is like that of the mishna, i.e., that only a field that requires irrigation may be watered, but not a field that suffices with rainwater. And even in the case of a field that requires irrigation, excessive exertion is prohibited. The Gemara challenges this understanding: And from where do you conclude that the mishna reflects the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda? Perhaps Rabbi Yehuda stated that a field that requires irrigation, yes, one may irrigate it on the intermediate days of a Festival, and a field that suffices with rainwater, no, one may not do so, only with regard to a newly emerged spring,

ื“ืœืžื ืืชื™ ืœืื™ื ืคื•ืœื™ ืื‘ืœ ืžืขื™ื™ืŸ ืฉืœื ื™ืฆื ื‘ืชื—ื™ืœื” ื“ืœื ืืชื™ ืœืื™ื ืคื•ืœื™ ืืคื™ืœื• ื‘ื™ืช ื”ื‘ืขืœ ื ืžื™

as it is likely to collapse. But in the case of a spring that did not just emerge, which is not likely to collapse because its walls have already stabilized, even a field that ordinarily suffices with rainwater may be irrigated.

ืื ื›ืŸ ืžืชื ื™ืชื™ืŸ ืืžืืŸ ืชืจืžื™ื™ื” ืืœื ืœืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืœื ืฉื ื ืžืขื™ื™ืŸ ืฉื™ืฆื ื‘ืชื—ื™ืœื” ื•ืœื ืฉื ื ืžืขื™ื™ืŸ ืฉืœื ื™ืฆื ื‘ืชื—ื™ืœื” ื‘ื™ืช ื”ืฉืœื—ื™ืŸ ืื™ืŸ ื‘ื™ืช ื”ื‘ืขืœ ืœื ื•ื”ืื™ ื“ืงืชื ื™ ืžืขื™ื™ืŸ ืฉื™ืฆื ื‘ืชื—ื™ืœื” ืœื”ื•ื“ื™ืขืš ื›ื—ื• ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ื“ืืคื™ืœื• ืžืขื™ื™ืŸ ื”ื™ื•ืฆื ื‘ืชื—ื™ืœื” ืžืฉืงื™ืŸ ืžืžื ื• ืืคื™ืœื• ืฉื“ื” ื”ื‘ืขืœ

The Gemara asks: If that were so, then to whom, i.e., to which tanna, would you attribute the mishna? According to this interpretation, the mishna does not correspond to any opinion, while according to the previous interpretation, it corresponds to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. Rather, it must be that according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, a newly emerged spring is no different from a spring that did not just emerge. A field that requires irrigation, yes, it may be irrigated, while a field that suffices with rainwater, no, it may not be irrigated. And the baraita opted to teach this dispute in the case of a newly emerged spring in order to convey the far-reaching nature of the opinion of Rabbi Meir, which states that one may irrigate even from a newly emerged spring, and even a field that suffices with rainwater.

ืืชืžืจ ื”ืžื ื›ืฉ ื•ื”ืžืฉืงื” ืžื™ื ืœื–ืจืขื™ื ื‘ืฉื‘ืช ืžืฉื•ื ืžืื™ ืžืชืจื™ื ืŸ ื‘ื™ื” ืจื‘ื” ืืžืจ ืžืฉื•ื ื—ื•ืจืฉ ืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ืืžืจ ืžืฉื•ื ื–ื•ืจืข

ยง It was stated that the amoraโ€™im disputed the following question: With regard to one who weeds or one who waters seedlings on Shabbat, for what prohibited labor do we forewarn him? Judicial punishment may be administered to a sinner only if he has been forewarned by two witnesses prior to the commission of his offense. This forewarning must include the specific transgression being violated, and on Shabbat it must include the specific category of prohibited labor that the action involves. Rabba said: It is due to the prohibition against plowing. Rav Yosef said: It is due to the prohibition against sowing.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื” ื›ื•ื•ืชื™ ื“ื™ื“ื™ ืžืกืชื‘ืจื ืžื” ื“ืจื›ื• ืฉืœ ื—ื•ืจืฉ ืœืจืคื•ื™ื™ ืืจืขื ื”ืื™ ื ืžื™ ืžืจืคื•ื™ื™ ืืจืขื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ื›ื•ื•ืชื™ ื“ื™ื“ื™ ืžืกืชื‘ืจื ืžื” ื“ืจื›ื• ืฉืœ ื–ื•ืจืข ืœืฆืžื•ื—ื™ ืคื™ืจื ื”ื›ื ื ืžื™ ืžืฆืžื— ืคื™ืจื

Rabba said: According to my opinion it is reasonable. Just as the usual objective of plowing is to loosen the earth, so too, this, weeding or watering, loosens the earth. Rav Yosef said: According to my opinion, it is reasonable. Just as the usual objective of sowing is to cause the fruit to grow, here too, weeding or watering causes the fruit to grow.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื‘ื™ื™ ืœืจื‘ื” ืœื“ื™ื“ืš ืงืฉื™ื ื•ืœืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ืงืฉื™ื ืœื“ื™ื“ืš ืงืฉื™ื ืžืฉื•ื ื—ื•ืจืฉ ืื™ืŸ ืžืฉื•ื ื–ื•ืจืข ืœื ืœืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ืงืฉื™ื ืžืฉื•ื ื–ื•ืจืข ืื™ืŸ ืžืฉื•ื ื—ื•ืจืฉ ืœื

Abaye said to Rabba: According to your opinion, it is difficult, and according to the opinion of Rav Yosef, it is difficult. Abaye explains: According to your opinion, it is difficult: Is it true that for the prohibition against plowing, yes, he is forewarned, but for the prohibition against sowing, no, he is not forewarned? Similarly, according to the opinion of Rav Yosef, it is difficult: Can it be that for the prohibition against sowing, yes, he is forewarned, but for the prohibition against plowing, no, he is not forewarned? Everyone should agree that weeding and watering fall under the categories of both plowing and sowing.

ื•ื›ื™ ืชื™ืžื ื›ืœ ื”ื™ื›ื ื“ืื™ื›ื ืชืจืชื™ ืœื ืžื™ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืืœื ื—ื“ื ื•ื”ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื›ื”ื ื ื–ื•ืžืจ ื•ืฆืจื™ืš ืœืขืฆื™ื ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืฉืชื™ื ืื—ืช ืžืฉื•ื ื ื•ื˜ืข ื•ืื—ืช ืžืฉื•ื ืงื•ืฆืจ

And if you say that anywhere that there are two possible categories of prohibited labor into which a particular action might fall, one is liable to be punished for only one of them, didnโ€™t Rav Kahana say: If one prunes the branches of a vine on Shabbat and he needs the wood for firewood or any other purpose, he is liable to bring two sin-offerings? He is liable to bring one sin-offering for violating the primary category of sowing, as pruning vines facilitates their growth, and so it is a sub-category of sowing. And he is liable to bring one sin-offering for violating the primary category of reaping, as the essence of reaping is detaching that which one needs from the ground. Since he needs the wood that he is detaching from the vine, his action is considered reaping. Consequently, one action that incorporates two prohibited labors causes liability for both.

ืงืฉื™ื

The Gemara concludes: Indeed, it is difficult according to both opinions.

ืื™ืชื™ื‘ื™ื” ืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ืœืจื‘ื” ื”ืžื ื›ืฉ ื•ื”ืžื—ืคื” ืœื›ืœืื™ื ืœื•ืงื” ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ืื•ืžืจ ืืฃ ื”ืžืงื™ื™ื

Rav Yosef raised an objection to the opinion of Rabba from what is taught in the following baraita: One who weeds in proximity to diverse kinds of seeds, or covers with earth the exposed roots of diverse kinds, is flogged for transgressing the prohibition against diverse kinds, i.e., tending different species of crops in one area of the same field, as it is stated: โ€œYou shall not sow your field with two kinds of seedโ€ (Leviticus 19:19). Rabbi Akiva says: Even one who maintains in his field a mixture of species that he could have uprooted is flogged for violating the prohibition against diverse kinds of seeds.

ื‘ืฉืœืžื ืœื“ื™ื“ื™ ื“ืืžื™ื ื ืžืฉื•ื ื–ื•ืจืข ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ื“ืืกื™ืจื ื–ืจื™ืขื” ื‘ื›ืœืื™ื ืืœื ืœื“ื™ื“ืš ื“ืืžืจืช ืžืฉื•ื ื—ื•ืจืฉ ื—ืจื™ืฉื” ื‘ื›ืœืื™ื ืžื™ ืืกื™ืจื

Rav Yosef explains: Granted, according to my opinion, that I say that one who weeds on Shabbat is forewarned for the prohibited labor of sowing, this is the reason he is liable to be punished with flogging for weeding diverse seeds: Sowing diverse kinds is prohibited. But according to you, who said that one who weeds on Shabbat is forewarned for plowing, why is one liable to be flogged for weeding in proximity to diverse kinds? Is plowing prohibited in connection with diverse kinds? At the time of plowing, there is no mixture of different species of crops, so plowing cannot be prohibited in this case.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืžืฉื•ื ืžืงื™ื™ื

Rabba said to him: According to my opinion, one who weeds a field of diverse kinds is flogged not because he is guilty of plowing, but for violating the prohibition against maintaining a mixture of species in his field.

ื•ื”ื ืžื“ืงืชื ื™ ืกื™ืคื ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ืื•ืžืจ ืืฃ ื”ืžืงื™ื™ื ืžื›ืœืœ ื“ืชื ื ืงืžื ืœืื• ืžืฉื•ื ืžืงื™ื™ื ื”ื•ื

The Gemara objects: However, from the fact that it teaches in the latter clause of the baraita that Rabbi Akiva says: Even one who maintains in his field a mixture of species is liable to be flogged, it may be inferred that according to the anonymous first tanna, the liability for weeding is not for maintaining diverse kinds, but for performing some other prohibited labor.

ื›ื•ืœื” ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ื”ื™ื ื•ืžืื™ ื˜ืขื ืงืืžืจ ืžืื™ ื˜ืขื ื”ืžื ื›ืฉ ื•ื”ืžื—ืคื” ื‘ื›ืœืื™ื ืœื•ืงื” ืžืฉื•ื ืžืงื™ื™ื ืฉืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ืื•ืžืจ ืืฃ ื”ืžืงื™ื™ื

The Gemara rejects this opinion: In fact, the entire baraita reflects the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, and it is stated in the style of what is the reason. The baraita should be understood as follows: What is the reason that one who weeds and one who covers the exposed roots of diverse kinds with earth is flogged? He is flogged for maintaining diverse kinds in his field, as Rabbi Akiva says: Even one who maintains in his field a mixture of species is flogged.

ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ื“ืชื ื™ื ืฉื“ืš ืœื ืชื–ืจืข ื›ืœืื™ื ืื™ืŸ ืœื™ ืืœื ื–ื•ืจืข ืžืงื™ื™ื ืžื ื™ื™ืŸ

With regard to Rabbi Akivaโ€™s opinion, the Gemara asks: What is the reason for Rabbi Akivaโ€™s opinion? How did he derive this prohibition from the verses? The Gemara answers: As it is taught in a baraita: โ€œYou shall not sow your field with mingled seedโ€ (Leviticus 19:19). I have derived from this verse that only sowing diverse kinds is prohibited. From where is it derived that maintaining diverse kinds, which does not involve any positive action, is also prohibited?

ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ื›ืœืื™ื ืฉื“ืš ืœื

The verse states: โ€œDiverse kinds, you shall not sow your field with mingled seedโ€ (Leviticus 19:19). The prohibition against planting different species of a crop in one area of the same field is preceded in the verse by the prohibition against crossbreeding livestock: โ€œYou shall not let your cattle gender with a diverse kind.โ€ A slight change in punctuation yields the phrase: Diverse kinds in your field, you shall not, indicating that merely preserving diverse kinds in oneโ€™s field is prohibited.

ืชื ืŸ ืžืฉืงื™ืŸ ื‘ื™ืช ื”ืฉืœื—ื™ืŸ ื‘ืžื•ืขื“ ื•ื‘ืฉื‘ื™ืขื™ืช

ยง The Gemara returns to the original topic of discussion: We learned in the mishna: One may irrigate a field that requires irrigation on the intermediate days of a Festival as well as during the Sabbatical Year.

ื‘ืฉืœืžื ืžื•ืขื“ ืžืฉื•ื ื˜ื™ืจื—ื ื”ื•ื ื•ื‘ืžืงื•ื ืคืกื™ื“ื ืฉืจื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืืœื ืฉื‘ื™ืขื™ืช ื‘ื™ืŸ ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืžืฉื•ื ื–ื•ืจืข ื•ื‘ื™ืŸ ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืžืฉื•ื ื—ื•ืจืฉ ื–ืจื™ืขื” ื•ื—ืจื™ืฉื” ื‘ืฉื‘ื™ืขื™ืช ืžื™ ืฉืจื™

The Gemara asks: Granted, with regard to the intermediate days of a Festival, where the prohibition against irrigation is due to the mandate to avoid excessive exertion on the Festival, in a case of considerable loss, the Sages permitted one to exert himself. However, during the Sabbatical Year, both according to the one who said that one who waters is liable due to the prohibition against sowing, and according to the one who said that one is liable due to the prohibition against plowing, are sowing and plowing permitted during the Sabbatical Year? How can these actions be permitted when the Torah explicitly renders prohibited working the land during the Sabbatical Year?

ืืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ื‘ืฉื‘ื™ืขื™ืช ื‘ื–ืžืŸ ื”ื–ื” ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื”ื™ื ื“ืชื ื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ืื•ืžืจ ื•ื–ื” ื“ื‘ืจ ื”ืฉืžื˜ื” ืฉืžื•ื˜ ื‘ืฉืชื™ ืฉืžื™ื˜ื•ืช ื”ื›ืชื•ื‘ ืžื“ื‘ืจ ืื—ืช ืฉืžื™ื˜ืช ืงืจืงืข ื•ืื—ืช ืฉืžื™ื˜ืช ื›ืกืคื™ื

Abaye said: The mishna is referring to the Sabbatical Year in the present time, when its prohibitions are only by rabbinic decree, and it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: When the verse states: โ€œAnd this is the manner of the release, every creditor will release that which he has lent to his neighborโ€ (Deuteronomy 15:2), the verse speaks of two releases: One is the release of land, that one must refrain from working the land, and the other is the release of money, that one must refrain from collecting debts.

ื‘ื–ืžืŸ ืฉืืชื” ืžืฉืžื˜ ืงืจืงืข ืืชื” ืžืฉืžื˜ ื›ืกืคื™ื ื•ื‘ื–ืžืŸ ืฉืื™ ืืชื” ืžืฉืžื˜ ืงืจืงืข ืื™ ืืชื” ืžืฉืžื˜ ื›ืกืคื™ื

This verse equates these two releases, indicating that when you are mandated by Torah law to release land, you must release money, and when you are not mandated to release land, you need not release money. This indicates that according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, at the present time, the release of land is not mandated by Torah law. Therefore, observance of the Sabbatical Year is mandated only by rabbinic law, and the Sages were lenient in a case of significant loss.

ืจื‘ื ืืžืจ ืืคื™ืœื• ืชื™ืžื ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืื‘ื•ืช ืืกืจ ืจื—ืžื ื

Rava said: Even if you say that the mishna was taught in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and maintain that the observance of the Sabbatical Year, even at the present time, is mandated by Torah law, one can understand the leniency in the mishna. The reason for the leniency with regard to irrigation is because only primary categories of labor were prohibited by the Merciful One, i.e., by Torah law,

This monthโ€™s shiurim are dedicated by Efrat Arnold in loving memory of Joshua Carr, Yehoshua Aryeh Leib ben Yonatan Chaim and Malka Esther HaCohen.

And by Tova and David Kestenbaum in honor of their children and grandchildren.

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Moed Katan: 2-6 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

This week we will start Moed Katan. We will start with an overview of the Masechet and understand some of...
Gefet with Rabbanit Yael Shimoni

The Prohibition of Work on Chol Hamoed – Gefet 22

In our first Gefet ย for Tractate Moed Katan, we will discuss the topic that concerns most of the first section...
talking talmud_square

Moed Katan 2

An introduction to the new tractate, and its focus on Chol HaMoed. Also, the first mishnah, with a discussion of...
6

Introduction to Moed Katan

Watch the video introduction or listen to the podcast below.  

Moed Katan 2

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Moed Katan 2

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ืžืฉืงื™ืŸ ื‘ื™ืช ื”ืฉืœื—ื™ืŸ ื‘ืžื•ืขื“ ื•ื‘ืฉื‘ื™ืขื™ืช ื‘ื™ืŸ ืžืžืขื™ื™ืŸ ืฉื™ืฆื ื‘ืชื—ื™ืœื” ื‘ื™ืŸ ืžืžืขื™ื™ืŸ ืฉืœื ื™ืฆื ื‘ืชื—ื™ืœื” ืื‘ืœ ืื™ืŸ ืžืฉืงื™ืŸ ืœื ืžืžื™ ื”ื’ืฉืžื™ื ื•ืœื ืžืžื™ ื”ืงื™ืœื•ืŸ

MISHNA: One may irrigate a field that requires irrigation on the intermediate days of a Festival as well as during the Sabbatical Year, both from a newly emerged spring that began to flow only during the Festival, and from a spring that did not just emerge and that has been flowing for some time. However, one may not irrigate a field with rainwater collected in a cistern, a procedure that requires excessive exertion, or with water drawn with a shadoof [kilon], a lever used to raise water with a bucket from deep down in a well.

ื•ืื™ืŸ ืขื•ืฉื™ืŸ ืขื•ื’ื™ื•ืช ืœื’ืคื ื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื‘ืŸ ืขื–ืจื™ื” ืื•ืžืจ ืื™ืŸ ืขื•ืฉื™ืŸ ืืช ื”ืืžื” ื‘ืชื—ื™ืœื” ื‘ืžื•ืขื“ ื•ื‘ืฉื‘ื™ืขื™ืช ื•ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืื•ืžืจื™ื ืขื•ืฉื™ืŸ ืืช ื”ืืžื” ื‘ืชื—ื™ืœื” ื‘ืฉื‘ื™ืขื™ืช ื•ืžืชืงื ื™ืŸ ืืช ื”ืžืงื•ืœืงืœื•ืช ื‘ืžื•ืขื“

And one may not construct circular ditches around the bases of grapevines on the intermediate days of a Festival. Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya says: One may not construct a new water channel during the intermediate days of a Festival or during the Sabbatical Year. And the Rabbis say: One may construct a new water channel during the Sabbatical Year and one may repair damaged water channels during the intermediate days of a Festival.

ื•ืžืชืงื ื™ืŸ ืืช ืงืœืงื•ืœื™ ื”ืžื™ื ืฉื‘ืจืฉื•ืช ื”ืจื‘ื™ื ื•ื—ื•ื˜ื˜ื™ืŸ ืื•ืชืŸ ื•ืžืชืงื ื™ืŸ ืืช ื”ื“ืจื›ื™ื ื•ืืช ื”ืจื—ื•ื‘ื•ืช ื•ืืช ืžืงื•ื•ืช ื”ืžื™ื ื•ืขื•ืฉื™ืŸ ื›ืœ ืฆื•ืจื›ื™ ื”ืจื‘ื™ื ื•ืžืฆื™ื™ื ื™ืŸ ืืช ื”ืงื‘ืจื•ืช ื•ื™ื•ืฆืื™ืŸ ืืฃ ืขืœ ื”ื›ืœืื™ื

In addition to performing labor on oneโ€™s own property in order to avoid financial loss, it is also permitted to perform labor on the intermediate days of a Festival for the public welfare: One may repair damaged water cisterns that are in the public domain, and clean them out by removing the dirt and sediment that accumulated there; one may repair roads, streets, and ritual baths; and one may tend to all other public needs. So too, one may mark graves to inform the public of their ritual impurity, and inspectors may even go out to uproot the shoots of prohibited diverse kinds [kilayim] that grew in the fields during the rainy season.

ื’ืžืณ ื”ืฉืชื ื™ืฉ ืœื•ืžืจ ืžืžืขื™ื™ืŸ ืฉื™ืฆื ื‘ืชื—ื™ืœื” ื“ืืชื™ ืœืื™ื ืคื•ืœื™ ืžืฉืงื™ืŸ ืžืžืขื™ื™ืŸ ืฉืœื ื™ืฆื ื‘ืชื—ื™ืœื” ื“ืœื ืืชื™ ืœืื™ื ืคื•ืœื™ ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ื

GEMARA: The Gemara begins by questioning the wording of the mishna: Now that it has been said that on the intermediate days of a Festival one may irrigate a field from a newly emerged spring, whose walls have not yet stabilized and are likely to collapse, necessitating laborious repairs, is it necessary to mention that one may irrigate a field from a spring that did not just emerge, whose walls have already stabilized and are therefore not likely to collapse?

ืืžืจื™ ืืฆื˜ืจื™ืš ืื™ ืชื ื ืžืขื™ื™ืŸ ืฉื™ืฆื ื‘ืชื—ื™ืœื” ื”ื•ื” ืืžื™ื ื ื”ื›ื ื”ื•ื ื“ื‘ื™ืช ื”ืฉืœื—ื™ืŸ ืื™ืŸ ื‘ื™ืช ื”ื‘ืขืœ ืœื ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืืชื™ ืœืื™ื ืคื•ืœื™ ืื‘ืœ ืžืขื™ื™ืŸ ืฉืœื ื™ืฆื ื‘ืชื—ื™ืœื” ื“ืœื ืืชื™ ืœืื™ื ืคื•ืœื™ ืื™ืžื ืืคื™ืœื• ื‘ื™ืช ื”ื‘ืขืœ ื ืžื™

The Gemara answers: They say that it was necessary to mention the second case as well. For had the tanna taught us the halakha with regard to only a newly emerged spring, I would have said that here, in the case of a field that requires irrigation, yes, one is permitted to irrigate from such a spring, but in the case of a field that ordinarily suffices with rainwater, no, one is not permitted to do so, because it is likely to collapse. But with regard to a spring that did not just emerge, that is not likely to collapse, I might say that one may provide supplementary irrigation even in the case of a field that ordinarily suffices with rainwater.

ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ ืœื ืฉื ื ืžืขื™ื™ืŸ ืฉื™ืฆื ื‘ืชื—ื™ืœื” ื•ืœื ืฉื ื ืžืขื™ื™ืŸ ืฉืœื ื™ืฆื ื‘ืชื—ื™ืœื” ื‘ื™ืช ื”ืฉืœื—ื™ืŸ ืื™ืŸ ื‘ื™ืช ื”ื‘ืขืœ ืœื

Therefore, the tanna teaches us that a newly emerged spring is no different from a spring that did not just emerge. In the case of a field that requires irrigation, yes, one may irrigate on the intermediate days of a Festival, while in the case of a field that ordinarily suffices with rainwater, no, one may not do so, even from an established spring.

ื•ืžืื™ ืžืฉืžืข ื“ื”ืื™ ื‘ื™ืช ื”ืฉืœื—ื™ืŸ ืœื™ืฉื ื ื“ืฆื—ื•ืชื ื”ื™ื ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ืืชื” ืขื™ืฃ ื•ื™ื’ืข ื•ืžืชืจื’ืžื™ื ืŸ ื•ืืช ืžืฉืœื”ื™ ื•ืœืื™

The Gemara raises a question with regard to a linguistic issue: And from where may it be inferred that this term, beit hashelaแธฅin, a field that requires irrigation, is a term denoting thirst, implying that supplementary watering is necessary? The Gemara answers: As it is written: โ€œAnd you were faint and wearyโ€ (Deuteronomy 25:18). The term faint is referring to the thirst of the Israelites in the desert. And, in the standard Aramaic translation, we translate the verse as: And you were thirsty [meshalhei] and weary. The letters แธฅet and heh are sometimes interchanged, and therefore the term beit hashelaแธฅin connotes a thirsty field.

ื•ืžืื™ ืžืฉืžืข ื“ื”ืื™ ื‘ื™ืช ื”ื‘ืขืœ ืœื™ืฉื ื ื“ืžื™ื™ืชื‘ื•ืชื ื”ื™ื ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื›ื™ ื™ื‘ืขืœ ื‘ื—ื•ืจ ื‘ืชื•ืœื” ื•ืžืชืจื’ืžื™ื ืŸ ืืจื™ ื›ืžื” ื“ืžื™ืชื•ืชื‘ ืขื•ืœื ืขื ื‘ืชื•ืœืชื ื™ืชื™ื™ืชื‘ื•ืŸ ื‘ื’ื•ื™ืš ื‘ื ื™ื™ืš

And from where may it be inferred that this term, beit habaโ€™al, a field that suffices with rainwater, is a term denoting settlement, i.e., an established field that does not require extensive upkeep? As it is written: โ€œFor as a young man takes to himself [yivโ€™al] a virgin, so shall your sons take you to themselvesโ€ (Isaiah 62:5). And it is translated in the Aramaic translation: As a young man settles down with a virgin, so shall your sons become settled within you. Similarly, beit habaโ€™al is referring to a settled field that suffices with rainwater.

ืžืืŸ ืชื ื ื“ืคืกื™ื“ื ืื™ืŸ ื”ืจื•ื•ื—ื” ืœื ื•ืืคื™ืœื• ื‘ืžืงื•ื ืคืกื™ื“ื ืžื™ื˜ืจื— ื ืžื™ ืœื ื˜ืจื—ื™ื ืŸ

The Gemara begins to clarify the underlying principle of the mishna, asking: Who is the anonymous tanna of the mishna who maintains that labor performed to prevent a considerable loss, such as watering a field that requires irrigation, yes, it is permitted on the intermediate days of a Festival; but labor performed to increase oneโ€™s profit, such as watering a field that ordinarily suffices with rainwater, no, it is not permitted? Furthermore, even in a case involving loss, one may not excessively exert oneself, as the tanna of the mishna renders prohibited all cases of watering fields with collected rainwater or with water drawn with a shadoof, even in a field that requires irrigation.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื‘ืŸ ื™ืขืงื‘ ื”ื™ื ื“ืชื ืŸ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื‘ืŸ ื™ืขืงื‘ ืื•ืžืจ ืžื•ืฉื›ื™ืŸ ืืช ื”ืžื™ื ืžืื™ืœืŸ ืœืื™ืœืŸ ื•ื‘ืœื‘ื“ ืฉืœื ื™ืฉืงื” ืืช ื”ืฉื“ื” ื›ื•ืœื”

Rav Huna said: It is Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaโ€™akov, as we learned in a mishna: Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaโ€™akov says: In a field filled with trees, one may draw water via channels from tree to tree, provided that in doing so he does not water the entire field. As this field ordinarily suffices with rainwater, it is prohibited to water the entire field. Therefore, it is evident that Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaโ€™akov renders prohibited work performed to increase profit on the intermediate days of a Festival.

ืื™ืžื•ืจ ื“ืฉืžืขืช ืœื™ื” ืœืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื”ืจื•ื•ื—ื” ื“ืœื ื˜ื™ืจื—ื ื‘ืžืงื•ื ืคืกื™ื“ื ืžื™ ืฉืžืขืช ืœื™ื”

The Gemara challenges this comparison: Say that you heard that Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaโ€™akov holds that labor performed only to increase profit is not permitted. But did you hear him prohibit excessive exertion in a case of considerable loss? This aspect of the mishna finds no expression in the words of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaโ€™akov.

ืืœื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืคืคื ื”ื ืžื ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื”ื™ื ื“ืชื ื™ื ืžืขื™ื™ืŸ ื”ื™ื•ืฆื ื‘ืชื—ื™ืœื” ืžืฉืงื™ืŸ ืžืžื ื• ืืคื™ืœื• ืฉื“ื” ื‘ื™ืช ื”ื‘ืขืœ ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื•ืžืจ ืื™ืŸ ืžืฉืงื™ืŸ ืืœื ืฉื“ื” ื‘ื™ืช ื”ืฉืœื—ื™ืŸ ืฉื—ืจื‘ื” ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื‘ืŸ ืขื–ืจื™ื” ืื•ืžืจ ืœื ื›ืš ื•ืœื ื›ืš ื™ืชืจ ืขืœ ื›ืŸ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืœื ื™ืคื ื” ืื“ื ืืžืช ื”ืžื™ื ื•ื™ืฉืงื” ืœื’ื™ื ืชื• ื•ืœื—ื•ืจื‘ืชื• ื‘ื—ื•ืœื• ืฉืœ ืžื•ืขื“

Rather, Rav Pappa said: In accordance with whose opinion is this mishna? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, as it is taught in a baraita: From a newly emerged spring one may irrigate even a field that ordinarily suffices with rainwater; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: One may irrigate only a field requiring irrigation that dried up and needs water. Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya says: Neither the one nor the other. Furthermore, Rabbi Yehuda said: Owing to the exertion involved, one may not divert a water channel from its regular path in order to water his garden or his ruin, which is now being used for planting, during the intermediate days of a Festival.

ืžืื™ ื—ืจื‘ื” ืื™ืœื™ืžื ื—ืจื‘ื” ืžืžืฉ ืœืžื” ืœื™ ื“ืžืฉืงื™ ืœื” ืืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ืฉื—ืจื‘ื” ืžืžืขื™ื™ืŸ ื–ื” ื•ื™ืฆื ืœื” ืžืขื™ื™ืŸ ืื—ืจ

The Gemara first clarifies the case of the baraita: What does Rabbi Yehuda mean when he speaks of a field that is dried up? If we say that the field is literally dried up and the plants are already parched, why do I need to water it? Abaye said: It means that the one spring from which the field had been irrigated until now dried up, but in the meantime another spring emerged. If the field is not irrigated from this spring, it will be ruined.

ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื‘ืŸ ืขื–ืจื™ื” ืื•ืžืจ ืœื ื›ืš ื•ืœื ื›ืš ืœื ืฉื ื ื—ืจื‘ ืžืขื™ื™ื ื” ื•ืœื ืฉื ื ืœื ื—ืจื‘ ืžืขื™ื™ื ื” ืžืขื™ื™ืŸ ืฉื™ืฆื ื‘ืชื—ื™ืœื” ืœื

The Gemara explains the next clause of the baraita, which states: Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya says: Neither the one nor the other. By this he means that it is no different whether the original spring dried up or did not dry up. The guiding principle is: From a newly emerged spring one may not irrigate even a field that requires irrigation.

ื•ืžืžืื™ ื“ืœืžื ืขื“ ื›ืืŸ ืœื ืงืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื‘ื™ืช ื”ืฉืœื—ื™ืŸ ืื™ืŸ ื‘ื™ืช ื”ื‘ืขืœ ืœื ืืœื ืžืขื™ื™ืŸ ืฉื™ืฆื ื‘ืชื—ื™ืœื”

In any event, Rabbi Yehuda seems to maintain an opinion that is like that of the mishna, i.e., that only a field that requires irrigation may be watered, but not a field that suffices with rainwater. And even in the case of a field that requires irrigation, excessive exertion is prohibited. The Gemara challenges this understanding: And from where do you conclude that the mishna reflects the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda? Perhaps Rabbi Yehuda stated that a field that requires irrigation, yes, one may irrigate it on the intermediate days of a Festival, and a field that suffices with rainwater, no, one may not do so, only with regard to a newly emerged spring,

ื“ืœืžื ืืชื™ ืœืื™ื ืคื•ืœื™ ืื‘ืœ ืžืขื™ื™ืŸ ืฉืœื ื™ืฆื ื‘ืชื—ื™ืœื” ื“ืœื ืืชื™ ืœืื™ื ืคื•ืœื™ ืืคื™ืœื• ื‘ื™ืช ื”ื‘ืขืœ ื ืžื™

as it is likely to collapse. But in the case of a spring that did not just emerge, which is not likely to collapse because its walls have already stabilized, even a field that ordinarily suffices with rainwater may be irrigated.

ืื ื›ืŸ ืžืชื ื™ืชื™ืŸ ืืžืืŸ ืชืจืžื™ื™ื” ืืœื ืœืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืœื ืฉื ื ืžืขื™ื™ืŸ ืฉื™ืฆื ื‘ืชื—ื™ืœื” ื•ืœื ืฉื ื ืžืขื™ื™ืŸ ืฉืœื ื™ืฆื ื‘ืชื—ื™ืœื” ื‘ื™ืช ื”ืฉืœื—ื™ืŸ ืื™ืŸ ื‘ื™ืช ื”ื‘ืขืœ ืœื ื•ื”ืื™ ื“ืงืชื ื™ ืžืขื™ื™ืŸ ืฉื™ืฆื ื‘ืชื—ื™ืœื” ืœื”ื•ื“ื™ืขืš ื›ื—ื• ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ื“ืืคื™ืœื• ืžืขื™ื™ืŸ ื”ื™ื•ืฆื ื‘ืชื—ื™ืœื” ืžืฉืงื™ืŸ ืžืžื ื• ืืคื™ืœื• ืฉื“ื” ื”ื‘ืขืœ

The Gemara asks: If that were so, then to whom, i.e., to which tanna, would you attribute the mishna? According to this interpretation, the mishna does not correspond to any opinion, while according to the previous interpretation, it corresponds to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. Rather, it must be that according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, a newly emerged spring is no different from a spring that did not just emerge. A field that requires irrigation, yes, it may be irrigated, while a field that suffices with rainwater, no, it may not be irrigated. And the baraita opted to teach this dispute in the case of a newly emerged spring in order to convey the far-reaching nature of the opinion of Rabbi Meir, which states that one may irrigate even from a newly emerged spring, and even a field that suffices with rainwater.

ืืชืžืจ ื”ืžื ื›ืฉ ื•ื”ืžืฉืงื” ืžื™ื ืœื–ืจืขื™ื ื‘ืฉื‘ืช ืžืฉื•ื ืžืื™ ืžืชืจื™ื ืŸ ื‘ื™ื” ืจื‘ื” ืืžืจ ืžืฉื•ื ื—ื•ืจืฉ ืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ืืžืจ ืžืฉื•ื ื–ื•ืจืข

ยง It was stated that the amoraโ€™im disputed the following question: With regard to one who weeds or one who waters seedlings on Shabbat, for what prohibited labor do we forewarn him? Judicial punishment may be administered to a sinner only if he has been forewarned by two witnesses prior to the commission of his offense. This forewarning must include the specific transgression being violated, and on Shabbat it must include the specific category of prohibited labor that the action involves. Rabba said: It is due to the prohibition against plowing. Rav Yosef said: It is due to the prohibition against sowing.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื” ื›ื•ื•ืชื™ ื“ื™ื“ื™ ืžืกืชื‘ืจื ืžื” ื“ืจื›ื• ืฉืœ ื—ื•ืจืฉ ืœืจืคื•ื™ื™ ืืจืขื ื”ืื™ ื ืžื™ ืžืจืคื•ื™ื™ ืืจืขื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ื›ื•ื•ืชื™ ื“ื™ื“ื™ ืžืกืชื‘ืจื ืžื” ื“ืจื›ื• ืฉืœ ื–ื•ืจืข ืœืฆืžื•ื—ื™ ืคื™ืจื ื”ื›ื ื ืžื™ ืžืฆืžื— ืคื™ืจื

Rabba said: According to my opinion it is reasonable. Just as the usual objective of plowing is to loosen the earth, so too, this, weeding or watering, loosens the earth. Rav Yosef said: According to my opinion, it is reasonable. Just as the usual objective of sowing is to cause the fruit to grow, here too, weeding or watering causes the fruit to grow.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื‘ื™ื™ ืœืจื‘ื” ืœื“ื™ื“ืš ืงืฉื™ื ื•ืœืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ืงืฉื™ื ืœื“ื™ื“ืš ืงืฉื™ื ืžืฉื•ื ื—ื•ืจืฉ ืื™ืŸ ืžืฉื•ื ื–ื•ืจืข ืœื ืœืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ืงืฉื™ื ืžืฉื•ื ื–ื•ืจืข ืื™ืŸ ืžืฉื•ื ื—ื•ืจืฉ ืœื

Abaye said to Rabba: According to your opinion, it is difficult, and according to the opinion of Rav Yosef, it is difficult. Abaye explains: According to your opinion, it is difficult: Is it true that for the prohibition against plowing, yes, he is forewarned, but for the prohibition against sowing, no, he is not forewarned? Similarly, according to the opinion of Rav Yosef, it is difficult: Can it be that for the prohibition against sowing, yes, he is forewarned, but for the prohibition against plowing, no, he is not forewarned? Everyone should agree that weeding and watering fall under the categories of both plowing and sowing.

ื•ื›ื™ ืชื™ืžื ื›ืœ ื”ื™ื›ื ื“ืื™ื›ื ืชืจืชื™ ืœื ืžื™ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืืœื ื—ื“ื ื•ื”ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื›ื”ื ื ื–ื•ืžืจ ื•ืฆืจื™ืš ืœืขืฆื™ื ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืฉืชื™ื ืื—ืช ืžืฉื•ื ื ื•ื˜ืข ื•ืื—ืช ืžืฉื•ื ืงื•ืฆืจ

And if you say that anywhere that there are two possible categories of prohibited labor into which a particular action might fall, one is liable to be punished for only one of them, didnโ€™t Rav Kahana say: If one prunes the branches of a vine on Shabbat and he needs the wood for firewood or any other purpose, he is liable to bring two sin-offerings? He is liable to bring one sin-offering for violating the primary category of sowing, as pruning vines facilitates their growth, and so it is a sub-category of sowing. And he is liable to bring one sin-offering for violating the primary category of reaping, as the essence of reaping is detaching that which one needs from the ground. Since he needs the wood that he is detaching from the vine, his action is considered reaping. Consequently, one action that incorporates two prohibited labors causes liability for both.

ืงืฉื™ื

The Gemara concludes: Indeed, it is difficult according to both opinions.

ืื™ืชื™ื‘ื™ื” ืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ืœืจื‘ื” ื”ืžื ื›ืฉ ื•ื”ืžื—ืคื” ืœื›ืœืื™ื ืœื•ืงื” ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ืื•ืžืจ ืืฃ ื”ืžืงื™ื™ื

Rav Yosef raised an objection to the opinion of Rabba from what is taught in the following baraita: One who weeds in proximity to diverse kinds of seeds, or covers with earth the exposed roots of diverse kinds, is flogged for transgressing the prohibition against diverse kinds, i.e., tending different species of crops in one area of the same field, as it is stated: โ€œYou shall not sow your field with two kinds of seedโ€ (Leviticus 19:19). Rabbi Akiva says: Even one who maintains in his field a mixture of species that he could have uprooted is flogged for violating the prohibition against diverse kinds of seeds.

ื‘ืฉืœืžื ืœื“ื™ื“ื™ ื“ืืžื™ื ื ืžืฉื•ื ื–ื•ืจืข ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ื“ืืกื™ืจื ื–ืจื™ืขื” ื‘ื›ืœืื™ื ืืœื ืœื“ื™ื“ืš ื“ืืžืจืช ืžืฉื•ื ื—ื•ืจืฉ ื—ืจื™ืฉื” ื‘ื›ืœืื™ื ืžื™ ืืกื™ืจื

Rav Yosef explains: Granted, according to my opinion, that I say that one who weeds on Shabbat is forewarned for the prohibited labor of sowing, this is the reason he is liable to be punished with flogging for weeding diverse seeds: Sowing diverse kinds is prohibited. But according to you, who said that one who weeds on Shabbat is forewarned for plowing, why is one liable to be flogged for weeding in proximity to diverse kinds? Is plowing prohibited in connection with diverse kinds? At the time of plowing, there is no mixture of different species of crops, so plowing cannot be prohibited in this case.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืžืฉื•ื ืžืงื™ื™ื

Rabba said to him: According to my opinion, one who weeds a field of diverse kinds is flogged not because he is guilty of plowing, but for violating the prohibition against maintaining a mixture of species in his field.

ื•ื”ื ืžื“ืงืชื ื™ ืกื™ืคื ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ืื•ืžืจ ืืฃ ื”ืžืงื™ื™ื ืžื›ืœืœ ื“ืชื ื ืงืžื ืœืื• ืžืฉื•ื ืžืงื™ื™ื ื”ื•ื

The Gemara objects: However, from the fact that it teaches in the latter clause of the baraita that Rabbi Akiva says: Even one who maintains in his field a mixture of species is liable to be flogged, it may be inferred that according to the anonymous first tanna, the liability for weeding is not for maintaining diverse kinds, but for performing some other prohibited labor.

ื›ื•ืœื” ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ื”ื™ื ื•ืžืื™ ื˜ืขื ืงืืžืจ ืžืื™ ื˜ืขื ื”ืžื ื›ืฉ ื•ื”ืžื—ืคื” ื‘ื›ืœืื™ื ืœื•ืงื” ืžืฉื•ื ืžืงื™ื™ื ืฉืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ืื•ืžืจ ืืฃ ื”ืžืงื™ื™ื

The Gemara rejects this opinion: In fact, the entire baraita reflects the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, and it is stated in the style of what is the reason. The baraita should be understood as follows: What is the reason that one who weeds and one who covers the exposed roots of diverse kinds with earth is flogged? He is flogged for maintaining diverse kinds in his field, as Rabbi Akiva says: Even one who maintains in his field a mixture of species is flogged.

ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ื“ืชื ื™ื ืฉื“ืš ืœื ืชื–ืจืข ื›ืœืื™ื ืื™ืŸ ืœื™ ืืœื ื–ื•ืจืข ืžืงื™ื™ื ืžื ื™ื™ืŸ

With regard to Rabbi Akivaโ€™s opinion, the Gemara asks: What is the reason for Rabbi Akivaโ€™s opinion? How did he derive this prohibition from the verses? The Gemara answers: As it is taught in a baraita: โ€œYou shall not sow your field with mingled seedโ€ (Leviticus 19:19). I have derived from this verse that only sowing diverse kinds is prohibited. From where is it derived that maintaining diverse kinds, which does not involve any positive action, is also prohibited?

ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ื›ืœืื™ื ืฉื“ืš ืœื

The verse states: โ€œDiverse kinds, you shall not sow your field with mingled seedโ€ (Leviticus 19:19). The prohibition against planting different species of a crop in one area of the same field is preceded in the verse by the prohibition against crossbreeding livestock: โ€œYou shall not let your cattle gender with a diverse kind.โ€ A slight change in punctuation yields the phrase: Diverse kinds in your field, you shall not, indicating that merely preserving diverse kinds in oneโ€™s field is prohibited.

ืชื ืŸ ืžืฉืงื™ืŸ ื‘ื™ืช ื”ืฉืœื—ื™ืŸ ื‘ืžื•ืขื“ ื•ื‘ืฉื‘ื™ืขื™ืช

ยง The Gemara returns to the original topic of discussion: We learned in the mishna: One may irrigate a field that requires irrigation on the intermediate days of a Festival as well as during the Sabbatical Year.

ื‘ืฉืœืžื ืžื•ืขื“ ืžืฉื•ื ื˜ื™ืจื—ื ื”ื•ื ื•ื‘ืžืงื•ื ืคืกื™ื“ื ืฉืจื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืืœื ืฉื‘ื™ืขื™ืช ื‘ื™ืŸ ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืžืฉื•ื ื–ื•ืจืข ื•ื‘ื™ืŸ ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืžืฉื•ื ื—ื•ืจืฉ ื–ืจื™ืขื” ื•ื—ืจื™ืฉื” ื‘ืฉื‘ื™ืขื™ืช ืžื™ ืฉืจื™

The Gemara asks: Granted, with regard to the intermediate days of a Festival, where the prohibition against irrigation is due to the mandate to avoid excessive exertion on the Festival, in a case of considerable loss, the Sages permitted one to exert himself. However, during the Sabbatical Year, both according to the one who said that one who waters is liable due to the prohibition against sowing, and according to the one who said that one is liable due to the prohibition against plowing, are sowing and plowing permitted during the Sabbatical Year? How can these actions be permitted when the Torah explicitly renders prohibited working the land during the Sabbatical Year?

ืืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ื‘ืฉื‘ื™ืขื™ืช ื‘ื–ืžืŸ ื”ื–ื” ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื”ื™ื ื“ืชื ื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ืื•ืžืจ ื•ื–ื” ื“ื‘ืจ ื”ืฉืžื˜ื” ืฉืžื•ื˜ ื‘ืฉืชื™ ืฉืžื™ื˜ื•ืช ื”ื›ืชื•ื‘ ืžื“ื‘ืจ ืื—ืช ืฉืžื™ื˜ืช ืงืจืงืข ื•ืื—ืช ืฉืžื™ื˜ืช ื›ืกืคื™ื

Abaye said: The mishna is referring to the Sabbatical Year in the present time, when its prohibitions are only by rabbinic decree, and it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: When the verse states: โ€œAnd this is the manner of the release, every creditor will release that which he has lent to his neighborโ€ (Deuteronomy 15:2), the verse speaks of two releases: One is the release of land, that one must refrain from working the land, and the other is the release of money, that one must refrain from collecting debts.

ื‘ื–ืžืŸ ืฉืืชื” ืžืฉืžื˜ ืงืจืงืข ืืชื” ืžืฉืžื˜ ื›ืกืคื™ื ื•ื‘ื–ืžืŸ ืฉืื™ ืืชื” ืžืฉืžื˜ ืงืจืงืข ืื™ ืืชื” ืžืฉืžื˜ ื›ืกืคื™ื

This verse equates these two releases, indicating that when you are mandated by Torah law to release land, you must release money, and when you are not mandated to release land, you need not release money. This indicates that according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, at the present time, the release of land is not mandated by Torah law. Therefore, observance of the Sabbatical Year is mandated only by rabbinic law, and the Sages were lenient in a case of significant loss.

ืจื‘ื ืืžืจ ืืคื™ืœื• ืชื™ืžื ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืื‘ื•ืช ืืกืจ ืจื—ืžื ื

Rava said: Even if you say that the mishna was taught in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and maintain that the observance of the Sabbatical Year, even at the present time, is mandated by Torah law, one can understand the leniency in the mishna. The reason for the leniency with regard to irrigation is because only primary categories of labor were prohibited by the Merciful One, i.e., by Torah law,

Scroll To Top