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

Today's Daf Yomi

January 16, 2022 | 讬状讚 讘砖讘讟 转砖驻状讘

This month鈥檚 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 sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • 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 4

This week鈥檚 learning is sponsored by Debbie Pine and Mark Orenshein in loving memory of their father鈥檚 Harry Pine, Noach Aharon ben Yaakov v鈥橠evorah鈥檚 20th yahrzeit on Tu B鈥檚hvat and Herb Orenshein, Tzvi ben Yehuda v鈥橫inna鈥檚 shloshim, on the 19th Tevet. 鈥淣either of our fathers had the benefit of a formal Jewish education and yet both of them were committed to providing that for us. They were proud of their families and our dedication to Torah-true Judaism. They would love our commitment to Daf Yomi and how we often learn the daf together. They would be especially appreciative of Rabbanit Michelle who has made the daf accessible to those didn鈥檛 grow up learning gemara through her intentionally inclusive style of teaching. We miss them every day. Yehi zichram Baruch鈥.

Today鈥檚 daf is sponsored by Ronnie Rom in honor of her sister, Joanna Rom鈥檚 70th birthday. 鈥淭hank you for being my sister & may you go from strength to strength!鈥澛

Today’s daf is dedicated by Becki Goldstein in memory of her mother Shoshana Rosa bat Shmuel and Minda Lea.聽My mother would be so proud and humbled to share this learning with all these special women men worldwide. A self-made woman who attained her high school diploma at the tender age of 70, she would strive all her life to deepen and expand her Torah learning and after she made aliyah she would encourage her children and grandchildren to share their store of knowledge with her. She thanked Hashem every day for the gift of being able to be here with us and we had the zchut to learn with her and from her and make many precious memories together. Yehi Zichra Baruch.

Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yishmael differ on tosefet shviit (adding on time before and after the shmita year) whether it is a Torah law or a halakha l鈥橫oshe mi鈥橲inai. Rabbi Akiva learns it from the verse 鈥淎nd one should rest from plowing and reaping.鈥 Rabbi Yishmael holds that the verse is referring to Shabbat and it is coming to teach that only actions that are optional are forbidden on Shabbat but if the reaping is for a mitzva, such as the Omer, it is permitted on Shabbat. Rabbi Yochanan鈥檚 explanation of Rav Dimi鈥檚 statement is explained according to Rabbi Akiva that tosefet is from the Torah and one would have thought one would get lashes, but Rabban Gamliel learned by a gezeira shava that there is no law of tosefet. Rav Ashi questions this and explains Rabban Gamliel differently 鈥 he held like Rabbi Yishmael and that it was only for a time when the Temple was in existence. Once it was destroyed, there was no longer a law of tosefet. Why can鈥檛 a field be watered from a cistern filled with rainwater? Is it just because if we allow that, one may think it is permitted to use water drawn from a well. Or is it because the water level may drop to the point where one will need to draw it with a pail. A series of braitot are brought which have various cases of watering that are either permitted or forbidden. Comments of amoraim on each braita are brought. If the Mishna says one cannot dig circular ditches around a vine, why did Rav Yehuda allow the people of his city to do that? Why does Rabbi Elazar ben Azaria forbid digging a channel on the shmita year? Two answers are brought and questions are raised on each answer. One can fix a broken channel on Chol Hamoed. Under what circumstances?

砖谞讻谞住 诇砖讘讬注讬转 讜拽爪讬专 砖诇 砖讘讬注讬转 砖讬爪讗 诇诪讜爪讗讬 砖讘讬注讬转

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.

专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗讜诪专 诪讛 讞专讬砖 专砖讜转 讗祝 拽爪讬专 专砖讜转 讬爪讗 拽爪讬专 讛注讜诪专 砖讛讬讗 诪爪讜讛

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.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讻讬 讙诪讬专讬 讛诇讻转讗 诇诪讬砖专讬 讬诇讚讛 拽专讗讬 诇诪讬住专 讝拽讬谞讛

Rather, Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k 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.

讜讻讬讜谉 讚讛诇讻转讗 诇诪砖专讬 讬诇讚讛 诇讗讜 诪诪讬诇讗 讝拽讬谞讛 讗住讬专讛

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.

讗诇讗 讛诇讻转讗 诇专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 拽专讗讬 诇专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗

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.

讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讜讘讬转 讚讬谞讜 诪讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讘讟讬诇 诇讛讜

The Gemara previously cited Rabbi Yitz岣k, who explained how Rabban Gamliel鈥檚 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鈥檚 court abolished the prohibition against plowing before the Sabbatical Year entirely. And Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讙诪专 砖讘转 砖讘转 诪砖讘转 讘专讗砖讬转 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讛讬讗 讗住讜专讛 诇驻谞讬讛 讜诇讗讞专讬讛 诪讜转专讬谉 讗祝 讻讗谉 讛讬讗 讗住讜专讛 诇驻谞讬讛 讜诇讗讞专讬讛 诪讜转专讬谉

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: 鈥淏ut in the seventh year shall be a sabbath of solemn rest for the land鈥 (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.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讗砖讬 诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讛诇讻转讗 讗转讬讗 讙讝专讛 砖讜讛 注拽专讛 讛诇讻转讗 讜诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讗转讬讗 讙讝专讛 砖讜讛 注拽专讛 拽专讗

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?

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讜讘讬转 讚讬谞讜 住讘专讬 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讚讗诪专 讛诇讻转讗 讙诪讬专讬 诇讛 讜讻讬 讙诪讬专讬 讛诇讻转讗 讘讝诪谉 砖讘讬转 讛诪拽讚砖 拽讬讬诐 讚讜诪讬讗 讚谞讬住讜讱 讛诪讬诐 讗讘诇 讘讝诪谉 砖讗讬谉 讘讬转 讛诪拽讚砖 拽讬讬诐 诇讗

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.

讗讘诇 诇讗 诪诪讬 讛讙砖诪讬诐 讜诪诪讬 讛拽讬诇讜谉 讘砖诇诪讗 诪讬 拽讬诇讜谉 讗讬讻讗 讟讬专讞讗 讬转讬专讗 讗诇讗 诪讬 讙砖诪讬诐 诪讗讬 讟讬专讞讗 讗讬讻讗

搂 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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讬诇注讗 讗诪专 讬讜讞谞谉 讙讝讬专讛 诪讬 讙砖诪讬诐 讗讟讜 诪讬 拽讬诇讜谉 专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 诪讬 讙砖诪讬诐 讙讜驻讬讬讛讜 诇讬讚讬 诪讬 拽讬诇讜谉 讗转讜

Rabbi Ile鈥檃 said that Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

讜拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讘讚专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讬专诪讬讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 谞讛专讜转 讛诪讜砖讻讬谉 诪讬诐 诪谉 讛讗讙诪讬诐 诪讜转专 诇讛砖拽讜转 诪讛谉 讘讞讜诇讜 砖诇 诪讜注讚

The Gemara comments: Rabbi Ile鈥檃 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.

诪专 讗讬转 诇讬讛 讚专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讜诪专 诇讬转 诇讬讛 讚专讘讬 讝讬专讗

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 Yo岣nan, 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 Yo岣nan would prohibit using collected water even if a stream flows through it and it will not dry up.

讙讜驻讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讬专诪讬讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 谞讛专讜转 讛诪讜砖讻讬谉 诪讬诐 诪谉 讛讗讙诪讬诐 诪讜转专 诇讛砖拽讜转 诪讛谉 讘讞讜诇讜 砖诇 诪讜注讚

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.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 诇专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗讘诇 诇讗 诪诪讬 讙砖诪讬诐 讜诇讗 诪诪讬 拽讬诇讜谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讬专诪讬讛 讘专讬 讛谞讬 讗讙诪讬诐 讚讘讘诇 讻诪讬讗 讚诇讗 驻住拽讬 讚诪讜

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.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛驻住讬拽讜转 讜讛讘专讬讻讜转 砖谞转诪诇讗讜 诪讬诐 诪注专讘 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讗住讜专 诇讛砖拽讜转 诪讛谉 讘讞讜诇讜 砖诇 诪讜注讚 讜讗诐 讛讬转讛 讗诪转 讛诪讬诐 注讜讘专转 讘讬谞讬讛谉 诪讜转专

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.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讜讛讜讗 砖专讜讘讛 砖诇 讗讜转讛 砖讚讛 砖讜转讛 诪讗讜转讛 讗诪转 讛诪讬诐 专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谉 专讜讘讛 砖诇 讗讜转讛 砖讚讛 砖讜转讛 讻讬讜谉 讚拽讗 诪砖讻讗 讜讗转讬讗 诪讬诪专 讗诪专 讗讬 诇讗 砖转讬讗 诇讞讚 讬讜诪讗 转砖转讬 诇转专讬 讜转诇转讗 讬讜诪讬

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.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讘专讬讻讛 砖谞讜讟驻转 诪讬诐 诪砖讚讛 讘讬转 讛砖诇讞讬谉 讝讜 诪讜转专 诇讛砖拽讜转 诪诪谞讛 砖讚讛 讘讬转 讛砖诇讞讬谉 讗讞专转

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.

讜讛讗 注讘讬讚讗 讚驻住拽讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讜注讚讬讬谉 讛讬讗 诪讟驻讟驻转 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讜讛讜讗 砖诇讗 驻住拽 诪注讬讬谉 专讗砖讜谉

The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 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.

转谞讬讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诪谞住讬讗 讗讜诪专 砖转讬 注专讜讙讜转 讝讜 诇诪注诇讛 诪讝讜 诇讗 讬讚诇讛 诪谉 讛转讞转讜谞讛 讜讬砖拽讛 讗转 讛注诇讬讜谞讛 讬讜转专 注诇 讻谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专 砖诪注讜谉 讗驻讬诇讜 注专讜讙讛 讗讞转 讞爪讬讛 谞诪讜讱 讜讞爪讬讛 讙讘讜讛 诇讗 讬讚诇讛 诪诪拽讜诐 谞诪讜讱 讜讬砖拽讛 诇诪拽讜诐 讙讘讜讛

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.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪讚诇讬谉 诇讬专拽讜转 讻讚讬 诇讗讜讻诇谉 讜讗诐 讘砖讘讬诇 诇讬讬驻讜转谉 讗住讜专

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.

专讘讬谞讗 讜专讘讛 转讜住驻讗讛 讛讜讜 拽讗 讗讝诇讬 讘讗讜专讞讗 讞讝讜 诇讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚讛讜讛 讚诇讬 讚讜讜诇讗 讘讞讜诇讗 讚诪讜注讚讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讛 转讜住驻讗讛 诇专讘讬谞讗 诇讬转讬 诪专 诇砖诪转讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜讛转谞讬讗 诪讚诇讬谉 诇讬专拽讜转 讻讚讬 诇讗讜讻诇谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讬 住讘专转 诪讗讬 诪讚诇讬谉 诪讚诇讬谉 诪讬讗 诪讗讬

The Gemara relates that Ravina and Rabba Tosefa鈥檃 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鈥檃 said to Ravina: Let the Master come and excommunicate him for transgressing the words of the Sages. Ravina said to him: But isn鈥檛 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鈥檃 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

诪讚诇讬谉 砖诇讜驻讬 讻讚转谞谉 讛诪讬讚诇 讘讙驻谞讬诐 讻砖诐 砖讛讜讗 诪讬讚诇 讘砖诇讜 讻讱 讛讜讗 诪讬讚诇 讘砖诇 注谞讬讬诐 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讘砖诇讜 专砖讗讬 讜讗讬谞讜 专砖讗讬 讘砖诇 注谞讬讬诐

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鈥檃 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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜讛转谞讬讗 诪讚诇讬谉 诪讬诐 诇讬专拽讜转 讻讚讬 诇讗讜讻诇谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬 转谞讬讗 转谞讬讗

Ravina said to Rabba Tosefa鈥檃: But wasn鈥檛 it explicitly taught in a baraita: One may draw water to irrigate vegetables in order to eat them? Rabba Tosefa鈥檃 said to him: If it is taught explicitly in a baraita, the halakha is as it is taught, and I retract my statement.

讜讗讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 注讜讙讬讜转 诇讙驻谞讬诐 诪讗讬 注讜讙讬讜转 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谞讻讬 转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讗诇讜 讛谉 注讜讙讬讜转 讘讚讬讚讬谉 砖讘注讬拽专讬 讝讬转讬诐 讜砖讘注讬拽专讬 讙驻谞讬诐

搂 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.

讗讬谞讬 讜讛讗 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 砖专讗 诇讘谞讬 讘专 爪讬转讗讬 诇诪注讘讚 讘谞讻讬 诇讻专诪讬讛讜谉 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讘讞讚转讬 讛讗 讘注转讬拽讬

The Gemara asks: Is that so? Is it prohibited to dig circular ditches on the intermediate days of the Festival? Didn鈥檛 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鈥檚 ruling that permits the digging of such ditches, is referring to old ones, which merely need to be cleared.

专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 注讝专讬讛 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 讗转 讛讗诪讛 讘砖诇诪讗 诪讜注讚 诪砖讜诐 讚拽讗 讟专讞 讗诇讗 砖讘讬注讬转 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗

搂 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?

驻诇讬讙讜 讘讛 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讜专讘讬 讗讘讗 讘专 诪诪诇 讞讚 讗诪专 诪驻谞讬 砖谞专讗讛 讻注讜讚专 讜讞讚 讗诪专 诪驻谞讬 砖诪讻砖讬专 讗讙驻讬讛 诇讝专讬注讛

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鈥檚 banks for planting, for when he digs out the channel, he piles the fresh soil that is fit for planting on its two banks.

诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讚拽讗 讗转讜 诪讬讗 讘转专讬讛 诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪驻谞讬 砖诪讻砖讬专 讗讙驻讬讛 诇讝专讬注讛 讗讬讻讗 讜诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪驻谞讬 砖谞专讗讛 讻注讜讚专 诇讬讻讗

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鈥檚 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.

讜诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪驻谞讬 砖谞专讗讛 讻注讜讚专 诇讬讞讜砖 诪驻谞讬 砖诪讻砖讬专 讗讙驻讬讛 诇讝专讬注讛 讗诇讗 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讚拽讗 砖拽讬诇 诪讬谞讬讛 讜砖讚讬 诇讘专讗讬 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪驻谞讬 砖诪讻砖讬专 讗讙驻讬讛 诇讝专讬注讛 诇讬讻讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪驻谞讬 砖谞专讗讛 讻注讜讚专 讗讬讻讗

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鈥檚 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鈥檚 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.

讜诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪驻谞讬 砖诪讻砖讬专 讗讙驻讬讛 诇讝专讬注讛 诇讬讞讜砖 诪驻谞讬 砖谞专讗讛 讻注讜讚专 注讜讚专 谞诪讬 讻讬 拽讗 砖拽讬诇 讘讚讜讻转讬讛 诪谞讞 诇讬讛

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.

讗诪讬诪专 诪转谞讬 诇讛 诪驻谞讬 砖谞专讗讛 讻注讜讚专 讜拽砖讬讗 诇讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 注讝专讬讛 讗讚专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 注讝专讬讛 讜诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 注讝专讬讛 讻诇 砖谞专讗讛 讻注讜讚专 讗住讜专

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?

讜专诪讬谞讛讬 注讜砖讛 讗讚诐 讗转 讝讘诇讜 讗讜爪专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜住专 注讚 砖讬注诪讬拽 砖诇砖讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讗讜 注讚 砖讬讙讘讬讛 砖诇砖讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讛讬讛 诇讜 讚讘专 诪讜注讟 诪讜住讬祝 注诇讬讜 讜讛讜诇讱

One may raise a contradiction to this assertion from a mishna (Shevi鈥檌t 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.

专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 注讝专讬讛 讗讜住专 注讚 砖讬注诪讬拽 砖诇砖讛 讗讜 注讚 砖讬讙讘讬讛 砖诇砖讛 讗讜 注讚 砖讬转谉 注诇 讛住诇注

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.

专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讜专讘讬 讗讘讗 讘专 诪诪诇 讞讚 讗诪专 讻讙讜谉 砖讛注诪讬拽 讜讞讚 讗诪专 讝讬讘诇讜 诪讜讻讬讞 注诇讬讜

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.

讜诪转拽谞讬谉 讗转 讛诪拽讜诇拽诇转 讘诪讜注讚 诪讗讬 诪拽讜诇拽诇转 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 砖讗诐 讛讬转讛 注诪讜拽讛 讟驻讞 诪注诪讬讚讛 注诇 砖砖讛 讟驻讞讬诐

搂 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.

驻砖讬讟讗 讞爪讬 讟驻讞 注诇 砖诇砖讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 注讘专 诪讬讗 诇讗 讻诇讜诐 讛讜讗 讟驻讞讬讬诐 注诇 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讚拽讗 讟专讞 讟讬专讞讗 讬转讬专讗 诇讗

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鈥檚 case, since it involves excessive exertion, no, this is also not permitted.

讟驻讞讬讬诐 注诇 砖讘注讛 诪讛讜 讛讻讗 讞诪砖讛 拽讗 诪注诪讬拽 讜讛讻讗 讞诪砖讛 拽讗 诪注诪讬拽 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬讻讗 讟驻讞 讬转讬专讗 讗讬讻讗 讟讬专讞讗 讟驻讬 转讬拽讜

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.

讗讘讬讬 砖专讗 诇讘谞讬 讘专 讛诪讚讱 诇砖讞讜驻讬 谞讛专讗 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 砖专讗 诇讛讜 诇讘谞讬 住讻讜转讗 诇诪讬讻专讗 谞讛专讗 讟诪讬诪讗 专讘 讗砖讬 砖专讗 诇讛讜 诇讘谞讬 诪转讗 诪讞住讬讗 诇讗拽讚讜讞讬 谞讛专 讘讜专谞讬抓 讗诪专 讻讬讜谉 讚砖转讜 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘讬诐 讻专讘讬诐 讚诪讬 讜转谞谉 注讜砖讬谉 讻诇 爪讜专讻讬 专讘讬诐

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 Me岣sya, 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.

讜诪转拽谞讬谉 讗转

搂 It was taught in the mishna: During the intermediate days of a Festival one may repair

This month鈥檚 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 sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • 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...
talking talmud_square

Moed Katan 4: Schools of Interpretation and the Babylonian Rain

The Beit Din of Rabban Gamliel, and the parameters of shemitah, and how they are derived. What can be done...
6

Introduction to Moed Katan

Watch the video introduction or listen to the podcast below.  

Moed Katan 4

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Moed Katan 4

砖谞讻谞住 诇砖讘讬注讬转 讜拽爪讬专 砖诇 砖讘讬注讬转 砖讬爪讗 诇诪讜爪讗讬 砖讘讬注讬转

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.

专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗讜诪专 诪讛 讞专讬砖 专砖讜转 讗祝 拽爪讬专 专砖讜转 讬爪讗 拽爪讬专 讛注讜诪专 砖讛讬讗 诪爪讜讛

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.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讻讬 讙诪讬专讬 讛诇讻转讗 诇诪讬砖专讬 讬诇讚讛 拽专讗讬 诇诪讬住专 讝拽讬谞讛

Rather, Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k 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.

讜讻讬讜谉 讚讛诇讻转讗 诇诪砖专讬 讬诇讚讛 诇讗讜 诪诪讬诇讗 讝拽讬谞讛 讗住讬专讛

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.

讗诇讗 讛诇讻转讗 诇专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 拽专讗讬 诇专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗

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.

讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讜讘讬转 讚讬谞讜 诪讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讘讟讬诇 诇讛讜

The Gemara previously cited Rabbi Yitz岣k, who explained how Rabban Gamliel鈥檚 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鈥檚 court abolished the prohibition against plowing before the Sabbatical Year entirely. And Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讙诪专 砖讘转 砖讘转 诪砖讘转 讘专讗砖讬转 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讛讬讗 讗住讜专讛 诇驻谞讬讛 讜诇讗讞专讬讛 诪讜转专讬谉 讗祝 讻讗谉 讛讬讗 讗住讜专讛 诇驻谞讬讛 讜诇讗讞专讬讛 诪讜转专讬谉

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: 鈥淏ut in the seventh year shall be a sabbath of solemn rest for the land鈥 (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.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讗砖讬 诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讛诇讻转讗 讗转讬讗 讙讝专讛 砖讜讛 注拽专讛 讛诇讻转讗 讜诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讗转讬讗 讙讝专讛 砖讜讛 注拽专讛 拽专讗

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?

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讜讘讬转 讚讬谞讜 住讘专讬 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讚讗诪专 讛诇讻转讗 讙诪讬专讬 诇讛 讜讻讬 讙诪讬专讬 讛诇讻转讗 讘讝诪谉 砖讘讬转 讛诪拽讚砖 拽讬讬诐 讚讜诪讬讗 讚谞讬住讜讱 讛诪讬诐 讗讘诇 讘讝诪谉 砖讗讬谉 讘讬转 讛诪拽讚砖 拽讬讬诐 诇讗

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.

讗讘诇 诇讗 诪诪讬 讛讙砖诪讬诐 讜诪诪讬 讛拽讬诇讜谉 讘砖诇诪讗 诪讬 拽讬诇讜谉 讗讬讻讗 讟讬专讞讗 讬转讬专讗 讗诇讗 诪讬 讙砖诪讬诐 诪讗讬 讟讬专讞讗 讗讬讻讗

搂 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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讬诇注讗 讗诪专 讬讜讞谞谉 讙讝讬专讛 诪讬 讙砖诪讬诐 讗讟讜 诪讬 拽讬诇讜谉 专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 诪讬 讙砖诪讬诐 讙讜驻讬讬讛讜 诇讬讚讬 诪讬 拽讬诇讜谉 讗转讜

Rabbi Ile鈥檃 said that Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

讜拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讘讚专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讬专诪讬讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 谞讛专讜转 讛诪讜砖讻讬谉 诪讬诐 诪谉 讛讗讙诪讬诐 诪讜转专 诇讛砖拽讜转 诪讛谉 讘讞讜诇讜 砖诇 诪讜注讚

The Gemara comments: Rabbi Ile鈥檃 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.

诪专 讗讬转 诇讬讛 讚专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讜诪专 诇讬转 诇讬讛 讚专讘讬 讝讬专讗

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 Yo岣nan, 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 Yo岣nan would prohibit using collected water even if a stream flows through it and it will not dry up.

讙讜驻讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讬专诪讬讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 谞讛专讜转 讛诪讜砖讻讬谉 诪讬诐 诪谉 讛讗讙诪讬诐 诪讜转专 诇讛砖拽讜转 诪讛谉 讘讞讜诇讜 砖诇 诪讜注讚

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.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 诇专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗讘诇 诇讗 诪诪讬 讙砖诪讬诐 讜诇讗 诪诪讬 拽讬诇讜谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讬专诪讬讛 讘专讬 讛谞讬 讗讙诪讬诐 讚讘讘诇 讻诪讬讗 讚诇讗 驻住拽讬 讚诪讜

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.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛驻住讬拽讜转 讜讛讘专讬讻讜转 砖谞转诪诇讗讜 诪讬诐 诪注专讘 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讗住讜专 诇讛砖拽讜转 诪讛谉 讘讞讜诇讜 砖诇 诪讜注讚 讜讗诐 讛讬转讛 讗诪转 讛诪讬诐 注讜讘专转 讘讬谞讬讛谉 诪讜转专

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.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讜讛讜讗 砖专讜讘讛 砖诇 讗讜转讛 砖讚讛 砖讜转讛 诪讗讜转讛 讗诪转 讛诪讬诐 专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谉 专讜讘讛 砖诇 讗讜转讛 砖讚讛 砖讜转讛 讻讬讜谉 讚拽讗 诪砖讻讗 讜讗转讬讗 诪讬诪专 讗诪专 讗讬 诇讗 砖转讬讗 诇讞讚 讬讜诪讗 转砖转讬 诇转专讬 讜转诇转讗 讬讜诪讬

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.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讘专讬讻讛 砖谞讜讟驻转 诪讬诐 诪砖讚讛 讘讬转 讛砖诇讞讬谉 讝讜 诪讜转专 诇讛砖拽讜转 诪诪谞讛 砖讚讛 讘讬转 讛砖诇讞讬谉 讗讞专转

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.

讜讛讗 注讘讬讚讗 讚驻住拽讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讜注讚讬讬谉 讛讬讗 诪讟驻讟驻转 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讜讛讜讗 砖诇讗 驻住拽 诪注讬讬谉 专讗砖讜谉

The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 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.

转谞讬讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诪谞住讬讗 讗讜诪专 砖转讬 注专讜讙讜转 讝讜 诇诪注诇讛 诪讝讜 诇讗 讬讚诇讛 诪谉 讛转讞转讜谞讛 讜讬砖拽讛 讗转 讛注诇讬讜谞讛 讬讜转专 注诇 讻谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专 砖诪注讜谉 讗驻讬诇讜 注专讜讙讛 讗讞转 讞爪讬讛 谞诪讜讱 讜讞爪讬讛 讙讘讜讛 诇讗 讬讚诇讛 诪诪拽讜诐 谞诪讜讱 讜讬砖拽讛 诇诪拽讜诐 讙讘讜讛

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.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪讚诇讬谉 诇讬专拽讜转 讻讚讬 诇讗讜讻诇谉 讜讗诐 讘砖讘讬诇 诇讬讬驻讜转谉 讗住讜专

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.

专讘讬谞讗 讜专讘讛 转讜住驻讗讛 讛讜讜 拽讗 讗讝诇讬 讘讗讜专讞讗 讞讝讜 诇讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚讛讜讛 讚诇讬 讚讜讜诇讗 讘讞讜诇讗 讚诪讜注讚讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讛 转讜住驻讗讛 诇专讘讬谞讗 诇讬转讬 诪专 诇砖诪转讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜讛转谞讬讗 诪讚诇讬谉 诇讬专拽讜转 讻讚讬 诇讗讜讻诇谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讬 住讘专转 诪讗讬 诪讚诇讬谉 诪讚诇讬谉 诪讬讗 诪讗讬

The Gemara relates that Ravina and Rabba Tosefa鈥檃 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鈥檃 said to Ravina: Let the Master come and excommunicate him for transgressing the words of the Sages. Ravina said to him: But isn鈥檛 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鈥檃 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

诪讚诇讬谉 砖诇讜驻讬 讻讚转谞谉 讛诪讬讚诇 讘讙驻谞讬诐 讻砖诐 砖讛讜讗 诪讬讚诇 讘砖诇讜 讻讱 讛讜讗 诪讬讚诇 讘砖诇 注谞讬讬诐 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讘砖诇讜 专砖讗讬 讜讗讬谞讜 专砖讗讬 讘砖诇 注谞讬讬诐

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鈥檃 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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜讛转谞讬讗 诪讚诇讬谉 诪讬诐 诇讬专拽讜转 讻讚讬 诇讗讜讻诇谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬 转谞讬讗 转谞讬讗

Ravina said to Rabba Tosefa鈥檃: But wasn鈥檛 it explicitly taught in a baraita: One may draw water to irrigate vegetables in order to eat them? Rabba Tosefa鈥檃 said to him: If it is taught explicitly in a baraita, the halakha is as it is taught, and I retract my statement.

讜讗讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 注讜讙讬讜转 诇讙驻谞讬诐 诪讗讬 注讜讙讬讜转 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谞讻讬 转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讗诇讜 讛谉 注讜讙讬讜转 讘讚讬讚讬谉 砖讘注讬拽专讬 讝讬转讬诐 讜砖讘注讬拽专讬 讙驻谞讬诐

搂 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.

讗讬谞讬 讜讛讗 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 砖专讗 诇讘谞讬 讘专 爪讬转讗讬 诇诪注讘讚 讘谞讻讬 诇讻专诪讬讛讜谉 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讘讞讚转讬 讛讗 讘注转讬拽讬

The Gemara asks: Is that so? Is it prohibited to dig circular ditches on the intermediate days of the Festival? Didn鈥檛 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鈥檚 ruling that permits the digging of such ditches, is referring to old ones, which merely need to be cleared.

专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 注讝专讬讛 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 讗转 讛讗诪讛 讘砖诇诪讗 诪讜注讚 诪砖讜诐 讚拽讗 讟专讞 讗诇讗 砖讘讬注讬转 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗

搂 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?

驻诇讬讙讜 讘讛 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讜专讘讬 讗讘讗 讘专 诪诪诇 讞讚 讗诪专 诪驻谞讬 砖谞专讗讛 讻注讜讚专 讜讞讚 讗诪专 诪驻谞讬 砖诪讻砖讬专 讗讙驻讬讛 诇讝专讬注讛

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鈥檚 banks for planting, for when he digs out the channel, he piles the fresh soil that is fit for planting on its two banks.

诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讚拽讗 讗转讜 诪讬讗 讘转专讬讛 诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪驻谞讬 砖诪讻砖讬专 讗讙驻讬讛 诇讝专讬注讛 讗讬讻讗 讜诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪驻谞讬 砖谞专讗讛 讻注讜讚专 诇讬讻讗

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鈥檚 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.

讜诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪驻谞讬 砖谞专讗讛 讻注讜讚专 诇讬讞讜砖 诪驻谞讬 砖诪讻砖讬专 讗讙驻讬讛 诇讝专讬注讛 讗诇讗 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讚拽讗 砖拽讬诇 诪讬谞讬讛 讜砖讚讬 诇讘专讗讬 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪驻谞讬 砖诪讻砖讬专 讗讙驻讬讛 诇讝专讬注讛 诇讬讻讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪驻谞讬 砖谞专讗讛 讻注讜讚专 讗讬讻讗

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鈥檚 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鈥檚 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.

讜诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪驻谞讬 砖诪讻砖讬专 讗讙驻讬讛 诇讝专讬注讛 诇讬讞讜砖 诪驻谞讬 砖谞专讗讛 讻注讜讚专 注讜讚专 谞诪讬 讻讬 拽讗 砖拽讬诇 讘讚讜讻转讬讛 诪谞讞 诇讬讛

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.

讗诪讬诪专 诪转谞讬 诇讛 诪驻谞讬 砖谞专讗讛 讻注讜讚专 讜拽砖讬讗 诇讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 注讝专讬讛 讗讚专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 注讝专讬讛 讜诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 注讝专讬讛 讻诇 砖谞专讗讛 讻注讜讚专 讗住讜专

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?

讜专诪讬谞讛讬 注讜砖讛 讗讚诐 讗转 讝讘诇讜 讗讜爪专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜住专 注讚 砖讬注诪讬拽 砖诇砖讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讗讜 注讚 砖讬讙讘讬讛 砖诇砖讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讛讬讛 诇讜 讚讘专 诪讜注讟 诪讜住讬祝 注诇讬讜 讜讛讜诇讱

One may raise a contradiction to this assertion from a mishna (Shevi鈥檌t 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.

专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 注讝专讬讛 讗讜住专 注讚 砖讬注诪讬拽 砖诇砖讛 讗讜 注讚 砖讬讙讘讬讛 砖诇砖讛 讗讜 注讚 砖讬转谉 注诇 讛住诇注

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.

专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讜专讘讬 讗讘讗 讘专 诪诪诇 讞讚 讗诪专 讻讙讜谉 砖讛注诪讬拽 讜讞讚 讗诪专 讝讬讘诇讜 诪讜讻讬讞 注诇讬讜

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.

讜诪转拽谞讬谉 讗转 讛诪拽讜诇拽诇转 讘诪讜注讚 诪讗讬 诪拽讜诇拽诇转 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 砖讗诐 讛讬转讛 注诪讜拽讛 讟驻讞 诪注诪讬讚讛 注诇 砖砖讛 讟驻讞讬诐

搂 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.

驻砖讬讟讗 讞爪讬 讟驻讞 注诇 砖诇砖讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 注讘专 诪讬讗 诇讗 讻诇讜诐 讛讜讗 讟驻讞讬讬诐 注诇 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讚拽讗 讟专讞 讟讬专讞讗 讬转讬专讗 诇讗

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鈥檚 case, since it involves excessive exertion, no, this is also not permitted.

讟驻讞讬讬诐 注诇 砖讘注讛 诪讛讜 讛讻讗 讞诪砖讛 拽讗 诪注诪讬拽 讜讛讻讗 讞诪砖讛 拽讗 诪注诪讬拽 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬讻讗 讟驻讞 讬转讬专讗 讗讬讻讗 讟讬专讞讗 讟驻讬 转讬拽讜

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.

讗讘讬讬 砖专讗 诇讘谞讬 讘专 讛诪讚讱 诇砖讞讜驻讬 谞讛专讗 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 砖专讗 诇讛讜 诇讘谞讬 住讻讜转讗 诇诪讬讻专讗 谞讛专讗 讟诪讬诪讗 专讘 讗砖讬 砖专讗 诇讛讜 诇讘谞讬 诪转讗 诪讞住讬讗 诇讗拽讚讜讞讬 谞讛专 讘讜专谞讬抓 讗诪专 讻讬讜谉 讚砖转讜 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘讬诐 讻专讘讬诐 讚诪讬 讜转谞谉 注讜砖讬谉 讻诇 爪讜专讻讬 专讘讬诐

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 Me岣sya, 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.

讜诪转拽谞讬谉 讗转

搂 It was taught in the mishna: During the intermediate days of a Festival one may repair

Scroll To Top