Talmud su Levitico 25:4

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..

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..