Moed Katan 4
שֶׁנִּכְנָס לִשְׁבִיעִית, וְקָצִיר שֶׁל שְׁבִיעִית שֶׁיָּצָא לְמוֹצָאֵי שְׁבִיעִית.
that entered into the Sabbatical Year, i.e., plowing in the sixth year that will benefit crops growing in the seventh year, and reaping the crops of the Sabbatical Year that continued into the conclusion of the Sabbatical Year, i.e., reaping seventh-year produce that continued to grow into the eighth year.
רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר: מָה חָרִישׁ רְשׁוּת, אַף קָצִיר — רְשׁוּת, יָצָא קְצִיר הָעוֹמֶר שֶׁהִיא מִצְוָה!
Rabbi Yishmael says that this verse is to be understood as referring to Shabbat and not to the Sabbatical Year, in accordance with the straightforward meaning of the verse. It teaches as follows: Just as only optional plowing is prohibited on Shabbat, as there is no instance where plowing fulfills a biblical mitzva, so too, only optional reaping is prohibited, to the exclusion of the reaping of the omer offering, which is a mitzva, and consequently permitted on Shabbat. Nonetheless, the first opinion cited in the baraita, that of Rabbi Akiva, holds that the prohibition against plowing on the eve of the Sabbatical Year is derived from an explicit verse.
אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: כִּי גְּמִירִי הִלְכְתָא — לְמִישְׁרֵי יַלְדָּה. קְרָאֵי — לְמֵיסַר זְקֵינָה.
Rather, Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: When we learned this as a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai, it was to permit plowing in the case of young saplings until Rosh HaShana. In contrast, the verses that were cited come to prohibit plowing in the case of mature and well-rooted trees thirty days before Rosh HaShana of the Sabbatical Year.
וְכֵיוָן דְּהִלְכְתָא לְמִשְׁרֵי יַלְדָּה, לָאו מִמֵּילָא זְקֵינָה אֲסִירָה?!
The Gemara asks: But since the halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai comes to permit plowing in the case of young saplings until Rosh HaShana, does it not automatically follow that in the case of mature trees, plowing is prohibited before Rosh HaShana? Therefore, not only the allowance, but the prohibition as well was learned by tradition as a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai, and not from the verses.
אֶלָּא: הִלְכְתָא לְרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל, קְרָאֵי לְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא.
Rather, the halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai is the basis of the prohibition against plowing on the eve of the Sabbatical Year according to the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, who interprets the verse as referring to Shabbat, and not to the Sabbatical Year, whereas the verses are the basis of the prohibition according to the opinion of Rabbi Akiva.
וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל וּבֵית דִּינוֹ מִדְּאוֹרָיְיתָא בַּטֻּל לְהוּ.
The Gemara previously cited Rabbi Yitzḥak, who explained how Rabban Gamliel’s court nullified the extension to the prohibition against plowing before the Sabbatical Year that had been enacted by Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel. The Gemara now cites another opinion, which holds that Rabban Gamliel’s court abolished the prohibition against plowing before the Sabbatical Year entirely. And Rabbi Yoḥanan said that Rabban Gamliel and his court nullified the restrictions on working the land on the eve of the Sabbatical Year based on a source written in the Torah.
מַאי טַעְמָא? גָּמַר ״שַׁבָּת״ ״שַׁבָּת״ מִשַּׁבַּת בְּרֵאשִׁית. מָה לְהַלָּן — הִיא אֲסוּרָה לְפָנֶיהָ וּלְאַחֲרֶיהָ מוּתָּרִין, אַף כָּאן — הִיא אֲסוּרָה לְפָנֶיהָ וּלְאַחֲרֶיהָ מוּתָּרִין.
What is the reason? He derives it by means of a verbal analogy between the word Shabbat stated with regard to the Sabbatical Year in the verse: “But in the seventh year shall be a sabbath of solemn rest for the land” (Leviticus 25:4), and the word Shabbat stated with regard to the weekly Shabbat, which commemorates the Shabbat of Creation. Just as there, on Shabbat itself it is prohibited to perform labor, but before and after Shabbat it is permitted, so too here, in the case of the Sabbatical Year, during the Sabbatical Year itself it is prohibited to perform labor, but before and after the Sabbatical Year it is permitted.
מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב אָשֵׁי: מַאן דְּאָמַר הִלְכְתָא — אָתְיָא גְּזֵרָה שָׁוָה עָקְרָה הִלְכְתָא? וּמַאן דְּאָמַר קְרָא — אָתְיָא גְּזֵרָה שָׁוָה עָקְרָה קְרָא?
Rav Ashi strongly objects to this: If Rabban Gamliel and his court nullified the restrictions based on a verbal analogy, then according to the one who said that the prohibition against plowing thirty days before Rosh HaShana of the Sabbatical Year is a halakha that was transmitted to Moses from Sinai, can a verbal analogy come and uproot a halakha that was transmitted to Moses from Sinai? And similarly, according to the one who said that the prohibition against plowing is derived from a verse, can a verbal analogy come and uproot a verse?
אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל וּבֵית דִּינוֹ סָבְרִי לַהּ כְּרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל, דְּאָמַר הִלְכְתָא גְּמִירִי לַהּ. וְכִי גְּמִירִי הִלְכְתָא, בִּזְמַן שֶׁבֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ קַיָּים — דּוּמְיָא דְּנִיסּוּךְ הַמַּיִם. אֲבָל בִּזְמַן שֶׁאֵין בֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ קַיָּים — לָא.
Rather, Rav Ashi said: Rabban Gamliel and his court held in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, who said that they learned this prohibition as a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai. But they learned this halakha only with regard to the time period when the Temple is standing. This is evidenced by the fact that it is similar to the other halakha stated along with it, that of the water libation, which was part of the service in the Temple. But when the Temple is not standing this halakha does not apply, and therefore Rabban Gamliel and his court nullified the prohibition after the destruction of the Temple.
אֲבָל לֹא מִמֵּי הַגְּשָׁמִים וּמִמֵּי הַקִּילוֹן. בִּשְׁלָמָא מֵי קִילוֹן — אִיכָּא טִירְחָא יַתִּירָא, אֶלָּא מֵי גְּשָׁמִים מַאי טִירְחָא אִיכָּא?
§ It was taught in the mishna: However, one may not irrigate a field on the intermediate days of a Festival with rainwater collected in a cistern or with water drawn with a shadoof. The Gemara asks: Granted, irrigating a field with water drawn with a shadoof involves excessive effort, and so it is prohibited on the intermediate days of a Festival. But what excessive effort is involved in irrigating a field with rainwater? Rainwater collects on its own and one merely has to channel it to where it is needed.
אָמַר רַבִּי אִילְעָא אָמַר יוֹחָנָן: גְּזֵירָה מֵי גְשָׁמִים אַטּוּ מֵי קִילוֹן. רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: מֵי גְשָׁמִים גּוּפַיְיהוּ לִידֵי מֵי קִילוֹן אָתוּ.
Rabbi Ile’a said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: A rabbinic decree was enacted with regard to rainwater due to its similarity to water drawn with a shadoof. Rav Ashi said: Rainwater itself will come to be like water drawn with a shadoof. Once the level of the collected rainwater drops, it will become necessary to draw it with a bucket, a procedure involving excessive effort.
וְקָמִיפַּלְגִי בִּדְרַבִּי זֵירָא. דְּאָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר יִרְמְיָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: נְהָרוֹת הַמּוֹשְׁכִין מַיִם מִן הָאֲגַמִּים מוּתָּר לְהַשְׁקוֹת מֵהֶן בְּחוּלּוֹ שֶׁל מוֹעֵד.
The Gemara comments: Rabbi Ile’a and Rav Ashi disagree with regard to the ruling issued by Rabbi Zeira, as Rabbi Zeira said that Rabba bar Yirmeya said that Shmuel said: With regard to streams that draw water from pools of collected water, one is permitted to irrigate his field from them on the intermediate days of a Festival, because the flow of water is steady.
מָר אִית לֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי זֵירָא, וּמָר לֵית לֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי זֵירָא.
One Sage, Rav Ashi, is of the opinion that the ruling is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Zeira, as he prohibits only irrigating with rainwater, because the supply might come to an end, but he does not prohibit watering from a source whose flow is steady. And one Sage, Rabbi Yoḥanan, is not of the opinion that the ruling is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Zeira, as he prohibits irrigating with rainwater due to its similarity to water drawn with a shadoof. This applies regardless of whether the level of the rainwater will drop, and therefore Rabbi Yoḥanan would prohibit using collected water even if a stream flows through it and it will not dry up.
גּוּפָא, אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר יִרְמְיָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: נְהָרוֹת הַמּוֹשְׁכִין מַיִם מִן הָאֲגַמִּים — מוּתָּר לְהַשְׁקוֹת מֵהֶן בְּחוּלּוֹ שֶׁל מוֹעֵד.
After mentioning the statement of Rabbi Zeira in the course of the previous discussion, the Gemara examines the matter itself. Rabbi Zeira said that Rabba bar Yirmeya said that Shmuel said: With regard to streams that draw water from pools of water, one is permitted to irrigate his field from them on the intermediate days of a Festival.
אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה לְרַבִּי זֵירָא: אֲבָל לֹא מִמֵּי גְשָׁמִים וְלֹא מִמֵּי קִילוֹן! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: יִרְמְיָה בְּרִי, הָנֵי אַגַּמִּים דְּבָבֶל — כְּמַיָּא דְּלָא פָּסְקִי דָּמוּ.
Rabbi Yirmeya raised an objection to Rabbi Zeira from what is taught in the mishna: However, one may not irrigate a field on the intermediate days of a Festival with rainwater collected in cisterns or with water drawn with a shadoof. This indicates that whenever there is a concern that the water might run out, it is prohibited to irrigate from this water source. Consequently, Rabbi Yirmeya wanted to know why this concern did not exist in the case of the pools of water as well. Rabbi Zeira said to him: Yirmeya, my son, these pools in Babylonia are like water that does not stop flowing. Therefore, there is no concern that the water level in these pools might go down to such an extent that it will become necessary to draw the water with buckets.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הַפְּסִיקוֹת וְהַבְּרֵיכוֹת שֶׁנִּתְמַלְּאוּ מַיִם מֵעֶרֶב יוֹם טוֹב — אָסוּר לְהַשְׁקוֹת מֵהֶן בְּחוּלּוֹ שֶׁל מוֹעֵד. וְאִם הָיְתָה אַמַּת הַמַּיִם עוֹבֶרֶת בֵּינֵיהֶן — מוּתָּר.
The Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to temporary pools and regular pools that were filled with water on the eve of a Festival, it is prohibited for one to irrigate his field from them on the intermediate days of the Festival, lest they run out of water and he will come to exert himself and bring water from elsewhere. But if a water channel passes between them so that water flows from the one to the other, it is permitted.
אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: וְהוּא שֶׁרוּבָּהּ שֶׁל אוֹתָהּ שָׂדֶה שׁוֹתָה מֵאוֹתָהּ אַמַּת הַמַּיִם. רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין רוּבָּהּ שֶׁל אוֹתָהּ שָׂדֶה שׁוֹתָה, כֵּיוָן דְּקָא מָשְׁכָא וְאָתְיָא, מֵימָר אָמַר: אִי לָא שָׁתְיָא לְחַד יוֹמָא — תִּשְׁתֵּי לִתְרֵי וּתְלָתָא יוֹמֵי.
Rav Pappa said: And this allowance applies only when the majority of that field can be irrigated from that water channel, such that most of the field can be irrigated at the same time. In this case, there is no concern that when the water runs out, he will come to exert himself and irrigate the rest of the field from another source of water. Rav Ashi said: It applies even though the majority of that field cannot be irrigated from that water channel at the same time. Since the channel continuously draws water, constantly replenishing its supply, even if it does so at a slow rate, one will say to himself that even if the entire field cannot be irrigated from that water channel on a single day, it can be irrigated from it over the course of two or three days. Accordingly, he will not find it necessary to exert himself to quickly irrigate that portion of the field that did not already receive its water.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: בְּרֵיכָה שֶׁנּוֹטֶפֶת מַיִם מִשְּׂדֵה בֵּית הַשְּׁלָחִין זוֹ — מוּתָּר לְהַשְׁקוֹת מִמֶּנָּה שְׂדֵה בֵּית הַשְּׁלָחִין אַחֶרֶת.
The Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to a pool that receives drips of water from this field that requires irrigation, which itself receives water from a spring, one is permitted to irrigate from this pool another field situated below it that requires irrigation.
וְהָא עֲבִידָא דְּפָסְקָא! אָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: וַעֲדַיִין הִיא מְטַפְטֶפֶת. אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: וְהוּא שֶׁלֹּא פָּסַק מַעְיָין רִאשׁוֹן.
The Gemara asks: But isn’t the pool likely to stop flowing, which will force him to exert himself and draw water from somewhere else? Rabbi Yirmeya said: The case is where the upper field is still trickling water into the pool and does not stop. Abaye said: And this allowance applies only when the water from the first spring that irrigates the upper field has not stopped flowing. Only in that case can one rely on the water trickling from the upper field and consequently irrigating the lower field from the pool.
תַּנְיָא, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן מְנַסְיָא אוֹמֵר: שְׁתֵּי עֲרוּגוֹת זוֹ לְמַעְלָה מִזּוֹ — לֹא יִדְלֶה מִן הַתַּחְתּוֹנָה וְיַשְׁקֶה אֶת הָעֶלְיוֹנָה. יוֹתֵר עַל כֵּן אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בַּר שִׁמְעוֹן: אֲפִילּוּ עֲרוּגָה אַחַת חֶצְיָהּ נָמוּךְ וְחֶצְיָהּ גָּבוֹהַּ — לֹא יִדְלֶה מִמָּקוֹם נָמוּךְ וְיַשְׁקֶה לְמָקוֹם גָּבוֹהַּ.
It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya says: With regard to two garden beds located one above the other, one may not draw water from the channel supplying the lower garden bed in order to irrigate the upper garden bed, due to the excessive exertion involved. Furthermore, Rabbi Elazar bar Shimon said: Even in the case of a single garden bed, half of which is lower and half of which is higher, one may not draw water from the channel supplying the lower area to irrigate the upper area, even though they are two parts of the same garden bed.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: מַדְלִין לִירָקוֹת כְּדֵי לְאוֹכְלָן, וְאִם בִּשְׁבִיל לְיַיפּוֹתָן — אָסוּר.
The Sages taught in a baraita: One may draw water and irrigate vegetables in order to eat them on the intermediate days of a Festival. But if he does this in order to improve their growth and to enhance their appearance it is prohibited, as he is considered to be unnecessarily exerting himself on the Festival.
רָבִינָא וְרַבָּה תּוֹסְפָאָה הֲווֹ קָא אָזְלִי בְּאוֹרְחָא. חֲזוֹ לְהָהוּא גַּבְרָא דַּהֲוָה דָּלֵי דַּוְולָא בְּחוּלָּא דְּמוֹעֲדָא, אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבָּה תּוֹסְפָאָה לְרָבִינָא: לֵיתֵי מָר לְשַׁמְּתֵיהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: וְהָתַנְיָא: מַדְלִין לִירָקוֹת כְּדֵי לְאוֹכְלָן. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מִי סָבְרַתְּ מַאי ״מַדְלִין״ — מַדְלִין מַיָּא? מַאי
The Gemara relates that Ravina and Rabba Tosefa’a were once walking along the road when they saw a certain man that was drawing water with a bucket on the intermediate days of a Festival. Rabba Tosefa’a said to Ravina: Let the Master come and excommunicate him for transgressing the words of the Sages. Ravina said to him: But isn’t it taught in a baraita: One may draw for vegetables in order to eat them, and so he has not committed a transgression. Rabba Tosefa’a said to him: Do you maintain that what is meant by one may draw [madlin] is that one may draw water in order to irrigate the vegetables? This is not so. Rather, what is meant by
״מַדְלִין״ — שַׁלּוֹפֵי. כְּדִתְנַן: הַמֵּידֵל בַּגְּפָנִים, כְּשֵׁם שֶׁהוּא מֵידֵל בְּשֶׁלּוֹ — כָּךְ הוּא מֵידֵל בְּשֶׁל עֲנִיִּים, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה. רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: בְּשֶׁלּוֹ רַשַּׁאי, וְאֵינוֹ רַשַּׁאי בְּשֶׁל עֲנִיִּים.
one may draw is that one may pull out some of the vegetables that are growing densely together. The baraita comes to teach that one is permitted to thin out a garden bed on the intermediate days of a Festival in order to eat on the Festival those that he removes, but he is prohibited to do so in order to enhance the appearance of those that remain. As we learned in a mishna (Pe’a 7:5): One who thins out [meidel] the vines in his vineyard, just as he may thin out his own vines, so too, he may thin out the vines set aside for the poor. Since he is doing it for the sake of the vines, he may also thin out what he leaves for the poor; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Meir disagrees and says: His own vines he is permitted to thin out, but he is not permitted to thin out the vines set aside for the poor. This mishna indicates that the term meidel can be used to mean thinning out and does not refer only to drawing water.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ, וְהָתַנְיָא: מַדְלִין מַיִם לִירָקוֹת כְּדֵי לְאוֹכְלָן! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִי תַּנְיָא — תַּנְיָא.
Ravina said to Rabba Tosefa’a: But wasn’t it explicitly taught in a baraita: One may draw water to irrigate vegetables in order to eat them? Rabba Tosefa’a said to him: If it is taught explicitly in a baraita, the halakha is as it is taught, and I retract my statement.
וְאֵין עוֹשִׂין עוּגִיּוֹת לַגְּפָנִים. מַאי עוּגִיּוֹת? אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: בַּנְכֵּי. תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: אֵלּוּ הֵן עוּגִיּוֹת — בְּדִידִין שֶׁבְּעִיקָּרֵי זֵיתִים וְשֶׁבְּעִיקָּרֵי גְפָנִים.
§ It was taught in the mishna: And one may not construct circular ditches [ugiyyot] around the bases of grapevines on the intermediate days of a Festival. The Gemara asks: What are ugiyyot? Rav Yehuda said: They are what are called in Aramaic binkei, circular ditches around vines. The Gemara notes that this is also taught in a baraita: These are ugiyyot: Bedidin, circular ditches around the bases of olive trees and around the bases of grapevines.
אִינִי? וְהָא רַב יְהוּדָה שְׁרָא לִבְנֵי בַּר צֵיתַאי לְמֶעְבַּד בַּנְכֵּי לְכַרְמֵיהוֹן! לָא קַשְׁיָא הָא בְּחַדְתֵי, הָא בְּעַתִּיקֵי.
The Gemara asks: Is that so? Is it prohibited to dig circular ditches on the intermediate days of the Festival? Didn’t Rav Yehuda permit the family of bar Tzitai to construct circular ditches for their vineyards on the intermediate days of a Festival? The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. This source, i.e., the mishna that renders the practice prohibited, is referring to digging new ditches. That other source, i.e., Rav Yehuda’s ruling that permits the digging of such ditches, is referring to old ones, which merely need to be cleared.
רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה אוֹמֵר: אֵין עוֹשִׂין אֶת הָאַמָּה. בִּשְׁלָמָא מוֹעֵד — מִשּׁוּם דְּקָא טָרַח, אֶלָּא שְׁבִיעִית מַאי טַעְמָא?
§ It was taught in the next clause of the mishna that 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. The Gemara asks: Granted, it is prohibited for him to do so on the intermediate days of a Festival, because in so doing he excessively exerts himself on the Festival. But what is the reason that this is prohibited during the Sabbatical Year, when only labors that enhance the growth of plants are prohibited?
פְּלִיגוּ בַּהּ רַבִּי זֵירָא וְרַבִּי אַבָּא בַּר מֶמֶל. חַד אָמַר: מִפְּנֵי שֶׁנִּרְאֶה כְּעוֹדֵר. וְחַד אָמַר: מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמַּכְשִׁיר אֲגַפֶּיהָ לִזְרִיעָה.
The Gemara answers: Rabbi Zeira and Rabbi Abba bar Memel disagreed with regard to this issue. One of them said: It is prohibited because it appears to others as if he were hoeing his field. As onlookers do not know that he is merely digging a water channel, they suspect him of working his land during the Sabbatical Year. And the other one said: It is prohibited because he thereby prepares the channel’s banks for planting, for when he digs out the channel, he piles the fresh soil that is fit for planting on its two banks.
מַאי בֵּינַיְיהוּ? אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ דְּקָא אָתוּ מַיָּא בָּתְרֵיהּ. מַאן דְּאָמַר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמַּכְשִׁיר אֲגַפֶּיהָ לִזְרִיעָה — אִיכָּא, וּמַאן דְּאָמַר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁנִּרְאֶה כְּעוֹדֵר — לֵיכָּא.
The Gemara asks: What is the practical halakhic difference between them? The Gemara answers: There is a practical halakhic difference between them in a case where water comes into the channel immediately after he digs it out. According to the one who said that digging a water channel is prohibited because he thereby prepares its banks for planting, there is still a prohibition, as here too, he piles the fresh soil on the channel’s banks. But according to the one who said it is prohibited because it appears as if he were hoeing, there is no prohibition here, as the immediate entry of water makes it obvious that he is digging a water channel.
וּלְמַאן דְּאָמַר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁנִּרְאֶה כְּעוֹדֵר, לֵיחוּשׁ מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמַּכְשִׁיר אֲגַפֶּיהָ לִזְרִיעָה? אֶלָּא, אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ דְּקָא שָׁקֵיל מִינֵּיהּ וְשָׁדֵי לְבָרַאי. לְמַאן דְּאָמַר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמַּכְשִׁיר אֲגַפֶּיהָ לִזְרִיעָה — לֵיכָּא. לְמַאן דְּאָמַר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁנִּרְאֶה כְּעוֹדֵר — אִיכָּא.
The Gemara asks: But according to the one who said that digging a water channel is prohibited because it appears as if he were hoeing, let him be concerned that the digger thereby prepares the channel’s banks for planting and render digging prohibited in this case as well. Rather, the matter must be explained differently, such that there is a practical difference between them in a case where he takes the earth that he excavates from the channel and throws it a considerable distance outside. According to the one who said that it is prohibited because he thereby prepares the channel’s banks for planting, there is no prohibition here, as he does not prepare them for planting. But according to the one who said it is prohibited because it appears as if he were hoeing, there is a prohibition here, as here too, it appears as if he were hoeing.
וּלְמַאן דְּאָמַר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמַּכְשִׁיר אֲגַפֶּיהָ לִזְרִיעָה, לֵיחוּשׁ מִפְּנֵי שֶׁנִּרְאֶה כְּעוֹדֵר! עוֹדֵר נָמֵי, כִּי קָא שָׁקֵיל, בְּדוּכְתֵּיהּ מַנַּח לֵיהּ.
The Gemara asks: But according to the one who said that digging a water channel is prohibited because he thereby prepares its banks for planting, let him be concerned that the digger appears as if he were hoeing. The Gemara answers that this is not a concern, because it is also true of one who hoes that when he takes up a clump of earth, he puts it down again in its place. Consequently, since one throws the dug-up earth far away, it is immediately apparent that he is not engaged in hoeing but is rather digging a water channel.
אַמֵּימָר מַתְנֵי לַהּ מִפְּנֵי שֶׁנִּרְאֶה כְּעוֹדֵר, וְקַשְׁיָא לֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה אַדְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה: וּמִי אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה כׇּל שֶׁנִּרְאֶה כְּעוֹדֵר אָסוּר?
Ameimar would teach this mishna as stating explicitly that Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya says that one may not dig a new water channel during the Sabbatical Year because it appears as if he were hoeing his field, and he therefore found a difficulty between this statement of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya and another statement of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya. The difficulty is as follows: Did Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya actually say that any action that causes him to appear as if he were hoeing is prohibited?
וּרְמִינְהִי: עוֹשֶׂה אָדָם אֶת זִבְלוֹ אוֹצָר. רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹסֵר, עַד שֶׁיַּעֲמִיק שְׁלֹשָׁה טְפָחִים, אוֹ עַד שֶׁיַּגְבִּיהַּ שְׁלֹשָׁה טְפָחִים. הָיָה לוֹ דָּבָר מוּעָט — מוֹסִיף עָלָיו וְהוֹלֵךְ.
One may raise a contradiction to this assertion from a mishna (Shevi’it 3:3) that states: A person may pile his manure in his field during the Sabbatical Year so that it becomes a storage heap, and there is no cause for concern that it may appear as if he were fertilizing his field. Rabbi Meir prohibits this unless he deepens the storage area for the manure three handbreadths below the ground or raises it three handbreadths above the surface of the ground, so that it does not appear as if he were fertilizing his field. If he already had a small amount of manure in that heap from before the Sabbatical Year, he may continue to add to it, and there is no need for concern.
רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה אוֹסֵר עַד שֶׁיַּעְמִיק שְׁלֹשָׁה אוֹ עַד שֶׁיַּגְבִּיהַּ שְׁלֹשָׁה, אוֹ עַד שֶׁיִּתֵּן עַל הַסֶּלַע!
Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya prohibits piling his manure in his field unless he deepens the storage area for the manure three handbreadths below the surface of the ground, or he raises it three handbreadths above the surface, or he places it on a rock. In any event, it seems that according to Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya, it is permitted for him to dig a hole in the ground in order to deposit his manure there, even though he might appear to be hoeing the ground.
רַבִּי זֵירָא וְרַבִּי אַבָּא בַּר מֶמֶל, חַד אָמַר: כְּגוֹן שֶׁהֶעֱמִיק, וְחַד אָמַר: זִיבְלוֹ מוֹכִיחַ עָלָיו.
Rabbi Zeira and Rabbi Abba bar Memel both offered resolutions to this difficulty: One of them said: The case in this second mishna is one where he had already deepened the three-handbreadth pit during the sixth year. And the other one said: His pile of manure is proof that he intends merely to bury the manure and not to hoe the field.
וּמְתַקְּנִין אֶת הַמְקוּלְקֶלֶת בַּמּוֹעֵד. מַאי מְקוּלְקֶלֶת? אָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא: שֶׁאִם הָיְתָה עֲמוּקָּה טֶפַח — מַעֲמִידָהּ עַל שִׁשָּׁה טְפָחִים.
§ It was taught in the mishna that the Rabbis say: One may repair a damaged water channel during the intermediate days of a Festival. What is meant by a damaged water channel? Rabbi Abba said that if it was now a handbreadth deep because it had become filled with sediment, he may dredge it out until he sets it at its original depth of six handbreadths.
פְּשִׁיטָא, חֲצִי טֶפַח עַל שְׁלֹשָׁה טְפָחִים, כֵּיוָן דְּלָא עָבַר מַיָּא — לָא כְּלוּם הוּא. טִפְחַיִים עַל שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר, דְּקָא טָרַח טִירְחָא יַתִּירָא — לָא.
Based on this ruling, the Gemara clarifies several practical issues: It is obvious that if the channel is half a handbreadth deep and he wants to restore it to a depth of three handbreadths, since water does not flow through a three-handbreadth-deep channel in sufficient quantity, it is nothing at all and it is certainly prohibited to exert oneself with work that provides insignificant benefit. So too, if the channel is two handbreadths deep and he wants to deepen it to twelve handbreadths, even though he preserves the same ratio as in Rabbi Abba’s case, since it involves excessive exertion, no, this is also not permitted.
טִפְחַיִים עַל שִׁבְעָה מַהוּ? הָכָא חֲמִשָּׁה קָא מַעֲמֵיק, וְהָכָא חֲמִשָּׁה קָא מַעֲמֵיק, אוֹ דִלְמָא: כֵּיוָן דְּאִיכָּא טֶפַח יַתִּירָא — אִיכָּא טִירְחָא טְפֵי? תֵּיקוּ.
However, in a case where the channel is two handbreadths deep and he wants to deepen it to seven handbreadths, what is the halakha? The Gemara explains the two sides of the question of whether this can be compared to the case in the mishna: Here, in the case of dredging a one-handbreadth-deep channel to restore its depth of six handbreadths, he deepens the channel by five handbreadths, and similarly here, in the case of deepening the channel from two to seven handbreadths, he likewise wants to deepen it by five handbreadths, and therefore it should be permitted. Or perhaps, since there is an extra handbreadth of depth, then bending over to dig that additional handbreadth involves greater effort, which is unnecessary, and so possibly it should be prohibited. The Gemara states that the dilemma shall stand unresolved.
אַבָּיֵי שְׁרָא לִבְנֵי בַּר הַמְדָּךְ לְשַׁחוֹפֵי נַהֲרָא. רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה שְׁרָא לְהוּ לִבְנֵי סָכוּתָא לְמִיכְרֵא נַהֲרָא טְמִימָא. רַב אָשֵׁי שְׁרָא לְהוּ לִבְנֵי מָתָא מַחְסֵיָא לְאַקְדּוֹחֵי נְהַר בּוּרְנִיץ. אֲמַר: כֵּיוָן דְּשָׁתוּ מִינֵּיהּ רַבִּים — כְּרַבִּים דָּמֵי, וּתְנַן: עוֹשִׂין כׇּל צוֹרְכֵי רַבִּים.
It was related that Abaye permitted the people of Bar Hamdakh to remove the branches of the trees from the river on the intermediate days of a Festival. Rabbi Yirmeya permitted the people of Sekhavta to dredge out a river that had become blocked. Rav Ashi permitted his townsmen, the people of Mata Meḥasya, to clean out the nearby Burnitz River. He said: Since the public drinks from it, it is considered like a public need, and we learned in the mishna that one may tend to all other public needs on the intermediate days of a Festival.
וּמְתַקְּנִין אֶת
§ It was taught in the mishna: During the intermediate days of a Festival one may repair
