Talmud su Levitico 25:3

HALAKHAH: “Until when may one plough, etc.” It is written¹Shortened versions of this discussion are in the Babli, Roš Haššanah9b, Makkot 8b. In both places, the argument is attributed to the school of R. Aqiba. In Mekhilta deR.Simeon bar Ioḥai to 34:22, it is attributed to R. Jehudah. Practice noted in the next paragraph follows the school of R. Ismael as explained in Mishnah 5. (Ex. 23:12): “Six days you shall do your work but on the Seventh Day you shall rest.” And it is written (Ex. 34:21): “You shall rest from ploughing and harvesting.²The argument is somewhat elliptic. Ex. 23:12 reads: “Six days you shall do your work but on the Seventh Day you shall cease, so that your donkey and your ox may rest and the son of your bondsmaid and the stranger may recuperate.” Ex. 34:21: “Six days you shall work; on the Seventh day you shall rest, from ploughing and harvesting you shall rest.” It would seem more natural to quote the second verse in toto; this is the approach of the commentaries which emend the first quote away but such an approach is impossible since our text clearly quotes two different verses. The explanation is in the Mekhiltot(deR.Ismael,Massekhta dekhas pa, p. 331; deR.Simeon bar Ioḥai,Mishpaṭim, p. 217): It says in the Ten Commandments, that “six days you shall labor and do all your work.” Hence, one could think that the Sabbath has to be kept only if all work is permitted on weekdays. This would exclude the Sabbath days of the Sabbatical year since most agricultural work is forbidden in the Sabbatical. Hence, the verse Ex. 23:12 is necessary to include the Sabbath days of the Sabbatical years; this only makes sure that Ex. 34:21 is redundant as far as both Sabbath day and Sabbatical year are concerned.” Where do we hold? If one speaks about the Sabbath of Creation³The Sabbath day., was it not already said (Ex. 20:9): “Six days you shall labor and do all your work?” If one speaks about Sabbatical years, was it not already said (Lev. 25:3): “Six years you shall sow your field and six years you shall prune your vineyard?” If it cannot refer to the Sabbath of Creation nor to Sabbatical years, let it refer to the prohibition of the first two terms⁴The “two terms” are the two periods during which agricultural work has to cease before the onset of the Sabbatical year, one for orchards and one for fields.. “You shall rest from ploughing and harvesting,” from ploughing when harvesting is forbidden; what is this? This is ploughing in the year preceding the Sabbatical in preparation of the Sabbatical. And from harvesting when ploughing is forbidden, what is this? That is the harvest of Sabbatical growth after the Sabbatical.

Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: When they forbade it, they were inspired by Scripture¹⁰It is not claimed that the rules of the Sabbatical year in the Second Commonwealth are biblical, only that they are inspired by the interpretation of biblical verses., and when they permitted it, they were inspired by Scripture. When they forbade it, they were inspired by Scripture, (Lev. 25:3): “You shall rest from ploughing and harvesting,” from ploughing when harvesting is forbidden; what is this? This is ploughing in the year preceding the Sabbatical in preparation of the Sabbatical. And from harvesting when ploughing is forbidden, what is this? That is the harvest of Sabbatical growth after the Sabbatical. When they permitted it, they were inspired by Scripture, (Ex. 20:9): “Six days you shall labor and do all your work,” just as on the eve of the Sabbath of Creation³The Sabbath day. one may do work until sundown, also before the start of the Sabbatical year one may work until sundown¹¹Sundown of the eve of New Year’s Day.
The Babli (Mo‘ed qaṭan 3b–4a) has another interpretation, based on R. Ismael’s opinion in Mishnah 1:5. It cannot accept the interpretation here since in the theory of the Babli one is obliged by biblical decree to start Sabbath and holidays some time before sundown (Yoma 82b, Roš Haššanah 9a)..

It was stated⁶⁵Cf. Peah 4:5, Notes 90–92.: If a field⁶⁶A grain field in the Land of Israel. “One-third ripe” means that the grains are fully formed and one-third ripe; not that one third of the growing period has passed. For grain, “one-third ripe” is the Biblical standard for grain that might be harvested, cf. Ma‘serot Chapter 1, Note 78, Ševi‘it Chapter 2, Notes 63,77. became one-third ripe in the possession of a Gentile and a Jew bought it from him, Rebbi Aqiba says the addition is free. But the Sages say, the addition is obligated. Rebbi Abina, Ulla ben Rebbi Israel in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Also the Sages did obligate only for the past; if it was second it remains second, for the poor it remains for the poor⁶⁷The status of grain as far as second tithe or tithe of the poor is concerned is determined by the time it is one-third ripe, rather than by the time of harvest. In this respect, the rules of tithing follow the rules of the Sabbatical.. It was stated⁶⁸Sifra Behar (9). There, the name is R. Jonathan ben Joseph, a Tanna of the fourth generation who also is quoted as R. Natan ben Joseph.: Rebbi Jonathan ben Rebbi Yose says, from where that grain one-third ripe before New Year’s day may be brought in during the Sabbatical? The verse says (Lev. 25:3): “You shall gather its⁶⁹The sixth year’s. yield,” [even] in the Sabbatical year. Rebbi Abina, Ulla ben Rebbi Israel in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Rebbi Jonathan ben Rebbi Yose follows the argument of his teacher Rebbi Aqiba. Just as Rebbi Aqiba said, you follow the first third, so Rebbi Jonathan ben Rebbi Yose said, you follow the first third. Rebbi Zeїra said to Rebbi Abina, you say two things which contradict one another. Here you teach that the Sages also did obligate only for the past; if it was second it remains second, for the poor it remains for the poor⁷⁰If the Sages determine the rules of tithes by the time the grains were one-third ripe, there is no proof that R. Jonathan ben R. Yose follows R. Aqiba where the latter disagrees with the Sages. Therefore, R. Eleazar should hold that for the Sages, only the time of the actual harvest and threshing is relevant.. There, you teach that Rebbi Jonathan ben Rebbi Yose follows the argument of his teacher Rebbi Aqiba. If Rebbi Jonathan ben Rebbi Yose follows the argument of his teacher Rebbi Aqiba then just as Rebbi Aqiba says the prohibition of aftergrowth is from the Torah⁷¹Sifra Behar Pereq 4(5); Babli Pesaḥim 51b., so Rebbi Jonathan ben Rebbi Yose must say, the prohibition of aftergrowth is from the Torah. If it grew less than one-third ripe before the Sabbatical, in the Sabbatical it is forbidden⁷²Following R. Aqiba and R. Jonathan ben R. Yose. as aftergrowth but the sanctity of the Sabbatical did not fall on it since it was grass on which the sanctity of the Sabbatical cannot fall⁷³If the grain was collected as fodder before it was fully ripe for human consumption. It would be forbidden to use the unripe grain as Grünkern, cf. Peah 4:6, Note 86.. If it grew less than one-third ripe before the eighth year, in the eighth year it is permitted as aftergrowth but the sanctity of the Sabbatical falls on it⁷⁴It should be eaten following the rules of the Sabbatical.. Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both teach that the Sages agree with Rebbi Aqiba in the order of years; if it was second it remains second, for the poor it remains for the poor⁷⁵They disagree that grain one-third ripened in the possession of the Gentile should be exempt but they admit that the kind of second tithe to be given depends on the year in which the grain was edible as Grünkern..

If He stated a general principle as a positive commandment but the detail as a prohibition, the word of Rebbi Eleazar is that this is a general principle followed by a detail¹⁹⁸If a pentateuchal verse partially is an exhortation to action and partially a prohibition, it nevertheless forms a logical unit.. ¹⁹⁹From here to the end of the discussion there exists a parallel in Kilaim 8:1, Notes 20–36 (Babli Moˋed qaṭan 3a). The punishment for violating a biblical prohibition for which no penalty is specified is by flogging. The problem is that ploughing is not specifically mentioned in Lev. 25. Rebbi Eleazar said, one whips for ploughing in the Sabbatical year. Rebbi Joḥanan said, one does not whip for ploughing in the Sabbatical year. What is Rebbi Eleazar’s reason? The Land shall keep a Sabbath for the Eternal²⁰⁰Lev. 25:2., a general principle. Your field you shall not sow, your vineyard you shall not prune²⁰¹Lev. 25:4., detail. Sowing and pruning were included in the general case; why were they mentioned separately? To include with them; since sowing and pruning are particular in that they perform work on the soil or on a tree, I have only what is work on the soil or on a tree. How does Rebbi Joḥanan treat this? They are two different things, and two different details for one general principle do divide. In Rebbi Eleazar’s opinion do they not divide²⁰²To require separate atonement if performed inadvertently.? He holds that because they do not divide, they are for making inferences. In Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion, are they not for making inferences? There is a difference here because He stated a general principle as a positive commandment but the detail as prohibitions. No positive commandment allows inferences for a prohibition and no prohibition allows inferences for a positive commandment. Rebbi Eleazar said, a positive commandment allows inferences for a prohibition but no prohibition allows inferences for a positive commandment. In Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion it is obvious that one may dig cisterns, ditches, and caves during it^202*During the Sabbatical year.. In Rebbi Eleazar’s opinion, may one dig cisterns, ditches, and caves during it^202*During the Sabbatical year.? Just as one cannot make inferences for prohibitions, so one should not be able to make inferences for permissions²⁰³For R. Joḥanan, if ploughing is not sanctionable, digging for other than agricultural purposes certainly is permitted. But for R. Eleazar digging is work on the soil (in the language of his argument) but not in the field (as forbidden in the verse.). Rebbi Abba from Carthage said, Rebbi Joḥanan’s reason is six years you shall sow, not in the Sabbatical; and six years you shall prune your vineyard²⁰⁴Lev. 25:3., not in the Sabbatical at all. Any prohibition inferred from a positive commandment is a positive commandment; one violates a positive commandment²⁰⁵As such it is not sanctionable; cf. Sanhedrin 5:3, Note 73.. Rebbi Yose said, there is not even a positive commandment²⁰⁶He takes R. Eleazar literally at his word. If Lev. 25:3–4 represents a general principle followed by a detail (even if the principle is a positive commandment and the detail a prohibition) then by R. Ismael’s rule כְּלָל וּפְרָט אֵין בִּכְלָל אֶלָּא מַה שֶׁבִּפְרָט “general principle followed by detail: the general principle only applies to the detail”, nothing not mentioned in the verse is prohibited.
Since R. Yose was R. Jeremiah’s student, he should be mentioned after his teacher (which he is both in Sanhedrin and Kilaim.). Rebbi Jeremiah said, one violates a positive commandment. Why is it written that the Land shall keep a Sabbath for the Eternal²⁰⁰Lev. 25:2.? That is for the prohibition implied by it²⁰⁷This refers to R. Yose’s opinion, that sowing and pruning are forbidden in the Sabbatical but these and all other agricultural work are violations of the positive commandment to give rest to the Land..

One might say, this similarly applies to rice, millet, poppy seeds, and sesame⁶⁸There seems to be no reason why the kinds enumerated in the Mishnah should be treated differently from produce in general. R. Ḥuna bar Ḥiyya explains that the principle of “one-third ripe” is not practical for these kinds. This answer would be impossible if prohibitions of the Sabbatical year were biblical since then in a questionable case one could not be more lenient than in a certain one. A biblical justification is given in the next paragraph, but see the last paragraph in Chapter 9. There is no problem with the rules of tithing since biblical law requires tithing only of דגן יצהר ותירוש “grain, olive oil, and wine”. All quotes of biblical verses in this Halakhah have to be taken as establishing guidelines for rabbinic decrees, not as giving hard biblical rules (R. Abraham ben David, Commentary to Sifra, Behar Pereq 1.)! Rebbi Ḥuna bar Ḥiyya⁶⁹One of the original members of the Yeshivah of Rav in Babylonia. In the Babli, his title always is “Rav”. It is not impossible that he exercised rabbinic functions before the title of “Rav” was introduced; then either he should have no title or the title of “Rebbi”. He became rich as a tax farmer; for this he was shunned by some of his colleagues and could not attain the status of a major figure in either of the Talmudim. said, there it is impossible to recognize. They objected to Ḥuna bar Ḥiyya, was it not stated: He collects it together with his threshing, it turns out that he tithes from his seeds for his vegetable and from his vegetable for his fruits⁷⁰This refers to the next Mishnah, that according to some opinions, Egyptian beans (cf. Kilaim Chapter 1, Note 45) follow the rules of rice. Now beans can be planted either as produce for their beans or as vegetable for their pods. The obligations of a field of beans therefore are determined by the intentions of the farmer. If the farmer changes his mind during the growing season then, as it is stated in Tosephta 2:5, R. Simeon from Shezur, whose opinion is reported in Mishnah 8, is of the opinion that now produce and vegetable are inseparably mixed in the ripe bean pod and that after “threshing”, separating the beans from their pods, beans and pods have to be mixed for the purpose of taking common heave. The baraita quoted here explains the same in different wording; for the full text see Note 84. The objection here already implies the ruling given in Halakhah 8 that practice follows R. Simeon from Shezur. {In the Babli, Roš Haššanah13b, a baraita is quoted closer to the Tosephta.}? Rebbi Yose said, Ḥuna bar Ḥiyya confirmed it; Rebbi Jonah, Ḥuna bar Ḥiyya in the name of Samuel⁷¹R. Yose and R. Jonah disagree about who is the first author of the following statement.: It is written (Deut. 14:22): “Tithe! You should tithe all produce of your seed,” you give one tithe in one year but not two tithes in one year⁷²Cf. Note 61. The argument is about the last part of the verse which was not quoted, year by year.. They objected, does not Egyptian bean require two tithes in one year⁷³One for produce and one as vegetable.? Was it not stated: He collects it together with his threshing, it turns out that he tithes from his seeds for his vegetable and from his vegetable for his fruits? Rebbi Zeïra said, it is written (Lev. 25:3): “Six years you shall sow your field and harvest.” Six sowings and six harvests, not six sowings and seven harvests⁷⁴R. Zeïra reinforces the attack against R. Ḥuna bar Ḥiyya; in the case of R. Simeon from Shezur, only tithing in common may permit six harvests for the purpose of tithing; otherwise one would have to admit seven. Rebbi Jonah supports R. Ḥuna bar Ḥiyya and notes that one must admit “seven” harvests (which for two harvests every year adds up to 12 harvests in six years.) The Sifra(Behar 7–8) has a different (Babylonian?) approach to the verses quoted: “From where that you may store in the Sabbatical year rice, millet, poppy seeds, and sesame that took root before the New Year? The verse says (Lev. 25:3): ‘you should harvest its yield’, even in the Sabbatical. I could think [this applies] even if they did not take root, the verse says (Lev. 25:3): ‘six years you shall sow your field and harvest.’ Six sowings and six harvests, not six sowings and seven harvests.”. Rebbi Jonah said, we cannot hold with six but instead hold with seven; so it is: Six sowings and seven harvests, not six sowings and five harvests. They objected, does not Egyptian bean have six sowings and five harvests⁷⁵If the planting is late, there may be no harvest in either year. Hence, any number of harvests are possible, and the entire argument started by R. Zeïra is moot. The reason of R. Ḥuna bar Ḥiyya remains unproven and uncontradicted.? As it was stated: He collects it together with his threshing, it turns out that he tithes from his seeds for his vegetable and from his vegetable for his fruits.

If He stated a general principle as a positive commandment but the detail as a prohibition¹⁰⁹The vocalization and, consequently, the interpretation כלל of and פרט as verbs rather than nouns, is from G. Here ends the Genizah fragment., the word of Rebbi Eleazar is that this is a general principle followed by a detail¹¹⁰If a pentateuchal verse partially is an exhortation to action and partially a prohibition, it nevertheless forms a logical unit.. ¹¹¹From here to the end of the Halakhah there also is a parallel in Kilaim 8:1, Notes 20–36 (Babli Mo`ed qaṭan 3a). The text in Kilaim practically is identical with that in Šabbat; the text here is slightly abbreviated. The punishment for violating a biblical prohibition for which no penalty is specified is by flogging. The problem is that ploughing is not specifically mentioned in Lev. 25. Rebbi Eleazar said, one whips for ploughing in the Sabbatical year. Rebbi Joḥanan said, one does not whip for ploughing in the Sabbatical year. What is Rebbi Eleazar’s reason? The Land shall keep a Sabbath for the Eternal¹¹²Lev. 25:3., a general principle. Your field you shall not sow, your vineyard you shall not prune¹¹³Lev. 25:4., detail. The sower and the pruner were included in the general case; why were they mentioned separately? To include with them; since the sower and the pruner are particular in that they perform work on the ground or on a tree, I have only what is work on the ground or on a tree. How does Rebbi Joḥanan treat this? They are two different things, and two different details for one general principle do divide. In Rebbi Eleazar’s opinion they do not divide¹¹⁴To require separate atonement if performed inadvertently.. But he holds that because they do not divide, they are for making inferences. In Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion, they are not for making inferences. There is a difference here because He stated a general principle as a positive commandment but the detail as prohibitions. No positive commandment allows inferences for a prohibition and no prohibition allows inferences for a positive commandment. In Rebbi Eleazar’s opinion a positive commandment allows inferences for a prohibition but no prohibition allows inferences for a positive commandment. In Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion it is obvious that one may dig cisterns, ditches, and caves during it. In Rebbi Eleazar’s opinion, may one dig cisterns, ditches, and caves during it? Just as one cannot make inferences for prohibitions, so one should not be able to make inferences for permissions¹¹⁵For R. Johanan, if ploughing is not sanctionable, digging for other than agricultural purposes certainly is permitted. But for R. Eleazar digging is work on the ground (in the language of his argument) but not in the field (as forbidden in the verse.). Rebbi Abba from Carthage said, Rebbi Joḥanan’s reason is six years you shall sow your field, not in the Sabbatical; and six years you shall prune your vineyard¹¹⁶Lev. 25:3., not in the Sabbatical. Any prohibition inferred from a positive commandment is a positive commandment; one violates a positive commandment¹¹⁷As such it is not sanctionable; cf. Halakhah 5:3, Note 73.. Rebbi Jeremiah said, one violates a positive commandment. Rebbi Yose said, there is not even a positive commandment. But is it not written that the Land shall rest as a repose for the Eternal? That is for the prohibition implied by it¹¹⁸He takes R. Eleazar literally at his word. If Lev. 25:3–4 represents a general principle followed by a detail (even if the principle is a positive commandment and the detail a prohibition) then by R. Ismael’s hermeneutical rule כְּלָל וּפְרָט אֵין בִּכְלָל אֶלָּא מַה שֶׁבִּפְרָט “general principle followed by detail: the general principle only applies to the detail”, nothing not mentioned in the verse is prohibited..